stuxneteer

3 ms·

1.
by stuxneteer 5y ago
These malware efforts are not too different from western companies voluntarily pulling out of Russia, they’re also engaging in their own kind of “vigilantism”. The question is whether or not this kind of “vigilantism” is bad. It’s not obvio
2.
by stuxneteer 5y ago
Sanctions hit people outside of Russia. Russian visas and mastercards stopped working abroad regardless of the cardholders nationality. Many businesses outside of Russia are also severely impacted. Malware can be just as targeted as economi
3.
by stuxneteer 5y ago
Why is “malware” so special to you? Guy writes sanctions, sanctions hurt people. Guy writes tweets at companies insisting they should pull out of Russia, companies pull out of Russia, people are hurt. What’s the big difference here? What is
4.
by stuxneteer 5y ago
I’m sure the people behind Stuxnet are proud of their work (and they should be!), they significantly disrupted the Iranian nuclear program without hurting anybody, without causing any collateral damage. I’m not sure what special meaning “ma
5.
by stuxneteer 5y ago
Someone being told to clean up completely harmless software from their computers isn’t “damage”. Certainly not something a sane person would consider comparable with indiscriminate wiper worms.
6.
by stuxneteer 5y ago
Uh, a worm that only spreads and then does nothing isn’t causing any damage. > Why would you make that up that it wasn’t a complete cock up of an op?? Did you have some hand in writing it? It wasn’t a cock up, why would it have been?
7.
by stuxneteer 5y ago
You really have to be delusional to equate stuxnet with WannaCry and NotPetya. Stuxnet caused zero harm outside of the very specific systems it targetted, there was no collateral damage. In fact, it was designed in a way that rendered colla