Attacks/Breaches
4/19/2011
01:03 PM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Iranian Official Claims Siemens Partially Responsible For Stuxnet

The Iranian military has accused German electronics and industrial engineering firm Siemens of taking part in the development of the Stuxnet worm.

We'll probably never know conclusively who wrote and released Stuxnet. Consensus points to the United States and Israel, in an alleged attempt to damage the Iranian nuclear program at the Bushehr nuclear power plant. Previously, Iranian officials asserted that the malware had not caused any damage to its nuclear program.

Now, if a recent Reuters story is accurate, an Iranian military commander accuses Siemens of helping in the creation of Stuxnet:

Gholamreza Jalali, head of Iran's civilian defense, said the Stuxnet virus aimed at Iran's atomic program was the work of its two biggest foes and that the German company must take some of the blame.

Siemens declined to comment.

"The investigations show the source of the Stuxnet virus originated in America and the Zionist regime," Jalali was quoted as saying.

Jalali said Iran should hold Siemens responsible for the fact that its control systems used to operate complicated factory machinery--known as Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA)--had been hit by the worm.

I doubt Siemens had anything to do with the direct creation of the Stuxnet worm. And I certainly haven't read or seen any evidence that would point to this possibility being so. Most likely, whoever designed the worm--to the degree they needed or wanted assurance that it would work as designed--had the finances to purchase equipment that mirrored the equipment at Bushehr and designed the worm and payload accordingly.

If Siemens did play a role in the development of Stuxnet, it was probably a passive one: they provided the necessary software so that vulnerabilities could be uncovered. Or, perhaps they had their software evaluated at Idaho National Labs and--totally unknown to them--the U.S. took that opportunity to discover and pocket a number of zero days.

Additionally, not only is Iran talking about holding Siemens responsible, but a couple of months ago the Iranian Deputy chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the country would take "pre-emptive" strikes against the powers it believes launched the attack.

How well would the U.S. fair in an attack on the power grid? Probably not very well if a recent Ponemon Institute survey is to be believed. In its survey, it found that three-quarters of energy companies and utilities experienced one or more data breaches in the past 12 months. Additionally, 69% of those surveyed believe another data breach is very likely to occur within the next year.

Let's hope they're wrong.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
Partner Perspectives
What's This?
In a digital world inundated with advanced security threats, Intel Security seeks to transform how we live and work to keep our information secure. Through hardware and software development, Intel Security delivers robust solutions that integrate security into every layer of every digital device. In combining the security expertise of McAfee with the innovation, performance, and trust of Intel, this vision becomes a reality.

As we rely on technology to enhance our everyday and business life, we must too consider the security of the intellectual property and confidential data that is housed on these devices. As we increase the number of devices we use, we increase the number of gateways and opportunity for security threats. Intel Security takes the “security connected” approach to ensure that every device is secure, and that all security solutions are seamlessly integrated.
Featured Writers
White Papers
Cartoon
Current Issue
Dark Reading's October Tech Digest
Fast data analysis can stymie attacks and strengthen enterprise security. Does your team have the data smarts?
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-4594
Published: 2014-10-25
The Payment for Webform module 7.x-1.x before 7.x-1.5 for Drupal does not restrict access by anonymous users, which allows remote anonymous users to use the payment of other anonymous users when submitting a form that requires payment.

CVE-2014-0476
Published: 2014-10-25
The slapper function in chkrootkit before 0.50 does not properly quote file paths, which allows local users to execute arbitrary code via a Trojan horse executable. NOTE: this is only a vulnerability when /tmp is not mounted with the noexec option.

CVE-2014-1927
Published: 2014-10-25
The shell_quote function in python-gnupg 0.3.5 does not properly quote strings, which allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters in unspecified vectors, as demonstrated using "$(" command-substitution sequences, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-1928....

CVE-2014-1928
Published: 2014-10-25
The shell_quote function in python-gnupg 0.3.5 does not properly escape characters, which allows context-dependent attackers to execute arbitrary code via shell metacharacters in unspecified vectors, as demonstrated using "\" (backslash) characters to form multi-command sequences, a different vulner...

CVE-2014-1929
Published: 2014-10-25
python-gnupg 0.3.5 and 0.3.6 allows context-dependent attackers to have an unspecified impact via vectors related to "option injection through positional arguments." NOTE: this vulnerability exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2013-7323.

Best of the Web
Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Follow Dark Reading editors into the field as they talk with noted experts from the security world.