Attacks/Breaches
8/5/2010
12:17 PM
Connect Directly
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Stuxnet 'Zero Day' Worm Not New

Symantec finds earlier variants of the Windows shortcut vulnerability, as well as evidence of significant resources behind its development.

Last month, the Stuxnet rootkit seemed to come out of nowhere, exploiting a previously unseen, zero-day shell vulnerability in most versions of the Windows operating system.

But Symantec has found that the malware is anything but new. To be precise, Stuxnet -- or at least earlier versions of it -- dates from at least June 2009.

On Monday, Microsoft patched the Windows Shell vulnerability targeted by Stuxnet. But questions remain surrounding Stuxnet, including who built it, and why.

Some answers, albeit limited, are now starting to emerge, including the fact that Stuxnet isn't new. "The threat has been under continued development as the authors added additional components, encryption, and exploits," said Symantec's Liam O Murchu, who has been studying samples of Stuxnet to learn more about the attack and documenting his findings on a Symantec blog.

"We were interested to discover if the different samples we have seen in the wild were different variants or just modifications to the wrapper with the same components embedded," he said. "Analyzing the different types of samples we have observed to date has shed some light on how long this threat has been under development and/or in use."

Surprisingly, based on his research -- admittedly, into but a subset of all the different versions of Stuxnet to be found in the wild -- he found four distinctly different types of the malware, with the oldest dating from over a year ago.

Another interesting finding is that the most recent sample of Stuxnet is smaller than the oldest sample, even though the newer version contains more functionality. "Generally, threats grow larger over time, so it is not unusual to see that the newer sample has more resources -- 14 as opposed to 11 -- but it is surprising to see that the newer samples are smaller than the older samples," said O Murchu.

The evolution of Stuxnet -- as well as its targeting of Siemens industrial automation control systems, rather than trying to build a bigger botnet -- suggests significant brains, if non-obvious motives, behind the malware.

"The amount of components and code used is very large," said O Murchu. "In addition to this, the authors' ability to adapt the threat to use an unpatched vulnerability -- to spread through removable drives -- shows that the creators of this threat have huge resources available to them and have the time needed to spend on such a big task."

In other words, "this is most certainly not a 'teenage hacker coding in his bedroom' type operation," he said.

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-2013-0334
Published: 2014-10-31
Bundler before 1.7, when multiple top-level source lines are used, allows remote attackers to install arbitrary gems by creating a gem with the same name as another gem in a different source.

CVE-2014-2334
Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiAnalyzer before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2336.

CVE-2014-2335
Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiManager before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2336.

CVE-2014-2336
Published: 2014-10-31
Multiple cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerabilities in the Web User Interface in Fortinet FortiManager before 5.0.7 and FortiAnalyzer before 5.0.7 allow remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2014-2334 and CVE-2014-2335.

CVE-2014-3366
Published: 2014-10-31
SQL injection vulnerability in the administrative web interface in Cisco Unified Communications Manager allows remote authenticated users to execute arbitrary SQL commands via a crafted response, aka Bug ID CSCup88089.

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.