Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
Stuxnet 'Patient Zero' Attack Targets Revealed
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
RetiredUser
50%
50%
RetiredUser,
User Rank: Ninja
11/13/2014 | 6:51:44 PM
Insider Espionage?
If we are to take the information at face value, we need to think about how worms like Stuxnet are implemented.  If the computer at Foolad Technic Engineering Company was infected just hours after the worm's creation, then yes, the idea of infection via USB isn't as likely, unless the worm was either written there onsite (which could have even been done on the first computer infected) or it was downloaded by an insider who was in communication with the Stuxnet authors and was waiting for it to be completed before downloading it.  There is great significance in the short time frame between creation of Stuxnet and infection of the first computer.  We could be looking at insider espionage, and investigation of who was working at Foolad during that timeframe will likely lead to identification of the original perpetrators.  I'm no political scientist, but after reading all the original articles linked from the Wikipedia page on Stuxnet, and newer ones since, one wonders if we aren't actually looking at self-sabotage (whether or not the actual writers of the code were based in Iran – it could have been made to order).  

I recall reading that several facts of the attack would make self-sabotage out of the question, the argument being that if the Iranians at the plants were going to sabotage themselves, they wouldn't create such a complex worm to do it.  Expense, intelligence involved, sheer hours to develop the work and the fact all the exploits it used were exposed and can't necessarily be used again; all point to external players.  Additionally, highly-guarded authentic private keys from two large companies were compromised and used to digitally-sign the worm, making the software "authentic", and the fact that four (at least) zero-day exploits were used to spread this worm - hardcore.  But I'd argue that we've seen more sophistication in the Middle East that we'd previously given credit for, even if it was gained through working with outsiders.  Remember, these plants are staffed with sharp engineers and whatever the reason for it, there could easily have been a motive for someone in one of the organizations listed, Foolad standing out, to kick off Stuxnet.         
Marilyn Cohodas
50%
50%
Marilyn Cohodas,
User Rank: Strategist
11/12/2014 | 8:47:01 AM
Re: stuxnet
Yes, I definately want to put the book on my reading list...
Bprince
50%
50%
Bprince,
User Rank: Ninja
11/12/2014 | 8:17:01 AM
stuxnet
The malware was a game changer in so many ways. Looking forward to reading this when I get a chance.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
11/12/2014 | 7:46:39 AM
Re: Stuxnet
Agreed, it truly is fascinating and terrifying at the same time. Has this attack evolved since its original inception or has it remained pretty close to a constant?
Thomas Claburn
50%
50%
Thomas Claburn,
User Rank: Ninja
11/11/2014 | 5:25:18 PM
Stuxnet
I find the Stuxnet endlessly fascinating. I look forward to reading Kim Zetter's account.


News
Inside the Ransomware Campaigns Targeting Exchange Servers
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  4/2/2021
Commentary
Beyond MITRE ATT&CK: The Case for a New Cyber Kill Chain
Rik Turner, Principal Analyst, Infrastructure Solutions, Omdia,  3/30/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
2021 Top Enterprise IT Trends
We've identified the key trends that are poised to impact the IT landscape in 2021. Find out why they're important and how they will affect you today!
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2015-20001
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.2.0, BinaryHeap is not panic-safe. The binary heap is left in an inconsistent state when the comparison of generic elements inside sift_up or sift_down_range panics. This bug leads to a drop of zeroed memory as an arbitrary type, which can result in a memory ...
CVE-2020-36317
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.49.0, String::retain() function has a panic safety problem. It allows creation of a non-UTF-8 Rust string when the provided closure panics. This bug could result in a memory safety violation when other string APIs assume that UTF-8 encoding is used on the sam...
CVE-2020-36318
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.49.0, VecDeque::make_contiguous has a bug that pops the same element more than once under certain condition. This bug could result in a use-after-free or double free.
CVE-2021-28875
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.50.0, read_to_end() does not validate the return value from Read in an unsafe context. This bug could lead to a buffer overflow.
CVE-2021-28876
PUBLISHED: 2021-04-11
In the standard library in Rust before 1.52.0, the Zip implementation has a panic safety issue. It calls __iterator_get_unchecked() more than once for the same index when the underlying iterator panics (in certain conditions). This bug could lead to a memory safety violation due to an unmet safety r...