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.


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 5/28/2020
Stay-at-Home Orders Coincide With Massive DNS Surge
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/27/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Can you smell me now?
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-11844
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
There is an Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in Micro Focus Service Management Automation (SMA) product affecting version 2018.05 to 2020.02. The vulnerability could be exploited to provide unauthorized access to the Container Deployment Foundation.
CVE-2020-6937
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
A Denial of Service vulnerability in MuleSoft Mule CE/EE 3.8.x, 3.9.x, and 4.x released before April 7, 2020, could allow remote attackers to submit data which can lead to resource exhaustion.
CVE-2020-7648
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker before 4.72.2 are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read. It allows arbitrary file reads for users who have access to Snyk's internal network by appending the URL with a fragment identifier and a whitelisted path e.g. `#package.json`
CVE-2020-7650
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker after 4.72.0 including and before 4.73.1 are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read. It allows arbitrary file reads to users with access to Snyk's internal network of any files ending in the following extensions: yaml, yml or json.
CVE-2020-7654
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker before 4.73.1 are vulnerable to Information Exposure. It logs private keys if logging level is set to DEBUG.