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
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.         


Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Enterprise Cybersecurity Plans in a Post-Pandemic World
Download the Enterprise Cybersecurity Plans in a Post-Pandemic World report to understand how security leaders are maintaining pace with pandemic-related challenges, and where there is room for improvement.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2021-40690
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-19
All versions of Apache Santuario - XML Security for Java prior to 2.2.3 and 2.1.7 are vulnerable to an issue where the "secureValidation" property is not passed correctly when creating a KeyInfo from a KeyInfoReference element. This allows an attacker to abuse an XPath Transform to extract...
CVE-2021-41073
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-19
loop_rw_iter in fs/io_uring.c in the Linux kernel through 5.14.6 allows local users to gain privileges by using IORING_OP_PROVIDE_BUFFERS to trigger a free of a kernel buffer, as demonstrated by using /proc/<pid>/maps for exploitation.
CVE-2021-23441
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-19
All versions of package com.jsoniter:jsoniter are vulnerable to Deserialization of Untrusted Data via malicious JSON strings. This may lead to a Denial of Service, and in certain cases, code execution.
CVE-2021-41393
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-18
Teleport before 4.4.11, 5.x before 5.2.4, 6.x before 6.2.12, and 7.x before 7.1.1 allows forgery of SSH host certificates in some situations.
CVE-2021-41394
PUBLISHED: 2021-09-18
Teleport before 4.4.11, 5.x before 5.2.4, 6.x before 6.2.12, and 7.x before 7.1.1 allows alteration of build artifacts in some situations.