Skynet has arrived.

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/327178

Stuxnet malware is 'weapon' out to destroy ... Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant?

By Mark Clayton – Tue Sep 21, 3:08 pm ET

Cyber security experts say they have identified the world's first known cyber super weapon designed specifically to destroy a real-world target – a factory, a refinery, or just maybe a nuclear power plant.

The cyber worm, called Stuxnet, has been the object of intense study since its detection in June. As more has become known about it, alarm about its capabilities and purpose have grown. Some top cyber security experts now say Stuxnet's arrival heralds something blindingly new: a cyber weapon created to cross from the digital realm to the physical world – to destroy something.

At least one expert who has extensively studied the malicious software, or malware, suggests Stuxnet may have already attacked its target – and that it may have been Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant, which much of the world condemns as a nuclear weapons threat.

The appearance of Stuxnet created a ripple of amazement among computer security experts. Too large, too encrypted, too complex to be immediately understood, it employed amazing new tricks, like taking control of a computer system without the user taking any action or clicking any button other than inserting an infected memory stick. Experts say it took a massive expenditure of time, money, and software engineering talent to identify and exploit such vulnerabilities in industrial control software systems.

Unlike most malware, Stuxnet is not intended to help someone make money or steal proprietary data. Industrial control systems experts now have concluded, after nearly four months spent reverse engineering Stuxnet, that the world faces a new breed of malware that could become a template for attackers wishing to launch digital strikes at physical targets worldwide. Internet link not required.

"Until a few days ago, people did not believe a directed attack like this was possible," Ralph Langner, a German cyber-security researcher, told the Monitor in an interview. He was slated to present his findings at a conference of industrial control system security experts Tuesday in Rockville, Md. "What Stuxnet represents is a future in which people with the funds will be able to buy an attack like this on the black market. This is now a valid concern."

A gradual dawning of Stuxnet's purpose

It is a realization that has emerged only gradually.

Stuxnet surfaced in June and, by July, was identified as a hypersophisticated piece of malware probably created by a team working for a nation state, say cyber security experts. Its name is derived from some of the filenames in the malware. It is the first malware known to target and infiltrate industrial supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) software used to run chemical plants and factories as well as electric power plants and transmission systems worldwide. That much the experts discovered right away.

But what was the motive of the people who created it? Was Stuxnet intended to steal industrial secrets – pressure, temperature, valve, or other settings –and communicate that proprietary data over the Internet to cyber thieves?

By August, researchers had found something more disturbing: Stuxnet appeared to be able to take control of the automated factory control systems it had infected – and do whatever it was programmed to do with them. That was mischievous and dangerous.

But it gets worse. Since reverse engineering chunks of Stuxnet's massive code, senior US cyber security experts confirm what Mr. Langner, the German researcher, told the Monitor: Stuxnet is essentially a precision, military-grade cyber missile deployed early last year to seek out and destroy one real-world target of high importance – a target still unknown.

"Stuxnet is a 100-percent-directed cyber attack aimed at destroying an industrial process in the physical world," says Langner, who last week became the first to publicly detail Stuxnet's destructive purpose and its authors' malicious intent. "This is not about espionage, as some have said. This is a 100 percent sabotage attack."

A guided cyber missile

On his website, Langner lays out the Stuxnet code he has dissected. He shows step by step how Stuxnet operates as a guided cyber missile. Three top US industrial control system security experts, each of whom has also independently reverse-engineered portions of Stuxnet, confirmed his findings to the Monitor.

"His technical analysis is good," says a senior US researcher who has analyzed Stuxnet, who asked for anonymity because he is not allowed to speak to the press. "We're also tearing [Stuxnet] apart and are seeing some of the same things."

Other experts who have not themselves reverse-engineered Stuxnet but are familiar with the findings of those who have concur with Langner's analysis.

"What we're seeing with Stuxnet is the first view of something new that doesn't need outside guidance by a human – but can still take control of your infrastructure," says Michael Assante, former chief of industrial control systems cyber security research at the US Department of Energy's Idaho National Laboratory. "This is the first direct example of weaponized software, highly customized and designed to find a particular target."

"I'd agree with the classification of this as a weapon," Jonathan Pollet, CEO of Red Tiger Security and an industrial control system security expert, says in an e-mail.

One researcher's findingsLangner's research, outlined on his website Monday, reveals a key step in the Stuxnet attack that other researchers agree illustrates its destructive purpose. That step, which Langner calls "fingerprinting," qualifies Stuxnet as a targeted weapon, he says.

Langner zeroes in on Stuxnet's ability to "fingerprint" the computer system it infiltrates to determine whether it is the precise machine the attack-ware is looking to destroy. If not, it leaves the industrial computer alone. It is this digital fingerprinting of the control systems that shows Stuxnet to be not spyware, but rather attackware meant to destroy, Langner says.

Stuxnet's ability to autonomously and without human assistance discriminate among industrial computer systems is telling. It means, says Langner, that it is looking for one specific place and time to attack one specific factory or power plant in the entire world.

"Stuxnet is the key for a very specific lock – in fact, there is only one lock in the world that it will open," Langner says in an interview. "The whole attack is not at all about stealing data but about manipulation of a specific industrial process at a specific moment in time. This is not generic. It is about destroying that process."

So far, Stuxnet has infected at least 45,000 industrial control systems around the world, without blowing them up – although some victims in North America have experienced some serious computer problems, Eric Byres, a Canadian expert, told the Monitor. Most of the victim computers, however, are in Iran, Pakistan, India, and Indonesia. Some systems have been hit in Germany, Canada, and the US, too. Once a system is infected, Stuxnet simply sits and waits – checking every five seconds to see if its exact parameters are met on the system. When they are, Stuxnet is programmed to activate a sequence that will cause the industrial process to self-destruct, Langner says.

Seriously, not dismissing the seriousness of the threat posed by such an attack, this is pretty damned cool.

I will give certain posters here about 5 posts before this is blamed on you-know-who. Hint: It starts with an I, and rhymes with Israel.
 
Last edited:

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
12,839
2,625
136
<--- only has a layman's knowledge of computer stuff

I'm very confused-wouldn't the attacker essentially have to have a blueprint of all the target factory's systems for this to work? That's tremendous amount of intelligence to gather, although Russia probably has quite a bit of it in this case. Or if it was more "generic" wouldn't that cause a huge risk to the rest of the factories, etc. in the world at large?

As far as the source, I'd guess only Israel, USA and China are capable of such an attack-and I highly doubt it was China.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Pretty damn cool.

Haha, hope Iran isn't using Linux.

Fern
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
<--- only has a layman's knowledge of computer stuff

I'm very confused-wouldn't the attacker essentially have to have a blueprint of all the target factory's systems for this to work? That's tremendous amount of intelligence to gather, although Russia probably has quite a bit of it in this case. Or if it was more "generic" wouldn't that cause a huge risk to the rest of the factories, etc. in the world at large?

As far as the source, I'd guess only Israel, USA and China are capable of such an attack-and I highly doubt it was China.

That's my understanding as well.

However, I would guess that if you're sophisticated enough to develop stuxnet, you're sophisticated enough to develop undectable malware that could map the system.

Could also be that the owner/developer has designed stuxnet to be able to later receive instructions after it is residing on all the system. I.e., the target could later be indentified or changed. If so, it could be one helluva an extortion tool.

Fern
 

Pulsar

Diamond Member
Mar 3, 2003
5,224
306
126
That's my understanding as well.

However, I would guess that if you're sophisticated enough to develop stuxnet, you're sophisticated enough to develop undectable malware that could map the system.

Could also be that the owner/developer has designed stuxnet to be able to later receive instructions after it is residing on all the system. I.e., the target could later be indentified or changed. If so, it could be one helluva an extortion tool.

Fern

"Industrial" computers are little different than home ones. They are generally a couple of generations behind, are usually a little more durable, and usually have pretty crappy hardware. However, just like the PC market, there are only a handful of vendors for that equipment. They are all primarily based on x86, and nowadays most all the up-to-date systems run either Windows NT (yes, you heard that right) or Windows XP.

There are also PLC systems, and many of those run on things like VXworks etc. However, if you stick with targeting windows software you're going to be able to still wipe out a huge chunk of the industrialized world. Most of those PLC's still interface to windows machines, on windows networks for "command and control".

Here is the absolutely scary part. Those machines - 1000 ton presses, 100 foot long washers, Robots with a 45 foot diameter reach - are worked on daily. If this worm happened to "take control" of that machine and make it act in a manner that was unexpected, you're talking about the potential death of people.

Even moreso, if that system regulated something else even more important, you could be talking about killing a LARGE number of people. Think about traffic light control systems, water treatment plant systems (give it an extra shot of chlorine, eh?), or the be-all-end-all, a nuclear power plant.

This is an act of war. I am very truthfully NOT exaggerating when I say that someone needs to die for creating the program.
 

DestinyKnight

Senior member
Jul 1, 2003
269
0
0
The article also mentions military installations being vulnerable. I think this would be even more dangerous than controlling nuke power plants...how about ICBMs?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
"Industrial" computers are little different than home ones. They are generally a couple of generations behind, are usually a little more durable, and usually have pretty crappy hardware. However, just like the PC market, there are only a handful of vendors for that equipment. They are all primarily based on x86, and nowadays most all the up-to-date systems run either Windows NT (yes, you heard that right) or Windows XP.

There are also PLC systems, and many of those run on things like VXworks etc. However, if you stick with targeting windows software you're going to be able to still wipe out a huge chunk of the industrialized world. Most of those PLC's still interface to windows machines, on windows networks for "command and control".

Here is the absolutely scary part. Those machines - 1000 ton presses, 100 foot long washers, Robots with a 45 foot diameter reach - are worked on daily. If this worm happened to "take control" of that machine and make it act in a manner that was unexpected, you're talking about the potential death of people.

Even moreso, if that system regulated something else even more important, you could be talking about killing a LARGE number of people. Think about traffic light control systems, water treatment plant systems (give it an extra shot of chlorine, eh?), or the be-all-end-all, a nuclear power plant.

This is an act of war. I am very truthfully NOT exaggerating when I say that someone needs to die for creating the program.

Maybe I watch to much TV but aren't a lot of .mil communications completely digital, like commands sent to deployed subs? As in there aren't any humans with phones to their ears, the printer spits out a piece of paper with the orders on it or something like that?

Hell, think of the havoc if it fucked with air traffic control or the .govs digital money printer...
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
The article also mentions military installations being vulnerable. I think this would be even more dangerous than controlling nuke power plants...how about ICBMs?

Doesn't it take someone (actually I thought it was 2 someones) to physically turn keys to launch those things?
 

Binarycow

Golden Member
Jan 10, 2010
1,238
2
76
"Industrial" computers are little different than home ones. They are generally a couple of generations behind, are usually a little more durable, and usually have pretty crappy hardware. However, just like the PC market, there are only a handful of vendors for that equipment. They are all primarily based on x86, and nowadays most all the up-to-date systems run either Windows NT (yes, you heard that right) or Windows XP.

There are also PLC systems, and many of those run on things like VXworks etc. However, if you stick with targeting windows software you're going to be able to still wipe out a huge chunk of the industrialized world. Most of those PLC's still interface to windows machines, on windows networks for "command and control".

Here is the absolutely scary part. Those machines - 1000 ton presses, 100 foot long washers, Robots with a 45 foot diameter reach - are worked on daily. If this worm happened to "take control" of that machine and make it act in a manner that was unexpected, you're talking about the potential death of people.

Even moreso, if that system regulated something else even more important, you could be talking about killing a LARGE number of people. Think about traffic light control systems, water treatment plant systems (give it an extra shot of chlorine, eh?), or the be-all-end-all, a nuclear power plant.

This is an act of war. I am very truthfully NOT exaggerating when I say that someone needs to die for creating the program.

What if it's a test run done by our people to kind of showing off what we're capable of so other nations such as China and Russia quit fucking around with our cyber-security? it's kind of a new MAD thing? Still want to kill them then?
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
What if it's a test run done by our people to kind of showing off what we're capable of so other nations such as China and Russia quit fucking around with our cyber-security? it's kind of a new MAD thing? Still want to kill them then?

Pretty much.

The way I see it these a$$holes have now conceived of and created this, that's the hard part. The easier part is copying it and/or improving it. I.e., welcome to the age of super bada$$ malware. Other people etc will be utilizing similar programs copied from this for their own purpose.

I can see a country developing/launching this is if they sincerely believed the existence of their country was at stake. But to develop and release this to "show off' is unbelievably irresponsible.

Fern
 

alphatarget1

Diamond Member
Dec 9, 2001
5,710
0
76
Why are plant computers connected to the internet at all? They wouldn't be able to deliver this if the computers aren't online... Unless stupid employees watch pr0n on their flashdrives that are infected.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
What if it's a test run done by our people to kind of showing off what we're capable of so other nations such as China and Russia quit fucking around with our cyber-security? it's kind of a new MAD thing? Still want to kill them then?

Umm, yes? If you have a new super weapon you don't put it in 100,000 places including very unfriendly countries so that they can reverse engineer it. If some guy made Yahoo news about what he has reversed engineered out of it, how much farther along do you think countries like Russia and China are? I would wager a whole lot farther.

That is like sending the Japanese and the Germans the blueprints for the atom bomb in WW2 while we were still in the testing phase. Just not a good idea.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
The DoD has long banned the use of USB keys in virtually all of their classified systems anyway, from what I've heard. Besides, it would need to infect machines with local admin privileges anyway, wouldn't it? That's a super easy fix
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,256
136
The DoD has long banned the use of USB keys in virtually all of their classified systems anyway, from what I've heard. Besides, it would need to infect machines with local admin privileges anyway, wouldn't it? That's a super easy fix

This is true, jump drives aren't even allowed in the same room as classified computers, at least where I was.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,256
136
This is one benefit of analog control systems. I wonder which control software it targets.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
Who in their right mind would run a nuclear power plant on Windows?

Ever read the Terms of Service that comes with Windows? A clause for nuclear power plants is in the TOS going at least back to Windows 98 probably earlier too :p
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
This is true, jump drives aren't even allowed in the same room as classified computers, at least where I was.

Maybe not, but assuming you have clearance from what I've seen it wouldn't be hard to smuggle one in and discretely plug it in somewhere.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
Maybe I watch to much TV but aren't a lot of .mil communications completely digital, like commands sent to deployed subs? As in there aren't any humans with phones to their ears, the printer spits out a piece of paper with the orders on it or something like that?

Hell, think of the havoc if it fucked with air traffic control or the .govs digital money printer...

IIRC most of those orders have authentication codes for similar reasons. The software designer would have to obtain those first.