

Anon claims that it has the source code to Stuxnet - steveklabnik
http://blogs.forbes.com/chrisbarth/2011/02/11/anonymous-claims-possession-of-insidious-stuxnet-virus/

======
anonymous_12345
They are telling the truth. The source code to stuxnet is in the email archive
stolen from HBGary Federal that belonged to Aaron Barr.

~~~
btilly
I'd be _very_ interested to know how he got it in the first place.

------
rw
Source or object code? The article doesn't specify.

~~~
steveklabnik
Upvoted: I thought I specifically saw 'source' in there, but going back, it
just says 'a copy.'

There are also things like this: <http://anonleaks.ru/email1.html>

~~~
adrianwaj
Am I wrong, but are most leaks on Wikileaks US-centric information, or are
they the only leaks that get press? We're talking about leaks that don't do
much for freedom. Leaks that are a small part of a bigger political game.

Can Anonleaks or Anon people actually get and publish information about
oppressive regimes, atrocities and cover-ups (maybe publish on wikileaks
itself)... stuff that is unlikely to leak by whistle blowing attempts alone?
Maybe content from the UN HRC, which they don't do anything about, and instead
focus on Israel. Ugly corporate activities would be interesting: environmental
and human catastrophes in mining, arms, energy and pharmaceutical businesses.

Imagine all the shit going on in China right now, or conspired manipulation of
global financial markets, or rigged elections in supposed democracies: to me
this is much more important than Aaron Barr's emails or the Stuxnet source.

It is clear that Anonymous are potent, but how can that be directed so that
the Anon mind can be a powerful force for good: white-hat hacking with less
ego and more conscience.

~~~
perokreco
Wikileaks publishes what people send it. There has been a bunch of non US
stuff in the past.

------
russell_h
I'm no security researcher, but it seems to me that there are two interesting
parts to Stuxnet:

    
    
        1. The infection mechanism it uses to spread (no idea what the technical term is for this)
        2. The payload it uses to damage nuclear reactors
    

The vulnerabilities exploited by (1) are supposedly already patched, so that
isn't going to do anyone much good. And unless anon hopes to take out a
nuclear enrichment facility (and since they probably aren't all the same,
we're only talking about some portion of those) I don't see what good (2)
would do them.

So while this is probably a great way to drum up an 'OMG HACKERZ!!' scare, I
just don't see why this is really a big deal. To say nothing of the fact that,
being a virus, Stuxnet can't really be all that hard to find a copy of.

Edit: Changed reactors to enrichment facilities in the list and fixed the list
formatting.

~~~
irq
Stuxnet has nothing to do with "nuclear reactors". It targeted uranium
enrichment centrifuges.

~~~
wipt
And the uranium is use for? (weapons aside)

~~~
derefr
I believe the point is that "to damage nuclear reactors" conjures a far
different (and more explosive) mental image than "to damage nuclear enrichment
facilities", even if the economic impact is the same.

------
stcredzero
One disturbing bit: Anonymous has a _lot_ of members who work currently or
used to work in IT and at ISPs. Of those no longer in such positions, a lot of
them are close friends with others who currently still work in such places.
It's totally like that bit from Fight Club, but instead of being the ones that
make your sandwich and vacuum your floors, they're the ones that install your
code and backup your databases.

In another way, this is very reassuring. With Internet access being spread
between 200,000 ISPs in the US and Canada, the prospect of a top-down
commanded Internet blackout seems awfully slim.

Universal lesson -- if a part of your society is built out of bullsh#t, it's
going to be riddled full of holes and secret passages. If a part of your
society is built of bullsh#t, there will be a disaffected contingent looking
for meaning, who will find the time and the means to communicate. It's been
true for thousands of years, and I don't see it stopping.

------
mukyu
I doubt that HBGary had the source to Stuxnet. Even the source is not that
useful. Its infection vectors are known. It does not really use novel worm
techniques. They would not be able to sign a different rootkit payload without
the stolen certs. The source does not give you control of the command and
control infrastructure, so they cannot use or update any of the currently
infected machines (this is speculation, I do not know the specifics of Stuxnet
in this regard). The PLC payload is useless and would have to be rewritten and
tested for a different target. Basically, having a copy of Stuxnet and/or the
source for it is useless for using it as a weapon.

The source would be great for the people looking for evidence of who wrote it
and what their intentions were, but that is about it.

~~~
benkant
> The source would be great for the people looking for evidence of who wrote
> it and what their intentions were, but that is about it.

I think that's more the point than attempting to use it, which like you say,
is not really feasible or even useful.

------
markkat
I really hope Anon keeps a happy attitude. I don't want to see the governments
getting stupid on everyone because they feel the must do something about
things they really have no control over.

What I mean is this: Anon or others with similar resources will always be able
to take governments to brinkmanship. I say that because governments always
want to have the upper-hand. Of course, in some places (like the internet),
the only way they can really have the upper-hand is to destroy it, because its
very nature (evolution and breadth) means they will never be able to maintain
the upper-hand. They are only one player, a good one, but they aren't the
referee.

------
joe_the_user
Headline is misleading.

The article only mentions "a genuine stuxnet copy" (the Stuxnet "application")
whereas the headline title mentions "source code to Stuxnet" which implies the
C or assembler or code was used to create Stuxnet in the first place (which be
an incredible find indeed).

The article seems rather ridiculous in any case. I recall an analysis of
Stuxnet describing it as a conventional virus and it became visible
specifically because like other viruses, it spread through a variety of
systems.

~~~
prr
Several posters elsewhere in the comments seem to think it's the source code.

Regardless, this is precisely the sort of headline that a fear slinging,
technophobic, "series of tubes" politician will latch on to. Doubly so in this
case, what with HBGary's political connections...

------
cobbal
"Stuxnet is one of the more powerful viruses to ever spread across the
internet"

Is an interesting statement, since to my knowledge it spread via USB drives
instead of the internet

~~~
Devilboy
It has multiple attack vectors, not just USB.

~~~
cobbal
Ah, it seems you're right:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet#Windows_infection>

------
nyellin
If the article is only referring to the compiled version of Stuxnet, then
every security researcher has had that for a very long time.

------
Vivtek
Forbes doesn't have a spell checker? "Siemen's"?

------
gasull
The binaries are already in torrents.

------
sliverstorm
What Anon would do if it isn't a bunch of hypocrites: Release the source code,
in the spirit of the WikiLeaks they love so dearly

What Anon will do: Be a bunch of bastards about it

~~~
SoftwareMaven
It is very unlikely that they have the source (judging by the article).
Rather, they have a copy of the virus executable. Still, the same probably
applies.

------
borism
this mostly seems to be pure speculation on Forbes/Chris Barth part + a little
bit of usual pandering to the establishment.

real journalist would have done slightly better job than just copy-pasting
some twitter and blog posts.

~~~
edge17
the face of journalism's changed since I was a kid; I've talked with plenty of
journalists researching stories, and things like twitter posts and linkedin
profiles are part of the landscape now. we as readers like to put much of the
onus on the writer, in this day and age it's probably more important for the
reader to be aware and informed as well.

~~~
RyanHolliday
They may be part of the landscape but that doesn't mean taking them at face
value is good journalism. And I think the reliability of journalism has a
large impact on how aware and informed it's even possible for a reader to be.

~~~
edge17
As much as we like to think journalists are doing public service, they are
working for commercial organizations struggling to make money. One aspect of
being informed is recognizing that news organizations are companies trying to
make money, and those incentives aren't necessarily aligned with fair and
balanced reporting. All the 'tiger mom' stuff is a perfect example of this;
much of the hoopla surrounding it stems from the inflammatory title that the
editor chose for it... definitely sold a lot of papers and a lot of her book.

