Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Malware: weapon of mass destruction

Malware: weapon of mass destruction
September 27, 2010, 03:28:34 AM
Keyboard is now mightier than the sword:

Quote
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.

yahoo

Re: Malware: weapon of mass destruction
September 27, 2010, 04:49:05 AM
its being reversed engineered..maybe thats what its programmers had in mind?

Re: Malware: weapon of mass destruction
September 27, 2010, 05:32:54 AM
its being reversed engineered..maybe thats what its programmers had in mind?

The article says the program infects by memory sticks, so they likely reverse engineered it in an isolated system and followed the preceding steps of the code's function.

Re: Malware: weapon of mass destruction
September 27, 2010, 10:16:08 AM
I've heard about this.  Sounds interesting.  Computer Science could be this awesome all the time.

NHA

Re: Malware: weapon of mass destruction
September 27, 2010, 03:56:42 PM
Quote
How can you tell the difference between a real report about online vulnerabilities and someone who is trying to scare you about the security of the internet because they have an agenda, such as landing lucrative, secret contracts from the government?

Here’s a simple test: Count the number of times they use the adjective “cyber.” Nobody uses the word “cyber” anymore, except people trying to scare you and trying to make the internet seem scary or foreign. (Think, for instance, of the term “cyberbullying,” which is somehow much more crazy and new and in need of legislation than “online bullying.”)



Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/03/cyber-hype/#ixzz10kJIz29y

Re: Malware: weapon of mass destruction
September 28, 2010, 07:00:25 PM
You'd need:

1. a computer that auto-runs USB sticks
2. an unmonitored computer that allows you to log on/have access to system files
3. a virus scanner that doesn't pick up a "too large, too encrypted (lol), too complex" files

It's all hype. Anyone with knowledge on how to prevent infections knows exactly how to counter such software. Sadly/luckily, most people don't know.

Re: Malware: weapon of mass destruction
September 28, 2010, 09:30:51 PM
Civil engineering people are not computer science people and computer science people are not necessarily versed in software or network security.

Quote
Anyone with knowledge on how to prevent infections knows exactly how to counter such software. Sadly/luckily, most people don't know.

It is probably the civil engineers and their even less savvy managers who spread it and the IT staff support is behind the curve enough that the malware takes hold.

Re: Malware: weapon of mass destruction
September 28, 2010, 10:39:52 PM
its being reversed engineered..maybe thats what its programmers had in mind?

The article says the program infects by memory sticks, so they likely reverse engineered it in an isolated system and followed the preceding steps of the code's function.

no offense but that reads like the scene in the South Park movie where Kyle is trying to hack into a Canadian mainframe.  I'm inclined to believe that the "Sutxnet" apocalypse is about as likely as Jesus battling Santa Claus. 

Re: Malware: weapon of mass destruction
September 29, 2010, 12:23:40 AM
no offense but that reads like the scene in the South Park movie where Kyle is trying to hack into a Canadian mainframe.  I'm inclined to believe that the "Sutxnet" apocalypse is about as likely as Jesus battling Santa Claus. 

No offense taken, because I was stating that they likely handled the program in a system that's not integrated into anything else, thus no danger.