Re:Stuxnet Source Code
by bschne on Monday December 04, 2023 @06:35AM
(#38516043)
Nitpick but it was even harder, they wanted to keep the PLCs intact, report back normal operation, and change the control output specifically to destroy/damage uranium centrifuges
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Stuxnet Source Code
by ranting-moth on Monday December 04, 2023 @07:06AM
(#38516269)
Yep. I'd be surprised if their QA environment didn't contain at least one uranium centrifuge.
Re:Stuxnet Source Code
by delusional on Monday December 04, 2023 @07:29AM
(#38516458)
You'd be insane to develop something of the complexity of Stuxnet and not include a full end to end test in the QA process. It would be incredibly embarrassing for this to fail.
Indeed. But as engineers it’s insane to think of having a testing environment that includes a uranium enrichment plant
Re:Stuxnet Source Code
by delusional on Monday December 04, 2023 @12:59PM
(#38520585)
Fair point. I can barely get access to a testing environment that contains a keycloak server.
Re:Stuxnet Source Code
by randomcarbloke on Monday December 04, 2023 @09:52AM
(#38517982)
You don't really need the centrifuge, just the inverter.
I was working in industrial control and automation at the time, there were sweeping changes to what could and could not be done and by whom at every level.
Old drives of all manufacturers that sat unused were audited and had to be brought up-to-date before any sale or change of hands could occur, serials were noted etc etc.
Never felt like a manufacturer decision since it occurred in unison almost globally.
Re:Stuxnet Source Code
by ranting-moth on Monday December 04, 2023 @10:16AM
(#38518271)
>You don't really need ...
I think that project was way beyond the "really need" stage.
Re:Stuxnet Source Code
by randomcarbloke on Thursday December 07, 2023 @07:03AM
(#38555464)
granted, I don't know that it would give you any extra information though.