Live data from Hacker News

The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written

quora.com

421–430 of 507 posts

Re: The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written

#421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not everyone on the world stage is a rational game theory nerd that links to papers like we want them to be. Also 60 years of treating every other country as a box in a threat model to be manipulated against other boxes has been a completely unmitigated disaster, so maybe we should stop that.

For all the evidence we have, MAD has worked. Still here. Still no WWIII. At the beginning of the twentieth century it was looking like we'd have another world war every twenty years or so for the rest of time. As best we can tell, nukes actually did end large-scale war. I would call that at least a partially mitigated disaster.

I think that weapons range, combined with either precision targeting or large numbers, gets that job done. Picture a world without nukes, but with lots of highly accurate ICBMs and SLBMs. The attacker can expect to be attacked, with the destruction being stuff like the Kremlin or Whitehouse or parliament building.

In the days of WWII, an attacker could rightly feel confident that there could not be an immediate response that strikes anything of importance. The attacker might even believe that such a response could not be possible ever in the future. Poland could be invaded without any realistic worry that Berlin would be attacked that same day, and a bit of optimism turns that into Berlin being safe.

Re: The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written

#422
There is no conclusive evidence that stuxnet was successful at all. This article https://nypost.com/2013/05/16/stuxnet-virus-might-have-impro... actually claims opposite. With cyberwarfare and espionage everything is possible so let's not guess too much as we have really limited information.

Re: The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written

#423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my view, the sophistication is implied by the breadth of expertise required to put the whole thing together. Google Search and the OS landscape are for sure broad and sophisticated. However, their development was accomplished by computer scientists. In order for stuxnet to be effective, it was necessary to employ expertise in: - Uranium enrichment methods and processes - Capital equipment control systems and their…

But do those things really contribute to the sophistication of the software? For example imagine some code written with no understanding of uranium enrichment: const int CENTRIFUGE_RPM = 500; And then some other code written with a deep understanding of uranium enrichment: const int CENTRIFUGE_RPM = 1203; Can you really say that the second bit of code is more "complex"? Same goes for stolen driver signing keys and so…

Hell, sure yes. The complexity is in the data. At the end of day, it is all 0s and 1s. It is the pattern/effect that matters.

Re: The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written

#424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you really say that the second bit of code is more "complex"? Yes. Complexity in the sense discussed is related to the domain knowledge (including CS knowledge) required for the program to be written and work well. Else even a trivial BS program could be very complex, just sprinkle it with gotos and unnecessarily convoluted code...

This is such a powerful distinction that I feel it should help us rethink language paradigms. Complexity is not (just) the complications one can impose by construct or the involutions required of ones algorithms, it's the overall real world system your code addresses. Simple programs which are coded simply may address complex phenomena to complex ends--perhaps that's even the ideal?

Most people perceive complexity as things they don't understand. In that case, complexity will be relative.

Re: The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written

#425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my view, the sophistication is implied by the breadth of expertise required to put the whole thing together. Google Search and the OS landscape are for sure broad and sophisticated. However, their development was accomplished by computer scientists. In order for stuxnet to be effective, it was necessary to employ expertise in: - Uranium enrichment methods and processes - Capital equipment control systems and their…

But do those things really contribute to the sophistication of the software? For example imagine some code written with no understanding of uranium enrichment: const int CENTRIFUGE_RPM = 500; And then some other code written with a deep understanding of uranium enrichment: const int CENTRIFUGE_RPM = 1203; Can you really say that the second bit of code is more "complex"? Same goes for stolen driver signing keys and so…

> But do those things really contribute to the sophistication of the software?

> Can you really say that the second bit of code is more "complex"?

I don't think you should equate complexity with sophistication.

Re: The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written

#426
post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The code base for the International Space Station is probably also VERY complex

Probably not. Complex things break a lot. You want the life-critical code to be as simple as possible, with proven correctness if possible. I bet you'll not find 1 recursion in ISS flight code, and you'll not find anything that's not having an known-upper-bound on time run.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/facts-and-figures

It is possible that code itself is not that complex, but the interaction between all modules certainly has a high level of complexity.

"In the International Space Station’s U.S. segment alone, more than 1.5 million lines of flight software code run on 44 computers communicating via 100 data networks transferring 400,000 signals (e.g. pressure or temperature measurements, valve positions, etc.)."

Re: The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written

#428
post #8

I've been arguing about this for the last three days. Mostly around the reason that "complexity" is not strictly the same thing as "sophistication" when it comes to software. Noobs will conflate the two, but experienced programmers will agree that -- just to illustrate my point -- some code which solves a complex problem in a very clever way while also being very clean and easy to maintain will be considered strictly…

Indeed. I think that the mark of sophistication is not complexity but irreducible complexity. Sophisticated solutions are those that have been reduced to their simplest form.

Irreducible complexity sounds like an incredibly high bar.

Re: The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written

#429

I'd argue that Google Search is much more sophisticated than Stuxnet. Windows is much more sophisticated. Linux is more sophisticated than Stuxnet. The list goes on. We tend to ignore the sophistication of things we are familiar with, and hype those that surprise. But that's not a fair measure of anything.

I say this without having seen the code base for either, but I'd be surprised if Stuxnet's code base was anywhere near as large or with as many moving pieces. Still, it's incredible to imagine the knowledge base that needed to go into Stuxnet to get things off the ground. Google Search was originally written by two guys in graduate school and has been refined and rewritten many times since then. I'm sure the code bas…

I think of it like if everyone who read these comments on HN got together we could engineer a very good OS.

I doubt we could come close to solving the problem of "stopping Iran nuke production without killing anyone or starting a war"

Re: The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written

#430

Stuxnet changed history. Any "game of chicken" style equilibria is broken if the probability a nuclear actor's command and control drops below 100%. If there is even a 1% chance that when a Big Red Button is pushed the missiles fail to launch the game becomes unwinnable. Simulations of imperfect information in dynamic brinkmanship where both players are known to have advanced cyber capabilities results in a single dr…

> If there is even a 1% chance that when a Big Red Button is pushed the missiles fail to launch the game becomes unwinnable.

Why does that 1% make such a big difference?

Post reply on HN