Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stuxnet Source Code

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 127 posts

Re: Stuxnet Source Code

#51

Post by data_maan »

lupire wrote: post #50
erez wrote: post #47

I just love that not only they copyrighted it, they even give excuses for it. You can't copyright someone else's work, regardless of how long you took to reverse-engineer it from disassembled binaries. Obviously the "rights owners" are not going to take those two guys to court (pity though, that would've been hilarious), but since the only reason those two could license this is that this is a computer virus and no on…

Is the law clear in this? They created something different from the source material binary program.

This. They don't give you the same as the original virus code, they give you different code (namely readable one), than apparently compiles to the virus assembly.

It's plausible this took effort, so I think it's only fair if they license it - it seems also ethically fair, since their licence is permissive.

Re: Stuxnet Source Code

#52

Post by lupire »

marsRoverDev wrote: post #23
fulafel wrote: post #19

According to the README, this is not the Stuxnet source code. Rather it's authored by people mentioned in the license by reverse engineers from the binaries. The real source code would probably have lots of juicy interesting things revealing how it was developed.

// TODO: תקן את זה

When an LTR Android system user selects RTL text, the selection markers are displayed LTR (the wrong way).

Re: Stuxnet Source Code

#53

Post by Archelaos »

erez wrote: post #47

I just love that not only they copyrighted it, they even give excuses for it. You can't copyright someone else's work, regardless of how long you took to reverse-engineer it from disassembled binaries. Obviously the "rights owners" are not going to take those two guys to court (pity though, that would've been hilarious), but since the only reason those two could license this is that this is a computer virus and no on…

I do not know much about other jurisdictions, but in Germany a derived work has its individual copyright. For example, if one is translating a copyrighted work and publishes the translation without authorization, the translation is still prodected. The orginal copyright owner may sue the publisher of the translation, but the translator may sue anyone who publishes the translation without authorization.

Re: Stuxnet Source Code

#54

Post by ses1984 »

data_maan wrote: post #51
lupire wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the law clear in this? They created something different from the source material binary program.

This. They don't give you the same as the original virus code, they give you different code (namely readable one), than apparently compiles to the virus assembly. It's plausible this took effort, so I think it's only fair if they license it - it seems also ethically fair, since their licence is permissive.

Wouldn’t that be considered a derivative work? You can copyright those.

Re: Stuxnet Source Code

#55

Post by krisoft »

rereasonable wrote: post #12

Technical wonder aside, the argument for using nuclear power over fossil fuels really hits a faultline in situations like this. I wonder how the majority of folk rationalise their viewpoint surrounding this situation without being seen as massively hypocritical?

Nuclear energy generation and nuclear weapons have very little to do with each other. You can do one, without doing the other.

> I wonder how the majority of folk rationalise their viewpoint surrounding this situation without being seen as massively hypocritical?

It would be useful if you could point out what exactly are you feeling is hypocritical?

Re: Stuxnet Source Code

#56

Post by odyssey7 »

johndunne wrote: post #8

I remember first hearing about this while working at a US firewall company. The scale and precision of the attack kept this virus in the minds of everyone who appreciated what it proved capable of and the scale of social engineering employed to effect it. It kind of ushered in state-on-state cyber warfare, or at least, brought the reality of weaponized viruses to the public conscience.

Imagine if the same strategy were applied to biological warfare. Novel viruses tailored to be symptomatic and cause harm to just one specific world leader. If the technology exists, it could be the most formidable assassination tool available; a self-delivering, non-nuclear ace-in-the-hole for winning a war.

Re: Stuxnet Source Code

#57

Post by cafeinux »

data_maan wrote: post #51
lupire wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the law clear in this? They created something different from the source material binary program.

This. They don't give you the same as the original virus code, they give you different code (namely readable one), than apparently compiles to the virus assembly. It's plausible this took effort, so I think it's only fair if they license it - it seems also ethically fair, since their licence is permissive.

I am sure big software companies wouldn't agree on this: decompile Excel or Photoshop and copyright the resulting code, and you shall get a nice lawsuit within days, if not hours. However, I guess there would have a bit of ToS breach, a pinch of DMCA and a lot of copyright infringement for reverse-engineering the software, maybe not that much for copyrighting the decompiled code.

Re: Stuxnet Source Code

#58

Post by jonahrd »

I remember reading a very well written article on stuxnet, detailing the entire way it worked. It was written in a very story-like way that built slowly until it revealed what the actual payload and impact was. Does anyone have a link to this article?

Re: Stuxnet Source Code

#59

Post by wil421 »

lupire wrote: post #52
marsRoverDev wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

// TODO: תקן את זה

When an LTR Android system user selects RTL text, the selection markers are displayed LTR (the wrong way).

Wow I didn’t realize my iPhone would pick up on it and change the selection markers.

Re: Stuxnet Source Code

#60

Post by mackman »

jonahrd wrote: post #58

I remember reading a very well written article on stuxnet, detailing the entire way it worked. It was written in a very story-like way that built slowly until it revealed what the actual payload and impact was. Does anyone have a link to this article?

The book about it is a great read although I think it could have used a lot more editing. Chapters approach the timeline from different angles and as a result it does feel like later chapters are going over the same material too many times. Anyhow, you can read part of it here: https://www.wired.com/2014/11/countdown-to-zero-day-stuxnet/
Post reply on HN