Stuxnet might be the most sophisticated worm ever written with the number and types of layers it drills through.
There is likely far more complex and sophisticated software elsewhere.
The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written
351–360 of 507 posts
Re: The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written
#352Earlier 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…
I, personally, would differentiate between complex and sophisticated.
That is just one line of code, sure. But I can't imagine what it took to get that line of code there, and everything that comes with that. How many people were involved, PhD's, years of experience in a range of fields, and not just years of experience in any field but experience in fields like espionage.
My uneducated brain would still put "most sophisticated software ever written" in the hyperbole box, but even then I'm hesitating.
Re: The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
In "secure" places, HSM's are basically in a vault with armed guards.
I have seen HSMs in a concrete fireproof room, inside another concrete room, inside a regular room, inside a nondescript building. This one required the use of 3 persons (one to authorize entry past the 2 guys with rifles, one to unlock the vault rack with the hsm, another to authenticate to the HSM to perform work).
Company or agency?
Re: The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written
#354I'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.
This comparison is ridiculous. Searching the internet can be imperfect, it can be lossy, and there aren't any real consequences. We are talking about an ad platform after all. If you search for kittens and you get back 345 results or 101 results or 2345 results, does it really matter? No, it has no consequence to anyone.
Re: The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written
#355I'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'd argue that Google Search is much more sophisticated than Stuxnet. Windows is much more sophisticated.
Not to be rude, but it really doesn't sound like you read the article.
Especially when you claim that Windows is more sophisticated. Stuxnet had to get past all of Windows security, and did so by using not just one or two or three never-before-known flaws, but a bunch of them.
Re: The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written
#356I wonder towards what kind of landscapes the cyber arms race will lead us.
The problem is how civilians will end up being the victims of it. What can be scary is how data can mess around the links of trust that is making society work. I hope there are people who are able to think about the problem of preventing online psy ops and other nasty things that can not cause threat, but do damage on the "data" of how society operates. As long as this problem is not fixed and the public is not educated about how computers work, I'm for limiting the use of computers in sensitive areas of society, would it be money, finance, the military, electricity and water networks, infrastructure, computers as a work tool, etc.
Funny that a couple of months a ago I received a paper mail written in russian. There are no way in hell this was not related to my address getting leaked online, this must have been related to the internet somehow.
Re: The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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...
Agreed. In computer science the smallest lever can move the largest mass and smaller levers are not inherently less sophisticated.
Re: The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written
#358I'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.
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…
Then think about the expertise to put together a self driving car... From sensors to ML...
Re: The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
> const int CENTRIFUGE_RPM = 1203; As the linked article points out, it wasn't just raising the speed, it was raising it in a subtle enough way to ruin the process while other experts routinely monitored the system
Most importantly it worked very successfully. With Windows, Google search, or most of the others mentioned here, they have had a huge number of problems. The word used was "sophisticated." I think that also implies some level of near-flawlessness in the end result.
... except it was discovered and widely publicized.
Re: The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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?