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

The Stuxnet worm may be the most sophisticated software ever written

quora.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 507 posts

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

#411

Post by 0xb8000 »

perlgeek wrote: post #236

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 agree on the sophistication part but I think you are missing out on resources used on development of this.

the responsible party(ies) did not access to resources , man power or infra at google or even at an enterprise scale.

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

#412

Post by trumped »

Dolores12 wrote: post #405
trumped wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because something takes a long time to do doesn't necessarily mean that it is complex...

Are you talking about finding bugs? That's exactly the case.

no, I was talking in general... since you brought up how long it takes to make stuff.

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

#413

Post by johnwbyrd »

perlgeek wrote: post #236

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.

That is an utterly braindead assertion.

I wrote the quoted article about Stuxnet. And I've helped write multiple operating systems.

Your argument not an argument. It's just a random assertion with no technical knowledge of either Stuxnet or how to write an operating system.

Stuxnet specifically took advantage of Windows's lack of sophistication in order to replicate.

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

#414

Post by johnwbyrd »

elago wrote: post #391
AYBABTME wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of topic but your defense for referencing Kaspersky makes me wonder why people would see a problem with it? I'm not familiar with the field and don't know who's who.

They're a Russian company and semi-recently Trump banned their software from government agencies. People theorize they're controlled by the Russian government but I've never come across any evidence that they're anything other than a top tier security company though. They have done some fairly bold moves in the past though, like cleverly calling out other AV companies that were copying their detections [0] and kind o…

In Kaspersky's defense, they have started making their source code auditable for certain customers. Kaspersky is well aware of how they are perceived as a company, and they are aware that if anyone ever traces any of their activities back to the KGB, it's game over for them. I can't pretend I trust Kaspersky 100%, but I can see why others might.

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

#415

Post by snowwrestler »

reitanqild wrote: post #378
ordinaryradical wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Something something about simple rules being able to describe complex behaviour. Example: you can describe a flock of birds in motion around an object with 2 or 3 rules. Complex rules yields stupid results. Example: tax codes in most countries. Must be a quote but I wasn't able to find a source for it.

The problem with simple rules is the volume of computation. Theoretically you could write a tax code using quantum mechanics, but good luck calculating your tax each year (or before the heat death of the universe).

When systems get too complex to simulate from first principles, we have to resort to inductive reasoning--observe the system and then create rules as we see a need.

Yes the resulting rule set is a mess, like our tax code. But the physical system that the U.S. federal tax code (for example) covers--the United States of America--is mind-bogglingly complex.

We have trouble computationally simulating more than a certain number of neurons... there are billions of neurons in each human brain, and there are hundreds of millions of human brains interacting in the U.S. This does not even get into other physical phenomena like surface water or mineral distribution.

The results are stupid because we are too stupid to understand and analyze the system we're trying to describe and manage.

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

#416

Post by [deleted] »

coldtea wrote: post #290
eberkund wrote: post #276

Earlier 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...

[deleted]

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

#417

Post by spunker540 »

perlgeek wrote: post #236

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.

Big != sophisticated. I’m not denying that there’s a ton of effort and features that go into windows, but operating systems are well known, and I’m sure most of the code powering windows is not all that sophisticated outside of some core components.

It’s sort of like comparing a skyscraper to an iPhone. Sure the skyscraper requires a lot more manual labor, but the iPhone is more sophisticated. It took ~80 years from when the Empire State Building was built to when the iPhone was built. The iPhone is more sophisticated but it’d still take more time and resources to make another Empire State Building.

Sorry if that’s a poor analogy- it’s the best I got right now.

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

#418

Post by johnwbyrd »

fapjacks wrote: 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…

Yeah, you understand exactly what I was trying to convey when I wrote the article. Thanks.

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

#419

Post by johnwbyrd »

purrcat259 wrote: post #43
danielh wrote: post #9

If this short read piked your interest in Stuxnet, I can recommend the book "Countdown to Zero Day: Stuxnet and the Launch of the World's First Digital Weapon". It explains in great detail how Stuxnet worked and, which I found the most exciting, how it was discovered and reverse engineered.

I read this book a while ago. Whilst I enjoyed the multiple viewpoints it provides (some claim that Stuxnet was actually quite sloppily written, depending on numerous factors), it happened to be one of those books which wrote 100 pages worth of information in 400 pages instead and dragged every little point on. YMMV.

I hadn't read the book when I wrote the article. I tried to get all the salient facts in, with as few words as possible. "Omit needless words" - Wm. Strunk.

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

#420

Post by johnwbyrd »

lol-lol wrote: post #31

I would argue that this one was more sophisticated: http://pferrie.tripod.com/papers/zmist.pdf What I am seeing lately with malware is increasing decline in sophistication, today malware is lame compared to the malware created around 2000. I would think that level of low level knowledge is rapidly dropping. When there were still real file infectors, there were some serious nasty technologies involved (btw, todays ran…

Other than permuting itself, what did it do that was sophisticated? Code morphing viruses have been around for a very long time, much longer than 2000. Simple replication does not constitute sophistication. Even my brother in law does that.
Post reply on HN