Stuxnet's Infection Of Chevron Shows Why 'Weaponized' Malware Is A Bad Idea

from the cyberenemy-within dept

The Stuxnet worm that attacked an Iranian nuclear enrichment facility a couple of years ago was exceptional from several viewpoints. It is believed to have been the costliest development effort in malware history, involving dozens of engineers. It also made use of an unprecedented number of zero-day exploits in Microsoft Windows in order to operate. Finally, Stuxnet seems to be the first piece of malware known with reasonable certainty to have been created by the US, probably working closely with Israel.

As Techdirt reported earlier this year, we know all this largely because the malware escaped from the target environment in Iran, and started spreading in the wild. We now learn that one of the companies infected as a result was Chevron:

The oil giant discovered the malware in July 2010 after the virus escaped from its intended target, Mark Koelmel, Chevron's general manager of the earth sciences department, told The Wall Street Journal.

"I don't think the U.S. government even realized how far it had spread," he said. "I think the downside of what they did is going to be far worse than what they actually accomplished."
This highlights a huge problem with the use of malware by national security services to carry out these kinds of covert attacks on their enemies. Where a physical attack on a foreign nation is unlikely to cause direct casualties back at home -- although it may lead to indirect ones through retaliation -- attacks using worms and other malware are far less targeted. If they escape, as is likely to happen given the near-impossibility of controlling what happens to them once they have been released, they may well find their way back to the attacker's homeland, and start infecting computer systems there.

This makes the "weaponization" of malware an inherently dangerous approach. Imagine if a nation deployed worms or viruses that changed data on infected systems in subtle ways, and that these started spreading by mistake among that same country's health organizations or banks. Lives could be lost, and financial systems thrown into disarray.

That's something worth bearing in mind amid increasing calls for the development of software that can be used offensively: as well as the likelihood of tit-for-tat responses, there is also the very real danger that the weapon will turn against the nation that created it.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or, and on Google+

Filed Under: stuxnet, weaponized malware
Companies: chevron

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Rick Smith (profile), 21 Nov 2012 @ 8:56am


    I think the real issue is not the fact that it was specifically targeted and didn't harm Chevron, but is the fact that when it was first discovered we (public/companies) didn't know that. It took years before the government owned up to it and said what it was for. So before that time it was the same as any other virus.

    If we applied your logic to others, then we shouldn't be arresting any virus writer until its proven to harm your system. Because what it seems to me you are saying is that the US (and whoever else helped them) didn't do any damage so they should get a pass. If we can do that for the government then we should be doing that for everyone. The reason we don't is that its been deem illegal to do this, because of potential damage, not because of actual damage. So why should we give the government a pass. They purposely infected more than just their target. I guarantee that if anyone of us did this, we would have guys in suits and sunglasses breaking in the door within an hour of discovering our identity. The cost to businesses around the world to analyze and clean this from their systems (which needed to be done, even if they knew it was from the government, and they didn't for a long time) is a drain to their profits, which in turn could be driving stock prices, downsizing, higher consumer prices, you name it. So this little attack has most likely played a part in the global economic issues over the last several years. And who's to say that this is the only one.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.