David Heath
Friday, 11 November 2011 09:35
Business IT -
Security
Page 1 of 2
In a recent interview, iTWire asked Jon Callas, currently CTO at Entrust his thoughts on the recent Duqu malware and how closely it is related to Stuxnet.
iTWire recently spent a very pleasant hour with Jon Callas, currently CTO of Entrust. One of the things that Callas has been very vocal about is his disagreement with the other 'experts' who have been saying that Duqu is the next evolution of Stuxnet.
iTWire: You're arguing that Duqu looks a little bit the same as Stuxnet but that's about the end of it?Callas: Yes. You know, it's got both ones and zeros, just like Stuxnet.
iTWire: there was an article published just today saying that a decompiled version of Stuxnet is available for download.Callas: It would not surprise me if the people who are good at doing malware looked at the decompiled Stuxnet and said, "Oh would you look at that! That programming technique is really cool." Because programmers do that all the time with each other.
But the idea that Duqu is obviously by the people who did Stuxnet for essentially the same purpose... if you look at it from a plain old detective standpoint, you know, means, motive and opportunity, well whoever did Stuxnet was somebody who didn't like Iran and didn't like the Iranian nuclear work.
Now we can construct our list of suspects and we can discuss who we would want on the list of suspects but then you look at Duqu and you look at what it's been doing and its got a control server in India and it's been doing all sorts of things and there is no intersection between the two of them.
So, if you wanted to say "why yes, the people who wrote Duqu stole a few things from Stuxnet" I can't gainsay that.
They also were using Return Oriented Programming, which is what all the cool kids are doing now. It's what all of the iPhone jailbreaks do too. I could argue from the very same argument that "oh no, it wasn't the Stuxnet people, it was the iPhone jailbreak people instead because it's the same programming techniques." And very likely they may have stolen some pointers from them as well. But if you look at what it is, what we know about it and where it's going, I believe that McAfee and other people are jumping to conclusions.
It could turn out that they are right in the end, but that was a bit premature in an analysis and I think it was more to get press [coverage].