Various av researchers are perplexeded by the organizational skills and the complexity behind the development of stuxnet worm after having analyzed this malware. Those behind it were on a mission to break in into as many corp. networks as they could and knew they weren’t found out. The developers worked as a team of people of various backgrounds to create this half megabyte miscreation made up of many languages, like C, C+ and various object-oriented languages. Iran was the main target of the worm, because 60% of infections found place there, and the attacks must have been part of a big, big project, there was even a counter on the infected pendrive used to infect. Stuxnet makes use of five exploits, four of them are zero-days, together with legit certifications from Realtek and JMicron. About the SCADA-site of the malware "In most SCADA-networks there is no logging and there is minimal protection used and the patchcycle is very slow. Therefore the use of MS08-067 was just right,vaccording to Kaspersky Lab’s Roel Schouwenberg, re: http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=1A47A9A1-1A64-6A71-CE9A3AA0B72636B7
You can try to ridicule everything that we post here, but this malcreation was not the work of a lone malcreant script kiddie or came from the racks of the average cybercriminal.Stuxnet (a name derived from some of the filename/strings in the malware - mrxcls.sys, mrxnet.sys). The names of malware also gives certain clues for where we have to look for the origins thereof ;D
On top of all this, we’ve identified yet another zero-day vulnerability in Stuxnet’s code, this time an Elevation of Privilege (EoP) vulnerability. The worm uses this to get complete control over the affected system. A second EoP vulnerability was identified by Microsoft personnel, and both vulnerabilities will be fixed in a security bulletin in the near future.
another re-written article…at least here you gave the link…but that didn’t prevent you from posting the content as if it was from you, again, without quoting anything as usual : >>>> the link here is no reference, it’s the original content, ripped off and reposted (and most likely mixed with another “found” article that you didn’t mention).