Skip to main content
Added more clarity to my question
Source Link

Caveat: I am a political science student and I have tried my level best to understand the technicalities; if I still sound naive please overlook that.

In the Symantec report on Stuxnet, the authors say that once the worm infects the 32-bit Windows computer which has a WINCC setup on it, Stuxnet does many things and that it specifically hooks the function CreateFileA(). This function is the route which the worm uses to actually infect the .s7p project files that are used to program the PLCs. ie when the PLC programmer opens a file with .s7p the control transfers to the hooked function CreateFileA_hook() instead of CreateFileA(). Once Stuxnet gains the control it covertly inserts code blocks into the PLC without the programmers knowledge and hides it from his view.

However, it should be noted that there is also one more function called CreateFileW() which does the same task as CreateFileA() but both work on different character sets. CreateFileA works with ASCII character set and CreateFileW works with wide characters or Unicode character set. Farsi (the language of the Iranians) is a language that needs unicode character set and not ASCII Characters. I'm assuming that the developers of any famous commercial software (for ex. WinCC) that will be sold in many countries will take 'Localization' and/or 'Internationalization' into consideration while it is being developed in order to make the product fail-safe ie. the software developers would use UNICODE while compiling their code and not just 'ASCII'. Thus, I think that CreateFileW() would have been invoked on a WINCC system in Iran instead of CreateFileA(). Do you agree?

My question is: If Stuxnet has hooked only the function CreateFileA() then based on the above assumption there is a significant chance that it did not work at all? I think my doubt will get clarified if: my assumption is proved wrong, or the Symantec report is proved incorrect. Please help me clarify this doubt.

Edit: For more clarity of my question and what I'm looking for.

Is it possible that the WinCC STL Editor be programmed in the following way?

//Pseudocode Begins
if (locale == ASCII Dependent) //like US, UK, Australia etc.
{
     CreateFileA(); //with appropriate parameters
}
else if (locale == UNICODE Dependent) //like Middle East, China, Japan etc
{
     CreateFileW(); //with appropriate parameters
} //Pseudocode ends

If it is possible then does it follows that Stuxnet would work appropriately in the US but not in China or Japan or Iran?

Caveat: I am a political science student and I have tried my level best to understand the technicalities; if I still sound naive please overlook that.

In the Symantec report on Stuxnet, the authors say that once the worm infects the 32-bit Windows computer which has a WINCC setup on it, Stuxnet does many things and that it specifically hooks the function CreateFileA(). This function is the route which the worm uses to actually infect the .s7p project files that are used to program the PLCs. ie when the PLC programmer opens a file with .s7p the control transfers to the hooked function CreateFileA_hook() instead of CreateFileA(). Once Stuxnet gains the control it covertly inserts code blocks into the PLC without the programmers knowledge and hides it from his view.

However, it should be noted that there is also one more function called CreateFileW() which does the same task as CreateFileA() but both work on different character sets. CreateFileA works with ASCII character set and CreateFileW works with wide characters or Unicode character set. Farsi (the language of the Iranians) is a language that needs unicode character set and not ASCII Characters. I'm assuming that the developers of any famous commercial software (for ex. WinCC) that will be sold in many countries will take 'Localization' and/or 'Internationalization' into consideration while it is being developed in order to make the product fail-safe ie. the software developers would use UNICODE while compiling their code and not just 'ASCII'. Thus, I think that CreateFileW() would have been invoked on a WINCC system in Iran instead of CreateFileA(). Do you agree?

My question is: If Stuxnet has hooked only the function CreateFileA() then based on the above assumption there is a significant chance that it did not work at all? I think my doubt will get clarified if: my assumption is proved wrong, or the Symantec report is proved incorrect. Please help me clarify this doubt.

Caveat: I am a political science student and I have tried my level best to understand the technicalities; if I still sound naive please overlook that.

In the Symantec report on Stuxnet, the authors say that once the worm infects the 32-bit Windows computer which has a WINCC setup on it, Stuxnet does many things and that it specifically hooks the function CreateFileA(). This function is the route which the worm uses to actually infect the .s7p project files that are used to program the PLCs. ie when the PLC programmer opens a file with .s7p the control transfers to the hooked function CreateFileA_hook() instead of CreateFileA(). Once Stuxnet gains the control it covertly inserts code blocks into the PLC without the programmers knowledge and hides it from his view.

However, it should be noted that there is also one more function called CreateFileW() which does the same task as CreateFileA() but both work on different character sets. CreateFileA works with ASCII character set and CreateFileW works with wide characters or Unicode character set. Farsi (the language of the Iranians) is a language that needs unicode character set and not ASCII Characters. I'm assuming that the developers of any famous commercial software (for ex. WinCC) that will be sold in many countries will take 'Localization' and/or 'Internationalization' into consideration while it is being developed in order to make the product fail-safe ie. the software developers would use UNICODE while compiling their code and not just 'ASCII'. Thus, I think that CreateFileW() would have been invoked on a WINCC system in Iran instead of CreateFileA(). Do you agree?

My question is: If Stuxnet has hooked only the function CreateFileA() then based on the above assumption there is a significant chance that it did not work at all? I think my doubt will get clarified if: my assumption is proved wrong, or the Symantec report is proved incorrect. Please help me clarify this doubt.

Edit: For more clarity of my question and what I'm looking for.

Is it possible that the WinCC STL Editor be programmed in the following way?

//Pseudocode Begins
if (locale == ASCII Dependent) //like US, UK, Australia etc.
{
     CreateFileA(); //with appropriate parameters
}
else if (locale == UNICODE Dependent) //like Middle East, China, Japan etc
{
     CreateFileW(); //with appropriate parameters
} //Pseudocode ends

If it is possible then does it follows that Stuxnet would work appropriately in the US but not in China or Japan or Iran?

removed a dead link
Source Link

Caveat: I am a political science student and I have tried my level best to understand the technicalities; if I still sound naive please overlook that.

In the Symantec report on Stuxnet, the authors say that once the worm infects the 32-bit Windows computer which has a WINCC setup on it, Stuxnet does many things and that it specifically hooks the function CreateFileA(). This function is the route which the worm uses to actually infect the .s7p project files that are used to program the PLCs. ie when the PLC programmer opens a file with .s7p the control transfers to the hooked function CreateFileA_hook() instead of CreateFileA(). Once Stuxnet gains the control it covertly inserts code blocks into the PLC without the programmers knowledge and hides it from his view.

However, it should be noted that there is also one more function called CreateFileW() which does the same task as CreateFileA() but both work on different character sets. CreateFileA works with ASCII character set and CreateFileW works with wide characters or Unicode character set. Farsi (the language of the Iranians) is a language that needs unicode character set and not ASCII Characters. I'm assuming that the developers of any famous commercial software (for ex. WinCC) that will be sold in many countries will take 'Localization' and/or 'Internationalization' into consideration while it is being developed in order to make the product fail-safe ie. the software developers would use UNICODE while compiling their code and not just 'ASCII'. Thus, I think that CreateFileW() would have been invoked on a WINCC system in Iran instead of CreateFileA(). Do you agree?

My question is: If Stuxnet has hooked only the function CreateFileA() then based on the above assumption there is a significant chance that it did not work at all? I think my doubt will get clarified if: my assumption is proved wrong, or the Symantec report is proved incorrect. Please help me clarify this doubt.

Note: I had posted this question on the general stackexchange website and did not get appropriate responses that I was looking for so I'm posting it here.

Caveat: I am a political science student and I have tried my level best to understand the technicalities; if I still sound naive please overlook that.

In the Symantec report on Stuxnet, the authors say that once the worm infects the 32-bit Windows computer which has a WINCC setup on it, Stuxnet does many things and that it specifically hooks the function CreateFileA(). This function is the route which the worm uses to actually infect the .s7p project files that are used to program the PLCs. ie when the PLC programmer opens a file with .s7p the control transfers to the hooked function CreateFileA_hook() instead of CreateFileA(). Once Stuxnet gains the control it covertly inserts code blocks into the PLC without the programmers knowledge and hides it from his view.

However, it should be noted that there is also one more function called CreateFileW() which does the same task as CreateFileA() but both work on different character sets. CreateFileA works with ASCII character set and CreateFileW works with wide characters or Unicode character set. Farsi (the language of the Iranians) is a language that needs unicode character set and not ASCII Characters. I'm assuming that the developers of any famous commercial software (for ex. WinCC) that will be sold in many countries will take 'Localization' and/or 'Internationalization' into consideration while it is being developed in order to make the product fail-safe ie. the software developers would use UNICODE while compiling their code and not just 'ASCII'. Thus, I think that CreateFileW() would have been invoked on a WINCC system in Iran instead of CreateFileA(). Do you agree?

My question is: If Stuxnet has hooked only the function CreateFileA() then based on the above assumption there is a significant chance that it did not work at all? I think my doubt will get clarified if: my assumption is proved wrong, or the Symantec report is proved incorrect. Please help me clarify this doubt.

Note: I had posted this question on the general stackexchange website and did not get appropriate responses that I was looking for so I'm posting it here.

Caveat: I am a political science student and I have tried my level best to understand the technicalities; if I still sound naive please overlook that.

In the Symantec report on Stuxnet, the authors say that once the worm infects the 32-bit Windows computer which has a WINCC setup on it, Stuxnet does many things and that it specifically hooks the function CreateFileA(). This function is the route which the worm uses to actually infect the .s7p project files that are used to program the PLCs. ie when the PLC programmer opens a file with .s7p the control transfers to the hooked function CreateFileA_hook() instead of CreateFileA(). Once Stuxnet gains the control it covertly inserts code blocks into the PLC without the programmers knowledge and hides it from his view.

However, it should be noted that there is also one more function called CreateFileW() which does the same task as CreateFileA() but both work on different character sets. CreateFileA works with ASCII character set and CreateFileW works with wide characters or Unicode character set. Farsi (the language of the Iranians) is a language that needs unicode character set and not ASCII Characters. I'm assuming that the developers of any famous commercial software (for ex. WinCC) that will be sold in many countries will take 'Localization' and/or 'Internationalization' into consideration while it is being developed in order to make the product fail-safe ie. the software developers would use UNICODE while compiling their code and not just 'ASCII'. Thus, I think that CreateFileW() would have been invoked on a WINCC system in Iran instead of CreateFileA(). Do you agree?

My question is: If Stuxnet has hooked only the function CreateFileA() then based on the above assumption there is a significant chance that it did not work at all? I think my doubt will get clarified if: my assumption is proved wrong, or the Symantec report is proved incorrect. Please help me clarify this doubt.

Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackProgrammer/status/191131815447248897
Source Link

Was API hooking done as needed for Stuxnet to work? I don't think so

Caveat: I am a political science student and I have tried my level best to understand the technicalities; if I still sound naive please overlook that.

In the Symantec report on Stuxnet, the authors say that once the worm infects the 32-bit Windows computer which has a WINCC setup on it, Stuxnet does many things and that it specifically hooks the function CreateFileA(). This function is the route which the worm uses to actually infect the .s7p project files that are used to program the PLCs. ie when the PLC programmer opens a file with .s7p the control transfers to the hooked function CreateFileA_hook() instead of CreateFileA(). Once Stuxnet gains the control it covertly inserts code blocks into the PLC without the programmers knowledge and hides it from his view.

However, it should be noted that there is also one more function called CreateFileW() which does the same task as CreateFileA() but both work on different character sets. CreateFileA works with ASCII character set and CreateFileW works with wide characters or Unicode character set. Farsi (the language of the Iranians) is a language that needs unicode character set and not ASCII Characters. I'm assuming that the developers of any famous commercial software (for ex. WinCC) that will be sold in many countries will take 'Localization' and/or 'Internationalization' into consideration while it is being developed in order to make the product fail-safe ie. the software developers would use UNICODE while compiling their code and not just 'ASCII'. Thus, I think that CreateFileW() would have been invoked on a WINCC system in Iran instead of CreateFileA(). Do you agree?

My question is: If Stuxnet has hooked only the function CreateFileA() then based on the above assumption there is a significant chance that it did not work at all? I think my doubt will get clarified if: my assumption is proved wrong, or the Symantec report is proved incorrect. Please help me clarify this doubt.

Note: I had posted this question on the general stackexchange website and did not get appropriate responses that I was looking for so I'm posting it here.