Timeline for Was API hooking done as needed for Stuxnet to work? I don't think so
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 15, 2012 at 15:03 | vote | accept | The Kaykay | ||
| Apr 15, 2012 at 1:40 | history | edited | The Kaykay | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added more clarity to my question
|
| Apr 15, 2012 at 0:51 | comment | added | The Kaykay | @Caleb People say Stuxnet worked on the basis of 'correlation'. The timeline of the dip in the no. of centrifuges was correlated with Stuxnet's timeline. No one has ever proved/disproved the 'causality'. It is difficult to establish causality between Stuxnet and the dip in the no. of centrifuges based only on open-source data. I'm just questioning everything to either prove or disprove causality. | |
| Apr 15, 2012 at 0:32 | comment | added | Caleb | there is a significant chance that it did not work at all? I think there's ample evidence that it did in fact work. For one thing, if it hadn't worked, it's unlikely that anybody would have ever noticed it. Or are you suggesting that Symantec's analysis is wrong and there was some other mechanism involved? | |
| Apr 14, 2012 at 23:41 | history | edited | The Kaykay | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
removed a dead link
|
| Apr 14, 2012 at 13:17 | answer | added | nikie | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 14, 2012 at 12:24 | answer | added | Dean Harding | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 14, 2012 at 11:52 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackProgrammer/status/191131815447248897 | ||
| Apr 14, 2012 at 10:32 | answer | added | DeadMG | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 14, 2012 at 10:16 | history | asked | The Kaykay | CC BY-SA 3.0 |