Iran Admits Stuxnet Affected Their Nuclear Program 211
plover writes "According to this article in the Guardian, 'Ahmadinejad admitted the [Stuxnet] worm had affected Iran's uranium enrichment. "They succeeded in creating problems for a limited number of our centrifuges with the software they had installed in electronic parts," the president said. "They did a bad thing. Fortunately our experts discovered that, and today they are not able [to do that] anymore."'"
Is Stuxnet a first? (Score:2)
I heard about this earlier today and started wondering if Stuxnet is perhaps the first virus of its kind -- is this this the first time a successful virus has been created to attack a specific target?
And since it worked, will we see similar viruses in the future?
Re:Is Stuxnet a first? (Score:5, Informative)
1. No, it's not the first. The 2010 Verizon Data Breach Report [verizonbusiness.com] shows that 54% of successful attacks using malware used customized or custom-written malware, and that 97% of the data records stolen were done so with the use of custom malware.
2. Yes, we're going to see a lot of it. It's already begun [langner.com], according the the engineer who dissected the industrial control code that stuxnet injected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or...what other motor speeds could be targeted, and what would the results be ?
Could this be the plausible deniability of fault that Toyota have been searching for?
They did a bad thing. (Score:2)
"They succeeded in creating problems for a limited number of our centrifuges with the software they had installed in electronic parts. They did a bad thing. Fortunately our experts discovered that, and today they are not able to do that anymore."
Is this an artifact of translation, or a side effect of trying to say as little as possible about classified research while still forming complete sentences?
"We cannot put the broken part in the machine. It would not smash the right tiny things together. Then the ma
Re:They did a bad thing. (Score:5, Interesting)
I was very surprised that he admitted it, at first. A rational leader would never confirm an attack like this that couldn't externally be proven.
But then I remembered this guy is from a different world, and isn't talking to us. He's a kleptocrat who stays in power by painting the image of a religious strongman, and talks to his ignorant power-base making it sound like his scientists gloriously smashed the meaningless virus as they would a Western fly.
So I don't know if this child-like line is a simplification made by the translator (who might have difficulty with technical language) or if this is how he normally talks to his people?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you hoping for a US-led invasion of Iran? The most a nuclear-equipped Iran means to the world is that the US won't invade, which is quite a good thing for minimizing violence over there.
Re: (Score:2)
today they are not able to do that anymore
Oh well, moving on to Plan B [guardian.co.uk]
A Bad Thing (Score:5, Funny)
Baby did a bad bad thing, baby did a bad bad thing.
Baby did a bad bad thing, baby did a bad bad thing.
You ever want a nuke so much you thought your little centrifuge was gonna break in two?
I didn't think so.
You ever tried with all your heart and soul to get your uranium back to you?
I wanna hope so.
You ever pray with all your heart and soul just to watch it spin away?
Baby did a bad bad thing, baby did a bad bad thing.
Baby did a bad bad thing, feel like crying, feel like crying.
You ever toss and turn your lying awake and thinking about the yellow cake you love?
I don't think so.
You ever close your eyes your making believe your holding the nuke your dreaming of?
Well if you say so.
I hurts so bad when you finally know just how low, low, low, low, low, Israel'll go.
Baby did a bad bad thing, baby did a bad bad thing.
Baby did a bad bad thing, feel like crying, feel like crying.
Ohh. Feel like crying, feel like crying.
Ohh, feel like crying, feel like crying.
Baby did a bad bad thing, baby did a bad bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
One thing has changed (Score:5, Insightful)
From an analysis of the Stuxnet worm, it turns out to target a frequency converter made by a Iranian company that the Iranians kept secret from the IAEA. That's the agency which is supposed to be inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities and which should have been informed of this technology.
Finally, we have assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. If you think putting a worm into a uranium enrichment plant is diplomatically upsetting how about killing people? Also, there's a lot more players who can kill people than who can write sophisticated worms that only target particular systems.
I think this is going beyond diplomacy. A lot of governments agree that Iran is working on a nuclear bomb. The clever finesse moves, such as fancy computer worms, are probably exhausted. Trade blockades probably won't work (especially with China having special deals with Iran). But what will still work is destruction of the facilities and killing of the staff who work there. To be blunt, I favor this approach.
My view however is that Obama won't do it. That means then that we'll have a nuclear Iran, then nuclear Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Even if you don't give a hoot about the Middle East, it'll worry Europe and Turkey. I see expansion of nuclear forces in the EU as a distinct possibility. Turkey is one of many tricky spots. Russia will freak out if Turkey gets nukes. But how will Turkey defend itself, if a major war with a nuclear armed Iran occurs?
This is the thing that people don't get about proliferation of nuclear weapons. The fewer countries that have nuclear weapons, the easier they are to control. Conversely, once a dangerous country like Iran gets them, then all of their neighbors are going to want them as well for self-defense. Israel has been nuclear armed for perhaps forty years, but the Middle East is worried about Iran.
Turkey is a NATO member (Score:2)
You forget that Turkey is a NATO member and falls under the US/UK/France nuclear umbrella. Turkey doesn't need nukes. Supposedly the US had missles based in Turkey (aimed at the USSR) that were removed as part of a secret deal ending the Cuban Missile Crisis. But the nuclear umbrella stays as part of NATO.
-molo
Re:Turkey is a NATO member (Score:4, Interesting)
So from Obama's POV, he had time to deal with Iran, while nearly everything else MUST BE DEALT WITH NOW.
OTH, Israel is working on how to stop Iran (consider today's actions), while developing a new MOAB and building missions for how and when to deliver it. You can bet that all of the middle east has given permission to Israel to flyover (including supplying fuel) to deliver these. My guess is that we will see this fireworks in about 1 year. A very real problem is that Iran is working on Chemical and biological bombs as well. Biological may be far far worse then a nuke, depending on what they use. I could see them inoculating their citizens and then hitting Israel and counting on it taking out the population EAST of them (iow, through the sunnis).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What is even more inter
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you seriously believe Iran cares about Slashdot?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Iran DOES care. They want politicians in democracy to drop our guards and forget about them. In fact, the leaders in Iran NEED that.
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite absurd for you to call Iran dangerous; they haven't been at war for years...
If you're so smart, how come the majority of the Arab leaders in the Middle East vehemently disagree with you?
Re:One thing has changed (Score:5, Insightful)
It's quite absurd for you to call Iran dangerous; they haven't been at war for years.
Neither has North Korea, but I hope you'd agree that North Korea is extremely dangerous.
Yes, Iran hasn't been at war (overtly) since they were at war with Iraq. Likely the only reason there wasn't an encore performance is because Saddam went to great lengths to make the world believe that he still had WMDs even though he didn't. But Iran has been relentless in its funding of terrorist organizations throughout the region.
The danger inside Iraq and Afghanistan is completely internal. Neither country has the armed forces required to threaten their neighbors. In fact, Iran is a threat to both of these countries because of their funding of terrorists in both places.
Iran's worries about US invasion are not borne out by their actions. If they really wanted to guarantee their safety, they would abandon their WMD programs, allow full international inspections, and stop sponsoring terrorism abroad. Libya did this and was rewarded by the US despite its human rights problems, and it's reasonable to assume that the US would be willing to overlook quite a lot from Iran while still welcoming them back into the international community.
Instead, Iran is working on nuclear weapons, and it's quite likely that once they amass a sufficient stockpile, they will use that as leverage against the Arab nations, which is why the Arab nations are panicked by the thought. Iran's ties to Hamas and Hezbollah makes it reasonable to think that they would supply WMDs to one of those terrorist groups for use against Israel. The only way to prevent destabilization of the entire region and/or the deaths of possibly millions of people is to prevent Iran from creating a WMD arsenal, even if that requires military action.
Most of what you say is correct. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite absurd for you to call Iran dangerous
Why? It's obvious that Iran is dangerous and that a nuclear armed Iran will cause a nuclear escalation in the Middle East. Past that, they're not a democracy. They completely threw the last election they had. I would much rather that they don't have a safeguard against US aggression. They haven't earned the right as I see it.
Re:One thing has changed (Score:5, Insightful)
I have mixed feelings about this.
I honestly believe that a safeguard against preemptive aggression is a fundamental right that every sovereign nation should have. It's why any country has a standing military. The fact that Iran should even feel threatened by the US justifies this safeguard, not the other way around. Just like how America did not need permission to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, and actually used a couple when it felt necessary to win WWII, proves this. Do you honestly believe that any amount of UN treaties or protocols would actually prevent the United States from ever using a nuclear weapon if it ever felt the need to in the future? U.N. treaties certainly did not stop France from allegedly helping Israel develop their nuclear program.
America's invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was a giant kick in Iran's butt. With US troops operating within two bordering countries, Iran felt it was necessary to hasten their nuclear ambitions. Why did the U.S. invade two nations that had virtually no real military, but continues to avoid North Korea, who even shelled South Korea? The biggest response that could be mustered by South Korea and the US were war games? Seriously? That's precisely why Iran feels the need to develop their nuclear program. Also, the fact that Iranian scientists are getting assassinated (a very disgusting, cowardly move) shows that this safeguard is necessary. I consider assassinating scientists and civilians as terrorism. I would be equally appalled if contractors for Northrop Grumman or Lockheed Martin were to be killed using that same logic.
I do agree with you though that Iran is not a democracy. Every election that they've had has been a sham. The last leader that they democratically elected was over 50 years ago, and he was overthrown and replaced with a dictator. Their government kills and maims more of their own citizens in political prisons than you could ever imagine. While I wholeheartedly agree that the world would be a better place if the current Iranian government was not in power, I do not agree with assassinating scientists, especially since many of them have no choice but to either work on government-sponsored projects or to try to defect, but risk getting their families that they leave behind killed if they manage to escape. Some of the scientists actually support opposition movements, and are stuck in a really bad situation.
I hope that you can understand my position. I dislike the government of Iran since it's my relatives over there that are always at risk of getting killed if they speak out, but am also disgusted by US aggression and double-standards, which I also see as a threat to my relatives over there. It was bad enough wondering if each missile lobbed by Iraq in the 1980s would actually hit one of my relatives' residence. Now I have to worry the same about an Israeli strike or a U.S. invasion.
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly believe that a safeguard against preemptive aggression is a fundamental right that every sovereign nation should have
How has Iran earned the rights of a sovereign nation? This is, I think a fundamental issue behind this whole debate, not just of what to do about Iran and its nuclear ambitions, but also countries like the US. My view is that legitimacy only comes from consent of the governed. The Iranian government deliberately rejected the will of their people in the last election. Consent was not granted.
While I wholeheartedly agree that the world would be a better place if the current Iranian government was not in power, I do not agree with assassinating scientists
Even when those scientists threaten the lives of millions of people in the Middle East? They aren't furthering human k
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's quite absurd for you to call Iran dangerous; they haven't been at war for years.
You're joking right?
Longstanding Support for Terrorism [washingtoninstitute.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
* Turkey is one of five European nations that continue to house U.S. tactical nuclear weapons allocated for NATO.
* The weapons, however, are no longer integral to the NATO military mission. In fact, their readiness posture is such that it would take months to prepare them for battle.
* Nonetheless, it will be difficult to remove them from Turkey given Ankara's concerns about the Iranian nuclear program and its somewhat strained relationship with the United States.
And they'd be hard to remove from Turkey precisely because of Iran's nuclear weapons program.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We're crying in the rain we can't push the jews into the sea, or burn them. More than likely. After all it's the defacto policy of hizbullah and hamas to kill them, with no peace ever.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do well-informed people make up bullshit statistics?
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrisraelsum.html [johnstonsarchive.net]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, ok. I'll bite. Where are these Amnesty International and Red Cross statistics that say there have been no Israeli civilian deaths due to Palestinian terrorism in the last 20 years? And am I allowed to hand-wave them away, too, if you actually supply a link?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not a huge supporter of Israel at all, but I sure understand why they do what they do. It's like you fighting with someone, if he:
1) Doesn't promise to not kill you.
2) He keeps hitting you and trying to kill you whenever you let him go (even if he promises not to).
It's pretty understandable if you put a choke-hold on him and not let go. Also no surprise they stop getting hit as much as long as they have that chokehold.
Not pleasant to watch, but from what I see many of the Palestinians and their supporte
Re: (Score:2)
Always soldiers, huh? Let me guess, you're one of those assholes who defines a 6 year old Israeli kid as a solider, because, had he survived, he would have been a soldier in the future.
Just come out with it: you hate Jews, and you wish Hitler had finished the job. That's all you really need to say. All this beating around the bush just muddles the issue. Stick up for your beliefs!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So that's a "yes" on the definitions, then? Good to know I was right. Cheers!
Re: (Score:2)
Always soldiers, huh? Let me guess, you're one of those assholes who defines a 6 year old Israeli kid as a solider, because, had he survived, he would have been a soldier in the future.
Just come out with it: you hate Jews, and you wish Hitler had finished the job. That's all you really need to say. All this beating around the bush just muddles the issue. Stick up for your beliefs!
And this emotional outburst is why we can never have rational discussion about world politics. Anyone who disagrees with your position is automatically cast aside as an anti-Semite.
Because I do agree with you that those statistics that the parent presented are heavily biased, and that there are a lot of Israeli civilians who have been killed and this fact should be acknowledged. A simple Google search would bring up bus and night club bombings that clearly shows that civilians on the Israeli side have been
Re: (Score:2)
"I disagree" != "troll"
and a hitler reference != godwin
but I suppose rewriting language is a small step when you're willing to rewrite the facts in order to ignore the mass-murder of women and children.
Re: (Score:2)
So, why don't you respond to AC's? Not everyone who has something to contribute feels the need to make an account.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We're crying in the rain we can't push the jews into the sea, or burn them. More than likely. After all it's the defacto policy of hizbullah and hamas to kill them, with no peace ever.
Ah a well informed person. Do you know the death-rates between the parties in the last 20 years? Every year it is something like: Palestina: 700+ more than 200+ children, more than 200+ woman. Israel: 0-15. Always soldiers. But good to know you are informed!
It's true that the Israelis kill an awful lot of Palestinian civilians and that the situation in Gaza and the occupied territories is something Israel should be ashamed of. But claiming that Hamas, the al-Aqsa brigades et al. only kill soldiers is a blatant falsehood. Every time one of those bozos blows him self up on a bus it's not soldiers that get killed. On the other hand, every time the Israelis decide to 'defend them selves', drop a lavish amount of ordinance on the Gaza strip or Lebanon, send in the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is common misconception, the zionists (as opposed to jews) declared Isreal an independent state the day before the British partition plan came into effect. That declaration triggered the Arab-Isreali war. It was not until after Isreal had won the war (more than a year later) that the UN general assembly reluctantl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand your empathy towards the Palestinians who are indeed suffering, but you are foolish to only blame Israel for that. There is plenty of land there for both Jews and Palestinians and with some land exchanges and a lot of money from US, Saudis, Europe, Israel etc, Palestinian state could be very well off indeed but it is Arabs who refuse it. For them the conflict is not about the welfare of Palestinian people but about how to kick Jews out regardless of the cost. Palestinians are just pawns. And it
Re: (Score:2)
Ah a well informed person. Do you know the death-rates between the parties in the last 20 years? Every year it is something like: Palestina: 700+ more than 200+ children, more than 200+ woman. Israel: 0-15. Always soldiers.
Your argument is disingenuous. The Palestinians happily use women and children as "soldiers".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the child human shields that palestinians regularly use, all the time while firing weapons around/near/in hospitals/schools/etc. While booby trapping the same said buildings? Oh...right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dicisne linguam Latinam? Vi znaetye Russkuyu yaziku?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you were informed, you wouldn't be using BS spoken out of your ass. I'm sure that 2yr olds, and unborn kids count as 'soldiers' too.
I'm sure the conspiracy theories will start next.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you must be one of those folks who eat up the pallywood too. Next you'll be saying that the same corpse seen 4 times, with the same person in it, in different areas are all unique individuals. Hey maybe you can get hizbullah and hamas to stop behind civilians while we're at it. You know those things that the conventions of war list as 'illegal'.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how they think about that statement in Palestina and Gaza.
Given that they live 40 miles from the most likely target, and who knows how much closer to secondary targets, many might not be thinking the way you would assume.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how they think about that statement in Palestina and Gaza.
If they're sane they concur. If you live in Palestine or Gaza you probably don't want Iran using nukes in Israel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe a little easier. Not much. Israel and Pakistan already have nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Proof that Pakistan has nukes, or proof that Israel does?
Pakistan has acknowledged nukes, and has performed tests with them.
Israel has never clarified one way or the other as to whether they have native nuclear technology and weapons, but international political relations more or less operate on the assumption that they do, and given Israel's treatment of a nuclear scientist who leaked a story, was jailed for it, and was looking to get out of the country following his release, it's pretty sure that if they
Re: (Score:2)
I don't doubt they can weaponize rapidly. But so could quite a few other countries. I have no doubt that Germany, Spain, Canada, Greece, Brazil, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Poland, Australia, Portugal, Italy, Japan, South Africa, and South Korea could make one quite quickly (within a year) given a dire need, which makes the argument somewhat of a moot point.
But to claim they actually possess nuclear weapons is fairly well baseless
Re:Iran's plan (Score:5, Informative)
Their PM accidentally admitted [guardian.co.uk], back in 2006, that they did have nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As Wikileaks has proven, letting Iran go nuclear is the nightmare of the Middle East. The Jews and Palestinians are a
Re: (Score:2)
Havent heard of Mordecai Vannu then eh?
Only a fool would not believe Israel has 200 nuclear weapons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We can trust Israel? Yeah....trust them to wage further genocide against the Palestinians.....
Sure they are all terrorists. What else would you expect from a wounded caged animal being backed into a corner with a stick?
Re: (Score:2)
It is called a figure of speech. But having read through your other posts, I think you are just a troll.
Re: (Score:2)
It is called a figure of speech
As a figure of speech, it's a complete failure. I would expect an animal to act one way. I would expect a human being to act in a completely different manner.
But having read through your other posts, I think you are just a troll.
Yeah, these "figures of speech" of yours just aren't working at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And WTF is wrong with you? I suggest you take a class in reading and comprehension, then you will realize that I was using a figure of speech. A caged animal is a common metaphor for someone that is living under tyranny or enslavement. And yes, as per your other comment, the animal side of humans comes out very quickly when they cannot even fulfill basic needs like food and shelter. People can become quite savage in the right conditions. Now go back to your cave troll.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, as per your other comment, the animal side of humans comes out very quickly when they cannot even fulfill basic needs like food and shelter.
Sure. And you might have a point, if we were talking about the homeless population of any major city, even though the data would seem to disagree with you. But what's that got to do with Palestine? Do you honestly think that Palestinians don't have food and shelter, or are you just intentionally being an idiot?
Re: (Score:2)
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_61719.shtml [axisoflogic.com]
As for their shelter....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3689104.stm [bbc.co.uk]
BBC mainstream enough for you?
http://www.countercurrents.org/pappe280108.htm [countercurrents.org]
Re: (Score:2)
So you've shown that they have both food and shelter. Were you planning on backing up YOUR claims, or have you decided to switch sides?
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to do a double post, but I figured I'd explain why I blew you off with a quick (though accurate) response. As soon as you start claiming that Israel is committing genocide, you lose all credibility. The population growth rate of Palestine is 2.2%. The population growth rate of Israel is 1.8%. Furthermore, the growth rate for Israeli Arabs is 2.6%, while the population growth rate for Israeli Jews is 1.7%. Therefore the are two possible conclusions here: either the Israelis are the most incompet
Re: (Score:2)
Not genocide, the correct term is ethnic cleansing.
On one occasion at the formation of Israel, 8000 arabs were ethnically cleansed fron their homes. When the UN rep attempted to
have them returned he was assasinated by Israel, a country founded on the actions of terrorists.
What Irael sowed they now reap,
Re: (Score:2)
Gee. I can't see why the palestianians (and the surrounding arab/islamic community) would be pissed. I mean the UN decided to give the Jews over half of Palestine and then in 1967 they went and occupied the rest of it after the 6 day war. Everything they do has been backed by the UN and the US. They have gone from being the oppressed to becoming the oppressors themselves. Why don't you grow a pair yourself and look at all the geneva convention violations they have committed over the years. Let's face it, Is
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
1. create virus
2. infect own computers and blame other countries for it
3. ??
4. profit
If you honestly think the Yanks pulled this off, you're an Idiot.
People in glass houses should not throw rocks. Israel already took credit for the virus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Israel survives by being the Mouse that Roars.
It roars because it has a huge lion behind it.
Lion leaves, mouse is gone.
Re: (Score:2)
Mouses do not kill by thousands
Never hear of the black plague..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that the targeting abilities of the wore were wildly exaggerated. The worm reports back to servers, hmm air gap, that makes no sense. It seems there was a lot of obfuscating built into the worm, specifically to hide how it gain entry past an air gap, and how any new program was accepted on appliance based machines.
That'll teach em to run windows on what are meant to be secure systems. The advantage for Linux is you can strip it down to only what is required to run and secure that appliance and n
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that the targeting abilities of the wore were wildly exaggerated. The worm reports back to servers, hmm air gap, that makes no sense. It seems there was a lot of obfuscating built into the worm, specifically to hide how it gain entry past an air gap, and how any new program was accepted on appliance based machines.
I would bet the worm 'bought' it's way in and the external stuff was typical 'COINTELPRO' misinformation.
You're making a lot of assumptions that are simply incorrect.
You really should read the analysis [symantec.com] of the worm's function as written up by Symantec's researchers. They published exactly how it bridges the air gap -- a bug in how Windows processes the AUTORUN.INF file permits infecting a machine as soon as removable media is inserted, and does not rely on AUTORUN itself to be turned on. The rest of the infected machines serve as the conduit for delivering updated virus payloads and instructions to the machin
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, the people who went to all the trouble to create that worm would never rely on chance ie. that had to make sure that it got where they wanted it to get and the only way is for a direct insertion (after what seems like millions invested, rely on chance, illogical). They would also try to camouflage that direct insertion as much as possible to protect it for future use, more likely Russian (a commercial decision) rather than Iranian (a matter of national security).
So will the real question is will Ira
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Or at least the end of Tel Aviv.
Re:Simple solution (Score:5, Informative)
Just disconnect any sensitive nuclear facility from the freaking Internet. Are they so stupid?
No, they're not stupid. Of course the nuclear plant's control network is isolated from other networks. You just don't understand how this worm works.
Using one of four different previously unknown (0-day) Windows exploits, it finds its way onto new machines. Two of the exploits are network attacks (one print spooler, one RPC.) One of the exploits strikes using a bug in how Windows reads the AUTORUN.INF file, and will install the virus whenever infected removable media is inserted, such as USB sticks or CD-ROM discs. Stuxnet is written to all removable media on an infected machine. AUTORUN can be disabled, but the bug is such that it doesn't matter -- simply inserting the infected media spreads the infection.
It's stealthy, and hides itself using Windows rootkit methodology. It looks for specific 32-bit Windows operating systems and which antivirus software packages are installed, and will either fail to install if the antivirus can't be worked around, or it uses different exploits to elevate privileges depending on the security environment of the machine.
It contacts a set of command and control servers (that were taken offline) to download updates to the virus. The virus-infected machines periodically check in to those servers to see if there's new payload or software, update themselves, then spread it around to the other infected machines.
Once it finds its way onto a machine running "Step 7", a programming environment for programming Siemens industrial control systems, it modifies the code that is compiled for the control system. It uses another kind of hiding technology that acts like a rootkit here, telling the engineer that the deployed code is OK.
The engineers do their work on an infected machine connected to the regular networks. They then have to transfer their newly compiled control program data onto the isolated control network. They typically do so using USB sticks or CD-ROMs, which then infect the machine that is transmitting the code to the industrial control network.
The modifications to the data sent to the control network are subtle. Stuxnet has two payloads. The first tries to figure out that it's in an environment that matches the target by comparing frequency controller IDs with those of specific Iranian-made controllers, looks for an array of more than 32 of them, and then watches to see if they run at high speeds for a couple weeks. If so, it'll switch to a damage cycle where it over-revs the centrifuge motors, then suddenly slows them, then suddenly speeds them up again. It repeats this hour-long cycle once every 27 days or so. Even if the over-revving doesn't damage the centrifuges, the sudden slowdowns and speed-ups mixes the uranium up again, rendering the purity of the uranium inexplicably unrefined.
The other payload appears to be intended to cause more damage. It's believed to be designed to attack the control systems at the Buhesher nuclear reactor, opening and closing steam valves in order to over-stress the turbine, with the intent of destroying the 150 foot long shaft and its enclosure. It also pretends to be the reactor's environmental sensors, and reports false data back to the controller; all of this faked data makes the turbine look like everything's operating normally, but in reality a hellstorm is going on inside the turbine enclosure.
It's quite a sophisticated worm.