Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security United States IT

Stuxnet Infected (But Didn't Affect) Chevron Network In 2010 82

Posted by Soulskill
from the collateral-damage dept.
Penurious Penguin writes "The Wall Street Journal, in correspondence with Chevron representatives, reveals that back in 2010, Stuxnet reached Chevron, where it managed to infect — but not significantly affect — the oil giant's network. According to a Chevron representative speaking to CNET, the issue was 'immediately addressed ... without incident.' The Stuxnet worm is believed to be the work of the U.S. and Israel, and this report is confirmation that it struck well wide of its intended targets. Chevron's general manager of the earth sciences department, Mark Koelmel, said to CIO Journal, 'I don't think the U.S. government even realized how far it had spread ... I think the downside of what they did is going to be far worse than what they actually accomplished.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Stuxnet Infected (But Didn't Affect) Chevron Network In 2010

Comments Filter:
  • I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Frosty Piss (770223) * on Saturday November 10, 2012 @04:39PM (#41944933)

    Unless Chevron is running centrifuges in Iran, Stuxnet probably wouldnâ(TM)t have been much of an issue as the Stuxnet code was pretty specific. But of course the real issue for Chevron it *how* they allowed Stuxnet to infect at all? What was the vector, and why was it either Interwebs connected or techs were using infected thumb drives?

  • Give me a break (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 10, 2012 @04:46PM (#41944973)

    You have a choice between real people dying or computers catching a virus. Personally, I prefer the latter. The more effective we are in slowing down Iran's nuclear program, the more time we have before we need to resort to military action. I think everyone can agree harsh sanctions and computer viruses are preferable to all-out war. That is, so long as they work. Those who criticizes legitimate sanctions and the passive actions like computer viruses doesn't understand that their actions are just leading to all-out war.

  • Re:Good Grief. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 10, 2012 @05:14PM (#41945165)

    I think the downside of what they did is going to be far worse than what they actually accomplished.

    So you think nuclear proliferation is acceptable and that Iran will manage being a Nuke Bomb owner in a sensible way? Really?

    A "bomb" in the hands or the Iranians is truly a terrifying thing.

    And hundreds of bombs in the hands of crazy terrorist harboring and financing muslim government no eh ? See Pakistan.
    And although India is not a muslim country, they are about as trigger happy as the Pakistanis insofar as nuclear weapons are concerned.
    Israel, has hundreds of nuclear warheads, the majority of which are being carried on modern AIP submarines bought from Germany.
    And what about NK, a crazy country that fires real artillry shells on South Korea and even sinks SK ships ?

    The least of our worries is Iran.

    But I guess, same as Iraq, when you can't kind a rational casus belli just invent one. Now where are those WMD in Iraq ?

  • Re:Give me a break (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 10, 2012 @05:23PM (#41945219)

    You have a choice between real people dying or computers catching a virus. Personally, I prefer the latter. The more effective we are in slowing down Israel's nuclear program, the more time we have before we need to resort to military action. I think everyone can agree harsh sanctions and computer viruses are preferable to all-out war. That is, so long as they work. Those who criticizes legitimate sanctions and the passive actions like computer viruses doesn't understand that their actions are just leading to all-out war.

    FTFY.

    Also, you could change that to "The more effective we are in slowing down the USA's nuclear program, the more time we have before we need to resort to military action", but I think you get the point. Or I hope you do.

  • Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by CodeheadUK (2717911) on Saturday November 10, 2012 @05:25PM (#41945235) Homepage
    I'm also slightly confused as to how it didn't get reported to the AV vendors at that point. Signatures could have been in circulation for some time, preventing the embarrassing situation that occurred when the thing turned up two years later and everyone had their trousers down.

Live within your income, even if you have to borrow to do so. -- Josh Billings

Working...