Links to two Stuxnet-related stories have been added to the resources page at /2011/01/23/stuxnet-information-and-resources-3/. Kim Zetter, in Wired's "Threat Level" column Report: Stuxnet Hit 5 Gateway Targets on Its Way to Iranian Plant, summarizes the latest update to Symantec's Threat Dossier. Symantec researchers now believe that Stuxnet targeted five organizations in Iran as staging posts

…the conclusion does support what does appear to be the official Iranian line that this was an attack against Iranian nuclear operations, but that it wasn’t successful…

Added to the Stuxnet (3) resources page at http://blog.eset.com/2011/01/23/stuxnet-information-and-resources-3.

…an article by William Gibson (yes, that William Gibson) draws a connection between Brain (a 25-year-old PC virus) and Stuxnet. 25 Years of Digital Vandalism. He doesn't seem to think much of Stuxnet, drawing a much-to-the-point riposte from Bob McMillan: http://twitter.com/#!/bobmcmillan/status/30533396702699520. Links added to Stuxnet Information and Resources (3). David Harley CITP FBCS CISSP ESET

This is the 3rd volume of an ongoing Stuxnet resources blog article, supplementing our paper “Stuxnet Under the Microscope”. Volume 1 is at http://blog.eset.com/?p=5731, and volume 2 is at http://blog.eset.com/?p=5913.

[Update 23rd January 2011: volume 3 of this resource has just kicked off at /2011/01/23/stuxnet-information-and-resources-3/: volume 1 is at /2011/01/03/stuxnet-information-and-resources/.] @imaguid microblogged today about his annoyance at "the analysts and journalists who breathlessly fawn over #stuxnet", and suggested that we call it even. I hope he won't think I'm fawning by maintaining resource lists in

Added to the Stuxnet resources article 19th January 2011…

Added to the Stuxnet resources page today … something of a second wave of commentary that’s a little more cautious about accepting the NYT’s conclusions.

While most of the recent media interest in Stuxnet has centred on the New York Times story, there’s been some thoughtful research published that considers it as just one aspect of larger issues: cyberwarfare, cyberespionage, cybersabotage and so on.

…The NYT article strikes me as being well-researched, well-written, and well worth reading, and the involvement of Dimona is more plausible than much of the speculation I’ve seen, but it’s still hard to distinguish hard fact from sheer guesswork…