It's seemingly safe to believe that there is a very high probability that the US and Israel are behind Stuxnet.
According to Wikipedia, if this is true than 2010 had the first occurrence of cyber-warfare between nation states in our history.
According to Wikipedia, if this is true than 2010 had the first occurrence of cyber-warfare between nation states in our history.
It goes back farther than you'd think. The first incident that I've heard about was in 1982. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage for details.
Estonia reported in 2007 - "Russia accused of unleashing cyberwar to disable Estonia" Ian Traynor, Guardian, 17 May 2007 ~ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/17/topstories3.russ...
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/georgia-takes-a-bea...
I guess, if you're willing to take the word of unidentified people who may or may not even exist. Though you did include a lot of weasel words in that sentence...
By "weasel words" you mean OP (and NYT) don't state as facts things which are, while very likely, not confirmed to be facts?
Which I didn't say because there isn't direct proof.
But there is still a very high probability given the only target was a very specific and obscure industrial hardware component, the unusual complexity of the virus (with its rare use of multiple zero-day vulnerabilities at once) and the fact that it couldn't be tested without access to equipment that is only accessible to governments and major corporations.
The people identified in the article don't know anything. The people who are the basis for the allegation are unidentified.
>By "weasel words" you mean OP (and NYT) don't state as facts things which are, while very likely, not confirmed to be facts?
No, I mean the sentence is written in such a way that it can't be falsified. That's perfectly reasonable in this case, especially since the article doesn't include anything that would qualify as actual proof.