>Parker wrote a tool that analyzed similarities between the Stuxnet code and the code of some other well-known worms and applications and found that the code was fairly low quality.

well isn't that hand-wavy.

>For example, the command-and-control mechanism is poorly done and sends its traffic in the clear and the worm ended up propagating on the Internet, which was likely not the intent.

this is part speculative and part, in my subjective mind, stupid. propagating on the Internet seems a highly reasonable method to me. what do you expect it to use, facebook? maybe the constraint is that it has to express itself on the internet and therefore 'in the clear?'

>"This was probably not a western state. There were too many mistakes made. There's a lot that went wrong,"

Is that really so western-centric? this guy is seriously just reaching for criticism in order to grab headlines.

>Lawson concludes that whoever wrote Stuxnet likely was constrained by time and didn't think there was enough of a return to justify the investment of more time in advanced cloaking techniques.

That's at least reasonable, because in all honesty maybe there wasn't enough of a return. Lawson seems a better analyst than this Parker fellow.