• About Jakob Engblom and this blog
Observations from Uppsala Computer Simulation, Virtual Platforms, Embedded Programming, Multicore and More (by Jakob Engblom)

Worm Attacking Industrial Control Systems

2010 July 21 20:18 / 2 Comments / Jakob

There is a very interesting worm going around the world right now which is specifically targeting industrial control systems. According to Business Week, the worm is targeting a Siemens plant control system, probably with the intent to steal production secrets and maybe even information useful to create counterfeit products. This is the first instance I have seen of malware targeting the area of embedded systems. However, the actual systems targeted are not really embedded systems, but rather regular PCs running supervision and control software.

There are two important aspects to this worm, as I see it.

First, it only works due to the fact that the software in question is running on regular Windows PCs.  An attack on a real embedded OS like Wind River VxWorks or Enea OSE would be more interesting, and much scarier since that would mean a much more devoted enemy. In this case, the attackers are opportunistic, using the window of vulnerability of a new Windows flaw to attack Windows-based plant control systems. They also use signed Windows drivers, which is apparently a new development in malware. All quite interesting in its own right, and worth reading about for those interested in security.

Second, the malware spreads using physical movement of USB memory sticks rather than attacks over the Internet or other networks. This makes the very important point that even if systems are not connected to the Internet, they can still be attacked if something crosses the “air gap” that separates them from the outside world. In this case, a plant would be infected by using social engineering to make some employee carry an infected USB stick into the plant and putting it into some internal PC. Once the infection is inside the plant, it might spread over networks or by USB sticks moving around inside the presumably protected perimeter.

The lesson I think we can draw from this is that using general-purpose desktop operating systems for critical systems is a bad idea. Using a more obscure real-time OS (or even Linux) would probably reduce the number of vulnerabilities – but more importantly, it would make it much more difficult to make an infection hop from computer to computer until it reaches its target.

In this particular case, all Windows machines are potential bearers and spreaders of the infection. An attacker can rely on that fact to seed the Windows ecosystems at some place, hoping to get the infection hopping from machine to machine until it reaches something interesting. There is no real need to seed the infection directly into the target plant. If the target systems had been running a different OS, the attackers would have had to get really close to the target, making them easier to stop.

Overall, embedded systems security is something that we need to take much more seriously going forward. As we rely on embedded control systems to run much of the modern infrastructure and economy, we really need to be concerned about how to secure these systems. Security needs to be part of the architecture of embedded systems, including their operating systems (please make them as robust as possible), application designs, and networking systems. Unfortunately, current embedded technology tends to be designed to work, with little care for how they could be broken by an intentional attack. One scary example of this was provided in the SecurityNow podcast episode #251, where a listener shows how easy it could be to take remote control over a car due to carelessly designed fleet management units.

Updated information

I found some more in-depth information on the issue at Infoworld. It notes that the software that is attacked is vulnerable since all installations use the same password to login – changing it is likely to break it. That is totally ridiculous as a security solution, period.

Tweet
Posted in: embedded software, embedded systeme, security / Tagged: SCADA, Siemens, USB, Windows, worm

2 Thoughts on “Worm Attacking Industrial Control Systems”

  1. Jesper Pettersson on 2010 July 22 at 10:23 said:

    Somewhat related is the news that Dell managed to spread a worm infection in their server series motherboard firmware. Of course it only affects Windows users, but to me it’s quite astonishing how they can manage to get infected code into their firmware.

    http://en.community.dell.com/support-forums/servers/f/956/t/19339458.aspx

    And as a comment to your blog message, any security chain is as weak as its weakest link. Social engineering has been the method of choice for a long time. Several years ago people used prepped USB sticks to install root kits on unpatched Windows 2000 machines exploiting the autorun “feature”.

  2. Jakob on 2010 July 29 at 17:52 said:

    ArsTechnica just reported on another embedded vulnerability in automatic teller machines, see http://arstechnica.com/security/news/2010/07/researcher-demonstrates-atm-jackpotting-at-black-hat-conference.ars .

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Post Navigation

← Previous Post
Next Post →

Recent Posts

  • A Few Electrons too Many
  • Wind River Blog: Visuality NQ CIFS Server on Simics
  • Everything in the Cloud?
  • Wind River Blog: TCF and Simics
  • Off-Topic: Moving Bad Piggies Save Games
  • Two Cores, Four Cores, Eight Cores – Mobile Variety
  • Bliss: Failing to Pivot for Ideology
  • Wind River Blog and Movie: Demo of Simics Debugging
  • Simulation vs Reality in Schlock Mercenary
  • Programming like Lego
  • Does ISA Matter for Performance?
  • Wind River Blog: Debugging Simics using Simics
  • Wind River Blog: Simics and Flying Piggies
  • Dragons can be Useful – when AT Models Make Sense
  • Logging (Some More Thoughts)

Categories

  • appearances (30)
  • articles (21)
  • blogging (10)
  • books (6)
  • business issues (31)
  • computer architecture (35)
  • conferences (34)
  • EDA (50)
    • ESL (35)
  • embedded (78)
    • embedded software (57)
    • embedded systeme (50)
  • general research (6)
  • history (32)
    • general history (7)
    • history of computing (26)
  • off-topic (94)
    • biking (5)
    • board games (1)
    • computer games (3)
    • desktop software (35)
    • food and drink (1)
    • funny (12)
    • gadgets (24)
    • Politics (3)
    • popular culture (5)
    • trains (5)
    • transportation (10)
    • travel (10)
    • websites (3)
  • parallel computing (92)
    • multicore computer architecture (51)
    • multicore debug (22)
    • multicore software (65)
  • programming (107)
  • review (8)
  • security (19)
  • teaching (7)
  • testing (9)
  • uncategorized (12)
  • virtual things (128)
    • computer simulation technology (68)
    • virtual machines (17)
    • virtual platforms (97)
    • virtualization (14)
  • Wind River Blog (39)

Tags

ARM blog commentary Cadence Checkpointing clock-cycle models Communications of the ACM computer architecture conference cycle accuracy debugging DML Domain-specific languages embedded freescale G900 heterogeneous homogeneous IBM Intel iPod lego linux mobile phones multicore off-topic office 2007 operating systems p4080 podcast commentary power architecture rant research reverse debugging reverse execution S4D SiCS Multicore days Simics simulation software tools Sun SystemC video virtualization Vista Windows

1

  • F-Secure Blog

Blogs and news

  • Andras Vajda's blog (on multicore)
  • Embedded in Academia (John Regehr)
  • Grant Martin
  • Jack Ganssle
  • My Wind River Blog
  • Security Now podcast
  • Secworks (Joachim Strömbergson)
  • Simon Kågström
  • Synopsys View from the Top
  • Worse Than Failure

Archives

  • May 2013 (1)
  • April 2013 (1)
  • March 2013 (4)
  • February 2013 (1)
  • January 2013 (3)
  • December 2012 (2)
  • November 2012 (2)
  • October 2012 (1)
  • September 2012 (6)
  • August 2012 (4)
  • July 2012 (4)
  • June 2012 (3)
  • May 2012 (4)
  • April 2012 (2)
  • March 2012 (3)
  • February 2012 (1)
  • January 2012 (6)
  • December 2011 (2)
  • November 2011 (3)
  • October 2011 (4)
  • September 2011 (5)
  • August 2011 (4)
  • July 2011 (3)
  • June 2011 (4)
  • May 2011 (7)
  • April 2011 (1)
  • March 2011 (3)
  • February 2011 (5)
  • January 2011 (1)
  • December 2010 (4)
  • November 2010 (3)
  • October 2010 (5)
  • September 2010 (5)
  • August 2010 (5)
  • July 2010 (6)
  • June 2010 (5)
  • May 2010 (3)
  • April 2010 (4)
  • March 2010 (3)
  • February 2010 (4)
  • January 2010 (7)
  • December 2009 (6)
  • November 2009 (6)
  • October 2009 (7)
  • September 2009 (6)
  • August 2009 (7)
  • July 2009 (11)
  • June 2009 (5)
  • May 2009 (10)
  • April 2009 (7)
  • March 2009 (8)
  • February 2009 (9)
  • January 2009 (12)
  • December 2008 (8)
  • November 2008 (9)
  • October 2008 (9)
  • September 2008 (10)
  • August 2008 (13)
  • July 2008 (12)
  • June 2008 (8)
  • May 2008 (9)
  • April 2008 (10)
  • March 2008 (7)
  • February 2008 (8)
  • January 2008 (5)
  • December 2007 (5)
  • November 2007 (7)
  • October 2007 (7)
  • September 2007 (12)
  • August 2007 (9)
  • July 2007 (2)
© Copyright 2013 - Observations from Uppsala
Infinity Theme by DesignCoral / WordPress