@kodefupanda: Who cares who #stuxnet target was? The takeaway is that ICS security is a prob that effects us all. We need solutions not attribution.
@taosecurity: @frednecksec Attribution is necessary if you want to deal with the threat. It's not necessary if you only want to address vulnerabilities.
@frednecksec: @taosecurity Depending on who "you" are. If you are a scada admin and are behind on the vulngame, threats are somebody elses problem.
So, for quite a while now, one of my pet peeves in any security talk/whitepaper (especially a SCADA or control system security one) is when the author has a list of bullets under a headline called threats. You know, the bad guys. Typically they throw in some cheesy clip art. Even worse they will talk about the motivation: fun, profit, curiosity, world domination, etc. I always found this annoying and irrelevant. Really, who cares why someone is attacking (attempting to exploit a vulnerability in) your system and it really does not matter who they are apart from an IP address that you may or may not be able to do traceback that you may or may not be able to report to law enforcement. You focus on what you can control. Your own networks. Your own systems. Assuming you even have the time, talent, and tools to do that.
But admittedly I have a bias here. Most of my career has focused on vulnerabilities. And most of my career, I've been focused in the technical realm. Not policy or procedures. Not politics. Not targeting the bad guys (well at least after I left tactical MI, and I only targeted bad guys in warfighter command staff exercises, never in the real world.) It has been about monitoring your assets, protecting your them, ensuring devices, applications, and other hardware/software components are properly engineered so that when they are deployed operationally, they can stand up, that you've done a reasonable job reducing the attack surface, ensuring the right set of security capabilities have been implemented, that you've thought things through. You pay lip surface to threats (attack trees, threat models, etc.) but you really are only concerned about that magical moment when a threat exploits a vulnerability. That event. The goal is to prevent that or make it as unlikely as possible, or if it does happen you want to minimize the impact.
When you are concerned about technical vulnerabilities, the capabilities or intent of the threat agents don't really matter, unless there is an intersection with the assets you are responsible for monitoring or protecting--or securing prior to deployment if you are in product security or appsec. So I learn the adversary has some new tool (malware, script, or whatever) that I can detect (or not detect) that I should attempt to monitor and recover from. There is some new way of exploiting applications or network access controls or surreptitiously gaining unauthorized access. This is why you pentest, this is why you do design reviews, this is why you do operational drills. It is really not about threats. It is about your stuff. Not their stuff or them.
So if you come from this vulnerability-centric frame of mind (or at least I think I'm accurately capturing this outmoded way of thinking about the brave new world full by Cyberwar, APT, Cyberterrorism, and what my Senator this morning referred to as "Cyber Shields") you become sort of confused when folks like Bejtlich say that this no longer matters, that that this is an outmoded approach not appropriate to the 2nd decade of the 21st century. That is all failed that we must give up and go after the Chinese dragon or the Russian bear. We must stop all we are doing. Defense no longer works.
You know, sort of like a Bush Doctrine for cyberspace. Take the fight to them.
(To me there is a difference between the fact that you have to continuously stamp out vulnerabilities, over and over, Microsoft Tuesday after Microsoft Tuesday, new application or protocol. A never ending struggle that guarantees job security for a lifetime. This might be insanity, but it is not failure, but I digress)
So the big question here is who is we. What has really changed for the system administrators, the security administrators, the firewall administrators, the folks responsible for monitoring the logs, the pentesters, the application security girls, the policy and compliance weenies. They all must suddenly switch to a threat focus?
If by we, you are talking about the intelligence community if you are talking about the military, national security policy? Absolutely. Do what you need to do--or what I assumed you were already doing. Target terrorist networks with "cyber weapons" take out critical infrastructure with your cache of 0-days SCADA (or Telcom) vulnerabilities. Just do it, Cybercommand. Or whoever.
But for the rest of us, that probably aren't doing as good a job as we should monitoring our networks, patching our systems, analyzing our logs, keeping the auditors off our backs, keeping our aging systems even running as we have to do more and more with less, we are supposed to care about who the bad guys are and going after them?
For us, I say Stuxnet and Aurora (the Google one, not the smoking, shaking generator one) change nothing.