Stuxnet developers reacting to discussion of a “weaponized stuxnet”pic.twitter.com/n1VwGJ9els
-
-
For something to be suitable as a weaponim this sense there needs to be effort at making it reliable/targetable/controllable beyond most proof of concept exploits. It’s a lot of software engineering and architecture wrapped around what we’d normally do.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Idk...I think there's a mix of context of usage and taking something that wasn't intended as a weapon and turning it into one. Since code designed to disrupt a country's nuclear program is already nominally a weapon, I don't know how you 'weaponize' it.
-
Never mind the fact that there's no evidence of this being a cyber attack or Stuxnet code being used (why would it be?), so this is all a conceptual exercise... ;)
- 4 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Haha, I got at least 10 different answers, so at least nobody else really knows either

-
@McGrewSecurity is right, thats how the term is used whenever I hear it
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's fancypants tacticool words for the difference between "works for me" and "works in practice".
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
A PoC script vs a reliable metasploit module ?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
And since code has been a part of military systems since at least the 1960's, there's probably no concept of 'weaponizing code' either, as this was one of the many purposes programming was created for.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It has a UI? (Or plugs into a framework, same thing.)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
