Response to Peer Post (24)
Response to Peer Post
Author’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Response to Peer Post
After reading through your post, a few points caught my attention. The first was that the centrifuges that were targeted by Stuxnet were those that refine uranium within nuclear power plants, where the malware interfered with the air gap networks that support the centrifuges. While I had not thought about this point when drafting my initial post, it is a clear indication that you carried extensive research on the functioning of Stuxnet and I commend you for that. The second point is where you mention that the primary intent of the Stuxnet attack was the centrifuge themselves. Concerning this point, I think I have a different opinion in that I believe that the primary intent was to sabotage the automated processes or precise instrumentation of these centrifuges, as fact to which Baezner and Robin (2017) subscribe.
The last point that captured my attention is your argument that the prevention of attacks such as the Stuxnet attack requires paying attention to the dynamic nature of cybersecurity threat vectors and types. Here, I agree with you because focusing on the changing landscape of cybersecurity threats is the foundation of knowing the technological systems that offer the best protection solutions. I would like to add that setting up layered defenses for all ICS systems is another way to preventing these attacks, going forward. Thank you for being expressly informative in your post.
References
Baezner, M., & Robin, P. (October 2017). Hotspot analysis: Stuxnet (No. 4) version 1. Center for Security Studies (CSS), ETH Zurich.
