Was API hooking done as needed for Stuxnet to work? I don't think so
Posted
by
The Kaykay
on Programmers
See other posts from Programmers
or by The Kaykay
Published on 2012-04-14T10:16:54Z
Indexed on
2012/04/14
11:44 UTC
Read the original article
Hit count: 304
Caveat: I am a political science student and I have tried my level best to understand the technicalities; if I still sound naive please overlook that.
In the Symantec report on Stuxnet, the authors say that once the worm infects the 32-bit Windows computer which has a WINCC setup on it, Stuxnet does many things and that it specifically hooks the function CreateFileA()
. This function is the route which the worm uses to actually infect the .s7p project files that are used to program the PLCs. ie when the PLC programmer opens a file with .s7p the control transfers to the hooked function CreateFileA_hook()
instead of CreateFileA()
. Once Stuxnet gains the control it covertly inserts code blocks into the PLC without the programmers knowledge and hides it from his view.
However, it should be noted that there is also one more function called CreateFileW()
which does the same task as CreateFileA()
but both work on different character sets. CreateFileA
works with ASCII character set and CreateFileW
works with wide characters or Unicode character set. Farsi (the language of the Iranians) is a language that needs unicode character set and not ASCII Characters. I'm assuming that the developers of any famous commercial software (for ex. WinCC) that will be sold in many countries will take 'Localization' and/or 'Internationalization' into consideration while it is being developed in order to make the product fail-safe ie. the software developers would use UNICODE
while compiling their code and not just 'ASCII'. Thus, I think that CreateFileW()
would have been invoked on a WINCC system in Iran instead of CreateFileA()
. Do you agree?
My question is: If Stuxnet has hooked only the function CreateFileA()
then based on the above assumption there is a significant chance that it did not work at all? I think my doubt will get clarified if: my assumption is proved wrong, or the Symantec report is proved incorrect. Please help me clarify this doubt.
Note: I had posted this question on the general stackexchange website and did not get appropriate responses that I was looking for so I'm posting it here.
© Programmers or respective owner