A new report into the Duqu Trojan questions the previously accepted belief that it was created by the team behind the Stuxnet malware, which targeted Iran's nuclear programme last year.
The research, by Dell's SecureWorks team, found that although Duqu shares some traits with Stuxnet, the payloads, and therefore the goals, of the two pieces of software are very different.
"Both Duqu and Stuxnet are highly complex programs with multiple components. All of the similarities from a software point of view are in the 'injection' component," wrote Dell researchers in the report.
"[But] the ultimate payloads of Duqu and Stuxnet are significantly different and unrelated," they concluded.
Earlier this month, leading security firm Symantec released a report suggesting that Duqu was built on Stuxnet code, possibly by the same authors.
But the Dell report suggests that there is no firm evidence to corroborate this claim.
"One could speculate the injection components share a common source, but supporting evidence is circumstantial at best and insufficient to confirm a direct relationship.
"The facts observed through software analysis are inconclusive at publication time in terms of proving a direct relationship between Duqu and Stuxnet at any other level."
Security firm Kaspersky has noted in its news service that Duqu does not target industrial control systems, as Stuxnet did. In fact, the security industry as a whole seems at a loss to understand Duqu's purpose.
The Dell report states that the Trojan is designed to gather intelligence, but to what end, no one is currently able to say.
"Duqu facilitates an adversary's ability to gather intelligence from an infected computer and the network.
"[Dell] malware analysts have not identified any specific market segments, technologies, organizations or countries that are targeted by the Duqu malware."
Finally, the report makes the following recommendations to help protect enterprises from the Trojan:
By eliminating high entry costs for big data analysis, you can convert more raw data into valuable business insight.
A discussion of the "risk perception gap", its implications and how it can be closed