Some “hacktivists” *cough* *cough* have trashed steel works in Iran. Their justification is ridiculous — “these plants are sanctioned” which they claim makes them legitimate targets for attack. Now, I’m not saying they arent legitimate targets, but I am saying that being sanctioned does not automatically equate to being a legitimate target.
What I really want to talk about though, is the level of effort that the operators took to make sure that the attack didn’t harm people. Not only did they take pains to ensure this, but they also made it a pillar of their announcement, along with proof that they took those steps.
This team wanted to make clear what they believe responsible offensive cyber looks like. And they have. I think this is how norms will be created, not in academic or policy papers.
Speaking of academic papers, lets look at another issue — cyberwar. Some have argued that for cyberwar to be a thing, humans lives must be taken. That there must be violence, the body must be damaged, for a cyber attack to be “real war.”
Now, personally, I dont think that is true, but I want to bring up a more interesting point — one aspect of the value of cyber is the ability to minimise harm to people while still achieving objectives.
The best coverage is, of course, from @hkashfi
As mentioned by Hamid, it looks like the access vector was IRISA, a service and infrastructure provider for the entire Iranian steel industry.
If you want some background on the threat actor, I got you fam
https://offensivecyber.org/2021/09/23/balancing-on-the-rail/
-
Enjoy some real hacktivists, or I guess they’ve been promoted to whitehat hackers. Cyber Partisans
-
-
Courtesy of En Nagy, here is the correct Latin:
lurcamus laeti nos debellaturos
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
