3 ms·

Wouldn't both the perpetrator and the victim have to be in on that deception? Why would both parties go along with that?

by slg 6y ago

ehsankia 6y ago
That's not quite what happened. First, Iran blamed it on cyberattack, then Israeli media took credit for it, because why the hell would they not? It's also not even confirmed, just assumed: > Israeli public broadcaster Kan said that it could be assumed that the incident was an Israeli cyber operation, citing the discovery in 2010 of the Stuxnet computer virus
- slg 6y ago
  >That's not quite what happened. I wasn't saying one way or another what happened. But a physical military attack by Israel would be much more frowned on by the international community than a cyberattack. In that situation, what motivation is there for Iran to conceal that to the benefit of Israel?
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    Hmm, well I assume it is a bit shameful to get hacked on the very day it opens, especially after the whole Stuxnet kerfuffle, so they may want to underplay the damage done.
PartiallyTyped 6y ago
It makes one seem mighty, and it makes the other not seem as incompetent. If the attack was 'unprecedented', or 'unexpected' or 'sophisticated' then the people responsible from the victim's team are absolved of their failures and mistakes while the other side gets to look good and mighty.
- slg 6y ago
  But doesn't the "we weren't expecting it" excuse work much better for a physical attack? You always have to be vigilant of a cyberattack. It is neither "unprecedented" or "unexpected". Meanwhile the victim usually receives very little blame after a sneak military attack. "Israel launched an unprovoked military attack against a non-military target" seems like it would play better both domestically and internationally than what basically amounts to "they outsmarted us".
  - PartiallyTyped 6y ago
    Certain kinds of attacks really are just that, unexpected, even if they are cyber attacks. See for example the recent attack against the US. The media was quick to praise the attack as unprecedented and sophisticated, when in reality, it wasn't anywhere close to something like stuxnet.

Wouldn't both the perpetrator and the victim have to be in on that deception? Why would both parties go along with that?

by slg 6y ago

Wouldn't both the perpetrator and the victim have to be in on that deception? Why would both parties go along with that?

ehsankia 6y ago

That's not quite what happened. First, Iran blamed it on cyberattack, then Israeli media took credit for it, because why the hell would they not? It's also not even confirmed, just assumed: > Israeli public broadcaster Kan said that it could be assumed that the incident was an Israeli cyber operation, citing the discovery in 2010 of the Stuxnet computer virus

slg 6y ago
>That's not quite what happened. I wasn't saying one way or another what happened. But a physical military attack by Israel would be much more frowned on by the international community than a cyberattack. In that situation, what motivation is there for Iran to conceal that to the benefit of Israel?
- ehsankia 6y ago
  Hmm, well I assume it is a bit shameful to get hacked on the very day it opens, especially after the whole Stuxnet kerfuffle, so they may want to underplay the damage done.

PartiallyTyped 6y ago

It makes one seem mighty, and it makes the other not seem as incompetent. If the attack was 'unprecedented', or 'unexpected' or 'sophisticated' then the people responsible from the victim's team are absolved of their failures and mistakes while the other side gets to look good and mighty.

slg 6y ago
But doesn't the "we weren't expecting it" excuse work much better for a physical attack? You always have to be vigilant of a cyberattack. It is neither "unprecedented" or "unexpected". Meanwhile the victim usually receives very little blame after a sneak military attack. "Israel launched an unprovoked military attack against a non-military target" seems like it would play better both domestically and internationally than what basically amounts to "they outsmarted us".
- PartiallyTyped 6y ago
  Certain kinds of attacks really are just that, unexpected, even if they are cyber attacks. See for example the recent attack against the US. The media was quick to praise the attack as unprecedented and sophisticated, when in reality, it wasn't anywhere close to something like stuxnet.