3 ms·

A satellite data system used by the Ukrainian military was knocked out at the same time as the invasion, the outage started in Ukraine before spreading outward,

A satellite data system used by the Ukrainian military was knocked out at the same time as the invasion, the outage started in Ukraine before spreading outward, and the damage is permanent - which would not happen in a botched firmware upgrade, where units would load a backup firmware image or get an image OTA, or be fixable via site visit. Not exactly a 'really large claim' that this was an attack.

avianlyric 5y ago
I think GP is saying that an attack that impacted the satellites flying around in space is a large claim, on account of their systems have better security. I imagine the idea of a many millions of $ satellite burning up because someone left a telnet server open is enough to make executives take sat security a little more seriously than say terminal security. Don’t think anyone is really refuting the idea that satellite terminals being remotely bricked en-mass, just as two countries nearby go to war, is an attack.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  My argument in my original post was that the fact that this is a satellite network is likely to be completely irrelevant to the actual attack and that the parts that were compromised exist just as well in a terrestrial-based network. However, "satellite network suffers cyber-attack" is a better headline than "local ISP was stupid and got their management network pwned" - the former implies extra complexity which works well for ass-covering and swaying public opinion, something they very much need if it turns out the vulnerability was very stupid & mundane.
Nextgrid 5y ago
I'm very skeptical of the "damage is permanent" claim. I wouldn't be surprised if it's used to hype up the event even more just like the hype around the fact that this is satellite terminals being hacked even though I believe the attack is very boring and would equally apply to any terrestrial-based ISP whose management network is compromised. I would bet good money that what they claim "permanent damage" is just misconfiguration that prevents the terminal from connecting to the network but can be recovered via an on-site visit, and hyping up the entire event also works in the company's favour as an ass-covering technique as I suspect the actual vulnerability is very simple & boring (which would be very bad if it were go to public that they have such bad security).

avianlyric 5y ago

I think GP is saying that an attack that impacted the satellites flying around in space is a large claim, on account of their systems have better security. I imagine the idea of a many millions of $ satellite burning up because someone left a telnet server open is enough to make executives take sat security a little more seriously than say terminal security. Don’t think anyone is really refuting the idea that satellite terminals being remotely bricked en-mass, just as two countries nearby go to war, is an attack.

Nextgrid 5y ago
My argument in my original post was that the fact that this is a satellite network is likely to be completely irrelevant to the actual attack and that the parts that were compromised exist just as well in a terrestrial-based network. However, "satellite network suffers cyber-attack" is a better headline than "local ISP was stupid and got their management network pwned" - the former implies extra complexity which works well for ass-covering and swaying public opinion, something they very much need if it turns out the vulnerability was very stupid & mundane.

Nextgrid 5y ago

I'm very skeptical of the "damage is permanent" claim. I wouldn't be surprised if it's used to hype up the event even more just like the hype around the fact that this is satellite terminals being hacked even though I believe the attack is very boring and would equally apply to any terrestrial-based ISP whose management network is compromised. I would bet good money that what they claim "permanent damage" is just misconfiguration that prevents the terminal from connecting to the network but can be recovered via an on-site visit, and hyping up the entire event also works in the company's favour as an ass-covering technique as I suspect the actual vulnerability is very simple & boring (which would be very bad if it were go to public that they have such bad security).