Ukraine's Military and Banks Hit By Apparent DDoS Cyberattack Campaign (cnet.com) 45
Ukraine's Ministry of Defense website suffered from what appeared to be a distributed denial of service attack Tuesday, according to the government's Facebook account. CNET reports: The military's website remained unavailable as of 12 p.m. PT Tuesday, with the Ukrainian military's Facebook account saying work is currently underway to restore regular functioning to the online portal. The nation's largest commercial bank, PrivatBank, has also been subjected to a "massive DDoS attack" for the past few hours, according to the Ukraine Center for Strategic Communications. There's no threat to customer funds stored at the bank, it said, though the attack is preventing customers from accessing the Privat24 application and viewing their balances. Online banking with Oschadbank is also down, the Center for Strategic Communications said, as reported earlier by Vice. Nobody has yet to be blamed for the attack, but as CNET notes, "it comes after Russia is believed to have mounted multiple cyberattacks on Ukraine as part of efforts that security experts say are designed to destabilize the country's government and economy."
UPDATE (2/16/2022): America's Undersecretary of State said Wednesday that "While we're still investigating and doing forensics along with the Ukrainians, I think what's most important is that these cyberattacks were not very successful," reports CNN, which adds that the official "credited Ukrainian officials for responding quickly and helping the websites recover."
UPDATE (2/16/2022): America's Undersecretary of State said Wednesday that "While we're still investigating and doing forensics along with the Ukrainians, I think what's most important is that these cyberattacks were not very successful," reports CNN, which adds that the official "credited Ukrainian officials for responding quickly and helping the websites recover."
Buk (Score:1)
Who cares about banks. Let me know when Russia deliberately shoots down another domestic airliner.
Re: Buk (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yankees
Do you mean "yankees" as in Americans, as in northerners, or as in New Yorkers?
Re: (Score:2)
Why would a baseball team bother to do that? Well, okay, I wouldn't put it past the Astros.
and us can get an court to lock funds in usa banks (Score:2)
and us can get an court to lock funds in usa banks if they go to war.
So the answer this time is... (Score:1)
Russian Hackers!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
nothing pro-Russia about me, Putin is dirtbag and part of that Russian mafia that ex KGB made. But his goal here is not what the morons in D.C. are trumpeting. You'll see, no war that they say will start tomorrow. Don't be a sheep.
Re:sheep buying the war hooplah (Score:5, Insightful)
USA broke agreement in 1990s about no more NATO memberships, then CIA helped topple Ukraine's government. USA is now arming neo-nazi paramilitary group in Ukraine and other radicals.
Russia broke the Budapest Memorandum [pircenter.org], the one created after Ukraine agreed to give up all nuclear weapons on its soil, the one which explicitly states Russia acknowledges Ukraines sovereignty as an independent country. The one which says:
2. The United States of America,the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine, and that none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with theCharter of the United Nations.
As for the CIA helping, keep up the lying. It was the Ukrainian people who wanted their freedom, who wanted to be like Western Europe with a democratic country and freedoms, not be under the boot heel of Russia and kept poor because of one person and his cronies.
And you better believe the U.S., and its allies, are arming the Ukrainian military with whatever weapons they can lay their hands on. Nothing says spreading freedom like killing a few thousand Russian soldiers and their mercenary stooges in Donbas and Luhansk.
Oh, but Russia is the aggressor! Yeah right, more misguided foreign policy stupidity by Washington D.C. that is biting us and Europe in the ass.
Considering Russia has invaded and is occupying part of Ukraine, yes, they are the aggressor. It's why over 3,000 Russian soldiers [glasnostgone.org] are dead [forbes.com]. And with more people like this Ukrainian soldier [thesun.co.uk] killing Russian soldiers every chance she gets, the count will only keep climbing.
Re:sheep buying the war hooplah (Score:5, Insightful)
Half of Ukraine wants to be part of Russia, proved by polls.
False. There were no "polls" just like there was no "vote". It was all made up by Russia. The world has the intercepted radio communications of Russian operatives and their stooges communicating with their Russian handlers asking how many votes they should write down.
USA is arming neo-nazi paramilitary in Ukraine, Azov Detachment
Ah yes, the "neo-nazi" Azovs. Tell us, is Azov in the room? Using this doll, show us where Azov touched you.
You know what, if it takes neo-nazis to kill Russians, so be it. The more the merrier.
USA is the aggressor, your are a liar. You mix up and distort what is happening.
Kindly explain how the U.S. is the "aggressor". Has the U.S. sent in its troops to occupy any part of Ukraine? Has the U.S. sent its troops onto Russian soil? Has the U.S. funded mercenaries to go into Russian towns and set up their own government? Tell us, how is the U.S. the aggressor when Russian troops are occupying part of Ukrainain soil. What lies will you come up with next, Boris?
Re: (Score:2)
The world has the intercepted radio communications of Russian operatives and their stooges communicating with their Russian handlers asking how many votes they should write down.
Source?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
and today was the day of the big invasion, according to our pathological liars in Washington D.C., including that one-lipped weasel who spun tale of a Russian fake movie.
Meanwhile, Ukraine itself says there is insufficient Russian troops for invasion, and to quit war mongering.
Russia isn't going to invade, there will be no war.
Instead, years from a couple certain parts of Ukraine likely will be part of Russia by choice... unless we shape up our game and quit playing the war scare nonsense. Three are better
Re: (Score:2)
What the Germans, Americans, British and French did agree to in 1990 was that there would be no deployment of non-German NATO forces on the territory of the former GDR . . . The agreement on not deploying foreign troops on the territory of the former GDR was incorporated in Article 5 of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, which was signed on September 12, 1990 by the foreign ministers of the two Germanys, the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France.
Did NATO Promise Not to Enlarge? Gorbachev Says “No” [brookings.edu]
Re:sheep buying the war hooplah (Score:4, Informative)
1990 agreement to have no more NATO states
You keep making references to this agreement, but can you actually link to it? I didn't manage to find any document that contains such a commitment from NATO or even only from the USA so if you do have a link, please post it. As is, the story appears rather suspect.
The relevant treaty signed in 2009 was the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany [congress.gov], (full text here [un.org]), which makes no references to NATO. And here's what Gorbachev himself says on the topic (from here [rbth.com])
The topic of "NATO expansion" was not discussed at all, and it wasn't brought up in those years. I say this with full responsibility. Not a single Eastern European country raised the issue, not even after the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist in 1991. Western leaders didn't bring it up, either. Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO's military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces from the alliance would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker's statement, mentioned in your question, was made in that context. Kohl and [German Vice Chancellor Hans-Dietrich] Genscher talked about it.
The story has surfaced before - see this paper [csis.org], written back in 2009 (before the invasion of Crimeea) for example. However, it appears to be just more Russian disinformation.
Re:sheep buying the war hooplah (Score:5, Insightful)
USA broke agreement in 1990s about no more NATO memberships, then CIA helped topple Ukraine's government. USA is now arming neo-nazi paramilitary group in Ukraine and other radicals.
What is the point? Are you arguing foreign meddling in the affairs of other countries justifies invasion of a sovereign state which has not attacked you?
Half of Ukraine wants to be part of Russia, proved by polls.
If half of California wanted to be part of China, proved by polls would it justify the invasion of California by China?
How is invasion of a sovereign state who has not attacked you an act of anything other than aggression?
USA is arming neo-nazi paramilitary in Ukraine, Azov Detachment
Even if true is this supposed to be some kind of justification for the military conquest of a sovereign state that has not attacked you?
Oh, but Russia is the aggressor! Yeah right, more misguided foreign policy stupidity by Washington D.C. that is biting us and Europe in the ass.
I simply don't understand. Russia is building up an invasion force of over 100k on three sides of a sovereign state who has not attacked Russia. If they invade ... is your stipulation Russia is not the aggressor? Can you provide a coherent argument to support your position because nothing you are saying is making any sense.
Re: sheep buying the war hooplah (Score:1)
Re: sheep buying the war hooplah (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is the record
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/brie... [gwu.edu]
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/brie... [gwu.edu]
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/brie... [gwu.edu]
What is next, the "yeah but that is not written in the 1990 agreement" angle?
Re: (Score:2)
What is next, the "yeah but that is not written in the 1990 agreement" angle?
If it's on paper, it means little. If it's not on paper, it means nothing. This is how it has always worked between superpowers.
And on the betting board (Score:2)
I have claimed 48 hours from the vague event of 'effective cyber attack against financial institutions".
Guess we'll see.
Re: And on the betting board (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Russia needs a pretext. It doesn't have to be a good pretext. It can even be an entirely fake pretext. Some staged videos will do. That does mean there will be at least a day or so of warning - enough time to get the Russian people properly enraged after the excuse is made public, so the Russian propaganda can depict their armies as heroes reclaiming Ukraine in a purely defensive and well-justified war.
Re: (Score:2)
I WIN!!
2 days later low effort artillery shelling begins: https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]