[HN Gopher] Iran-backed hackers claim wiper attack on medtech fi...
___________________________________________________________________
Iran-backed hackers claim wiper attack on medtech firm Stryker
https://www.zetter-zeroday.com/iranian-hacktivists-strike-me...
Author : 2bluesc
Score : 231 points
Date : 2026-03-12 03:29 UTC (19 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (krebsonsecurity.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (krebsonsecurity.com)
| bingogo wrote:
| Medtech firms consistently underinvest in corporate network
| cybersecurity because almost all their security and compliance
| spending goes to device safety requirements, not IT hardening.
| This is exactly the kind of gap wiper attacks target.
| FreakLegion wrote:
| This was more likely an Intune admin getting phished. Intune
| has a built-in wipe action: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
| us/intune/intune-service/remo....
| thyristan wrote:
| Which in itself wouldn't be too bad, if mobile platforms had
| proper backup facilities that allowed individuals and
| enterprises to easily get all their devices to the exact
| backed up state they were before being wiped. But that seems
| to be unwanted by Apple and Google...
| cobbzilla wrote:
| My only knowledge of this company is as a manufacturer of gurneys
| for ambulances.
|
| I guess they have some sensitive data on our emergency services
| organizations and their headquarters addresses and accounts
| payable people, maybe PII on signatories (officers, board members
| & "important people") and whatnot.
|
| Anyone know if it would be worse?
| serf wrote:
| >My only knowledge this company is as a manufacturer of gurneys
| for ambulances.
|
| they have a tremendous catalog[0].
|
| spend time in a hospital, dental office, rehab, etc and you'll
| see the logo plastered across everything.
|
| [0]: https://www.stryker.com/us/en/portfolios/medical-surgical-
| eq...
| cobbzilla wrote:
| yeah that is a lot of tech, but it's all B2B- no consumer
| breach, right?
| pastescreenshot wrote:
| Probably worse in the boring B2B way, not the consumer-
| breach way. Stryker is deep in hospital operations, so the
| immediate risk is supply chain and support disruption
| rather than leaked patient data. The Krebs post says one
| hospital system already could not order surgical supplies,
| and if the Intune remote wipe detail is true, recovering
| internal devices and admin workflows could take a while
| even without any medical devices themselves being
| compromised.
| cobbzilla wrote:
| so maybe more hospitals shutdown from ransomware attacks
| coming?
| samrus wrote:
| That second B has alot of customers. Sick and dying
| customers that arent very flexible on demand
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| sure no consumer data breach... but this is still going to
| shutdown or impact lots of medical facilities.
|
| heart rate monitors that go down and no one can get support
| for, cannot get replacement CAT scan equipment, etc.
| BrokenCogs wrote:
| This is not true. The hack did not affect Stryker
| products sold to hospitals and clinics, it only impacted
| Stryker employees work and personal devices. Yes 50tb of
| data was exfiltrated and it remains to be seen what that
| data is and how it might impact products down the line.
| overtone1000 wrote:
| Medical equipment reps often play a pretty active role in
| patient care. Can't get in touch with a rep to put a
| device into its MRI safe mode? No MRI for you. Can't get
| a rep in to help the surgeon with the type in hardware
| they were going to install? No surgery for you.
|
| People's AICDs aren't going to start exploding, but I'm
| pretty confident this will hamper care for many patients.
| marijan_div wrote:
| Stryker is far more than ambulance gurneys. They're one of the
| largest med-tech suppliers, with equipment in operating rooms,
| ICUs, and surgical departments everywhere.
|
| If a wiper actually hit internal systems, the bigger concern
| isn't consumer data but disruption to manufacturing, logistics,
| and hospital support. That kind of outage could ripple through a
| lot of hospitals pretty quickly.
| Dowry9092 wrote:
| Go and switch your suppliers my friends, talk to purchasing
| now.
| levinb wrote:
| Stryker holds monopoly supplier positions for a number of
| medical products, esp including surgical implants and
| associated OR tools.
|
| If Stryker stays down, supplies of some things will run out
| soon and many people will find themselves without medical
| procedures available.
| camillomiller wrote:
| Seems dire but hardly a supply chain disrupting attack. Stryker
| is a huge supplier but it not as if this will debilitate the
| medical supply chain completely. Seems like the hackers found a
| door they could kick open easily and then justified the action
| ex-post.
| selcuka wrote:
| My understanding is that the aim was not to disrupt the supply
| chain but to harm the company itself.
| duskdozer wrote:
| If they're a primary regional supplier, it could have a huge
| impact. It doesn't have to break the entire country to matter.
| JonChesterfield wrote:
| So gain access to a machine that can ask microsoft intune to
| eviscerate the company, ask it to do so, done. Bit of a shame all
| the machines had that installed really. Reminds me of
| crowdstrike.
| shiroiuma wrote:
| The company should have known better than to trust their IT
| infrastructure to Microslop. This is their own fault.
| Xylakant wrote:
| My 95% bet is that the attacker just gained access to an
| account with suitable privileges and then went on to use
| existing automation. The fact that it's intune is largely
| irrelevant - I'm not aware of any safeguards that any
| provider would implemen.
|
| So the options here are MDM or no MDM and that's a hard
| choice. No MDM means that you have to trust all people to get
| things as basic as FDE or a sane password policy right. No
| option to wipe or lock lost devices. No option to unlock
| devices where people forgot their password. Using an MDM
| means having a privileged attack vector into all machines.
| neo_doom wrote:
| No MDM just isn't an option for most enterprises but
| ideally the keys to the kingdom are properly secured.
| mulmen wrote:
| How does that look exactly? Someone has to be able to use
| MDM to manage devices or there's no point in having it.
| This scenario is firmly in rubber hose/crescent wrench
| cryptanalysis territory. Can updates have delays with
| approval gates built in? Does MDM need a break glass
| capability?
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| "Principle of least privilege" as MS calls it.
|
| Do not use global admin or admin account as daily driver
| for one. Dont save it in browser etc either.
|
| Limit roles, even within the application, here Intune.
|
| Office 365 also has conditional access and many policy
| leavers to tweak, many cases of people locking themselves
| OUT of 365. So the gates work but you need to configure
| them.
|
| "Break glass" global admin accounts now also require MFA.
| https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
| us/entra/identity/authenticat...
| mulmen wrote:
| Ok and who has access to the global admin and how
| resistant are they to Iranian operatives?
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| What are you asking?
|
| For Stryker specifically? We don't and probably won't
| know details.
|
| For companies in general? Background checks, security
| clearance etc are done if the company determines this
| necessary and are willing to pay for the process and
| higher salary.
| pixl97 wrote:
| At the end of the day someone needs remote wipers privs,
| and in a large company it's something done pretty often.
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| What alternative to Intune and, hell, the entire Office 365
| suite that it is in, do you have?
|
| Gsuite + Slack I guess. lmao. As if that is better.
|
| Looking forward to your reply.
| JonChesterfield wrote:
| Well, all the machines in the current outfit are Linux as
| far as I know. Services are self hosted. Seems to be fine,
| teams et al run adequately in a browser for talking to
| people on other stacks.
|
| Previous place had a corporate controlled windows laptop
| that made a very poor thin client for accessing dev
| machines. One before that had a somewhat centrally managed
| macbook that made a very poor thin client for accessing dev
| machines.
|
| You don't have to soul bond to Microsoft to get things
| done.
| Ekaros wrote:
| I don't see how Linux would prevent anything if company
| wants similar controls on their machines. Like tracking
| update status, forcing updates when needed, potentially
| wiping entire device when stolen and so on. Fault really
| is not the OS but the control corporate wants over their
| devices. And it does make some sense.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Indeed. You'd expect a corporate IT system to be able to
| ssh as root into all their devices. And the cloud is even
| worse: if you get hold of the right IAM role, you can
| simply delete everything! That does usually get locked
| behind proper 2FA, but it's not impossible to phish even
| experienced admins once in a while.
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| That is all well and good but how do you:
|
| - Ensure the Linux machines are up-to-date and users are
| not just indefinitely postponing OS updates?
|
| - Same as above but with programs/software
|
| - How do you ensure correct settings configuration in
| terms of security? Say default browser, extensions,
| program access etc?
|
| - Re-image or reinstall the OS when there are issues or
| PC handover to another employee? Manually with a USB
| stick?
|
| This kind of control exists and is needed for Linux and
| MacOS too. RMM is not a Windows only thing...
|
| The critics here see Intune but what if they used another
| RMM and they compromised another cloud RMM account? Same
| issue.
| pjc50 wrote:
| All the Linux kernel development work is organized around a
| mailing list, and some private IRC chats for the core
| people. It's the technology of the nineties but it works
| for them.
|
| A lot of corporate stuff seems to be _much worse_ than even
| a random vibe coded web app. I have to book holiday through
| something called "HR Connect", watching pages load
| laboriously and redirect every login through several very
| long URLs. Slowly.
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| Yes, the Linux kernel people can be trusted to manage
| their own machines. Random corp employees cannot. Also
| corp machines are corp property, not the employees own.
| If you have 1000 or 10,000 machines you need to manage
| them. Full stop.
|
| Yes, many corporate websites are bad. Like ERP or HR
| systems. None of that has to do with device management,
| RMMs/MDMs or Intune.
| bathtub365 wrote:
| The Linux kernel development work isn't a corporation
| GorbachevyChase wrote:
| Microsoft keeps disappointing and chief technology officers
| keep paying them. Wasn't Elon Musk supposed to prove you could
| vibe code their entire product line? What happened to all that?
| Banditoz wrote:
| Does InTune have some sort of check that goes "if over 1% of
| devices are wiped within a certain timeframe, stop all new device
| wipe requests"? Seems like it should be a feature, especially if
| these kinda attacks pick up.
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| Everything is obvious in hindsight
|
| And to be clear, SCCM and Intune is a gun.
|
| MS will not stop you from blowing your foot off with the gun.
|
| Remember https://www.itprotoday.com/windows-7/aggressive-
| configmgr-ba... ?
|
| >During TechEd 2014, Emory University's IT department prepared
| and deployed Windows 7 upgrades to the campuses computers. If
| you've worked with ConfigMgr at all, you know that there are
| checks-and-balances that can be employed to ensure that only
| specifically targeted systems will receive an OS upgrade. In
| Emory University's case, the check-and-balance method failed
| and instead of delivering the upgrade to applicable computers,
| delivered Windows 7 to ALL computers including laptops,
| desktops, and even servers.
| spwa4 wrote:
| That _ANY_ kind of config change should be rate-limited has
| been pretty obvious and hammered on in SRE manuals for at
| least 10 years.
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| And who sets the limits? MS? What if a company WANTS to
| wipe their entire fleet?
| mmsc wrote:
| Require dual sign off
| jiggawatts wrote:
| "Call support so they can turn off the safeties for an
| hour."
| andmarios wrote:
| This raises the question: Are mass layoffs less frequent than a
| company's MS administrator account getting hacked?
| bitwize wrote:
| The "Fucking for Virginity" approach to infosec strikes again!
| LPisGood wrote:
| Can you elaborate what you mean?
|
| Are you referring to a paradigm where people make their systems
| less secure in the effort to make them more secure?
| jojobas wrote:
| I think this refers to "bombing for peace". Sure the West
| should have just let Iran nuke whoever it wanted.
| vkou wrote:
| Nuclear weapons are a MAD red line that will result in
| total annihilation of the attacker. They are only useful in
| a defensive capacity.
|
| This kind of aggression, however, does seem to make their
| value as a deterrent clear.
|
| Observe how nobody is fucking with North Korea like they
| did with Iraq or Venezuela.
| sofixa wrote:
| > Nuclear weapons are a MAD red line that will result in
| total annihilation of the attacker. They are only useful
| in a defensive capacity.
|
| Also in a "if I'm going down, everyone else is going down
| with me", which is Ian's strategy in this war (for good
| reasons). If the IRGC had nukes, and was severely
| threatened (like, killing the Supreme Leader and
| threatening to kill all of the replacements until they
| bend to the US/Israel will), they might have decided to
| go out "with style".
| sail2boat3 wrote:
| Isn't this exactly what the Samson Option represents?
| haritha-j wrote:
| Yes, but the whole point of having nukes as a deterrent
| is that the US wouldn't have arbitrarily killed their
| leader in the first place. "If i'm going down, everyone
| else is going down" is the feature, not a bug.
|
| To be clear I don't like the idea of MAD one bit. But
| this is indeed how it's meant to work.
| jojobas wrote:
| North Korea's main leverage is not the 3.5 nukes they
| have, it's Seoul in the sights of their very conventional
| arty.
|
| Unlike NK, Iran has a leadership that declared destroying
| some countries their raison d'etre.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Iran wasn't going to nuke anyone.
|
| They want Islam to dominate the world, that can't happen
| _if there isn 't a world left to dominate_.
| LtWorf wrote:
| I agree with the first part of what you said. Mostly
| because they didn't have nukes to begin with.
| bitwize wrote:
| Nothing geopolitical about it in the sense I intended,
| except as a reference to the Vietnam-era catchphrase. It's
| simply a case of "putting spyware on everybody's corporate
| PC for security is like fucking for virginity".
| bitwize wrote:
| Yes, exactly. In the realpolitik of organizational IT
| security, there's less of an emphasis on making systems more
| resilient to attack, much more of an emphasis on having an
| audit trail, so that in case the company is sued over a data
| breach they can claim "we did the very best that could be
| reasonably expected of us with the knowledge we had at the
| time" and provide receipts to back up that claim. Implicit in
| that claim is also "we used the same tools that everyone else
| is using so you can't blame us specially for unwittingly
| choosing something vulnerable to compromise". Hence the
| proliferation of shitty single-point-of-failure "endpoint
| security" software that leads to events like the 2024
| Clownstrike incident.
| jamesmishra wrote:
| Some people on Twitter have jokingly suggested that the Iranians
| were looking for the maker of the Stryker military vehicle.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stryker
| Drupon wrote:
| Yeah dumbasses regularly post nonsense on Elon's X(tm)
| fartfeatures wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that is not exclusive to X.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Iran warns U.S. tech firms could become targets as war expands_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47341007
| trhway wrote:
| Well, time to dust off anti-drone defense systems. Today on NPR
| they talked that Iran plans to launch drones from ships into
| California.
|
| https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/authorities-warn-of-p...
|
| Fox News drone expert:
|
| https://nypost.com/2026/03/11/us-news/iran-could-use-drones-...
| notenlish wrote:
| I feel like that's not realistic, why would they launch
| drones to California rather than some place like DC or NY.
| It's a long distance.
|
| I don't even think they'd launch drones to DC either, they
| seem to be all in on attacking oil infrastructure as well as
| us bases & defense systems in the Middle East, rather than
| America.
| shiroiuma wrote:
| >why would they launch drones to California rather than
| some place like DC or NY. It's a long distance.
|
| Because they allegedly have a ship already in the Pacific
| loaded with drones.
|
| DC and NY are way too far from Iran to launch any kind of
| attack; the only attack they can possibly do is from a
| ship, and ships can be anyplace where there's deep enough
| water.
| riffraff wrote:
| > Iran plans to launch drones from ships into California
|
| That does not make any sense to me. Does Iran have a bunch of
| ships in the Pacific? Why? How would they even got close
| enough to the US coast without being noticed at this point?
|
| I'm not saying it's not true, I just don't understand.
| saaaaaam wrote:
| I've been seeing stuff saying China is a big customer of
| Iranian oil, so maybe there are oil tankers heading to
| China from Iran. No idea if that is actually the case
| though. I wonder if that Flexport shipping map that was
| shared here recently has any info?
| bawolff wrote:
| If they were going to do it, it would probably look a lot
| like Ukraine's spiderweb attack.
|
| However if they were going/able to do it, they probably
| wouldn't warn everyone and ruin the element of surprise,
| they would just do it.
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| Yeah that makes no sense. only thing I've heard is they
| have connections to some cartels in south america.
| venezuela is gone but I suppose they could hire some local
| talent and get close enough?
|
| Seems like a really dumb idea right now, unless maybe as a
| last resort if Trump decides to drop tactical nukes or
| something
| botanical wrote:
| Sounds like justification for a false flag operation by the
| US government. How would they transport these massive things
| and launch them on a different continent? That, or the US is
| trying to justify that this illegal war is on their doorstep
| and need to expand their terror.
| vintermann wrote:
| "Reichstag fire" attempts are definitively a legitimate
| concern. But as Ukraine has demonstrated, all you need to
| get a drone army deep into a country attacking you is a
| regular shipping container.
| lewispollard wrote:
| The drones Iran are using are actually relatively small,
| you can fit 5 of them into a medium sized truck and they
| can launch in-situ, which is how they've been using them in
| ground operations. Doesn't seem that much of a stretch to
| put a bunch of them into shipping containers.
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| Ukraine did something similar and wiped out a lot of
| Russian aircraft.
|
| Buncha drones in shipping containers that popped open
| once deep in-country
| SyneRyder wrote:
| We never did find out what those drones in New Jersey in 2024
| were, did we? One Republican congressman seemed convinced at
| the time that he'd been informed:
|
| BBC: Mystery New Jersey drones not from Iranian 'mothership'
| - Pentagon
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crrwz91wqd9o
|
| It's certainly a theory / narrative that keeps appearing in
| the media.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| They were flying over military installations, if they were
| anyone else's drones, they would have been shot down like
| the weather balloons that spook the government from time to
| time.
| Orygin wrote:
| Foreign drones surveilled a military base here and they
| didn't shoot any down.
|
| Maybe the US reacts differently, but in Europe most
| military bases have been scouted by Russian drones, and
| afaik none were shot down.
| drumhead wrote:
| They were Palantir apparently.
| 4ggr0 wrote:
| > Fox News [...] expert [...] nypost.com
|
| surely a New York Post article quoting a Fox News "expert"
| will be factual, unbiased and not at all an attempt to pour
| more oil into the fire and manufacture consent to bomb a
| couple more girl's schools.
| RobertoG wrote:
| 'Drones from ships into California' is just a psi-op for
| manufacturing consent. This is not our first rodeo. By now,
| we should know how things work.
|
| It's not in the strategic interest of Iran to do that, and
| they have been very strategic and rational. It's the
| Americans who have abandoned rationality. The Iranian goal is
| very clear: they don't want to sign an agreement and be
| attacked again in three months or one year.
|
| In order to get that, they want a new security framework in
| its part of the world. They want Israel to suffer so its
| population think two times before doing this again. And they
| want to create enough economic pain to punish the current USA
| administration, again to teach a lesson.
|
| Go beyond CNN or Fox News, listen to what the Iranians are
| saying (1).
|
| 1- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNZ_nta8NRM
| trhway wrote:
| > The Iranian goal is very clear: they don't want to sign
| an agreement and be attacked again in three months or one
| year.
|
| Yes, of course they want to continue to do what they've
| been doing and not be attacked for that. Yet it is just not
| possible. Iran's current regime overall main goal is the
| spread of Islamic Revolution. Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis -
| these are typical metastasis of that spread. Terrorist
| acts, highly visible ones, is one of the effective tools of
| such a spread, and that way the terrorist acts are rational
| in the minds of Iran's regime and their above mentioned
| metastatic followers. There is no security framework
| possible which would still allow such a spread.
| RobertoG wrote:
| There is little evidence of what you say. On the other
| hand, there is a country in the region that it's using
| any excuse that it find to expand itself to great cost to
| the civil population there.
|
| Anyway, it's kind of funny that the USA have military
| posts more than 7000 miles away from its borders, but the
| danger of 'expansionism' is from Iran.
|
| We are in a fantasy propaganda land where Iran is
| attacked in the middle of negotiations and is Iran the
| guilty party. How many people have to die in those USA
| wars? I mean, enough is enough.
| trhway wrote:
| >There is little evidence of what you say. ... but the
| danger of 'expansionism' is from Iran.
|
| if you aren't familiar with Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis - i
| highly recommend reading on it, even if just in
| Wikipedia.
|
| >How many people have to die in those USA wars? I mean,
| enough is enough.
|
| I think most important isn'h how many, the most important
| is who. Iran's regime has just indiscriminately killed
| 20-30K innocent civilians and uncountable many have been
| tortured. That is a crime against humanity. So, the top
| of Iran's regime and its IRGC has to be punished. I'm
| fine with that punishment being US and Israel's missiles.
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| > Iran's regime has just indiscriminately killed 20-30K
| innocent civilians and uncountable many have been
| tortured. That is a crime against humanity. So, the top
| of Iran's regime and its IRGC has to be punished. I'm
| fine with that punishment being US and Israel's missiles.
|
| Israel's regime has killed twice that many in Gaza.
| Shouldn't they be prioritized for "punishment"?
| trhway wrote:
| As i said the key thing isn't how many, it is who, how
| and what for.
|
| Israel started the war in response to the genocide of Oct
| 7. So all the legitimate collateral victims and damage
| from Israel's actions here is responsibility of the
| perpetrators of Oct 7.
|
| You aren't calling for prosecution of the perpetrators of
| Oct 7. That is already shows your colors.
|
| Anyway, the number of killed you cite comes directly from
| Hamas (its Ministry of Health stated those numbers to
| UN). Hamas is a terrorist org, and can't be trusted at
| all.
|
| There is no evidence that Israel killed civilians in any
| meaningful numbers, and that the killings were criminal
| and not legitimate collateral.
|
| Now, there is a million of cell phones in Gaza. After
| several years of watching Ukraine war anybody knows the
| amount of cell footage to expect. Some Russian killings
| in Bucha were recorded by reconnaissance drone for
| example. Russian soldiers posted videos of them executing
| POWs, security cameras recorded Russian soldiers
| marauding and so forth. Where is pretty much no footage
| comes from Gaza. "Israel soldiers shoot at the crowd at
| food distribution center" and nobody recorded anything
| (especially giving that according to Hamas it happens
| regularly - and still no footage!)
|
| And on rare occasions when some footage comes out - the
| analysis in the example below shows that the basic laws
| of physics wouldn't let even 20 people to be killed when
| Hamas claimed 400-800 in that "bombing of hospital"
| (again, if you watch war footage, you'd know what gore of
| several people killed by explosion would look like, and
| no way the parking lot would look that way just the
| morning several hours later - where is all the blood for
| example? it is pretty obvious that the asphalt hadn't
| been washed by the time photo was made so blood should be
| there even if they picked up all the bodies and parts of
| it)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38751882
| CapricornNoble wrote:
| >Israel started the war in response to the genocide of
| Oct 7. So all the legitimate collateral victims and
| damage from Israel's actions here is responsibility of
| the perpetrators of Oct 7.
|
| >You aren't calling for prosecution of the perpetrators
| of Oct 7. That is already shows your colors.
|
| The world did not start on October 7th, and it's
| completely disingenuous to suggest otherwise, which shows
| _YOUR_ colors. I could equally state " all
| responsibility lies with the perpetrators of the Nakhba".
|
| >Anyway, the number of killed you cite comes directly
| from Hamas (its Ministry of Health stated those numbers
| to UN). Hamas is a terrorist org, and can't be trusted at
| all.
|
| If the number can't be trusted, why is the IDF
| acknowledging it?
|
| https://www.timesofisrael.com/idf-believes-70000-gazans-
| kill...
|
| > There is no evidence that Israel killed civilians in
| any meaningful numbers, and that the killings were
| criminal and not legitimate collateral.
|
| If this is your position no further discussion is needed.
| There is nothing meaningful to be gained from engaging
| with you. I don't know if you guys realize how insane you
| appear to every other human being on the planet when you
| try to gaslight us into thinking the piles of evidence of
| dead women and children either doesn't exist or is
| somehow accidental.
| RobertoG wrote:
| Why was Hezbollah created? From wikipedia: "Hezbollah was
| founded in 1982 by Lebanese clerics in response to the
| Israeli invasion of Lebanon"
|
| Why was Hamas created? From wikipedia: "was founded by
| Palestinian Islamic scholar Ahmed Yassin in 1987 after
| the outbreak of the First Intifada against the Israeli
| occupation"
|
| What about the Houthis? From wikipedia: "The formation of
| the Houthi organisations has been described by Adam Baron
| of the European Council on Foreign Relations as a
| reaction to foreign intervention."
|
| But sure, the problem is Iran.
|
| There is not evidence about that 20-30k civilians dead. I
| could say it was 3 and I would have the same proof that
| you have.
|
| This rationale of 'Iran is not democratic enough'
| (despise they have a constitution, a parliament and
| elections) but I will support Saudi Arabia (that light of
| human rights in the middle east) is nonsense.
|
| All this is done for the geopolitical interest of USA,
| the oil and Israel. Anyone that say otherwise is taking
| us for idiots.
| trhway wrote:
| >There is not evidence about that 20-30k civilians dead.
| I could say it was 3 and I would have the same proof that
| you have.
|
| As i said you don't know what you're talking about. You
| seem to be just blabbering some gibberish. I'm not
| engaging with you anymore here.
|
| https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-protest-death-toll-ofogh-
| tv/336...
|
| "The government of Iran's reformist President Masud
| Pezeshkian has published the names and national ID
| numbers of 2,985 individuals killed during recent
| nationwide protests."
| 0x53 wrote:
| Never add your personal device to a companies MDM...
| mk89 wrote:
| Never use your personal device for work, you wanted to say,
| probably.
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| The only maybe grey area is to only us it as authenticator.
| But yes even then the company needs to provide this, a cheap
| phone works.
| kelvinjps10 wrote:
| USB keys? Isn't that what most companies do?
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| No, most companies use MS authenticator now for Office
| 365...
|
| https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/account-
| billing/download...
| kelvinjps10 wrote:
| In the company I used to work they shipped you a chromium
| os computer and a yubikey
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| Most companies are definitely NOT using Yubikeys. Did you
| work for Google? Nice man :)
|
| MFA in general had to be forced on companies, and then it
| is most often in software on a phone.
|
| Here are some rough numbers.
| google_workspace: total_active_users: "3 billion
| (includes free/consumer Gmail)"
| paid_business_customers: "11 million companies (2024)"
| paid_customer_growth: "+1 million companies in under 1
| year (2023-2024)" global_business_market_share:
| "~50%" fortune_500_presence: "minority share,
| weaker than Microsoft in enterprise"
| mfa_with_yubikeys: internal_google_employees:
| "100% use hardware keys (Yubikey/Titan) -- since 2017"
| fido_u2f_origin: "Google co-created U2F standard with
| Yubico post-Operation Aurora"
| estimated_user_adoption_pct: "~1-3% of all Workspace
| users (inference, not published)"
| concentration: "Highest in finance, government,
| tech/security-conscious orgs"
| typical_majority_mfa_method: "TOTP apps (Google
| Authenticator) or SMS"
| enterprise_passkey_deployment_2025: "87% of US/UK
| enterprises deploying or have deployed passkeys (FIDO
| Alliance -- includes all hardware key types, not Yubikey-
| specific)" microsoft_365:
| total_active_users: "~270 million (commercial)"
| paid_business_customers_us: "~1 million active US
| business customers" us_company_penetration: "~3%
| of all US companies"
| global_business_market_share: "~45%"
| fortune_500_presence: "~75% of Fortune 500"
| mfa_with_yubikeys: exact_stat_available: false
| note: "Same data gap as Workspace -- no published
| breakdown" caveats: - "Google's 3B
| user figure conflates consumer and business -- not
| comparable to Microsoft's 270M commercial figure"
| - "Market share figures vary by methodology (seats vs
| revenue vs orgs)" - "Yubikey adoption % is an
| industry inference; treat as directional only" -
| "Passkey != Yubikey -- FIDO Alliance 87% figure covers
| all FIDO2/passkey methods"
| kelvinjps10 wrote:
| I worked for Amazon they used the open source version of
| chrome os (chromium os). And mini PCs, I think this is
| the best setup, If I ever have to manage a company I will
| do this.
| bandie91 wrote:
| or an even cheaper and less complex (!) hardware token.
| 2bluesc wrote:
| I believe Android Work profile[0] would have limited the damage
| to the work profile rather than also impact the personal
| profile on a personal device.
|
| Does anyone know if this is correct?
|
| [0] https://www.android.com/enterprise/work-profile/
| sgc wrote:
| They are trying to hurt innocents in retaliation for the US
| murdering their children. I understand the sentiment, but
| strongly disagree with acting on it. Ukraine has done a much
| better (of course not perfect) job of retaliating against
| military targets in response to russian war crimes.
| vkou wrote:
| I'm sure that if Iran had the backing of the Western world, and
| had their surplus of armaments funneled it's way, it would be
| bombing army bases and refineries and airfields and factories
| and port facilities in the US.
|
| Unlike Ukraine, it does not, so it seems to be focusing on
| cyber vandalism and blowing up oil infrastructure in US vassal
| states, and other low-cost, high-ROI activities.
| sgc wrote:
| Relatively speaking, I don't care about oil facilities or
| cyber-vandalism, I care about school children and hospitals
| and sick people.
| Teever wrote:
| That's not the motivation for these attacks at all. They're
| waging asymmetric warfare against a much larger and more
| exposed opponent.
|
| Their goal is to make it too troublesome for the US/Israel to
| continue attacking them, like a swarm of bees attacking a bear
| to keep it away from their honey.
|
| Iran is in it to win it and the US is so very obviously not.
|
| The question is if the pressure that Israel can put on the
| current administration greater than the pressure that Iran can
| put on America as a whole.
|
| Time will tell.
| dominicrose wrote:
| Trump and republicans are now all-in in this war and this
| administration can tolerate a huge amount of chaos if it
| allows them to keep winning. It doesn't matter wether Israel
| pressures the administration or not. I'm not confident that
| the regime will fall but I am confident that it will be put
| in its place internationally even if it means closing the
| iranian borders from the outside indefinitely. BTW the US and
| Israel are not alone in this war.
| pjc50 wrote:
| Trump is never all in on anything. There's a reason that
| "TACO" became a meme. This administration is much more
| likely to lose interest and declare victory while oil
| facilities in the gulf states are still on fire.
|
| > closing the iranian borders from the outside indefinitely
|
| Are you proposing to disrupt China-Iran shipping? Intercept
| even Chinese-flagged oil vessels? (not that there are many,
| most are still under flags of convenience)
|
| Shoot down China-Iran civilian airliners? (again)
| logicchains wrote:
| >There's a reason that "TACO" became a meme. This
| administration is much more likely to lose interest and
| declare victory while oil facilities in the gulf states
| are still on fire.
|
| Do you think Trump's going to lose interest and declare
| victory while bombs are still flying over Bibi's head?
| pjc50 wrote:
| https://news24online.com/world/5-times-in-13-seconds-
| donald-...
|
| I suppose that just claiming victory doesn't mean the US
| stops fighting
| sgc wrote:
| Did you read the article? They said explicitly that is why
| they did it.
| fnord77 wrote:
| That's a shame, they make impressive products
| bawolff wrote:
| So... did they have backups?
|
| Wipe all data kind of seems like the best kind of cyberattack if
| you have backups. No data falling into wrong hands, no left
| behind rootkits, no ransome threats etc
| sofixa wrote:
| > No data falling into wrong hands, no left behind rootkits, no
| ransome threats etc
|
| You won't _necessarily_ be able to know that the data hasn 't
| already been exfiltrated and that the backups aren't post-
| compromise. Or that by restoring the backup you won't get back
| to the state that allowed them to get in in the first place.
| renewiltord wrote:
| They've been around for a while. Threat actors are something that
| I want our governments to be working on stopping. If they were
| capable, I would say we should run a government Project Zero but
| I doubt anyone would do long term service for $70k/yr when they
| could be making 10x-100x that.
|
| Anyway, the bombings will have to continue till we rubble our
| enemies.
| jonstewart wrote:
| We had a government agency working on stopping threat actors,
| the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, but then
| DOGE ruined it. Now it's a shell.
| renewiltord wrote:
| So the role they were fulfilling is gone entirely? What was
| it?
| shevy-java wrote:
| So their own faulty security is now blamed on others. That's not
| new.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I'm trying to imagine the kind of response the USA would inflict
| on a country that wiped a girls school stateside.
| haritha-j wrote:
| They'd probably go all in, kill the leader of the nation, kill
| some of the successors in line, bomb the daylights out of a
| bunch of civillian sites, wipe out a girls school, sink a few
| ships... oh wait.
| netsharc wrote:
| If Iran managed to get an American incel to shoot it up, the US
| regime would just shrug, "oh well, what can you do"...
| pjc50 wrote:
| People routinely - well, at least every few months - shoot up
| US schools. They are radicalized online. There is a common
| pattern to the radicalization. However, it's ""forbidden"" to
| point that out or suggest restricting the supply of firearms
| to internal enemies of the US in any way.
| rchaud wrote:
| Americans don't need any encouragement from foreign powers to
| do that. Congress has seen fit to keep letting it happen by
| pointing to ancient scripture about the right to develop
| one's own organized militia....
| klipt wrote:
| Difficult to be sure what would happen in a counter factual
| universe without foreign interference.
|
| We do know that Russia et al sow division online as part of
| their anti western efforts, a strategy detailed in their
| "Foundations of Geopolitics" manual.
| netsharc wrote:
| Someone commented, and I paraphrase poorly, "Imagine if
| Russia didn't influence the voters in 2016; all the
| racism and bigotry in the USA would disappear!"...
| igleria wrote:
| Extrapolate from the response to 9/11 but with 2026 technology
| and imagination is the only limit.
| asdff wrote:
| 9/11 was when bankers were killed, not children. You have to
| extrapolate from Uvalde.
| SpaceL10n wrote:
| Yep. And when it happens, I'm not even going to be mad. We
| deserve it for making such a grave mistake.
| wutwutwat wrote:
| Innocent people never "deserve it", anywhere in the world,
| have some tact. IMO you should still be mad as hell, at the
| right people
| saberience wrote:
| What about a company that killed 20000 to 30000 protestors with
| machine guns?
| rchaud wrote:
| The US can't even confirm how many detainees have died in
| custody in immigration detention around the country, yet they
| have precise numbers on how many people the Iranian regime
| has killed? Give me a break.
| klipt wrote:
| If Iran is unwilling to let neutral international observers
| confirm the number, that suggests they are trying to hide a
| number they don't want the world to know.
| rchaud wrote:
| Who gets to define what "neutral" is? According to the
| US, the International Criminal Court is not fit for this
| purpose. It certainly can't be a nation-state that's in a
| military alliance with the US.
|
| Human Rights Watch, MSF, UNICEF? Woke grievance
| factories, the lot of them /s . World Health
| Organization? US just left it. It's slim pickings out
| there.
| gravisultra wrote:
| Which Iran did not do. There's a single report from an anti-
| Iran agency saying that Iran claimed 3,000 killed protesters
| (not 20k-30k). Iran never said that though, and I would
| challenge anyone to produce evidence that they did.
| manbash wrote:
| Yeah, it really wasn't about the school.
| joemazerino wrote:
| They couldn't, and that's the point.
|
| Iran is a state sponsor of Islamic terrorist groups worldwide
| and have contributed to thousands of deaths, including
| children. None of it is justified but let's not pretend it's
| one sided.
| gmerc wrote:
| Your cilivians inflict that on yourself and you do nothing....
| asdff wrote:
| If we take precedent from other times children in the USA were
| slaughtered in schools, probably a bit of national
| grandstanding on either end of the political spectrum then
| nothing actually material happening.
| jacquesm wrote:
| The key difference is this would be identifiable foreigners
| doing it.
| mbix77 wrote:
| Killing 175 children would illicit such a response also from USA
| hackers.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| I wonder if there was some confusion between Stryker the Army
| infantry vehicle and Stryker the medtech company.
|
| It seems a really weird target for Iran otherwise.
| samrus wrote:
| Medtech company males complete sense. Iran's strategy seems to
| be to tighten the screws on US citizens so they put pressure on
| the government to stop the war. They seem to be doing that with
| things like higher gas prices, and now delays at hospitals with
| this stryker hit
|
| Makes sense given that US citizens tend not to be too
| supportive of american wars, but tolerate them because it
| doesnt really affect them. So iran can get this to affect them
| then people might come out to the streets. Which would be
| especially effective in a midterms year like now.
|
| Man itll be ironic as fuck if iran manages to enact regime
| change in the us before the us does in iran
| LEDThereBeLight wrote:
| It it was the case, Iran underestimates how vindictive
| Americans are.
| samrus wrote:
| Meh. Americans showed in vietnam and iraq that they dont
| just go along with wars they think are bullshit
|
| This could make americans hate iran and demand retribution,
| but i think its more likely to make americans made at
| israel and their own governmnet for dragging them into it
| for no reason
| FarmerPotato wrote:
| Yeah, I had to lookup the names! Stryker the armored vehicle is
| made by General Dynamics. Striker the fire truck is made by
| Oshkosh Corporation.
| globemaster99 wrote:
| American terrorists are really understanding what might be the
| consequences when they push people to end of their survival. The
| people of iran are fighting for their survival and they got
| nothing to loose.
|
| Things are just getting started.
| elbasti wrote:
| If by "survival" you mean surviving against a bloodthirsty
| regime that killed 10,000 people in January alone, then yes:
| the people of Iran are fighting for survival.
| gravisultra wrote:
| That's pure Israeli propaganda, and as you see there is
| absolutely no "up rising" from Iranian citizens. They are
| however, uniformly against Israel and the US given that we
| started this illegal war by bombing a girls school and
| murdering over 170 children. Much like Israel has been doing
| since its creation in 1948.
| srean wrote:
| Patriot of Persia
| https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12202123-patriot-of-pers...
|
| An important book to read.
|
| So many people think this started with the islamic revolution of
| the 70s. The meddling goes further in time.
| gravisultra wrote:
| Zionists have been meddling in the Middle East since their
| ideology was created in the late 1800s.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| So US and Israel wipe out a school filled with children and
| Iranian hackers delete some data as retaliation?
| pjc50 wrote:
| There's an awful lot more involved on both sides of this. I
| don't think Iran gets _enough_ criticism from the "non-
| rightwing" faction for its role in both supplying Russia with
| weapons against Ukraine and for escalating the conflict around
| Israel resulting in reprisals against Palenstinian and Lebanese
| civilians.
|
| It would take some unpleasant searching but I'm sure one can
| find the most recent incident of Hezbollah (not Hamas,
| Hezbollah are explicitly backed by Iran) either carrying out a
| missile or suicide bombing attach with the loss of Israeli
| civilian lives.
|
| (disclaimer: the war of aggression against Iran by Israel and
| its decapitation attacks are _also_ wrong)
| iJohnDoe wrote:
| One irony here is that Stryker makes their partners and suppliers
| jump through so many cybersecurity hoops. I'm talking months and
| ridiculous demands. Then they get hacked themselves. They should
| have gotten their own shit together as well.
| b112 wrote:
| I absolutely think there should be ramifications for such acts.
|
| What I find bizarre, is that China and Russia do this daily, and
| "oh well". If such states sent over people to, you know, do
| damage using a bomb instead of a hack, there'd be trouble. As in,
| two towers were damaged, and it set off 20 years of war ...
| mostly against the wrong states.
|
| Yet if you cause death via subtle means, such as reducing
| hospital infra, or attack and destroy infra via hacking, meh. Oh
| well!
|
| This sort of falls inline with all other compute issues that
| appear before all elected bodies on the planet. An immense lack
| of understanding and comprehension, coupled with an inability to
| act.
| WD-42 wrote:
| Well their country is currently being bombed, curious what
| additional ramifications you'd like to see?
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| I think he's pointing out that we're not bombing China or
| Russia or North Korea, or any other states, over similar
| attacks.
| gzread wrote:
| Well they're not... um... what was it that Iran was doing
| to make us bomb them again?
| RankingMember wrote:
| plainly: they're being punished for not having nuclear
| weapons already
| kelipso wrote:
| Because they have nukes unlike Iran.
| goatlover wrote:
| And one wonders why Iran wants a nuke. It's not to wipe
| out Israel and the US as some hawks in Congress falsely
| claim. It's the same reason North Korea developed nukes.
| Terrible regimes, but they understand countries with
| nukes don't get bombed or invaded. That's Ukraine's
| tragedy.
| RankingMember wrote:
| yeah, if there's one clear takeaway from the US-involved
| conflicts of the past several decades, it's that nukes
| are the key to making the U.S. keep its hands to itself
| we_have_options wrote:
| Or we could see this as a ramification for US bombing their
| country and DIRECTLY killing people, including many non-
| combatants.
|
| Like children, at school
|
| https://www.npr.org/2026/03/11/nx-s1-5744981/pentagon-iran-m...
| randunel wrote:
| The commenter you replied to seems to be oblivious to the
| fact that this act, described in the article, is merely a
| consequence of the war they started.
| b112 wrote:
| Iranian hackers have been at place for quite some time
| beforehand.
|
| And it's not a war started, its a "war" responding to
| decades of heinous, vicious, deadly funding of terrorist
| organizations, and bombing of innocent civilians.
|
| Defending Iran is akin to defending a serial murderer. Or
| complaining that the serial murdered got shot while
| resisting arrest. Ridiculous.
|
| I sincerely hope the decent people of Iran do get rid of
| this ridiculous, religiously ran and controlled state.
| gzread wrote:
| Didn't the US kill more people than Iran did, in any time
| period?
| pcthrowaway wrote:
| Iran _may_ have killed more people on January 12.
|
| Assuming the killings weren't instigated by American or
| Israeli operatives
| thrance wrote:
| The US killed many, many more civilians accross the world
| that Iran ever did. Yet you don't seem to care about
| that, why?
|
| > And it's not a war started, its a "war" responding to
| decades of heinous, vicious, deadly funding of terrorist
| organizations, and bombing of innocent civilians.
|
| As if the US hadn't been antagonizing Iran for decades.
| Trump broke the nuclear agreements (which Iran had been
| following), then refused to negotiate new ones, then
| joined Israel in their bloodlust for muslim blood. This
| war is aimless, and only serves to radicalize the Iranian
| people against Israel and the US. Which will inevitably
| result in even more bloodshed down the line.
| RankingMember wrote:
| > Trump broke the nuclear agreements (which Iran had been
| following), then refused to negotiate new ones
|
| This is the most head-slapping part of this whole
| situation. We _had_ a nuclear deal and he pulled the US
| out of it for no good reason (my read: because he just
| hates Obama that much that anything he did he wanted to
| undo). This situation is 100% on this president.
| b112 wrote:
| What a ridiculous comparison. This Iranian regime is
| responsible for the direct deaths of civilians, on purpose,
| due to both funding and direct acts of violence around the
| world. And yes, that includes countless children.
|
| Not to mention its own citizens, Iranian death squads,
| killing of women, there is literally no comparison between
| the purposeful, lack of any care or concern for life
| exhibited by Iran, and a literal accident with a missile.
|
| To highlight that point, the US cares enough to investigate
| and discover just how such an unfortunate act happened.
| gzread wrote:
| I'm not quite getting your point. Are you saying that when
| Iran kills children, we should get angry and bomb them, and
| when the US kills children, other countries shouldn't get
| angry and bomb the US?
| lostmsu wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter#Involuntary
|
| See the accidental death section. Generally not
| considered a crime on its own.
| Orygin wrote:
| > To highlight that point, the US cares enough to
| investigate and discover just how such an unfortunate act
| happened.
|
| I trust the US as much as Iran or North Korea to
| investigate themselves and find no fault.
| thrance wrote:
| So, since the Iranian regime killed protesters, it's OK for
| the US regime to obliterate a girl's school? And then lie
| about it? I'm having trouble following your reasoning.
| goatlover wrote:
| Tell me again why was this war necessary for the US? What
| sort of threat did Iran pose? Wasn't their nuclear program
| "obliterated" when we bombed them last year? Every time
| someone from the Trump administration talks, it's a
| different reason.
| AshleyGrant wrote:
| > there is literally no comparison
|
| There absolutely is a comparison. Both acts are evil. Just
| because Iran's regime has a history of even more heinous
| evil acts doesn't absolve the United States and Israel of
| their own evil acts.
| GaryBluto wrote:
| I don't see why this matters, there are accidental civilian
| casualties in every war. This was unintentional, unlike Iran
| killing 30,000 of their own citizens, which was entirely
| deliberate.
|
| If you can find evidence the United States directly targeted
| a school with the intent of killing children and not just due
| to outdated intel (and somebody setting up a school in what
| was once part of an Iranian Revolutionary Guard naval base),
| maybe I'd change my mind.
| streetfighter64 wrote:
| 30000 is nothing compared to the civilians the US has
| killed all over the world, all "accidentally" of course.
| Since 2023 Israel has killed 57000 civilians in Gaza.
| Shouldn't you be calling for an invasion of Israel on
| humanitarian grounds then?
| dmix wrote:
| The only reason the US government doesn't make a big deal about
| hacking is because they dont want blowback from their own
| intelligence collection operations.
|
| It's like how every country knows embassies are full of spies
| but they let them operate as diplomats anyway because they do
| the same thing.
| WD-42 wrote:
| > It's like how every country knows embassies are full of
| spies but they let them operate as diplomats anyway
|
| Or in Iran's case, they don't.
| the_af wrote:
| Is it an "oh well" situation in this case though?
|
| There seem to be actual people getting killed, in an actual war
| (by another name, but we all know it's a war, with missiles and
| airplanes and bombs).
| camillomiller wrote:
| Yep, the US should kill another 170 kids in a school, for
| example, right?
|
| Edit: this is one of those case where I would really love to
| see the face of the one who downvoted this comment.
| akramachamarei wrote:
| I didn't downvote you, but you probably were because your
| comment is an impertinent strawman. The faces of your
| downvoters are normal people who care about the quality of
| the discussion.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Ramifications include firing more security engineers and
| replacing them with shoddy AI tools, pencil whipping any issues
| that cost time and money to fix immediately, or just ignoring
| the problem entirely until it happens a few more times.
| varjag wrote:
| > If such states sent over people to, you know, do damage using
| a bomb instead of a hack, there'd be trouble.
|
| Russia have been running assassinations and sabotage programme
| using poison, bombs, small arms and radioactive material in the
| West for years with no real repercussions.
| xyclonbee wrote:
| What does Israel gain by instigating war between USA and China
| right now?
| skybrian wrote:
| A problem with this line of reasoning is that the people killed
| by your hypothetical bombs are likely not the ones responsible
| for the previous attack, even if they do live in the same
| country. Warfare is in general a very poor system of justice
| and probably shouldn't be considered as such.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| Their country is being attacked. They are the aggressed party.
|
| What ramifications you think is going to happen? They already
| have their country being bombed.
| strict9 wrote:
| It appears personal devices were also impacted by this via
| Microsoft Intune. That app is presented to employees as a way to
| get their email/slack on their personal device without giving IT
| systems access to it.
|
| IT systems around the country say that they have no access to
| your personal data and there they can only block access to Intune
| apps.
|
| But the linked reddit thread[1] in this article notes personal
| devices getting wiped and locked out.
|
| [1]:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/cybersecurity/comments/1rqopq0/stry...
| DANmode wrote:
| MDM enrollment has colloquially meant your device could be
| wiped for the security|incompetency of your firm for quite some
| time.
| stackskipton wrote:
| Knowing InTune MDM setup, it has two modes, control a few apps
| or control entire phone. iOS will tell you during setup what's
| happening and I've been at plenty of companies where employees
| are told "It's just for our apps" but it's really full Device
| Control. $TwoCompaniesAgo tried that "It's just for our
| applications" but when I went to install it, iOS went "This is
| 100% full device control" and I rejected it.
| mjlee wrote:
| Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) MDM profiles typically don't allow
| personal data access outside of their sandbox, but they almost
| always include remote wipe capabilities.
|
| iOS at least displays a very clear warning when you import the
| profile telling you exactly what it can do.
|
| Not that this isn't awful, but it's good to be clear on what
| this can do when used within normal expectations.
| jmyeet wrote:
| Isn't it a weird coincidence that soon after the US and Israel
| started an unprovoked and unnecessary war (that billionaires will
| profit handsomely from, as an aside) that we get stories like
| this to manufacture consent?
|
| I belive that US tech firms have increasingly become valid
| military targets. There was a post about this yesterday [1]. BUT
| I don't think that extends to hospitals and medical supplies,
| regardless of who owns them or if they treat soldiers or not.
|
| But, as best as I can tell, the company has been inconvenienced,
| possibly massively. Let's put this in context. The US launched a
| Tomahawk missile at a school and killed 160 school girls.
|
| And I bet that if you look into pretty much any company hit by a
| hack, you'll find cost-cutting on IT to increase executive pay
| and bonuses.
|
| Between the Iran-Iraq war, which the US was responsible for, and
| decades of sanctions, the US has by this point killed _millions_
| of Iranians. The real problem here is the general ignorance of
| the average American of America 's 70+ years of war crimes
| against Iran [2].
|
| I mean this as analysis, not justification. But at some point the
| incredulity at blowback rings hollow.
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47341007
|
| [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47342791
| neodymiumphish wrote:
| If you make justifications for non-military targets like that
| ("tech firms"), then it just becomes a matter of opinion on
| where we draw the line. _You_ don't think that extends to
| hospitals and medical supplies, but _they_ might, and you're
| moral compass is just as righteous as theirs.
| jmyeet wrote:
| There was a time when there was less restraint with what
| prosecuting a war looked like. The Mongols famously wiped out
| the Khwarazmian Empire after the Sultan killed their traders.
|
| But given the growth in destructive power, particularly with
| the advent of the nuclear age, it became necessary to
| establish some rules or norms for war and I'm referring
| specifically to the Geneva Conventions [1]. Conventions here
| cover that wounded people and civilians aren't military
| targets. So it's not my opinion or Iran's opinion that
| matters.
|
| The question then is do we live in an interntional rules-
| based order or not? The US and Israel have ignored the rules-
| based order in favor of "might is right" politics.
|
| As for tech firms, I'm sorry but a company like Palantir has
| made itself a valid military target [2][3]. And if you work
| there, you are really no different from the Reaper Drone
| pilot who fires Hellfire missiles at, say, a wedding
| procession [4].
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
|
| [2]: https://www.972mag.com/lavender-ai-israeli-army-gaza/
|
| [3]: https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-
| news/palantir...
|
| [4]: https://aoav.org.uk/2014/drone-strike-yemen/
| gruez wrote:
| >Isn't it a weird coincidence that soon after the US and Israel
| started an unprovoked and unnecessary war (that billionaires
| will profit handsomely from, as an aside) that we get stories
| like this to manufacture consent?
|
| Are you suggesting that's an inside job and/or false flag
| attack? If it's not a false flag attack, why imply that the
| reporting must be to "manufacture consent"? Shouldn't you
| expect major hacks to be reported?
| jmyeet wrote:
| No.
|
| I'm saying that the media suddenly covering stories like this
| isn't a coincidence. The media is a tool of the state to
| manufacture consent. Media literacy goes beyond just looking
| at the facts in a story. It's also what's not mentioned, how
| is it presented, what stories are written, what stories
| aren't and, most importantly, _why_.
|
| All social media companies manufacture consent for American
| foreign policy. Pretty much all American media does the same.
|
| I find all this particularly funny because our media does the
| exact thing we accuse the likes of Chinese media doing it. We
| just pretend it doesn't happen here or are oblivious to it.
| gruez wrote:
| >I'm saying that the media suddenly covering stories like
| this isn't a coincidence. The media is a tool of the state
| to manufacture consent [...]
|
| What do you mean "suddenly"? Per the reddit thread, they
| just got hacked yesterday. It's not like they were sitting
| on the story until the war broke out. Moreover I see hacks
| covered in the media all the time, even if there's no
| obvious russia/iran/north korea "manufacture consent"
| angle.
|
| >Media literacy goes beyond just looking at the facts in a
| story. It's also what's not mentioned, how is it presented,
| what stories are written, what stories aren't and, most
| importantly, why.
|
| There's a huge gulf between "taking every story at face
| value" and what you're doing which is seemingly assuming
| every story must be part of some sinister conspiracy to
| "manufacture consent".
| jmyeet wrote:
| > Per the reddit thread, they just got hacked yesterday.
|
| There are constant hacks of companies. Most of them don't
| get covered. So there's that. But it's also how it's
| framed. It's an "Iranian cyberattack". Interesting.
|
| Couldn't an equally valid headline be "Lax security
| results in Stryker getting hacked"? Probably (just
| guessing).
|
| It's a bit like all the stories about the Chinese
| stealing IP and jobs. Ok, let's assume those claims are
| true and have been for decades. So why do companies keep
| offshoring there _knowing this will happen_? At what
| point do you blame short-term cost-cutting by bonus-
| hunting executives?
|
| My point is that the media is playing along and you're
| going to get a lot of "Iran = bad" stories because of it.
| gruez wrote:
| >There are constant hacks of companies. Most of them
| don't get covered. So there's that.
|
| Source? You can't just be like "some hacks don't get
| covered, this hack got covered, therefore there must be
| some ulterior motive behind this". If the baseline rate
| for reporting hacks is like 50% (random number), then the
| fact that it got reported doesn't tell us much. Moreover
| Stryker Corporation is a S&P 500 company, and this hack
| had major impact on their business. It's not just some
| data that got leaked, all their laptops/phones got wiped.
| It's exactly the type of hack that I'd expect to not get
| swept under the rug.
|
| >It's an "Iranian cyberattack". Interesting.
|
| Again, unless you're going for the false flag or inside
| job excuse, the hacker's note makes it pretty clear that
| it's Iranian backed, or at least by Iranian sympathizers.
|
| >Couldn't an equally valid headline be "Lax security
| results in Stryker getting hacked"? Probably (just
| guessing).
|
| >It's a bit like all the stories about the Chinese
| stealing IP and jobs. Ok, let's assume those claims are
| true and have been for decades. So why do companies keep
| offshoring there knowing this will happen? At what point
| do you blame short-term cost-cutting by bonus-hunting
| executives?
|
| Same reason we don't put out headlines saying "women
| going to seedy club results in rape".
| cityofdelusion wrote:
| Is there a reason to believe this is false flag per your first
| sentence? Iran is an advanced technological civilization and
| very much capable. They would be considered a first world
| western like nation if they didn't have a repressive theocracy.
| w14 wrote:
| > I belive that US tech firms have increasingly become valid
| military targets.
|
| Not just US tech firms. So-called dual-use has been embedded
| into all kinds of what was previously exclusively civilian
| infrastructure including telecoms networks and data centres.
|
| Of course dual-use has always been a thing up to a point, but
| there has been a shift in recent years to bring it right to the
| heart of military doctrine.
|
| For example the UK's Strategic Defence Review 2025 and the new
| Defence Industrial Strategy:
|
| "A new PS11bn 'Invest' annual budget has also been established
| under the NAD. This will fund kit for our front-line forces
| which is affordable and grows our UK industrial base. Our new
| partnership with industry and a decade of consistently rising
| defence spending will encourage more private finance to grow
| our world-leading scale-up and dual-use tech companies."
|
| "Today, much of the best innovation is found in the private
| sector, while the increasing prevalence of dual-use
| technologies has widened the net of potential suppliers that
| can contribute to Defence outcomes."
|
| The way things are going it won't just be tech firms that will
| be considered 'legitimate targets'.
| gatreddi wrote:
| If Intune wiped personal devices that's a serious failure. BYOD
| setups are supposed to wipe only the work container, not the
| whole phone. Either those devices were fully enrolled in MDM
| without people realizing or someone pushed the wrong wipe policy
| during incident response. Would be good to see confirmation from
| affected employees.
| mjlee wrote:
| This isn't true for iOS at least. You can include device erase
| capabilities in the MDM profile without enrolling as a managed
| device.
| oytis wrote:
| Hacktivists? Looks more like state actors.
| GenerWork wrote:
| That was my thought. This is 100% a state actor.
| akramachamarei wrote:
| Astounding amount of censorship in these comments.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-12 23:01 UTC)