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.
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.
Intune has two modes. Device registration and User registration. And two kinds of wipes, retire and wipe. Retire means only delete your work profile and is only available for User registration mdm. Sounds like Stryker didn't configure intune properly for byod to force users with personal devices to use User registration.
Beyond that there are so many other things in intune you can use to prevent this sort of thing. Short lived / JIT credentials with MFA, ip restrictions, multi admin approval, rbac (role based fine tuned permissions eg help desk can't wipe, only retire ) etc. sounds like there were some big misses here.
Also sounds like they were in the system long enough to exfiltrate 50+ TB of data without setting off alarm bells.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
I’m asking if it’s possible to secure the MDM process in a way that Iranian operatives can’t simply torture an administrator into pushing the big red MDM button.
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?
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.
>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.
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.
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...
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.
Apple introduced User Enrollment from iOS 13 onwards, which is the preferred way to do BYOD enrollments. This enrollment type does not support the erase capability.
What you mean is the device enrollment on non-supervised devices, however and to my knowledge, enterprises do not use this, or if they do, it is very rare. (edit: And if they do, it's apparently a grave mistake.)
So frustrating that news from my area one here is ever positive. West Michigan has a booming tech scene right now and clearly companies like Stryker need talent. Its LCOL here and the jobs are there for tech.
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.
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"
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.
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
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
'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).
> 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.
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.
>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.
> 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"?
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)
>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?
> 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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
>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.
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
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.
I've seen the reaction to people flying their toy drones too close to military assets, they send men out with machine guns and megaphones, confiscate the drone and sometimes press charges.
> 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.
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?
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
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.
> 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".
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.
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".
I think it’s possible they already have nukes and want to wait for Israel to over extend themselves so that they can use them for a first strike with maximum efficacy. They’ve done a lot for Russia. The idea that they don’t have nuclear armament is somewhat hard for me to believe.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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!"...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I find those numbers hard to believe, as it is obvious that the US was already planning a regime changing intervention for quite some time when those protests happened.
You can't trust people who paint Reza Pahlavi as a paragon of human rights and democracy. And neither you can trust every iranian refugee as a lot of those were corrupt members of the ruling government or worse, Savak members.
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.
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.
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].
> 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 £11bn ‘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'.
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.
>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?
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.
>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".
> 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.
>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".
> 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?
Manufacture consent for what? Starting a war with Iran? The US already did that, and didn't need any sort of consent.
If anything, this sort of story is more likely to manufacture opposition to the war, because folks already think the war is stupid, pointless, and never should have happened, and now they're suffering more for it.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
>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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Judging by the target of the attack, looks like a false flag (it can be a false flag also if done by members of the organization paid by you know who, there were precedents).
Iran specifically takes care to underline that it is not "an enemy of the american people".
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...
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.
Which is why I allow Slack but not Teams or Exchange-based mail on my phone. Give me a company phone if you want me to use Teams.
Intune has two modes. Device registration and User registration. And two kinds of wipes, retire and wipe. Retire means only delete your work profile and is only available for User registration mdm. Sounds like Stryker didn't configure intune properly for byod to force users with personal devices to use User registration.
Beyond that there are so many other things in intune you can use to prevent this sort of thing. Short lived / JIT credentials with MFA, ip restrictions, multi admin approval, rbac (role based fine tuned permissions eg help desk can't wipe, only retire ) etc. sounds like there were some big misses here.
Also sounds like they were in the system long enough to exfiltrate 50+ TB of data without setting off alarm bells.
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.
MDM enrollment has colloquially meant your device could be wiped for the security|incompetency of your firm for quite some time.
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.
Go and switch your suppliers my friends, talk to purchasing now.
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.
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.
The company should have known better than to trust their IT infrastructure to Microslop. This is their own fault.
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.
No MDM just isn’t an option for most enterprises but ideally the keys to the kingdom are properly secured.
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?
"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...
At the end of the day someone needs remote wipers privs, and in a large company it's something done pretty often.
Ok and who has access to the global admin and how resistant are they to Iranian operatives?
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.
I’m asking if it’s possible to secure the MDM process in a way that Iranian operatives can’t simply torture an administrator into pushing the big red MDM button.
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?
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.
This raises the question: Are mass layoffs less frequent than a company's MS administrator account getting hacked?
Question the concept of mass layoffs?
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.
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.
And who sets the limits? MS? What if a company WANTS to wipe their entire fleet?
Require dual sign off
"Call support so they can turn off the safeties for an hour."
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.
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....
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...
Killing 175 children would illicit such a response also from USA hackers.
Killing 175 children in the US would be called another Tuesday school shooting or something.
Also elicit.
Hacktivists? Looks more like state actors.
State actors can be activists. The inability for Americans to understand that has cost them wars.
That was my thought. This is 100% a state actor.
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.
This isn't true for iOS at least. You can include device erase capabilities in the MDM profile without enrolling as a managed device.
Apple introduced User Enrollment from iOS 13 onwards, which is the preferred way to do BYOD enrollments. This enrollment type does not support the erase capability.
What you mean is the device enrollment on non-supervised devices, however and to my knowledge, enterprises do not use this, or if they do, it is very rare. (edit: And if they do, it's apparently a grave mistake.)
So frustrating that news from my area one here is ever positive. West Michigan has a booming tech scene right now and clearly companies like Stryker need talent. Its LCOL here and the jobs are there for tech.
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.
Zionists have been meddling in the Middle East since their ideology was created in the late 1800s.
The current Middle East situation dates back to at least the second millenium BCE.
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.
Never add your personal device to a companies MDM…
Never use your personal device for work, you wanted to say, probably.
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.
or an even cheaper and less complex (!) hardware token.
USB keys? Isn't that what most companies do?
No, most companies use MS authenticator now for Office 365...
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/account-billing/download...
In the company I used to work they shipped you a chromium os computer and a yubikey
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.
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.
Ok good for you. Can you see now that most companies are not using Yubikeys?
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/
Exactly. BYOD cannot be wiped [0], neither on iOS, nor on Android. Only company-owned devices are affected.
edit: 0 - on iOS this means enrolled via User Enrollment
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
> 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.
That's a shame, they make impressive products
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.
If they're a primary regional supplier, it could have a huge impact. It doesn't have to break the entire country to matter.
My understanding is that the aim was not to disrupt the supply chain but to harm the company itself.
Astounding amount of censorship in these comments.
So their own faulty security is now blamed on others. That's not new.
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.
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.
So the role they were fulfilling is gone entirely? What was it?
Related:
Iran warns U.S. tech firms could become targets as war expands
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47341007
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-...
'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
> 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.
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.
>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.
> 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"?
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
>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.
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.
>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."
Exactly, Iran published the number of death and what we heard all the time is that number multiplied by ten. But I'm the one blabbering gibberish.
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.
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.
Ukraine did something similar and wiped out a lot of Russian aircraft.
Buncha drones in shipping containers that popped open once deep in-country
"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.
> 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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
I've seen the reaction to people flying their toy drones too close to military assets, they send men out with machine guns and megaphones, confiscate the drone and sometimes press charges.
They were Palantir apparently.
> 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.
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.
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?
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
The "Fucking for Virginity" approach to infosec strikes again!
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?
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.
I think this refers to "bombing for peace". Sure the West should have just let Iran nuke whoever it wanted.
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.
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.
> 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".
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.
Isn't this exactly what the Samson Option represents?
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".
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.
I agree with the first part of what you said. Mostly because they didn't have nukes to begin with.
I think it’s possible they already have nukes and want to wait for Israel to over extend themselves so that they can use them for a first strike with maximum efficacy. They’ve done a lot for Russia. The idea that they don’t have nuclear armament is somewhat hard for me to believe.
The whole point of having nukes is letting everyone know you have them.
I'm trying to imagine the kind of response the USA would inflict on a country that wiped a girls school stateside.
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.
The key difference is this would be identifiable foreigners doing it.
If Iran managed to get an American incel to shoot it up, the US regime would just shrug, "oh well, what can you do"...
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.
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....
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.
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!"...
Yep. And when it happens, I'm not even going to be mad. We deserve it for making such a grave mistake.
Innocent people never "deserve it", anywhere in the world, have some tact. IMO you should still be mad as hell, at the right people
Extrapolate from the response to 9/11 but with 2026 technology and imagination is the only limit.
9/11 was when bankers were killed, not children. You have to extrapolate from Uvalde.
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.
Your cilivians inflict that on yourself and you do nothing....
Yeah, it really wasn't about the school.
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.
What about a company that killed 20000 to 30000 protestors with machine guns?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I find those numbers hard to believe, as it is obvious that the US was already planning a regime changing intervention for quite some time when those protests happened.
You can't trust people who paint Reza Pahlavi as a paragon of human rights and democracy. And neither you can trust every iranian refugee as a lot of those were corrupt members of the ruling government or worse, Savak members.
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
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.
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/
> 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 £11bn ‘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'.
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.
>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?
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.
>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".
> 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.
>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".
> 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?
Manufacture consent for what? Starting a war with Iran? The US already did that, and didn't need any sort of consent.
If anything, this sort of story is more likely to manufacture opposition to the war, because folks already think the war is stupid, pointless, and never should have happened, and now they're suffering more for it.
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.
Well their country is currently being bombed, curious what additional ramifications you’d like to see?
I think he's pointing out that we're not bombing China or Russia or North Korea, or any other states, over similar attacks.
Because they have nukes unlike Iran.
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.
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
Well they're not... um... what was it that Iran was doing to make us bomb them again?
plainly: they're being punished for not having nuclear weapons already
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
What does Israel gain by instigating war between USA and China right now?
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).
> 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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Didn't the US kill more people than Iran did, in any time period?
Iran may have killed more people on January 12.
Assuming the killings weren't instigated by American or Israeli operatives
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.
> 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
It it was the case, Iran underestimates how vindictive Americans are.
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
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.
So US and Israel wipe out a school filled with children and Iranian hackers delete some data as retaliation?
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)
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
Yeah dumbasses regularly post nonsense on Elon's X™
I'm pretty sure that is not exclusive to X.
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.
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.
Relatively speaking, I don't care about oil facilities or cyber-vandalism, I care about school children and hospitals and sick people.
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.
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.
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)
>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?
https://news24online.com/world/5-times-in-13-seconds-donald-...
I suppose that just claiming victory doesn't mean the US stops fighting
Did you read the article? They said explicitly that is why they did it.
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?
>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...
yeah that is a lot of tech, but it’s all B2B- no consumer breach, right?
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.
so maybe more hospitals shutdown from ransomware attacks coming?
That second B has alot of customers. Sick and dying customers that arent very flexible on demand
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.
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.
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.
Judging by the target of the attack, looks like a false flag (it can be a false flag also if done by members of the organization paid by you know who, there were precedents).
Iran specifically takes care to underline that it is not "an enemy of the american people".