Iran-Israel Conflict Spills to Digital World, Inflaming Rivalry
On Tuesday, a pro-Israel hacking group claimed responsibility for a disruptive cyberattack against a major Iranian bank, and Iran's state-run IRIB News reported that Israel had launched a full-scale cyberattack on the country's critical infrastructure.
Iran's Fars News Agency, affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, reported that the country has endured more than 6,700 distributed denial-of-service attacks over the past three days. It said temporary internet restrictions were implemented as a measure to blunt the impact of large-scale cyberattacks. DDoS attacks overwhelm servers with artificial traffic, disrupting access to websites and online services.
Iranians were reporting widespread issues accessing the internet on Tuesday night, with many virtual private networks, or VPNs, rendered unusable. Customers also reported problems with banking services, including banking machines and online systems. It's not clear if the problems were the result of cyberattacks or efforts by the government to minimize their impact.
The attacks tied to Israel herald a new front in the escalating Middle East conflict — but the countries' cyber rivalry spans two decades.
Iran and its regional proxies, such as Hamas, have attempted a wide variety of cyberattacks against Israel in recent years — including information operations, data destruction attacks and phishing campaigns — with mixed results, according to Google.
Israel is widely considered one of the world's most advanced and capable countries in launching cyberattacks. An operation called Stuxnet, uncovered in 2010 and tied to the US and Israel, sabotaged hardware believed to be responsible for Iran's nuclear weapons development. One of the most advanced and impactful hacking operations in history, Stuxnet demonstrates the longstanding centrality of cyber to the Israel-Iran conflict.
The claims of Predatory Sparrow, which took credit for hacking Iran's Bank Sepah, are the latest manifestation of that digital tit-for-tat.
The group is known for launching significant cyberattacks against Iran over the last five years while maintaining the image of a 'hacktivist' organization. Many cybersecurity experts within private industry have suggested Private Sparrow is linked to the Israeli government.
Israel's Ministry for Foreign Affairs didn't respond to a request for comment. Predatory Sparrow couldn't be reached for comment.
'Most disruptive and destructive cyberattacks are about influence and psychological impact rather than practical impact,' said John Hultquist, chief analyst at Google's Threat Intelligence Group. 'That's why a lot of them involve an effort to publicize the incidents which oftentimes includes a fictitious hacktivist front.'
Predatory Sparrow posted on both Telegram and X at 4 a.m. Tuesday New York time that it had successfully 'destroyed the data' of Bank Sepah, claiming that the institution was used to circumvent international sanctions.
Bank Sepah couldn't be reached for comment.
Predatory Sparrow has been active since 2021. The group appeared in public when they took credit for destroying data in Iran's national railway system resulting in delays around the country. Iran's Ministry of Roads and Urban Development were hit by hackers around the same time with the same tool designed to destroy computer files.
In other attacks, Predatory Sparrow was blamed for targeting point-of-sale systems at Iranian gas stations, causing a malfunction at Iran's Khouzestan steel mill that caused molten steel to spill onto the steel plant's floor and publicizing the alleged phone number of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
The attackers are unique in that there is relatively little technical information about the hacks compared to similar campaigns, according to security experts. The kind of destructive efforts for which Predatory Sparrow is known tend to destroy the technical forensic evidence that analysts need to understand it.
Often, the group has used social media to promote its activity, a tactic that experts say is proof that Predatory Sparrow aims to have a psychological impact. The hack against Bank Sepah came with its own publicity push, with Predatory Sparrow warning that 'this is what happens to institutions dedicated to maintaining the dictator's terrorist fantasies.'
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
Iran Spy War Intensifies: 'Mossad Agents' Nabbed, Regime Pledges Ruthless Response
Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has intensified its crackdown on alleged Mossad-linked operatives following the recent conflict with Israel. Authorities in North Khorasan announced the arrest of two new suspects during targeted raids, with 15 others already under prosecution for espionage. Iranian media claims hundreds of Israeli-linked agents have been detained in recent weeks. Watch Read More
The Hindu
18 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Ideas on trial, critical thinking in retreat
'Freedom only for the supporters of the government, only for the supporters of one party — however numerous they may be — is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively the freedom of the one who thinks differently.' — Rosa Luxemburg In an era marked by heightened geopolitical tensions and global scrutiny, nations are compelled to not only safeguard their territorial integrity but also uphold their moral foundations. For countries, characterised by their profound diversity of languages, cultures, and faiths, such moments present an opportunity to reaffirm their commitment to democratic principles and pluralistic values. The projection of national strength tempered by restraint and public reassurances, stands out as indispensable components of this endeavour. However, the alignment of democratic values at home with the image projected abroad is equally crucial, necessitating the nurturing of freedom and open discourse domestically. An erosion of intellectual freedom Regrettably, a growing chasm exists between this ideal and the prevailing realities on the ground across the world. The sanctity of intellectual freedom is being steadily eroded across institutions, particularly universities and academic spaces, due to pressures of conformity and control. The consequences of this trend are far-reaching, with professors facing reprimand or dismissal over minor comments, and students being subjected to punitive action for raising critical questions. This phenomenon constitutes a pressing global concern, albeit one whose repercussions are particularly pronounced in nations that have historically valorised open discourse and intellectual freedom. The United States, during Donald Trump's presidency, exemplifies this trend. Philosophers such as Hannah Arendt have warned against these dangers of banality in oppressive regimes and the slow numbing of thought, where citizens retreat into private lives and abandon the public realm. Understandably, the assault on freedom is not only about censorship but also about inducing this kind of silence, where fear replaces inquiry, and conformity takes the place of imagination. In such a climate, society's capacity for critical self-reflection and growth is severely impaired, leading to stagnation and intellectual rigidity. For instance, when curricula are rewritten to reflect ideological imperatives rather than pedagogical or historical rigour, when scholarly work is attacked for political reasons, and when free speech on campus is framed as sedition, we are witnessing the slow erosion of academic advancement. We have witnessed this phenomenon on campuses across the U.S., particularly in the context of pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Democratic backsliding is visibly accompanied here by an assault on intellectuals and independent media. In such times, it becomes easy to imagine that freedom of speech is a luxury or a liability, something to be curtailed for the sake of national unity or cultural pride. But, this is a false choice. An intolerance of voices that question At the heart of this crisis lies a growing intolerance with voices that challenge prevailing narratives, offer nuanced historical perspective, or simply ask inconvenient questions often painted as suspect. It must be taken for granted that democracy, by definition, demands disagreement and requires the ability to listen to those who think differently, to be challenged, and to evolve. The silencing of scholars, intimidation of writers, and discouragement of free inquiry do not merely target individuals; they diminish the society as a whole. Noam Chomsky, whose work on propaganda and power remains seminal, noted that the destruction of independent culture is among the gravest abuses of authority. When knowledge itself is politicised, when truth is decided by decree, and when the university becomes a site of ideological performance rather than learning, we find ourselves perilously close to what he called 'manufactured consent', or in other words, a democracy in appearance but not in substance. Historically, universities have served as spaces where civilisational questions are posed, where the past is interrogated, and where future possibilities are imagined. To reduce these institutions to sites of ideological policing is to betray their very essence. The danger today lies not only in the curbing of dissent but also in its systematic delegitimisation. When critical voices are branded as 'anti-national', when scholars are seen as threats instead of resources, and when academic inquiry is stifled by fear, society drifts toward intellectual repression. The result is a thinning of public discourse, a narrowing of thought, and a culture of self-censorship. The geopolitical irony of this situation cannot be overstated. At a time when nations face real external threats, internal cohesion is undeniably vital. However, cohesion cannot be achieved through the suppression of thought. Unity born of fear is not unity; it is coercion. What the world respects is not only a nation's economic or strategic clout but also its ability to be a vast, diverse, and argumentative civil society. This vitality, rooted in disagreement, debate and intellectual freedom is what defines a truly robust democracy. The erosion of this vitality has long-term consequences, including the alienation of a generation of students who once believed in the university as a space of exploration and growth, but now the evident discouragement of public intellectuals from speaking their conscience, and the undermining of the moral seriousness with which a nation historically addresses its internal complexities, has set in the steady decline of the very idea of democracy. Moreover, it sends a chilling message that intelligence must be policed, that critical thinking is unwelcome, and that freedom is conditional on obedience. But there is hope And yet, there is hope. History reminds us that the tide of suppression, however forceful, is always contested. Whether through protest movements, or the courage of individuals who refuse to be silenced, the spirit of free inquiry has always found ways to endure. Václav Havel, writing under the shadow of Soviet repression, reminded us that 'living in truth' was itself a political act and a refusal to join in the collective lie. In societies that valorise critical inquiry and unfettered debate, the capacity to confront and resolve complex challenges is significantly enhanced. A nuanced understanding of patriotism recognises the intrinsic value of constructive critique, acknowledging that loyalty to one's nation or institution is not predicated on unyielding conformity, but rather on a commitment to its betterment. The democratic ideals of freedom, justice, and equality are not merely aspirational, but are instead contingent upon the ability to challenge entrenched injustices and interrogate authority. When societies compromise academic freedom, they not only erode their moral authority, but also imperil their capacity for envisioning and implementing transformative change. Rosa Luxemburg's words serve as a poignant reminder that freedom means little if it is reserved only for the majority or the loyalist. Real freedom, the kind that nurtures innovation, empathy and justice, begins with the courage to listen to those who speak differently. This capacity for receptivity to dissenting voices constitutes a litmus test of democracy's vitality, and its failure to meet this test has far-reaching and deleterious consequences for the polity. Shelley Walia has taught Cultural Theory at Panjab University, Chandigarh
Mint
18 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump Admin's Harvard funding freeze: Judge calls DOJ rationale ‘mind boggling'
A federal judge on Monday (July 21) raised serious concerns over the Trump administration's decision to withhold more than $2 billion in research funding from Harvard University, questioning whether the move violated constitutional protections. 'There are limits to what you can terminate, and why, and how,' said US District Judge Allison Burroughs during a hearing in Boston. 'It seems to be your idea that you can terminate a contract even if the basis for termination is a constitutional violation.' Judge Burroughs stopped short of issuing a formal ruling but signaled skepticism toward the government's rationale for the funding freeze. Lawyers for the Justice Department argued that Harvard failed to adequately address antisemitism on campus, especially following the outbreak of the Israel-Hamas war in October 2023. They said the university's inaction violated the Trump administration's policy aimed at combating antisemitism. 'Harvard should have read the fine print,' said DOJ attorney Michael Velchik, asserting the administration had the right to terminate grants when institutions fail to align with federal priorities. The funding freeze is part of a broader push by President Donald Trump to reshape higher education. His administration targeted Harvard for what it called political bias, resistance to diversity program cuts, and alleged tolerance of antisemitism. The government has also threatened Harvard's tax-exempt status and tried to stop international students from enrolling, according to court filings. White House spokesperson Harrison Fields issued a statement on Monday: 'We are confident that Harvard will eventually come around and support the President's vision, and through good-faith conversations and negotiations, a good deal is more than possible.' Harvard and a group of professors filed suit in April, challenging the legality and constitutionality of the funding freeze. Their lawyers asked the judge to resolve the matter without a full trial, seeking a summary judgment. They argue that the Trump administration retaliated against the university for refusing to cede control over academic governance and the free expression of students and faculty. Burroughs, who disclosed during the hearing that she is Jewish, criticised the government's justification for the cuts. 'In some ways you're justifying the conduct on protecting Jews and upholding American values, but on the other hand taking steps that are antithetical to those things,' she said. Burroughs said she has not yet made a decision on whether to release the frozen funds. The case could set a precedent for the extent to which federal funding can be used as leverage against academic institutions.
