Russian airline Aeroflot cancels flights after as pro-Ukraine group claims hack
July 28 (UPI) -- A cyber attack on Russia's largest airline on Monday saw dozens of canceled flights after a pro-Ukraine team took responsibility for hacking airline computer systems.
Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov called it "quite alarming" after at least 42 scheduled Aeroflot flights largely domestic in Russia got canceled.
Aeroflot officials gave no specific details or how long it would take to restore its mainframe after officials informed passengers of a "failure" in its tech systems advising service disruptions, but did warn travelers of delays and cancellations.
The airline said its tech teams were "actively working to minimize the impact on flight operations and restore all services to normal as quickly as possible."
"We kindly ask passengers to monitor real-time updates on airport websites, information displays, and public announcements across the airline's route network," the airline said in a statement.
Aeroflot's cyber-security attack was a direct result of Russia's full-on invasion of neighboring Ukraine, the hacker group calling itself "Silent Crow" confirmed.
Russia's prosecutor general's office also confirmed that Aeroflot's technological issues were a result of a virtual attack on its computer systems and stated that a criminal investigation is underway.
Silent Crow says it worked with a separate group based in Belarus called "Cyber Partisans BY."
They pressed unverified claimed of access to flight history data, that it destroyed roughly 7,000 Aeroflot servers, compromised its corporate computer structure and further threatened to released "the personal data of all Russians who have ever flown Aeroflot."
On its Telegram channel, Silent Crow wrote how for a year, "we were inside their corporate network, methodically developing access, going deep into the very core of the infrastructure."
Meanwhile, Aeroflot partner air carries Rossiya and Probed have not reported any technological issues.
The cyber attack on Russia's flag air carrier arrived weeks after another on Australian airline Qantas exposed the data of six million customers. That followed a similar event at the end of June on Hawaiian Airlines by a group FBI officials believe to be young adults and teens living in the United States and Britain.
"Glory to Ukraine! Long live Belarus!" Silent Crow said in a statement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
E&E News
an hour ago
- E&E News
EPA may end $7 billion solar program
State agencies and nonprofits administering a $7 billion solar initiative have been told they may receive letters later this week from EPA informing them that their grants have been terminated. Five people involved in the so-called Solar for All initiative, some of whom were granted anonymity because of fears of retribution, told POLITICO's E&E News on Tuesday that grantees had been warned they could receive the notifications Thursday. The program, which was included in the Biden administration's climate law, pays for rooftop solar panels for low- and moderate-income homeowners, as well as community projects. EPA's decision, which was first reported by The New York Times, is not thought to be final. Advertisement Jillian Blanchard, vice president of climate change and environment justice at Lawyers for Good Government, which has worked closely with grantees, said outreach to EPA was ongoing. And some grant recipients said they were still hopeful that the agency would let the project continue. 'At this point, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the grants would be canceled,' said Michelle Moore, the CEO of Groundswell, a nonprofit that is administering the program in eight Southeastern states. Solar for All is the third leg of the so-called Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund — a broader climate law program intended to help underwrite the clean energy transition with a focus on benefits to underserved communities. EPA under the Trump administration has already terminated $20 billion in grants under the initiative's other two programs. Nonprofits are fighting those moves in court. It's unclear what reason EPA will give for terminating the grants, if it does. The president's massive tax and spending bill enacted last month included language to rescind unspent GGRF dollars. But Solar for All recipients said at the time that they didn't expect it to effect them because even EPA agreed that their grants were spent — or 'obligated' — and thus ineligible for rescission. 'With the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, EPA is working to ensure Congressional intent is fully implemented in accordance with the law,' EPA said in response to a question about the potential terminations. The solar initiative has been seen to have more bipartisan support than the other 'green bank' programs, and recipients have had access to their grant funds since February even as EPA labored to claw back other climate law dollars. The Biden EPA funded Solar for All projects in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories. Most are being run by state agencies under both Republican and Democratic governors with backing from congressional delegations. Hilary Shohoney, chief of staff for the Bonneville Environmental Foundation, which is administering the program for Idaho, Montana and Wyoming, said her organization had been meeting with the states' elected representatives in Washington and in their districts to try to shore up support for the program. 'We do have a sense that they'll back these projects, and we're hoping that they're going to make the choice to stand up for their communities who want this,' she said. Some Solar for All programs help finance rooftop solar, while others offer residents and community organizations a chance to share in savings from community solar projects. 'This program is cutting electricity bills for people when electricity bills are going up all over the country,' said Moore. 'America needs every electron.' 'When this [potential termination] becomes visible, I suspect that the EPA will hear a lot of folks who are displeased with what this action would mean for raising people's energy bills more,' she added.
E&E News
an hour ago
- E&E News
Why the megalaw didn't kill Biden's biggest climate program
President Donald Trump's megalaw was supposed to consign EPA's $27 billion climate lending program to the dustbin of history. Instead it's raising new questions about the fate of the Biden-era program. Trump's tax and spending package that became law on Independence Day repealed the so-called Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund — the Inflation Reduction Act's single-largest grant initiative designed to promote lending for technologies like renewable energy, zero-carbon housing and electric buses. But instead of terminating the program and returning the money to EPA, the law marks a new and uncertain chapter for one of the most ambitious — and politically contested — climate programs put forward by President Joe Biden. The program, whose future is in the hands of the courts, has been the subject of Republican lawmakers' attacks, a centerpiece of EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin's rollback attempts, and a star character in legal fights between the Trump administration and eight nonprofits that were awarded billions of dollars through the program. Advertisement The GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act rescinded any uncommitted — or 'unobligated' — funds that might be left over from the $27 billion in funding that Congress appropriated to EPA in 2022 for administrating the program and delivering grants to states and nonprofits. Under the new law, that money would be returned to the Treasury to help offset the cost of extending Trump's tax cuts. But almost all the money had been spent by the time Biden left office in January. EPA had signed contracts with 68 states, cities and nonprofits to expand green lending initiatives and bring solar power and other clean technologies to low-income communities. That fact was reflected last month in an analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which found that only $19 million was unobligated. But the Trump administration has been unwilling to accept that math. And that has sparked a controversy that the courts will ultimately resolve. EPA and Justice Department attorneys who are representing it have argued that any funding from the eight Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants that Zeldin claimed to have canceled in March should be added to that tally. But most of those recipients are challenging EPA's termination in court. A district court judge issued an injunction in April siding with the nonprofits and barring EPA from recovering the funds. EPA is appealing that decision. The eight grants awarded to the nonprofits last year originally totaled $20 billion, but some of the money was spent before EPA froze the recipients' accounts at Citibank in February. For example, one grant recipient — the Coalition for Green Capital — disbursed $2.7 billion of its $5 billion award to private equity firms prior to the freeze, according to the investing news site Impact Alpha. EPA's terminations didn't affect a $7 billion solar grant program for states, one leg of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that enjoys some bipartisan support. Now, EPA is arguing that the new Republican megalaw should allow it to recapture the $17 billion that's still left in the awardees' accounts, because the program no longer has the force of law. DOJ attorney Yaakov Roth, who is representing EPA in its appeal of the April injunction, submitted a letter to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on July 3 — one day before Trump signed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' into law — arguing that the bill would 'rescind the appropriated funds that plaintiffs sought to reinstate through' their lawsuit challenging EPA's cancellation of the grants. 'It is more clear than ever that the district court's preliminary injunction must be reversed,' he wrote. Capito is a star witness — for both sides But other lawyers, including those representing the grant recipients, say that's not how it works. EPA signed contracts with the eight nonprofits under authority Congress had granted to it in the 2022 law, they argued. Lawmakers' decision now to revoke that authorization isn't retroactive, they added. Mari Quenemoen, a staff attorney with Lawyers for Good Government, said she couldn't think of another instance where an administration tried to argue that a change in statute rendered contracts void retroactively. 'What's unprecedented is totally throwing out what was intended by a prior Congress,' she said. The plaintiffs' attorneys wrote in a letter to the appeals court dated July 7 that the megalaw 'does not affect plaintiffs' claims, given that all their funds were and are obligated.' Both sides pointed to statements by top GOP lawmakers to buttress their arguments. The plaintiffs' attorneys highlighted an interview that Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Shelley Moore Capito ( gave to POLITICO after the election in which she asserted that it was a 'ridiculous thought' that EPA might try to claw back grant funds that were already obligated. Roth, the DOJ attorney, pointed to a quote by Capito in which she says that EPA's March cancellation of the grants had resulted in $17 billion being 'deobligated.' It is 'the intent of Congress that the entirety of this $17 billion … be rescinded,' Capito is quoted as saying in his letter. An EPW spokesperson directed POLITICO's E&E News to that same quote and said Capito had long been concerned about the program's risk of waste, fraud and abuse. 'Congress agrees with EPA's March 11, 2025, action to cancel GGRF grants,' the spokesperson said in an email to E&E News. He argued that language in the megalaw repealing the authorization for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and rescinding unobligated money ensures that EPA does not have to find new recipients for the canceled grants. EPA, for its own part, said it would take its cues from Congress. It responded to E&E News inquiries about its post-budget bill plans for the program by saying only that it would 'work to ensure Congressional intent is fully implemented.' 'Dueling commentary' Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the committee's top Democrat, issued a statement Friday blasting DOJ for claiming that it could rescind the $17 billion in funding, calling it 'wishful thinking.' He said that in discussions with committee Republicans and the Senate parliamentarian no one challenged CBO's official accounting that the government stood to save only $19 million in administrative and oversight costs by rescinding unobligated money from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and not $17 billion as EPA now claims. 'The majority did express concern about EPA prevailing in litigation and suddenly having nearly $20 billion back and, for this reason, pushed to repeal the language,' Whitehouse said. 'But the fact of the matter is [the megalaw] only rescinded EPA's administrative dollars and not a cent of the grant funding.' The House-passed bill included similar repeal language for other IRA grant programs, but the Senate parliamentarian stripped that out of the version that passed the Senate. Senate rules prohibit the chamber from including extraneous policy provisions in budget bills. But Dale Bryk, a senior attorney with the Environmental and Energy Law Program at Harvard Law School, said courts, not committee chairs, will have the final say on whether EPA can pull back $17 billion in grant funds or only $19 million in administrative funds. 'There's dueling commentary from Congress — including dueling commentary within her own mind from Capito — but they put down a word. The word says 'unobligated,'' Bryk said. 'And now the court has to decide what that is.' The appeals court has yet to issue a decision on EPA's request to lift the injunction by U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Tanya Chutkan this spring. The injunction has prevented EPA from emptying the Citibank accounts. Chutkan found that EPA's March terminations were probably unlawful. Bryk said that could be problematic for Republican arguments that the money could be deobligated. Attorneys tracking the case say the appellate court might weigh in on whether or not Trump's megalaw allows the agency to pull back grant funds as 'unobligated' funds. Or it may leave that question to the district court, or decide there's no need to address the question at all because it's only a contracts case that should be heard by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
E&E News
an hour ago
- E&E News
Trump 1.0 EPA official jumps to consulting role
A former EPA official during the first Trump administration is now working on energy issues as an adviser at a legal and consulting firm. Mike Stoker, who led EPA's regional office based in California from 2018 to 2020, has joined the energy, environment and real estate group of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, the firm said in a news release Tuesday. A longtime attorney who once served as California's deputy secretary of state, Stoker's stint as administrator of EPA Region 9 ended with his firing in early 2020. Stoker publicly admonished EPA leadership at the time, describing the dismissal as '100% personal.' Advertisement At Manatt, Stoker works with energy companies and other clients on projects in California, Arizona and other Western states, the firm said. Among other roles, he is helping develop strategies for companies to 'maximize business growth while maintaining adherence to industry best practices,' according to the news release.
