Orange Suffers Cyberattack, Disrupts Operations in France
Orange's response to the incident has been swift, with the company prioritising efforts to contain the breach. According to initial reports, the attack compromised certain business operations, leading to service outages for some customers. While the full extent of the damage is still being assessed, Orange officials have indicated that they are working around the clock to restore all affected systems and services.
The breach reportedly targeted Orange's internal infrastructure, including several business-critical systems that are vital for day-to-day operations. As a result, some business clients and consumers have faced service disruptions, including slower processing times and temporary unavailability of certain communication services.
ADVERTISEMENT
Orange's cybersecurity team, in collaboration with external experts, has initiated a full investigation into the breach to determine the scope of the attack and to identify the perpetrators. As part of its response, the company has implemented enhanced security protocols to prevent further intrusions while also focusing on mitigating any potential long-term impact on its operations and reputation.
While Orange has not publicly named the threat actor responsible for the attack, cybersecurity experts believe the breach could be the work of an advanced persistent threat group. These groups are often highly sophisticated and well-funded, making them capable of executing complex cyberattacks that target large corporations and government entities.
This cyberattack follows a growing trend of increasing threats faced by telecommunications companies, which are often seen as high-value targets due to the critical infrastructure they provide. With millions of customers relying on their services for both personal and business needs, any disruption in these services can have a profound impact on the affected parties.
Orange has assured customers that it is taking every necessary step to restore normal service levels as soon as possible. However, given the scale and nature of the attack, it could take days or even weeks for full recovery depending on the extent of the systems affected. Business clients, in particular, have been urged to implement alternative communication and IT measures while the company works to bring services back online.
The company also revealed that it has informed relevant data protection authorities and regulatory bodies of the breach, in accordance with EU regulations. The breach is expected to come under scrutiny from cybersecurity watchdogs, as well as from European data privacy regulators who are likely to investigate the incident to determine whether Orange has adhered to GDPR protocols.
This event has raised concerns about the resilience of telecom companies' cybersecurity measures, particularly in the face of increasingly sophisticated cyber threats. The telecom sector, in particular, has become a frequent target for cybercriminals due to the vast amounts of sensitive data it handles, from customer personal details to confidential business communications.
The scale of the attack has sent shockwaves through the broader tech and telecommunications industries, prompting other firms to reassess their own cybersecurity strategies. Analysts suggest that Orange's breach serves as a wake-up call for the sector, underscoring the need for telecom providers to invest heavily in robust security frameworks to defend against such threats.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
39 minutes ago
- The National
EU-US deal won't really happen - the reason is in the details
Energy was one of the most freely traded goods in the post-Second World War era, even behind the Iron Curtain. A flood of sanctions has eroded that in recent years. But are the latest EU-US trade deal and Donald Trump's tariff threats an even greater danger? Under Thursday's trade pact, the EU has agreed to buy an extra $250 billion of US energy each year until 2027, and invest $600 billion in the US by 2028. Separately, Mr Trump has proposed 'secondary tariffs' on countries buying Russian oil, notably India. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told China that it would face 100 per cent tariffs if it continued to purchase Russian oil, for which it is the biggest customer. The reality of the European deal can be dismissed in detail. Impossible numbers The bloc imported $76 billion of American coal, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and oil last year. The US exported $318 billion of energy to all its customers, and EU customers imported nearly $407 billion of energy from all suppliers. So, the US would have to divert all its energy exports to Europe, and Europe would in turn have to buy almost exclusively from America. Yes, US LNG exports are set to rise substantially. Here are some easy gains in energy trade for the EU. The last remnants of the old Russian gas empire will be swept away, as Brussels plans to end imports from its hostile neighbour by 2027. But prices are likely to fall as new supply comes online over the next five years, from Qatar, the UAE, Canada and elsewhere as well as the US. Japan and South Korea have also agreed to buy more American energy products. Meanwhile, the EU's bulk energy buys will probably keep falling, as renewables and electric vehicles meet more of its needs. 'Europe' does not buy energy – its companies and consumers do. There is no way for Brussels to redirect energy trade on the massive scale required to meet these commitments. Big chunks of the imports are from Norway, Algeria and Azerbaijan, tied into the EU by gas pipelines. These are not going to be diverted elsewhere, whatever the White House tries to dictate. Similarly, US companies decide whom to sell to on commercial, not political grounds. Here, admittedly, some combination of arm-twisting and subsidies might divert trade. But that is more likely to relate to large, visible, single inward investments such as Japan's reported interest in the $44 billion Alaska LNG project. One-trick trade pony European companies would invest in renewable, hydrogen and electric vehicle projects in the US – but these are undercut by the current administration's hostility. The withdrawal of tax incentives, increased barriers to receiving permits, and onerous rules on foreign content, make them unappealing. As Nippon Steel found out in its purchase of US Steel, sizeable foreign acquisitions of American companies are also likely to face unreasonable opposition and an opaque process of lobbying to win approval. The reliance on energy sales shows the US to be a one-trick trade pony – or at best, three tricks, including agricultural goods and weapons. Its other goods are not very competitive – gas-guzzling cars and planes that fall out of the sky – and will become even less so as tariffs drive up input costs for key materials such as aluminium, steel and copper. Ultimately, such trade commitments by Europe are not going to raise US oil and gas output. So, even if fulfilled, they just shuffle energy trade around. Sanctions could be a different matter. Mr Trump could execute his threat of 100 per cent tariffs against India and China if they persist in buying Russian oil. This is a bizarre approach to defeating Moscow's war against Ukraine, instead of imposing stronger sanctions on specific customers and shippers, which is the same approach used against Iran. Beijing will not back down; it cannot allow its economic model, its foreign policy, its alignment with Moscow, to be dictated by Washington. It buys about two million barrels per day of Russian oil. New Delhi might concede, though. It has not changed its policy yet, but Reuters reported that Indian oil refineries had paused purchases of Russian oil while matters are worked out. India's imports of Russian oil averaged 1.8 million barrels per day in the first half of this year. The third major customer, Turkey, takes about 250,000 barrels daily. If India and Turkey drop out, China would no doubt step up its purchases of Russian oil, but it would not take all the remainder. This is partly for logistical reasons, but also political. It would gain further leverage over its junior ally, and could extract generous discounts, as it does from Iran, where it is essentially the only customer. So, there would probably be an overall reduction in Russian oil exports. The gap would be filled by Opec+, depending on its policy decisions, and potentially by higher US output. But US oil production will only increase if prices rise substantially. Mr Trump has shown himself acutely sensitive to inflation and to the concerns of American drivers, preferring lower rather than higher prices, to the discomfort of his supporters in Texas. So how does this all tie together? Less Russian oil and gas means more room for Gulf suppliers. If they end up sending less to Europe to fill a gap in India, or if prices rise enough to boost American production, the US may then supply more to Europe, cosmetically satisfying part of the trade deal. The inconsistency and volatile, contradictory messages emanating from the White House make all this very hard to evaluate. There's a good chance that the impending 'secondary tariffs' never materialise. Yet what is clear that a free and liquid energy market is being replaced by a constrained and politicised one.
Arabian Post
a day ago
- Arabian Post
Trump's Tariff War Creates De Facto Counter-Axis Driven By Common Cause
By K Raveendran Donald Trump's aggressive tariff regime, launched under the guise of bolstering American strength and reclaiming lost economic ground, has triggered a worldwide response that may ultimately defeat the very goal it seeks to achieve. Framed as a nationalist project to assert America's economic primacy, the tariff war has turned out to be a catalyst for an accelerating global shift away from unipolar US dominance toward a truly multipolar world order. What was once largely speculative—the idea of a global economic architecture not centred on Washington—is now becoming tangible as Trump's trade brinkmanship compels other nations to rethink, regroup, and realign. The essential flaw in Trump's strategy lies in its assumption that the rest of the world would blink first, caving in to American demands under the weight of economic pressure. But the world hasn't blinked. Instead, countries are finding common cause in resisting what they perceive as economic coercion masquerading as negotiation. The result is a fluid yet increasingly coherent realignment of powers—chief among them China, Russia, and India—that is beginning to operate as a de facto counter-axis to the United States. Driven by shared grievances and the common objective of shielding their strategic autonomy, these nations are cooperating more closely in trade, investment, and energy. The irony is that Trump's pursuit of economic supremacy is hastening the erosion of the very system that enabled US dominance for decades. Beijing, long a prime target of Trump's tariffs, has responded with both retaliation and redirection. Rather than capitulating to Washington's demands, China has expanded its outreach to other major economies, particularly in Asia and Africa, while deepening its engagement with Russia and India. The Belt and Road Initiative, initially conceived as a means of global infrastructure connectivity, is now also a tool for economic realignment. As Trump builds tariff walls, China builds roads, ports, and financial networks that bypass the United States. Moscow, for its part, has welcomed this pivot. Isolated by US and European sanctions, Russia sees opportunity in closer ties with China and India, both of which have shown increasing willingness to defy Western pressure. India, though traditionally more aligned with the West and an enthusiastic participant in global liberal markets, has found itself inching toward the emerging non-Western axis. Trump's tariffs on Indian goods, coupled with his administration's threats of secondary sanctions on countries trading with Russia or buying Iranian oil, have forced New Delhi to draw red lines. India's stance on Russian oil, for instance, has been unambiguous: it is a matter of national interest and energy security. Any effort by Washington to curtail these purchases is seen not just as economic interference but as a direct challenge to sovereign decision-making. In retaliation, India has dangled the cancellation of key defence deals, including the proposed purchase of the F-35 fighter jets—a symbolic snub that indicates a broader reassessment of strategic alignment. What makes this realignment especially potent is the breadth of its scope. It is not merely a matter of retaliatory tariffs or diplomatic rhetoric; it includes infrastructure cooperation, technological integration, and long-term investment planning. China and India, despite historic differences, have increased dialogue in recent months on trade facilitation and regional connectivity. Russia's role as a common energy partner and military supplier to both nations gives it leverage in the triangle. And with US credibility as a dependable trade partner being questioned, many smaller nations are also hedging their bets, diversifying their economic relations away from a US-centric model. Even traditional US allies in Europe are uneasy. Germany and France have voiced concerns about the destabilizing effects of Trump's tariffs on global trade norms. The EU is pursuing its own trade treaties with countries like Japan and Vietnam, carving out autonomous space in global commerce that doesn't necessarily involve Washington. At the heart of this geopolitical churn is a growing skepticism toward the idea that the United States can or should dictate the terms of global trade. The Trump administration's belief that economic might translates automatically into negotiating power has ignored the subtle but critical fact that globalisation has made nations more interconnected and interdependent. Trying to weaponise trade may yield short-term leverage, but it also creates lasting rifts and compels partners to seek alternatives. The economic structures of the 21st century no longer afford any single nation the luxury of acting as an economic autocrat without consequences. Furthermore, the economic impact within the United States is more complex and less flattering than the populist rhetoric suggests. While certain domestic industries may benefit from tariff protections, others are suffering from rising input costs and retaliatory measures. American farmers have been hit particularly hard by Chinese tariffs on agricultural imports, prompting the Trump administration to introduce multi-billion dollar bailout packages that, in effect, cancel out the supposed gains of the trade war. Manufacturing, far from being resurgent, is experiencing uncertainty and disruption due to volatility in global supply chains. The idea that tariff wars are 'easy to win' has proven to be one of the most misguided statements of Trump's presidency. Even American multinationals, once eager advocates of 'America First' policies, are quietly relocating parts of their supply chains to countries not caught in the tariff crossfire. This shift not only diminishes the US's leverage but also accelerates the decentralization of economic power. No longer is the American market an irresistible magnet for global commerce; it is increasingly seen as a zone of instability and risk. For many countries, the trade war has been a wake-up call—an impetus to invest in regional blocs, alternative trade corridors, and new financial instruments insulated from US influence. In the broader scheme, what Trump has unwittingly triggered is a reimagination of how global power is structured. The post-Cold War illusion of US-led globalisation is being replaced by a more pluralistic, competitive, and fragmented order. Emerging powers are no longer content to play by rules written in Washington. They are building parallel systems: China's digital yuan aims to reduce dependency on the dollar; India and Russia have revived rupee-rouble trade mechanisms; and regional trade agreements like RCEP are functioning without US participation. What's being born is a new kind of globalization—less hierarchical, more balanced, and far less dependent on any single country. (IPA Service)
TECHx
2 days ago
- TECHx
EU Enforces AI Act Rules for General-Purpose Models
Home » Latest news » EU Enforces AI Act Rules for General-Purpose Models The European Union has announced that the AI Act obligations for providers of general-purpose AI (GPAI) models come into effect from tomorrow. This move aims to bring more transparency, safety, and accountability to AI systems across the EU market. According to the European Commission, the new rules will ensure: Clearer information on how AI models are trained Better enforcement of copyright protections More responsible AI development To support providers, the Commission has released guidelines clarifying who must comply with the new obligations. GPAI models are defined as those trained with over 10^23 FLOP and capable of generating language. Additionally, a template has been published to help providers summarise the data used for model training. The Commission, along with EU Member States, also revealed that the GPAI Code of Practice developed by independent experts serves as an effective voluntary tool for compliance. Providers adhering to the Code will benefit from reduced regulatory burdens and increased legal clarity. From August 2, 2025, providers must meet transparency and copyright requirements before placing GPAI models on the EU market. Existing models launched before this date must ensure compliance by August 2, 2027. Moreover, providers of advanced models presenting systemic risks those exceeding 10^25 FLOP will face additional obligations. These include mandatory notification to the Commission and ensuring enhanced safety and security standards.
