Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday February 20 2018, @12:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the We-have-always-been-at-war-with-Eurasia dept.

For a moment, it seemed the hackers had slipped up and exposed their identities. It was the summer of 2013, and European investigators were looking into an unprecedented breach of Belgium's telecommunications infrastructure. They believed they were on the trail of the people responsible. But it would soon become clear that they were chasing ghosts – fake names that had been invented by British spies.

[...] The covert operation was the first documented example of a European Union member state hacking the critical infrastructure of another. The malware infection triggered a massive cleanup operation within Belgacom, which has since renamed itself Proximus. The company – of which the Belgian government is the majority owner – was forced to replace thousands of its computers at a cost of several million Euros. Elio di Rupo, Belgium's then-prime minister, was furious, calling the hack a "violation." Meanwhile, one of the country's top federal prosecutors opened a criminal investigation into the intrusion.

The criminal investigation has remained open for more than four years, but no details about its activities have been made public. Now, following interviews with five sources close to the case, The Intercept – in collaboration with Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant – has gained insight into the probe and uncovered new information about the scope of the hack.

Interesting both from the technical and the political viewpoints, this episode could have unexpected results for the future. Despite the egregious misuse of "hack" and related words.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Dr Spin on Tuesday February 20 2018, @06:11AM (1 child)

    by Dr Spin (5239) on Tuesday February 20 2018, @06:11AM (#640497)

    How so? Because we get 75% of our food from the EU. Because of our climate, this means almost 100% at certain times of year. It is all very well saying we can get it from Australia and New Zealand instead, but the EU is 20 miles away (about 24 hours by road) and Australia 12,000 miles (about 30 days by sea).

    And what do we export in return? The Ponzi scheme that is our "financial institutions".

    --
    Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday February 20 2018, @06:33AM

    by Arik (4543) on Tuesday February 20 2018, @06:33AM (#640505) Journal
    "Because we get 75% of our food from the EU."

    And they sell a lot of their surplus to you, it benefits both. As I said, they could obstruct trade, but that would hurt them more than anyone else.

    "the EU is 20 miles away (about 24 hours by road) and Australia 12,000 miles (about 30 days by sea)."

    And yet the shipping cost is minimal, which means this is a realistic alternative for many products. And let's not forget your own soil. Britain has fed it's own inhabitants and more continuously from the bronze age until very recently. There are still farmers that would be happy to feed you, you need to rediscover them before they die without training another generation anyway.
    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?