Sandworm gang launches Monster ransomware attacks on Ukraine

The Russian criminal crew Sandworm is launching another attack against organizations in Ukraine, using a ransomware that analysts at Slovakian software company ESET are calling RansomBoggs. In a Twitter thread, the ESET researchers wrote that they had detected RansomBoggs deployed within the networks of "multiple organizations …

[Dinanziame]

Illegal attack

I hate Putin, and I hope Ukraine kicks out the Russian invaders. That said, I always have to roll my eyes at statements like "Illegal attack". It's not like there are rules on when you're allowed to invade other countries. There's no such thing as international law, at best there's international peer pressure.

[Will Godfrey]

Re: Illegal attack

It does seem an odd phrase. I can't think of any kind of attack that can be considered legal. Even if it was in some way provoked, it's still a wrong thing. Similarly I can't see that defense against an attack could be illegal.

[NoneSuch]

Re: Illegal attack

As in all conflicts, the winner dictates what is legal.

[Grunchy]

Re: Illegal attack

I noticed the same thing & sort of thought of, like, “Team America: World Police” or such a thing. Or like how UN was fixing to condemn Russia’s war but was thwarted because Russia has the nuclear veto.

I actually got to buy a Big Mac meal & enjoy it outside Lenin’s Tomb in the Red Square, I guess those fun days are done now. I suppose there won’t be any worthwhile reason to ever go back to Russia in my lifetime.

[boblongii]

Re: Illegal attack

Russia doesn't have a nuclear veto at the UN - it has a "we beat the Nazis" veto and have had it since before they had nukes. For some reason France also has the veto despite conspicuously not beating the Nazis any more than various other countries did.

[Potemkine!]

Re: Illegal attack

despite conspicuously not beating the Nazis any more than various other countries did.

I guess you don't know about Kufra, Bir-Hakeim or the Garigliano, never heard about the Liberation of Corsica, Marseilles, Toulon, Paris or Strasbourg, know nothing about Normandie-Niemen, Lorraine, Alsace or Guyenne, never learn the stories of the Rubis, Casabianca or La Combattante, didn't read about Les Glières, le Vercors or Saint-Marcel, don't know about the 3 and 4 SAS, the 1er BFMC or the Bataillon de Choc, how the first allied soldiers in the Berghof were from the 64e RADB (and not US soldiers as told by Band of Brothers)...

== Bring us Dabbsy back! ==

[Jellied Eel]

Re: Illegal attack

I noticed the same thing & sort of thought of, like, “Team America: World Police” or such a thing. Or like how UN was fixing to condemn Russia’s war but was thwarted because Russia has the nuclear veto.

It's not so much the nuclear veto, more the UN or Security Council vetos. See for example-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Tanf_(U.S._military_base)

Al-Tanf (Arabic: التَّنْف, romanized: al-Tanf), also known as the Al-Tanf garrison (ATG) is a United States military base within territory controlled by the Syrian opposition in Homs Governorate, Syria.

Which may or may not be part of a legal, or illegal annexation of Syrian territory. US/West tries to formalise the occupation of Syrian territory via the UN, Russia vetos. Syria/Russia try a resolution calling for the removal of US/Western forces from Syria, US/UK/France veto. So the UN becomes pretty much irrelevant in the prevention of conflicts. Even if it were impartial, it's still fairly pointless. The UN passes a resolution condemning conflict in Ukraine, Syria, Ethiopia, Sudan, Yemen, Libya or wherever, and the beligerants won't suddenly go "oh, the UN says we're doing it wrong" and cancel their arms contracts.

Individual nations may however decide to use UN decisions to do their own thing anyway, eg authorise Operation Inherent Resolve and convince partners to invade and attack sovereign nations anyway. As long as that's legal within the nations participating (excluding their opponents), it's legal. Mainly because there isn't really any such thing as 'Internationall Law', just usually a bunch of Treaties and Agreements that may or may not be ignored, or interpreted for convenience.

For a peace-loving world, this is a bit of a problem, and something that could potentially be clarified once the dust settles on all the current armed conflicts ongoing around the world. So answering questions like when, exactly does cyberwarfare, or economic warfare have equivalence to armed warfare? If it's legal to bomb energy infrastructure in Yugoslavia or Iraq, is it legal in Ukraine? If it's illegal to physically attack energy infrastructure in another country, should it also be illegal to damage or disrupt it via cyberwarfare?

Then if those questions are anwsered in 'International Law', shouldn't we expect to see that law applied consistently? And if so, what would be the teeth, when nations can simply ignore, or refuse to recognise International courts.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Illegal attack

I always have to roll my eyes at statements like "Illegal attack". It's not like there are rules on when you're allowed to invade other countries. There's no such thing as international law, at best there's international peer pressure.

The 1907 Hague convention is a treaty signed by everybody at the time which makes it "international law" and it requires that countries deliver a declaration of war before starting hostilities.

The idea is that if countries just launch surprise attacks then it encourages trigger happy border guards, and military formations kept on constant readiness to counter attack incursions, which might well accidentally and unintentionally start a war and by requiring people to say that they are going to war first it would reduce tensions somewhat.

What you probably mean is that there is no immediate penalty for breaking "international law" such as the Putinites doing assassinations of people in Britain, shooting down airliners and invading somewhere?

Beyond losing all the money currently frozen in the international banking system, being frozen out of international trade resulting in an ongoing economic collapse, and watching his army being slaughtered in job lots by people trained and equipped by people who he's pissed off; no comeback at all really...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Illegal attack

Correct, and it would be simple to always add specifics - "illegal as defined by the 1907 Hague convention" or whatever. The Russia Empire signed in 1909 and the USSR confirmed that agreement later.

Furthermore,

- Russian recognized Ukraine's independence on Aug. 28, 1991.

- In the 1994 Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, Russia agreed to "Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders" - which would therefore include Crimea as part of Ukraine.

[Potemkine!]

Re: Illegal attack

It's not like there are rules on when you're allowed to invade other countries

When such an attack is supported by an UN resolution (example: Security Council Resolution 678), it can claim it has a legal ground.

Russia invasions of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine have none.

== Bring us Dabbsy back! ==

[IGotOut]

Re: Illegal attack

You are incorrect, there is a legitimate reason go go to war in regards to International law, and Putin from has tried to use it, self defence ( The whole Nazi's and NATO about to invade bullshit)

This is the actual law as written in the US charter (2.4) about the illegal invation.

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

This us the self defence section

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

[doublelayer]

Re: Illegal attack

There are many international laws in the form of treaties about when you can legally invade, what reasons for doing so are valid, what you have to do when you're going to exercise that right, and what you may or may not do while fighting. Russia signed most of them, making them legally binding under the terms of the Russian constitution. They have broken almost all of them so far. Hence, illegal.

There is such a thing as international law, complete with international courts to make judgements based on it. It's weak because getting it enforced tends to be difficult. While some places may argue that the law doesn't apply to them based on their not agreeing to it, Russia did agree to it so they have no logical argument.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where's this Anonymous clowns when you need them?

Posted anonymously for ironic reasons...

[AdmFubar]

this whole attack sounds odd...

if the power is out in ukraine, what are they attacking?