This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Verdict: mostly true, but the screenshot slightly overstates some details and blurs the line between suspected Iranian involvement and confirmed attribution. The Minnesota incident was real: more than 30 community water systems were targeted on July 26–27, 2026, and authorities said water safety was not known to be threatened.
A cleaner version
In late July 2026, a coordinated cyberattack targeted more than 30 community water systems in Minnesota. Related incidents were reported in multiple other states, although the full national scope was still being established. The intrusions targeted industrial-control technology used to monitor and operate water and wastewater equipment. Some utilities shifted to manual operations or disconnected affected devices, but officials reported no evidence of widespread unsafe drinking water. U.S. officials and investigators considered Iranian-linked actors likely responsible, while formal public attribution remained unresolved; the Iran-linked CyberAv3ngers group claimed responsibility and said its purpose was to “warn America to back down.”
A cleaner version
In late July 2026, a coordinated cyberattack targeted more than 30 community water systems in Minnesota. Related incidents were reported in multiple other states, although the full national scope was still being established. The intrusions targeted industrial-control technology used to monitor and operate water and wastewater equipment. Some utilities shifted to manual operations or disconnected affected devices, but officials reported no evidence of widespread unsafe drinking water. U.S. officials and investigators considered Iranian-linked actors likely responsible, while formal public attribution remained unresolved; the Iran-linked CyberAv3ngers group claimed responsibility and said its purpose was to “warn America to back down.”
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
Meanwhile, in Honolulu, they're going to wait until 2040 to Stop the poop flowing into the surf.
The failure is national! The population is trained to be out of luck locally! Good dog! Great for you!
Blaming others is another way to fail for you!
The failure is national! The population is trained to be out of luck locally! Good dog! Great for you!
Blaming others is another way to fail for you!
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Surely what matters more is that these systems can be hacked, not just who attacks them.
Some years ago the US government wanted to extradite, try and imprison an autistic teenager who'd manage to enter one US agency's computer system from his bedroom in London. I think the US government should have given him an award for having thus warned the USA just how insecure was this system. After all, it was only part of the Pentagon's.
Hostile states are continually probing foreign commercial and official IT systems for strategic reasons, but so are non-entity amateurs attempting to do so merely for their own useless egoes, often within the victim's own country.
Some years ago the US government wanted to extradite, try and imprison an autistic teenager who'd manage to enter one US agency's computer system from his bedroom in London. I think the US government should have given him an award for having thus warned the USA just how insecure was this system. After all, it was only part of the Pentagon's.
Hostile states are continually probing foreign commercial and official IT systems for strategic reasons, but so are non-entity amateurs attempting to do so merely for their own useless egoes, often within the victim's own country.
anythingoes477 · M
Picklebobble2 · 61-69, M
ninalanyon · 70-79, T
@Picklebobble2 Industrial control systems are notoriously poorly secured. Quite simple precautions would make this sort of thing much more difficult to pull off.
Picklebobble2 · 61-69, M
@ninalanyon There's no excuses here that are acceptable.
We know the world and his wife constantly challenge security protocols of any given sovereign state.
As much as to give their external security services something to do to justify the expense of their existence as anything else.
And most of those i wouldn't mind betting are from nations calling themselves 'friend'
But when you consider your bank regularly updates it's security protocols. As does your mobile phone provider, hell, even websites you've subscribed to regularly ask you to update passwords and login details to prevent hacking, it's not very credible is it.
We know the world and his wife constantly challenge security protocols of any given sovereign state.
As much as to give their external security services something to do to justify the expense of their existence as anything else.
And most of those i wouldn't mind betting are from nations calling themselves 'friend'
But when you consider your bank regularly updates it's security protocols. As does your mobile phone provider, hell, even websites you've subscribed to regularly ask you to update passwords and login details to prevent hacking, it's not very credible is it.
ninalanyon · 70-79, T
@Picklebobble2 A lot of these control systems were installed before internet was widespread. Then some beancounter decides that it would be much more efficient if the system were connected so that workers could access it from anywhere instead of having to be on site. For the same reason they give the task to the lowest bidder who installs the simplest system available.
Sometimes the job will be given to the internal IT department which usually has no security related competence or experience.
Then it sits there, sometimes with default passwords, until someone scanning for open ports discovers it.
It's not especially difficult to secure such a system but it does cost some money and perhaps more importantly it costs effort. Of course it will be much more expensive to clean up afterwards. But that cost is in the future whereas the cost of doing it properly happens now.
Sometimes the job will be given to the internal IT department which usually has no security related competence or experience.
Then it sits there, sometimes with default passwords, until someone scanning for open ports discovers it.
It's not especially difficult to secure such a system but it does cost some money and perhaps more importantly it costs effort. Of course it will be much more expensive to clean up afterwards. But that cost is in the future whereas the cost of doing it properly happens now.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@zonavar68 America is particularly vulnerable in this area, because so much infrastructure is in corporate hands and securing it against such attacks is a line item on the budget that doesnt return a profit. In fact, recent events have shown that distrupting supply of some items can actually increase profits..😷
@whowasthatmaskedman The United States is especially exposed because much critical infrastructure is owned or operated by separate private entities, and because many cybersecurity benefits accrue to the public rather than solely to the operator paying for them. That can produce chronic underinvestment, particularly where systems are small, fragmented, or regulated around short-term cost control. In the water sector, however, the weakness is not chiefly private ownership: most Americans are served by publicly owned systems, while many small systems—public and private—lack money, technical staff, and modern equipment. Supply disruptions can increase profits for firms that retain output and possess market power, but they usually harm the disrupted operator itself and are not a sound analogy for attacks on essential public utilities.
whowasthatmaskedman · 70-79, M
@FrogManSometimesLooksBothWays Perzactly!!😷
ron122 · 46-50, M
Most likely someone trying to cover up all the fraud.