Hero hackers claim to have breached Belarusian weapons firm

The international hacker collective Anonymous appears to have made good on its declaration of cyberwar against Russia and its allies, apparently exposing 200GB of emails from Belarusian weapons manufacturer Tetraedr.

Anonymous breached the firm’s defenses and released the most recent 1,000 emails from inboxes belonging to Tetraedr employees, passing them over in .EML format to the information transparency platform DDoSecrets. It also made public a complete archive of each inbox in .PST format, though the hackers noted that some files may have been corrupted by the export process.

Tetraedr is a private company founded in 2001 that specializes in making advanced radio-electronic weapons systems. It is based in Belarus, which has provided Vladimir Putin with logistical support in his invasion of Ukraine. Its dictatorial leader, Alexandr Lukashenko, has long been regarded as a puppet of Putin.

“Greetings, citizens of the world,” announced Anonymous in a statement on DDoSecrets, a non-profit whistleblower site set up in 2018. “We are the PWN-Bar Hack Team, we stand for equal opportunity pwnage and unrestricted access to information.”

https://cybernews.com/news/hero-hackers-claim-to-have-breached-belarusian-weapons-firm/

Is anyone puzzled that a weapons system that is supposed to be able to hit a just-under-super-sonic missile warhead taking evasive action---would miss a boat bouncing around at no more than 50 mph? and does it make anyone curious about how well those systems would work against an actual missile? or missile saturation attack?

Every clip they show of this amazing laser-guided precision weapon disperses randomly and misses 90% of the vehicles in the target zone.

Seems to me the lasers, rockets, computer chips, etc. are a bit wasted.

Typical American military. Spend $50 billion on a weapon system which is barely better than the simple low-tech solution and poverty-level wages for the people who will deploy it.

LOL I can't be a pig and Sarah Palin at the same time. Make up your mind

Those are all valid criticisms, but nobody apart from the flight engineers and test pilots truly know whether this plane is a lemon or not. If it does everything it's supposed to do, then it's exactly what the military asked for, just 10 years too late....

Any suitability and fit for purpose criticism that anyone has ever come up with for the F-35 also applies to just about any piece of military equipment that has been created in the last 70 years. Engineering is a balancing act, and an iterative process. Almost every aircraft, and vehicle in the military today was built to fight a soviet army. Luckily that never happened. But that means that most aircraft and vehicles in the military today have been grossly modified to make them fit for a different purpose. The F-35 will probably go through this as well over the next 30 years, because it's a normal part of the life-cycle of military equipment. Almost every plane dropping bombs now was previously designed as a fighter. But nobody ever calls them out for being mutants like they do with the F-35, they call it additional capability. The F-35 was born with these capabilities instead of being added over time.


Expensive: I'll agree. Could the money have been spent better else where? Definitely. You could argue that the cost is tiny compared to that of a full scale war, maybe F-35 is a good deterrent. Air superiority is the key to winning a war. If you're going to spend money then that's where it should be spent. When the oceans rise enough, is a country like Indonesia going to lash out and try to take land and resources for their civilians? Maybe. I doubt all 200 million of them will just stand there and starve. (Ok I'll concede, this does make me sound a bit like Palin. But hopefully not as dumb )
They could have probably made 3 different stealth planes for 1/2 the cost, but that has it's own strategic downsides. You have to have the right assets in the right places or you have to spread them quite thinly. With a multi-role plane you have all of the capabilities everywhere. Just a matter of a loading it with different weapons.

Not needed: Time will tell whether this is the right plane, but new planes are needed. And they absolutely must have stealth. Within 10 years, weapon systems will be so advanced that if you are spotted, you're as good as dead. We are currently dropping bombs on fairly unsophisticated enemies, but wars tend to escalate quickly. You just never know either way, and it's better to be prepared for the worst. There are plenty of countries with very good planes and pilots that could get sucked into a conflict. If you're really unlucky you could be fighting US made planes with pilots trained in the same way, and you don't want to be fighting a fair fight.
Further still, Russia, China and Japan are developing their own stealth planes, which pretty much forces everyone else to do the same thing.
Especially if Donald Trump gets elected. You never know who that crazy asshole is going to provoke into a war

Doesn't work: It's still in development and testing.

Overtasked: It does the same stuff the aging multi-role planes (that were originally built as fighters) do. With the addition of stealth, and better weapons/sensors/comms. Small performance variables don't win wars, superior tactics and situational awareness does.

Underpowered: Almost every plane ever built has had it's engines upgraded to give it more thrust through it's life. And engines on planes are almost a disposable item, they're constantly being replaced throughout the life-cycle of the plane. Like a formula one car.
The current engine, is already the most powerful engine ever in a jet fighter. It is good enough to fly super sonic without an afterburner, which none of the planes it's replacing are capable of.

Piloted: Agreed. But who knows, maybe a Boston Dynamics robot will be flying it soon

Test Failing: That's only a good thing. You want things to fail during tests, and not in the real world. Testing and finding flaws is a normal part of developing anything.

Fragile: That can be said for all US aircraft. They all need to have the runway checked for FOD, because one little rock can destroy even the best plane. Russian aircraft on the other hand are designed to be rugged though, because they're runways are in terrible condition. But in reality, all sophisticated equipment needs constant maintenance, especially when even a simple failure at 40,000 feet becomes an emergency.

Quickly Obsolete: Time will tell. Perhaps it would have been better to keep upgrading current planes with more technology like plasma stealth gas that make then partially stealthy, better sensors and more computing power. But by the time you've done that you've got a plane that's as heavy as F-35 anyway, and not as capable. Although it might have been cheaper in the long run.

Like I said in my previous comment. All of this doesn't make an interesting story so you'll only ever hear the two extremes which are "the plane sux" vs "it's invicible!!11" depending on your media source.

I love NdGT, but he's making a lot of assumptions here.

First he's comparing two fictional spacecraft, while knowing next to nothing about the relative strengths and weaknesses of their weapons systems, materials or engines.

It could be that phasers are to the Millennium Falcon what muskets are to a tank or vice versa.

Even then, Falcon v Enterprise isn't really an even match up. Maybe Falcon v runabout or Enterprise v Star Destroyer?

As for BB-8, how does he know that it's a smooth surface?

Finally, aliens might find kissing weird, or they might not. It's not even unique to one species on this planet, and it's almost certainly an evolved behavior. If aliens evolved on a similar planet, there's a chance they might evolve similar traits. Unlikely, but not impossible.

Navy Laser Weapon System LaWS will be deployed in 2014 has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash on that post.

US Navy's Laser Weapon System (LaWS) has been added as a related post - related requested by Zawash.

*related=http://videosift.com/video/US-Navys-Laser-Weapon-System-LaWS

Ahhhh, he must be a drone of the Cult of the Grand HR Machine in action. Simultaneously knocking down radical ideas and then capitalizing upon the innovations of the radical.

Intellectuals are specific cogs for creating ideas. But! their ideas should be designated for their specific quadrant of weapons/systems engineering and never seep into political culture.

WARNING, Noam Chomsky, your views violate the nature of the GHRM.

The GHRM has determined you no longer qualify as a person. Your designation is now: food. Be happy and exercise the remainder of your free will:

Would you like to be converted into solid food or liquefied supplements?

Indeed, and doubly so because I have not a single doubt in my mind that companies like them are 100% focused on selling to whomever will maximize their profits for them.

On the flip side of that, I also recognize that failing to build more advanced weapon systems does absolutely nothing to stop other nations and groups from doing so, and for all America's faults, and it's a long list, I can't think of many nations I'd prefer to see on the leading edge militarily.

>> ^smooman:

i may be going out on a limb here but I'm fairly certain their primary consumer base are contractors overseas, in which case, an ak 47 you'll see 9 times out of 10. Technically you're right about the difference in muzzle velocity but it doesn't really matter when you're marketing your product to people who are being shot at by ak's 99% of the time. and from my experience with "bulletproof" materials, if it can stop an ak, it will still be effective against any other 7.62 weapon system
i would like to see how it holds up against a dshk tho. those are common enough .50 cal weapons particularly in afghanistan and parts of africa and they're scary as hell
>> ^Drachen_Jager:
AK 47 is a relatively weak rifle to test it with. Compared to a 7.62 NATO which is far more common in the United States it has a maximum 1260 ft-lbf of energy at the muzzle to the NATO 7.62's 2500-3000. And 7.62 NATO is not a heavy load either. A .50 cal BMG (as someone suggested) has 11,000 - 13,000, ten times the 7.62 Russian's energy.



Yep, there's something to be said for probability.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zM7HDRhViHQ

i may be going out on a limb here but I'm fairly certain their primary consumer base are contractors overseas, in which case, an ak 47 you'll see 9 times out of 10. Technically you're right about the difference in muzzle velocity but it doesn't really matter when you're marketing your product to people who are being shot at by ak's 99% of the time. and from my experience with "bulletproof" materials, if it can stop an ak, it will still be effective against any other 7.62 weapon system

i would like to see how it holds up against a dshk tho. those are common enough .50 cal weapons particularly in afghanistan and parts of africa and they're scary as hell

>> ^Drachen_Jager:

AK 47 is a relatively weak rifle to test it with. Compared to a 7.62 NATO which is far more common in the United States it has a maximum 1260 ft-lbf of energy at the muzzle to the NATO 7.62's 2500-3000. And 7.62 NATO is not a heavy load either. A .50 cal BMG (as someone suggested) has 11,000 - 13,000, ten times the 7.62 Russian's energy.

>> ^PalmliX:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
If I'm shooting someone legally, it's not murder.>> ^PalmliX:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
@PalmliX: "They have no secondary use, except maybe target practice."
No, you're just wrong there. Guns, when carried legally, can stop someone who is using one illegally.

Right... that doesn't change the fact that they only have one use. If your shooting someone legally to stop them from using a gun illegally, are you not still using the gun for it's singular intended purpose?


You're just dodging my point... Wether or not your legally shooting someone just change the fact that as a tool, a gun only has one use.


a gun can be used to open locked doors or containers. a gun can be used as a blunt tool, particularly larger firearms such as rifles and shotguns. a gun can be used as a deterrent or as a tool of intimidation (without ever aiming at anyone or discharging i might add). need i continue?

you have just been enlightened. still think guns have one and only one use?

if your statements had been that guns have only one primary use, oh absolutely, no argument there. but your insistence that guns can only be used for one, and only one thing is absurd to anyone who is even remotely familiar with these weapon systems.

it is no different than me saying that cars have one and only one use: high speed transportation. I'd be dead wrong if that was my stance on automobiles