X Under Attack—Dark Storm Says It Was Behind Musk Platform DDoS

Forbes - Mar 11th, 2025

Elon Musk's X social media platform, formerly Twitter, experienced multiple outages on March 10, attributed to a 'massive cyberattack.' Musk suggested that a 'large, coordinated group and/or a country' might be responsible, with IP traces pointing to the Ukraine area. The pro-Palestinian hacktivist collective, Dark Storm, has claimed responsibility for the attack, mirroring tactics similar to the Russia-linked group KillNet.

Dark Storm's emergence in 2023 marks an increasing threat, having targeted NATO countries, Israel, and the U.S. with DDoS and ransomware attacks. The group's claim on Telegram, reinforced by Check Host screenshots, underscores rising cyber threats against major platforms. Oded Vanunu from Check Point warns of potential disruptions and limited access to essential services. However, definitive proof of Dark Storm's involvement remains elusive, and the story continues to develop.

Elon Musk Ukraine X Platform Dark Storm Cyberattack Distributed Denial Of Service (D Do S) Kill Net Hacktivism

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely and engaging account of a cyberattack on the X platform, with clear language and structure that aids reader comprehension. However, it falls short in providing balanced perspectives and relies heavily on unverified claims from Dark Storm and Elon Musk. The lack of diverse sources and concrete evidence weakens the story's overall accuracy and impact. While it raises important issues about cybersecurity threats, the developing nature of the story means that further updates and verification are needed to fully understand the event's implications.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports that the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, experienced outages, and Elon Musk attributed these to a cyberattack. However, the claim that the pro-Palestinian hacktivist group Dark Storm is responsible remains unverified, as the article itself admits that their claim on Telegram does not constitute concrete evidence. The mention of IP addresses originating in Ukraine is also speculative without further evidence to confirm this as a source of the attack. The story does well to mention that this is a developing situation, indicating an awareness of the need for ongoing verification.

Balance

The article presents the viewpoints of Elon Musk and the claim by Dark Storm, but it lacks counterarguments or perspectives from cybersecurity experts who might provide alternative explanations or skepticism about the group's involvement. While it includes a quote from a cybersecurity professional about the broader threat landscape, it does not offer a balanced view of the specific incident's attribution.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, with a logical flow from the description of the attack to the claims of responsibility and expert commentary. The language is straightforward and accessible, making it easy for readers to follow the narrative. However, the complexity of cyberattack attribution may still be challenging for readers without technical knowledge.

Source quality

The story relies on statements from Elon Musk and a Telegram post from Dark Storm as primary sources, which are not independently verified. The inclusion of a quote from a cybersecurity expert adds some credibility, but the lack of diverse and authoritative sources weakens the overall reliability. The story would benefit from input from additional cybersecurity analysts or official statements from affected parties.

Transparency

The article is transparent about the uncertainty surrounding Dark Storm's claim of responsibility and the ongoing nature of the investigation. However, it does not provide detailed information on how conclusions were drawn about the cyberattack's origins or the evidence supporting various claims. Greater transparency about the methodology and sources used to verify claims would enhance credibility.