X Under Attack—Who Was Really Behind The Musk Platform Outages?

Forbes - Mar 12th, 2025

The pro-Palestinian hacktivist group Dark Storm has claimed responsibility for a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack that caused multiple outages on Elon Musk's social media platform, X, formerly known as Twitter. Despite these claims, the involvement of a large, coordinated group or nation remains a possibility, with Musk suggesting the attack originated from the Ukraine area. Dark Storm, which shares tactics with the Russia-linked group KillNet, is known for targeting Western and Ukraine-supporting entities. The attack's severity highlights the sophisticated nature of the threat actors involved.

Attributing the attack to a specific group or nation is challenging due to the complexities of cyber forensics and the adeptness of adversaries in concealing their tracks. Multiple security experts have echoed the difficulty of definitive attribution without thorough forensic analysis. The incident underscores the escalating cyber threat landscape against major online platforms and critical infrastructure, emphasizing the need for caution in assigning blame without substantial evidence. The story remains under investigation as more facts emerge.

Elon Musk Ukraine Cybersecurity Dark Storm Kill Net Hacktivism X Social Media Platform D Do S Attack

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.2

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a timely and engaging account of the cyberattack on Elon Musk's X platform, balancing factual reporting with expert insights to navigate the complexities of cyber threat attribution. It effectively highlights the challenges of attributing such attacks to specific groups or nations, emphasizing the need for thorough forensic analysis. The inclusion of diverse expert opinions adds depth and balance to the narrative, while the clear and accessible language ensures that the story is comprehensible to a broad audience. However, the reliance on claims from Dark Storm, without independent verification, slightly undermines the source quality and accuracy. Overall, the story successfully raises awareness about cybersecurity issues and encourages cautious consideration of cyber threat attribution, making it a valuable contribution to public discourse on the topic.

Accuracy

The article presents several factual claims that align with known details about the DDoS attack on Elon Musk's X platform. It accurately reports the claim by the hacktivist group Dark Storm of their responsibility for the attack, and includes statements from Elon Musk regarding the potential origins of the attack. However, the article notes that attribution of such attacks is complex and requires more than just IP tracing, highlighting the need for further verification. The mention of IP addresses originating in the Ukraine area, as stated by Musk, remains unverified and thus requires caution. The article does well to include expert opinions that emphasize the difficulty in definitively attributing cyberattacks, which adds to its accuracy by acknowledging the uncertainty inherent in cyber threat attribution.

Balance

The article provides a balanced view by including perspectives from various security experts who caution against prematurely attributing the attack to any specific group or nation. It presents Elon Musk's statements alongside those from cybersecurity professionals, which helps to balance the narrative by showing both the claims of responsibility and the skepticism around them. The inclusion of expert opinions from Oded Vanunu, Chad Cragle, and others offers a wide range of viewpoints, mitigating potential bias toward any single explanation for the attack.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and presents information in a logical flow, making it easy for readers to follow the developments of the story. It uses clear language to explain the technical aspects of DDoS attacks and the challenges of attribution, which aids in comprehension. The inclusion of direct quotes from experts and clear delineation of different viewpoints helps maintain a neutral tone throughout. The article effectively communicates the complexity of the situation without overwhelming the reader with jargon.

Source quality

The article cites credible sources, including statements from Elon Musk and several cybersecurity experts from reputable organizations like Check Point and Deepwatch. These sources lend authority to the piece, as they are well-positioned to comment on cyber threats. However, the article relies heavily on the claims made by Dark Storm on their Telegram channel, which, while a direct source, is not independently verified. This reliance on potentially biased or self-serving statements from the hacktivist group slightly diminishes the source quality.

Transparency

The article is somewhat transparent in its reporting, as it clearly states that the attribution of the cyberattack is complex and that claims made by Dark Storm are not definitive proof of their involvement. However, it could improve its transparency by providing more context on how the information was gathered and the potential limitations of the sources used. The article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest, which is a positive aspect, but the lack of detailed methodology on how the claims were verified or challenged leaves room for improvement.

Sources

https://www.zerofox.com/intelligence-feed/cyberattack-suspected-in-worldwide-x-outage/