Technically true, but a bit click baitish.
Article says a plastics supplier was hit, which isn't the same as Toyota being hit.
Article says a plastics supplier was hit, which isn't the same as Toyota being hit.
No where did they imply Toyota was hit, however to believe it is any less serious because a Supplier was hit vs them directly shows ignorance of how manufacturing works
Supply Chain attacks are very serious and are how a lot of malware is moving because the primary targets are getting very good at preventing direct attacks however supplier are often overlooked as an attack vector, and even if they are aware of the risk, that risk is often very much understated
I agree. The title is click bait.
I, too, thought it was an attack on Toyota based on the title. I see where you're coming from in saying that it's not, but because many of us have stated that we were confused by the title, I don't think it's fair to say that it's "not at all" click bait. It is, at least just a teensy bit.
Was there a cyberattack? Yes. Did Toyota suspend domestic factory operations after it? Also yes. I'm content.
Moreover, geopolitically, there is a HUGE difference between random plastic company being a random extortion victim, and Japan’s largest company being the target of Putin’s retaliation.
Not saying it was not, but the idea that only Russia would attack Toyota directly, and only random attacker hi suppliers is not true
> Toyota wasn’t directly targeted
GP is trying to say this is the assumption you’re making. Supply chain attacks can be a clever way to disguise a direct target as an indirect one.
I agree with you though, the headline could be more clear.
If someone were to attack a major private utility in the US, for example electricity, they would not be directly attacking the US Government but I do not think most would find a title similar to this being clickbait.