In brief
Ukraine’s official air alert app reportedly sent false warnings after a suspected hack, prompting Ukrainian officials to insist there was no radiation danger, while Russia’s Emergencies Ministry acknowledged a massive cyber‑attack. The incident follows the end of a ceasefire in Kherson and illustrates ongoing cyber and informational warfare in the conflict.
On the evening of Sunday, October 22, a Ukrainian air‑raid warning application sent a series of alarming messages that claimed nuclear, chemical, and missile threats, prompting air‑raid sirens across the country and raising questions about cybersecurity of the nation’s civil‑defence tools.
Al Jazeera Account
According to Al Jazeera, the Ukrainian Air Force confirmed that the app had been "subjected to enemy influence," and released a statement on its Telegram channel that the app had been hacked, sending dozens of bogus alerts including a warning that a Russian "Oreshnik" hypersonic missile had been deployed. In its post, the Air Force urged residents to remain calm, declaring, "There is no radiation threat! Stay calm and follow our updates on our channel."
There is no radiation threat! Stay calm and follow our updates on our channel!
SPRAVDI, Ukraine’s Centre for Strategic Communications, echoed the claim, blaming Russia for the breach in a X post. The erroneous notices appeared to cover areas surrounding Kyiv and suggested surface‐level street combat, while the separate app that covers the capital reportedly remained functional. Al Jazeera added that the Russian Emergencies Ministry later acknowledged a "massive cyber‑attack" on its own apps around the same period.
UPI Account
United Press International reported a similar timeline but added that the false alerts triggered nationwide air‑raid sirens and that the app’s messages included chemical and nuclear threats. The UPI piece notes that officials described the compromise as "probably hacked by the enemy," and warned citizens not to click on third‑party links or spread unverified data. The State Emergency Service of Ukraine issued an all‑clear at midnight on Monday, stating that its national warning system was operating normally and that all threat signals were directed to local authorities.
There is no radiation threat! Stay calm and keep an eye on updates on our channel!
The article also cited President Volodymyr Zelensky’s statement that a wave of Russian missiles and drones had struck energy infrastructure in four regions, leaving hundreds of thousands without power. It detailed that Russia had launched 1,940 attack drones, over 1,580 guided aerial bombs and 44 missiles that week, underscoring the backdrop of continuing hostilities.
Russian Ministry Response
In a separate Telegram update, the Russian Emergencies Ministry admitted that its mobile apps had been hit by a "massive cyber‑attack" and acknowledged that false information had spread as a result. The ministry did not attribute the breach to Ukraine but implied that the cyber‑attack could be a part of the broader conflict between the two sides.
Both Ukrainian and Russian statements point to a sophisticated cyber‑warfare episode, but each side emphasizes its own narrative regarding responsibility and the potential scale of the threat. The false alerts ignited alarms across Ukraine, while the Russian conclusion that its own apps were compromised offered a different twist on who had inflicted the disruption.
Ceasefire Context
The incident follows the conclusion of a localized ceasefire in Kherson that had begun on Tuesday and ended on Sunday, a truce that had been the longest in the war to date. While the ceasefire’s end did not directly explain the hacking incident, it suggests a timing of intensified information operations that could relate to shifting tactical priorities.
In the immediate aftermath, Ukrainian officials clarified that there was no infliction of radiation danger, and Ukrainian emergency managers assured the public of the continued operation of legitimate warning systems. The Russian statement, while acknowledging a cyber‑attack, stopped short of attributing it to any specific actor, leaving both parties’ claims to be viewed in parallel without resolving the pertient responsibility or assessment of damages.
