Hackers attack French websites after Telegram founder arrested

Following the arrest of Telegram founder Pavel Durov, several French government and educational websites were disrupted by coordinated distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks.

Durov was detained at Le Bourget airport near Paris on August 24 under an arrest warrant alleging involvement in crimes such as money laundering, drug trafficking, and supporting terrorism.

Despite these serious allegations, no formal charges have been filed against him.

Cybersecurity expert Clément Domingo, known as SaxX, reported that ten websites were targeted in an operation called ‘opDurov.’

Among the affected sites were the French government’s public services website, La Voix du Nord newspaper, the National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products (ANSM), and the agricultural union Confédération Paysanne.

Domingo noted that the attacks were primarily DDoS disruptions without any reported data breaches or ransomware attacks.

The DDoS attacks were allegedly carried out by various hacker groups in retaliation for Durov’s arrest.

A Russian-speaking group, the Russian Army Cyber Team, reportedly took responsibility for part of the attacks.

Additionally, RipperSec, a Malaysia-based pro-Palestinian hacker group, allegedly joined the operation, targeting multiple French universities and educational institutions.

Durov, who holds citizenship in Russia, France, the UAE, and St. Kitts and Nevis, was reportedly detained for questioning in connection with crimes allegedly committed by an “unnamed person” using the Telegram platform.

He could be held in custody until August 28.

Durov’s arrest has sparked a wave of criticism from prominent figures in the tech industry.

Leaders like Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Ethereum’s Vitalik Buterin have condemned the arrest, framing it as an attack on fundamental human rights, particularly freedom of speech and association.

French President Emmanuel Macron clarified that Durov’s arrest was part of an independent judicial investigation, not a political decision.

He emphasised that the matter should be handled within the framework of the law and that the judiciary, not the government, would determine the outcome.