Hacks against airline ticketing, registration, and customer-relations services are nothing new, but yesterday Poland's LOT suffered something more noteworthy: an attack against flight planning software. No risk to aircraft safety, but the incident forced cancellation of some ten flights.

More reports suggest Russian false-flag cyber operations are posing as ISIS attacks. (Last week's cyber vandalism of a US community college site — North Central Michigan College — is more typical of Caliphate sympathizers.)

Saudi Arabia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs says Wikileaks' diplomatic cables release won't affect Saudi commitment to transparency.

The long-running intrusion into the US Office of Personnel Management (OPM), pretty definitively attributed to China (although to exactly which Chinese government threat group remains in dispute) is generally regarded within the US as an infosec disaster that should have been averted or at least contained by well-understood precautions. Some have called this the long-feared "cyber Pearl Harbor," but the disanalogy is too obvious. US anger is directed more against OPM than China. Whichever Chinese agency was collecting seems no longer active in OPM networks, not because they've been expelled, but because they've got what they came for.

Espionage it may be, but the OPM hack has prompted thought (notably in the US and Australia) about how the law of armed conflict applied in cyberspace.

The cyber insurance market seems in the early unmistakable phase of forcing better security: negligence won't be indemnified, and consensus on standards of care is emerging.

Cyber companies and researchers watch export control law with mounting concern.