Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) disclosed in 2011 that it had found possible virus infections on its network. Its public account changed as the investigation progressed: the company first said it had not confirmed external leakage of product or technology information, then acknowledged possible leakage from a server, and ultimately concluded that protected defense-related data had not leaked. Those are MHI’s reported findings, not independent forensic confirmation.
What happened in the 2011 attack?
MHI said it became aware in mid-August 2011 of possible virus infection. In a September 30 update, the company said it was working with outside specialists and had filed a damage report with the Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department, citing the attack’s scale and maliciousness. MHI’s notices describe virus infections and a cyberattack; the familiar headline wording is not a direct quotation from those notices. MHI’s September 30, 2011 update set out the company’s early assessment.
The updates are best read as a sequence of findings, not as contradictory proof that either no information or classified information was taken.
Recommended Free Tools
| Date | MHI’s public statement | What it establishes |
|---|---|---|
| September 21, 2011 | MHI said it had become aware in mid-August of possible virus infection, had reported the matter to police, and had not confirmed breaches involving company product or technology data. | An early company assessment; no confirmed product or technology breach at that point. Source |
| September 30, 2011 | MHI said it had found no evidence of external leakage of product or technology information at the time of writing, and that it had filed a damage report with Tokyo Metropolitan Police. | A finding at that stage of the investigation, not a final conclusion about all information. Source |
| October 25, 2011 | After investigating unintended transfers between servers, MHI said it recognized the possibility that some information had leaked from a server. It had not confirmed leakage of data requiring protection concerning defense and nuclear power; investigation of other product areas continued. | Possible leakage was acknowledged, while protected defense and nuclear-power information remained a distinct question. Source |
| November 10, 2011 | MHI said its investigation of defense-related data was complete and concluded that no defense-related data requiring protection had leaked. | MHI’s final stated finding for protected defense-related data. Source |
| November 18, 2011 | MHI made a corresponding conclusion about nuclear-power data requiring protection. | A separate finding about nuclear-power information, not needed to establish the defense-data conclusion. Source |
Did protected defense information leak?
According to MHI’s November 10, 2011 update, no defense-related data requiring protection leaked as a result of the incident. The company wrote: “MHI has completed a thorough investigation into the matter involving defense-related data and has concluded that the incident led to no leaks of defense-related data requiring protection.” The statement is MHI’s investigation conclusion; the public notice does not constitute independent forensic confirmation.
#1 Best Overall
This conclusion is narrower than saying that no information of any kind left the company. On October 25, MHI had acknowledged the possibility that some information leaked from a server, while saying it had not confirmed leakage of protected defense and nuclear-power data. Its notices do not establish the total amount of data stolen or leaked.
What is not established about the attacker?
MHI’s cited public updates do not identify who carried out the 2011 attack, state a motive, name a malware family, or provide a comprehensive account of how the attackers first gained access. They also do not give a substantiated total for information taken. Claims beyond those points require evidence separate from the company notices.
Rank #2
How this differs from MHI’s 2020 Nagoya incident
MHI’s 2020 Nagoya-area network intrusion was a separate event, with its own timeline and findings. In an August 7, 2020 notice, the company described an employee downloading a virus-infected file received from a third party through a social networking service while working from home; after returning to the office, the employee connected to the company network. MHI said it detected unauthorized external communication on May 21 and completed its internal investigation on July 21. It reported leaks mainly involving employee names and email addresses and IT-related information, and said sensitive information, highly confidential technical information, and important affiliate information had not leaked. These statements concern the 2020 incident only. MHI’s notice on the Nagoya-area network gives its account.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →What MHI says about cybersecurity today
MHI’s 2025 report describes group-wide cybersecurity practices based on the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0, multilayered defense, and a Security Incident Response Team. That report describes the company’s later practices; it does not establish which defenses were in place in 2011 or explain why the earlier attack succeeded. MHI Report 2025.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
