CEO Indicted for DDOSing Competitors
ruland writes "It turns out there was a reason the hosting company CIT/Foonet was raided in February. SecurityFocus.com reports that the CEO of a web-based satellite T.V. retailer has been indicted for allegedly paying Foonet's administrator to arrange denial of service attacks against his competitors, causing outages as long as two weeks at a time, and $2 million in losses. Now he's skipped out on $750,000 bail, while the five packet monkeys who worked for him are left facing felony charges of their own."
I seem to recall quite an uproar surrounding the seizure before. People yelling about the government raping the constituion, etc.
Glad I was one of the people that decided to wait and see what it was all about instead of taking it as a sign that our government was overextending itself. Not that they don't, but I'm guessing this isn't one of those times if everyone on staff got felony charges.
Whee signature.
According to the article, they think the CEO's skipped town to Morocco. Don't we have an extradition treaty w/them? If so, it shouldn't be that hard to get him back, assuming Morocco's police play along.
My company was a direct target of these assholes. It is about time the FBI finally did something. They are the reason I am paying more for my servers than any other IRC shell provider.
AcmeShells.com The cheapest Eggdrop
RackSpace fought back, but the attackers proved determined and adaptive. In mid-October the simple SYN flood attacks were replaced with an HTTP flood, pulling large image files from WeaKnees.com in overwhelming numbers. At its peak the onslaught allegedly kept the company offline for a full two weeks.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to host these files from a tarpit? If you know you're under attack by zombie hordes that are going to repeatedly ask for a file, why not give it to them s--l--o--w--l--y? Although I suppose that since the attacks were being watched and changed frequently, the attackers probably would simply have switched tactics again.
Anyway, is it possible or practical to use the logs of the http flood to go back to the zombified PC owners and "fix" them? HTTP requires a real connection, which is traceable. Or should that list just be delivered to their ISPs and have the ISPs shut them down until they're virus free?
John
If a manager asks me to do something that is morally or legally questionable, I ask them to send me a signed memo with their request. That usually makes them go away and drop the subject.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Someone please tell me why I should feel sorry for the poor "monkeys" that were helping him commit felonies? This isn't a digital rights issue, this isn't a case of big guy trampling little guy. They partook in organized crime and gave computer people a bad name, why should we care that they are left hanging?
- Short company Y.
- Initiate DDOS campaign intended to temporarily cripple company Y and drive its stock price down.
- Cover at the depressed price.
- Profit.
Certainly the SEC would look askance at short-sales before a coordinated DDOS attack, but if a nebulous entity in Eastern Europe is doing the dirty work while a nebulous entity in East-Asia is doing the shorting, it could be extremely difficult to prove a connection.No this isn't a recommendation or some novel idea. In fact, I'm certain that organized crime is well ahead of us in the nefarious schemes department.
I actually got attacked by one of these guys' botnets (Krashed I believe) when a friend IRCing from my connection pissed him off. I traced him to Foonet thinking "great, I know the head admin from being an IRC junkie back in the day" and when I told him what was going on he acted like it was no problem. I thought he should have been a little more concerned about some punk kid attacking people from his net. Figures.
Not as retarded as those criminals at this company who bribed competitors janitors to steal documents. Oh. But is retarded the right word - that company's doing well. Sad that sometimes these techniques do pay.
As a general rule of thumb, the FBI and similar organizations don't go around raiding the `good guys'. It does happen sometimes ( one good example), but it's not the general rule. But the thing that tends to be forgotten is that even the `bad guys' have rights, and the FBI (and similar organizations) tends to violate these rights, and that's what people tend to get really upset about. And then there's things that aren't really `rights', but should happen anyways. For example, if they take all your hardware, and don't charge you with a crime, you should get your hardware back QUICKLY and UNDAMAGED. But I digress ...
As for Waco and Ruby Ridge, the people involved were definately `bad guys', but the government wasn't exactly being `good guys' either.
As for the FBI going after these DDoS monkeys, good for them. It's about time.
Here is a log of EMP just a few minutes ago. http://www.xbox-irc.net/log.txt
AcmeShells.com The cheapest Eggdrop
Or maybe you might remember Ruby Ridge or Waco. Or maybe you might remember some of the excesses since 9/11. Was this a good bust or bad one? It looks more like a good one. Don't automatically think that they are the evil jackbooted minions of the evil overlord. Nor should you automatically presume that they are the good guys.
Ideally bail is to give the accused time to prepare their defense. It's hard to talk with your alibi witnesses if they don't know you're in jail.
In reality bail is another method of enforcing an unofficial social caste system. Poor people can't get out to find decent legal counsel. They're stuck with the run-of-the-mill public defender who always advocates a "guilty" or "no contest" plea. The cycle repeats itself indefinitely.
In science it's called chromatography. If you have a jar of mixed large and small pellets you can separate the pellets simply by vibrating the jar for a long enough period of time. In society every accusation leveled against you is the equivalent of one vibration. If you're priveleged or wealthy you shake up. If you're poor or well-framed you shake down.
+++ATHZ 99:5:80
Al Quaeda endorses Bush
The statement said it supported U.S. President George W. Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."
In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilisation."
"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."