Slashdot Mirror


Web Site Attacks Are On The Rise

Nicholas Roussos writes "According to recent numbers from 2004, website attacks are on the rise, and many of them are being performed by mischevious school kids. Some of their favorite targets include U.S. government and military websites."

281 comments

  1. Mischevious School Kids ooor Glac Elves!! by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Funny
    Recent numbers as of 2004?!?!? Cripes, that's like ... what? The dark ages! It's practically in cuneiform, even. What takes so long for this kind of thing to get to press? Oh, right, right... the server with the information was being attacked and it took a few months to figure out how to disconnect it from the network and get data off of it... "anybody still got one of those 3.5" floppy disks?"

    I couldn't help but notice that almost every site with a link in a slashdot article gets virtually nuked!

    there must be a connection, but what?

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Mischevious School Kids ooor Glac Elves!! by fbartho · · Score: 1

      Apparently its either not a big enough connection or ... Damn, I'm stumped.

      --
      Gravity Sucks
    2. Re:Mischevious School Kids ooor Glac Elves!! by YeEntrancemperium · · Score: 1

      Yeah... That's some pretty dry humour right there.

    3. Re:Mischevious School Kids ooor Glac Elves!! by Dolda2000 · · Score: 1
      I couldn't help but notice that almost every site with a link in a slashdot article gets virtually nuked!

      there must be a connection, but what?

      Naturally, these are the attacks the article is referring to. Mischievous school kids post articles on Slashdot, linking to sites they want to DDoS.
    4. Re:Mischevious School Kids ooor Glac Elves!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What takes so long..."

      Uhmmm... This is a 'government' report...

    5. Re:Mischevious School Kids ooor Glac Elves!! by turbidostato · · Score: 0

      "Mischievous school kids post articles on Slashdot, linking to sites they want to DDoS."

      Yes... and on this lines, first I thought about the headlines is, well... if they are "mischievous school kids" who is *really* to blame? I mean, of course the kids are probably mischievous but, can be considered IT staff like truly professional if those "mischievous kids" go with it?

      After all, imagine a newspaper with a header like "Twelve year-old mischievous kid with a plastic gun and a donald duck cardboard mask over his face manages to steal two million dollars from Fifth National Bank office at Springfield"; maybe the kid is mischievous but, hell, it's damn sure neither that bank nor its security service's reputation is going to skyrocket (not to talk about the fact that the kid just exposes himself to be brought back home by a very seriously-faced police agent just to scare the boy and let him learn not to do such sillynessess no more)!

      Still, most "penetrations" and "security violations" require neither more ability nor planning than the bank example, but in this case, the "michievous kid" is the one to hold all blame and, in some cases, the one to affront legal actions that seem more proper for an active al-qaeda terrorist.

  2. I don't think that this is new though. by lecithin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    According to recent numbers from 2004,
    According to recent numbers from 2003,
    According to recent numbers from 2002,
    According to recent numbers from 2001,
    According to recent numbers from 2000, ...
    Website attacks are on the rise.

    I bet we see this in 2005 as well.

    What would really be news if we saw website attacks decline.

    --
    It could be worse, it could be Monday.
    1. Re:I don't think that this is new though. by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny
      Website attacks are on the rise.
      I bet we see this in 2005 as well.
      What would really be news if we saw website attacks decline.

      There will be a decline ... cut-backs and all, we had to lay off a lot of script kiddies and the rest is being outsourced to East Velcro.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:I don't think that this is new though. by bmw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What would really be news if we saw website attacks decline.

      No kidding.

      "This just in! Technology still advancing!"

      Obviously website attacks are going to increase as the number of people with computers and access to the internet increases.

    3. Re:I don't think that this is new though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The more you lay off, the more time that folks have to do there attack. They also now have a 'motive'.

      I agree that at some point the attacks will decline. I also believe that the sun will go nova one of these days as well.

    4. Re:I don't think that this is new though. by ghislain_leblanc · · Score: 1

      Well, actually, pretty much everything that is computer related is on the rise. Except maybe jobs in the U.S. and hardware prices.

    5. Re:I don't think that this is new though. by CatMan79 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Next Slashdot article: Previous Pope Still Dead

    6. Re:I don't think that this is new though. by PhatboySlim · · Score: 1
      Berkeley research shows that "We estimate that new stored information grew about 30% a year between 1999 and 2002."

      If website attacks grew by 36% and the internet grew by 30%, I wouldn't look at this as about on par with internet growth. You are right to say that this isn't a big deal.

      I had more faith in ZDNet for publishing the obvious. Maybe next week they'll run a story about how the world population increase is due to children as well.

      --
      Be sure to remember the Programmers Prayer
    7. Re:I don't think that this is new though. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't dispair!

      George Lucas is already working on, "John Paul III, The Papal Menace".

  3. FRIST POST!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hello, I am a mischievous school kid.

    1. Re:FRIST POST!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... who rides the short bus to a happy school with padded walls where the teachers wear lab coats and the rest of my classmates wear helmets. Nobody at my school can count!

    2. Re:FRIST POST!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least you know how to spell "mischievous" when the article poster and editors don't know how.

  4. Careful! by BWJones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I have certainly seen the number of attacks rising on our academic computing resources as well as my blog. Tracking IPs leads to lots of cable modems from Comcast and such which could be zombies, but given the lack of sophistication from those IPs, I have to wonder. Most of the attacks from these cable modem IPs are scripts directed at Windows vulnerabilities and buffer overflow attacks, but a few coming from Taiwan and Korea as well as some in the Balkans are fairly sophisticated that sometimes appear to come via compromised computers from other universities for example. Depending upon how sophisticated they are, I have reported some of them to Federal authorities who have the resources to subpoena logs and go after folks intruding into Federal resources. Interestingly others have also recently reported intrusions followed by blackmail which are likely not the domain of script kiddies. Certainly, comedy aside, one wonders if many of these kids have any idea of what they could actually be dealing with. Back in 1982 (we were 12), all that happened to us after hacking into government computers was my friend Lance getting his Apple ][+ confiscated followed by a job offer 9 years later from the same folks who confiscated his computer back in 1982. Now however, hacking into even an educational system could net you serious Federal penalties depending upon the system one hacks into. One admin friend of mine at a certain government lab is absolutely militant about this stuff. It has become her all consuming hobby to track these folks down and allocate whatever government resources she can muster to prosecute intruders into her systems. Woe be unto those that intrude into one of Melissa's systems.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Careful! by nizo · · Score: 5, Funny

      What is her site domain? Maybe I could point some of the zombies and such who keep poking around my domains with a redirect to her website so SHE can go track them down.....

    2. Re:Careful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that is what they do over at http://www.oaklandpolice.com/

    3. Re:Careful! by Mignon · · Score: 4, Funny
      It has become her all consuming hobby to track these folks down and allocate whatever government resources she can muster to prosecute intruders into her systems. Woe be unto those that intrude into one of Melissa's systems.

      She sounds like a chick I'd like to meet! Bet I'd impress her by writing a virus and naming it after her.

    4. Re:Careful! by CoffeeJedi · · Score: 1

      Woe be unto those that intrude into one of Melissa's systems.
      she takes care of her crew.

      --
      May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
    5. Re:Careful! by pegr · · Score: 2, Funny

      It has become her all consuming hobby to track these folks down and allocate whatever government resources she can muster to prosecute intruders into her systems. Woe be unto those that intrude into one of Melissa's systems.

      She sounds like a chick I'd like to meet! Bet I'd impress her by writing a virus and naming it after her


      I did it already... She wasn't impressed. :(

    6. Re:Careful! by Cerberus911 · · Score: 1

      Some ISP's do something. for example here in Ontario I had a friend whose internet connection was cut by Rogers because her computer was a zombie.

      I think ISP's are scared in case they get complaints or even get sued from the users if their service is cut, since there is no legal precedent for this in court and it would be hard describing to a judge what a zombie PS is and why that's damaging.

    7. Re:Careful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "She sounds like a chick I'd like to meet! Bet I'd impress her by writing a virus and naming it after her."

      Yeah, but is she hot? If not, check around the strip clubs. Maybe you could find a hot stripper named Melissa to impress.

    8. Re:Careful! by BWJones · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've got dibbs on her computational forensics skills first. Besides, she would likely not be happy to suddenly get a bunch of Slashers pinging her systems. Come to think of it, posting her IP domains might result in folks with sunglasses darkening my door. No way dude. :-)

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    9. Re:Careful! by Feztaa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I absolutely disagree. ISPs should be given "common carrier" status and should not at all be held responsible for anything that goes over their pipes. If you hold them responsible for hackers on their network, then they've got to start policing p2p, and then they give out the names of infringing customers, and then it's all over.

      Now, of course, a competent sysadmin would recognize a zombie PC on his network and would take steps to correct that, but under no circumstances should ISPs be held legally liable for that kind of stuff.

    10. Re:Careful! by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Yes, and people should be held responsible if a thief steals their car and uses it to run over pedestrians.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    11. Re:Careful! by warpSpeed · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I swear I've posted this like 5 times this week, but ISPs should be held liable for malicious traffic comming from their networks if they don't do anything about it. It's getting ri-freakin-diculous people!

      Speaking as the owner of a very small ISP, this is very nearly imposible. How do you define "don't do anything about it"? Which ISP are you going hold liable? The one that sells bandwidth to the offending PC (IP address)? Or the upstream ISPs. What if the middle ISP is multi-homed? Perhaps some guy just left his WiFi open, and a neighbors infected laptop has latched on to it (I've seen this happen). Would the Open WiFi guy be the ISP in this scenario?

      It is not just getting "ri-freakin-diculous", it has been pretty bad for quite a while now. With better and cheaper bandwidth becoming more and more readly avaiable the problem will continue to get worse. However the ISPs here are common carriers, they cannot (and I do not want then to) track ever IP packet that travels over their network.

      Perhaps you could whip on the OS makers where the majority of these problems originate from?

    12. Re:Careful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      If you hold them responsible for hackers on their network, then they've got to start policing p2p, and then they give out the names of infringing customers, and then it's all over.

      Huh? So they would have to start acting like good citizens and report illegal (yes, most P2P traffic is illegal; that's why P2P is explicitly banned in most institutions around here) behaviour?

      I don't see what would be so wrong with that?

    13. Re:Careful! by Taladar · · Score: 1

      It would help to at the very least block all packets on the typical windows ports as those ports are not intended for internet use (135-139,445). Another simple thing would be checking port 25 outgoing for unusually high amounts of data (nobody uses his own private mail server to send several hundred megs of email per day). Nobody says ISPs can or should monitor their users in detail but at least the worst cases should be found and removed from the net.

    14. Re:Careful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      holy flaming CRAP!

      "but I am all for the Bush whitehouse going after the new terrorists, kids with computers"

      wow... just... wow.

    15. Re:Careful! by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      You use AOL don't you?

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    16. Re:Careful! by Nos. · · Score: 1

      I don't know. I think I would prefer that they did disconnect zombied or malicious PCs. There is a difference between this and policing P2P traffic. My ISP disconnected me once for having a virus on one of my Windows boxes. I was upset I was disconnected, but once I found out why, I quickly fixed the problem, informed the ISP, and was back online.

      Policing P2P traffic is another matter. Malicious traffic should not necessarily be monitored by the ISP. Instead, reports from sysadmins containing appropriate logs and/or message headers should be reported. The ISP can confirm the legitamacy of these logs and disconnect the user (and hopefully call the user). The reporting person never needs to know anything about the identity of the ISP's customer.

      Remember, hacking is (in most countries) a criminal activity. I assume by policing P2P you are worried about copyright infringement which is a civil matter. These are two very different areas of law. Of course in Canada, the ISP cannot give out the name of a customer without a court order or under other very specific circumstances.

    17. Re:Careful! by stiggle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ISP could become more responsible and by DEFAULT restrict certain ports and services, unless specifically requested by the user.

      Grannie Jones doesn't need to run an IRC server (or any other server) on her home PC which she uses to collect emailed pics of the kids on.

      At the moment ISP are Windows with everything open and enabled by default. They should be more like OpenBSD with everything closed by default and opened up by the user requesting the services.

    18. Re:Careful! by nolife · · Score: 1

      Double edged sword. How are they supposed to just know someone on their network is a zombie? Monitor for the evil bit? Yes they could monitor all traffic and ports the users generate and use but that would turn into a /. YRO story shortly after. There is no magical method to determine what is legitimate traffic and what is not. Instead of posting your comment like 5 times a week (in your words), do you have any technical method or path to determine what seperates malicious traffic from non malicious traffic? If ISP were liable, they would monitor and block just about everything but plain text port 80 traffic and the ISP would be providing a useless service to the users. Comcast does appear to investigate and act on abuse claims.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    19. Re:Careful! by dr_dank · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However the ISPs here are common carriers, they cannot (and I do not want then to) track ever IP packet that travels over their network.

      Food for thought..

      Telephone companies are common carriers too. Most, if not all of them, have annoyance call bureaus to handle people receiving chronic crank calls and such. If a phone company can block and trace annoying calls for customers without losing cc status, why can't an ISP offer a similar service?

      I know many hide their tracks via misconfigured proxies, but maybe some dent can be made.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    20. Re:Careful! by warpSpeed · · Score: 1
      It would help to at the very least block all packets on the typical windows ports as those ports are not intended for internet use (135-139,445).

      If you buy service from the phone company do you want them telling you what numbers you can and cannot call?!?! Secure your system, the problem must be solved at the origin. If an ISP sees blatant abuse of its network then they can deal with it, but automatic and capricious shutdown of services because they "may" cause a problem is not the answer! (why not block port 80, you know that a lot of these viruses propagate via HTTP)

      Another simple thing would be checking port 25 outgoing for unusually high amounts of data (nobody uses his own private mail server to send several hundred megs of email per day). Nobody says ISPs can or should monitor their users in detail but at least the worst cases should be found and removed from the net.

      Great ideas! Who should I pass the costs associated with this on to? The virus writers? My customers?

      Your machines (PCs, whatever) are hooked up to a world wide network with millions of others. The most economic solution for you is to protect yours from the rest of them, not the other way around.

      ISPs will secure their networks because it makes buisness sense to them, not because it will keep the Internet a "nice" place. The the business economics work the problem.

    21. Re:Careful! by nolife · · Score: 1

      If you do not intend to use them over the public internet, use your OS or firewall to block them from getting to your PC, just as you would any other not used port. Maybe that should be the OS default. Don't trust the ISP to be your firewall. That would be a very short term band-aid until the next exploit that uses a different port.

      135-139,445
      These ports are intended to work over the internet, just not normally used. How many home users need incoming 1434? How about 1494? Should the ISP block that to? Who determines what should be blocked or where to draw the line on what should and should not be allowed?

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    22. Re:Careful! by Theaetetus · · Score: 3, Funny
      What is her site domain? Maybe I could point some of the zombies and such who keep poking around my domains with a redirect to her website so SHE can go track them down.....

      She's at 127.0.0.1, and trust me, she's got an absolutely impenetrable Firewall! I can't see a thing in there!

      Maybe I'll try a DoS or some buffer overloads.

    23. Re:Careful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I am all for the Bush whitehouse going after the new terrorists, kids with computers."

      Tell me your network number man then your dead!!!1

    24. Re:Careful! by jsight · · Score: 1

      If you buy service from the phone company do you want them telling you what numbers you can and cannot call?!?!

      No, but they will gladly block unwanted pay-numbers if I ask them to. I think an internet equivalent would be for ISPs to block provide a super-easy way to block some unlikely/improbably used ports at their end.
    25. Re:Careful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got dibs on her vagina!

      Vaginas ROCK!

    26. Re:Careful! by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      If you hold them responsible for hackers on their network, then they've got to start policing p2p, and then they give out the names of infringing customers, and then it's all over.

      Huh? So they would have to start acting like good citizens and report illegal (yes, most P2P traffic is illegal; that's why P2P is explicitly banned in most institutions around here) behaviour? I don't see what would be so wrong with that?


      ...except for the fact that it is physically impossible... What happens when (not if) they miss something?

    27. Re:Careful! by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 1

      To continue with the misguided analogy -

      If a guy knew that someone was stealing his vehicle to run over pedestrians, but did nothing to stop it, he would held responsible.

      There are plenty of ISPs that are victims as well. They try to fight the zombie boxes, viruses, etc. but many are understaffed, underequipped, etc. The mom and pop ISP (they still exist) has very little pull with the courts.

      Other ISPs, on the other hand, are fully aware of the abuses that take place on their networks. They do nothing to stop them and don't care. It's money. Many of these are beyond the reach of US courts, too. So people have to take drastic measures like blocking the entire subnet.

      ISPs should make an effort to police their own users. They usually have a TOS that forbids certain uses; just enforce them and I'll be happy.

    28. Re:Careful! by maxpublic · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Why put the burden on ISPs? If Windows ships with the services shut down and without the capability of remotely activating them then the problem is solved.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    29. Re:Careful! by PHP+Addict · · Score: 2, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, kids with computers go after the Bush Whitehouse!

      ...oh, wait...
      --
      Laziness, check. Impatience, check. Hubris, double check!
    30. Re:Careful! by jschottm · · Score: 1

      Perhaps some guy just left his WiFi open, and a neighbors infected laptop has latched on to it (I've seen this happen). Would the Open WiFi guy be the ISP in this scenario?

      So is your argument that people who leave open WiFi acess points available to the random public bear no responsibility for the actions taken using them? I love wireless access without any kind of authentication, but the fact is that there's enough jerks out there to ruin it for everyone. Let's say someone uses a random access point (and a spoofed MAC address) to e-mail threats to the president (or whatever). The taxpayers now get to pay for the subsequent investigation that will likely yield nothing useful. Is there no culpability for the AP owner? Granted, the AP manufacturers need to step up to the plate and make security part of their process.

    31. Re:Careful! by myov · · Score: 1

      Maybe the ISP's need to split service into residential (filtered), advanced (wide open but still residential class) and business (open, static ip, etc). A simple stateful firewall would go a long way (require communication out before incoming packets are allowed in).

      Of course, nothing prevents services from running on alternate ports, or even pinging boxes just to establish the return path. You can't block everything.

      --
      I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
    32. Re:Careful! by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      But then they would start charging more for the open access....

    33. Re:Careful! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Secure your system, the problem must be solved at the origin."

      and ISP is the origin. It's their fucking network.

    34. Re:Careful! by turbidostato · · Score: 0

      How can this be considered "flamebait"?

      ISPs are truly the less guilty in this case, after (in no particular order) the "mischevious kid" that writes a silly worm (if you see the majority of all malware running out there, something that I just read in another post on this thread seems to fit perfectly: they are a "hacker" no more than the one that writes something rude on the wall of a public bathroom is a "crime mastermind"); the user that doesn't take care of a "system" at a "public service" facility (it really doesn't matter if we are talking about a computer on the Internet or a man with a dog on the street, or a driver on the road); or the company that knowlingly sells a product which is to be used on "public facilites" without regarding minimal security concerns about it. Why ISPs are then to be overloaded with the burden of taking care about problems they don't create nor empower?

    35. Re:Careful! by turbidostato · · Score: 0

      "No, but they will gladly block unwanted pay-numbers if I ask them to."

      If YOU ask them to. That's the whole point.

      "I think an internet equivalent would be for ISPs..." ...doing exactly the same: you ask them to block something, then they block something. Any other case I contracted full connection to the Internet, so I demand full connection to the Internet.

    36. Re:Careful! by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "So is your argument that people who leave open WiFi acess points available to the random public bear no responsibility for the actions taken using them?"

      How can you come to such a "translation" of what has really being said? Just the opposite what it was said was the ISP cannot held accountable for such a practice, because in this case is clearly the user's fault.

      In such a case, you should go after the user on grounds of negligence, and he should lose the case and repair for your damages. Immediatly after that, the user would sue and win the company which installed the WiFi point and let it wide open (if such is the case).

      Were the case your site is attacked by a bunch of Windows zombi boxes, you should go after their owners and win; they on their side should go against the worm writer *and* Microsoft and win too.ç

      In any of both cases is the ISP (the carrier) to be involved.

  5. Worst of all... by nacturation · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... they're attacking slashdot too and posting dupes!

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    1. Re:Worst of all... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike the last time, when Slashdot just got rooted, and someone stole all of the passwords for thousands of accounts that were conveniently stored in plain text.

      As good as the crackers are, though, I don't think anybody is going to be able to crack the algorithm that Taco uses to post dupes. Someone should get the NSA on the horn.

    2. Re:Worst of all... by El+Cubano · · Score: 1

      ... they're attacking slashdot too and posting dupes!

      Yeah, but at least my website hasn't been attacked. But, then again, I only get like 300 hits a month (and 2/3 of them are from within my own network). Sigh...

    3. Re:Worst of all... by Keruo · · Score: 1

      > I only get like 300 hits a month (and 2/3 of them are from within my own network). Sigh...

      Popularity doesn't always tell how useful certain site is.
      Maybe your site has content that's useful only for people mostly from near you(in your network).

      --
      There are no atheists when recovering from tape backup.
    4. Re:Worst of all... by bad_fx · · Score: 1

      If they really wanted to disrupt things, they should delete the dupes. Isn't slashdot without dupes a sign of the apocolypse or something?

  6. Oblig. by erktrek · · Score: 5, Funny

    .. and I would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you meddling kids!!!!

  7. No surprises there, then by davidmcw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We have an, unpublicised tech support website for our company use only. On looking at the weblogs, it looks like 80-90% of all traffic is attempted hacks. We even went as far as contacting the ISP of one particularly keen individual, they, of course, weren't in the slightest bit interested.

    --
    Just because your paranoid doesn't really mean they aren't out to get you
    1. Re:No surprises there, then by TerminaMorte · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is a major problem.

      ISPs don't want to take responsibility. Well, that's not fair. Local/small ISPs are very good at this, while large ISPs don't seem to care what their users are doing.

      I have reported a few people myself; hell, I tracked down one to an old address (they had moved a week before), but the ISP was not willing to do any work.

      There needs to be some owning up by these ISPs. I'd also love to see some harsher penalties. Some of these 15 year old kids deserve to go to pound-me-in-the-ass prision.

    2. Re:No surprises there, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, this should be modded flamebait. Are you really saying that 15-year-olds attempting computer hacks should be ass raped in prison? Ever heard of proportional retribution?

    3. Re:No surprises there, then by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      ISPs don't want to take responsibility. Well, that's not fair. Local/small ISPs are very good at this, while large ISPs don't seem to care what their users are doing.

      Most ISPs do not want to spend the resources to fix what is essentially your problem. As long as the user is not doing anything illegal which would make the ISP liable it's not really their concern.

      ISPs are not in the business of making sure your servers are safe.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    4. Re:No surprises there, then by DrEldarion · · Score: 2, Informative

      Why should ISPs be responsible? Would you blame a phone company for people using their network for phone fraud? No. Would you blame a car manufacturer if somebody crashed into you in one of their cars? No.

      Why should ISPs be different? They shouldn't be responsible for what people do (or don't do) with their product/service. The people themselves should be held responsible. ISPs are just another carrier, and as soon as you make them take responsibility for things that happen to take place on their network, everything goes to shit.

      It's funny that when everyone's talking about hacking attempts, people here say that the ISPs should be held accountable. But when talking about P2P? No! They're just common carrier!

    5. Re:No surprises there, then by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Funny
      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    6. Re:No surprises there, then by Tassach · · Score: 4, Informative
      On looking at the weblogs, it looks like 80-90% of all traffic is attempted hacks
      If your traffic pattern is like mine, 99% of these "hack" attempts are really IIS worms trying to propegate. It's sad to say that after nearly 4 years NIMDA, Code Red/Blue, and their spawn are still a daily annoyance. As long as you don't have an unpatched IIS instance open to the world, these attacks are no threat.

      The worms were polluting my weblogs so badly that I had to set up conditional logging in Apache to send them to a seperate log:

      SetEnvIf Request_URI "^/c/winnt" ATTACK
      SetEnvIf Request_URI "^/c/winnt" NO_LOGACCESS
      # etc
      CustomLog logs/attack_log common env=ATTACK
      CustomLog logs/access_log common env=!NO_LOGACCESS

      <Location />
      Order Allow,Deny
      Allow from all
      Deny from env=ATTACK
      ErrorDocument 403 "Worm Attack - Access Denied"
      </Location>
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    7. Re:No surprises there, then by TerminaMorte · · Score: 1

      Agreed.

      Most Police officers do not want to spend the resources to fix what is essentially your problem. As long as the person doesn't kill you in front of the police (which would make the police liable), it's not really their concern.

      The problem is with knowing what is, and is not, legal. Of course security is my problem (not, say, the software that caused the security... but I won't get into that here).

      It's the ISPs problem when I let them know something has occured. Is defacing a website illegal? If so, then the individual has commited a crime.

      It's not like I'm expecting an ISP to watch the user, and make sure someone doesn't deface my site... but if it happens, and I report it (with logs, and all the information I have), then it's the ISPs job to follow up on it and keep me updated.

    8. Re:No surprises there, then by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1
      Would you blame a phone company for people using their network for phone fraud? No.

      No, but I would expect the phone company's help in tracking down a serious offender, instead of just an automated "Thank you. We take these reports very seriously blah blah blah." (Never to be heard from again)

    9. Re:No surprises there, then by Draknor · · Score: 1

      It's not like I'm expecting an ISP to watch the user, and make sure someone doesn't deface my site... but if it happens, and I report it (with logs, and all the information I have), then it's the ISPs job to follow up on it and keep me updated.

      So how is this different than the {RI|MP}AA sending a list of logs to your ISP and demanding to know what users were transmitting those P2P packets?

      You provided the ISP with factual information regarding an attack on your system. IMHO - what the ISP chooses to do about it is completely up to them. Unless you get the police involved & file get a criminal investigation going, I don't think the ISP should *have* to do anything. (Note, however, that I think a good ISP *should* get involved, in the interest of saving bandwidth & protecting the security of their paying customers.)

      You, of course, are free to ban the users of that ISP from using/browsing your internet services. Why not do that instead?

    10. Re:No surprises there, then by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      Yes, the phone company will help, but only if you get a court order. Same with the ISPs.

    11. Re:No surprises there, then by INetUser · · Score: 1

      I don't see why the ISPs couldn't take some sort of action in the case of a zombied PC on their network. After all, it's their network and their customers that are getting negatively affected by the zombie(s).

      All they have to do is call the owner and tell them that they have been compromised, and that they need to clean it up (like download, install, and run MS Antispyware, it's free). Then block all traffic from that PC's IP or MAC address, until the owner calls back and says they've addressed it, and then remove the blocks until the next complaint. Lather, rinse, repeat.

      Either the zombied incompetent moves to another ISP (which may or may not confuse the zombie), or they actually fix the problem.

      Not taking care of the problem would seem to me as not complying with the spirit of the acceptable use clause that is part of any ISP customer agreement.

      Speaking of which, why is it that ISPs don't want you to host your own mail server/web server/ftp server etc.? I'm guessing that it causes too many problems due to open proxies, other compromises, and other miss-configurations. This can be especially the case for the MS server software, and less so for the Linux servers.

    12. Re:No surprises there, then by darthmundt · · Score: 1

      that's the best thing i've read online in a while...

      --
      - no sig here
    13. Re:No surprises there, then by maxpublic · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      This is a major problem.

      This is *your* major problem and it's up to you to solve it. For example, by securing your servers and ip-banning the folks making the malicious attacks. Why are you insisting that others do your work for you?

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    14. Re:No surprises there, then by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Informative
      Speaking of which, why is it that ISPs don't want you to host your own mail server/web server/ftp server etc.?

      Because they want you to buy their busine$$ cla$$ service if you do all that stuff.

    15. Re:No surprises there, then by Handpaper · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I don't have a website. I don't run a public server. I do have an old PII box running sshd and proftpd for the use of myself (remote config) and my family/friends (ftp more convenient than email for some things).
      I also have about 20MB per month worth of /var/log/messages (yes, all but today and yesterday are gzipped), which mainly look like this:

      Apr 25 15:30:08 localhost sshd[14642]: Connection from 209.58.101.239 port 47961
      Apr 25 15:30:10 localhost sshd[14642]: User ftp not allowed because not listed in AllowUsers
      Apr 25 15:30:14 localhost sshd[14644]: Connection from 209.58.101.239 port 48215
      Apr 25 15:30:16 localhost sshd[14644]: User nobody not allowed because not listed in AllowUsers
      Apr 25 15:30:16 localhost sshd[14646]: Connection from 209.58.101.239 port 48747
      Apr 25 15:30:19 localhost sshd[14646]: Illegal user www from 209.58.101.239
      Apr 25 15:30:20 localhost sshd[14648]: Connection from 209.58.101.239 port 49106
      Apr 25 15:30:21 localhost sshd[14648]: User apache not allowed because not listed in AllowUsers
      Apr 25 15:30:24 localhost sshd[14650]: Connection from 209.58.101.239 port 49464
      Apr 25 15:30:26 localhost sshd[14650]: Illegal user cyrus from 209.58.101.239
      Apr 25 15:30:28 localhost sshd[14652]: Connection from 209.58.101.239 port 49825
      Apr 25 15:30:31 localhost sshd[14652]: Illegal user mysql from 209.58.101.239
      Apr 25 15:30:32 localhost sshd[14654]: Connection from 209.58.101.239 port 50285
      Apr 25 15:30:39 localhost sshd[14654]: Illegal user testuser from 209.58.101.239
      Apr 25 15:30:40 localhost sshd[14656]: Connection from 209.58.101.239 port 51054
      Apr 25 15:30:44 localhost sshd[14656]: Illegal user postgres from 209.58.101.239

      Similar entries exist in /var/log/ftplog, which isn't automatically compressed and archived, and tends to get checked and deleted when it gets to c.50MB

      Aside from scrolling my pid counter and wasting a small amount of bandwidth, the bastards haven't done anything noticeable yet, but I can't help feeling that it would be better if they were to just stop.

    16. Re:No surprises there, then by stevey · · Score: 1

      Neat tipe.

      You can also avoid logging large Apache requests, which covers things like SEARCH overflow attempts.

    17. Re:No surprises there, then by myov · · Score: 1

      I received those for a while too (misconfigured my firewall), even with a big scary full-screen banner (private system, don't login without permission, we'll get the lawyers after you, etc.) Didn't help. My probes also used names rather than system accounts (bob, joe, patrick... as well as mysql, www...)

      Since the places I can connect in from is fairly small (a few clients with static ip's, my cell phone and my shell isp), I adjusted my firewall rules to block ssh to everyone else.

      I also renamed my account on that system so that it no longer resembles my name (ex_myname1), making it harder to guess what it actually is.

      --
      I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
    18. Re:No surprises there, then by Handpaper · · Score: 1
      My probes also used names rather than system accounts (bob, joe, patrick... as well as mysql, www...)

      Same here - the log above is just a sample (about 5%) of the attempts made by this idiot alone.
      Here's what gets me though - these guys must know they're attacking a Linux box. If they know enough to mount even a trivial attack, they must also know that most distros, by default, log this stuff! They know that they're being watched, that their every lame login attempt is being recorded, yet still they try. The best analogy I can come up with is that of a burglar sitting on your doorstep, in front of a CCTV camera, trying 65535 different keys in your door in the hope that one of them will open it.
      Here's the worst part. You give your CCTV tape to the police, along with a full set of prints off your door, and are told "Well, he didn't get in, so no harm done there. Go home."
      I'm not in favour of 'hackback' defences or retaliation, preferring to filter this crud out, but bigods I am sometimes tempted.

    19. Re:No surprises there, then by myov · · Score: 1

      Completely agree with you.

      Once I saw the probes I made my scary banner even scarier (If you have not been given explicit permission to continue here, disconnect immediately. If you continue, we'll report it to local authorities, etc). It's my box, not the probers. You have no business connecting to me!.

      Of course, I eventually traced most probes back to china (where ISP's don't care... the great firewall is working backwards), and probably to automated probes. If it works, great there's a box to be rooted, if not no harm done.

      So I did the next best thing. Close the ports to a small subset (hopefully I won't be caught from outside of there), lock sshd down to a specific set of users, increase auditing and the next phase is to put a little more intelligence behind the fw rules (login attempts to invalid accounts automatically ban your ip, for example. You attempt to nimda my apache server, you get banned, etc). Yes, I should have done much of that before (I did, but a bad rule slipped in somewhere), along with banning a whole bunch of asian netblocks. Since I can dynamically alter ip tables without reloading the ruleset, I might as well use the power I have with my firewall.

      I've also taken steps to limit the damage a compromize could actually do. External services are on a separate box on a separate dmz, with all important data either backed up, or nfs mounted (exported read only). It's not perfect, but a lot better than many setups out there (including clients who have their main server talk to the outside!)

      --
      I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
    20. Re:No surprises there, then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      APF + BFD solves your problems quite nicely. They get about 15 tries and then are IP blocked in the firewall. It's been rather handy on my server. I get an e-mail now and then from these sort of things with a nice not saying that the host has been added to the firewall deny rules.

    21. Re:No surprises there, then by Tassach · · Score: 1
      I see the same kind of stuff in my SSH logs. The probes have a pretty consistant pattern, so I'm convinced it's an automated tool of some kind running on a compromised system. I think the most likely case is that it's a worm which looks for a specific sshd version with an exploitable bug or default installation. Looks likt this is just one more reason to enforce manditory public key authentication. Example:
      Apr 26 05:51:02 imladris sshd[10950]: Did not receive identification string from ::ffff:84.247.44.80
      Apr 26 05:52:49 imladris sshd[10967]: Invalid user anonymous from ::ffff:84.247.44.80
      Apr 26 05:52:51 imladris sshd[10967]: Failed password for invalid user anonymous from ::ffff:84.247.44.80 port 3253 ssh2
      Apr 26 05:52:54 imladris sshd[10969]: Invalid user bruce from ::ffff:84.247.44.80
      Apr 26 05:52:56 imladris sshd[10969]: Failed password for invalid user bruce from ::ffff:84.247.44.80 port 3305 ssh2
      Apr 26 05:52:59 imladris sshd[10971]: Invalid user chuck from ::ffff:84.247.44.80
      Apr 26 05:53:02 imladris sshd[10971]: Failed password for invalid user chuck from ::ffff:84.247.44.80 port 3380 ssh2
      Apr 26 05:53:05 imladris sshd[10973]: Invalid user darkman from ::ffff:84.247.44.80
      Apr 26 05:53:07 imladris sshd[10973]: Failed password for invalid user darkman from ::ffff:84.247.44.80 port 3453 ssh2
      Apr 26 05:53:10 imladris sshd[10975]: Invalid user hostmaster from ::ffff:84.247.44.80
      Apr 26 05:53:12 imladris sshd[10975]: Failed password for invalid user hostmaster from ::ffff:84.247.44.80 port 3518 ssh2
      Apr 26 05:53:15 imladris sshd[10977]: Invalid user jeffrey from ::ffff:84.247.44.80
      Apr 26 05:53:22 imladris sshd[10977]: Failed password for invalid user jeffrey from ::ffff:84.247.44.80 port 3582 ssh2
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    22. Re:No surprises there, then by Tassach · · Score: 1
      login attempts to invalid accounts automatically ban your ip, for example
      Bad idea -- you're setting yourself up for a denial of service attack. All someone has to do is hit you with packets forged so they look like they're coming from some legitimate address, and the user at that address is banned.
      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
  8. Oblig. Spelling Nazi Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  9. choice quote by Reuters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "For the average person it sounds complicated but if you know what you are doing it's really quite easy," he said.

    Couldn't that statement be applied to any subject?

    1. Re:choice quote by Reuters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like boning my wife?

    2. Re:choice quote by Reuters by avandesande · · Score: 1, Insightful

      not necessarily. you might know how to make a complex microprocessor, but without the capital and equipment it is impossible.

      In this case, all you need is access to a computer.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    3. Re:choice quote by Reuters by soupdevil · · Score: 1

      Making a complex microprocessor without the capital and equipment sounds quite complicated, but if you know what you're doing, it's actually quite easy.

    4. Re:choice quote by Reuters by avandesande · · Score: 1

      let me know when you put your FUV lithography system together

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re:choice quote by Reuters by soupdevil · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, I have no idea what I'm doing.

  10. Schoolboys? by forum__32 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think that comment is a little misleading...How many 15-16yr olds do you know with a policatal opinion like being called schoolboys?

    1. Re:Schoolboys? by forum__32 · · Score: 1

      Guess i should have used preview...political*

    2. Re:Schoolboys? by PaxTech · · Score: 4, Funny

      Whether they like being called schoolboys or not, it's what they are. Just because they have a political opinion that equates to "OMG W4R 15 B4D n0 Bl00d 4 01L LOL WTF" doesn't make me think of them as mature.

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    3. Re:Schoolboys? by SmokeHalo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not many, particularly among female 15-16yr olds.

      --
      I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
    4. Re:Schoolboys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does it matter if school boys like being called school boys? I only want people to call me the King of Spain, but so far I've had few takers.

    5. Re:Schoolboys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to berate their intelligence on age alone. I know a few fifteen/sixteen year olds who could "write the book" on computer science, as frightening as it seems to my profession. Age doesn't mean much in this day and age, once you start looking at the double-digit years. Youthful intellects are a dime a dozen.

    6. Re:Schoolboys? by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think that comment is a little misleading...How many 15-16yr olds do you know with a policatal opinion like being called schoolboys?

      I don't know... I'd say that's a perfectly appropriate label for someone with such a weak philosophy that only through defacing someone else's words or information do they think they're communicating in a useful way. 15-16 year-olds are essentially twits, no matter what their fashionable political orientation. But it's clear that if cracking sites fits comfortably within the political system they do support, we don't really have to worry about hurting their poor, tender little feelings, do we? Boys, pre-pubescents, developmentally stunted... call them what you will, why should anyone care what they like (thus showing them any respect whatsoever) when their purpose, as deliberately shown through their actions, is to make a mockery of respect for anyone else? "Political opinion" indeed. I think "child's tantrum" is more like it, and that's not how you get someone to listen to your nascent ideology. Yup, schoolboys.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:Schoolboys? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, feminist piece of shit.

    8. Re:Schoolboys? by PaxTech · · Score: 1

      Sure, I wouldn't diss someone's computer science knowledge just because they were 15. CompSci is something a 15 year old can know quite a bit about.

      Politics on the other hand.. I could give a shit what a 15 year old thinks about politics. Of course you're a leftist when you're 15, you get all your spending money from mommy and daddy.. Handouts are your way of life.

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    9. Re:Schoolboys? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      As opposed to someone who might...say...disallow people from attending a techincal conference based on their political opinions?

    10. Re:Schoolboys? by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      As opposed to someone who might...say...disallow people from attending a techincal conference based on their political opinions?

      Well, sure. Of course, you're not referring to any recent news events. You might be confusing the circumstances of a different situation, in which the membership of an administration delegation was chosen by... that administration! Based... on politics! And the people that were left out of the administration's group were people that... spent money in groups decrying that administration!

      Come on. And I suppose that if Kerry were president and picking some people to send to a conference on reproductive services, he'd be the first one to pick, say, some rabid fundamentalist "life" nuts as part of the representation of his administration? People that spent money loudly proclaiming his evilness before the election? Not hardly.

      I don't think that the republicans shaping a conference delegation's membership is very different than, say, the democrats in the senate refusing to allow a simple vote on a judicial appointment. Political position taking and policy positioning (including policies of who gets the perks of some federally-paid-for travel to an event, and who, despite being nominated, does or doesn't get the basic decency of the called-for vote, because of their conservative politics, whatever) isn't peculiar to this administration. You could have said the same thing about the last administration's deliberations about socializing the medical system... not everyone who wanted a seat at that table got one either, because their party didn't win that election. Happily, that mess collapsed under its own weight, though it was vastly more important (a 7th of our economy) than is the issue of who gets the free lunches at an IATC meeting.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  11. Which PR firm generated this story? by justanyone · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Some would say that most news outside of the main NYT and others is generated by PR firms providiing "information" to reporters in the hopes of getting an article published. I would argue that the interesting thing about this "article" is not that the non-news it contains:

    * website attacks are most commonly peformed by schoolboys
    * attacks are on the rise
    * attacks are commonly politically motivated

    This "news" isn't new. Thus, who asked for the article or provided the info in it? Symantec, pushing antivirus software? Cisco, trying to induce worry about security in general and sell their more 'secure' routers? IBM, EDS, Siemens, or someone else, selling E-Commerce security software?

    Being a critical reader is not just asking, "is this story true". Nowadays, it's asking, "Why was this story published?"

    -- Kevin

    1. Re:Which PR firm generated this story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, more explicitly, "Why does Paul Graham want me to think that PR firms generate most news stories?"

      I swear to God, some days I think that there's some sort of simple chat script reading Slashdot stories and regurgitating the information they contain in later postings. It's ridiculous.

    2. Re:Which PR firm generated this story? by justforaday · · Score: 1

      The most important question to ask, however, is "Is this some serious insight into the media biz, or just some slashdrone repeating something he read a few days ago?"

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    3. Re:Which PR firm generated this story? by Anna+Merikin · · Score: 1

      Being a critical reader is not just asking, "is this story true". Nowadays, it's asking, "Why was this story published?"

      Good point, which I would like to amplify.

      Use your reasoning to explain why the New York Times published a "study" that purported to announce two social scientists working for the U of O(hio) had developed a system whereby they can determine the IQ of a writer by examining his/her syntax and vocabulary. The study found that J.F.K's IQ was (IIRC) 160, Jimmy Carters' was 150, Richard Nixon's was 135, Bill Clinton's was 175 and George Dubya Bush's was 90.

      I had first seen the PR piece in an email a friend sent me (this friend is a rabid liberal Democrat); the NYT article was very slightly changed (if at all) from the email PR piece.

      As a writer who has used (the original DOS) Grammatik and find it wondrous still (giving grade-level difficulty scores on text, reading ease, and other stats) I was curious as to what lengths this technology had been pushed to, so I researched the authors of the "study" and found they apparently had published nothing in the past. I then researched the scientific journal it had been published in and found that journal had gone defunct sometime in the '80s.

      That took me all of ten or fifteen minutes, from home. Any NYT editor could (should) have been able to check on the facts in less time than that.

      So why did they publish it? Do they have a partisan bias? Or have they simply descended to re-printing all the PR fluff that fits in their pages as you seem to suggest other papers do? I suspect the latter, but I have been wrong before.

      But, one is not on safe ground assuming hidden agendas when simple incompetence can explain the phenomenon (Occam's Razor.)

    4. Re:Which PR firm generated this story? by Queer+Boy · · Score: 1
      * website attacks are most commonly peformed by schoolboys
      * attacks are on the rise
      * attacks are commonly politically motivated

      In other news, the political motivation of schoolboys is on the rise.

      --
      Not since Marie-Antoinette played milkmaid has looking simple and honest been so fake and complicated.
    5. Re:Which PR firm generated this story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Personally I don't have any problem with biased reporting because it can never, ever be (and I think it shouldn't be) unbiased.

      You caught the spin, good for you, most people didn't and that was good for my liberal cause. FOX NEWS feeds the rednecks and true believers similar biased crap and I can't really do anything about it. That's bad for my liberal cause.

      It will work out in the end.

    6. Re:Which PR firm generated this story? by Otter · · Score: 1
      Being a critical reader is not just asking, "is this story true". Nowadays, it's asking, "Why was this story published?"

      No, that just makes you critical. (And making a big fuss about it makes you pompous.)

      Being a "reader" would involve, say, reading the FA and finding out the answer. Nowadays.

    7. Re:Which PR firm generated this story? by flutkatastrophe · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that Paul Graham
      "If you really want to be a critical reader, it turns out you have to step back one step further, and ask not just whether the author is telling the truth, but why he's writing about this subject at all."

      (I guess it's not plagarism if you re-write it. Must be an english major)

    8. Re:Which PR firm generated this story? by tsvk · · Score: 1


      Parent's high-modded comment takes its insightful thoughts from Paul Graham's essay The Submarine, which was recently discussed here on Slashdot.

    9. Re:Which PR firm generated this story? by syrinx · · Score: 1

      the New York Times published a "study" that purported to announce two social scientists working for the U of O(hio)

      I think the first clue that it was fake is that there is no "University of Ohio".

      (Well, maybe the second... the *first* clue is that it's in the NYT... *rimshot*)

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    10. Re:Which PR firm generated this story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flamebait? WTF? Come on mods, put down the crack pipe.

    11. Re:Which PR firm generated this story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think maybe a few moderators are playing around with the grandparent because of his silly foes list policy. You should check out his journal entry on mod-bombing.

      That, or maybe the moderator felt that the jab at the NYT was an attempt to further the myth of the liberal bias in the media.

      Or, maybe the moderator was on crack.

      Perhaps it was some combination of the three?

    12. Re:Which PR firm generated this story? by syrinx · · Score: 1

      you posted anonymously, so I doubt you'll read this, but whatever.

      what about my journal entry on mod-bombing? it seemed stupid to me that someone would bother to do that, so i said so. *shrug*

      my foes list 'policy' (if you can even call it that) has cooled since i posted that last year.. mainly because i filled up the list and can't add any more. ;) is/was it silly? maybe. but who cares? it's slashdot. if someone takes 'foes' seriously, it's their problem.

      the jab at the NYT had nothing to do with their liberalism, mythological or otherwise. think jayson blair, etc.

      i vote for the crack, myself. of course, i don't see any flamebait mod on the original post anyway, so whatever.

      i sense an off-topic mod coming, and i probably deserve it for responding to an AC.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    13. Re:Which PR firm generated this story? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your journal entry on mod-bombing might be an indication that someone does not like you. It seems stupid to me, too.

      I hope nobody is that distraught over being made a foe. However, one might argue that people with large foe lists are trying to insulate themselves from different points of view. Maybe someone thinks you would benefit from such exposure?

      Fair enough about the NYT.

      I think nested comments should largely be immune from off-topic moderations. It's not as if you're trying to have an off-topic conversation with someone with the intention of forcing it upon others.

      By the way, I'm on your foes list. It's unfortunate, because I'd like to add you to my friends list: I like to hear what you have to say. However, if you were on my friends list, I'd see too many 'Enemy of a Friend' bubbles. =(

  12. Government "control"? by Evanisincontrol · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What I find interesting is that the U.S. Government is constantly at battle with hordes of "mischievious school kids," and actually has a big PROBLEM with it.

    Explain to me, again, how school children can pose a serious threat to the United States government, and we still have the balls to declare war on a country in the middle east?

    1. Re:Government "control"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get over it buddy, kerry lost, fair and square

    2. Re:Government "control"? by TerminaMorte · · Score: 3, Funny

      They have more pressing matters, I would imagine.

      Timmy running some exploit he found on a site from 1999 isn't really on par with, say, the governments secret plan to infiltrate Slashdot, and discredit the community with dupes, mispellings, irrational arguments, and ads disguised as stories.

    3. Re:Government "control"? by edunbar93 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Likely because they have to take every security threat seriously, and when you're getting thousands a day just from little kids trying to manually guess the secret password for the "Authorized users only" page at whitehouse.gov, it gets a little tiresome.

      --
      "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
    4. Re:Government "control"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      everything that was wrong is now right

      I hear you. That's definitely the wrong way to approach it.

      I'd just rather say that everybody defines his right or wrong (there are no moral absolutes), BUT that he will pay the consequences if he happens to end up in the minority.

    5. Re:Government "control"? by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1
      School kids do not have oil.

      Any other questions?

    6. Re:Government "control"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't recall the netblock for "mischevious school kids".

      But I suppose the government should just ignore attachs unless the evil bit is set and the source address is in the terrorist netblock.

      Translation, how the fsck does the gov't know who's at any given IP, or who ownz the machine there without tracking it down?

      And why shouldn't they enforce the laws on the books?

    7. Re:Government "control"? by soupdevil · · Score: 1

      Rendered body fat is actually an excellent substitute for diesel. And today's adolescents have quite a bit of body fat.

  13. That's what I call by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 1

    ..a hand's on education in computer security. It's a shame that the 16 year old who's bored with computer science class faces the same penalty as the guy who plans on using the comprimised data for personal gain.

    --
    I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    1. Re:That's what I call by TerminaMorte · · Score: 1

      You make it sound like they're these misunderstood smart kids, who - bored with school - do these things.

      Most of the little shits who do this are either jackasses running a perl script (or if they're REALLY elite, compiling some C code), or sadists who want to deface sites for fun.


      It's a shame? It would be if it happened; most of these kids get a talking to, and that's it. We need some harsher penalties for kids who do this; something they'll remember and regret. Not a slap on the wrist.

    2. Re:That's what I call by megarich · · Score: 1
      Depends on where he hacked. A crime is a crime and I feel you should be held responsible for you actions, regardless of age or intent. You may not intent to do harm, but you could.

      Should a 16 year old get off the hook because he decided it would be cool to borrow moms car and crashes it? And should that same 16 year old get off the hook when he successfully hacks into your computer ;p.

    3. Re:That's what I call by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When I did those kind of things in my younger days it was purely educational.. Because I did those things, my PC won't be hacked. If it does, then it means there's more I need to learn.. (by the way, my PC name is "insecure" - I'm asking for it) Wrecking a car and a computer system are two different things. Computer systems are recoverable, and if they're not.. more lessons for the sysadmin. The money spent repairing the car (and whatever it crashed into) is what needs to be accounted for, just like the guy who hacks a system to find (and abuse) private data. That costs real money and time, a crashed server (or hell, even realizing you've just been hacked) is a lesson in the form of a minor headache that could have been much worse. If it can be hacked, it should be hacked. Not destroyed, abused, or used for ill-gotten advantages, but only so it can be fixed. It's one of the philosophies that melts in oh-so-nicely with the open source movement.

      --
      I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
    4. Re:That's what I call by Tuffsnake · · Score: 0

      a hand's on education in computer security

      sounds like a form of personal gain to me....

    5. Re:That's what I call by amliebsch · · Score: 1

      Right on! I mean, I only wanted to play Protovision's games. It's not like I was trying to hack into the WOPR! So now the FBI has to abduct me into a van simply because I caused us to go to DEFCON 5 and nearly started a global thermonuclear war?

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  14. Whoa, hang on there... by rob_squared · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...you're saying that people are attacking web sites? Those things that can be easily hacked because they need to be open enough for people to get data from them? You don't say...

    --
    I don't get it.
  15. 15 year old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Yep. They might have strong political opinions, but they haven't seen enough life to realize that strong opinions don't work - you have to compromise and make deals.

    I can remember the time when I was an idealistic hothead spiritually bent out of shape because of all the perceived injustice in the world. Then I grew older and realized that we are much better off than a dozen generations ago. We are actually making progress by using mature consideration and calm.

  16. Quality, not quantity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I don't doubt that the number of web attacks are on the rise, I think the real issue is what are the numbers behind REAL web attacks.

    That is, have the numbers gone up for real, attempted seek-and-destroy/infiltrate/rampage/whatever attacks on the rise? Y'know, the attacks that people are truly concerned about because they pose a threat to either privacy or data security.

    I'm talking about the kind that truly require you to know what you are doing versus having read one or two posts on the Internet that tell you how to exploit an exploit.

    Not a bunch of punks bored at school and using the ir school's Net connection to the fullest.

    Meh. What do I know. Combination locks still befuddle me.

  17. "Web Site Attacks Are On The Rise" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Web Site Attacks Are On The Rise"

    Tsssss... What is the world coming to when people get attacked by web sites. I still remember when we could co to sleep and leave the computer unlocked.

  18. Top 5 attackers by Virtual+Karma · · Score: 5, Informative
    1. Re:Top 5 attackers by Teemu+Alviola · · Score: 1

      /var/log/httpd-error.log always full of messages of people trying to access some well known (vulnerable) scripts.
      It's easy to figure out which modules or scripts not to install to Apache :)

  19. Attacks in general on the rise by breakbeatninja · · Score: 1

    There's a growing trend of automated attacks by worms, 'hackers', spammers and the like. This isn't limited to just web sites, it's also increasing against services like SSH, SMTP, POP3, IMAP, FTP and so on. However, some of the web site attacks we saw between 2000 and 2002 between NIMDA and the SQL Slammer were a lot more crippling then some of the attacks we're seeing now (see major backbone slowdowns from the amount of infected systems attempting to deliver their payload to neighboring networks). Most of the attacks against non-web services seem to be generic exploit attempts and brute force password cracking. Not very effective if your network is relatively secure, but one slip up by a careless user can lead to a lot of potential problems.

    --
    shop.envescent.com - Computer hardware and more.
  20. There's not more attacks... by c0ldfusi0n · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's just more targets.

    --
    A computer makes it possible to do, in half an hour, tasks which were completely unnecessary to do before.
  21. Time to go to the nunnery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Strap the peter pan collared blouse and knicker bocker pants on the little tykes, and send them to that boarding school with the locked gates, ultra Puritain atmosphere, nuns with nunchucks, and most of all, NO COMPUTERS. That ought to teach them.......

  22. mischevious school kids? by Reverant · · Score: 3, Funny

    I thought they were just w4r-h4rd3n3d AOL script kiddies!

    1. Re:mischevious school kids? by P0ldy · · Score: 1

      STFU be4 I punt j00!

  23. Attack or Compromise? by kevin_conaway · · Score: 3, Informative

    Both articles from the summary indicate that the attacks on the the U.S. govt and military computers were just that, attacks. Anyone have any info on whether these were successful attacks or not? The Zone-H website is running a little slow to figure it out.

  24. Mischievious school kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bad neighborhoods. America's last line of defence.

  25. Build a better operating system. by zymano · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Quit using the C language to write operating systems.

    No, not kidding. It's too easy to hang yourself with that language. Add to that the size of todays kernels with millions of lines of code and you will have problems.

    Small kernel OS like Openvms or one constructed with a language with bounds checking and garbage collection would be way more secure. There is an oberon operating system called blue bottle .

    http://bluebottle.ethz.ch/index.html

    One more point. Try and find a way to stop scanning and report those that do to some central internet authority. Oh , forgot........Don't have one.

    1. Re:Build a better operating system. by kevin_conaway · · Score: 1

      To be fair, most of the vulnerabilities lie in application code, not OS code.

    2. Re:Build a better operating system. by TerminaMorte · · Score: 1

      One more point. Try and find a way to stop scanning and report those that do to some central internet authority. Oh , forgot........Don't have one.


      This is exactly the problem. People (especially kiddies) know that there's little chance of them being reported. Even if they are reported, there's little chance that anyone will do a damn thing about it.

      We need an agency in the US that is held responsible by citizens, and helps track and charge people like this.

    3. Re:Build a better operating system. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Quit using the C language to write operating systems.

      Right, because clearly C is the only language with vulnerabilities.

      a language with bounds checking and garbage collection would be way more secure

      You could write routines for this. Even in... *gasp*... C!

      some central internet authority. Oh , forgot........Don't have one.

      Wouldn't that defaet the whole "distributed" purpose of the Internet?

      Of course, the article was talking about website hacks, not OS breaches. You know, exploiting things like Apache that could be running on any number of OS's. But I guess you missed that.

    4. Re:Build a better operating system. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Whats wrong with scanning?

    5. Re:Build a better operating system. by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Quit using the C language to write operating systems.
      Okay - you first - write it in assembler.

      One of the good things about C is that it IS compiled. A bit harder for a script kiddie to poke bytes into the binary so it does what he wants, instead of editing a plain-text script.

      C works for operating systems. Get over it.

    6. Re:Build a better operating system. by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Quit using the C language to write operating systems.

      Geez, that's as useful as saying that in order to prevent drunk driving fatalities, the Amish should all have chaffeurs. The problem isn't the language of the OS. Yes C doesn't have all the nifty security features of C# or Java, but that's not the problem. The problem is that most of the time script kiddies are using other languages to exploit an OS written in C. If the OS was written in C#, there would still be the same issue if the programming wasn't 100% secure. And we all know no program or OS is 100% perfect.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    7. Re:Build a better operating system. by Daverd · · Score: 1

      One more point. Try and find a way to stop scanning and report those that do to some central internet authority. Oh , forgot........Don't have one.

      I would be extremely frightened if we did.

    8. Re:Build a better operating system. by suitepotato · · Score: 1

      Thanks to OD (Object Disorientation) we can raise idiocy to a whole new level beyond mere C.

      "Why did you write this with this library?" (taps screen)

      "Because it works like before."

      "And it also was broken before because that function," (tapping screen), "interacts with the first one you called and they create an overflow every time on five of the possible eight variables."

      "No one ever selects those from the menu, just the other three."

      "Security through statistical ignorance is not a solution!"

      And so on... One of the things that has tripped up more C/C++ code than anything else is the unforseen interaction of what are otherwise on their own good code segments. Look at Windows. We have no idea what does what to what and we build whole development environments with what is already buggy code to begin with and then have the ballsy audacity to use that to build a whole other OS generation with it that we then... Oy. Does replication somehow magically eliminate the issues? Does ignoring it make it go away?

      Of course not. But the way we act in IT, you'd think it did. We need to clean off the dreck and start over at some point from the bits up. But like 1984 the lie becomes truth, becomes a lie again, and after so long we can't remember what the truth actually was or even if the statement was ever made. We've already gone on to Longhorn by then. What's Windows 95?

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  26. Worth Noting -- it's not just Windows servers! by SlashChick · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As the owner of a web hosting company for several years now (and one that stays away from Windows as much as possible), we've noticed a dramatic spike in attempted attacks on our servers in the past 12 months. If you put an unprotected /tmp directory (i.e. one that allows executable files) in a server that's connected directly to the Internet, you're asking for trouble. We've seen these boxes sending out spam or DOS'ing other servers (mostly targeting IRC servers) in a matter of hours from when we put them online. The hackers find some exploit like an old version of phpBB, insecure PHP code, etc. It's really not that hard; if you have several sites on a server, chances are that one of them has something vulnerable in a web-accessible directory. It's gotten so bad that we've devoted part of our standard CentOS install to locking down the /tmp directory so no files can be executed (and explaining this change to our customers.)

    Worse yet, the hacks have now turned to running perl or php from the command line on things in /tmp to get around the noexec mount option. The hack works like this:

    1) Find exploitable site. (Again, with the number of insecurities in commonly-used programs like phpBB, or god forbid, the *Nuke series, this isn't hard.)
    2) Upload perl script to /tmp.
    3) Run "perl [script name]" repeatedly to accomplish your goal.

    We've again locked down our servers to prevent this, but unfortunately, we can't make this part of our default install because our customers like to run perl and php from /tmp! (Argh.) So we simply educate them and tell them how to lock the servers down themselves, and why putting any scripts in /tmp is a Bad Idea.

    It's not just us, either... go to any forum where webmasters or hosting company owners congregate and you'll see this is one of the most common problems out there. Linux is no longer more secure as a web server... not when you factor in most of the PHP programs out there that people love, at least.

    1. Re:Worth Noting -- it's not just Windows servers! by TerminaMorte · · Score: 1

      I wonder how hard it would be for phpBB (and others like it) to have an auto-update feature.

      Of course, with phpBB's site being hacked recently, I doubt anyone would really want that option. ;-_-

      Sure would be nice if there was a free alternative BB system that was known to be secure (heh).

    2. Re:Worth Noting -- it's not just Windows servers! by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      Linux is no longer more secure as a web server... not when you factor in most of the PHP programs out there that people love, at least.

      There's a fix in the wind... in the form of Mutex MPM

      It hosts each website under its own user account rather than a catchall account like "nobody". This makes it possible to lock down your system much more so than before, and makes it much easier, when auditing after an intrusion, to determine who dun what.

      It's really, REALLY a shame that this much-needed feature for Apache has been all but abandoned by the Apache Foundation. There's a guy in Europe who has more or less carried the torch solo and as soon as I can muster it, I intend to help out by using it and reporting any bugs found.

      Support for hosting by UID, chroot, etc. make the security problems talked about here largely vanish!

      It's sad, really. Security is so needed, and in this one area, the bazaar model is just *barely* working at all. (Thanks Asbjørn Sannes!)

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    3. Re:Worth Noting -- it's not just Windows servers! by toadlife · · Score: 1

      I noticed those Zone-H stats about a month ago and was taken aback by them. It seems to have coincided with Microsoft starting to put a priority on security.

      After all of the embarassment if Code Red/Slammer in 2001-2002, Microsoft has actually done a lot better job at securing IIS - and more importantly, people running IIS have learned their lesson and are bothering to apply patches.

      Zone-H's stats from 2003-2004 show Linux servers making of 60% of defacements, Microsoft filling out around 25%-30%, with the rest being a smattering of *BSD/HPUX/Solaris/etc. This pretty much coincides with the respective platforms' Marketshare.

      As you describe, 99% of website hacks are done at the application/database level now. These pre-packaged php apps like phpnuke/phpBB are on so many sites, that they have reached 'critical mass' in the market, to where targeting them is productive for script kiddies. Besides these hugely popular apps being targeted, there are also seems to be lot of problems with PHP itself. A LAMP based site which I worked for and was involved with over the last several years, with 90% custom code, has had the server defaced twice in the last few years. Both times were due to "0-day" exploits in PHP. :(

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    4. Re:Worth Noting -- it's not just Windows servers! by blargosity · · Score: 1

      How would auto-updating be done without having to make every folder and every file in the web root world writeable on shared hosting providers just to allow the updates to be written?

    5. Re:Worth Noting -- it's not just Windows servers! by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      There are so many mods and customizatins that are often done to those scripts to make auto updating near impossible except for vanilla installs.

    6. Re:Worth Noting -- it's not just Windows servers! by jangobongo · · Score: 2, Informative
      Zone-H has a continuously updated chart on their front page that tracks today' verified attacks thus far:

      225 single IP
      352 mass defacements

      Linux (67.2%)

      Win 2000 (17.3%)

      Win 2003 (6.8%)

      FreeBSD (5.4%)

      SolarisSunOS (2.3%)

      Win NT9x (0.7%)

      NetBSDOpenBSD (0.2%)

      [other]... (0.2%)

      --

      Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
    7. Re:Worth Noting -- it's not just Windows servers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the f*ck uses PHP on a webserver they want to stay secure? Seriously, this isn't bait.
      With all the vulnerabilities in the core lnguage and the ease with which the inept write bad, bad, bad code in it, why would someone think it's a must have?
      If it's your business to make money by offering arseholes the opportunity to be reamed, and charge them for recovery,yeah, good biz strategy, and it almost seems de rigeur, but if sense and design enter the picture, really..ask yourself..what are you thinking?

    8. Re:Worth Noting -- it's not just Windows servers! by Gord · · Score: 1

      Which pretty much matches the deployment of each type of webserver.

      http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2005/04/01/april _2005_web_server_survey.html

      Netcraft stats are best taken with a pinch of salt, but they're good enough for this comparison.

    9. Re:Worth Noting -- it's not just Windows servers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.communityserver.org

  27. In other news.... by ARRRLovin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Use of "electronic mail" has increased.

    --
    -Randy
  28. bad numbers.. by ohzero · · Score: 1

    Saying that the number of lameass script kids who put "joanie loves chachi" on some ecommerce site directly correlates with serious intrusions bent on criminal intent is about like saying 2+2=22.

    --
    -- http://www.criticalassets.com
  29. Article Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Since this was linked directly to reuters.co.uk, the story is going to timeout in about 3 weeks. So for the /. archives, I post this as AC and preserve the copyright notice.

    LONDON (Reuters) - Attacks on company and government Internet sites spike during school holidays when the main culprits -- schoolboys -- spend time in front of their computers rather than in the classroom.

    There were almost 400,000 attacks on Web sites around the world last year, a surge of 36 percent from 2003, said a report issued by Internet watchdog agency Zone-H to coincide with a London information security exhibition.

    "A lot of 15- and 16-year-old guys are smart enough to have strong political opinions," Roberto Preatoni, Zone-H founder, told Reuters on Monday.

    The main targets are U.S. military Web sites, which are attacked by anti-Iraq war protesters, and large companies and governments, which attract anti-globalisation protesters.

    Preatoni said the tools needed to hack into and change Web sites were available on the Internet and were easy to use.

    "For the average person it sounds complicated but if you know what you are doing it's really quite easy," he said.

    © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved.
    1. Re:Article Text by tomhudson · · Score: 2
      There were almost 400,000 attacks on Web sites around the world last year,
      ... oh, come on, we get probed at least 1,000 times a night (more on weekends, when those pesky school-kids are up late, I guess).

      400,000 attacks per year world-wide is a SERIOUS under-estimate.

  30. man it sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The main targets are U.S. military Web sites, which are attacked by anti-Iraq war protesters, and large companies and governments, which attract anti-globalisation protesters."

    man it sucks when someone has a different opinion. I am right. So, people who disagree with me really should be silenced.

    1. Re:man it sucks by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      Anti-war, or anti-imperialist, slogans and graffiti have been found throughout ancient Roman ruins in the Middle East and Europe. Also at industrial age British forticiations in India, or colonial age Spanish garrisons in south america, etc. This isn't new behaviour and comes with the territory of being an empire. Get used to it.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    2. Re:man it sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because other people having done something before us always makes something totally proper and acceptable. Just one of the many ways we humans justify our immoral behavior.

    3. Re:man it sucks by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      "One man's rebellion is another man's war for independence."

      No where in my post did I justify the behaviour of the site hackers/defacers...nor did I condemn it. My point was that this type of behaviour is typical throughout human history, and that a cautious person will take account for such a possibility. (e.g. patch, repatch, and patch again your networked servers!)

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    4. Re:man it sucks by laejoh · · Score: 0

      True, as all of you who have studied latin can agree upon all latin words end with 'us', p.e. vespacius, the first scooter. The 'us' ending became a sign of occupation, imperialism. So you could/can find many 'US go home' signs on ancient Roman ruins in the Middle East and Europe.

    5. Re:man it sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a novel idea; maybe the dissenters should put up their own website instead of trying to subvert ones they don't own.Your right to free speech does not entitle you to hijack someone else's site to make your statement.

  31. Attacks by dr_dank · · Score: 2, Funny

    Website attacks are definitely on the rise. Last week, police arrested askjeeves.com for suspicion in a string of armed robberies.

    --
    Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
  32. Script Kiddies by digitaldc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How did they come to the conclusion that many of these attacks are by kids? Just that the hacks spike when school is out? The article really didn't go into much detail.
    Nowadays, if you don't protect your website from being hacked, you might as well expect it to be hacked. Maybe they should try hacking Argus systems Pitbull LX and win(?) money.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  33. Attacks in general are up by TheLinuxWarrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't think it's just web site stuff.
    I think it's attacks period.
    LogWatch is constantly telling me that people are trying to break into my servers via sshd or via ftpd.
    The really sorry part is that since most of them take place from outside the US, I dont even bother to report it, since the ISPs wont do anything about it.

    1. Re:Attacks in general are up by toadlife · · Score: 1

      I ocassionaly do a 'cat /var/log/auth.log' on my BSD router, and see lots of ssh login attempts. These are mostly just worms trying common default username/password combos. Occasionaly these attempts do come from U.S. based ISPS, but I don't bother reporting them...I know, I know...'Bad Admin'.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    2. Re:Attacks in general are up by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I block as much of non-US and europe as I can find netblocks for.

      95% of the time, ssh hacking (attempts - but I use tcpwrappers to block) comes from china and the rest of asia.

      so far, I just block ssh and telnet and mail from those geo's. but soon I'll just blanket block them. I run a very low traffic site (mostly my own domain) and so its no big loss if those other rogue geos don't get in.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Attacks in general are up by TheLinuxWarrior · · Score: 1

      It depends for me...

      If it's a US based IP, and has a LOT of failed attempts, I report it.

  34. Then was Then, Now is Now by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Interesting
    one wonders if many of these kids have any idea of what they could actually be dealing with. Back in 1982 (we were 12), all that happened to us after hacking into government computers was my friend Lance getting his Apple ][+ confiscated followed by a job offer 9 years later from the same folks who confiscated his computer back in 1982. Now however, hacking into even an educational system could net you serious Federal penalties depending upon the system one hacks into.

    Indeed, some good fodder for movies back then, but a slap on the wrist. What behavioural change might one expect if some existing statutes were pulled into effect, such as child endangerment, contributing to the deliquency of a minor, etc, where parents don't keep up with what their kids have been doing on the computer?

    Seems entirely reasonable that at some point someone will drag the kid away from the parents/home to be placed in some child welfare state. Legal experts opinions welcome.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  35. Not necessarily by mopslik · · Score: 1

    Couldn't that statement be applied to any subject?

    Not necessarily. You can know the steps involved in the most complicated brain-surgery technique there is. You could recite them in your sleep. But that doesn't make it a trivial task.

  36. And furthermore... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... unsuspecting sites get a slashdotting on top of it too!

  37. Re:Ob Spelling Rant by Carnil · · Score: 1

    I you're going to post a article for publication, you should really run a spellcheck on it. Mischievous, not mischevious. Comes from the word mischief.
    If you're going to post a message in slashdot complaining against an incorrect spelling, you should really run a spellcheck on it.

  38. Slashdot is constantly being attacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    By empty-headed schoolkids bent on mischief. These attacks are called "comments".

    1. Re:Slashdot is constantly being attacked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Troll"?? Have you lost your mind? :-)

    2. Re:Slashdot is constantly being attacked by eno2001 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think some schoolkids had modpoints. Bad schoolkids! Bad! Get back to class before we bring out the cattle prods! Else you won't amount to much when you grow up. Only time will tell...

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  39. Re:No FP for you... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Next on Fox : "When websites attack!"

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  40. Re: Website Attacks are on the rise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Damn right

    We keep getting attacked by windowsupdate.microsoft.com trying to stuff "updates" into our system

  41. Support for Rape by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Some of these 15 year old kids deserve to go to pound-me-in-the-ass prision.
    Since you're such an enthusiastic supporter of rape, I assume that you wouldn't mind if your wife or girlfriend or sister or mother got raped.
  42. Mischievous schoolkids, hmm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And who says there's a skills shortage in IT?

  43. Websites run by inexperienced people... by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Over the last couple years, I've noticed a large number of web projects being run & maintained by people who don't understand computer security or system administration [1].

    Concepts like 'rotate the log files or your disk will fill up & crash the site' or "Don't use FTP-- the passwords are sent over the Public Internet in cleartext" are beyond many of these website maintainers. Even many programmers who are great at project design, Object Oriented development, layout, etc. still miss these major issues.

    It's no suprise that website attacks are on the rise-- the projects are being run by people who know enough to be dangerous, but don't know enough to run the project well.

    [1] or good design, or simplified design, but that's another topic :)

    1. Re:Websites run by inexperienced people... by Emperor+Shaddam+IV · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Over the last couple of years??? Who are you kidding. I've been in IT for 15 years in various roles, and almost all projects are run by inexperienced project managers with little knowledge of computer security or system administration, and of database constraints/design, backup, recovery, good coding standards, performance, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.

      The Internet is airing the age old laundry of IT for the entire world to smell. And boy it stinks...

    2. Re:Websites run by inexperienced people... by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Over the last couple years, I've noticed a large number of web projects being run & maintained by people who don't understand computer security or system administration.
      Well, what do you expect? ACTUAL system administrators cost money. It's far cheaper to find the most computer savvy person in the steno pool and make them the system administrator, and give them a raise up to $28k USD.
      You know the person I'm talking about. The one who knows how make cross sheet references in Excel? He'd make a GREAT system administrator! He's a computer GURU!

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:Websites run by inexperienced people... by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      Right. I didn't meant o imply that it hasn't been happening for a long time.

      However, I think in the last couple years it has really spiked. There are all sorts of new 'dotcom'-type projects out there today which aren't being run correctly, many leftover projects from the dotcom bust, being run by a small staff.

      Or maybe I'm just really starting to notice it :)

    4. Re:Websites run by inexperienced people... by Emperor+Shaddam+IV · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Its definately more noticable now, because every Tom, Dick, and Harry has a website now.

      I run a website, and my ports get scanned from Taiwan on a daily basis. I've got almost everything shut down, so no worries.

    5. Re:Websites run by inexperienced people... by myov · · Score: 1

      "Don't use FTP-- the passwords are sent over the Public Internet in cleartext" are beyond many of these website maintainers.

      I once needed to change a password for a client's web site (I stupidly saved it somewhere). The ISP had no method to change the password online, so I called them. Instead of changing it then, they wanted me to hang up and email the new password. Clear text. Bouncing around from smtp to smtp server.

      That, and some other (clueless) issues has given me enough reason not to host with them again.

      --
      I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
  44. Hah! Smart enough? by TerminaMorte · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "A lot of 15- and 16-year-old guys are smart enough to have strong political opinions,"

    Agreed, VERY strong political opinions!... just usually not their own.

    "Well, my teacher says Kerry is great because he likes *insert rapper here*", or "OMFG, EATING ANIMALS IS MEAN".

    Most of their political opinions don't mean a thing. Not to say all kids are like this, of course.

    1. Re:Hah! Smart enough? by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Cuts both ways:

      "All the people on TV say Bush does a good job!" "My teacher said judges are activists nowadays*"

      *heard in a classroom recently.

      There will always be that kind of young idealism you seem to be decrying in your post, but the shift to the right under all things "anti-terror" in the teen community seems pretty damn real to me. Remember the "patriotic hackers" back when the war started? Wonder how old they were. I'm sure they're all college republicans now.

    2. Re:Hah! Smart enough? by militiaMan · · Score: 0

      I have had my own political opinions since I was 6, and they have not changed. I am 30 now. I still hate socialism, communism, and democracy. I like liberty.

    3. Re:Hah! Smart enough? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Wait...you've got right-wing teenagers in the US?

      Interesting concept, although I've never come across any cases of that in Australia ;)

  45. Shared hosts by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Here in Mexico most mass-defaced webpages are because of a flaw in a bulletin board software.

    All because shared hosts aren't root-caged properly. Seriously, this needs to change. But how? :(

  46. From the article: by asoko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "A lot of 15- and 16-year-old guys are smart enough to have strong political opinions," Roberto Preatoni, Zone-H founder, told Reuters on Monday.

    Since when did intelligence become a prerequisite for having strong political opinions?

    1. Re:From the article: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when did intelligence become a prerequisite for having strong political opinions?

      Since politicians need to think they are smart.

    2. Re:From the article: by The+employee+can+cho · · Score: 1

      Great observation! I only wish that your post was modded insightful rather than funny.

  47. Uhh... we do? Yup, we do. by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1

    AKA The cybercrimes section of the DOJ.

    1. Re:Uhh... we do? Yup, we do. by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Uhh... we do? Yup, we do. by TerminaMorte · · Score: 1

      That's intresting, I wasn't aware that they had to answered to the public.

      I was also unaware that they helped regular people find and prosecute malicous users, or tried to pass legistation that would force an ISP to cooperate with users who had a valid log/evidence of wrong-doing (instead of, say, ignoring you because they don't want to lose a customer).

      Please, do go on. This sounds like a GREAT solution.

    3. Re:Uhh... we do? Yup, we do. by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1

      That's intresting, I wasn't aware that they had to answered to the public.
      The US Government (in its entirety) has to answer to the public. Unfortunately, the public either doesn't know, or doesn't care.

      I was also unaware that they helped regular people find and prosecute malicous users,
      Actually, you can report malicious use of a system or network to the DOJ. They will be happy to hear from you.

      tried to pass legistation that would force an ISP to cooperate with users who had a valid log/evidence of wrong-doing
      1) That would place too much of a burden on the ISPs. They would have to investigate the validity of claims, as to prevent abuse of the system. A much better solution is to report misuse to the appropriate angency, and have them investigate it. (They can then sequester the ISP for the neccesary information, via a warrant).
      2) The government alreay passes far to many laws on its own initiatives. The DOJ should not go about inventing more. It violates checks and balances.
      3) It clutters the system with even more beurocratic bullshit, not to mention makes internet access more expensive.

      instead of, say, ignoring you because they don't want to lose a customer
      The way I see it, if they are not willing to cooperate, they're losing a customer either way.

      This sounds like a GREAT solution
      Well, I wouldn't call it great, but hey. I'll compromise. It sounds like A solution.

  48. This is why... by The+Pim · · Score: 4, Funny

    web sites should be caged or leashed at all times, and large, aggressive breeds of web site should require a license. Also, teach your children never to tease web sites.

    --

    The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
    1. Re:This is why... by SmokeHalo · · Score: 1

      And please, please, please, keep your hands and feet away from the bars at all times.

      --
      I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
  49. Interesting.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its not news, because its so common. Many posters here seem fine with that; like its something we all just have to live with forever. To suggest greater enforcement and harsher criminal penalties is taboo here.

    Fear of harsh penalities may not be a deterrent for all, but it is for most. If people know that all they will get is a slap on the wrist, they will continue this crap. Every time there is a story about someone actually getting punished for computer crimes (especially if it is a teenager), there is a collective public outcry here about the injustice of it all.

    Even if all security bugs were fixed, there will always be some way to gain unauthorized access to publicly connected systems, because there is a human element involved. The software can't protect us from everything and still be usefull.

    Stop blaming the OS vendors and start blaming the guilty who knowingly and willingly break the law.

  50. We've had a number of Linux compremiaes at work by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    That's mostly gone away now that we got permission to set the firewall to default deny on incomming traffic, but it was bad for a while. The problem is that the users know almost nothing about computers. Most of the time they are competent enough to allow Windows to automatically install it's updates and allow the AV program to run (but not always). They were totally sunk in Linux though. So they'd set up Linux in a config with everything turned on in a default state, it'd get owned, we'd get an e-mail to abuse telling us we had a hacked system, we'd go take it off the net and yell at them, they'd reformat and install the same version of Linux in the same config and the same shit would happen.

    We had an amazing number of problems, given the rather few Linux systems we have. The reason was because the people running them all knew NOTHING about how to secure it. If automatic updates is right at your competence limit, you are sunk with a Linux server.

  51. Looks like someone hacked /. by ICECommander · · Score: 1

    It's not valid hTmL
    i keed, i keed

    --
    All your Sybase are belong to us.
  52. The culprit isn't just schoolkids... by IdJit · · Score: 1

    "many of them [web site attacks] are being performed by mischevious school kids"

    ...and Slashdotting.

  53. Yes, Give us the Final 2005 vs 2004 numbers now! by DumbSwede · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Are you saying we should be able to compare the final numbers for 2005 to 2004 now, as opposed to 2003 to 2004?

    I assume you mean to complain the stats weren't published in January I guess. Your comment is modded funny, and this may have been your goal. If not, just who do you think should be busting his or her ass to get you this timely information. Somebody got around to looking at the trend and published it, and you seem to be bitching they didn't personally call you on New Year Eve with the final stats.

    Chill.

  54. ub3r 1337 h4xx0rz by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wish people will stop calling these script kiddie noobs "Hackers". Remember the days when a hacker was a skilled programmer? The media said, "Hey! Let's call criminals who use computers hackers! ('cause it sounds scary.) I am sorry, but the people who do this are no more of a hacker than a person who writes his name on the bathroom wall is a criminal mastermind.

    1. Re:ub3r 1337 h4xx0rz by docgnome · · Score: 1

      Preach on brother!

  55. Why was this story published? by RealProgrammer · · Score: 1

    More specifically, who is the target audience, and what is the intended message for them?

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
  56. Someone's gonna say it.... by Yumi+Saotome · · Score: 3, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, Websites attack you!

  57. "A lot of 15- and 16-year-old guys ..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A lot of 15- and 16-year-old guys are smart enough to have strong political opinions".

    As if you need to be intelligent to understand that the war in Iraq is nothing more than a ca$h grab by the Bush administration. Thanks churchies...

    1. Re:"A lot of 15- and 16-year-old guys ..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Calling us "Churchies" because we have faith in God. Unlike you guys who believe that killing a baby is right, and killing murderers is wrong.

      I suppose you think Saddam could have just stayed where he was too, don't you? Idiot.

    2. Re:"A lot of 15- and 16-year-old guys ..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Uh. We believe that killing a human being is wrong.

      A murderer is a human being; a few weeks old fetus is not.

    3. Re:"A lot of 15- and 16-year-old guys ..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is a fetus not a human being? You might as well extend thinking this to infants and toddlers.

    4. Re:"A lot of 15- and 16-year-old guys ..." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should have known better to reply to that on Troll Tuesday.

      YHBT. YHL. HAND.

  58. Poor Wikis by messju · · Score: 1

    As I remember: Last year I really wasn't sure if It was funny or sad to see some Wikis being raped and the "crackers" claiming: "You have a security problem, I can modify your pages!".

  59. The numbers don't match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    All of these are quotes from the article:

    • Web site defacements rose by over 400,000 (36 percent) compared to 2003 figures.
    • The report said that an average of roughly 2,500 Web servers (out of approximately 45 million) were hacked every day last year, and that 70,357 single Web defacements occurred over the year.
    • Zone-H has archived 900,000 digital attacks in five years.


    So, were there 1.5 million defacements, 70 thousand or some amount over 180 thousand? The article presents a very confuse picture that it either very reassuring or very alarming depending on which of the numbers is real.
    1. Re:The numbers don't match by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those aren't defacements -- those are just butt-ugly web sites.

  60. When military is hacked... by Reignking · · Score: 1

    When the military web sites are hacked, do the kiddies say "All your base are belong to us!!"?

    --
    One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
  61. Poor Wikis, we knew thee well ... by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    My son was telling me it's a fairly easy hack and all the 8th graders find it pretty easy to Wiki-hack.

    Sigh.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  62. It's simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's simple. If U.S. government and military agencies adopt more popular policies, they won't tick off the 15- and 16-year-olds, and their websites won't get defaced.

    So call your local U.S. government representative and let them know what you think about the war in Iraq and what's happened at Guantanamo Bay and other prisons.

  63. Common Carriers and "network harm" by davidwr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Even the phone company can pull your wire if you keep others from making or receiving phone calls.

    They CAN have their common carrier status and still be allowed/encouraged/required to pull the plug on computers that are doing "network harm."

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  64. Brit article - in the US it's not 15-16 yo kids by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    it's grade 8 kids - at least based on what my son tells me, everyone in grade 8 in Seattle does this.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:Brit article - in the US it's not 15-16 yo kids by patio11 · · Score: 1

      Nice thing to know that aside from the rampant violence, pervasive sexual misconduct, and continued failure to teach about a third of the kids who go through them to read and write, our public schools are scoring some successes in computer education. Leave no script kiddie behind!

  65. um...I'll bite. by Run4yourlives · · Score: 1

    If I firebomb your house because I don't like your politics, I'm justified in saying that if you simply change your views you'll save yourself from a future firebombing?

    That's some interesting logic you have there, it fits your posting name to a tee.

  66. Subnet owners should have an abuse@ address by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    And it should be mandatory to read it. Reporting intrusion attempts is pointless. People never respond.

  67. Bring back the military draft! by peter303 · · Score: 1

    That would cause those 15,16 year old script kiddies to grow up quickly.
    Also the military is so high-tech with remote reconaissance and robo-planes, that their expertise would be welcomed.
    Not to mention a current shortage of US soldiers.


    (Watch those script-kiddies md this to -1000.)

  68. "Why was this story published?" by jangobongo · · Score: 1


    Well, it would appear that this story was published because Zone-H put out its annual Web Intrusions Report, the timing of which happens to coincide with a with a London information security exhibition, InfoSecurity happening April 26th-28th.

    Now, as to whether this is FUD paid for by mysterious "who", I doubt it. The Zone-H website addresses their motives: BLACK OR WHITE HAT?. The conclusion is that it is "A creature without identity. A neutral ground where different IT security aspects can meet. 'The Switzerland of the ITsec'".

    And it would seem that anyone concerned about IT security would benefit from this information.

    --

    Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
  69. what does sex have to do with it? by Tharkban · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's going to hell in a handbasket but not because of the reasons you described.
    Sex on TV isn't near as bad as some of the other crap that gets put on there.
    I'd rather be forced to watch porn than assaulted with the groupthink propaganda this god forsaken country spawns.

    Don't think, believe.
    Don't think, buy.
    Don't think, kill.

    For the record, kids have never had morals.
    I know that's what everyone told me when I was growing up, and It's what my great grandfather told my grandfather when he was a kid.

    --
    Tharkban (It is a signature after all)
    1. Re:what does sex have to do with it? by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      What does sex have to do with it?

      Simple.

      If these schoolboys were getting some, they'd have more important things to do than trying to break into whitehouse.gov....

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  70. phones?? by bcrowell · · Score: 1

    Once GSM telephone platforms are replaced by VoIP and 3G phones, which work in the same way as Internet servers, the number of Web servers will increase to 1.5bn," he said. "Each of these phones will potentially be subject to the same vulnerabilities as traditional Web servers and personal computers.
    This smells bogus to me. The phones will presumably be shipped in some kind of fairly secure configuration, with nearly all services turned off.

  71. Spam-bots! by Masq666 · · Score: 1

    Another serious problem for some sites are spam-bots, i've seen a lot of sites with forums and news comments that has been attacked by spam-bots. Hopefully the new law(US) agains spamming will help a bit.

    --
    Bits of News Giving you the latest bits.
    1. Re:Spam-bots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you say what is spam and what is not? Does a person who has an unpopular opinion on a forum become a spammer?

    2. Re:Spam-bots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you can find the same "Buy \/14gr4 now!" link posted on 1,000 different forums to boost the spam site's Google page rank, it's a pretty good bet that it's comment spam.

  72. And they squirt quite nice too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've know that school boys rise very nice for quite some time. And they squirt quite nice too!

  73. When Web Sites Attack!!!! by MsSmartyPants · · Score: 1

    Next Fox TV special.

  74. Bad news, good news by ksvh · · Score: 1
    "Some of their favorite targets include U.S. government and military websites."

    Well, I guess it really is true what they say about every cloud having a silver lining.

  75. How to solve the problem. by edunbar93 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Find a bunch of these l33t h4x0r5, then one day after school there's a rash of incidents like this:

    A black van screeches to a halt at the crosswalk that 13 year old Brody Seminuk is standing at, the side door opens and men in black ski masks yank him off the sidewalk and into the van, in full view of his friends. The van jackrabbits away from the curb and the interrogation immediately begins.

    MIB: WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR!
    BS: What?! I don't have a job!
    MIB: DON'T BULLSHIT US! WE KNOW YOU'RE WORKING FOR INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS!
    BS: International terrorists!? But...! But...!
    MIB: Don't lie to us boy! We'll beat the truth out of you if we have to!
    BS: I don't know any terrorists! What are you talking about!?
    MIB: You tried 32,812 times to break into www.edwards.af.mil!
    BS: Oh shit!

    Van stops in an underground parking garage, where Brody is shoved into a new van, with new interrogators.

    MIB: WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR!!
    BS: I'm not working for anyone! I don't know any terrorists!

    An old, battered van that has "Ed's plumbing" written on the side stops briefly and Brody is pushed out the back door, wearing only his underwear.

    Friend 1: Dude, are you alright? We thought you were going to die!
    Friend 2: They didn't rape you or anything, did they?
    Brody: Got any money? I need a cab home.
    Friend 1: Yeah, yeah, I have about $12.
    Brody: call me a cab then.
    Friend 2: What was that all about anyway.
    Brody: Don't hack into Edwards. They really mean it.
    Friend 2: You mean Edwards AFB?
    Brody: Yes.
    Friend 2: Um, what's that smell?
    Brody: Shut up and dial.

    --
    "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
  76. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  77. Eh.. by ErZo · · Score: 1

    This happends all the time. I wonder why they just target USA gov pages etc. I'd like more things like artists against 419 or what it's called. I mean.. That atleast Helps the internet.. some..

    --
    In the Soviet Union, signatures writes you!
  78. RSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the ad in the RSS feed. It least it gave me a chance to waste a few seconds writing a perl script to strip them out before receiving the updated feed.

  79. Tonight on FOX... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When websites attack!

  80. Hmm... by PsychicX · · Score: 0

    "A lot of 15- and 16-year-old guys are smart enough to have strong political opinions," Roberto Preatoni, Zone-H founder, told Reuters on Monday.

    Usually strong political opinions at that age are your parents' opinions, shaped by ignorance and upbringing and characterized by a complete lack of comprehension of how life works. Or long story short, they have strong political opinions because they're stupid, not because they're smart.

    1. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That statement seems to describe most adults.

  81. TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Explain to me, again, how school children can pose a serious threat to the United States government, and we still have the balls to declare war on a country in the middle east?

    Oh god, couldn't have a dicussion without THAT coming up completely out of context. We had the balls to declare war on a country in the middle east because we were ousting a brutal dictator who actually murdered people. How that relates to kids messing with .gov servers, I'll never know.

  82. Thanks for the newsflash by Trixter · · Score: 1

    In other news, scientists have discovered that cheese is made from milk, skydiving without a parachute has a 99.99998% chance of resulting in death, and that galvanized rubber is not edible.

    Come on, this was news? Website attacks are STILL GOING ON... performed by KIDS? Announcing that the earth was still round would have been more surprising.

  83. Does everyone need a website? by whoppers · · Score: 1

    Do these gov't agencies need websites? Is there a way to keep non-us addresses from visiting these websites?

    I run a website for my HOA for free, and I'd be plenty happy to keep outsiders from visiting it, it's for the people that live there, not spammers, hackers or anyone else. With 900+ houses, I can't make everyone log-in, so I just tell the robots.txt to keep search engines out.

  84. Credit Paul Graham by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Credit Paul Graham, and stop stealing his words.

  85. Hack this one, kiddies! by operagost · · Score: 1
    Take your best shot, punk!

    hackme.operagost.com

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  86. The thing to do is by wowbagger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The thing to do is to hold the ISP accountable if they don't hold the user accountable.

    For example - I had this host that kept sending me half-megabyte virus executables via mail. I identified the ISP as Netvision in Israel. I tried to contact them repeately. They did nothing to stop this - they did not contact the user, they did not disconnect the user, they did not block the user's ability to send mail, NOTHING.

    In cases like this, then HELL YES I say hold the ISP accoutable - they have failed to hold the user accountable.

    If I start making prank calls from my phone, the phone company will kill my line if they get called about it. ISPs should be no exception.

    1. Re:The thing to do is by turbidostato · · Score: 0

      "The thing to do is to hold the ISP accountable if they don't hold the user accountable."

      Yeah, just the way we must hold the bus company accountable if one of its buses carries a terrorist to his objective, or the telephone company if one of its lines is used to blackmail me.

      "If I start making prank calls from my phone, the phone company will kill my line if they get called about it."

      Don't know about the USA, but you can bet that if the company does such a thing as block a public service in Spain (and in any civilized country for that fact) without an order from a judge on the grounds that another user asked for it, it will loose the case on tribunals and will have to compensate damages.

  87. kid haking the feed ? by AwaxSlashdot · · Score: 1

    rather weird place to have ads ...

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  88. shock horror - matching trend by matt+me · · Score: 1

    "Web Sites Are On The Rise". how can we stop them?

    hey at least they didn't call them I.N.T.E.R.N.E.T. sites or something stupid.

  89. By that logic by Cougem · · Score: 1

    It's the teachers' holidays as well, naybe they're responsible?

  90. Why? by McGiraf · · Score: 1

    What can poeple have against the US military and goverment?

    I don't get it

    1. Re:Why? by anubi · · Score: 1
      Ok.. this is what scares me.

      Not that kids *are* doing this - its that kids *can* do this.

      I can understand, if you have PHYSICAL access to the machine, you can make it do anything... but leaving control access open just makes me think of an ignorant shopkeeper who has no idea how the locks on his store doors work, and continuously carries on about coming into his store and finding out kids had a party in there last night.

      It makes me wonder how seriously we really take the integrity of our computing infrastructure if no-one really understands how it works! Yes, we even have laws now on the books ENFORCING computer illiteracy (DMCA) just so we can continue the illusion of security through obscurity. Security through secrecy is no security at all. As a wise American Indian once told me that the most asinine thing he noted with the paleface is that he thinks he can own the wind.

      An interesting book is out now detailing the conquests and military strategies of Alexander the Great. One of its stories detail a problem Alexander had coming up against a far superior Indian army... and they had War Elephants, where he had terrified horses. The book shows where Alexander figured out how to use his archers and javelin throwers to first blind then wound the blinded elephants, leaving the Indian Army the problem of what to do with a stampede of blinded, wounded, terrified War Elephants in their midst.

      Alexander turned the Indian Army's strongest asset against them.

      Now, we are outsourcing a lot of the programming to the critical parts of our OS to India. And even having American Legislators pass LAW to forbid American citizens from knowing exactly how it works.

      How can we fix something without dependence on others if we have no idea how it works?

      Our nation's computing infrastructure cannot be replaced as easily as one could replace a lemon car. Building the nation's computational infructure on unknown proprietary stuff in my mind is pure idiocy. To me, its like forcing building construction from wood when one man owns the tree farm, while the ground is littered with rocks and the constituents of concrete.

      Could it be India never forgot Alexander's stragegy?

      I can see the day when somebody overseas determines its time, and all our fancy systems start carrying on like a herd of wounded elephants... turning stuff on and off, etc.

      God forbid we have military control systems also running this system... no telling what instructions it may tell the weapons interfaces.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  91. Web Attack Security Documentation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  92. Re:Priceless by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
    "I you're going to post a article for publication" ...and a grammar check wouldn't kill you either.

    Therein lies the difference between posting an article, even as an amateur journalist, and merely posting commentary. The peanut gallery is allowed-- nay, expected-- to make errors. If I was submitting my comments to go on the front page, I'd have had the presence of mind to spellcheck it.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  93. Re:Ob Spelling Rant by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
    If, not I. An, not a. Typos are a bitch, huh?

    Typos are one thing, particularly in a comment. Thinking one knows how to spell a word in a front page article and therefore not running spellcheck, that's just stupid.

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  94. ActiveScout by not_hylas(+) · · Score: 1

    I think they're stumped, the defenders keep bolting down the furniture, chaining up the TV and generally fastening down all these individual objects.
    What's needed is a BOUNCER.

    Lock the damn door [doggie door too].
    I'M WITH THE BAND! shouldn't get them backstage.
    Stamp their hand at the entrance and watch them so they don't try to feel up your sister.

    You get the idea.
    These guys have a handle on this approach, I only wish I had enough money to get it.

    http://www.forescout.com/activescout.html

    --
    ~hylas
  95. Kinda funny by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1

    Last year, when I was reading The Art of Deception by Kevin Mitnick, I read a ton of Social Engineering SlashDot stories of how a lot of businesses lost information due to social engineering attacks. Now I'm reading The Art of Intrusion (which has a similar story in it) and this is reported. Kinda funny if you ask me.

    --
    "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher