BusinessWeek on Hacker Hunters

prostoalex writes "You keep hearing about FBI, Secret Service or other law enforcement authorities involved in pursuing international cybercrime gangs, but who are those people and how does the cyberlaw enforcement work? Business Week talks about hacker hunters and people they're after. A large portion of the article is dedicated to describing the global scope of such activities with Russia, Eastern Europe and China leading the ranks for criminal hideouts."

Comments

The "H" word

[rbanffy]

Could we please try to restore the word "hacker" a more positive meaning on mainstream media?

Re:The "H" word

[rastakid]

Could we please try to restore the word "hacker" a more positive meaning on mainstream media?

*sigh* Could we just once please stop this endless discussion?

What does it matter what a hacker and a cracker is? As if a programmer gets more attention once the media start to call him a hacker and call the phishers crackers. Also: definitions can change, you know that?

Re:The "H" word

[daigu]

It's like an other epithet. It needs to run its course - become hackneyed and then it can be reclaimed by the culture. Nigger, queer are fairly recent examples where the derogatory have been partially reclaimed. If you want an older example, try looking up the history of Quakers - a once derogatory term that the community uses to talk about itself 350 years later.

Bottom line: You are never going to get people to use the hacker/cracker differentiation. You almost have to be a hacker to even understand it. Let them have hacker for their exercises in fear mongering and then take it back when it has lost its novelty and they have moved on to cyber-terrorist or whatever is the next buzzword of the day. 300 years from now - hacker will mean what it is supposed to mean. You - well, actually your descendents - will just have to wait for it.

Re:The "H" word

[Anonymous Coward]

When I started in computing, many years ago, the word "hacker" was a pejorative. It meant "one who hacks at a problem without understanding the problem, until a fix of some sort is made or the problem goes away." It also meant "one who fixes that which is not broken for the sake of change alone." It had the feeling of "trying to build fine furniture with an axe." Words change meaning, live with it. To see an interesting change, look up the history of the word "nice."

Re:The "H" word

[paroneayea]

> What does it matter what a hacker and a cracker is? As if a programmer gets more attention once the media start to call him a hacker and call the phishers crackers. Also: definitions can change, you know that?

Definitions can change, and it is acceptable that they change depending upon certain circumstances. The problem with the misuse of the term "hacker" is that it imposes cultural violence.

Re:The "H" word

[Anonymous Coward]

And sodomites are called faggots because they're the firewood that fuels God's burning hatred. The term faggot for describing queers comes from the Bible.

Re:The "H" word

[MaestroSartori]

No!

Given that the positive-meaning hacker is virtually unknown amongst the non-technical, you're always going to be outnumbered vastly on this.

Why not use a different word, which won't have the negative connotations, instead of trying to order back the tide?

Re:The "H" word

[JamesD_UK]

I'd think that you didn't know how to cook them properly!

Re:The "H" word

[GQuon]

Also: definitions can change, you know that?

That depends on what your definition of "definition" is. And what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Re:The "H" word

[Tlosk]

I think you would be 100% more successful if you as a group decide to call yourselves something else and abandon the term hacker for what it has become.

You are the people with the motivation because you are the ones who will benefit from a more positive definition.

So quit pissing into the wind and just come up with a neologism for the positive aspects (old aspects) of the term hacker.

If you're a masochist then keep on trying to convince people who won't benefit one way or the other to change their behavior.

Re:The "H" word

[corblix]

Could we please try to restore the word "hacker" a more positive meaning on mainstream media?

Yes, we can try. But we can't succeed.

I'm on your side, though. I remember writing a letter to my hometown newspaper 20 years ago asking them to please understand what a "hacker" really was. But it was hopeless then, and it's hopeless now.

So face it, this is a battle we cannot win. Save your energy for the ones where we have a chance.

Re:The "H" word

[Edward Faulkner]

I think you would be 100% more successful if you as a group decide to call yourselves something else and abandon the term hacker for what it has become.

That may be true. But it will never happen, because it is in the very nature of a hacker not to care what ignorant people think.

Re:The "H" word

[DogDude]

it is in the very nature of a hacker not to care what ignorant people think.

It's also in the very nature of a hacker to know *everything* and to be a pompous ass that nobody listens to, anyway.

Re:The "H" word

[Anonymous Coward]

"300 years from now - hacker will mean what it is supposed to mean. You - well, actually your descendents - will just have to wait for it"

And what it's supposed to mean? Here's some different definitions from the past since around 1891, pick one.

1. One who works hard at boring tasks.

2. A politician who belongs to a small clique that controls a political party for private rather than public ends.

3. A mediocre and disdained writer.

4. A car driven by a person whose job is to take passengers where they want to go in exchange for money.

5. An old or over-worked horse.

6. A horse kept for hire.

7. A saddle horse used for transportation rather than sport etc.

8. Someone who plays golf poorly.

Re:The "H" word

[Tim C]

The problem with ignorant people is that there are so many of them

Seriously, go on fighting if you want, but you've already lost.

Re:The "H" word

[Edward Faulkner]

You misunderstand me. I'm not fighting one way or the other. I'm stating a fact. Hackers won't change, because hackers don't care.

I can assure you there are many people who use "hacker" and "to hack" frequently in their everyday language, and if you suggested that they abandon the term simply because John Q. Public uses it differently, they'd laugh at you.

All language is context sensitive. Know your audience and you'll be understood. It's pointless to critize BusinessWeek, but it's similarly pointless to criticize people who use the term among themselves for the older meaning.

Re:The "H" word

[GMFTatsujin]

What does it matter what a hacker and a cracker is?

Does it matter what the difference between an African-American and a nigger is? Or a terrorist and a freedom fighter? Or a republic and a democracy?

Yes. Yes, it does. In the hope for a better world, language is our greatest asset.

Re:The "H" word

[blincoln]

The problem with the misuse of the term "hacker" is that it imposes cultural violence.

Yeah, I remember the last time my coworkers found out I was a hacker*, and executed me on the spot after an hour or two of being beaten with blunt instruments! Damn, that was kind of a shitty day.

* In both senses.

Re:The "H" word

[orcrist]

At least Merriam-Webster still has the complete set of definitions.

-chris

Re:The "H" word

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're confusing the words and how they change. They have changed over time. Take the words 'gay' or 'queer'. 50+, even 25, years ago the one meant happy or merry and the other meant strange or unusual. Now they have become pejoratives, very negative and can't be used in the original contexts. Just try the lyrics for the Flintstones these days.

Hacker Hunter U

[panxerox]

Looks like the Ruskis have this available as a course (if you want to go to Siberia) Hacker Hunter U,

Re:Hacker Hunter U

[M3rk1n_Muffl3y]

Don't believe everything you read in a paper called "The Truth". Their speciality is hillarious UFO stories. See here for more

Re:Hacker Hunter U

[Anonymous Coward]

Hacker Hunter U? I hope they also have the Vampire Hunter D course...

What about Brazil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't Brazil one of the world's biggest hideouts for hackerS?

Hacker hunters are evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

We MUST put a stop to hacker hunting. Please join PETH today.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Hackers(PETH) is the hackers only hope. W0n'7 j00 h31p?

Re:Hacker hunters are evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

H41P m3 0biWaN j00r m1 0n1y h0p3.

misquote from the story

[peculiarmethod]

The alleged ringleaders went quietly, but one suspect jumped out a second-story window. Agents nabbed him on the ground.

Actually, I know the guy, and it wasn't the bust that did it.. he wasn't even aware of the encroaching officers.. he just failed AGAIN at getting a first post on slashy.

Re:misquote from the story

[Anonymous Coward]

That's no reason to practice self-defenestration.

Somebody stop me!

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet Russia criminal hideouts rank you!

OH NO!!!

[theskullboy]

Now they're gonna find my stash of KaZaa Pr0n!!!!

Pfft. They care so much.

[lithium bandit]

As someone who works in the security field and comes across hacked systems all the time, I'll believe they give a damn when they start returning my calls. Sounds like PR to get someone more funding. Trying to get someone at the FBI to care when you come across bot networks at an ISP, bank, or even a power company is next to impossible.

In...

[Anonymous Coward]

Democratic US the FBI are a bunch of hacks.

They dont arrest them?

[guildsolutions]

Im surprised that the FBI doesnt arrest the hacker hunters... they tend to like to arrest everything they can see doing anything that might be something they dont like....

Ive got my tin foil hat on again too..

Popup

[Hatta]

Any other firefox users get that stupid survey popup? It's obviously not your normal popup, done with CSS I think? Anyone out there know a way to block these?

Re:Popup

[DustyShadow]

Firefox blocked it for me but I've noticed lately that I'm getting more and more popups. Make sure you upgrade to the latest release.

Re:Popup

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox blocked mine, and I don't think I changed default popup settings. I got that warning bar.

Re:Popup

[Joe Random]

Any other firefox users get that stupid survey popup?

Hmm... I'm using Firefox, and I didn't get any popups. I know! You must've been hacked! Quick, report it to the Secret Service!

Anyone out there know a way to block these?

Are you using the Adblock plugin? If not, you should be. I'm showing 11 blocked scripts on that page. I'm not feeling ambitious enough to find out if any of them result in popups, but I wouldn't doubt it.

Re:Popup

[Anonymous Coward]

Why reporting it to the Secret Service, are you the president?

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[DustyShadow]

My dad's office (law firm) was hacked about a year ago. Actually, it was more of their phone system that was hacked. It is somehow hooked into their computer system, I don't know the details. Anyways, they got a bill one day and there were tons of calls to the Middle East. They called the FBI and surprisingly an agent showed up. It probably had to do with the fact that the calls were to the middle east. They didn't do anything though other than take some notes. I expected more but I guess not having to pay for the calls was good enough.

Quote from George Busg

[Anonymous Coward]

[Quote from G.W. Bush]
We need to punish those countries who harbor Hacker Terrorists!!
We need to promote peace, install democracy, and uninstall hackorists.

The Hacker is the problem

[John Seminal]

Some might say...

The hacker does not respect intellectual property. When they buy a gadget, they think they own it and the intellectual property that went into it. They think they can reverse engineer it. They are breaking laws by doing so.

I never thought hacker was a good and positive term. Hacker sounds like some worthless criminal, some shady person who can't exist in sunlight or normal society. It is like a person who hides and tries to catch your PIN number, so they can steal.

A better word would be explorer. Explorers and scientists act within the law. They change opinion. Hackers have not changed any opinions, they just piss people off.

What if Microsoft releases an OS with weak security? What will the hacker do? Write worms and viruses exploiting it. They will not just let people be. They will frustrate everyone, like they are expecting a reward that they found something. So what. They are jackholes.

Re:The Hacker is the problem

[freedom_india]

Piss off !

A hacker is someone who loves hacking just for the thrill of it. AND Not for money. Haven't you heard about ParMaster, etc.?

Re:The Hacker is the problem

[Tolkien]

You don't seem to understand the (valid) issue he brought up.

A hacker is an "explorer" and one who seeks to learn, or gather information.

A cracker is the same, but with malicious intent, and who often also hijack targeted systems by installing backdoors or trojans the first time they break into the system.

Hackers hacking into a system are harmless, beware of the cracker.

You described a cracker, NOT a hacker, I just felt I should make that clear.

Re:The Hacker is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

What if Microsoft releases an OS with weak security?

Hehe. Yeah, right! Like that would ever happen...

Re:The Hacker is the problem

[Stonehand]

Harmless? No. In either case, a compromised system should be fully audited and rebuilt, barring certainty about the limits of potential damage. Any information that passed through that system also has to be considered compromised with potentially widespread effect. That costs non-trivial time and money.

Re:The Hacker is the problem

[joepeg]

Harmless? No. In either case, a compromised system should be fully audited and rebuilt

The fact that your system is vulnerable to exploitation is neither the hacker's, nor the cracker's fault.

I believe the point the parent was trying to make is that you would probably prefer the "hacker" rather than the "cracker" in the system based on what they would supposedly do with said "compromised information."

Re:The Hacker is the problem

[Stonehand]

While this undoubtably astounds you, the mere fact that thrill may motivate somebody more than profit does not remove responsibility for the consequences of one's actions, or the possible immorality thereof.

To take an extreme example of your argument -- the popular, if utterly bogus, "slippery slope" approach -- your argument would suggest that murder, if committed for thrills but not money, is simply dandy. Less severely, it would justify breaking into peoples' homes if nothing were stolen or physically damage, despite the fact that this too can have substantial consequences (in this case, psychological). It's actually worse in the case of computers because it's more difficult to do a thorough yet precise assessment of what exactly has been compromised, which is why locking down the system followed by auditing, reinstallation and patching should be done if anything important was there at all.

The fact is, an unauthorized intrusion into a system has severe consequences -- regardless of its motivation. So does the authoring and releasing of compromises without sufficient warning to those vulnerable or in a position to ameliorate said vulnerabilities. A worm, released, does damage based on its code, not the author's intent; recall the RTM worm, for instance.

Re:The Hacker is the problem

[Pig Hogger]

To take an extreme example of your argument -- the popular, if utterly bogus, "slippery slope" approach -- your argument would suggest that murder, if committed for thrills but not money, is simply dandy. Less severely, it would justify breaking into peoples' homes if nothing were stolen or physically damage, despite the fact that this too can have substantial consequences (in this case, psychological). It's actually worse in the case of computers because it's more difficult to do a thorough yet precise assessment of what exactly has been compromised, which is why locking down the system followed by auditing, reinstallation and patching should be done if anything important was there at all.

What a goddammed clueless analogy. If you kill someone, someone is deprived of life. If you steal something from someone, that someone is deprived of the enjoyment of his property.

This is not the case when a widget is reverse-engineered, or hacked to do something else than it's purpose.

Re:The Hacker is the problem

[Stonehand]

The actual exploitation, however, is the fault of the person who actually takes advantage of said vulnerability, much the same way that the mere vulnerability of your average car to theft does not in any way excuse the actual act of doing so.

From the victim's point of view, barring taking the system apart and comparing it with a known uncompromised version, it's damn near impossible to ensure that further damage wasn't done. Even if the machine isn't listening on any ports at all, for instance, it doesn't mean that a program couldn't have been modified to open up a back door several months later. An e-mail client could have been modified to auto-execute instructions from certain attachments. Or so forth. You can't really prove that the intruder was a theoretically benign 'hacker' instead of somebody with more malign intent, but you /do/ know that if he had malignant intent, he could have done a variety of things; and if he managed root/adminstrator access, you have a very large problem on your hand.

Ideally, you would prefer that the vulnerablity not have been exploited at all, but that the person sharp enough to notice such would bring it to the attention of those in a position to do something about it -- notifying the authors of the relevant software, for instance. If you notice that your garage door opener opens numerous garages in your neighborhood, you should probably mention this to the manufacturers or your neighbors rather than notifying them of the problem by visiting their garages when they're not expecting it.

Re:The Hacker is the problem

[Stonehand]

Quite irrelevant to my post. If you re-read mine, you'll see quite clearly that I suggested that the evaluation of an act should focus on its consequences, not on its motive. The mindset that "it's for thrills, not for money, and therefore it's not wrong" is absurd.

As for "do something else than it's purpose", that's very vague. Again, it depends on the consequences. It might be considered unethical, for instance, to release a program which let people easily unlock everybody's cars with their cell phones (not that it's likely to be possible), since the likely consequence of an increase in auto theft would probably not outweigh any "helping people who locked themselves out" business. That'd be the case even if the tool were produced and released merely because it seemed to be a nifty bit of technology.

Re:The Hacker is the problem

[joepeg]

Agreed, but the "hacker" could be an employee who managed to discover the vulnerability before anyone on the outside. In such a case, the "non-trivial time and money" cost is inevitable, but I wouldn't necessarily consider it a "harm." In the same respect, the employee might be a malicious "cracker," and this is where the lines are drawn.

Re:The Hacker is the problem

[Stonehand]

Quite true.

For institutions in which maintaining customer faith in the security of their information is extremely critical, it might actually make sense to have IT people working with their software vendors and specifically looking for vulnerabilities before anybody else finds them. If your online banking system has a flaw, it's best if you or the vendor finds it before anybody else does in case that somebody else does something which sends your customers fleeing in droves and worrying about identity theft.

Of course, an employee might want to reconsider searching for vulnerabilities in his workplace system if it's not remotely part of his job, unless he's on sufficiently good terms with his boss and IT department to the point that they'll believe that it was for the good of the company and not so that he can sell the payroll information or whatever...

Re:The Hacker is the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me revise that to... mostly harmless.

Re:The Hacker is the problem

[rikkards]

Actually I would prefer neither a Hacker or Cracker in my system. Either way if I found out who did it, I would ensure that they get slammed as hard as possible with any criminal charges that can be placed against them.

Just because you can get in doesn't mean you should. Now if a Hacker did come to me saying there may be a possibility of a vulnerability and that, with my permission of course, they would like to do a security audit I may be more amenable. Especially if they are willing to tell me what vulnerabilities they think there may be.

Re:The Hacker is the problem

[rikkards]

At that point I wouldn't consider them a Hacker as essentially they are getting paid for their work. Course that doesn't mean they have lost the "thrill"

Re:The Hacker is the problem

[erlenic]

But reverse-engineering does have negative consequences. It dilutes the value of that company's intellectual property, which does have monetary value. It can also lead to a company, and thus its stockholders, being deprived of profits. Sure, not everyone copying something would have bought it if they couldn't copy it, but there are some that would have. It may be very hard to measure the exact loss, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Re:The Hacker is the problem

[Pig Hogger]

Truly an hardass answer. Profit is not something that is absolutely guaranteed, nor that should be absolutely protected by law.

A croporation abusing of it's monopoly surely deserves to be ripped-off; this is what reverse-engineering does, and as such, shall be entirely protected by law, simply as a message to potential abusive monopolists.

Re:The Hacker is the problem

[erlenic]

We're not talking about protecting a company's profit, we're talking about preventing someone from outright stealing something. By reverse-engineering something, you are stealing profits from that company. Or would you rather have the government decide what forms of theft are morally right?

Re:The Hacker is the problem

[Pig Hogger]

I am French. We trust the government far more than we trust private companies (as a matter of fact, we suffered so much in the past at the hands of entrepreneurs that it is unlikely we will stop counting on the government to protect us against private companies). So, yes, we would rather have the government decide what is theft and what isn't (hint: intellectual "property" can't be stolen).

(hint: in my country, the Supreme Court has decided that sharing music online isn't theft).

SCO mydoom

[Camel Pilot]

Kudos to Buinessweek as one of only a few news sources that got the SCO, linux and MyDoom virus story right. From the fine article:

In January, 2004, a new virus called MyDoom attacked the Web site of the SCO Group Inc. (SCOX ), a software company that claimed the open-source Linux program violated its copyrights. Most security experts suspected the virus writer was a Linux fan seeking revenge. They were wrong. While the SCO angle created confusion, MyDoom acted like a Trojan horse, infecting millions of computers and then opening a secret backdoor for its author.

McBride however is remembered as calling the resulting DOS attacks "the darker side of the Linux community we've been fighting."

Re:SCO mydoom

[FunWithHeadlines]

"McBride however is remembered as calling the resulting DOS attacks "the darker side of the Linux community we've been fighting."

Well then, this is an excellent opportunity for Mr. McBride to apologize to the Linux community for his inadvertant slander. I have no doubt that such a man who has shown a constant willigness to reach out to the press will take an immediate opportunity to correct his mistake.

(Holding breath)

not crackers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Black hats

Re:not crackers.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ass hats

Wrong date

[slymole]

The article is dated May 30.

priorities

[SuperBanana]

Could we please try to restore the word "hacker" a more positive meaning on mainstream media?

Could we please move on to things that matter a wee bit more?

Re:About time hackers get caught

[xbmodder]

Why do you feel such hard punishment shall be put on hackers. Hackers are normal people like me and you. They just try to improve their stuff. Sometimes breaking a couple rules here and there. I think what your talking about are texans.

17 billion dollars spent annually on Texan Medical. Approximately 5 billion spent on hackers. Its just a way to get rid of ignorance. Being a hacker (No, not a cracker) I went first because bullies at school were mean. To get away from all of this I took on computers. Realized computers are not bitches. For once something respected my love for it. An obsession was born. Maybe if you were nicer you would not have as many suicides, homicides, and rapes.

Retards: live with it.

Its too late for that

[nurb432]

The public's conception of 'hacker' has already been formed due to the media, both news and movies.

True, it may have been due to mis-information, but i doubt we can change that now.

Re:Its too late for that

[rbanffy]

If only we could make Angelina Jolie act in a sequel to "hackers"...

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[John Seminal]

As someone who works in the security field and comes across hacked systems all the time, I'll believe they give a damn when they start returning my calls. Sounds like PR to get someone more funding. Trying to get someone at the FBI to care when you come across bot networks at an ISP, bank, or even a power company is next to impossible.

The FBI needs more funding. They only have 5 billion dollars. That is not even 1 dollar for every person in the world. ;)

What would worry me more than the FBI tracking hackers is what happened at that library yesterday. They now have fingerprint machines at every computer, and you can't use the library without getting your finger scanned.

That worries me, because the government is now in a position to control ideas. They can see who reads Lenin. They can make a list.

The hacker on the other hand, he is a criminal. He breaks into stuff. He is not just reading a book and thinking to himself. He is breaking into other peoples property.

That is a crime that deserves more law enforcement funding.

The next step is for the USA to help fund a prision in pakastan, so the USA won't be bothered keeping prisioners up to USA standards (like the right to a lawyer or 3 meals a day), but at the same time the arrests will not overburden forieng nations. I say we should build a 10,000 cell prision in the desert, without any air conditioning, and limited water. That should break just about anyone.

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[5cary]

And as one of the "Hacker Hunters" (pffft), I can tell you that it's not the FBI (or any other LE agents) that don't care.

There's *no* point in an agent taking a case or even wasting his/her time returning your call (one of many every day) when he/she already knows that an Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) won't take the case for prosecution. The threshold set by AUSAs can amazingly high for damages in most cases. Where I work, it is around $50,000 before they'll even talk to you. There's just too much already out there.

Criminal Investigations are all about prosecution. They all have too many cases as it is, all of which they hope to get prosecuted. There's no way an agent will waste their time on an unprosecutable intrusion.

Unprosecutable because:
1) damages don't meet the threshold.
2) the system was unpatched and "invited" the hacker in - I hate this the most.
3) the system was not bannered "..by clicking ok, you agree to give up your expectation of privacy"... - also a stupid reason, but the case law is there.
4) the hostile systems are difficult to obtain evidence from (read: overseas, unfrienldy).
5) the hostile is obviously a script kiddie (stupid warez, IRC, etc.). Experience shows that the effort put forth to go after these idiots is not worth the 30 days probation a juvenile gets in MOST cases - damage dependant.

Experience will tell you what kind of effort your phone call is worth to an investigator. After he delete's your message, there are probably 3 or 4 more waiting to make their own report.

The agency I work for forwards intrusion reports to us via e-mail. I ignore 90% of them. If I responded to them all (or even half), I'd NEVER have the time to go after the important ones. That's life.

Stop the shit

[imsabbel]

Well, why not whine about that gay now mean homosexual and not jolly or that spam should only used to descripe some kind of food.

Re:Stop the shit

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, lets whine about it.

Re:Stop the shit

[noidentity]

Well, why not whine about that gay now mean homosexual and not jolly or that spam should only used to descripe some kind of food.

Spam now or has ever referred to a kind of food?!?

No Popups

[Anonymous Coward]

No popups here. Either it's random and I'm lucky, or adblock (with a decent list) does the trick.

Interesting Article

[deadmantyping]

This was a very interesting article, although long. It's good to know that law enforcement agencies are at least trying to do something to stop this crime, but as the article stated it is hard because of things like little available funding and difficulties inherent in dealing with foreign governments with lax cybercrime laws, like Russia, but still, they're trying.

I for one worry little about these government task forces spying on the rest of us. Sure, it might happen, but I would think that as long as we're not doing anything illegal we should be fine. I doubt that most people would be affected by this though.

The law enforcement cybercrime techniques are getting better, but they will always be behind the criminals I think, but at least they are putting a dent in their business.

Corrected Quote

[Anonymous Coward]

"We need to promote peace, install democracy, and uninstall hackorists"

I think you got the quote wrong. Wasn't it Bush who said, "I have brought peace, justice, freedom and security to my new Empire"?

Oh wait...that was Darth Vader.

"Hacker hunters," huh?

[FlyByPC]

So what's the point of shooting a deer with a BFG9000? Bring it down and cook it all at once, I guess?

Re:"Hacker hunters," huh?

[LiquidCoooled]

You also distribute it to all the hungry folks within a 3 mile radius.

Reminds me of something else:

"The blast blasted blubber beyond all believable bounds"

Coming next week...

[blueadept1]

BusinessWeek reveals that hackers have been using what are called 'proxies' to make it look like they were in Russia, Eastern Europe, and China.

Re:Coming next week...

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot must be hacker hunters then. They only probe 14-15 ports for proxies on your first post of the day now.

Re:uncountable # of dogooders causing newsweak #'s

[Anonymous Coward]

Already Gone, that building next door that exhausts fumes into your house is a probably meth lab. That'd be my explanation .

Thank you.

Re:About time hackers get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

Its easy to understand. Fear. The dumbasses are frightened of you now. At school it was easy to beat you up, and take the piss because you were not sporty or a big hit with the girls. Now the boot is on the other foot, things have changed a lot in 20 years, now they realise that their whole world, their bank accounts, their emails, their jobs, everything is highly vulnerable, irrevocably tried up with computers and technology and they worry that spotty little kid they used to smack about has the power over them.
You know people are really much easier to understand than computers. They attack the weak for their own gain then whine and cry foul when
the rules of the game change against their advantage.

Sounds like a show on Discovery Channel

[wfberg]

"Lookey here! It looks like we've stumbled across a scriptkiddie! D'ya reckon it's a fella or a sheila? These are yung 'uns, and it's hard to tell. I've gotta be really careful, or it'll BITE me!"

Not crackers.

[lheal]

• Black Hats
• Bad Guys
• Attackers (when referring to a specific incident)
• virus writers
• spambot engineers

Anything but "crackers". "Crackers" just has no ring to it at all :-).

I almost added to the list:

• Hackers (what's in a name?).

The reason "hackers" is ok by me is that it's stupid to identify yourself with a word. Why fight it?

Then I thought of a perfectly good reason to fight it. The script kiddeez and "Neo" wannabees hear the term "hacker" applied to black hat activity. They are led to think that messing with other people's systems is what is cool. One day they grow up and start doing something productive, while my time is wasted fighting their idiocy.

why is it always a "hacker" ?

[Anonymous Coward]

the word "hacker" has become so broad in its meaning its become a genre in itself with sub genres that are not all malicious, white hat hackers are pretty friendly people, like why people choose to be primary school teachers, it's not all about money
its wether you do the right thing you know ?

Return of the "USSS" defacement

[GQuon]

Return of the "USSS" defacement
Archived site. It was even funnier when the Mission Impossible music played as the background sound. :-)

Obviously hit by phasers set on *stupid*

[AndroidCat]

The target: the ShadowCrew, a gang whose members were schooled in identity theft, bank account pillage, and the fencing of ill-gotten wares on the Web, police say. For months, agents had been watching their every move through a clandestine gateway into their Web site, shadowcrew.com.

Obviously they missed the class at school on how to keep a low profile.

Why Does SlashDot Probe My System's Ports?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is SlashDot doing and why? Why are particular ports scanned from SlashDot? Is SlashDot developing signatures from IP packet structure? To what end?

Here's a typical firewall log of what happens when I post to SlashDot as AC:

blocked access to your computer (HTTP) from slashdot.org (66.35.250.150) (TCP Port 58728).
Time: 05/22/2005 10:47:08

blocked access to your computer (TCP Port 444) from slashdot.org (66.35.250.150) (TCP Port 58732).
Time: 05/22/2005 10:47:10

blocked access to your computer (TCP Port 1080) from slashdot.org (66.35.250.150) (TCP Port 58736).
Time: 05/22/2005 10:47:12

blocked access to your computer (TCP Port 3127) from slashdot.org (66.35.250.150) (TCP Port 58738).
Time: 05/22/2005 10:47:14

blocked access to your computer (TCP Port 3128) from slashdot.org (66.35.250.150) (TCP Port 58740).
Time: 05/22/2005 10:47:16

blocked access to your computer (TCP Port 6588) from slashdot.org (66.35.250.150) (TCP Port 58742).
Time: 05/22/2005 10:47:18

blocked access to your computer (TCP Port 8000) from slashdot.org (66.35.250.150) (TCP Port 58744).
Time: 05/22/2005 10:47:20

blocked access to your computer (TCP Port 8080) from slashdot.org (66.35.250.150) (TCP Port 58747).
Time: 05/22/2005 10:47:22

blocked access to your computer (TCP Port 81) from slashdot.org (66.35.250.150) (TCP Port 58750).
Time: 05/22/2005 10:47:24

blocked access to your computer (TCP Port 1026) from slashdot.org (66.35.250.150) (TCP Port 58753).
Time: 05/22/2005 10:47:26

blocked access to your computer (TCP Port 3124) from slashdot.org (66.35.250.150) (TCP Port 58755).
Time: 05/22/2005 10:47:28

blocked access to your computer (TCP Port 3382) from slashdot.org (66.35.250.150) (TCP Port 58758).
Time: 05/22/2005 10:47:30

blocked access to your computer (TCP Port 7032) from slashdot.org (66.35.250.150) (TCP Port 58760).
Time: 05/22/2005 10:47:32

blocked access to your computer (TCP Port 8002) from slashdot.org (66.35.250.150) (TCP Port 58762).
Time: 05/22/2005 10:47:34

blocked access to your computer (TCP Port 8090) from slashdot.org (66.35.250.150) (TCP Port 58765).
Time: 05/22/2005 10:47:36

SlashDot Port Scans Resulting From Parent Post

[Anonymous Coward]

When I posted the parent, SlashDot scanned the following ports:

2005/05/22,13:48:34 -5:00 GMT,12.163.148.9:12488,xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:33436,UDP
2005/05/22,13:56:40 -5:00 GMT,66.35.250.150:59658,xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:80,TCP
20 05/05/22,13:56:42 -5:00 GMT,66.35.250.150:59707,xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:444,TCP
2 005/05/22,13:56:44 -5:00 GMT,66.35.250.150:59757,xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:1080,TCP
2005/05/22,13:56:46 -5:00 GMT,66.35.250.150:59794,xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:3127,TCP
2005/05/22,13:56:48 -5:00 GMT,66.35.250.150:59841,xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:3128,TCP
2005/05/22,13:56:50 -5:00 GMT,66.35.250.150:59896,xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:6588,TCP
2005/05/22,13:56:52 -5:00 GMT,66.35.250.150:59960,xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:8000,TCP
2005/05/22,13:56:54 -5:00 GMT,66.35.250.150:60005,xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:8080,TCP
2005/05/22,13:56:56 -5:00 GMT,66.35.250.150:60042,xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:81,TCP
20 05/05/22,13:56:58 -5:00 GMT,66.35.250.150:60098,xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:1026,TCP
2005/05/22,13:57:00 -5:00 GMT,66.35.250.150:60139,xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:3124,TCP
2005/05/22,13:57:02 -5:00 GMT,66.35.250.150:60192,xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:3382,TCP
2005/05/22,13:57:04 -5:00 GMT,66.35.250.150:60234,xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:7032,TCP
2005/05/22,13:57:06 -5:00 GMT,66.35.250.150:60273,xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:8002,TCP
2005/05/22,13:57:08 -5:00 GMT,66.35.250.150:60330,xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx:8090,TCP

Again, why does SlashDot do port scans when I post?

Re:SlashDot Port Scans Resulting From Parent Post

[AndroidCat]

Proxy detection. This is to cut down on the jerks flooding with GNAA-Nazi-Montreal,Haha type drivel.

With Firewall Kazowie (plug plug) doing sound effects from the ZoneAlarm logs, it's pretty entertaining on the first post of the day with a new IP address.

Just make it up.

[rabidMacBigot()]

Agents (armed with) MP5 semi-automatic machine guns swooped in...

If you don't know what kind of weapons they had, MAKE IT UP and MAKE IT SOUND SCARY, even if it DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
Were they driving Volkswagen hatchback sport/racing pickup trucks? Was the house a four-story duplex ranch single-family apartment?

Re:Just make it up.

[ginotech]

Yeah, they were undoubtedly using M16A2 Automatic Rocket Launchers!

Re:Just make it up.

[bsquizzato]

I'm pretty sure an MP5 is a submachine gun. For the SWAT/military forces it can do a 1-round shot or 3-round burst shots. So okay, the author left off the sub- prefix. It'll be okay.

Re:not hackers.

[bioglaze]

Exactly. Hackers draw their power from the light side of Force, while crackers use the dark side. Palpatine may have been right that knowing both sides is optimal, but i prefer the light side.

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[lithium bandit]

Criminal Investigations are all about prosecution. They all have too many cases as it is, all of which they hope to get prosecuted. There's no way an agent will waste their time on an unprosecutable intrusion.

I suppose that's one point of view I hadn't given much consideration towards. But the fact is, I'll make a call to report an intrusion. If I get a response at all it's usually just "Fax us details". No one ever responds to the fax.

Now I suppose they might not respond because they don't think a single system or DMZ compromise is worth investigating, but honestly it never even gets to that point. I've seen credit card numbers being traded between folks in the US and Russia, I've seen IRC proxies that could be used to track back the sources of a 1000+ server bot net, but no one even bothers to investigate.

As a former hacker myself I'm loathe to exaggerate damages like the FBI encourages folks to do. I'm not going to claim a hack incident that the company could only afford to pay me 5 hours to investigate actually caused $500,000 in damages. My hourly rates aren't that high and the hackers shouldn't have to fight off spurious claims like that. The point is, no matter how inconsequential it may seem that a single bank DMZ was hacked and a few CC#'s were stolen.. it can very well lead to a giant cartel that has hacked 100 banks around the world. I don't have the authority to investigate to that extent, and no one in the FBI or the SS bothers to get the details.

FBI hacker

[rice_burners_suck]

You keep hearing about FBI, Secret Service or other law enforcement authorities involved in pursuing international cybercrime gangs, but who are those people and how does the cyberlaw enforcement work?

I always thought that somewhere in the FBI worked some geek that couldn't really accomplish anything, but for some reason, they couldn't just fire him. So when they realized that he's a computer geek, they gave him a computer and said, "Here, go after cyberhackers." What they didn't realize was that he'd actually take it seriously. So now there's a geek in some dark room at the FBI going after 1337 h4x0rz. And the FBI talks about it as if they have a department of 6,000 professional MSCE's tracking evil hackers out there.

Re:FBI hacker

[Anonymous Coward]

One of FBI geeks visited us a few years ago. He was very impressive. An MCSE is nowhere near enough to do what they're doing. They need details of kernel and network protocol. Even our state police now have a few pretty good hackers on staff.

Advertising (Re:SCO mydoom)

[GQuon]

Yes. Chosing SCO as a target seemed to me to have the following motivations for the crackers:

1: Advertising. They had a bot net that they wanted to demonstrate the power of. "Behold the might of our bots! It takes down SCO and Microsoft! Now pay protection money or your online casino is out of business."

2: Social engineering against administrators. Linux-users are more likely to be administrators and have other network-related jobs. The crackers might think that attacking SCO and Microsoft would gain them symphaty from some of the administrators.

3: The crackers don't like Microsoft. The security updates are a hindrance to them.

4: The crackers don't like Linux/BSD. Microsoft's saving graces, in the cracker's eyes, is that they at least used to make insecure software, and they made a monoculture fertile to malware. By casting the blame on "linux fans", they might hurt the image of the FOSS community.

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[Stonehand]

Hm. Makes one wonder if there's any way that corporate IP people would consider sharing information.

Seems unlikely, since companies don't like admitting that they've been compromised (unless forced to do so -- there's a relevant California law regarding customer data, IIRC), but if they pooled information on this sort (e.g. attack methods, pwn3d machines that they were attacked through, any apparent targets, etc) they might be able to better judge when it's worth spending resources on pursuing some possible ring. It might then be easier to hand off a dossier to the FBI and convince 'em that there's something going on.

Please Explain further?

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you elaborate on your explanation, please? How does scanning ports cut down on the "jerks"?

And what does "Firewall Kazowie" have to do with this process?

Re:Please Explain further?

[AndroidCat]

Slashdot blocks out the IP addresses and ranges of abusers. Abusers use proxies and zombies to relay their connection to Slashdot from somewhere else to avoid the blocks. Slashdot checks for common proxy/zombie software by attempting to connect to various ports and proxy connect through your machine back to Slashdot.

Firewall Kazowie reads ZoneAlarm logs and plays sounds effect wavs in real time depending which port was hit. On my box, I have a Star Trek themed sound effect on each port that Slashdot hits in sequence. Useless but entertaining.

Re:Please Explain further?

[iamcf13]

Scanning known proxy ports at incoming IPs and using them to access the Internet (or back to Slashdot.org) is proof that the incoming IP address is some sort of proxy. Probably Slashdot 'gave up' and have a strict 'No Proxies' policy to post here. If so, that keeps the crapflooding 'jerks' like the GNAA and the like out.

If you don't like the port scanning or can't stand to wait to post, don't post to Slashdot.

As for 'Firewall Kazowie', here is the blurb about it:

When the Internet becomes a battleground, you need cool sound effects!

Firewall Kazowie adds sound effects to your firewall by port/protocol, without affecting security. Now you can get real-time audio alerts when someone is knocking at your ports. (ZoneAlarm currently supported, XP SP2 Firewall next.) Build 1.0.1.1

This software is supported by feedback. Drop me a note if you've tried it.

Re:Please Explain further?

[AndroidCat]

But I'm running 1.0.1.4. (I guess I should update the build and description. :)

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree - but when you are Micro$oft or any other large corporation, they (FBI - and other authorities) are right there, eager to help out... But when it comes to a small company, entrapenaur, or any small individual, you are shown the door and told "Don't call us, we'll call you"... But then, as they say...

EQUAL JUSTICE FOR ALL!!! Right! Sure!!! tel me about it...

Spammers and Dictionary attackers virtually shut down my operations, until I went in and changed the source code to Sendmail and built a special version that would stall for 2 minutes when anyone tried to send mail to a non-existant user on my network.

Almost immediately, my mail service was back online, but the spammers got so pissed they visciously DDOS'ed my network, but my ISP was waiting for them (THANKFULLY) and we did some sneaky things to stop them.

We collected lots and lots of data and evidence, SNORT logs, and other data, all pointing to Russian IP addresses (YUK!!!) but were told through other victums that FBI don't even bother with Russian hackers anymore.

We also discovered a very large Russian ISP was owned and operated by the Russian Mafia when we learned how they responded to "Russian language" composed Abuse mail.
This tactic was quite revealing, and almost clinched by suspicions.

Russian authorities are quick to "look the other way" when it comes to apprehending the Russian spam gangs, because they know it draws in huge amounts of "hard currency" into the coffers of the Russian ISP's.

Same with the Chinese. The ISP's there get tons of hard currency for hosting spam operations and high volume mail relays, web sites, and other support services for spammers.

so - MONEY TALKS and BULLSHIT WALKS!!! and people need to realize that as long as spammers are making money, they're going to continue. And of course the burden in on John Q Public to NEVER putchase any of the crapola the spammers hock, and we already know of the huge number of totally clueless weenies are always going to be there, pumping in money, and as long as that happens, spamming, phishing, and other scumbag activities are going to continue.

Re:About time hackers get caught

[Anonymous Coward]

"For once something respected my love for it. An obsession was born."

Would someone get these two a room?

China is Worse

[Anonymous Coward]

The Chinese take a two-pronged approach to stealing American military secrets. The main approach is using their network of Taiwanese immigrants in the USA. Of the people arrested for stealing American military secrets to give to Beijing, the majority are Taiwanese immigrants.

The second approach is to hack into the computers of American national laboratories. Here, Taiwanese hackers often help Beijing. Of course, there are also hackers that hail directly from mainland China.

What a Joke!!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a nice fluff piece but the truth is that the Feds ignore 95% of all intrusions, unless it's some huge high profile company.

I was actually tracking one of the individuals that was indicted in the Shadowcrew, right before the bust happened and couldn't get the SS to even call me back. I had a huge archive of information to supply (aliases they didn't even know about, foreign banks accounts and corresponding corrdinates, IPs, etc) and these guys wouldn't even give me the time of day.

Pretty frustrating really as the fraud definitely went over their prosecuteable threshold. Had TONS of logs, histories, etc...

The Feds are friggin worthless if you ask me.

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[Anonymous Coward]

5cary (632356) stated

Unprosecutable because:
1) damages don't meet the threshold.
2) the system was unpatched and "invited" the hacker in - I hate this the most.
3) the system was not bannered "..by clicking ok, you agree to give up your expectation of privacy"... - also a stupid reason, but the case law is there.
4) the hostile systems are difficult to obtain evidence from (read: overseas, unfrienldy).
5) the hostile is obviously a script kiddie (stupid warez, IRC, etc.). Experience shows that the effort put forth to go after these idiots is not worth the 30 days probation a juvenile gets in MOST cases - damage dependant.


Can you post some links from a .gov site documenting these requirments? It would be nice to point the PHBs at it.

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, if you read Lenin books, you deserve to be on that list. Why do you hate our troops?

Re:not hackers.

[Kirkoff]

Not Crackers,

Corn Bread!

Just More FED FUD

[Halvy]

The article claims that shadowcrew is out-on-bond, and that the case is not even over yet. These guys (shadowcrew) will probably get an attorney who will explain that the Feds are nothing but a bunch of 'blow-hard-bastards', and that they should take the case all the way to court(s).

If this a case the Feds are 'proud' to give to BusinessWeek, I'd hate to see the ones they are *not* so proud to show us.

After all, the Feds don't even know where to look for these people.

I mean, they claim that alot of the so-called 'bad-guys' are in foreign countries like Russia, when even I know that they are in a place called *CyberSpace*.. :)

-- Don't hate me cuz I'm ugly

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[RM6f9]

So, in loose translation, the FBI doesn't have to/want to do their jobs with regard to cyber-crime because the Ass't. US Attorney won't do theirs unless it's just so glaring that the negative press might actually affect their mutual self-esteem? Net effect, the job doesn't get done, the average tax-paying citizen sees zero return on that fraction of the tax dollars we're paying (not quite zero, we get a shrug, "That's life."), oh, and by the way, both agencies are requesting MORE funds???

Re:The obvious...

[TerminaMorte]

I hate this self indulgant crap.



Mine is a world that begins with school... I'm smarter than most of the other kids, this crap they teach us bores me...


Bores you, or you're too stupid to learn. School isn't just about math and english, it's social skills.

Yes, I am a criminal. My crime is that of curiosity.
No, your crime is breaking the law and attacking people who you don't know for no other reason than you're bored.

News flash: being able to compile some script you got off IRC, using linux, or tricking someone does not make you a smart person.

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[5cary]

So, in loose translation, the FBI doesn't have to/want to do their jobs with regard to cyber-crime because the Ass't. US Attorney won't do theirs

You completely missed the point. There's *already* too much work. It's not a matter of not wanting to do their jobs, it's a matter of having way too much work already. Re-read my original post again, *slowly*, if you must.

Re:The obvious...

[tyldis]

Read it again and think of how a complete generation is becoming 'criminals' as we speak. Don't get caught up in the nonsense of the text.

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[RM6f9]

I missed your point, on purpose. Can you see how the issue might seem to someone who does not have your unique vantage point? There's too much work, so you choose the high-profile cases. There's too much work, so you let the small fry continue to break the law. There's too much work, so you need more funding... All of this is more than likely true, however: My point is, to the eye of an average tax-paying citizen, me, it seems very much as if, because the average tax-paying citizen doesn't have large enough businesses or large enough losses, we don't rate any protection at all, and only those who pay larger amounts in taxes or sustain larger losses (regardless of relative ability to *bear* such losses) get their issues even heard, much less addressed. Beyond a massive education initiative so that the people affected are better-prepared to protect themselves (hence reducing the amount of work your beleaguered department has), how would you recommend solving this dilemma? And, really, do we want citizens knowing that we must protect ourselves because the people in the agencies we pay to protect us are so overworked? Methinks that way may lie vigilantism, which seems to get prosecuted much more vigorously for some reason.... Maybe we average folks don't get to see nearly enough of what's going on - maybe some network exec could follow a day/week/month in the life of a law enforcement official in yet another reality show, bring it home that it's not all doughnuts and jaywalkers, but meantime, there's still that pesky problem of appearances. I'm just letting you know how it looks from out here...

Proof Law Enforcement Has All the Tools It Needs

[PingXao]

The cops admit they can't rely on technology alone, they have to get back to basics: gumshoe work, people-on-the-ground, infiltration of the bad guys.

Good for them. Now will lawmakers begin to realize that Law Enforcement for the most part already has all the tools they need to fight crime? There is no need to keep ramping up the powers they are granting to the cops every damn year that directly or indirectly erode personal liberty in this country?

I'm not holding my breath.

More Please? Any Good References, URLs?

[Anonymous Coward]

How can SlashDot tell that my machine is any different than a proxy server? I thought a good proxy server would look just like any other PC sitting out there?

I'm mostly an applications developer and I'm really lamentably unknowledgeable about all this. Could anyone recommend a good book(s) or some URLs that might bring me halfway up to speed about WTF is going on on the Internet, e.g., all this proxying et al? Jeez, I'm feeling lame!

The World as I see it

[python_kiss]

We must smoke out the cyber evil doers' and inforce freedom upon the internet people.

Re:The obvious...

[Stonehand]

Er, a large generation /might/ be becoming criminals, but with respect to computer crime that's a separate issue mostly -- file trading (and IIRC, many of them are probably only liable for civil suits so far since the bar for it becoming a criminal matter is fairly high). That's a lot more common of an offense than anything that might be considered hacking by even the most generous definitions.

As for the manifesto itself, it's absurd and incredibly egocentric. "Judging people by what they look like"? No; we're going to judge you by your actions, if you get caught trying to manipulate somebody else's bank account. A suspect's age, or lack thereof, is irrelevant other than one might actually get *leniency* if the court thinks that the accused is just a temporarily stupid kid who'll grow out of it if given another chance. A 43-year-old man of sound mind who should damn well know better by his age is probably more likely to get the book thrown at him.

Doesn't matter if you're fat or an athlete; precocious or not; curious or, er, not; living in your parent's basement like an impoverished vampire, or bedding every prom queen in a three-state area. The ethics and consequences of an act don't fundamentally change. Figuring out how one's DVD player handles CSS or figuring out how to update the data in your car's navigation system is still pretty spiffy, but spending one's time releasing worms that consume bandwidth and memory while forcing victims to figure out whether the worm could have installed any backdoors is still damaging -- and the more intelligent one is, the less excuse there is for not having thought of the consequences.

*snort*

Yet more rambling could take apart the whole "bored with school" line, as well. I knew a bloody lot of people who excelled academically; the most extreme might have been a person who (by the finish of her high school years) mastered calculus by about 13 or so, was fluent in multiple languages from different linguistic families, also played a musical instrument IIRC, and still somehow found the time to be a competent athlete. The 'smarter than her teachers' claim that often radiates from somewhat bright youngsters might actually have been true in her case, but instead of using this an obnoxious "I'm smart enough that your ethics don't apply to me" card, she and her parents simply raised the bars very, very high.

I read the article

[briancnorton]

I subscribe to businessweek, and I was totally underwhelmed by the story. The entire thing centers around the breakup of the shadowcrew. No technical means were employed to do this. It happened because someone rolled on the organization. They used the informant to tell everyone to come online for a meeting and busted down their respective doors in traditional FBI style. How is this a group of elite FBI hackers? It's traditional law enforcement!

Re:I read the article

[proberts]

Then again, they had to get enough on the person they rolled to get them to cooperate. Somebody did some work there.

Paul

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[dhammabum]

As with RM6f9, I have some sympathy with the problems of law enforcement. But $50,000??? This means that anyone can physically break into a business, steal less than $50,000 and not be prosecuted? Oh, that wouldn't be a federal offence? What happens when that person crosses a state line? Will they be prosecuted then? Of course they will.

All this clearly is not acceptable. If there aren't enough officers to handle this, it is up to the authorities to secure better funding so they can handle what is clearly a massive problem.

Re:About time hackers get caught

[tpearson]

His mom's basement doesn't count?

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[5cary]

to the eye of an average tax-paying citizen, me, it seems very much as if, because the average tax-paying citizen doesn't have large enough businesses or large enough losses, we don't rate any protection at all

That's just it... The thresholds are high - not because those are the glamerous cases (the vast majority are sensitive enough NOT to make it to the press), but because they have the greatest impact on our society, and hence, the taxpayers. For example:

a) A Government contractor housing sensitive information is compromised. The cost to the taxpayer is not obvious, but it *is* there. And it's a greater cost than you might imagine. Compromised technology and data exfiltration -- funded by taxpayers like you.

b) your company's website is brutalized, and perhaps the customer database is somehow compromized. The cost in rebuiding the servers is (if it's really big) around $10,000 in man hours. Explain to me how a price will be put on the customer database. This will have to be done by the already overworked prosecuter in court (assuming it ever gets there). Prosecution and sentencing are based on damage to society, in most cases.

Which one do you think the FBI is most interested in (for the sake of the taxpayer)? In the case of the first, *all* taxpayers bear a burden. In the case of the second... not so much.

Understand this. Cybercrime investigators are overworked well beyond what you can imagine. A threshold *has* to be established. If you fall below that threshold, I'm sorry. Secure your systems.

The days of sending out the fire department to get little kitty out of the tree are over. This has nothing to do with "ignoring the little guy". It's economy of resources.

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[5cary]

Can you post some links from a .gov site documenting these requirments? It would be nice to point the PHBs at it.

I wish I could. That list is based on plain old experience. There's no way they'd ever admit to that. Although, as you can see from the other comments, it pretty obvious.

Those are not "documented" requirements. They are plain realities.

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[5cary]

This means that anyone can physically break into a business, steal less than $50,000 and not be prosecuted? Oh, that wouldn't be a federal offence?

First, that's not in every jurisdiction. Just in some of the more overworked ones. The threshold is not just a total of what was stolen, it includes man hours (for recovery and [non LE] investigation), along with other resources.

Second, it's still a federal offence. Speeding is still speeding, even if you pass a cop doing 65 in a 55. But does he stop you? If the cop tried to stop eveyone doing 65 in a 55, he'd never get the guy doing 80 (and the real danger).

it is up to the authorities to secure better funding so they can handle what is clearly a massive problem

I agree. And I'm willing to take donations.

Re:The obvious...

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's Commie bullshit!"

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry but your attitude seems to be that just because you can't measure the cost of something that you assume it to be less, although I grant that you have to use some metric, even if it's a purely instinctive one.

Also, how many websites have to be defaced before the perceived cost adds enough such that action can be taken?

What's wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

MP5 submachines gues are common among police agencies across the nation. No, it's not JUST a counterstrike weapon.

Cut the author some slack, it was a long article that focused on the tracking part, not the arrests.

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[cojsl]

translation: Commit multiple $50,000 crimes across multiple jurisdictions, and there are no consequences?!?!?

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't the FBI have a duty to prevent crimes, not just catch the people who commit them?

Re:The "H" word - Ain't gonna happen

[Anonymous Coward]

Give it up; language is dynamic and the current use of the word is, and will remain, perjorative.

It ain't gonna change, anymore than "gay" is going to revert to being a synonym for "happy", "discriminating" is ever going to revert to meaning "showing good judgement", or the French are ever going to win their battle to keep their language unsullied by terms like "Fax" and "Blue Jeans".

Eventually, the battle is lost.

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[Anonymous Coward]

The days of sending out the fire department to get little kitty out of the tree are over. This has nothing to do with "ignoring the little guy". It's economy of resources.

No, it's the proof that we do in fact live in a fascist police state. Everyone is a criminal. Everyone. there is a law you just broke, and ignorance of the law is not a defense. But the thing is everyone is a criminal (aiding and abetting a criminal is a crime, you read slashdot therfore you have read comments that make you aware of numerous peoples blatent abuse of copyright law, Therefor You Are A Criminal.)

But because cracking down on the 'hardcore' law breakers (as defined by Our Supreme leader) is more important than arresting every singly minor offense of the law (such as aiding and abetting) it's somehow 'okay.' The days when a police officer could spend his afternoon looking for kittens to rescue from trees is over, but not because there are more bad people, rather because our government is a facist police state, rather than a freedom loving democracy. If this country stood for freedom, then Everyone Wouldn't Be a Criminal. but everyone is, this is why america is a police state. And because america is a police state, we are loosing out to genuine freedom loving democracies.

We would have plenty of resource to fight terrorists, and murderers, and the like, if this country didn't have to keep inventing more laws that people are breaking just by seeking out more information.

If we lived in a freedom loving democracy, there wouldn't be a clamour about 'cyber crime' Like you say, security is your own business. it isn't the cops duty to arrest the guy before he breaks into your house and murders you and steals all your valuables. it's thier job to find the guy, after he's commited several grevious crimes against humanity. Thought Crime is an invention of a police state, to 'prevent' crime before it happens. The role of enforcment agencies is not prevention... it's enforcment. what about foriegn terrorists? well, for one thing foriegners don't have the rights of a citizen, so preventing 'foriegners' from commiting terrorism is completly reasonable, even in a non-police state, however, a non-police state will have relatively few enemies abroad, unless they are simply jealous and envious... but America is a police state, so it's a moot point, we have and will continue to have serious threats from abroad, because WE are a threat to liberty and democracy around the globe.

I'm going to post anon, coz I don't want this to be modded down under my account but I'm kesuki (321456)

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[TheKidWho]

LOL

Im sure thats why the freedom loving arabs are attacking us, because we threaten their democracies hahahahhaha.

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no way they'd ever admit to that.

I can bet. You pretty much just told me that if I stay under $25,000 worth of damages, I don't have to worry about the law coming after me. And I can even do that several times, until you're able to figure out that the attacks are coming from the same person--but you'll never know to link several identities together, 'cause you're not taking the calls of the guys that got hit for that amount.

The shifting definition

[Neoncow]

I find it sad that my younger relatives now use the term 'gay' to describe anything that they think is wrong (unjust, unfair, absurd).

Everytime I hear someone say "That's gay!" it makes me cringe. How's that for brainwashing the young?

Re:The shifting definition

[solarrhino]

You cringe? Why? Why is this any worse than the redefinition of the word to mean homosexual? I'd say that effort was worse, because it was a deliberate, coordinated "re-branding", cynically co-opting a positive, happy word. I, for one, refuse to refer to homosexuality or homosexuals as "gay". Why should I allow myself to be manipulated? Instead, I don't use "gay" at all. As far as I'm concerned, all that the homosexual advocates have accomplished is the pointless destruction of a word. While I don't approve of this new usage that you describe either, don't expect many tears from me if you are upset by it. If the word's meaning hadn't be twisted in the first place, it wouldn't be happening now.

Re:The shifting definition

[xQx]

I think that's a natural evolution of the word... I know I always say "That's GAY!" when things are wrong... but it's like a yo mumma joke, I'm not actually thinking about your mother, neither do I think that Microsoft Word has sex with other same-sex programs...

On a similar note, people commonly use "you're a faggot for having that" which means 'I'm jealous of you for having that' around here. Go figure.

Re:Pfft. They care so much.

[xQx]

> Why do you hate our troops?
Because I don't live in your country.

Why do your troops occupy so much of the globe when no war is declared?
Why do you even need troops, if your lifestyle is so good, why would you ever need to use deadly force to convince others you're right?
If you don't read Lenin books, how can you know you don't agree with him?

Well those are really rhetorical questions, but here's an interesting question:

Do you, your troops, or your government care that half your population and most of the rest of the world hate them? Last I heard the job of your troops was to protect the interests of your government (and in theory, you) ... not win a popularity contest.

you shouldn't waste your time

[Anonymous Coward]

when they grow up and become productive they will be replaced.... new kids.
Just secure your system already and quit fighting kids.