Slashdot Mirror
Fox Hacks Fark
circletimessquare writes "Valleywag.com is reporting on a case of a hacker not covering his tracks. It seems that, via a targeted email, an admin at Fark.com downloaded a trojan, which was used to steal passwords for Fark servers. Notably, these activities were traced to an IP address in Memphis Tennessee, and to a Fox News new-media reporter. As to the veracity of the story, that is bolstered by the fact that the story was greenlit for the front page of Fark. Motive? That could range from Fark being a rumored Fox takeover target, to stealing source code for a competing Fox social networking site. If the story is true, laws have been broken, but perhaps not by the Fox News reporter: it's possible his computer was hacked as well. Whatever the truth, it's a very entertaining read, as it pushes a number of hot buttons."
Fox is an internet hate machine.
So, did this Phillips guy develop the trojan that stole the Fark passwords? Did this guy minor in CompSci?
So a news anchor has hacked Fark in an attempt to possibly steal source code for their own social networking site?
This apparently isn't your average local anchor.
Jim
RunFatBoy ( http://www.runfatboy.net/ ) - A workout plan for beginners.
Maybe fox can do a report on themselves now. Investigative journalism hits a new low. And I'm not quite sure the "it's for an article excuse will fly this time"
If the ongoing RIAA shenanigans have taught us nothing else, it's that IP does NOT equal personal Identity.
Fox News Reporter == Journalist?
Well, actually, even my own biased opinion wouldn't label most Fox employees as 'not journalists' - but everytime I consider the Fox news network as a whole, I just can't think of it as a news network.
Ryan Fenton
When you're done clearing your throat, mind telling us what the title of the story is?
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
Why would Fox buy Fark? For starters, Fark gets a ton of traffic. They have a ton of paying subscribers.
They are probably not after the source code or anything that ridiculous. They are pulling the same stunt they did a few months back with Photobucket -- give them negative publicity and drive down the bidding prices (assuming Fark is on the market). If you recall, Photobucket sold for like 1/3 of the original price because MySpace -- owned by Fox -- broke the linkage between their servers and Photobucket. Dirty, but brilliant.
Too bad Fark didn't fall for it. Go get 'em Drew!!!
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine -- Robert C. Gallagher
Fox News Channel is an entirely different thing than a local Fox affiliate, even one that is owned by News Corp. The summary above should make that more clear.
He just wanted a catchy on-air slogan for when he jumped back over to the local NBC affiliate.
"Darrell Phillips... HACK-tion News 5!"
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
Absolutely... obviously the Wall Street Journal was just a stepping stone before moving on Fark for Rupert Murdock... someone should be asking what did Karl Rove know and when did he know it? Perhaps this is why he suddenly resigned.
Probably not a good idean to say that out loud three times quickly in front of the kids.
Undead Ed
Wait, the fact that it was greenlit on Fark indicates that it is true?
No, the fact that is was greenlit by Fark and that it unblinkingly bashes Fox does that. If it had been an IP address at NPR, that would be different. Then there would have be peer review, done by Digg.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Really... is there anything remarkable about the source code that runs sites like fark or slashdot. I hand-rolled my own similar aggregator in a few days and it's evident that the users make the community and not the software.
Short of collecting personal information, I can't see what value is there.
Come on. Who hasn't hacked fark?
Err... I mean... yeah... this is terrible. Terrible I tell you.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
From the article, "Phillips also purchased, using PayPal, a paid subscription to TotalFark, a premium Fark service. The accounts all used the same IP addresses as the hacker." This makes it look a lot more like it was actually the individual. This is not just a case of the attack coming from an IP of a possibly compromised computer.
For it to be a different individual, someone would have had to compromise the PayPal account of Phillips without him noticing. I expect there would be a shocked response from Phillips if this had been the case. Instead, the website of Darrell Phillips seems to be blank today.
if the admins on fark are willing to link the story to the front page, then the story is probably true. fark would not link this to their front page and the story was unverified unless they were really really stupid. and who could verify it? well, howabout fark itself?
otherwise, fox could turn around and cry foul themselves, a smear campaign, perhaps libel, etc. if valleywag.com made this up or has a bad source, fark would not link to the story, and they would know better than anyone else
then there is the whole liberal bias thing: no. fark is not a liberal website #1, they are pretty even handed with the conservative and liberal spun links. and #2, even if fark were liberal, if you are going to smear someone, you don't stick your neck out in this way. you smear them in such a way that someone else's reputation is on the line. fark is putting it's own reputation on the line by questioning fox's reputation here. you don't want blowback here, which fark certainly would get if it got out the story was phony, and it would permanently diminish fark's good name (such as it is) if this was a phony story. thus the care involved in greenlighting the story or not
so it's a rare case of the story being about the news, and one of the players in the story being a news aggregator site. what that means is is that you have an added level of verification automatically involved right there that you would not otherwise have
however, in fox's defense, if you want to talk about smearing someone, i can think of no better devilish smear than hacking a fox news reporter's computer, and framing the guy as a hacker. brilliant
but in such a case, you would expect the reporter to immediately allay with fark in just as much anger, anger at getting framed, and demand from his cable provider comcast records of inbound ip connections to his computer in the time frame outbound connections to fark were discovered by fark. any sheepishness, avoidance, or reticence on the reporter's part would pretty much spell doom for the guy's reputation
and note that: the reporter's reputation. i don't at all think this is the work of news corp, rupert murdoch, or even the local fox tv station. if the reporter is guilty, he's obviously just a lone idiot, not part of some vast conservative conspiracy
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I put up an aggregator for a myself and a few other disaffected farkers and it was coded from scratch in about a day, and even to date has probably less than two man weeks of coding in it.
I'm not sure how you could be smart enough to set up a trojan to gather passwords but not either run your own OS forum or code one from scratch.
it's not rocket science
He'll get over it. /last post
I've always been a fan of your posts on k5, fark and here and would love to see you over on bannination.
"Hoooney, come upstairs for dinner! I made meatloaf..."
"Not now Mom, I'm CALLING PEOPLE FUCKTARDS ON THE INTERNET!!"
i'm trying to build my own news aggregator (stay tuned)
;-)
so either we can meet on the field of battle, or maybe even team up
cheers
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Where did Fark's BOOB section go?
Ave Molech Setting
Paypal would inform him right away if his account had been compromised. In fact, this happened to me and paypal informed me in an email; the email had a link to a website where I could enter my paypal password and fix the problem.
I'm not sure where all my money went though.
Your dedication as an ideologue is impressive, and appropriate for a story involving Fox and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp.
That's right, just keep telling yourself Rupert Murdoch isn't in it for the money...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Slashdot had better be on the lookout. Somebody might send CmdrTaco a trojan in an attempt to steal the Slashcode!
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
hello, i wrote that summary
...and, btw, there's nothing wrong with rupert murdoch seeding his conservative point of view in his media acquisitions. it's a free country, and his media conglomerate has obviously done quite well financially by addressing a conservative fan base. good for him, good for fox news (local and national)
it's not just an affiliate, it's not just getting house, 24, and the simpsons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHBQ-TV
it's owned by rupert murdoch. if you hadn't noticed, murdoch has a pretty solid track record of seeding his media acquisitions with his particular conservative point of view
however, it is certainly disingenuous of you to think that distancing fox affiliates from each other is supposed to instill innoculation for fox (national) from implication for this hack
no: the proper way for you to innoculate fox from the implications of any wrongdoing here is to point out, compellingly and reasonably, that this is probably the actions of a lone idiot, not fox news (local) or fox news (national)
IF this guy is guilty (and he could be hacked and framed himself), i think it is certain the guy is just a lone idiot. the question being: why would fox hack fark? there's no valid reason for them to do that. but there is a valid reason for a new media reporter trying to build a social networking site to do that
having said that (that the hacking in question here most definitely is not representative of fox news), it is intellectually dishonest of you to draw distance between a local fox station and the national one in this case as a defensive posture. they are all owned by rupert murdoch. maybe you just didn't know, but it sounds like you're spinning
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I smell BS - probably a marketing campaign by Fark. How many technologically adept admins do you know that fall for such easy e-mail tricks? Nice try. Let's keep the "I have Fox" to the facts, not idiotic statements like this.
I seriously doubt it, because if this was pure BS cooked up by the Fark admins they would have to be absolute fools to assign blame to a person (Phillips.) If they didn't have pretty damning evidence then he would have pretty good grounds for a defamation lawsuit (and possibly might end up owning Fark. Literally, not in the "Owned" sense.)
Not that the Fark "Farkers" aren't hyping this to be more than it is by the Fox association, making it seem like Bill O'Reilly is trying to take them down, when in reality it's a local reporter who may or may not be acting alone... But I would really be surprised if these allegations were just pulled out of thin air.
Oh, and knowing a little about Fark, there are many admins who serve as moderators of the discussions but have nothing to do with site maintenance. Not that they shouldn't be wiser about email tricks but these folks may be far from "technologically adept."
What you don't know is that WHBQ Fox 13 is a local news affiliate, and not related to the Fox News Channel in any way. Generally these local news teams will resort to "extreme" or "Undercover" journalism in an attempt to grab viewers.
Sounds like you are banned. That's what they do. Much less confrontational that way.