Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Swede Hacks Embassy Account Information From Around the World

Posted by Zonk on from the around-the-world-in-an-address-book dept.

paulraps writes "A Swedish IT consultant has caused a stir in diplomatic circles after publishing a list of secret log-in details belonging to 100 embassies, public authorities and political parties around the world. Dan Egerstad said he wasn't trying to earn money, gain publicity or get a name for himself in hacking circles. Instead he claimed that publishing the list was easier than contacting the organizations individually — and that if he had handed it to the Swedish authorities then that would have been spying."

11 of 92 comments (clear)

  1. Not after fame, eh? by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then why not publish the list anonymously?

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
  2. Competent hacker, poor social engineer by SavvyPlayer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Anonymously giving the list to a local newspaper would have achieved the stated objective.

    1. Re:Competent hacker, poor social engineer by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...and also would've caused a LOT of trouble for both, him and the newspaper publishing it. Not everywhere on this planet journalists enjoy the right to keep their sources secret.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Good intentions? by eln · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not sure what he was thinking when he decided that publishing the list would be the best way to draw the attention of the affected parties. Sure, calling 100 different embassies can be kind of a hassle, but he could just send out an email with a bunch of BCCs. I would assume he has an email address for each of them.

    Maybe this guy just doesn't have the same sense of self preservation that I do, but in my work I tend to avoid doing things that have the potential to cause a major international incident.

    1. Re:Good intentions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "he could just send out an email with a bunch of BCCs"

      Thats basically what he did. It doesn't sound like this list is very public. Its just making its way around the so-called "diplomatic" circles.

      Let's look at this from another angle. He quietly published this list, and probably notified all the affected embassies. Then, at least some of the embassies, and a few news outlets, verify the list. Then, at least some of the embassies change the passwords. Then, those news outlets are able to get comments from the embassies and the guy, and then, publish a story on it. All this happened before YOU found out about it.

      I say its a little early to fault the guy, since what he did is working just fine. Had he contacted each embassy individually, he would have had to convince each one over several emails or phone conversations. This way, he probably only had to talk to a few news outlets / embassies. Had he published the list in a local paper (i laughed out loud at this one) as another slasher suggested, the general public would probably have read copies of the emails in the affected accounts before the embassies ever knew there was a problem.

  4. Because.... by erareno · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If he DID publish the list anonymously, then the list could just as easily been dismissed (through political agreements) as completely inaccurate/wrong.

    1. Re:Because.... by kevin_conaway · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If he DID publish the list anonymously, then the list could just as easily been dismissed (through political agreements) as completely inaccurate/wrong.

      I don't see how having a random strangers name attached to the list makes the data published any more or less accurate.

    2. Re:Because.... by Vellmont · · Score: 3, Insightful


      I don't see how having a random strangers name attached to the list makes the data published any more or less accurate.

      It doesn't, obviously. Publishing anonymously makes it easier for governments to simply SAY the published information is inaccurate. Having someone that's standing behind that statement makes it more difficult to play that game. People don't tend to trust anonymous sources. Look no further than slashdot for evidence of that (where anonymous is different from a pseudonym).

      --
      AccountKiller
  5. Re:The real truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can't see the problem. He's not American. He's Swedish.

    The Swedes don't persecute their citizens. And they don't let other countries like the US persecute them either. So he's quite correct that he's safe.

    If this had happened in the US, you would be scared to do anything. What a country! This is what you can do if you're free, but you can't do it in the land of the free!

  6. Re:The real truth by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He claimed that by publishing the list he saved himself trouble.

    Sure it does. Let's watch and learn... I'm not Sweedish, but I feel safe in speculating that even there, hacking someone's email and reading it is illegal.

    "I haven't logged in to anyone's account, but I can read their email," he said.

    Typical hacker, thinks the authorities are really interested fixing this sort of thing, if only they knew. I'll bet they did know, and now they're more pissed off than ever since their spy agencies can no longer access these accounts.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  7. Re:Safety of the limelight by DragonWriter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You can't simply make someone disappear when he's in the center of attention.


    You can make them really and verifiably dead, however; perhaps under suspicious circumstances, but you can make it difficult to prove anything and discover or invent material to discredit anyone peddling "conspiracy theories" connecting you to it. Which, ultimately, acheives the same result as the whole disappearing thing.