Slashdot Mirror
Comcast Briefly Loses Control of Its Domain Name
Fallen Andy notes that Comcast, one of the largest US ISPs, lost control of its domain name to what appeared to be juvenile social engineers of the old school — i.e. not in it for the money. The intruders got into Comcast's registrar account at Network Solutions and repointed the domain's DNS records. A blog entry at SANS points out how trivially easy this can be. Reader ElvenKnight points out an insightful interview up at Wired with the two young guys who perpetrated the hack.
the two kids who perpetrated the hack
How much do you bet the feds will come down hard on the kids and charge then with felony, cyber-"terrorism" or some other preposterous computer crime? I used to do harmless hacks for fun in years past, but these days it's not really wise.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
Other websites that I know of have had this happen in the past, and the common trend seems to be that Network Solutions has been their domain registrar. The largest site in recent memory that this occurred to other than Comcast was SomethingAwful.
Perhaps it's a sign of a more underlying flaw in Network Solutions' security?
Wanna know why? Because they called Comcast and could get in touch with a HUMAN!
Now *THAT'S* hacking.
It wasn't even that Comcast's domain expired. The pair involved in this managed to gain access to Comcast's Network Solutions control panel and had full authoritative control over the domains.
Apparently, according to the linked articles, they pulled it off twice, too. This wasn't a case of "oh sweet, that's not registered anymore, yoink", it was a case of actual wresting of control.
The question is if the weakness in security lies with Comcast (i.e. a weak password for the panel) or Network Solutions (i.e. weakness in their portal, weak transmission of passwords, etc).
It was the Slowskys.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Recent memory, my eye. This same thing happened to my old zine in 1999, and the trick was already old hat back then. We even published a how-to article about it, since our specialty was old tricks everyone already thought were lame.
The best part: Network Solutions were of absolutely no help to us in getting our own domain back from the hijackers, so we ended up having to use the same trick to just steal it back again. Three times.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
not commenting on the hack, but the fact that a human being actually set up a tricorder in his(or his parents) bathroom to take a picture of himself using a bong, and then posted it on myspace.....
Monstar L
Actually, what you describe (violent act intending to cause intimidation) is not necessarily terrorism. It could be the legitimate use of force, the result of an armed robbery, or a simple assault.
This is why I developed:
Ubuwalker's 6 pronged guide to determining if a person or entity is a terrorist:
1) Did they intend to cause mass terror? [This is an objective test; just because something is scary, doesn't make it terrorism.]
2) Did they use violence or threat of violence? [This rules out non-violent protesters, but includes activities related to violence, like arson]
3) Did they deliberately (and routinely) target non-combatant civilians? [Actions that target military personnel aren't terrorism. An entity which is involved in isolated and infrequent acts which meet criteria 1-6 are more characteristic of war crimes, rather than terrorism, as they might be revenge attacks or guerrilla attacks of opportunity, or of splinter cells, or accidental engagements of civilian target, or engagements of legitimate military targets where civilian combatant are killed, and thus would not be indicative of a systematic policy of engaging in terrorism]
4) Are they a non-governmental organization? [otherwise the action is a war-crime or crime against humanity or piracy or the actor is a State Sponsor of Terrorism]
5) Did they have a political goal? [This rules out ordinary criminals and vandals and street thugs and normal military action]
6) Do they disguise themselves or pretend that they are ordinary civilians? [This goes to the fundamentally unlawful nature of terrorism, by not acting under the color of the laws of war or international law, and thereby putting civilians at risk of attack or collateral damage]
If you don't meet all of these criteria, or find yourself arguing that a group doesn't meet a prong, then you might be dealing with something other than terrorism. Like Piracy (missing prong 5), ordinary military action (lacking 3 and 4 and 6), covert government operations (lacking 4), war crimes (lacking 4), paramilitary/freedom fighters/insurgents (lacking 1, 3).
A State Sponsor of Terrorism provides support to non-governmental entities engaged in terrorist activities. It is fair to say that a leader who supports terrorism is himself a terrorist, sort of like how its fair to say an accessory to murder is a murderer. However, deliberately targeting civilians/ethnic cleansing/genocide is a war crime, and calling war criminals terrorists just confuses the issue.
Hackers and script kiddies are just ordinary criminals. If Al Queda launched a cyber attack to knock out a hospitals computer infrastructure, that would be terrorism.