Slashdot Mirror


UK, Not North Korea, Is Source of DDoS Attacks

angry tapir writes "The UK was the likely source of a series of attacks last week that took down popular Web sites in the US and South Korea, according to an analysis performed by a Vietnamese computer security researcher. The results contradict assertions made by some in the US and South Korean governments that North Korea was behind the attack. Security analysts had been skeptical of the claims, which were reportedly made in off-the-record briefings and for which proof was never delivered." The Vietnamese security site's blog is linked from the article, but it is very slow even before Slashdotting. The researchers observed 166,908 zombies participating in the attacks — a number far larger than most earlier estimates.
Update: 07/14 21:24 GMT by KD : Wired is reporting that the UK owner of the IP address in question is pointing a finger at a server in Florida, which it says opened a VPN to the UK machine for the attacks. Once again, the attacker could be anywhere.

175 comments

  1. However.... by Blixinator · · Score: 3, Funny

    North Koreans are still told that the mighty leader Kim-Jong Il brought down the evil western internet.

    --
    "The Y chromosome is genetic. The odds are very good that if you are male then your father was too." -Internet Commenter
    1. Re:However.... by rs79 · · Score: 1

      The packets I saw were coming from the US. Maybe it was something different.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    2. Re:However.... by icebike · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTFA: Zombies. Botnet.

      It takes coordinated digging to follow the botnet control channel upstream, especially if the botnet runs disconnected the vast majority of the time.

      As a target, you would only see packets from the particular bot that was dosing you.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    3. Re:However.... by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Plus I imagine the liberal use of proxies would screw you up too.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    4. Re:However.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, I don't understand... Wouldn't malicious software like this always spoof the IP? I don't see what benefit they could have by not doing so in a DDoS attack.

    5. Re:However.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most North Koreans don't even know what the internet is...

    6. Re:However.... by icebike · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can't spoof an IP thru a router you don't control.

      The router immediately upstream of your bot always knows where the packet came from regardless of what IP you might try to force into said packet.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    7. Re:However.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to think of "spoof[ing] the IP" as some sort of switch you can flip to mask where you're coming from. It doesn't work like that. Most DSL/cable modems won't let you spoof your IP, and that's where most of the attacks in this DDoS came from. Routers are supposed to prevent spoofing, too.

    8. Re:However.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see. I never really thought that it was part of the protocol itself and assumed it was information sent in a header. Thank you for clearing that up for me.

    9. Re:However.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Most North Koreans don't even know what the internet is...

      @North Korea: Its a series of tubes...

    10. Re:However.... by tattood · · Score: 0

      Setting the source IP, is exactly something you can flip. There is software, which is essentially a traffic generator, and you can set the source and destination IP address, regardless of the IP address on the system, so that is absolutely possible. Now, regarding your assertion that cable modems wont allow you to spoof your IP, I don't know about that. And yes, most routers have the ability to prevent source spoofing, but whether or not they enable that on every router at every ISP, I doubt it.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    11. Re:However.... by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, it sort of is. The IP datagram specifies the source ("from") and destination ("to") IP addresses (1). (The IP address identifies a connection to the internet; on the "local" side of that connection there may be only one computer or there may be a network of computers; if there is more than one computer, the router has to be set up to know which computer to forward packets to, either by configuring it to open certain incoming ports to one computer or by establishing a connection from that computer going out, which the router can then keep open for the duration of the connection.)

      However the source/destination ports are actually specified in the TCP headers (2). Ports are typically thought of as representing which service on the destination computer is being requested (HTTP, FTP, SMTP, etc.), but the port will also help the router in a multi-computer network route incoming packets, e.g. a rule may be set to route all packets addressed to port 80 to a particular computer which is set up to serve web pages (port 80 is the standard port on which all web servers "listen" for connections); packets addressed to port 25 on the other hand can be routed to a computer set up to run the e-mail system (port 25 is used by SMTP servers), which may not be the same computer as the one running the HTTP server. The TCP headers are followed by the data, and together the TCP headers/data form the data portion of the IP layer's datagram.

      If the return IP is incorrect, you'll never get a response, of course. Since there's no legitimate reason to do this, and since the IP datagram is a standard format, modems/routers can be programmed to check the packets and ensure that the "from" IP is, in fact, correct.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    12. Re:However.... by tattood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Source of C&C server != Source of the people responsible.

      A C&C server is just another botnet PC that has additional software on it to tell other bots what to do. The human controller logs into their hacked C&C server and programs the instructions for the bots to pull down. You really think the botnet controllers are stupid enough to host their own Command and Control servers at their own site?

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
    13. Re:However.... by Josh04 · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't they? "Oh hey, we have the option to stop fake traffic being spammed through our network untraceably. Hmm, better not turn it on, who knows what might happen?!"

    14. Re:However.... by Nathrael · · Score: 1

      That's because only old people...eh, wait. Wrong Korea.

      --
      A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
    15. Re:However.... by A.Gideon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can't spoof an IP thru a router you don't control.

      It depends upon what you mean. You *can* send a package with a forged source IP through a router you don't control. It requires that nothing filter on the "bad" source IP (which is still far too common, from what I've read). This also would never get a successful TCP connection; you could send a SYN this way but the ACK would never get back to you (it would be sent to the forged source instead).

      But this can be enough for a DOS.

      Honestly, though, I'm not sure how important source IP spoofing is nowadays. There are so many MSFT machines participating in one more more zombie armies that spoofing would seem to add little value. The attacks really are coming from all over.

    16. Re:However.... by WitheringtonSmythe · · Score: 1

      They rely heavily on querying the evil bit.

    17. Re:However.... by stfvon007 · · Score: 1

      The traffic may have been coming from the UK and US, but it was Kim-Jong Il who posted the links to the sites on slashdot, thereby bringing the sites to their knees!

      --
      All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
    18. Re:However.... by SkyDude · · Score: 1

      North Koreans are still told that the mighty leader Kim-Jong Il brought down the evil western internet.

      You mean it was the Queen who did it? Or was it Charles?

      --
      == First cross river, then insult alligator.
    19. Re:However.... by shentino · · Score: 2, Funny
      Almost true, except that once the packet gets into the global routing system, it's impossible to authenticate the source, as the packet literally could have come from anywhere.

      The only assurance that the alleged sourcing network is legitimate is that the true sourcing network is properly filtering out emigrating martians. Not all networks do their part here, and any network far enough up the hierarchy soon can make few if any assumptions about where their packets come from.

    20. Re:However.... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      Problem, is that most bots are made up of compromised machines, and even they can be rerouting their attack vectors to ping from a different address, I agree though, there usually are a few layers to the botnet
      (botnet to control a botnet)....so most REAL botnet admins will never place their true botnet in jeopardy, when they can take control of a competitor's and let them do the attack vectors and get caught.

    21. Re:However.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly, you can set the bits in the IP header however you like. The point is that there are often safeguards against it in order to prevent the exact type of attack that is being described.

      Furthermore, if you actually need to complete a connection, you can't do it unless you are close to the victim.

      Most cable/dsl modems prevent spoofing as a measure to prevent poaching.

  2. ff=on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    friendly fire

  3. Oh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why should we believe this report over the other ones? Slashdot mentality always seems to be that any contradicting reports beat the initial report.

    1. Re:Oh? by Volante3192 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if it was an attack ordered by North Korea, there's no chance the actual payloads originated there. You could likely fit all of NK's network on a Class C without NAT and have room to spare.

    2. Re:Oh? by dimeglio · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point here is that new information was presented which might help find the real "bad guys." I don't see how this "beats" the first report.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    3. Re:Oh? by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Slashdot mentality always seems to be that any contradicting reports beat the initial report.

      No it doesn't.

      (waits for the +5 insightful mod)

    4. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Slashdot mentality always seems to be that any contradicting reports beat the initial report.

      No it doesn't.

      (waits for the +5 insightful mod)

      +1 Funny

    5. Re:Oh? by AdamTrace · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well this isn't an argument!

    6. Re:Oh? by mistahkurtz · · Score: 1

      i see what you did there

      --
      not only is time travel possible, it's irrelevant.
    7. Re:Oh? by niew · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes it is...

    8. Re:Oh? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 2, Funny

      This report uses actual evidence! (A strange concept in the US, i know)

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    9. Re:Oh? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Evidence is only as good as the people obtaining it.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    10. Re:Oh? by chickenarise · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Yes it is!

      (can I haz +5 insightful mod, or is this nest too big?)

      --
      One convenient locations...in Africa.
    11. Re:Oh? by skeeto · · Score: 5, Funny

      North Korea didn't, but we are meant to think they did. These packets are side by side. Koreans always ping single file to hide their numbers. And these SYN attacks, too accurate for North Koreans. Only British hackers are so precise.

    12. Re:Oh? by Guru80 · · Score: 1

      No it isn't! I win ;-)

    13. Re:Oh? by Nimey · · Score: 1

      This is abuse, you stupid git.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    14. Re:Oh? by ve3oat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Evidence is only as good as the people obtaining it.

      No, it is only as good as the number of people who will believe it.

    15. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isnt... Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.

    16. Re:Oh? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      True, just ask MediaSense, the people who most likely illegally obtained the evidence for the RIAA cases.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    17. Re:Oh? by tmosley · · Score: 1

      This is abuse, arguments are down the hall.

    18. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it's not!

    19. Re:Oh? by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      Slashdot mentality always seems to be that any contradicting reports beat the initial report.

      We know the Romulans are behind everything, it's how they incite war.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
    20. Re:Oh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't!

    21. Re:Oh? by shentino · · Score: 1

      Evidence can be good and still not believed.

      Just ask Galileo.

      More to the point, evidence that contradicts dogma is likely to be discounted no matter how good it is. Such as evidence of how good Windows 7 is being posted here on slashdot. Or a negative report against the Air being posted on apple's forums.

    22. Re:Oh? by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 1

      ERM, no evidence is as good as the evidence is.
      Facts are as valid as they are, it doesn't matter if a compulsive liar tells you the sky is blue, his past history of compulsive lying doesn't affect weather the sky is blue or not.
      It never matters where you get your evidence/facts/data if you can verify it yourself, assuming nobody you trust can find the evidence valid/invalid themselves *then* (and only then) would evidence only be as good as the people obtaining it.

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    23. Re:Oh? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      It makes sense, but sense isn't how the legal system works. "Facts" are only "facts" if people choose to accept them as such. It always matters where and how you get the evidence, otherwise there would be no need for some many rules about how and where you can obtain evidence. Hell some of the time a defense's only strategy is to make the person reporting the facts look unreliable. When you can't disprove the facts, your only option is to attack how they were obtained to begin with.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    24. Re:Oh? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Free America!

      With every packet of cornflakes.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  4. Inflammitory headline by jeffliott · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article has no real indication that anything was the source, just that the last hop the analyst was able to track was in the UK...which means?

    1. Re:Inflammitory headline by zeromorph · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ssssshhhh, facts spoil the fun. The original blog post -however - claims that the IP address they tracked is indeed the master server, that it is located in UK and is running on Windows 2003 Server Operating System. So on the basis of that post, the UK would have to be regarded as the source. It would be interesting to see whether this claim can be verified or at least substantiated, but it seems to be more supported by facts than any other claim I heard.

      --
      "Hannibal's plans never work right. They just work." Amy/A-Team
    2. Re:Inflammitory headline by Xest · · Score: 0, Troll

      The chance of finding enough bandwidth to do a DDOS from the UK under BT's penny pinching broadband network is probably a bigger barrier to the UK being responsible ;)

      Seriously, you'd hit your users bandwidth caps and be throttled down to 2k/s or whatever before the target servers even realised something was trying to harass them.

    3. Re:Inflammitory headline by IRWolfie- · · Score: 2, Informative

      The C&C server doesn't have to be located in the same country as the bots it controls. I would think a corporate network in britain could host C&C server.

    4. Re:Inflammitory headline by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

      That the US govt is evil and every other govt on the planet is more right and better than ours.

      Come on this is slashdot, US govt evil, MS evil, Google and Iphail Good.

      FTFY

      --
      Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
    5. Re:Inflammitory headline by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Google good, Apple good, Linux god.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  5. Proxy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Computer in the UK can be controlled by another computer in North Korea.

    This whole thing is kind of absurd anyway...

    Just secure your shit against DDoS attacks and call it a day.

    1. Re:Proxy? by GrenDel+Fuego · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just secure your shit against DDoS attacks? Its not like they forgot to apply the "anti-ddos patch". Dealing with an attack from 100k+ hosts isn't something to be taken lightly. Its expensive (get a really fat pipe) and time consuming (identify and block attack traffic).

    2. Re:Proxy? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 4, Funny

      No it isn't. Just yank the ethernet cable and problem solved. Couldn't be quicker or less expensive than that!

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    3. Re:Proxy? by GrenDel+Fuego · · Score: 1

      Well, that would certainly drop the "distributed" part of DDoS.

    4. Re:Proxy? by baKanale · · Score: 1

      It's simple! Just set your firewall to filter the evil bit! Everybody knows that!

    5. Re:Proxy? by hannson · · Score: 1

      Every time I get DDoS attacks I stop being DDoSed and start being awesome instead. True story!

  6. Come on, UK! by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 5, Funny

    For the love of Heaven! The war has been over for 226 years! Get over it, already!

    1. Re:Come on, UK! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Funny

      For the love of Heaven! The war has been over for 226 years! Get over it, already!

      They are over the American Revolution. This is their response for us creating the "Three's Company".

    2. Re:Come on, UK! by woodchip · · Score: 2, Informative

      What are you talking about, the war of 1812 wasn't over until 194 years ago.

    3. Re:Come on, UK! by RiotingPacifist · · Score: 3, Funny

      You can have your stupid country we just want Hugh Laurie and Jon Oliver back!

      p.s we'd settle for getting rid of Madonna and their being a court injunction against her using that stupid British accent!

      --
      IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
    4. Re:Come on, UK! by gilleain · · Score: 4, Funny

      They are over the American Revolution. This is their response for us creating the "Three's Company".

      Well, wikipedia says that was a remake of a British sitcom, so... we're sorry?

    5. Re:Come on, UK! by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      They are over the American Revolution. This is their response for us creating the "Three's Company".

      "Absolutely Fablulous."

      Dom & Bom, anyone?

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    6. Re:Come on, UK! by CBob · · Score: 1

      A continuation of the clear pattern of English aggression.

      They along with their Canadian minions are a clear and present danger to National Security. We should immediately respond by liberating Canada from the Yoke of Socialism under which they have struggled for so many years. They will welcome our just and correct rule of their impoverished nation.

      We shall then through a series of landing from our bases in France & Norway, liberate England and ultimately place it in a protectorate administered by the Irish & French.

    7. Re:Come on, UK! by RManning · · Score: 2

      They are over the American Revolution. This is their response for us creating the "Three's Company".

      Now, now. The United States government has apologized for "Three's Company" on many occasions.

    8. Re:Come on, UK! by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 3, Funny

      Come on! He went through the American school system.

      It's not his fault. Give the guy a break!

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    9. Re:Come on, UK! by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      If that's the case then I guess we had it coming. We're just lucky they've chosen to overlook "7th Heaven".

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    10. Re:Come on, UK! by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the American Revolution ended in 1783, yes? The War of 1812 was more of a diversion, especially for you guys having to deal with Napolean. Keeping the world safe from democracy is a bit of a British obsession.

    11. Re:Come on, UK! by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      "You guys"? You must think I'm British. Why would you think that? Oh....you saw my URL, and assumed London = London, England.

      You do realize there are cities called London in various other countries throughout the world, yes?
      In fact, there are 46 settlements of various sizes named London on 6 continents.

      Perhaps you went through the American school system, also?

      Oh...by the way:

      Wooosh.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    12. Re:Come on, UK! by ewertz · · Score: 0

      Jealousy over Suzanne Somers' 8U rackspace.

    13. Re:Come on, UK! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The only sane response to this travesty against the U.S. is to steal "The Office," remake it into a big budget American version and run it into the ground until no one is watching!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    14. Re:Come on, UK! by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      If you'll agree to tell Madonna and Gwyneth Paltrow that they're not British, you've got a deal!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    15. Re:Come on, UK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      liberate England and ultimately place it in a protectorate administered by the Irish & French.

      Dear God no!!

      Just nuke us and be done with it!

  7. Who controls the botnets. by B5_geek · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just because most of the IP's involved were from the UK does not mean that N.Korea wasn't responsible.

    I have to wonder how one 'creates' such a geography specific botnet. Do they have UK spam with words like bollocks? Or in the USA is it 'gun porn'? I bet they use 'Tim Hortons' to catch the Canadians. =)

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:Who controls the botnets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to wonder how one 'creates' such a geography specific botnet.

      A regular botnet that simply obeys different commands/masters/whatever depending on the zombie's own IP?

      I would assume it was created with some kind of a switch case....

    2. Re:Who controls the botnets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, RTFA shows that South Korea had the most bots followed by the US, and then China, Japan, and Canada.
      The security researcher found what he has described to be the "master server" that gave orders to the botnet, which was traced to a UK Company. I think it's fairly likely, assuming this is true, that the attack was based from a UK server even if the perpetrator is not from the UK.

    3. Re:Who controls the botnets. by mevets · · Score: 1

      I keep getting told I can increase the number of doughnuts I can carry, but never gave much thought to it..

    4. Re:Who controls the botnets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to wonder how one 'creates' such a geography specific botnet. Do they have UK spam with words like bollocks? Or in the USA is it 'gun porn'? I bet they use 'Tim Hortons' to catch the Canadians. =)

      Drive by downloads from www.nhsdentistry.co.uk

  8. If true by rm999 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If true, this is kind of like the time the US accused North Korea of creating really authentic-looking counterfeit 100 dollar bills, and then it turned out that they are probably coming from within the US - possibly from the CIA to fund covert operations.

    I hate to say it, but maybe Kim Jong Il isn't crazy when he claims the Western governments are part of a big conspiracy to falsely ruin his image (hah!)

    1. Re:If true by Killer+Orca · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If true, this is kind of like the time the US accused North Korea of creating really authentic-looking counterfeit 100 dollar bills, and then it turned out that they are probably coming from within the US - possibly from the CIA to fund covert operations.

      Please, if the CIA, or NSA maybe FBI, wanted to print their own money they would just duplicate the machines from the U.S. Mint by either: stealing the machines, stealing the plans, getting the plans from the manufacturer, etc. There's plausible deniability built right into the extra money showing up too, most of their budget is deemed classified and not every official has access to it.

    2. Re:If true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " true, this is kind of like the time the US accused North Korea of creating really authentic-looking counterfeit 100 dollar bills, and then it turned out that they are probably coming from within the US - possibly from the CIA to fund covert operations"

      It turned out they were "probably" - doesn't that mean that this is conjecture and thus it didn't turn out that way?

      "possibly" from the CIA to fund covert operations - It turns out they were probably ... possibly?

      I think you've been watching too many TV commercials.

    3. Re:If true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they just use their budgets to fund covert operations, because parts of their budgets are deemed classified.

    4. Re:If true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If true, this is kind of like the time the US accused North Korea of creating really authentic-looking counterfeit 100 dollar bills, and then it turned out that they are probably coming from within the US - possibly from the CIA to fund covert operations.

      [citation needed]

    5. Re:If true by Guru80 · · Score: 1

      Yeah because a guy who wants to breed giant rabbits to end hunger, shot 38 under par in one round of golf hitting several hole-in-ones in his first attempt ever, kidnapped the South's top Actress and Director who made an even better reality show with a car chase through Vienna to escape, despises everyone taller than him (so pretty much everyone who has made it through Kindergarten), made rainbows spontaneously appear upon his birth, doesn't piss or shit, made the entire country quit smoking because he had to..well you get the idea...needs any help looking crazy! ;-) Just sayin ;-)

    6. Re:If true by rm999 · · Score: 1

      "Please, if the CIA, or NSA maybe FBI, wanted to print their own money they would just duplicate the machines from the U.S. Mint "

      Yes, that is one reason why the accusations are being made. Look up "superdollars" - the bills are considered virtually indistinguishable from real dollars. It is plausible that the CIA has an exact copy of the money making machines used by the bureau of printing and engraving to sidestep the need for external funding.

    7. Re:If true by i_b_don · · Score: 1

      And yet the only thing crazier than that bio is the idea that North Korea, a country insanely rigorous about information control, has the wherewithal to pull this off. The amount of computers they have with solid internet connections is probably less than 100.

      Next thing you'll tell me is that their super collider is almost complete and any day now they'll finish their quantum computer.

      d

      --
      all language nazi's will burne in heil!
    8. Re:If true by ocularDeathRay · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      quick somebody mod that asshole insightful, he was bashing bush, that should be worth +5 or so... too bad he posted as an anonymous coward, now nobody can go over to his house and give him a thank you blow job.

      I on the other hand mention Obama in a negative light in a fucking joke post in a joke thread and get hammered for it. you guys are the biggest bunch of pussies I have ever seen. I hope you all choke to death on an anonymous cowards dick... or maybe Obama's holy dick will be the object of your asphyxia. I hear that when he takes a dump, golden beams shoot from his eyes, and if you drink his piss, it causes your bank acount balance to increase tenfold.

      --
      Obama is a twitter sock puppet
  9. Where != Who by dmomo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if they attacks were proven to come from the UK... even if they came from North Korea, Nigeria, or Witchita KS..

    Does that really tell us about the culprit? It just tells us from where the attacks were launched. This could be because the attacker is from that area, or because the attacker wants to appear to be from that area.

    It's a clue. Nothing more.

    1. Re:Where != Who by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 1

      according to an analysis performed by a Vietnamese computer security researcher. The results contradict assertions made by some in the US and South Korean governments that North Korea was behind the attack

      I'll believe it when it is verified by another country... a report coming from Korea trying to take the blame off of Korea does not hold valid to me until I see further proof. No offense, maybe they are right, but this isn't newsworthy yet.

      --
      Disclaimer: I am not god.
      We may not be created equal
      But we can be treated equal.
    2. Re:Where != Who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's spelled "Wichita"

      Don't make me put a spell on you...

    3. Re:Where != Who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vietnam is not in Korea.

    4. Re:Where != Who by Amazing+Quantum+Man · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hate to tell you this, but Korea and Vietname are two different countries.

      --
      Fascism starts when the efficiency of the government becomes more important than the rights of the people.
    5. Re:Where != Who by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Even if they attacks were proven to come from the UK... even if they came from North Korea, Nigeria, or Witchita KS..

      Does that really tell us about the culprit?

      Well, yes, actually. If it was from Nigeria, they'd just want some help recovering their money from off-shore accounts.

    6. Re:Where != Who by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Of course, most people are clueless, so a clue does them no good. The entire attack could have been coordinated by some pimple faced kid in downtown Wichita, Ks.

      "YO, Dawg!! Look what I can do with all those scripts you told me were just STOOOPED SHITZ!! I R H4X0rZ 133Tz!"

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    7. Re:Where != Who by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another victim of the US education system it seems.

      Most would be lucky to find their own country on the map!

    8. Re:Where != Who by Eevee · · Score: 1

      Hate to tell you this, but Korea isn't a country anymore. There's a North Korea (aka the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) and a South Korea (aka the Republic of Korea). They used to be one country--and they may be one country again one day--but for today, they are two distinct countries.

    9. Re:Where != Who by KevinIsOwn · · Score: 1

      OH REALLY? Hey, everybody, Korea isn't one country! Tell the neighbors and the kids! Call Grandma!!

  10. Response by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fortunately, we can count on the British government to respond with reasoned caution, and with the utmost respect for citizens' future privacy and freedom.

    1. Re:Response by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1

      Oi-watch it! They've got a camera watching you slag them off you know!

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  11. No need bot to make a DDOS by godrik · · Score: 1

    slashdoting the website is enough :)

    1. Re:No need bot to make a DDOS by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      Interesting point. So is slashdotting effectively a DDOS? The only difference is the intention and maybe the duration otherwise, the effect are almost identical.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
  12. Source by Phroggy · · Score: 1

    I'm fairly certain that just because a server in the UK was controlling the botnet, that doesn't necessarily mean a Brit was controlling that server, nor does it rule out that a North Korean was behind it.

    --
    $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
    $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    1. Re:Source by idontgno · · Score: 1

      I bet it was North Korean controlling a Brit controlling the botnet.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    2. Re:Source by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      I would be very surprised if North Korea cared at all about the Internet and US government sites.

      N.K. are testing LONG RANGE WEAPONS! I'm sorry but the culprit is most likely a script kiddie out of high-school with too much time on their hands and wanting to prove something to his l33t buddies.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
  13. Don't worry, the government has a plan! by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 1

    Cue UK government announcing multi billion plan to make the internet 'safe' with new content filtering, anti-filesharing and communication logging schemes in 5... 4... 3...

    --
    This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
    1. Re:Don't worry, the government has a plan! by legirons · · Score: 3, Informative

      Cue UK government announcing multi billion plan to make the internet 'safe' with new content filtering, anti-filesharing and communication logging schemes in 5... 4... 3...

      uhh, they already did that.

      (well except for the '£billions' part, which they passed-on to the ISPs so it wouldn't appear in the budget defecit)

    2. Re:Don't worry, the government has a plan! by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Cue UK government announcing multi billion plan to make the internet 'safe' with new content filtering, anti-filesharing and communication logging schemes in 5... 4... 3...

      Someone obviously does not keep up with current events. Most UK ISP's already filter content to keep the world safe from kiddie porn and 70's album covers.

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia/
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation
      http://www.wired.co.uk/wired-magazine/archive/2009/05/features/the-hidden-censors-of-the-internet.aspx

      Couple that with Libel laws that are routinely used as a method of silencing what should be protected as free speech:

      http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/334
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/14/law.unitednations
      http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/29/1411207

      This results in a country where they have no need to bring in any draconian laws, since they have been here for some time.

      (Full Disclosure - I am a British citizen and resident)

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    3. Re:Don't worry, the government has a plan! by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 1

      Sir; I assure you that I was and am aware of the things you linked to. Perhaps I should have put more emphasis on the word "new" in my post or worded it differently.
      Yours, fellow concerned British citizen.

      --
      This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
  14. A similar discussion occured here on /. previously by VinylRecords · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In April of this year, the NYPD accused hackers in China, and some in the government and media even accused the Chinese government of being involved, in the hacking and disruption of the NYPD computer system. However many posters in the /. comment sections of the posted story theorized that the hacking was not originating from China but rather from a hacking group operating out of New York but fooling the NYPD using 'bot herding'.

    I'm not familiar with how to operate and disguise a botnet to look like your hacking from IPs from another country, I would guess that you just infect a group of computer abroad, and run a botnet from there. Here's the original post on /. with comments modified to 4. Just scroll down and you can find posters discussing how the NYPD and U.S. government had misidentified who the hackers probably were.

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=4&mode=flat&commentsort=0&op=Change&sid=1209793

    Here's the comment that I remembered the most where the user specifically wrote that the hackers were operating most likely within the U.S. and not in China.

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1209793&cid=27694281

    I guess until governments learn how to trace hackers properly we are going to be seeing more and more of these stories.

  15. 28 days by Faux_Pseudo · · Score: 1

    Were the zombies filled with rage?

    1. Re:28 days by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 1

      Were the zombies filled with rage?

      That's an excellent question, it determines whether I'll need to drive an old London Taxi to an army base near Manchester, or whether I'll need a cricket bat, shovel, Jaguar and an abandoned pub.

      --
      This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
  16. Still Useful by Demonantis · · Score: 1

    This summary masks the true benefit of the information just to turn heads. There is now a paper trail to an anonymous entity. Hopefully if all the international government bodies work together they can stop the activity of this bot net. I'm curious if it has been this difficult to find the master server then how much evidence does the US and SK have to make accusations. Fortunately, for the US and SK their politicians don't need proof to make statements.

  17. Master Server Location != Controller by nweaver · · Score: 2, Informative

    The researcher found the computer that was used as the entry point for commands into the botnet.

    This has nothing to do with who is responsbile for the attack.

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
  18. Why would NK do it? by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 2, Funny
    It would make them so Ronery.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  19. No they wouldn't by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    Because they would then not be able to tell that the bills were counterfeit.

    The trick is they would need bills good enough to not be detected as counterfeit by NOrth Korea, but would be detectable back home as counterfit.

    1. Re:No they wouldn't by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      There are many ways to accomplish this using the same printing presses. Changing the paper and/or the ink, for instance.

    2. Re:No they wouldn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So mark it with something. Smartwater, or a radioactive tracer, or some shit.

  20. We've waited for 50 years... by MosesJones · · Score: 5, Funny

    And now we want our Empire back...

    I just can't believe that they've blown our cover so soon, I thought that dragging America into end-less wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was a brilliant move (did you seriously think that BUSH came up with the idea?) and the latest shift towards economic desolation via cyber attacks was extremely well thought out.

    And why can we do this.... Because WE HAVE A FLAG!

    Okay back to plan B of being crap at sports we invent but quite polite about losing.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:We've waited for 50 years... by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

      Tut

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    2. Re:We've waited for 50 years... by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      Okay back to plan B of being crap at sports we invent but quite polite about losing.

      Have you been to a football match? Those guys are anything but "quite polite".

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  21. I think it is obvious. by gubers33 · · Score: 1

    The Vietnamese are in bed with North Korea. OR This guy is really a North Korean posing as a Vietnamese Computer Scientist.

    --
    Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
  22. Regardless of Country of origin by S7urm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would think once it was determined that this was not a State sponsored attack, they would stop making such a stink over what country the attacks originated from. Hacking has been going on for 20 + years now, and it has never been a real concern before on the country of origin because State sponsored hacking was such a negligable issue that it was commonly overlooked. I do understand that Russia may have sponsored attacks on Georgia, and maybe China has hacked Taiwan and vice versa, but I mean, short of a concerted Government led effort, I would take this as just another case of Bot Net owner playing with his toys. Not as a sign of intra Governmental hacking as a precursor to some sort of overt warlike effort beginning.

    --
    "This is the value of a summer spent and a winter earned"
    1. Re:Regardless of Country of origin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. If a government wanted to hack another governmant I'd presume they'd do it quietly. Or at least that what I would do if I'd be a government. For really causing havoc, a cup of coffee in a backbone router would be much more effective.

  23. It WAS State Sponsored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unfortunately, the states that sponsored it would be the US and UK, under the auspices of whipping people into a frenzy over "cyber-warfare" and getting people to lay down their liberties online willingly. Create the problem, wait for the panicked reaction, then offer a (usually self-serving and draconian) solution.

    If this wasn't a covert op on the part of western intelligence agencies, then I'm the resurrected zombie hellspawn of Carmen Miranda and Kurt Cobian.

    1. Re:It WAS State Sponsored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is it about Slashdot that really brings out the loonies? I'm afraid neither of our national intelligence agencies are competent enough to pull that one off.

    2. Re:It WAS State Sponsored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tinfoil hat = too tight

    3. Re:It WAS State Sponsored by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      You know, I hear this sentiment a lot. And I wonder what makes people think that the intelligence services are so incompetent. I mean, they are well organized and very well funded. They recruit from the top ranks of industry, academia and the military. Sure, we hear about some of their mistakes and hang-outs. But the vast, vast majority of their activities never see the light of day. So why do people think they can't find their ass with a flashlight? If it turns out to be some kid, or group of criminals behind the attack, you will believe it. But multi-billion dollar, top-secret organizations with agents at all levels in all walks of life, that recruit from the elite of society and have been shown to hew to their own agenda? Nah, that's too far fetched.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  24. Hope they insisted on hard currency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A Computer in the UK can be controlled by another computer in North Korea.

    I hope the botnet herders had insisted that North Koreans (DPRK) to pay in hard currency, since DPRK has been widely suspected to be the source of "super notes" counterfeit US currencies and as such any USD cash coming out of DPRK cannot be trusted...

    1. Re:Hope they insisted on hard currency by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Really, if they are that good, it doesn't matter if they get paid in real or counterfeit currency, so long as it doesn't get traced to them. If enough people agree that this $100 bill is worth $100, you have something worth $100, if that was made by a 4 year old it doesn't diminish its value.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    2. Re:Hope they insisted on hard currency by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      Dude! I'd pay $200 for a $100 bill made by a 4 year old that could pass muster as the legitimate thing.

    3. Re:Hope they insisted on hard currency by kilfarsnar · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's how non-counterfeit dollars work too.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  25. UK vs US war with actors by jimwelch · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hugh Laurie STAYS in USA!
    Send Stephie Fry STAYS too.
    We also want Alan Davies and Caroline Quentin.

    Wait? are there any good actors in USA to trade to UK?
    OK, Here is the deal! You get them all back, if you promise to make Aland Davies the next Doctor Who.

    Madonna we ship to North Korea! Oops, That is a violation of the rules of war. WMD used on civilians.

    --
    Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
    1. Re:UK vs US war with actors by gilleain · · Score: 1

      Caroline Quentin? Really? Okay, if you say so.

      Can we have the cast of NCIS in return?

    2. Re:UK vs US war with actors by jimwelch · · Score: 1

      I enjoyed her performance in Johnathan Creek and Blue Murder.
      Not your cup of tea?

      --
      Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
  26. UK Terror Attack by gmuslera · · Score: 2, Funny

    As previously Beetles America invasion failed, they now are trying with Zombies. Whats next? Vampires? Werewolves?

    1. Re:UK Terror Attack by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The invasion of Beetles was German. The invasion of the Beatles was British. Get your facts straight.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    2. Re:UK Terror Attack by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      The invasion of Beetles was German.

      I thought it was Japanese.

    3. Re:UK Terror Attack by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As previously Beetles America invasion failed, they now are trying with Zombies. Whats next? Vampires? Werewolves?

      A London Werewolf in America? King Arthur's Court in a Connecticut Yankee? Your peanut butter in my chocolate? These sound like things better left in Soviet Russia!

    4. Re:UK Terror Attack by fridaynightsmoke · · Score: 1

      Last time I checked, the USA had already retaliated with endless "news" and memorials of Michael Jackson's death...
      *ducks*

      --
      This is a substitute for a clever sig that fits within the maximum number of characters.
  27. the site is slow because... by Scragglykat · · Score: 1

    ...all their bandwidth is being used up sending out DDoS attacks! Doh!

  28. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. by auric_dude · · Score: 1

    The North Koreans want you to think it was all organised by the friends of Gary McKinnon but they know better.

  29. OT -- Re:Come on, UK! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On July 4th, a "friend" on facebook commented, "I'm so glad we're not under Britain."

    I thought, "Wow, he's missing the point."

    1. Re:OT -- Re:Come on, UK! by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Because everyone knows that Britain is a bottom, right?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
  30. Sore arm by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Oh dear, looks like poor Alan Johnson will be up all night approving extradition warrants.

    He can save time by not reading them, because it seems the stupid bitch who preceded him never bothered.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  31. No eGulf-of-Tonkins, please by dpbsmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Memo to "some" in the US and South Korean governments: so please be careful in future of making loose claims about North Korea doing bad stuff, unless you're sure. We don't need any Gulf of Tonkins and mobile bacteriological weapons labs. Wars have been started over less; indeed, two have. North Korea is scary enough; let's not start seeing it behind every tree.

  32. We know who it's unlikely to be... by Colourspace · · Score: 1

    Gary McKinnon?

  33. It means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... that the US will soon be invading.

    If it hadn't been the current government, I would have been a lot more worried...

  34. Tell us what it's all abo-w-t... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    :-)

  35. The Imperialism Remains The Same: +1, Helpful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DDos Attacks, Iraq, AND Afghanistan.

    BTW, Has anyone seen or heard Tony Blair lately?

    Yours In Communism,
    Kilgore Trout

  36. Outlaw Class C Networks by WED+Fan · · Score: 1

    Even if it was an attack ordered by North Korea, there's no chance the actual payloads originated there. You could likely fit all of NK's network on a Class C without NAT and have room to spare.

    Then I say we outlaw Class C networks. Then only criminals will have Class C networks.

    Put anyone with a Class C on the Really Bad Guy Axis of Evil Terrorist Country list.

    Maybe we can get a judge in Kentucky to seize all the Class C networks. Then, we can nuke Kentucky.

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    1. Re:Outlaw Class C Networks by Marcos+Eliziario · · Score: 1

      Sir,

      Your attempt on comedy was not humourous but, rather, flatulent. Maybe you should try something less serious than humour as a career: have you ever considered running for the Senate?

      Cordially,

      --
      Your ad could be here!
  37. Acronym peeve by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    (off topic)

    Why have British/Australian journalists never been taught a consistent policy for capitalizing acronyms? Many a British article refers to NATO as Nato, and NASA as Nasa. This FA defines an acronym "Bkis" thusly:

    Bach Khoa Internetwork Security (Bkis)

    And yet the same article refers to PCs, not Pcs, and DDOS attacks, not Ddos attacks. It's maddening.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    1. Re:Acronym peeve by ByteGuerrilla · · Score: 2, Interesting

      British/Australian journalists might be a bit more flexible with the language. You can say 'Nato' and 'Nasa'. They've practically become words in their own right. This isn't the case for DDoS and PC though. You can't pronounce them as anything other than initialisms, which is exactly what they are. It's only an acronym if it forms a word. KGB, CIA, KFC - initialisms. LASER, SCUBA, SeAL - acronyms.

      --

      A block of code, sufficiently well-written, is indistinguishable from magick.

    2. Re:Acronym peeve by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 1

      Maybe British/Australian journalists do a tiny bit of additional research to find out how an organisation writes its own name and use that format, while American journalists follow the grand tradition of expecting the world to conform to their own particular idiosyncrasies. Zing!

      Seriously, look at the blog in question and see if you still think it's inappropriate to refer them as Bkis. At most, it seems a bit pointless to explain what it stands for.

  38. Plausible by w0mprat · · Score: 1

    North Korea could have solicited the services of hackers in the U.K. or else where. It makes sense to outsource when you don't necessarily have the expertise in your own country. I'd like to point out here there are known NK sympathizers.

    --
    After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
  39. Re:Cyberattacks against out freedom⦠by Dishevel · · Score: 1

    I just cant decide. Dose he shill for Microsoft (IE) or Microsoft (Bing). At fist glance it would appear obvious that he is shilling for Microsoft (IE). To obvious in fact. That is why I think he is shilling for Microsoft (Bing). You know. Just throwing out the Google name with bad smell and hoping it sticks a bit. Need help must figure out soon if he is s shill for Microsoft or Microsoft. Any insight would be appreciated.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  40. Re:Cyberattacks against out freedom⦠by bertoelcon · · Score: 1

    Gotta love the misleading links, but I was hoping for a rickroll or some goatse in there somewhere just to top it off.

    --
    Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
  41. Thoughts from an end luser by AHuxley · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Just seeing a lot of fake video search results on google.
    I made a vid of Safari on my Mac getting the trojan dmg pushed out.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3syWWeQu9s
    Just feeling a lot of effort for fake vids links under many normal search terms.
    Someone is building something on Macs and Win.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  42. So! I knew that! by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    So, what you're saying is that North Korea controls the United Kingdom?

    Damn, I always thought that was the case - that would explain all their animosity towards the Irish -- after all, the North Koreans have always been jealous of Guinness.

    Now I understand everything........except why do dogs turn their heads away when you blow lightly in their faces, yet will always hang their heads out of an auto window when the car is going over 100 miles per hour?

    I dare you to try to explain that one.....

  43. Brilliant.. by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    Brilliant remark, Sherlock.....

    1. Re:Brilliant.. by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Elementary my dear Watson.

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
  44. Oh crap...... by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    Damn it! I forgot to erase the hard drive when I sent that used laptop - the one sold on E-Bay - to that address in North Korea. What the Hell does the Big Man of Pyongyang sould like to you? Would that be official-sounding????

  45. Re:So! I knew that! by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

    why do dogs turn their heads away when you blow lightly in their faces, yet will always hang their heads out of an auto window when the car is going over 100 miles per hour?

    Two words: breath mint.