Slashdot Mirror


Iran Hacks US Spy Sites

superapecommando writes "Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps hacked into 29 websites affiliated with US espionage networks, Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency reported on Sunday. 'The hacked websites acted against Iran's national security under the cover of human rights activities,' Fars reported. It did not disclose details of the attacks. The Internet has been used by Iranian opposition groups who contested the results of last year's elections there to organize demonstrations and share information about protests and arrests. The Revolutionary Guards is a military group that was founded after Iran's 1979 revolution. The group includes conventional army, navy, air force, and intelligence units, as well as the Basij paramilitary force and various business units."

149 comments

  1. Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm usually the first one to blame America when I see slanted reporting that seemingly puts our "enemies" in a very poor light, but this time I think we are looking at some pretty piss-poor Iranian folly.

    Websites are passive. They respond to clients. They do not strike out on their own. So "hacking" them and shutting them down isn't really any sort of solution at all.

    The Basij are a pretty rough security force compared to any typical military or paramilitary group. Despite their unprofessionalism, they are at the core of Iranian governmental security. They were instrumental in shutting down the election protests last year.

    1. Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, I think what they were trying to prevent is those site providing information to the opposition inside the country. I don't think they meant attacking Iranian's IT infrastructure with websites. Just helping the opposition organize and give them information. In that sense I see why they would want to shut those sites down. On the other hand, I think those sites might be a good thing if they help the Iranian opposition group organize but I'm a biased westerner.

    2. Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nice headline. These idiots make it sound like the Basji took down the firewalls at Langley and laid waste to the CIA's cyberwar infrastructure. More appropriate headline: "Iranian script kiddies take down website; blame US".

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    3. Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Iranian script kiddies take down website; blame US".
      Ah yes.
      Script kiddies these days. Taking down CIA websites. What are they playing at.

    4. Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hra-iran.org is a human rights web site located in Arizona.
      The linked report is from "Computer World".
      Get a clue people.

    5. Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports by CharlyFoxtrot · · Score: 1, Funny

      Nice headline. These idiots make it sound like the Basji took down the firewalls at Langley and laid waste to the CIA's cyberwar infrastructure. More appropriate headline: "Iranian script kiddies take down website; blame US".

      Well it is called the "Farce News Agency."

      --
      If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
    6. Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So bad we don't have Iranians here on /. Just because you don't see one here doesn't mean there can be no hacker from them. They may just don't have that sense of humor. It's disappointing to see no real funny post under this topic.

    7. Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports by wmac · · Score: 1

      In Iran they call it "False news agency" and that's because the staff are from Basij and Sepah and they fabricate hundreds of disgusting lies everyday. They even fabricate individuals (as if they are real people) and then talk with them and publish those talks !! Then suddenly photos of the person in Sepah and Basij clothes are discovered from somewhere and put on the internet by people.

    8. Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports by c++0xFF · · Score: 1

      The list of domains confirms what you're saying:

      EN-HRANA.COM
      EN-HRANA.INFO
      EN-HRANA.ORG
      HRAICP.COM
      HRAICP.INFO
      HRAICP.NET
      HRAICP.ORG
      HRAIRAN.INFO
      HRA-IRAN.INFO
      HRA-IRAN.ORG
      HRA-NA.INFO
      HRANEWS.INFO
      HRA-NEWS.INFO
      HRA-NEWS1.INFO
      HRA-NEWS2.INFO
      HRA-NEWS3.INFO
      HRA-NEWS4.INFO
      HRA-NEWS5.INFO
      K-RAFIEE.INFO
      LC-HRA.COM
      NEWS-HRA.INFO
      RADIO-HRA.INFO
      hra-iran.com
      hra-news.org
      hrairan.org
      hra-iran.net
      kamangar.info
      hra-news.org
      bsc-iran.org

      Even if we take Iran's claim to be true, these sites aren't going to have the protections a normal CIA site would have (if for no other reason than to obfuscate the connection between the site and the CIA). Conversely, I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA has "honeypot" sites set up just to find the "Iranian script kiddies."

    9. Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I'm sure Iranians read and participate here, and I don't mean to imply that they know nothing about hacking, computers, etc. I was simply saying that the action doesn't seem to be particularly sophisticated. Smashing down a website is simple cyber vigilantism. If the Iranian govt truly believed that these were linked to the CIA, they would likely have more to gain by observing them than destroying them.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    10. Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports by nomadic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nice headline. These idiots make it sound like the Basji took down the firewalls at Langley and laid waste to the CIA's cyberwar infrastructure. More appropriate headline: "Iranian script kiddies take down website; blame US".

      An even more accurate headline: "Iranian government takes down human rights websites, accusing them of 'espionage'."

    11. Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I'm usually the first one to blame America when I see slanted reporting that seemingly puts our "enemies" in a very poor light"

      All you had to say is "I'm a libtard" and we would have deduced the rest. Got to love someone who admits biased cynicism towards their own country.

      Let me guess...9/11 an inside job? We're in Afghanistan to steal their non-existant oil? Or is it to secretly benefit the european heroin market (which Haliburton owns a share of)?

    12. Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports by ooshna · · Score: 1

      No no no 9/11 was an inside job but that was only to get into Afghanistan so we would have a foothold when we went to Iraq over the WMDs to steal the oil. I think your tinfoil hat's antenna are crossed your getting mixed signals.

    13. Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Websites are passive. They respond to clients. They do not strike out on their own. So "hacking" them and shutting them down isn't really any sort of solution at all.

      Right. Even more when we will stop to recognize the act of hacking a website as something higher than spray painting a cock on a wall.

    14. Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports by vxice · · Score: 1

      Few people in this country (U.S.A.) realize how we look to the rest of the world. Imagine that had McCain won the last presidential election (him being a hawk, likely to continue indefinitely Iraq and Afghanistan occupation, just as likely to step up against Iran to maybe even the point of direct action) how would we respond to foreign governments setting up "human rights" web sites and helping to organize opposition to McCain, especially if those countries were ones like Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and others?

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
    15. Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Wrong. You got no proof that they are human rights websites.

      You actually don’t even have proof that the whole thing happened at all.
      You don’t have proof that Iran exists.
      And you don’t have proof that anything, except for yourself, exists at all. ^^

      Really. Try.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    16. Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

      Also, it ignores that hacking the website is not the same as hacking internal stuff. The classified internet stuff wasn't touched. They might have made KFC.com say "Burger King ruels! LOLOLOL", but they didn't find the secret ingredient that makes you crave chicken fornightly.

      --
      Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  2. Amazing by oodaloop · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Last week when I posted that we were in fact actually at cyber war, I was roundly ridiculed for not knowing what I was talking about because I am not a sysadmin. I guess being an intelligence analyst might count for something here.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    1. Re:Amazing by genghisjahn · · Score: 1

      Shut up you analyst ninny-head!!! Just because you were right doesn't mean you don't get ridiculed. And now that you've gone all "neener - neener", get prepared for more ridicule.

      --
      Sorry about the mess.
    2. Re:Amazing by HungryHobo · · Score: 4, Informative

      This still isn't a "cyberwar" this is just iran arresting human rights activists and calling them spies/traitor with a thin justification.

      Anything governments try is still lost in the noise http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/

    3. Re:Amazing by oodaloop · · Score: 0

      The military of a foreign government, with whom we have had less than cordial relations for at least 30 years, hacked some websites our intel community uses, and that's not a cyber war? What would qualify for you, pray tell? Do you really think there is no hostile action being taken on something as strategically important and all-pervasive as the internet, and other computer networks?

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    4. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the bye, Mr. Intel Analyst, OPSEC fail.

    5. Re:Amazing by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FTFA:

      ----------

      Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI). Information previously available on the site included a report on 400 Iranian opposition protesters that were arrested on 4 November, 2009, an Iranian holiday that marks the anniversary of the 1979 takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran, according to a cached version of the site.

      It was not clear whether HRAI had ties to US intelligence organisations or whether the Fars report labeled them as such due to their apparent sympathy for opposition protesters. The Fars report did not tie any of the websites to a specific US government entity.

      This is not the opening salvo of a cyber war you were looking for, move along.

      ----------

      Its of course plausible that these were CIA fronts, but I'm going to go with "excuse to silence some critics", much like how they say every single one of the millions of protesters in Iran is a paid US operative dedicated to overthrowing the perfect religious dictatorship that no one would possibly be unhappy with.

    6. Re:Amazing by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      That would, if it were true. But just because the Iranians claim to have hacked US CIA sites doesn't mean they did. The Iranians are currently at war with themselves and the only way that the current power base will win is if they can demonize the other side by saying it is a CIA planned/supported plot.

    7. Re:Amazing by HungryHobo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The military of a foreign government, with whom we have had less than cordial relations for at least 30 years, hacked some websites.
      They claimed they were US spy websites.
      They then proceeded to round up a bunch of people they didn't like and called them spies.

      I'd call this business as usual in *insert oppressive nation*.

      I'd question why the hell the Intel community would use open websites and specifically open websites which keep logs or in other way keep lists of all operatives.
      The NSA has more cryptographers working for them than any other body on earth and you think they couldn't come up with a decent deniable, secure stenography scheme?

      If you want to let someone communicate securely from inside hostile territory you don't give them a login to ultraspies.com and let the local government see their unusual connection to that site every week.

      You hide your encrypted messages stenographically inside some lolcat pictures on some happy little facebook channel for people who love knitting.
      (assuming you can find your arse with both hands and there is always the chance that the NSA and CIA can't manage that).

      I'd say there's not much chance that the people arrested are any kind of real spies.

    8. Re:Amazing by Nabbler · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the CIA and such do often infiltrate/use (and even set up) such organizations to sneak into areas where they have trouble getting into, that's been documented and admitted on a few occasions. So in that light I cannot blame iran for being distrusting, and I tend to think they are frequently right, like in that case with those US 'hikers' in freaking iraq (what?) who 'accidentally' sneaked into iraq, that was as believable as, well, uhm, the bible or something I suppose, and I don't think any sane person did not raise an eyebrow on that story.

    9. Re:Amazing by Trails · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod parent informative please.

      Just because Fars said it was a "us spy website" doesn't make it so, and in fact should lead one to believe it probably wasn't.

    10. Re:Amazing by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is truly amazing how last week you didn't know what you're talking about, and this week you still don't. Wait, that's completely un-amazing.

      No, what's amazing is how happily you'll believe the very people who would be our alleged enemies in this alleged cyberwar because it supports your thesis.

      Did you even read past the headline that the sites brought down were Iranian human rights web sites, alleged by Iran to be "affiliated with U.S. espionage services"? Yeah, and all the Green Revolution protesters in Iran are actually U.S. agents deliberately fomenting revolt. Also, homosexuals do not exist in Iran and the Holocaust never happened. Official Iranian news sources said so.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:Amazing by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Yeah except he isn't even close to right, as anyone who bothered to read past even just the headline can see.

      Human rights websites Iran claims were U.S. intelligence agency fronts != U.S. intelligence agency websites.

      I think the scariest thing in all this isn't the possibility that he's right, it's the possibility that someone with his complete absence of critical thinking skills could actually be an intelligence analyst. Of course, he's no more an analyst than every website Iran doesn't like is a CIA front.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  3. who remembers this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YOU HAVE BEEN HACKED BY IRANESE





    but really. remember when defacing websites was almost always politically driven? some of the 2600 website hack archives from the 90s should refresh your memory... now 'hacking' is almost entirely data mining for advertisement profit... very sad.

  4. I wouldn't call it hacking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...with such a gaping security hole staring you in the face like that.

  5. Not 29 Web Sites by MrTripps · · Score: 1

    It was 29 domains, but some of them pointed to the same site. I wouldn't be surprised if they were CIA fronts. The way back machine has it, but it isn't in English.

    --
    "I'm not a quack, I'm a mad scientist! There's a difference." - Dr. Cockroach
    1. Re:Not 29 Web Sites by HungryHobo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Doesn't really matter, they could have been CIA fronts of they could have been genuine human rights stuff.
      Either way the activists identified(or possibly spies) are going to be shot as traitors or spies.

    2. Re:Not 29 Web Sites by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wouldn't be surprised if they were CIA fronts

      That would surprise me. What wouldn't surprise me is if the 29 domains are all linked to the Iranian government. I think this is a ruse, designed to create the illusion that the Iranian government is a) capable enough to pre-emptively strike its "cyber attackers and b) to paint the Iranian government as a victim of attack, as opposed to the attacker.

    3. Re:Not 29 Web Sites by vxice · · Score: 1

      Or they are are CIA/NSA sites set up poorly to justify their recent poor performance in the "Cyberwar" and the subsequent budget increases they would love to see.

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
  6. Re:When are they by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 5, Informative

    Who is the "they" you are referring to? Just to clarify, the Iranians themselves are claiming they hacked these sites, not the US.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  7. Spy Websites?!? by nullhero · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I thought the idea of being a spy was to stay hidden. Why would you have a site if you are a spy? Oh...I get it to prop up the idea of a cyberwar. So when you get hacked you can tell everyone , "See I told you it was true!". Of course my next question is for the Iranians: dude why would the United State operate a spy website? Do you really think that the US government would put sensitive info in a website? Of course we are talking about the United States so anything is possible.

    --
    Save Pangaea!! Stop Continental Drift!!
    1. Re:Spy Websites?!? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Any serious spies are going to communicate through some deniable,encrypted,stenographic channel so my money is on these poor fuckers being genuine human rights activists who are just going to be called spies and shot.

    2. Re:Spy Websites?!? by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yup, the real spies probably post pro-government spam with embedded code on common websites if they need to use the web at all. They're more likely to avoid any channel that passes through government control - a dead drop picked up by some guy who hands off to a foreign diplomat is going to be hard to spot. Once the data is in an embassy it can leave the country in any number of ways that are just about impossible to intercept.

      They're not going to do anything that makes themselves stand out, like visit some website that nobody else uses, or post all kinds of anti-government stuff.

    3. Re:Spy Websites?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the way to hack the channels would be to seduce the stenographers, of course.

    4. Re:Spy Websites?!? by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm still thinking stenography over commonly used channels is still the least conspicuous way.
      I've spent the last few months working on a project that looks for manipulations in images and while it is possible to spot that some kind of stenographic message has been hidden in an image it's essentially impossible to differentiate between stenography and light manipulation(such as with photoshop or any tool which can blur/sharpen an image).
      At the very least they'd need a bank of computers the size of the moon to scan every image going in and out of the country for that kind of thing and the false positive rate.... well...

      Now given that the NSA has enough cryptographers to run rings around anything I can think of off the top of my head. At the very least I imagine they'd have a better system than logging on to a special website.

    5. Re:Spy Websites?!? by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

      They were only U.S. spy sites in the sense that officially no right thinking Iranian would be against the government, so it would have to be a CIA plot Q.E.D.

    6. Re:Spy Websites?!? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What they actually mean here is "websites that support our dissidents". Which may well be true, and it still doesn't make it wrong or criminal.

      It's the exact same thing in Russia. Pretty much all human rights organizations are blamed to be "CIA fronts" with the purpose of "destabilizing the country" via criticism of the government.

    7. Re:Spy Websites?!? by GuruBuckaroo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Any serious spies are going to communicate through some deniable,encrypted,stenographic channel so my money is on these poor fuckers being genuine human rights activists who are just going to be called spies and shot.

      I think you meant steganographic there. Stenography is shorthand, steganography is hiding content in ways that hide the fact that there is hidden content at all.

      --
      Poor means hoping the toothache goes away.
    8. Re:Spy Websites?!? by hey! · · Score: 3, Informative

      What they're talking about websites that are critical of human rights in Iran. Their contention is that all the bad news about Iran is a western psy-ops ploy.

      Calling such sites "spy websites" is not an oxymoron by any means. Spying isn't just about getting information; it's about planting disinformation too.

      The domains they are targeting mostly belong to one "KEYVAN RAFIEE", with a contact address in a small suburban condo building in Silver Spring MD. It is also the same address used for a small media production company. Some of the domains under that name have as contract address a private home in Woodland CA.

      Overall, this not inconsistent with this Mr. Rafiee being a private human rights activist, nor with him being a frontman for a US intelligence operation.

      That said, the most credible explanation is this is just disinformation on Iran's part. We've all seen the riots, which were definitely not staged. We've all heard the pronouncements of Mr. Ahmadinejad, which stink of propaganda. This does not mean *we* don't have our own propaganda, but it's clear that the Iranian government would try to portray any criticism as being from the CIA, especially given the CIA's unfortunate history in that country.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re:Spy Websites?!? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      But if part of what the CIA tries to do is support activists and destabilize the regime, they would run sites such as that.

      I mean propaganda is generally part of an intelligence effort, so I wouldn't be shocked if it were a CIA site, in the sense that the CIA is trying to support opposition.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    10. Re:Spy Websites?!? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected.
      Cheers

    11. Re:Spy Websites?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the idea of being a spy was to stay hidden.

      This is fancy 21st century Jennifer Garner style spying (high kick).

    12. Re:Spy Websites?!? by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing the point here. What is more plausible? The idea that these were connected to the US and we were just being OMGLOLSTOOPED and left the sites vulnerable, or that these were in fact controlled by Iran and this is all just Propaganda to help justify their position. What's really sad is how many people seem to believe that Iran is somehow capable of performing cyberattacks against legitimate CIA systems. Guarantee you, these sites have no real connection to US Intelligence, and if they do, it's likely as someone else pointed out that they are "honeypots to find the script kiddies."

    13. Re:Spy Websites?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd have to disagree with your position. It seems that stenography over common channels would mean most court clerks and secretaries would be able to intercept your message. Steganography, on the other hand...

    14. Re:Spy Websites?!? by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      you're a bit late to the game.
      Someone bellow already caught that one.

  8. Re:When are they by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you should read the article.

  9. Because US was using twitter as a weapon...? by ihatewinXP · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Among other shady things we have been up to....

    China (as well as Iran and Al-Jazeera) accused the US in state newspapers of using twitter to sow discord in Iran by creating accounts and distributing false information to get people whipped up during the protests. They even linked to a few of the particularly shady accounts that dont seem to really be people on the ground but gained thousands of followers by supplying news of people being shot in the street and leaders (falsely) being arrested.

    It is no wonder that Iran and China have taken steps to limit the influence that the US can have in domestic affairs by simply creating a twitter troll account.

    Information warfare on the web 2.0... Interesting stuff.

    --
    ---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
    1. Re:Because US was using twitter as a weapon...? by HungryHobo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is no cyberwar but there is certainly a PR war.

    2. Re:Because US was using twitter as a weapon...? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      What evidence do we have that "the US" was doing the lying, and not Iranian dissidents or Iranian expatriots themselves?

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    3. Re:Because US was using twitter as a weapon...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last 60 years of history?

    4. Re:Because US was using twitter as a weapon...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here. Knee-jerk predjudice is all the evidence you need on /.

  10. Wordpress and/or plugin security issues? by dclozier · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Considering some (all?) were using Wordpress the hacking may have been trivial depending on what plugins were in use. (or perhaps there is an unknown issue with Wordpress it's self)
    There may not have been that much expertise needed in this "hacking".

    http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:0KLjk6HUgUQJ:www.en-hrana.com/+EN-HRANA.COM&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

  11. Worst summary ever by DJ+Jones · · Score: 4, Interesting
    • A website is a passive entity that serves content; there's no such thing as a proactive-espionage-"attack" website. Grow up.
    • They were Iranian human rights websites. The article says (in quotes) that the Fars news network drew a tie to US intelligence with no details to back up that claim.
    • Fars news somehow linked this incident to other US funded groups that were arrested on a different occasion? with no citation.

    First off, Fars news is the equivalent of Fox News in the US. They decide the news before it happens. Second off, the only thing worse than this crappy article with no references is CmdrTaco's poor summary of it that insinuates that the US was funding these sites even though the article says nothing about that being true.

    1. Re:Worst summary ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter if the summary is bad, facts are not backed up, etc. This article was posted to stir up anti-US or anti-Iran sentiment so slashdotters can have a hate-filled argument for a few hours. It reminds me of my local paper's articles which bash state workers. Most of the content in the articles is missing of facts, provides much conjecture and unfounded rumors.

    2. Re:Worst summary ever by Sollord · · Score: 2, Informative

      As much as I dislike Fox News comparing them to fars news is just not fair.

    3. Re:Worst summary ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      As much as I dislike fars news comparing them to Fox News is just not fair.

    4. Re:Worst summary ever by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Last time I checked Fars was the mouthpiece of the Iranian government, and Fox has been extremely critical of the current administration and congress. Your analogy is flawed. Also most of what is on Fox is commentary, not news. The "News" on Fox seems to be pretty much like the other news channels: sensational and fluffy with a sprinkle of pseudo-intellectualism.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    5. Re:Worst summary ever by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fox also decides what the news is rather than reporting it. They just happen to be attached to the Republican party rather than to the government in general.

    6. Re:Worst summary ever by DJ+Jones · · Score: 3, Informative

      OK... and Fox News is the mouth piece of the Republican Party. The fact that Rupert Mudoch's media machine is openly against a democratic administration is not surprising to anyone. My analogy is not flawed, I merely alluded to the fact that the opinions put forth by both Fox News and Fars News are decided well before the facts are divulged. They are equivalent propaganda machines with heavy ties to one political party. Neither one can be considered a respectable "news" organization by any journalistic standards.

    7. Re:Worst summary ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fars is the mouthpiece of the Iranian government and Fox News is the mouthpiece of the Republican Party. The difference is that in America we have our choice between two flavors of overbearing government, where in Iran they only have one choice. Fox New's favorite flavor of overbearing government is not in power right now so all you hear from them is an unending flood of "criticism".

    8. Re:Worst summary ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      First off, Fars news is the equivalent of Fox News in the US. They decide the news before it happens.

      Last time I checked Fars was the mouthpiece of the Iranian government, and Fox has been extremely critical of the current administration and congress. Your analogy is flawed.

      You setup a strawman analogy to mischaracterize.
      Thanks for contributing nothing to the discussion.

    9. Re:Worst summary ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey Mr. Beck, how did you know it was me?! I guess our biases show. Things are going great over here. We killed another 500-1000 students today I think? I can't remember.. I usually stop counting after the first few hundred! Also we took down 12 US spy satellites, had a successful launch of a ICBM, and hacked into 142 websites run by US and Israel zionist spies. All in all I would say it was a great day.

    10. Re:Worst summary ever by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Fox also decides what the news is rather than reporting it. They just happen to be attached to the Republican party rather than to the government in general."

      Well, after I watch a little Fox...I try to then watch a little MSNBC to try to balance things out a bit...they're every bit as antagonistic to the right as Fox is to the left.

      I mean, have you actually watched Keith Olbermann for any length of time? He spews as much vitriol as any right-winger I've ever seen on Fox...hell, he may actually get a bit more worked up than those on the right, I mean, I've seen him a few times get so riled up, I thought he was going to POP something in his brain....

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:Worst summary ever by sjames · · Score: 1

      There's a vast area between simple reporting fact and making it all up. That is based on how stories are emphasized, buried in the details, or just not reported, and how you spin it. Fox isn't as close to the just reporting the facts side as I would like (nor are many others).

    12. Re:Worst summary ever by sjames · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I didn't say Fox is the only biased and inaccurate news out there. They're pretty much all screwed up one way or another. Fox just happens to be less subtle about it than some of the others. In the case of news that has no political spin value, they'll all spin it as sensational even if it's a non event.

      For example, Mir's gyrodynes failed, so it was rotating once every 90 minutes with respect to Earth. If it was critical, they could have used thrusters to correct it, but it wasn't worth the fuel. CNN called it "spinning wildly out of control".

    13. Re:Worst summary ever by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      It's called selling advertising, and all of the news networks will spin things as sensational in order to continue to get the advertisers to buy spots. If you follow the out of control space vessel continuously for like two hours, that's two hours worth of news + ad spots that you will see. Hence, if it was just all "Well, the space vessel is spinning but we're hearing it's okay nothing to worry about here" then of course you won't be watching for two hours straight and the advertisers are all like "OMGWTF no one is watching, pull teh ads!!!"

      Where as the FUD crowd sees political bias I see economic bias. As in, they wants to keeps the cheese rollin' in, dawg! (translated for anyone who thinks economic bias is too complicated a phrase)

    14. Re:Worst summary ever by geekoid · · Score: 1

      um, where have you been? I can create a website that attacks people, in fact many exists. How many bot nets are running on servers?

      I can write a script to begin an attack at a certain time or event.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:Worst summary ever by sjames · · Score: 1

      Of course they do it for the cash. The question is how far they'll go for the cash.

      Many news agencies these days are just like a cheap hooker. Like the cheap hooker, I prefer to stay away from them so I don't catch anything (amongst other reasons).

    16. Re:Worst summary ever by Vicegrip · · Score: 1

      There is enough reality distortion propaganda coming from Fox me to disagree with the sentiment that Fox is just being choosy with what they report.

      --
      Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
    17. Re:Worst summary ever by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      It just makes me laugh when I hear all of these people and their conspiracy theories about how *Insert Network Name Here* is in *Insert Political Party Here*'s pocket. They are in the pockets of stockholders and advertisers. The slant they provide is just a means of gaining *Insert Demographic Here*'s viewership in order to sell advertising.

    18. Re:Worst summary ever by sjames · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's amazing how much reality distortion can be created just by being selective in what is reported and what spin is put on it. "Man kills Seven in shootout" (While ducking to avoid a crossfire in a shootout the man stepped on some ants) or "LEAK DISCOVERED AT NUCLEAR PLANT" (in a toilet located in the administrative building).

      That's the problem, some (these days, most) news organizations don't just pick and choose just the stories, but what facts related to the stories that they report.

    19. Re:Worst summary ever by vxice · · Score: 1

      Ever notice how almost all "terrorists" are Al Qada? And how there are hundreds of Al Qada "affiliate" groups? Yes many are separate but many pretend to be separate to look that way and insulate themselves and still many more are loosely aligned. These sites can be pro-active. From the sound of it they were places to organize protests and other similar activity or contact new people interested in "improving" their country. Just as any site that advocates protests and attempts to locate new contacts who think bombing buildings to wake America up to the consequences of its activities in Palestine to hopefully stop those activities would be labeled a terrorist training site with propaganda and promptly shut down.

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
  12. Not very impressive.. by Ziekheid · · Score: 2, Informative

    Government related sites are hacked continously, it's just that only few stories actually arrive in "mainstream" media about it.
    Have a look at the zone-h archive of defacements and note the number of .gov.X sites in the list: http://zone-h.org/archive/special=1

  13. If the sites really were "hacked" . . . by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 1

    . . . why would any self-respecting hacker announce it? If there was anything of any real value on there, why not continue to quietly gather as much info as you could? This stinks worse than Pelosi's jock strap.

  14. Re:When are they by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    First it was the North Koreans and it turned out to be some random idiots. Then it was the Chinese, and again it turned out to be some random idiots. Now it's the Iranians... three guesses as to who is REALLY responsible for THIS new "attack"?

    Well, the Iranians say it was the Iranians.

  15. Flimsy excuse. by nten · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It is only Iran saying that they were spy websites. Seems like a improvised excuse to censor their own populace to me. Not that they need an excuse, but excuses decrease the amount of resulting discontent. Just using the word "because" in a request has been shown to dramatically boost acquiescence. As has been discussed before, the young educated Iranians that tend to be the ones protesting are quite tech aware on average, it wouldn't surprise me if they set the sites up entirely themselves with no prodding. Iran is just as embarrassed about 'amateurs' making their jobs difficult as the superpowers are I'd guess. "Oh no! The sheeple can write html! We are doomed!"

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
  16. Bad Article Title by introspekt.i · · Score: 2, Informative
    The title acts as if Iran actually did hack 29 US "spy sites" (wtf). Whether or not this is actually true remains to be seen. The article has a little trouble using quotations, or at least maybe that's how people do it in the UK? I don't mean that as an offense, but rather, in US papers we seem to pepper the articles with double quote marks.

    It was not clear whether HRAI had ties to US intelligence organisations or whether the Fars report labeled them as such due to their apparent sympathy for opposition protesters. The Fars report did not tie any of the websites to a specific US government entity.

    This article seems shoddy to me, as these claims are as of yet unsubstantiated. Why doesn't Iran use its magic firewall to block these sites instead of hack them? Smells like a publicity stunt against to me.

    1. Re:Bad Article Title by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Iranian Government has been desperate to tie the current protests to US involvement. Without that connection they are beating up their own people, with the connection they are stopping "the great satan" from interfering in their internal affairs. I don't know why this surprises anyone, they put people to death a few weeks ago by saying they were working for the west. They are desperate to convince their own public that these election protests have been orchestrated by the US, in fact I would go so far as to say that the more paranoid members of their government are convinced of such and will do anything including manufacturing evidence of such to convince the general public they are right.

      If these protests are all internally comprised they are no better than the shah, and regardless of how they feel about things they don't want to have themselves compared to him. They greatly fear that what happened to the shah could happen to them, they must convince everyone that the US is involved so they justify their own repressive actions.

    2. Re:Bad Article Title by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 1

      The article has a little trouble using quotations, or at least maybe that's how people do it in the UK? I don't mean that as an offense, but rather, in US papers we seem to pepper the articles with double quote marks.

      Peppered with quotes attributed to anonymous, unnamed sources.

      I don't see the practical difference between a lack of quotation marks and a lack of sources. Both are so prone to bullshit as to be worthless.

      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    3. Re:Bad Article Title by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Informative

      A terrible story with a terrible summary on the font page of Slashdot.
      So what else is new?
      Really I tend to give the slashdot some slack but this is just terrible. I mean really what are they thinking. And yes I know CW posted this trash but Slashdot doesn't have to repeat it.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Bad Article Title by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Their government is doing a wise thing. No one denies now that western intelligence had a hand at Ukrainian "orange" revolution. How well has it worked out for them? Several years of complete incompetence from western sponsored leaders, totally ruined economy, and now they voted back the very man whose victory was taken away the first time with the help of the West. Same thing with the "Rose" revolution in Georgia.
      I have very little doubt that the West was/is involved in whipping up the protests in Iran hoping to bring another colored revolution and their government is doing the right thing blocking the avenues of attack.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
  17. Re:meghhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Duuuude, how else am I going to check the latest top secret work stuff as I sit at starbucks sucking down my mocca?

  18. It's a website. Not a war. by khasim · · Score: 1

    Last week when I posted that we were in fact actually at cyber war, I was roundly ridiculed for not knowing what I was talking about because I am not a sysadmin.

    And they were right to do that. A sysadmin knows the difference between a website and a war. Websites are cracked all the time by script kiddies. Websites are shut down all the time by lawyers.

    Who cares? All this does is attract MORE attention to whatever content those websites were hosting.

  19. Tariq Aziz School of Public Relations by m509272 · · Score: 1

    Obviously these loons have attended the Tariq Aziz School of Public Relations.

  20. Softhack by nten · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So one side hacks computers because the other side is using computers to hack brains. I don't consider that just cause. Humans have built in firewalls against BS. Yes they can be overcome, but generally that is called persuasion, or deception depending on the validity of the information being uploaded. And keeping your populace sheltered from the outside might prevent the internet from hacking them, but in face to face conversations they will be even more vulnerable due to their ignorance.

    On the bright side, I can't wait to watch the wars between cognitive dictatorships once we all upload.*

    * Yes someone *has* been reading too much Stross.

    --
    refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
  21. Re:When are they by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The 29 websites were identified in a statement (in Farsi) released on a website operated by the Revolutionary Guards.

    Most of these sites redirected to one site. But in all cases, they are minor sites run by random people, just like 1,000,000,000's of others on the Interwebs with negligable or non-existent "security". These are mostly "here today, gone tomorow" type web sites. This hardly qualifies as serious hacking of secure government-backed web sites.

    This is what's called "propaganda".

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  22. I don't get these hacks by medv4380 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why are all these government spy groups in China and Iran using traceable IP's? Why not just send their spy to any place in the EU or US with enough money to buy a laptop with a wireless connection and do their hacking by hopping on unencrypted wireless networks? It's like spy's are getting ultra lazy and sloppy. Like with the assasination in dubi a few weeks back. Why were the spys caught on camera? Didn't it dawn on them they they should have taken out the camera system to cover their tracks so that no one would know. Instead we have them playing James Bond in plain view of the camera. Espionage is about doing things that don't lead back to you and leaves doubt about who did it and why. Malicous Hacking tip 101 Don't use your own IP address to do any hacking.

    1. Re:I don't get these hacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

    2. Re:I don't get these hacks by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

      What he said. Do you really think Israeli Intelligence was behind the Dubai Assassination? The Israeli Intelligence people are damn good at what they do. A likely scenario is it was done as a false flag by someone like Iran to implicate Israel and put them in a bad light. Could be wrong, but then again, when Israel Intelligence does something, you usually never hear about it. I don't think they'd do something as amateurish as forget about surveillance during a critical op.

    3. Re:I don't get these hacks by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      I never once mentioned Israel as committing the Assassination in Dubai. Just that it was dame sloppy work to have that much video evidence. Playing spy for the camera on ether side is not good espionage work. It's like all the spy groups out their forgot how to do their jobs after the cold war, and all the would be "cyber war" tactics are composed of script kiddies committing political vandalism, and not the data theft and manipulation it should be.

    4. Re:I don't get these hacks by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      They also very likely wouldn't have sent 29 people for an assassination. The number seems excessive for a nation with the advanced intelligence and covert ops that Israel does.

    5. Re:I don't get these hacks by vxice · · Score: 1

      yeah Israel never screws up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillehammer_affair 29 people seems excessive for Mossad in that quoted example there was nine agents. However there are many other concerns to take into consideration such as where to stay, how to get out, etc now not all of them will be involved in directly killing the target and most of the suspected agents were likely involved in support roles. Remember that there are cameras all over the place, biometrics taken of all entrants to the country, records kept at the hotel and many other places. Getting away without a single record was almost never even possible in this situation. More likely they wanted to get away alive and with enough deny-ability that everyone would know who did it with out being able to prove it. However I too am not entirely convinced that Israel was certainly behind the assassination.

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
    6. Re:I don't get these hacks by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it was sloppy on purpose. Hence the reference to False Flag

    7. Re:I don't get these hacks by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      Never said they never screw up. I just can't picture them being so amateurish that they would make such a simple blunder. However, being the geek that I am, that link contains two names of interest to me. Michael Dorf and Jean-Luc Sevenier..OMG, Worf and Capt. Picard should've changed their names to better protect their identities. I mean seriously, changing your last name or just a letter in your name won't make people not notice it. I'm sure the ridges on Worf's forehead was also a dead giveaway.

  23. Iranians hack Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and start posting articles with accurate headlines, proper spelling and punctuation. Now THAT would be a feat.

  24. Re:When are they by vlm · · Score: 1

    Well, the Iranians say it was the Iranians.

    Unless you have connections over there, you'll never really know.

    It would be almost infinitely funny if it was actually 4channers saying they were Iranians saying it was the Iranians.

    Or even better, slashdotters saying they're 4channers saying they're Iranians saying it was the Iranians. Not that I'm admitting anything. I think we can fit "The Onion" in there somewhere too.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  25. The Biggest CyberSecurity Threat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is this botnet.

    I hope this helps your work in securing your computers and networks.

    Yours In Ufa,
    Kilgore Trout

  26. Re:When are they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    no, it was the guys over at ebaumsworld. Don't you know how to blame?

  27. Good point. by khasim · · Score: 1

    Does anyone remember during our own elections where people would forward emails to all their friends quoting quoting quoting quoting some email with less-than-100%-factual claims from someone you've never heard of before?

    Was that a cyberwar?
    No, that was PR and the medium was email.

    Just because something you don't like somehow touches the Internet does NOT make it a "cyberwar".

    1. Re:Good point. by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Does anyone remember during our own elections where people would forward emails to all their friends quoting quoting quoting quoting some email with less-than-100%-factual claims from someone you've never heard of before?

      I don't, but maybe that's because my friends aren't paranoid right-wing nutjobs.

    2. Re:Good point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what part of Europe are you from? (:

  28. You have "cyberwar" and "economical war" or not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Repeat after me: There is no such thing as a "cyber-war", just piss-poor implementation of security.

    Taking down sites which are meant to inform dissenters and opposition, is not a "cyber-war", just piss-poor implementation of security. It's not that much different from China blocking certain critical websites.

    Call it for what it really is: Censoring, not a "war".

    Or would you call Western countries economical stranglehold on poorer countries for "economical war"?

    1. Re:You have "cyberwar" and "economical war" or not by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Or would you call Western countries economical stranglehold on poorer countries for "economical war"?

      That one really has a lot more claim to the title "war" than someone cracking a database server or two.

  29. Re:When are they by Dorduan · · Score: 1

    I don't count Fars News as "the Iranians themselves". They are one of the least trustworthy news agencies in Iran.

  30. Free Speech = Shady Business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good one Comrade

  31. you mean "ALLEGED" by wisebabo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Never have I seen an article title more in need of the word "Alleged"

    As in: Iran Hacks ALLEGED US Spy Sites

    Like you are going to believe that "Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency" isn't going to make unsubstantiated claims? (I know double negative, but here it ain't wrong).

    1. Re:you mean "ALLEGED" by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Well, what would you expect from a farce news agency?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:you mean "ALLEGED" by GuruBuckaroo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not to mention "Claims". Proper headline, knowing where this article comes from, should be:

      Iran Claims it has hacked Alleged US Spy Sites

      Geez. This is like people believing the USSR's Pravda back in the Cold War.

      --
      Poor means hoping the toothache goes away.
    3. Re:you mean "ALLEGED" by sisinka · · Score: 1

      Geez. This is like people believing the USSR's Pravda back in the Cold War.

      Wait, but "Pravda" means "The Truth" in Russian, how could you possibly NOT believe it?

      --
      My parser is a grammar nazi.
  32. Re:article is propaganda by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Yes, I'm sure that ComputerWorld-UK is really an extension of the American military-industrial-complex. Maybe they're even owned by the Reptilian Overlords. Definitely propaganda either way. What do you suggest, Adolf? We can't let them spread propaganda which we don't like! Shall we round 'em up and turn 'em into soap?

  33. Re:article is propaganda by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Taco, you motherfucking tool, you are pushing your own people to yet another unwinnable war for oil onto innocent people!

    shame on you, fuck!

    Oh yeah, the Iranians themselves are the embodiment of innocence... (I strongly recommend you to check the TLDs again.)

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  34. Congratulations Iran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've admitted to being a bunch of script kiddies.

  35. Re:When are they by wmac · · Score: 1

    See my previous post. Fars news agency is called "False news agency" by people. Their staff are from Basij and Sepah (IRGC). They always fabricate disgusting (yes, disgusting) shameless lies.

  36. Re:When are they by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

    Your original statement implies that the US has claimed it was attacked by Iran, when in fact the perpetrators are likely someone else. That is not the case. The Iranian government is claiming it attacked these websites because of alleged US espionage.

    Also, let me clarify my original reply. By "the Iranians themselves", I meant "the Iranian government". Second, the government and their controlled media outlets may not be particularly trustworthy, but it's obvious that this was a release sanctioned by the Iranian government. If you don't believe Fars, see also: Link to official Iranian govt news.

    To summarize: The US didn't blame them. They made this claim themselves, apparently as a PR move to justify shutting down human rights websites and arresting innocent people, and as an attempt to drum up more anti-US sentiment.

    This latest blurb shouldnt be surprising to anyone who has heard the saber-rattling emanating from Tehran.

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  37. $400 million to destabilize Iran? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone have any more information about one of the last sentences "US$400 million allocated to the US Central Intelligence Agency to destabilise Iran"?

    1. Re:$400 million to destabilize Iran? by pcolaman · · Score: 1

      If we could destabilize Iran with only $400 Million, then perhaps we are moving towards being more fiscally responsible. That one sentence completely destroys the credibility of the entire article. They should've changed the 'M' to a 'B' if they wanted anyone to believe it.

  38. Damn, no troll points left by bigredradio · · Score: 1

    I didn't have any moderator points, so I give you a -11 Troll. There are always better methods of persuasion than calling someone a motherfucking tool and a fuck. It doesn't help to further your point. Just makes you look immature.

    1. Re:Damn, no troll points left by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      It doesn't help to further your point. Just makes you look immature.

      You must be new here. Welcome to /.

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
  39. Re:When are they by pcolaman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Perhaps you should read the article.

    You are new here, right? Let me show you around...

  40. sounlds like Iran has their version of Comical Ali by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

    I suspect the list of sites hacked will incude targets like Amnesty and the BBC world service which is of course as well all know run by lizzards from the planet Zog who use subliminal meassages in the Archers to spread socialist propaganda. :-)

    ps for non UK readers the Archers is a long running radio soap of stultifying boredom.

  41. Re:When are they by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 1

    No no, I'm an oldie, but the only way to teach something is to repeat it often.

  42. Re:When are they by pcolaman · · Score: 1

    Good point. Although I'd think considering you have a six digit UID that you'd understand by now that telling /.ers to RTFA is about as hopeless as asking them to not have knee-jerk reactions.

  43. Honeypot? by HockeyPuck · · Score: 1

    If the CIA creates a bunch of generic Human Rights websites (read: Honeypot), and Iran hacks them, can the US gov't via the United Nations or Fox News or whatever basically start telling the world that Iran as a gov't is hacking websites?

    1. Re:Honeypot? by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      If the CIA creates a bunch of generic Human Rights websites (read: Honeypot), and Iran hacks them, can the US gov't via the United Nations or Fox News or whatever basically start telling the world that Iran as a gov't is hacking websites?

      It would seem they don't need to. The Iranian government seems to be quite happy to tell the world they've done it.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  44. Re:I made no mention of whatever overlord or soap. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    "Why are you godwinning me"

    Well - uhhhmm - errr - have you actually looked at your nick, lately? Is Adolph a popular name where you come from? Personally, I've never met an Adolph in my life. There's only one whose life I'm familiar with. Godwinned? You probably get that all the time, don't you?

    --
    "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
  45. Outsource that problem to the groups here by unity100 · · Score: 1

    in this link on the left menu list http://www.keygenmusic.net/?lang=en

    they will set iran government straight if they have the motivation to. after all this is a valid case of freedom - people vs tyrants.

    btw site compiles keygen musics. top 100 list really worth listening to.

  46. Re:I made no mention of whatever overlord or soap. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In Nazi Germany, his name Godwins him!!!!!!!!

  47. When does hacking become an act of war? by Japher · · Score: 2, Interesting

    At some point (I think we're already there) our computer infrastructure becomes so important to a nation that a cyber attack could be construed as an act of war. I wonder how long it will be before we see a physical military response to a cyber attack. We've already seen evidence that China attacked Google's corporate infrastructure a few months ago. Is this really all that dissimilar than Chinese agents coming to the US and physically breaking into Google's buildings? To relate things to the article, if it could be shown that Iran was indeed attacking CIA sites, would the US be justified in bombing Iranian intelligence facilities? Just some food for thought.

    1. Re:When does hacking become an act of war? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      To relate things to the article, if it could be shown that Iran was indeed attacking CIA sites, would the US be justified in bombing Iranian intelligence facilities?

      No, because in the highly unlikely case that these were actually CIA sites, they would have been clandestine sites posing as legitimate human rights sites.

      You don't go to war over someone hacking your clandestine intelligence front sites any more than you would go to war over someone capturing one of your spies. You just write off the asset (or maybe in the case of spies quietly negotiate a trade for the spies of theirs that you've caught) and continue on.

      Now if Iran tried to hack into the Pentagon, that's a different story. That could be considered an act of war. But no, I don't think merely DOSing the Pentagon's outward-facing PR website would count. I mean actually trying to infiltrate protected systems.

      But that's nothing like what happened here. I'd bet the CIA's entire budget that what is really going on is that Iran is silencing opposition in their country, and blaming everything on America. Cus you know, that's what they've been doing for quite a while, and especially since the last election and the protests that followed. These websites are CIA fronts as much as every protester with a green armband is a CIA agent.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  48. What's good for goose is good for gander by iamacat · · Score: 1

    Since Iran's government sees hacking US websites as a legitimate activity, I take it that they don't mind either NSA folks or grassroot democracy enthusiasts hacking details of Iranian presidential security or nuclear reactor controls.

  49. Re:They also hacked goatse by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1

    They also hacked goatse

    "There is no goatse in Iran" - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

  50. Re:When are they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you pal, I am US conservative, it is my god given right to have knee jerk reactions!

  51. Far more than a military group by MoeDumb · · Score: 0

    The Revolutionary Guards are far more than just a military group. They are the real power in Iran, just like the PLA is in China.

    --
    Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
  52. Hey Akbar! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    I can see my house from here!

    1. Re:Hey Akbar! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      awww I read it as "Iran Hacks US Spy Sats"

      was a way more funny post then