Slashdot Mirror
MasterCard Hit By WikiLeaks Payback Attacks
An anonymous reader writes "MasterCard's website has been hit by a distributed denial of service attack. Netcraft describes how the attack uses a voluntary botnet of LOIC (low orbit ion cannon) users to swamp sites with traffic. PostFinance, the PayPal blog and Swedish prosecutors have been targeted previously."
Don't target the website, target the servers that do the money-traffic!!!!
And now because of Slashdot linking to MasterCard, their denial of service attack increased even more.
I wonder how they feel being denied due process...
Reminds me of an article I saw on Techdirt the other day pointing out that Visa and Mastercard were getting all high and mighty about morality in regards to Wikileaks but happily fielding transactions for sites like the KKK.
My work here is dung.
Just like people volunteer for Folding@Home. If one believes in a cause strongly enough they could be convinced to lend CPU cycles (well, network packets) to help DDoS a site.
More Twoson than Cupertino
According to the Washington Post, it's all due Mastercard no longer permitting donations via their services to Wikileaks.
However, I doubt the DDOS is going to change their mind.
By denying us the rights to send our money to this great organization they effectively said: we are the bitches of the US and we condemn free speech, the first amendment and hate the truth. That's why.
Just an FYI: you can't take your money elsewhere unless you go completely cash and are picky with ATMs. MC owns a few of the biggest consumer money transfer networks, so even if you pick Visa you'll still often be using MC services.
Developers: We can use your help.
WikiLeaks were collecting donations using MasterCards and VISA as forms of payment on their website, up until the two giants pulled away because they didn't want to be associated with the website.
Visa *is* doing the same thing.
Freedom of speech, priceless. For everything else, there's Mastercard.
Furthermore, Visa is already doing the same thing.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
I keep trying to read the story at http://www.mastercard.com/ but nothings happening.
For some time I hated americans, living in a post communist country, with all it's problems, while americans seemed to cause even more. And then I saw a slogan, used by some americans, I love my country, but I fear the government. That's why, when you make such statements "bitches of the US", be sure to add government. It will make everything better.
You actually make a very interesting point.
For the purposes of elections and raising funds for a political party, monetary donation is considered an exercise of free speech. That is the premise that allowed billions of extra funds from private individuals to go towards the election without any tracking.
Yet, financially supporting an organization deemed "terrorist" by the government is not a function of free speech. Now the lines are becoming even more blurred, given Wikileaks isn't even termed a terrorist organization. They are, however, denying the public the ability to support them financially.
By the same logic of the courts, this should be an issue of free speech. Mastercard et al are impeding free speech.
.
And they both have been exposed: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/246424
exp(i*pi)+1=0
So what do you want adolescents to do then? Vote?
As it should be!
Apparently, Paypal has admitted to being coerced into smashing the cookie jar.
Living With a Nerd
Note that the latest leaks show that the US Govt put pressure on Russia, to avoid legislation that would level the field for Visa/Mastercard competitors:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-us-russia-visa-mastercard
Anon DDOS attack? ... Priceless
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Except the first amendment only applies to the government. If a company wants to impend your speech they can.
Well, you see, the text of the First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". In this case, instead of making a law, they're just suppressing speech by strongly suggesting to the corporations that it would be in their best interest to comply.
With the Wikileaks case, the powers that be have demonstrated quite clearly that they don't give a damn what's legal and what's not legal. They're going to do what they're going to do, and screw the Constitution if it gets in the way.
I am officially gone from
this should be an issue of free speech. Mastercard et al are impeding free speech.
Yes it is! Except they can do it.
The Constitution are a limit on the government, not private parties.
Of course, if this happened because of gov pressure is another discussion entirely, and then I'm not sure it's protected by the constitution.
how long until
Operation Payback hit ACS Law a second time, knocking out the site. In the process of bringing it back up, someone exposed the server's directory structure through the Web instead of showing the website itself. Those conducting Operation Payback immediately moved in and grabbed a 350MB archive of ACS Law e-mails, then threw the entire mass up on sites like The Pirate Bay. This is more than a matter of mere embarrassment. The UK has tougher data protection laws than the US, and the country's Information Commissioner has already made it clear that ACS Law could be on the hook for hundreds of thousands of pounds. That's because, in addition to his iTunes receipts ("Hooray for iPads. I love mine," Crossley says at one point) and Amazon purchase orders, the e-mails include numerous attachments filled with all manner of private information: names, addresses, payment details, passwords, revenue splits, business deals.
"Act like fucking adolescents?"
This is the modern equivalent of a lunch counter sit-in. No user has had their computer hijacked, they are all participating of their free will. Are they "disrupting business"? Perhaps, but no worse than the lunch counter sit-ins did.
Regardless of the merits of Wikileaks and the service/information that the supply, I really don't see this as a productive response by their supporters. Rather, it just makes it appear as if a significantly-sized contingent of destructive, if not criminally-minded people support Wikileaks. It may or may not be Wikileaks' fault but the fact that groups are using, albeit incorporeal, violent action to pursue their political agenda is pretty much the definition of terrorism and they're really just making it easier for the government and media to paint Wikileaks with that brush. A campaign against companies which are at the heart of the modern economy is easy enough to paint as a threat to economic stability and therefore "national security" and is probably going to come back to bite them in the ass, one way or another.
Of course, they're going to do what they're going to do. As long as they don't knock out the credit card processing capabilities then it won't affect me since I never go to the websites of these companies. But still, as they say on The Boondocks: "that's not a good look" and will probably have no positive outcome for those participating in the action.
Governments and institutions are the ones which thru with their words and actions are getting discredited. Wikileaks is not saying to do, nor doing the DDoS to those sites, so why it should be discredited?
with websites selling fake viagra.
Last year I got a complaint from a Danish ISP that i was spamming their customers. I requested and got forwarded one of my supposed emails. A little bit of poking around I found that the viagra company was based in Hong Kong. Whois told me the address, names, telephone numbers etc. (you'd thing scum like that would hide their info better).
I phoned and emailed Visa, MC, the spam company, even their service provider. The only response was from that Danish ISP their tech guy if you can call him that was complaining about my continual spamming even after I gave him the proof that the email originated from China not Canada. You would think traceroute and whois are kind of basic tools and any dumbass should be able to use them but this guy didn't even know how to look at email header info.
As for visa MC they would not be bothered even though I gave them all the info (btw they were shipping their product from Texas) Visa and MC told be to get bent.
In America, distributing classified documents is illegal.
Not true. It's illegal to initially leak them if you have clearance. Republishing them is not... note that the New York Times has republished most of the leak; has Mastercard stopped doing business with them?
I don't think they count as zombies when the botnet is voluntary. This is more like a coordinated attack by ninjas and pirates.
which is totally what she said
Of course it does, by association. Claiming otherwise is naive; pretending it's a viewpoint that can be blamed on Fox news and their listeners is simply childish.
If the average person on the street learns of this, they see a group of people who have few qualms against engaging in cyber-terrorism against a major financial company that is quite rightly distancing itself from Wikileaks because of some very illegal activities. You may clamor against this viewpoint all you wish and engage in some lovely logical debates, but it doesn't change the fact that this is how most people will see it. Slashdot readers and posters are not representative of the public at large.
DDOS caused by a voluntary botnet... Is it just me or could that also describe having the MasterCard website linked in a Slashdot article?
Its probably going to reenforce their decision, and give anyone else pause if they choose to do business with Wikileaks. This is a really dumb thing to do, look at it this way, why would any payment process ever want to work with wikileaks again if they know their fanboys will attack them if they don't continue to do business with them? Its a no win situation for the payment processor, its better to never do business with wikileaks.
Python
In America, distributing classified documents is illegal. They stopped allowing people to send money to a criminal (in their jurisdiction) company. Case closed. This has nothing to do with 'free speech' and the First Amendment doesn't have anything to do with this.
Your statement is incorrect. Please read the decision of New York Times Co. v. United States.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
I would expect that to never come to light honestly. If they admitted how much the DDoS cost them, it would essentially give a 'quantifiable' damage scores (not sure how else to describe it) to anyone who pursued similar attacks in the future. It'd be fascinating to see though; the amount of lost revenue, divided by the number of unique IP's in the DDoS should give you dollars lost on a per-node basis. Then it'd give you cost metrics, and where there's readily available cost metrics, there's business opportunities. Just think - "we'll pay you $.01 to run this program for an hour!" while in the background you're causing 250$ in damage to a target. Sorry, mind is wandering in the dark side now :)
Perhaps the more constructive response is to figure out a way to do what you want without having to force someone else to do it. Mastercard is a business, they aren't in business to facilitate freedom of speech - and as annoying or insulting as that may be, and as much as it may piss some people off, its not going to change. Even if mastercard says they have changed their ways and suddenly become gods gift to the US first amendment, they really won't have done this - they exist to make money. If theres no money in it, they wont do it. Don't kid yourself, capitalism is about money - PERIOD. To that end, it actually seems like there may be a genuine need for a sort of CausesPayment system - at least I think wikileaks supporters would agree, so I recommend that if you really want to fix this problem, make it your own - this DDOS isn't going to give you the control you want. even if you get a temporary victory, it can be snatched away because you don't control the flow of money and never will as long as you rely on third parties. So go start a payment processor, it doesnt have to be anything fancy, you could just take payments in the form of checks to start with and send the money to whatever cause the person wants. Let them bankroll anything they want, let people bankroll anything they want - stand up, take action and stop waiting for someone else to do something about it. Then you can take whatever stance you want, and stand up for freedom of speech. If you want something done, do it yourself. If you wait for others to do it, you may wait forever.
Python
it seems that donations to wikileaks are still being processed by this startup: http://eu.techcrunch.com/2010/12/08/wikileaks-continues-to-fund-itself-via-tech-startup-flattr/
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I thought you had to actually be convicted to be a criminal - not just accused.
Track your TV Shows with your iPhone - FREE
Really? The government can just threaten companies to get them to stop providing services to people whose speech the government doesn't like? And that's not a free speech issue?
I love how so many people are so unknowledgeable about this issue that they think Visa, Mastercard, and Paypal all suddenly decided to stop provides services for no reason, when both Mastercard and Paypal stated quite bluntly that the government made them do it, and it's probably the same story for Visa.
Remember, folks, the government can't punish you for free speech, but it can threaten everyone who interacts with you so you quickly die homeless and staving in the gutter.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I missed the article where Wikileaks was found guilty in a court of law of distributing classified documents and google is not bringing anything up either. Can you point me to it?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Too bad. They're essentially a "common carrier" for funds and should have to act that way.
Also, I don't associate MasterCard with, say, a big box store that royally pisses me off by jerking me around (which is similar to the situation with MC and Wikileaks). The excuse that MC doesn't want to be associated with Wikileaks is B.S.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
So... slashdot is posting self-fulfilling articles now?
Honestly people refer to anon as adolescents, but I don't think its true. If you look at humans in general, in large groups all of us act like spoiled children. They all want to suck in as much resources as possible, fight to place themselves as high as they can on the social ladder, pee on the beta through omega dogs, and be able to do as they please. Examples: British colonialism treated colonies like second class citizens, extending idiotic laws like the local lord could sleep with peoples wives on their wedding nights, etc. The US constantly interferes with other governments, and after destabilizing them, whines that results aren't in our favor. There's lots of examples. I think Agent Kay put it best, "A person is intelligent. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals." Hell, in social psychology there are extensive studies of mob behavior, and they all point towards humans being pretty damn wretched cruel creatures when in groups. Anon is about as principled as any other mob. At least they're predictable insomuch as they always support the first amendment and open information; even if they cast a broad net on who they target.
Well, it hurts their business doesn't it ? It is a payback operation. Turning down a legitimate client without any judgement for political reason was a stupid action. Apparently it is fair to do so. Therefore except more stupid actions, that is what you need to get a political voice nowadays. Politicians don't react to legitimate and rational arguments. They react to fear, to things they don't understand, and mostly to the most stupidly statements made in the most stupid way.
Anonymous will get more media coverage for that than outraged reactions of various moderate group. Do they desserve it ? No, sure. Do they have it ? Hell yes.
This may be a stupid action, but it is the most likely to have an impact.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
"voluntary botnet" why does such a thing even exist?? Did voluntary Borg exist?
It's called that because the latest version of LOIC has a 'Hive Mind' feature where users give control of their computers (temporarily) to an IRC channel operator, thus becoming part of a voluntary botnet, more so than just 'Lets all attack this target.' See LOIC
Except the first amendment only applies to the government. If a company wants to impend your speech they can.
Yes, but the government has reportedly been coercing MC and other companies to stop providing service to Wikileaks. That would be a governmental action impeding free speech.
In America, distributing classified documents is illegal.
No it's not, you fucktard.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Comcast is blocking access to any websites reporting wikileaks related stories.
This is exactly what I would suspect they would do.
What can you expect from a big corporate interest?
WikiLeaks Founder Says Next Target Is Major US Bank
"Early next year, WikiLeaks will publish tens of thousands of internal documents from a major U.S. bank, exposing the institution's rampant corruption and unethical practices and executives' brazen self-interest, Assange said in an interview with Forbes magazine."
That's a problem. I'm quite willing to drop MasterCard is there's a good alternative. The main requirement is that it needs to be accepted by all web shops. So that restricts my options to PayPal, Visa and MasterCard, I think.
you're comparing this to anti-segregation protests??? dude, get a grip
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
Such stupid actions will only serve to discredit Wikileaks further.
Undoing some moderation here but I must say: BULLSHIT! The only reason the government and these companies are going after Wikileaks is because Wikileaks has dirt on them, and Wikileaks has credibility. Your statement notwithstanding.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
quite rightly distancing itself from Wikileaks because of some very illegal activities.
What is wikileaks doing that is illegal? And are they distancing themselves from the newspapers that are republishing the leaks? It's not quite right. It is a couple of very large corporations colluding to remove freedom of speech, when the speech in question reflects badly on them.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Whoever is doing it, such attacks are just plain wrong. Attacking infrastructure may be harmful and amounts to terrorism
Oh for fucks sake, NO, it doesn't!
Terrorism is coercion through FEAR (or, dare I say it, "terror?"). It is NOT embarrassing hypocritical governments. It is NOT interfering with our corporate overlords. It is NOT inconveniencing an ignorant and apathetic populace in their yearly December feeding frenzy.
Sorry, I disagree.
CC companies are sneaky to be sure, but they do serve a purpose - they're a hedge against short term super-crunches. That's the real problem in society - a giant tragedy of the commons type thing (slight off, but I don't know the correct term). What I mean is that when landlords and mortgagers force a certain price for housing, while other companies force down wages, citizens get caught in a colossal game of musical chairs until they just can't hold on.
This first shows up as a micro-crunch - being 12 days short of being able to pay rent is enough for people to lose their homes. Voila Overdraft Protection. The unfortunate part is that once they're in the red, people aren't yet trained to eat bread and butter and 3-day cheese for 8 days straight to catch up to neutral, so THAT's when they get cooked with a balance that never dies.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
"Ku-Klux-Klan ja, Wikileaks nein"
"Apoyo a organizaciones racistas"
'Je mag met je Visa- of Mastercard wel geld geven aan de Ku Klux Klan, maar inmiddels geen donaties meer doen aan WikiLeaks.'
"Ku Klux Klan'a bagis var, Wikileaks'e yok" [Sorry for the spelling, but
"[..]- nie ma za to problemów z donacj np. na róne odamy Ku-Klux-Klanu"
Wikileaks had credibility, back when they were a whistleblowing site and not a media corp.
Such stupid actions will only serve to discredit Wikileaks further. The best and only response should be: take your own money elsewhere.
CU, Martin
Not sure why this is marked Troll. Here's another perspective - anonymous sends the clear message: "If you support suppressing this information, we will suppress you*. Because when we do it, it is right and good -- and when you do it, it's wrong and evil and must be punished." Here's the problem with that line of thinking: when it's wrong for one party to do it, it's no better when the other party does it.
That barely touches on the overtly childish nature of the behavior. "LA LA LA LA I CAN SHOUT LOUDER THAN YOU CAN, NOBODY CAN HEAR YOU NOW!". Nor does it get into how this affects a large number of third parties (eg Mastercard customers) who have had no part in this decision -- and yet must still pay the price now.
And before somebody compares it to a sit-in on the basis of that last comment, there's a critical difference: a sit-in involves people with names and faces, standing up [or sitting down] for what they believe in - though doing so may cost them reputation, time, and even money. On the other hand, the type of action under discussion involves a bunch of wannabes hiding behind distributed botnets, Tor, and various anonymous proxies pressing a button or running a script.
In addition, when customers show up at a physical place of business to discover a sit-in preventing them from receiving service, they get a clear and immediate understanding of why - thus a message is sent to them as well as to the business they're supporting. They may even learn of practices that weren't aware of, and change their own behavior appropriately. But what do mastercard.com customers find? A web site that doesn't response. There's no message they can receive - they'll just come back later, when the site is back online.
There is no basis for comparison between the two types of actions.
* Help, help, I'm being repressed!"
Indeed. I'm curious as to what sort of liability this is going to open for them in the future. Previously they only refused transactions that the government required them to or in cases where they suspected fraud.
If they're now blocking transactions which the government doesn't require them to and that they have good reason to believe the cardholder consented to, that's got to open up all sorts of liability over their connection with cybercriminals.
Can you use your MasterCard to pay for your New York Times subscription? If so, MasterCard are a bunch of hypocrites.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
It'll trigger most Anti Virus programs. Run it in a clean VM and you should be fine.
Shameless karma whoring:
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
The unanimous opinion itself is very short; essentially, designating documents as secret and punishing anyone who publishes them is a 'prior restraint' and presumed unconstitutional.
We granted certiorari in these cases in which the United States seeks to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the contents of a classified study entitled "History of U. S. Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy." Post, pp. 942, 943.
"Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 70 (1963); see also Near v. Minnesota, 283 U. S. 697 (1931). The Government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint." Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U. S. 415, 419 (1971). The District Court for the Southern District of New York in the New York Times case and the District Court for the District of Columbia and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the Washington Post case held that the Government had not met that burden. We agree.
Please dfferentiate by action:
Wikileaks releases documents with insight into the Iceland bank scandal: + Credibility
Wikileaks releases documents/videos with Insight to Iraq: + Credibility
Wikileaks founder shows unmitigated ego and drives off supporters: - Credibility
Wikileaks releases diplomatic small talk: +/- Credibility
Wikileaks founders handling of dubious rape accusations: - Credibility
Wikileaks hangarounds launch DDOS attacks: -- Credibility
I think there is a strong need for Wikileaks (or something similar). While Julian Assange has done some great services, he is probably not the person to head such an organisation. I am highly critical of the release of the cables. It contained very little information for the damage done. I think the decision to release those cables was because they could release them and not due to the insight they provided. My impression is that ego and publicity had a lot to do with it.
CU, Martin
Many people believe feel this denial of service was caused by government. Paypal has admitted it. I don't know if Mastercard and VISA have admitted it yet, but it's not hard to guess. We're not talking about private action.
If I own the printing press which you rent to print things I consider obnoxious, and then I decide I don't want to be associated with your bullshit anymore and stop letting you use my printing press, then you're right, there's nothing to suggest the government has overstepped its constitutional limits.
If I own the printing press which you rent to print things the government considers obnoxious, so they send goons over to point a gun at my head and explain that I will not let you use my printing press anymore, then the government has overstepped its constitutional limits. And that's what happened here, assuming money==speech.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Consumer action is another tactic. Here's the letter I sent my bank:
Dear Smile.co.uk,
One of the reasons I am a customer of Smile Banking is your commitment to ethical banking.
I do not believe that Visa's recent decision to block payments to Wikileaks is consistent with that ethical stance.
I understand that due to Visa's near-monopoly on card payments and online payments, it is not really practical for either Smile Banking or myself personally to discontinue our use of Visa debit card facilities. However I would like to send a message to Visa that this decision has weakened, not strengthened, their brand reputation to me and, I would assume, others.
To this end:
1. Please would you forward this message to Smile Banking's board of directors
2. Please would Smile Banking collate any similar messages of disapproval regarding Visa's actions from other Smile customers, should they be received, and communicate the aggregate message to Visa
3. Please, so that I can modify my behaviour where possible, would you advise me to what extent the following activities result in income to Visa
a: A debit card payment where I the cardholder am present
b: A cash withdrawal at a high street ATM
c: An online/telephone debit card payment
Many thanks,
mastercard doesn't care about freedom of speech etc
Credit card companies don't care about freedom of speech but they do care about making money and if by denying access to servers through DDOS attacks MasterCard and Visa lose money they will pay attention. As you also say business can be taken elsewhere too but how many retailers, online and offline, accept other forms of payment? Of course there's cold hard currency, which is how I prefer to pay for things, but you can't make online payments with it.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
There's no Journalism license out there. Bloggers are not journalists? What about people who provide context in the comment section of an online newspaper story?
Until they start handing out Journalism licenses, the threshold for being a journalist is saying "I'm a journalist."
DDoS != modern sit-in
Voluntary Botnet == modern sit-in
See the difference?
Now, I admit that it's pretty funny to see the credit card companies getting screwed for a change. But basically, the Russians tried to f*** over a couple of American businesses, and the U.S. government decided it was necessary to step in and pressure the Russians not to do this. Part of the government's job is to look out for the economic interests of the United States, which includes private corporations. U.S. diplomats are doing their job. Truly shocking indeed.
you're comparing this to anti-segregation protests???
Who needs to get a grip, one who equates one protest with another or one who ridicules such comparisons?
Quite frankly voters can not make informed decisions when they are not informed. Wikileaks is informing voters of what their government is doing.
Falcon
Now as for "informed voters" that is another subject.
Should there be a Law?
If you (and serviscope_minor above your post) read my comment and don't skip bits, you'll note I said "If the average person on the street learns of this, they see...". This is the common perception. My post doesn't actually state this is what I believe. (That said, and I hope this does not place too much of a strain on your parsing abilities, I do agree with that opinion.)
So far as your comment Nixon is concerned, I can't give an opinion on that. I am not an American; I grew up in a country that quite simply was hardly impacted at all by U.S. politics. I was not old enough when that occurred to pay much attention to or understand the issues.
this is ammo for those that wish to control the Internet. This can not end well.
You do know that Flattr is the child of brokep right?
Seems a bit odd to see a coalition like this forming up.
right...
DDoS != modern sit-in
Voluntary Botnet == modern sit-in
See the difference?
Where does this leave a DDoS implemented using a voluntary botnet?
Instead of smashing 4chan's servers (which wouldn't stop the attacks and would just make you the next target, and give you an anti-free-speech reputation) why not call up Visa and Mastercard and complain, and ask why Wikileaks' accounts have been shut down while they still process payments for the KKK?
And at 5 grand a day, unless you're running on razor-thin margins with just-in-time production, this shouldn't hurt you too much. Relax. You don't even have any competition AFAIK.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Has anyone noticed what actions MC has taken to deal with the DDOS? It looks like they've done almost nothing--they are still trying to serve the same content and haven't moved their DNS servers off network. They did reduce the TTL on the DNS records to 15 minutes, but I'm not sure how that helps?
I would think that the inability to get to the DNS records would be blocking all the email traffic into MC (I couldn't see their MX records), which would bounce all the mail.
I would have thought that they had a backup plan to handle this kind of event--perhaps serving static web pages, backup DNS and a standby CDN contract to handle the traffic. It also seems odd that the DNS servers are on their network, but I'm sure that they have multiple carriers and centers.
It's surprising that a major IT-dependent firm isn't better able to handle this. On the other hand, as it's been pointed out, the website isn't used for the financial traffic.
What should they be doing to handle this kind of attack?
Except that there is no where else to take your money.
Regardless, I'm getting increasingly disenchanted with the "don't like it, don't participate" mentality. First it was the TSA: "don't like it, don't fly." Now it is "don't like what MC is doing, don't use them." Of course Visa and PayPal are doing the exact same things...
How about if instead of asking me to submit I ask THEM to submit?
Yeah, I like that a lot better.
That's an excellent letter. Thank you for posting it. I just called my bank (Wells Fargo) and asked some of those questions with regard to my debit/credit card that has a Visa symbol on it. It turns out that if I use my card as a debit card, Visa does not benefit from the transaction. And if I put the card into a Wells Fargo ATM machine, Visa does not benefit. The person I spoke to was not sure about non-Wells Fargo ATM machines.
So, from now on, I will be using cash and American Express a lot more, and using my Wells Fargo card as a debit card when necessary (subject to the usual caveats about caution when using a debit card).
I should be able to reduce my monthly Visa transactions from around $800 to close to zero.
Rather do something stupid than do nothing? Neither a good nor the right choice IMHO.
Which of course is not the case in "the land of the free, home of the brave", the Glorious USA, where in the spirit of freedom and competition all credit card transactions are welcomed to be processed by assorted small companies in Russia, Finland and Monaco and are not nearly exclusively dominated by a pair of nasty anti-competitive global US-based cartels like Mastercard or Visa who own all the processing facilities almost everywhere and enjoy protection of bought-and-paid-for politicians!
Oh, wait...
The enemy of my enemy is my friend?
Neither John F. Kennedy nor Nikita Kruschev would have had the support of their governments had their positions been known because of something like a Wikileaks release.
Why would you assume that the public would have chosen nuclear war over bargaining?
Assange is not behaving like an ethical member of the press.
The press is not behaving like an ethical member of the press. The failure of the press in the last decade to act as anything except a mouthpiece for the US government and the special interests that control it has caused far more damage to this country and the world than anything Assange could dream of. It's time for the pendulum to swing the other way.
He has threatened to leak even more information about financial institutions. Folks, he is potentially threatening to hurt your own financial futures for his personal gain
If your financial future is at risk, it's not Assange who did it. It's the criminals who run the banking institutions. They need to be exposed to protect your financial future.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
An anti-virus is calling some software that will give remote control of your computer to a thrid party a threat?!?! That is just unbelivable!!!
Rethinking email
This first shows up as a micro-crunch - being 12 days short of being able to pay rent is enough for people to lose their homes
This isn't a "micro-crunch", this is evidence of someone who's failed at life.
The lack of a controlled budget, proper savings, and an emergency fund to cover off surprises is illustrative of a financial illness for which credit card use is a symptom, not a cure.
Credit cards have their use, yes, primarily in the avenue of consumer protection (it's far easier to convince a CC company to reverse a charge than a bank to give you your savings back). But they are *not* useful as a financial crutch, as they simply act to exacerbate the problem by adding unmanageable debt to the equation.
DDoS maybe a stupid action. However, closing out your accounts are not. I've already closed out my paypal account, and will soon close out my BoA and Master accounts. I would urge those with everyone's best interest in mind doing the same.
Thank you
Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
and the real hackers come out of the wood work and utterly GARBAGE the usa's websites.
until know i have sat back and watched...do not threaten these youth's...you do so at YOUR PERIL.
WE think of the children unlike you and believe in freedom to the adverse of corporate fascism that you preach.
From how you type you are the child. DDOSing a website? That is amateurish script kiddie BS. You aren't advancing the cause of network neutrality, internet liberty, human rights or anything by taking down websites. The only thing you generate is negative publicity for yourself and for the internet as a whole.
This will result in Lieberman being able to pass the Internet Censorship bill. Don't you see you are a useful idiot? You are being used to help pass this bill which would never be able to pass if Anonymous did not do stupid pointless BS.
Terrorism is coercion through FEAR
Which aptly describes the practice of government for at least the entire history of man.
FTFY
> the U.S. government decided it was necessary to step in and pressure the Russians not to do this.
US secretly helps MasterCard And Visa. MasterCard and Visa decide to help the US shut down Wikileaks. Nice to know how it all works. Everybody wins, right?
Please see the case of NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES which examines this section and the surrounding ones, and found that the New York Times was not guilty under it for publishing classified documents:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=713
The spread of corruption in the former USSR is so wide, that it is practically impossible to work with local e-payments solutions providers. One has to conclude the contract with a company, and then still arrange kickbacks to a programmer, to make him willing to implement it on your website.
I tend to not trust such set-ups, as a little chmo can halt you website any moment, extorting a kickback.
I would prefer that such payment solutions as PayPal, MasterCard, etc. were present there directly, without local intermediaries. I am myself Russian, but I had to admit sadly that the corruption really hurts, e-business opportunities in the former USSR.
Lots of outdates links making the rounds. Get the latest LOIC here: https://github.com/NewEraCracker/LOIC. This has the "hive mind" feature. Written in C#.
I am highly critical of the release of the cables. It contained very little information for the damage done. I think the decision to release those cables was because they could release them and not due to the insight they provided. My impression is that ego and publicity had a lot to do with it.
CU, Martin
On the contrary, the cables contain plenty of evidence of government wrongdoing, although not necessarily by the US government. As a Swede, it is very interesting to know that the us embassy reports that my government prefers to share information about Swedish citizens using a "strong but informal agreement" instead of having a formal agreement, as such an agreement would have to be discussed by the parliament. If the cable is correct, my government is probably violating the Swedish "grundlag", which can loosely be translated as the constitution of Sweden. See http://www.thelocal.se/30654/20101206/
Does anyone else find it humorous that an organization which prides itself on anonymity is coming to the defense of an organization that prides itself on transparency and holding people accountable?
I see nothing wrong with wanting domestic credit card transactions to be processed domestically. For Russia, a Russian Visa card should be processed in Russia. The same rule applies to the USA. An American Visa card should be processed in the USA, and not, for example, in India.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Well, let's see. Over a million people marched in protest at invading Iraq in the UK and were completely ignored. These days it is difficult to live without a credit card so closing all your accounts is not an option for many people, even if there were enough to make Visa and Mastercard care. So, what to do?
These DDOS attacks made front page news in the UK, second only to the tuition fees debacle in news bullitins. A few thousand people max were involved and they managed to get heard in mainstream media and genuinely hurt Visa and Mastercard by preventing them trasacting business for a time and making them invest in better protection for the future.
When faced with the choice of walking around London in the cold waving a placard hardly anyone is ever going to see or bringing major finiancial institutions to their knees, however briefly, and getting major front page coverage... Well, if you felt strongly about something wouldn't you want to do something about it?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC