Slashdot Mirror
Operation Payback and Hactivism 101
Orome1 writes "While individual acts of hacktivism are inconvenient, something else happens when hacktivists group together — they commonly perform a DDoS attack. Techniques have advanced to automate the process, making the attacks more powerful and thus more able to bypass security controls — the effect, however, remains the same. Let us take a look at the recent Operation Payback which has gained notoriety in the past few months."
Stop calling it HACKtivism?
Amongst nerds (which is pretty much whoever is following it on this site) - to 'hack' does not meant the same as 'to crack'.
And calling DDOSing 'hacking' is wrong on both definitions of hack. Especially if the client is just a script kiddie using a program which s/he doesn't know (or care enough) to work out what its doing exactly.
The DDOS Wikipedia Entry is much more informative than this article, I would suggest reading it instead.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
It is not DDoS or cyber-war it is cyber-picketing. It used to be that when you had a disagreement with a company people picked it and disrupted its business that way. Well, welcome to the 21 century you can now picket the business from the comfort of your own home.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
Is it freedom of speech if you don't let the other guy talk?
I bet that's the same thing the people in power said back in the '60s...
- These characters were randomly selected.
In what way has Anonymous prevented their targets from talking? It's not like the only way Paypal or Mastercard have to communicate is through their website.
Living With a Nerd
The problem is this "hacktivism" is doing far more damage than good because it easily allows the politicians to say "We need an internet kill switch". The overwhelming majority of people don't give a damn about wikileaks one way or the other. It's a side show on the 24 hours infotainment channels, that's all. The main reason being that what Wikileaks is doing has little to no effect on people's daily lives. Especially when most are more concerned with the job/family/economy. Instead they see these "attacks" as nothing more than a group of vandals. Nothing more and when authorities want tougher laws to deal with these "vandals", the public shrugs and says...."alright".
And attacking the public facing websites...okay that may work with Amazon or Paypal. But to Mastercard or Visa? So long as I can still use my Visa Debit card or Mastercard at the gas pump or grocery store, it's not like I notice.
That being said, if they did target the processing systems of mastercard/visa, I'm pretty sure that would be the golden goose the politicians have been waiting for to really clamp down on control of the internet because then you are messing with people pocket books.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Dude, It's 4chan. Have you ever been on /b/?
Here is what happens: Anon comes in with a novelty idea, /b/tards join in "just for the lulz". Then, new Anon (oldfag Anon is a cold, merciless beast. newfag Anon is the conscious, moral, cause-oriented joke of the internet) puts a tag on it and says they are doing it for X. I mean, some said they did the Habbo raids to fight racism. They also said they did project chanology to protect the victims of Scientology. Bullshit, they did it for the lulz.
Of course, DDoSing, Raiding, IRL stalking, etc, are fucking funny, and if it happens to overlay with a good cause, even better. Let them have fun, and bring them down while they are at it.
But in this case, it's pretty obvious that Anon had nothing to do with Amazon Europe going down. Anon is nothing but a bunch of script kiddies, and they don't have the sophistication nor the combined bandwidth to bring down Amazon with a ddos attack.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
As advocates of Democracy and transparency, let's break the law and act in secret to take down big companies, which in turn hurts small businesses who use these payment services. Let's also inconvenience random shoppers. Let's create all kinds of random collateral damage to make a point about supporting transparency by supporting a completely secretive organization.
Sorry, I'm not buying it.
I was just at the Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial and museum. One of the more interesting aspects of it was that the people motivated to bomb the federal building (and kill infants in the nursery) were upset at the government. They felt the most effective way to change the government was a terrorist attack. The two responsible were caught. One will serve life in prison while the other was executed. They didn't change government, but they did forfeit their lives.
Conversely, families of vicitms banded together, formed a group and went to Washington D.C. to ask for reform in how the death penalty is handled in federal cases. They felt the best way to support Democracy and affect change was to use Democracy itself.
That is such a novel concept.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Oh please.
100 people can sit in at a lunch counter, shutting down service, and it's considered activism and protest.
100,000 organized people could easily shut down 1,000 restaurants, or bank branches, or other retail storefronts by the same behavior. Again, activism and protest.
100-500,000 people can jam up the phone banks to Congressional offices and we call it a "Virtual March on Washington." And nobody suggests it doesn't qualify as activism and protest.
All of these count as activism. Yet when an unknown number of people voluntarily download an item to their computer to participate in a "virtual march" on the website of a bank, or the RIAA, or Paypal, or Scientology, somehow it's not activism?
The major difference is whether the participants are willing or unwilling. In the case of most botnet-based DDoS attacks, the participants are unwilling; their machines have been hijacked and often they don't even know they are participants. In the case of LOIC, they are all willing. They purposely downloaded and installed the software. They can leave it running or only turn it on at specific times. They can easily uninstall it if they believe it is being used in a way they don't support.
What is going on is not a "cyber attack." It is a virtual protest march.
I find it interesting that some people on Slashdot consider them "freedom fighters" of a sort, trying to preserve freedom of speech, when some of the same group have actively tried to interfere with Tumblr and Facebook merely because they didn't like the kind of people who posted on them.
As someone upthread said, these aren't freedom fighters, they're thugs. Just because their targets at the moment include businesses you don't like, doesn't make them less so.
How do you figure? It what way were Paypal or Mastercard prevented from saying what they had to say?
Are you implying that they only communicate through their websites?
Living With a Nerd
They never targeted the public facing website for Paypal. It was the ssh port and the api site that they went after. They weren't targeting your ability to visit Paypal.com, they were directly targeting the ability to make a payment.
You forget, this is the United Corporations of America! We'll tie you down with a Bass Pro Fishing Shop-branded rope and give you 30 lashes with a Wal-Mart branded whip. After it's all done, we'll just put some Neosporin on there, prop you up on an Ikea couch, and let you indulge in that wonderful cultural pasttime known as "watching television", where you will be informed of other great products and services!
Living With a Nerd
Yeah. Like they could totally go into the closet and whisper their opinions to the cockroaches. No need to be able to talk to the people who want to listen to them.
Get some maturity why don't you?
Freedom of speech involves freedom from retaliation. If you choose not to do business with them, that's great. But if you prevent others from doing business with them then you've crossed the line.
If they "just" put in a kill switch, we would get off lucky. An attack that knocks a major credit card processing company off the Internet (and thus keeps people from being able to do transactions) would get Congress to be cranking out bills in record time. Think USAPATRIOT act, where Congresspeople had to sign the law or be considered weak on terrorism.
Instead, what we would see if "anti-cyberterrorism" treaties being passed with the same wording as ACTA, but because it is for "national security", it would get people signing without a second thought.
End result: Bye-bye Internet, hello Compuserve v2.0. We have a deal after 9PM -- only $5.00/hour while viewing our premiere Web pages ($9.99 an hour if viewing other content) , receiving E-mails is only 99 cents per message, and sending is only $1.99 per message. Don't forget to visit the new CB channel while you are at it.
They weren't preventing anyone from talking, they were however doing what they could to disrupt business.
You know, under normal circumstances I'd be very against what those acting under the "Anonymous" label have done, just as many on Slashdot are right now. But these are not normal circumstances. We have a government - correction, we have an establishment, because this is an unholy alliance of government, big business, and big media, all of whom are covering up and even assisting with each other's crimes, that's gone rogue. And not just mildly rogue, it's an establishment that's fraudulently launched wars, kidnapped, tortured, raped, and destroyed. There are literally tens of millions of direct victims of this government, and hundreds of thousands of people victimized to the point of being tortured, raped, kidnapped, or killed.
Two years ago this country reacted to what little was getting out by electing someone who had claimed to be against this (and made it a big part of what he supposedly stood for) since he first hit the national spotlight in 2004. And his actions on taking office? To continue virtually every aspect of what made the previous administration so evil, in some cases going further.
Meanwhile, when there's even a hint that some of the truth will come out, the establishment has lead Denial of Service attacks of their own, with the major credit card companies abusing their monopoly to make it harder for such acts to be funded, and Amazon.com going as far not merely to disconnect Wikileaks, but to spread smears against them, smears they're continuing to spread today.
So I'm ambivalent about the hacker attacks. Frankly, I think most of the "victims" deserve it - in fact, they deserve much worse. In a decent world, we'd see:
Be very clear about this: these organizations are doing what they're doing for no other purpose than to assist a rogue establishment in preventing the people from knowing the about the crimes it has committed. They're helping in a campaign to prevent people from knowing that the government, and the media, lied about the wars they started. They're helping in a campaign to prevent people from knowing that, for example, private contractors can rape and kill with impunity, that the government will continue to give them money after they've done so, and that the media will, just by being asked, not report upon it, or if it does, bury it where it will not be seen.
This is what is being hidden. This is what people like Jeff Bezos are more than willing to be a part of.
And I'm supposed to be upset about a bunch of frustrated "hackers" trying to bring down their web servers? Why? They're not engaging in violence, they're not preventing anyone from speaking, and the "right" options - the ones everyone are supposed to use before breaking the law - have been denied in the worst way possible. Democracy was tried. The law isn't even available.
I'm not going to encourage anyone to assist with the DDoS attacks, and not going to engage in them myself. But I simply cannot condemn them. And frankly, if Jeff Bezos or the directors of the major credit cards were in front of me right now, I'd spit on them.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Guess what, the Taliban calls you a "spoiled brat acting like thugs".
Iran calls you that.
North Korea calls the western world that.
It makes it a lot easier to hate the other side if you give them a derogatory name and belittle them.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It is not DDoS or cyber-war it is cyber-picketing.
It used to be that when you had a disagreement with a company people picked it and disrupted its business that way. Well, welcome to the 21 century you can now picket the business from the comfort of your own home.
Picketing is a public act. DDoS is not. There is an essential difference. The media orchestration that we have seen over the last few days around DDoD lend me to think me that if there are a few teenagers behind these attacks, they are manipulated by those who want to influence public opinion in the direction of a kill-switch as one poster has mentioned above, and in the direction of measures to rein in on the Internet.
It is all too easy for provocateurs to do as they please, as these actions are anonymous. But the media go on reporting on this ascribing these actions to "a movement in support of Wikileaks". We don't know that, they don't know that.
"Freedom of speech involves freedom from retaliation. If you choose not to do business with them, that's great. But if you prevent others from doing business with them then you've crossed the line." Assuming that we're starting with a level playing field. Mastercard, Visa, Paypal, and Amazon are all able to buy Congressmen. Regular people can't. Our government is so corrupt at this point, there's really no recourse for regular people who have to go up against these corporations with more rights and privileges than actual people.
I don't respond to AC's.
"The problem is this "hacktivism" is doing far more damage than good because it easily allows the politicians to say "We need an internet kill switch"."
If you think that the politicians need a reason to do this, then you're living on another planet. The politicians will do whatever the Big Corporations tell them to do. To say that the people shouldn't fight back for fear of repercussions is laughable.
I don't respond to AC's.
Wikileaks did it to themselves.
Instead to sticking to the leaking criminal activity or human rights violations, leaks decided to just release everything they were given without regard to consequences.
They are now actually aiding countries like China and Saudi Arabia by exposing all the US information and opinions on them.
Good job leaks.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
I'm just happy that someone on /. *finally* (in the second paragraph of the post above) used the word "rogue" instead of "rouge".
Yeah. Like they could totally go into the closet and whisper their opinions to the cockroaches. No need to be able to talk to the people who want to listen to them.
So they don't have Twitter accounts? Facebook accounts? Or, you know...access to the fucking media?
Living With a Nerd
I know what you mean, I always see red when people do that... ;-)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
"Freedom of speech involves freedom from retaliation. If you choose not to do business with them, that's great."
But choosing not to do business with them *is* retaliation.
Isn't this true of any protest though, online or off? As soon as the protest becomes effective enough to actually have any real impact, measures will be taken by someone to put it to an end. The only protests that can be allowed are those which achieve nothing.
Uhh. Isn't the U.S. government 'strongly suggesting' that Amazon not cooperate with Wiki Leaks. I think we can all agree that freedom of speech and freedom of association should be protected. But it appears to me that Big Brother, is playing it's hand and 'leaning' on the corporations that want to do business in the land of the free.
"Uhh Hey Amazon.com, you REALLY don't want to do business with those scoundrels at wiki leaks do you? Say how do you like the U.S. postal system. How do you like the fact that the internet purchases are not taxed?"
This issue is not freedom of press / association, it is who is Actually playing the heavy hand and stifling these principals. If it were purely up to Amazon, I think they would be happy to take the money wherever it came from. But it isn't. Part of growing up is the need to make money to support others. That means compromises will be made a living and keep doing business, but don't call those compromises a 'courageous moral decision'
At first paypal was blabbering that they cut wikileaks due to 'violation of tos', and there was no political pressure involved. (probably liebermann warned them to say that). A few days with anonymous, they came around to openly say that they did it due to political pressure. A few more days, they decided to release the wikileaks funds they were holding ...
you cant say it didnt work.
Read radical news here
Amazon first. Wikileaks didn't host at Amazon until their Swedish provider collapsed under the DDOS they were experiencing. So they moved to Amazon and brought the DDOS with them. Regardless of any government action, it's not that shocking that they kicked them out. Just like you'd kick someone out of your restaurant if they walked in the door and took a shit in the kitchen.
As far as Paypal and Mastercard go, who knows what's happened there. Again, ignoring the government aspect of things, it's been reported (and not disputed) that Julian opened a bank account using fictitious information and he also provided a false address to the British courts, what do you think the odds are that he provided correct information to Paypal and Mastercard? Both of them are companies that are trying to do business and they have to operate within the various regulatory environments they are subject to. Allowing people to use false information on the accounts is a violation of those rules. If Julian and Wikileaks feel that there has been some malfeasance they have legitimate means of recourse.
Finally, there is a huge difference between not associating with someone and preventing them from doing associating with others.
A silly point.
If a thug threatens harm to me or my family for saying something they don't like, that doesn't mean I can't still talk.
But I'd still say you're directly affecting my freedom of speech.
Really, I didn't trample on your ability to speak. I just killed your family because of what you said. That totally isn't affecting your ability to speak freely.
As far as Paypal and Mastercard go, who knows what's happened there. Again, ignoring the government aspect of things, it's been reported (and not disputed) that Julian opened a bank account using fictitious information and he also provided a false address to the British courts, what do you think the odds are that he provided correct information to Paypal and Mastercard? Both of them are companies that are trying to do business and they have to operate within the various regulatory environments they are subject to. Allowing people to use false information on the accounts is a violation of those rules. If Julian and Wikileaks feel that there has been some malfeasance they have legitimate means of recourse.
I would like to point out that all of those accounts had been open for months, if not years, prior to the cables even being announced, much less released. You don't find it the least bit odd that those companies just happened to investigate this after the most powerful governments in the world had their dirty laundry put out for all to see?
Living With a Nerd
How is it silly? Amazon, Paypal, and the like are large enough to have access to every communication tool ever developed by the human race. I don't think slowing down or taking down their website for a couple of hours is going to prevent them from expressing themselves.
Think about this: when one of those companies has important information to tell people, where does it appear first: in the news, or on their homepage? Neither. The answer is both.
Living With a Nerd
Then how does DDoSing Amazon/Paypal/Visa exactly help the situation?
Hopefully, it hits them in their wallets. I can't think of any other way to combat the gross Government/Big Business collusion that happens on a daily basis. How else does one inflict any damage to the massive Military Industrial Complex? Voting is a farce. The average Joe is too stupid, ignorant, or lazy to make any changes to how they do business. What else is there?
I don't respond to AC's.
Are you also against civil rights protests that interfered with businesses? Like sit-ins against restaurants that didn't serve black customers?
It's the same kind of thing. The government apparently isn't interested in making companies act fairly to minority customers, and the minority isn't big enough to cause significant damage through passive actions like boycotts. So you're left with vigilante justice or just ignoring it and moving on.
I don't know how I feel about it but I am very curious if people who oppose this DOS attack are also against civil rights sit-ins, which are exactly the same, and being done for the same motivations (even if you don't agree with them).
The civil rights sit-ins are not the same as the temper tantrum being thrown by Anonymous.
The cause of the civil rights protesters was just. They did break laws to achieve their aims. They also knowingly accepted the very likely (unlike the script kiddies' very unlikely chance) of arrest or worse. Their willingness to sacrifice added to the cause. Remaining peaceful (largely) when confronted with violence added to the cause.
Anonymous is in it for the lulz and the destruction.
I doubt it is just "for the lulz" (I feel stupider for typing that), I'm guessing that some portion of Anon does care. They probably care a bit more than you think, since there are probably targets out there that could get even more "lulz" with a bit less risk or work. Looking around, there is a ton of media, IRC channels, forums, and such supporting Operation Payback, or Leakspin, or whatever the hell their calling it these days.
There is no rule stating that you can't find amusement in protests. Go to some modern protests, or view some footage of protests in the '60s, there was almost a carnival like atmosphere. People enjoyed it. You don't have to be serious faced, completely devoted zealot to have a meaningful protest. You can find it fun as well. It might even be better, since to be human is to garner more sympathy (how much sympathy do we have for raving, utterly devoted, religious zealot protesters?), and it makes a better mockery of whoever your protesting. Your having fun inspite of their nasty behaviors.
Rebellion has always been playful.
I would never argue against doing things you believe in AND getting your "lulz" from it, I would rather you go protest laughing. Everything is better when there is some humor, and element of joie de vivre involved. There is a difference between being serious about something, and being just plain creepy.
I do have some distaste over anything 4Chan, and specifically /b/ does, but I think thats mainly just a generational, or cultural thing and really has no relevance on much of anything.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Visa, MC and Amazon didn't "choose" not to do business with Wikileaks. They have been "asked" to do so, and presented with the alternative to piss off Wikileaks or the US governments, they choose the (presumably) smaller problem. Note that they were not required by law to cease business with Wikileaks or that the government had any (legally backed) reason to require them to cease business. It was just "convenient" for the US government. They just "wanted" to cut off Wikileaks from its resources.
Visa, MC and Amazon were not required, neither by law nor convention nor any other reason to comply with the "request". They just did because it can be beneficial to do the US government a "favor". Especially if it doesn't really cost you anything.
The only thing the DDoSs did is, they made it cost something. And hopefully companies will from now on be more considerate when doing "favors".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
A thug putting pressure on them to do as they please... just to make things clear now, you mean Anonymous or the US government? Both tried to "persuade" them to do their bidding, and neither had any legal reason to do so.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Freely? Are you kidding me?
Do you really think Visa and MC woke up one morning and found out that "Hmm. We suddenly don't like Wikileaks anymore." And Amazon, Paypal and that Swiss bank the name of which I keep forgetting, all had the same idea all at the same time? Boy, talk about great minds thinking alike.
They didn't "freely" decide to stop doing business with Wikileaks. You may rest assured that they were "asked" to freeze the funds and stop dealing with Wikileaks. Note that they were not required BY LAW to do so. If they were, I'd be fully on your side. There is no law that requires them to cease business with Wikileaks. They were just "asked" to cease business and figured that it doesn't matter, so we better do what the US gov wants, even though there is zero legal reason to comply.
Simply allowing this to happen means that whoever just happens to be in power in the US can basically decide who may and who may not do business, with whomever. Is that what we want? A government that may dictate who may and who may not buy, sell or otherwise trade? Not based on laws but on whim?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Picketing is NOT about denying access to something, it is about persuading people not to go in. Picketing is non-violent, and non-disruptive. The idea is to call attention to a problem, and to hopefully persuade others to not do business with a place. If you are forcibly stopping people from going in, that's a blockade and that isn't legal.
If you think I'm an asshole, you are within your rights to picket my house. You can stand outside, not on the property, with a sign and let people know, including people who come to visit. However, if you try to block me from entering my house, the police will come and remove you and charge you with a crime. You can't prevent me from going where I want.
Now occasionally protesters do blockade a business as a form of protest. Guess what? They get arrested for that, and they KNOW they will. It is a form of civil disobedience and they understand the consequences.
This is not picketing, it is blockading and it is illegal.
"It doesn't come down to this at all. They could write to their democratically elected representatives, they could write to newspapers, they could organize rallies, or contribute to blogs, or start a visasucks.com style site, or hand out flyers, or vote for any propositions which punish Amazon or run counter to its interests. "
Are you joking?
I don't respond to AC's.