Spamhaus Under DDoS Over Wikileaks.info

achowe writes "Steve Linford of Spamhaus sent this to a private anti-spam list and asked that the message get out far and wide: 'For speaking out about the crime gangs located at the wikileaks.info mirror IP, Spamhaus is now under ddos by AnonOps. As our site cannot be reached now [actually sporadic], we can not continue to warn Wikileaks users not to load things from the Heihachi IP. ... AnonOps did not like our article update, here is what we said and what brought the ddos on us.'" At the conclusion of this message: "Spamhaus continues to warn Wikileaks readers to make sure they are viewing and downloading documents only from an official Wikileaks mirror site. We’re not saying 'don’t go to Wikileaks' we’re saying 'Use the wikileaks.ch server instead.'" Here is Spamhaus's full warning.

Comments

AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Animats]

I'm beginning to wonder if AnonOps/Anonymous is a false flag operation. They seem to be doing more harm than help to Wikileaks. Their targeting is inept (they previously targeted the wrong DNS provider), their timing is inept, and Wikileaks doesn't need them to stay on line.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, if you ever visisted /b/ you would not be suprised by anything evermore.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[TaoPhoenix]

At least some complicated multi-layered variant of it. It's disturbingly like religious theory - "how do you prove it's not a false flag"?

The level of intensity of slick ops went through the roof these last few years.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[MoonBuggy]

If they were operating under any suggestion of official support from Wikileaks I'd agree with you. As it stands I think they're just inept.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm beginning to wonder if AnonOps/Anonymous is a false flag operation. They seem to be doing more harm than help to Wikileaks. Their targeting is inept (they previously targeted the wrong DNS provider), their timing is inept, and Wikileaks doesn't need them to stay on line.

Mob rule is just rule! Mob rule is just rule! Mob rule is just rule!

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[openfrog]

I'm beginning to wonder if AnonOps/Anonymous is a false flag operation. They seem to be doing more harm than help to Wikileaks. Their targeting is inept (they previously targeted the wrong DNS provider), their timing is inept, and Wikileaks doesn't need them to stay on line.

At last, this is coming out! I've been repeating this obvious thing on every Anonymous story that Slashdot has echoed out until now: we have no idea who is behind so called "Anonymous". A naive teenager is arrested from time to time to give credence to the myth that the Web is under the threat of unruly teenagers, opening the door to repressive legislation.

Now with this, we are beginning to get to hard facts, which should help us awaken our traditional media journalist friends: press, TV, radio. Congratulation for coming up with the term AnonOps. It tells the whole story in a nutshell.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Of COURSE it's a false flag operation. The brave freedom fighters of Anonymous couldn't POSSIBLY be mistaken or misinformed in what they do. There's no way they're all just a bunch of kids with no idea what they're doing. The plan to DDOS Amazon to its knees was truly brilliant, in that it allowed the world to see how quickly Anonymous can shift their attack to new targets.

I, for one, welcome our new basement-dwelling, scat-loving overlords.

   

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Proponents of Wikileaks are inept. Who'd a thunk it.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

AnonOps seems to be a bit A.D.D. these days, and juvenile in it's decision making. This was not always the case.

Yes there's no structured heirarchy, however I get the feeling that the latest hoards who are joining in on the fun, aren't fully understanding all the sides to the game they think they're playing.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Opportunist]

How about adding another layer to the whole conspiration theory? AnonOps isn't a false flag operation, but since you can't tell who is Anonymous by their very nature, now false flag ops are popping up attacking "good" services and claiming it's AnonOps.

We sure are living in interesting times.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Either inept or under orders to keep the kiddies that get caught up with them from getting real dead. Anon is kinda like the perpetual children's crusade of the Net... Brought to you by the letter 'E' as in 'ternal' and the month of September.

I wonder if they can help with the 'Grim Sleeper' case coming out of Los Angeles. They should distribute the pics to the darkest places and see if they can correlate any suspected victims with other material that might indicate whether being in the Sleeper pics is indicative of being a victim of a lone madman, or part of an underground porn ring.

This sort of thing doesn't take any talent, just knowledge of where to post.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Goaway]

This was not always the case.

Yes, it was.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm beginning to wonder if AnonOps/Anonymous is a false flag operation. They seem to be doing more harm than help to Wikileaks. Their targeting is inept (they previously targeted the wrong DNS provider), their timing is inept, and Wikileaks doesn't need them to stay on line.

Maybe Slashdot it is AnonOps' idiot relative in this endeavor? Seriously, Spamhaus is under DDoS and we slashdot it too? Would a direct be necessary? How about some thought before acting and maybe mirroring the news? We just walked in and helped Heihachi by kicking Spamhaus as it is down. Good job submitter of the news, editor, and everyone else who just clicks on the link without thinking.

Maybe if more links to goatse or something similar appear on the front page people will start being more reserved. Is crippling a server something to be proud of? If not, we should not encourage it.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that the US Government should be more anti-AnonOps and their anti First Amendment of the US constitution attacks, than they are with Wiki Leaks.

Seems to me if they had paid no attention to the fact that Wikilieaks was leaking something, less people would have been reading the information being leaked. And the AnonOps attack against free speech is much more an attack on the American way of life than anything WIkileakes may have leaked.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong (apologies to Dennis Miller for borrowing his signature line, in case he does not agree on this (and my guess is that he might not))

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[EdZ]

I doubt everything, or even most things, that the various 'anonymous' (a singular unified label misses the entire point, but I digress) attributed activities have been false-flag. It does make for a neat cover, but a difficult and unruly one. To give any sort of credence that something is a 'legitmate' anonymous attack, it is almost defacto not accompanied with any sort of unified claim, but instead by nebulous consensus over numerous highly fluid websites and IRC channels. Faking that without unrelated members crying foul over obvious subversion attempts would be incredibly difficult, even even harder would be attempting to sway the actual anonymous DDOS attackers themselves. A few using LOIC might be fooled, but those who attack via self-controlled botnets (i.e. generate the majority of the required traffic) are likely to at least perform a cursory google of the proposed target.

tl;dr version: any agency attempting to spam with a target would be called out. Performing a DDOS then claiming it was anonymous without any corroboration would be equally obvious. Any attempting to sway opinion through a false majority would be promptly accused of samefaggotry and ignored.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[OverlordQ]

Their targeting is inept (they previously targeted the wrong DNS provider), their timing is inept, and Wikileaks doesn't need them to stay

That sounds *exactly* like the people from 4chan.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

No shit. Have you seen the references to Anon's foundation date popping up in the media? I have seen refs as recent as 2006.

Maybe my numbers are wrong, but 1988 was always the cited number throughout the Nineties. Even that was supposedly three or four years after the initial members decided to work together.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

>implying /b/ organizes the attacks

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[HungryHobo]

Forget false flag ops.
What are the real wikileaks sites now???

Last time I checked wikileaks used self signed certs and at this point I'd love to simply see a interview with assange where he lists the "official" wikileaks sites and reads out some of their SSL certs.

is wikileaks.org still in the hands of the wikileaks organization or does the DHS control it now or some third party?
Or has it just been infected with malware to add a redirect?

Is their twitter account really them?

is there even any way for anyone to anonymously submit documents any more?

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

/b/ actually knows about it before it happens, though... not this tiem.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[PatPending]

Seriously, Spamhaus is under DDoS and we slashdot it too?

Take a chill pill, bro, please: it is worth noting this:

Spamhaus is currently under a 2.1Gbps DDOS attack which began at 05:20 CET. As we are used to DDOS attacks from cybercriminals our anti-ddos defences are holding and our web servers are still operating, a little slower than normal.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[HungryHobo]

hell, is there even any verifiable way to communicate with any wikileaks staff any more?
Any PGP public keys? etc etc

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[chill]

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

4chan is the very definition of stupidity.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Mr. Freeman]

I'm wondering if anyone actually did any research before claiming that it's anonymous behind this. A false flag would be someone pretending to be anonymous while ddosing some website. However, it seems that everyone is simply assuming that anonymous is behind every ddos that happens to any site tangentially connected to wikileaks, even when no one claiming to be anonymous has anything to do with it.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm beginning to wonder if AnonOps/Anonymous is a false flag operation. They seem to be doing more harm than help to Wikileaks. Their targeting is inept (they previously targeted the wrong DNS provider), their timing is inept, and Wikileaks doesn't need them to stay on line.

The very structure of this group makes them an omniflag operation, not a false flag operation.

Perceiving the world through dichotomies (black or white, true or false, etc.) makes things easier, but it invariably leads to an understanding of the world that is biased.

I imagine that anonymous has a fractal like structure with some substructures that have mutually exclusive objectives.

Probably a trade off for anonymity.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's check the allegations:

The original Wikileaks domain was wikileaks.org. Wikileaks has not used that domain in a while. The .org TLD is under the control of the USA (registry and registrar are both US based companies). It is unclear if Wikileaks is still in control of the wikileaks.org domain.

Spamhaus suggests that irc.anonops-irg.net is the address of the "Anonymous" coordination IRC server. The most current reference to an Anonops IRC server I could find names it irc.anonops-irc.org, which currently does not resolve. The page lists several changes of domain in the past days. It appears someone is sweeping up the abandoned domains and using them for (more) nefarious purposes. It is unclear if Anonymous is still connected to the domains listed in the Spamhaus warning.

The Spamhaus warning is probably right insofar that the listed domains are hosted by cybercrime outfits and pose a danger to anyone visiting them. The linking of Anonymous to these cybercrime outfits is possibly incorrect (other Anonymous domains are hosted at well-known commercial hosters). It will be interesting to see how the wikileaks.org domain got to point to wikileaks.info.

Since linking Wikileaks and Anonymous to cybercrime discredits both groups, it is quite conceivable that it's not just Russian gangs jumping on the opportunity but a FUD campaign by western three letter agencies. Nevertheless, heed the Spamhaus warning and stay away from wikileaks.org, wikileaks.info (and possibly all other wikileaks domains under TLDs which are operated by US registries). If you're thinking about downloading software from Anonymous and running it on your own computer, go ahead. No warning will cure that kind of stupidity.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

i bet they honestly think they are helping, but since they are mostly comprised of dumbass young kids, they screw it up.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I have heard that Panda Security, who has been linked directly to scientology, is involved with the "cell" thats pushing Op Payback. Firstly google "panda security Scientology" then have a look at this article on the guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/11/wikileaks-backlash-cyber-war where they help the Guardian "characterise" Anonymous - they do a good job, too.

They have also made sure that nobody involved with chanology is involved in Payback. Go figure.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I've seen works by Anonymous going back to at least the 14th century.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[man_of_mr_e]

Considering that there is no "membership" criteria to be part of Anonymous.. Anyone and Everyone who claims to be... IS. Therefore, I can go rob a bank and claim i'm part of Anonymous. It would be completely true.

That's the problem with an organization with no real structure or chain of command, there is no way to prevent people from doing things and claiming the group being responsible.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[openfrog]

Faking that without unrelated members crying foul over obvious subversion attempts would be incredibly difficult, even even harder would be attempting to sway the actual anonymous DDOS attackers themselves. ...

tl;dr version: any agency attempting to spam with a target would be called out. Performing a DDOS then claiming it was anonymous without any corroboration would be equally obvious. Any attempting to sway opinion through a false majority would be promptly accused of samefaggotry and ignored.

You might as well be saying that black-ops in anti-globalization demonstrations cannot be manipulated, or cannot be themselves undercover agents, because it would be too difficult to fake a demonstration. By the way, there are videos on Youtube showing some particularly unruly of those black-ops to be members of the police force. This is the same thing here on the Web with Anonymous, but even easier to manipulate and to fake as they operate under the cover of deeper level of anonymity. Same approach, same techniques, same motives.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[PeterBrett]

The Pirate Parties provide and administrate the wikileaks.ch network (note that the same network serves wikileaks.de and wikileaks.lu). Understandably, we all feel very strongly about the importance of whistleblowing and freedom of the press. I personally will vouch for those servers' integrity at this time. Specifically, Pirate Party members in the UK, Holland, Germany, Russia, Switzerland, Luxembourg and the Czech Republic have all donated servers.

I'm sorry that these servers are not currently available over SSL. As I understand it, some of these servers are hosted on IP addresses shared with other websites, and apparently this setup is incompatible with SSL. In addition, we have not yet identified a signing authority that we feel confident that would be resistant to coercion and subornation by agencies looking to discredit or manipulate Wikileaks. (Got a suggestion? Reply to this post!)

I'll re-raise the issue with the PPI organising committee, and see whether we can organise something. ;-)

I'm afraid that I can't speak for any of the Wikileaks-specific issues, such as document submission or the status of the wikileaks.org domain.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who thinks it's ironic that because wikileaks and anonymous are political criminals, the US gvmt objected to ownership of their domains, but NOT their being redirected by these other criminal organsations, and in effect, saying wikileaks is less ok than organized crime?

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Pieroxy]

We sure are living in interesting times.

I guess you meant amusing times, interesting is a little far fetched here...

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[MoonBuggy]

Which makes the act of ascribing responsibility to 'Anonymous' meaningless in itself, I guess.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[cheater512]

StartSSL is well priced and is completely based in Israel I believe. Awful website but they would probably be your best bet.
Yes they issue valid certificates themselves - they dont resell Verisign or similar.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Since someone has been DDoSing not only Wikileaks proper but also its mirrors, why assume it's pro-Wikileaks that are DDoSing Spamhaus? It seems just as likely it would be the anti-Wikileaks DDoSers.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[man_of_mr_e]

Which makes doing the act in the name of Anonymous meaningless in itself, I guess.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

I imagine that anonymous has a fractal like structure with some substructures that have mutually exclusive objectives.

Probably a trade off for anonymity.

That is a feature not a bug.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Khyber]

"4chan is the very definition of stupidity."

Which explains why 4chan's got a more advanced reading level rating than slashdot, according to Google?

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3A4chan.org&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=rl%3A1
http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aslashdot.org&hl=en&num=10&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images&tbs=rl%3A1

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[eriqk]

I thought it was founded at least 100 years ago.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Yvanhoe]

Or maybe like in any war, partisans are very likely to shoot down friendly targets. More likely if you ask me...

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[HungryHobo]

I'd settle for a cert signed by a few organizations like the pirate party and any other organizations who could vouch for a particular server.
If I really needed to make sure it was secure then I wouldn't care too much about that green padlock symbol so much as it being signed by a number of organizations I do trust who themselves publish their public keys on their own websites in various hard-to-tamper formats.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[AndGodSed]

I'm waiting for someone to take the logs from their servers and post the IP addresses of those taking part in the DDOS in the public domain.

If anonymous are so much for freedom of information then they should have no problem with this information becoming public.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[getuid()]

Write the fingerprint of your certificates in a text file. Sign that file with your GPG key(s) (i.e. keys of 1-2 well known wikileaks members, starting off with Julian would be fine :-). Then publish the signed file.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[ColdWetDog]

Which explains why 4chan's got a more advanced reading level rating than slashdot, according to Google?

We've got all the Windows users to deal with.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Opportunist]

It's based on the old curse "May you live in interesting times".

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Dan541]

I've been watching the Anonops IRC since the attack on paypal, as I'm sure allot of people are.

AnonOPs is a false flag operation. I see people crying things like "SUPPORT FREESPEECH" , "end FASCISM" and "Support free expression" and all sorts of militant libertarian war cries. While at the same time talking about attacking websites they disagree with. I have tried pointing out this hypocrisy to no avail.
http://s3.danscomp.net/anonirc2.jpg
 

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Dan541]

There is a chain of command behind AnonOPs ddos attacks. The people running the anonops IRC network appear to be pulling most of the strings.

Some script kiddies have lone wolfed targets to no avail and some have organised independently to attack in groups. These small attacks always fail but the large one's are coordinated by a command hierarchy within the IRC network.

Although there seems to be allot of confusion amongst the script kiddies; some even claiming "We have no leader!" yea then who is setting the !lazor command?

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Dan541]

I apologise for my jackass grammar.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[WhitetailKitten]

Anonymous is best thought of as the dim-witted schizophrenic collective consciousness of anyone and everyone on the Internet who enjoys starting shit so much they join a cause to do just that over situation X. It's a chaotic neutral mob that just occasionally packet floods people they've decided they don't like. They're not the Home team, nor are they the Visiting team. They're the Other team.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[dbIII]

hell, is there even any verifiable way to communicate with any wikileaks staff any more?

Hitting one of them with a court order on charges of something like being a two-timing bastard in Sweden works.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

negative... Anonymous is just an internet meme... It generally propagates among socially inept teen males. Associated memes include the wearing of Guy Fawkes masks, anti-scientology demonstrations, and random attacks v. Glen Beck.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Lord Bitman]

Anonymous isn't a group, and therefore a false flag is impossible. Anonymous is the name given to any number of people who are on the internet anonymously exchanging ideas at any given time. If the FBI wants to troll /b/ and encourage people to attack innocent people, that's not "false flag" any more than a highschool loser doing the exact same thing.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anthony Mouse]

So I'm going to post this near the beginning of the thread since the OP is correct but confusing and the signal to noise ratio in the comments is terrible. It appears the general consensus is this:

1) Russian criminals have control over the wikileaks.org and wikileaks.info domains and are distributing malware. The current real wikileaks website is wikileaks.ch.

2) Spamhaus has been telling people about (1).

3) The Russian criminals are now retaliating by using their botnets to DDoS Spamhaus under the flag of AnonOps.

4) Some of the people who call themselves Anonymous may or may not also be participating in the DDoS against Spamhaus because they are idiots.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no idea about Anonymous, do you?

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Israel doesn't lock up leakers. Nope, not at all.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

alhazred has a point. You spend your time on IRC trying to convince people who have no interest in your opinion of your point of view? You certainly are a faggot. I bet you whiteknight too.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Pstrobus]

Entia non sunt multiplicanda.

IOW don't leap for conspiracy without first considering stupidity. Take L33t HaX0r wannabes, add rumor, let simmer in righteous indignation... voila! a lynch mob.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Dan541]

As a security researcher monitoring criminal networks is a part of what I do. The real value often comes from communicating with the perpetrators (where possible) to understand their reasons for doing it. Anonymous is especially interesting because unlike many such networks these people have no financial reward for their participation. I have since found people on the network who are happily explaining their ideology to me, understanding this will be the first step to shutting them down.

Hard Technical data can only bring you so far. You can't defeat an ideology you don't understand, as the MPAA/RIAA are discovering.

I'm unsure as to what you mean by "I bet you whiteknight too." although "You certainly are a faggot." almost certainly means you disagree with me :)

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

In Soviet Russia, interesting times live in you.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

How can Anonymous be anti First Amendment? They aren't the government

Interestingly, you can't prove that, now can you? Make of this point of view what you will.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[skyride]

The whole point of anonymous is that there is nobody in charge. People post a lot of ideas on the *chan sites and certain IRC channels. The better or more entertaining ideas generate interest and end up actually happening. For every DDoS ever carried out by anonymous, there was a thousand other suggestions that got shot down.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[man_of_mr_e]

Yes, but someone else could come along and claim they're "the real anonops" and target porn sites and take all the free porn off the internet (Best SNL sketch ever).

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[cheekyboy]

I use http://213.251.145.96/cablegate.html

and

http://wikileaks.extendedsubset.com/cablegate.html

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Haeleth]

This is the same thing here on the Web with Anonymous, but even easier to manipulate and to fake as they operate under the cover of deeper level of anonymity. Same approach, same techniques, same motives.

Not so. The dynamic is totally different. A demonstration is basically a ruly mob, and can be subverted into an unruly mob; the thing is that its members are physically surrounded by other people, do not have time to think or easy access to relevant information, can only communicate with great difficulty and only with a handful of people, often literally cannot leave until the demonstration is over, and are going to be faced with physical responses that can cause them to experience fear or panic. None of this is true online, where participants can easily pause, think, research, discuss things with one another, and any one of them can directly challenge anyone they think is trying to subvert their activities.

In short, there is simply no realistic comparison between the situations, and online protests are much, much harder to manipulate.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[arth1]

No, that is simply because 4chan is full of words that can't be found in a normal dictionary, and a high ratio of symbols to letters.

Or, to put it another way, "letsee ur fap fap fap /b/00bs, newfag!!1!" scores a higher unreadability score than "faster than light travel violates causality".

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

However, if you narrow that down to just 4chan's /b/, it drops to Basic - 100%.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

tiem

Fuck you.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[mister_playboy]

Thanks for the good explanation.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[yuhong]

Yea, a lot of it comes from the confusion between AnonOps and Anonymous.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

This HURR ANON IS LEGION shit is from /b/, not 4chan in general. There are some good, non-idiotic boards on there believe it or not, e.g. /a/ is the best place I know for anime recommendations. But yeah, /b/ is terrible these days. A popular theory is that moot only keeps it open to corral most of the retarded children in one place thereby protecting the other boards from them.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

>Implying /b/ are worthless fucktards that don't care who they hurt.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

4) Some of the people who call themselves Anonymous may or may not also be participating in the DDoS against Spamhaus because they are idiots.

Yup. Sounds about right.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

One would think so, but that is not true because most people do not know how Anonymous works (or doesn't work). There are two reasons to claim you're Anonymous: 1) how you want to appear to the outside world, and 2) how you want Anonymous to appear to the outside world.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[jonbryce]

You can have one ssl site on a server along with lots of other non-ssl sites. The thing that doesn't work is hosting multiple ssl sites on the same IP address, unless they have a wildcard certificate which covers all of them - eg you could have slashdot.org , it.slashdot.org , idle.slashdot.org etc on the same *.slashdot.org certificate.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[choko]

It is very possible that Israel would buckle to political pressure from the US, given the vast amounts military aid they have been provided by the US...

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[choko]

The establishment doesn't really need a reason to pass repressive legislation. They could very easily tack it on to another bill, as they have done many times in the past. By the time anyone notices, it's too late.
That being said, DDOS attacks aren't a great way to get their point across. Last I heard, the Anonymous group decided to stop the DDOS and do what they can to post or spread information contained in the leak documents instead.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[xded]

For SSL certs, have a look at gandi.net. They got famous some years ago being the only registrar guaranteeing domain ownership to the registrant. They now also sell certificates, most likely with the same honesty, and are located in France, which at least is known for its radical positions regarding international cooperation (see European constitution or the various extradiction issues they created in the past).

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[hairyfeet]

Have you given Comodo SSL? Their main office is in India so I doubt it would be as quick to roll over for the USA, but hell you never know anymore. Anyway they offer a free 90 day SSL so you can try before you buy, and their certs go from 128/256 all the way up to 2048 bit, so you have plenty of choices. Prices start at $69 a year and go from there depending on how many extras you want.

Since it has a free try before you buy this would be a great chance to see where they stand without spending any $$$. I don't see a downside really, either they don't cave and you buy it, or they do and you don't.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Alex Belits]

That may explain how I have moved to US from there, and times around me are still interesting.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[jon3k]

You have to remember who Anonymous is. It's a group of 14-24 year olds who by and large aren't what we would call "highly technical". They use a volunteer DDoS tool for christ's sake (LOIC) not some sophisticated botnet. They're basically like a retard with a missle launcher stumbling through town.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Xest]

This doesn't seem right at all at least compared to what I've seen elsewhere.

Fundamentally, this part isn't right:

"1) Russian criminals have control over the wikileaks.org and wikileaks.info domains and are distributing malware. The current real wikileaks website is wikileaks.ch."

Russian criminals do not have control over these domains, Wikileaks has merely chosen a Russian host that specialises in no holds barred hosting, which, not suprisingly, is also happens to be an ISP favoured by criminals, because no holds barred bulletproof hosting means even criminal operations are secure.

Spamhaus has decided that Wikileaks shouldn't be doing business with an ISP that allows criminals hosting and has decided to try and paint Wikileaks as being in league with Russian crime syndicates.

Anonymous did not like the fact Spamhaus is discrediting Wikileaks in this way and so has decided to attack it.

I have some sympathy with this viewpoint, it does seem rather unfair of Spamhaus to criticise Wikileaks for hosting with a provider like this, when it's presumably implying they should use more trustworthy hosts in the West, but as those in the West have turned Wikileaks away, and as the US is still responsible for most of the world's spam and Russia only comes in 6th place it seems rather hypocritical and unfair to be slagging off Wikileak's host just because criminals use it too- does Spamhaus have any evidence that this host is any more likely to allow Wikileak's domain to be infected than any of the numerous US hosts which surely allow equivalent activity for the US to be such a high source of spam and malware in the world?

Whilst Spamhaus claims it's viewpoint is innocent, and honestly just trying to protect people, in this context, it does seem two faced, and when it's two faced that does make it seem rather political. The fact is there are thousands, probably milions of sites across the world hosted on ISPs who turn a blind eye to criminal activity on them, why single out Wikileaks and it's host?

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Pieroxy]

It's inapropriately based on the old curse "May you live in interesting times".

There, fixed that for ya.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[RockDoctor]

Please don't post useful summaries high up in the comment pile. It discourages useless invective and make it harder to post uninformed rants. >POP ---sound of tongue being extracted from cheek.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Anonymous is not wikileaks.
Anonymous is not the same hackers that get info for wikileaks.
Anonymous is a bunch of 4chan fagots that only have the skill set of DDoS, which isn't saying much.

FUCK 4CHAN and FUCK ANONYMOUS. GO WIKILEAKS!

Reading comprehension skills

[Anonymous Coward]

Kids these days! Their reading comprehension skills are practically nil.

twitter account also no legit

[new_confused_mind]

The supposedly offcial twitter account at http://twitter.com/wikileaks seems to be a scam by the same folks. The wikileaks.org link there redirects to the .info domain, which is clearly a shoddy website (different layout, bunch of shoddy "mirrors" with the same IP address, etc).

Be warned.

Re:twitter account also no legit

[Anonymous Coward]

The .org link there hasn't been updated since they lost control of .org -- it was originally their official site, remember. The shoddy website it redirects to is what Wikileaks used to look like before Cablegate.

As if a DDoS wasn't enough...

[e9th]

now they're slashdotted, too.

Re:As if a DDoS wasn't enough...

[Z00L00K]

Was it really a good idea to post that link on slashdot - to a DDoS:ed site?

That would be the ultimate DDoS.

Re:As if a DDoS wasn't enough...

[PatPending]

Was it really a good idea to post that link on slashdot - to a DDoS:ed site?

In general, no. However in this case, it is worth noting this:

Spamhaus is currently under a 2.1Gbps DDOS attack which began at 05:20 CET. As we are used to DDOS attacks from cybercriminals our anti-ddos defences are holding and our web servers are still operating, a little slower than normal.

Re:As if a DDoS wasn't enough...

[FunPika]

Weren't we also dumb enough to Slashdot Mastercard's website when Anon was DDoS'ing them too?

It seems that anyone who Anon decides to DDoS over Wikileaks is screwed over in 2 ways:
1. The random no lifers in their basements running LOIC.
2. The shitload of Slashdot readers clicking on links to the site once news of the DDoS gets on here.

Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just asked anonops about it, they're not attacking spamhaus.

Re:Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just asked them and they say they are.

Re:Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

NO i did not.

Re:Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

You both know you're not REALLY anonymous, right?

Re:Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the people who organized and attacked previous targets ie the "regulars"

Probably spammers using anonops as a scapegoat who btw have just as large botnets (for spamming)

Re:Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm anonops, and so's my wife.

Re:Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because I am Anon!

Re:Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm Spartacus.

Re:Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

Disregard that i suck cocks

Re:Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just asked anonops about it, they're not attacking spamhaus.

I just asked them and they say they are.

They just asked me whether they are and I told them to ask about it on Slashdot.

Re:Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just asked them and they told me you both lie.

Re:Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

They just asked me whether they are and I told them to ask about it on Slashdot.

I just asked Netcraft, and they confirmed it!

Re:Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny but insightful.

Anonymous is fond of reminding us that they are "everyone and no one" and that their membership forms and deforms as needed. This makes them hard to track, and so on.

The flip side is that you cannot sensibly go ask Anonymous if they are doing or not doing something. Even if some subset of Anonymous are not engaging in a particular activity, that doesn't mean another subset isn't doing that (with or without the knowledge of other 'members').

Obviously there is a specific person or persons with access to the twitter account and IRC login associated with Anonymous activities. So those people may have a specific opinion/plan/whatever at any given moment. But that says little about Anonymous more generally.

Re:Say wha?

[poity]

But they said they're not centrally organized, which means you'd have to ask every single one of them to make sure.

Re:Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that solves it. Obviously you're not a Slashdot reader, 'cause no Slashdot reader has enough interaction with the female population to get married.

Re:Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello, Spartacus. I'm Malcolm X.

Re:Say wha?

[jmac_the_man]

He must be a false flag.

Re:Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been in the anonops IRC channels for a while now. There was no mention of spamhaus being a target, and when asking around i couldn't find anybody who was actually targetting them. In fact, they are actively denying that it was them, which going by previous cases where they have freely admitted what they were doing, seems spamhaus are just trying to stir up false news stories about anonops for publicity.

Re:Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two people just asked me if I we were attacking Spamhaus... I lied to them both.

Re:Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

I just asked them and they said they'd never met either of you.

Re:Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello Malcom. I'm Anon, so don't bother asking my name.

A. Tapanaris

Re:Say wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't ask us.
And we're not.

To hell with anonymous

[schnikies79]

They have done nothing, not a single thing, to help and everything to hinder.

Re:To hell with anonymous

[Kymermosst]

Yeah it's basically cyber-rioting.

Now innocent organizations are becoming victims because people are having too much fun raging to pay attention to what their targets are.

Re:To hell with anonymous

[schnikies79]

The same can be said about 100 other sites and organizations. It doesn't give them the right, or the moral duty, to do anything they have done.

Re:To hell with anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

No... to hell with YOU, you worthless piece of shit.

Re:To hell with anonymous

[Frosty Piss]

The same can be said about 100 other sites and organizations. It doesn't give them the right, or the moral duty, to do anything they have done.

The same can be said about Spamhaus and other similar "broad stroke / shotgun everyone" black-lists.

In other words, why should I spend time considering the plight of some self-appointed busy-body like Spamhaus? They are simple vigilantes.

Re:To hell with anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

Witty..

Re:To hell with anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

You are operating under the assumption that these "anonymous" people are supposed to be an organized, coherent group. They aren't. In fact, I'm also from anonymous just because I'm posting this anonymously. So, if you claim that the fact that I chose to post this message anonymously does "nothing, not a single thing, to help and everything to hinder" then you are demonstrating that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

Re:To hell with anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

About time they got back to their roots.
Before 4chan became mainstream they didn't give a shit about what was right.

Re:To hell with anonymous

[DavidTC]

Spamhaus are not vigilantes, they are the Better Business Bureau.

They do not attack people, they publish opinions as to whether or not someone's a person you want to do business with.

Re:To hell with anonymous

[MichaelKristopeit302]

but only spammers WOULD say such things.

why do you cower behind a chosen pseudonym? what are you afraid of?

you're completely pathetic.

Re:To hell with anonymous

[MichaelKristopeit311]

broad stroke shotgun?

an interesting choice of words for someone that falsely accused me of being raped by a religious figure, and abusing women and children.

justice will find you.

present yourself to me; admit what you've done, then i'll bring upon you the ultimate punishment for your transgressions.

cower some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Re:To hell with anonymous

[MichaelKristopeit310]

you're an ignorant hypocrite.

justice will find you.

cower some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic

kids these days

[girlintraining]

When you have a large DDoS tool at your beck and call, who has time to bother with accuracy and trifling details like the truth? This is just further evidence that "anonymous" is some unemployed young adult.

The profile of anonymous becomes less and less one of sophistication and intelligence and more that of teenage angst and a limited understanding of technology daily.

Re:kids these days

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you moot?

Re:kids these days

[openfrog]

When you have a large DDoS tool at your beck and call, who has time to bother with accuracy and trifling details like the truth? This is just further evidence that "anonymous" is some unemployed young adult.

The profile of anonymous becomes less and less one of sophistication and intelligence and more that of teenage angst and a limited understanding of technology daily.

From TFA:

The Webalta 92.241.160.0/19 netblock has been listed on the Spamhaus Block List (SBL) since October 2008. Spamhaus regards the Russian Webalta host (also known as Wahome) as being "blackhat" - a known cybercrime host from whose IP space Spamhaus only sees malware/virus hosting, botnet C&Cs, phishing and other cybercriminal activities.

I sympathize with your impatience with the idiocy that is Anonymous, but what this goes on to show here is that Anonymous, or now better referred to as AnonOps, is NOT unruly teenagers as media have been dutifully reporting, but something else.

The poster above referring to Anonymous as a potential 'false flag' operation has it right. Whether it was started by real teenagers or not is inconsequential: it plays in the interests of those wanting to swerve public opinion in the direction of repressive legislation and it is all too easy to attribute any kind of stunt on "Anonymous", whomever is really behind it.

Re:kids these days

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations. You stated the obvious that anyone could have figured out by heading over to their community for more than 2 minutes. It's not sophisticated and never was (and never will be). It is just the sheer size of hundreds of thousands of users effectively creating over 9000 slashdot effects on a site because they are BORED. There is no cause behind anon, there is no centralization. It is just described as such by media to increase ratings. And you fell for it.

Re:kids these days

[Anonymous Cowar]

Wow, "Anonymous" isn't just some unemployed young adult. It's a whole army of unemployed young adults.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29

Re:kids these days

[Anonymous Coward]

Your confusion may have something to do with trying to assign one personality to a huge group of people.

Re:kids these days

[Eil]

This is just further evidence that "anonymous" is some unemployed young adult.

Heck, could even be several.

Re:kids these days

[The End Of Days]

*children

These are not adults. Adulthood is about actions, not ages.

Re:kids these days

[rtyhurst]

It looks like it's more dangerous to attack the Russian mafia than the US government.

Re:kids these days

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Adulthood is about actions, not ages.

By that logic my girlfriend is a pedophile (I often build couch cushion forts in my living room).

Re:kids these days

[Tom]

And whenever that happens, you should ask yourself one important question: Who could have an interest in that?

Re:kids these days

[sourcerror]

It's a whole legion of unemployed young adults.

FTFY

Re:kids these days

[sartin]

I often build couch cushion forts in my living room

There is a difference between childlike and childish

Re:kids these days

[DavidTC]

Um, no there isn't. Child-like and childish are entirely distinguished by whether or not you approve of the action. Childish means 'like a child', as does child-like. There is no definitional difference between them, just the connotation of one being bad, and one being good.

What you mean is that there is a difference between childish/child-like and irresponsible. Building cushion forts is not irresponsible. Randomly attacking people on the internet is.

So now after Slashdot has brought this message ...

[maxwell demon]

Will they now start a DDoS on Slashdot?

Got it

[Chris Mattern]

Use wikileaks.cn, right.

Re:Got it

[Anonymous Coward]

Not funny! The correct URL is http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html

Re:Got it

[Anonymous Coward]

***LAME Joke Attempt***

You fail...

Re:Got it

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

I'm in the dark on the actual address - what's so wrong about the .cn address?(I haven't and won't click it, just in case)

Re:Got it

[Anonymous Coward]

Because "wikileaks.cn" looks like, and in many typefaces could be mistaken for, "wikileaks.ch", and therefore your post looks more like an intentional attempt to deceive than a joke.

FWIW, and fortunately, there is nothing at "wikileaks.cn", so no harm done.

Someone Messed Up

[Anonymous Coward]

AnonOps is NOT attacking Spamhaus. Get your facts together before you start going on about people being stupid or "kids these days." Spamhaus appears down, but AnonOps isn't doing it. They're still focusing on distributing pamphlets and such shit.

Re:Someone Messed Up

[PatPending]

Oh, the irony!

From the Update 18 December

In addition to the LOIC and *OIC tools issued to dimwitted script kiddies to DDOS "enemies of Anon" with, AnonOps is now escalating its DDOS attacks using dedicated criminal botnets (botnets of illegally hijacked PCs), and now appears to be directing DDOS attacks not at "enemies of Wikileaks" but at "enemies of our criminal bosses".

There is palpable irony in a DDOS being used to prevent exposure of a probably-false Wikileaks mirror that could potentially harm Wikileaks and Wikileaks readers. We hope that AnonOps supporters appreciate the irony as much as we do.

Re:Someone Messed Up

[Anonymous Coward]

The listed Anonops domain name (which points to the Russian hoster) is not current. It is quite likely that, just like the Wikileaks.org domain, it is no longer under the control of the namesake group.

Re:So now after Slashdot has brought this message

[Anonymous Coward]

I just clicked the link and thought the same. :-)

Doesnt look like anon to me

[kaptink]

Nothing on 4chan except one post refering to this article asking as most of we are, WTF?

I think someone is using the Anon group identity to do something unrelated to the actual group/movement or whatever.

Re:Doesnt look like anon to me

[Z00L00K]

Do you trust 4chan for anything?

Re:Doesnt look like anon to me

[Anonymous Coward]

But how do you know it's really a this or that group if they remain anonymous? If they were for real (as far as terrorists go) they should find a way to make it clear whether they are behind a certain operation or not. Best thing would probably be to grow up and stop the whole thing. It's doing more harm than anything else. And if we're now faced with copycats I'd hate to think what's up ahead next. Random sites going down because some random group (or guy whom a group listens to for whatever reason) dislikes what they think is said on that site. It was bad enough when the freedom of information on the Internet and information was challenged by governments and businesses with a mission.

Re:Doesnt look like anon to me

[haderytn]

I trust them to be unable to keep a secret.

Re:Doesnt look like anon to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing on IRC or anonops pages/twitters/posts/etc either.

Re:Doesnt look like anon to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you trust 4chan for anything?

I trust them to make reference to Rule 34, pedobear, and various ethnic slurs

Re:So now after Slashdot has brought this message

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe if Anonymous got /.'d that thought would be moot

Re:So now after Slashdot has brought this message

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot does not need to have someone else create a DDos... The only thing Slashdot needs to create a new front page story about slashdot...

The slashdot effect in full effect on slashdot itself.

I don't think so

[Sycraft-fu]

I think they are just angry idiots with too much time on their hands. There's a reason why vigilantism is so frowned upon and force out in a civilized society: Vigilantes suck at justice. They shoot first, ask questions later. They are all about the Great Cause(tm) whatever that cause happens to be and don't do a good job thinking about any trouble they cause.

Now this is made even worse by the /b/tards because they are not very organized, operate with what they believe to be impunity, and are often kids.

So my bet is not a false flag op, just a bunch of dumbasses causing trouble. They've decided that Wikileaks will be their Great Cause(tm), until they get bored and find something else, and lash out at any perceived enemies of it without thinking about it.

Re:I don't think so

[HomelessInLaJolla]

There's a reason why vigilantism is so frowned upon and force out in a civilized society: Vigilantes suck at justice

The United States of America is obviously not a civilized society. My personal experience with La Jolla, CA, indicates that vigilanteism is the general rule--and not vigilanteism to combat high profile violent crime or high cost white collar crime ... no, people like to be vigilantes just to go around playing surrogate parent against the homeless, or hoping to be the next one to call the police on street people.

Vigilanteism isn't about justice. It's about being the person with the juiciest gossip.

just a bunch of dumbasses causing trouble.

A very good description of the retired folks, the dog-walkers, the neighborhood watch, and the wealthy snobs around my area. Their entire method of life involves: provoke problem where there was none, call police.

If they happen to catch one of the actual drunks or dumpster diving troublemakers then they give themselves extra credit. Maybe harassing me is practice for them. :-(

Re:I don't think so

[Shakrai]

The United States of America is obviously not a civilized society. My personal experience with La Jolla, CA

So you've drawn conclusions about an entire society based on your experiences in one city?

Re:I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

Even dumbasses rarely just "cause trouble" - they normally need a cause - and someone to help organise them - direct them. Infact the more I think about it the more it seems to make sense for someone who is seeking to inact more control over the internet to encourage this kind of war - when the next senate bill proposing internet censorship comes along they can all point and go "hey, look at those dumbasses just out there causing trouble for the normal people, we need to protect our citizens from them"

Re:I don't think so

[MakinBacon]

They're just a bunch of stupid teenage script kiddies who think they're being "1337 haxxors" by running scripts other people made. They don't care if they're actually doing more to silence free speech than the US government is, as far as they're concerned, they're "sticking it to the man".

I'd wager that most of them have never even read the comic book that V for Vendetta (the movie) was based on.

Re:I don't think so

[zach_the_lizard]

If you haven't noticed, we are still in the midst of a recession. Work is still hard to come by. Example: A fast food restaurant in town was hiring lately, and they received 300 applications for 1 position, roughly equivalent to 1% of everyone in the county applying for the same job.

(Interestingly enough, unemployment in town is relatively low (still high for the young, though), but just about everyone works outside of town.)

Re:I don't think so

[The_mad_linguist]

He's generalizing from a small subset to the entire group of people.

Everyone does it.

Or at least, I do.

Re:I don't think so

[mangu]

we are still in the midst of a recession

Yet, there are still people coming illegally from Honduras, Guatemala, and Ecuador, and many other countries to the USA.

The problem is not about finding a job, it's accepting to do the jobs that are available.
 

Re:I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

:-)

Have e-Mod-point

Re:I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, you really do know them, don't you?
All of them? All the time?
Man, you must have time on your hands.

Without the Anon Operations, there would have
been way less media coverage and less people
involved.
At least for that, they deserve credit.

And what did you do? Did you donate?
Did you rise awareness, and if so, how?

Or are you just one of those know-it-alls,
couch potatoes, miserable, grumpy
complainers?

Re:I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

You are pathetic. Extraordinarily so.

Re:I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

The United States of America is obviously not a civilized society. My personal experience with La Jolla, CA...

...are with a tiny fraction of La Jolla's population, and nobody else. And you know it.

Also, you are using the term "vigilantism" in a manner precisely the opposite of what it actually means.

Re:I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

If my entire view of the united states was La Jolla I would have a warped view too.

Those people have a stick so far up their ass's you can see the splinters out the tops of their heads. Or as one of my co-workers put it 'bunch of rich snobs with nothing better to do'. Not surprised there are a bunch of old farts walking around 'looking' for trouble.

To the gp. The rest of the USA is not like that. They are just dipsticks who have too much money and think they are better than everyone else.

Nice city the many of the people there just suck. The cool ones are the ones who work there (but that is hit or miss too). Many came into wealth thru stock options. They think they 'know how to act rich' when the fact is they are acting like white trash with too much money. I am sorry your first impression of the United States was that. If you are not 'rich' you are not part of their clique. And a clique it is. You feel like you are dealing with teenagers in highschool.

Re:I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's vigilantism if your method of attack is calling the police. Vigilantism in La Jolla is hiring a rentacop to hassle people who don't live in your neighborhood if they have the temerity to park or walk on public property (i.e., La Jolla Farms Road), since the residents consider it a gated community. And no, I'm not talking about the private gated access road to the beach.

Re:I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling the police, by definition, is the exact opposite of vigilantism.

Re:I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least their doing something. The unfortunate thing about Slashdot is that we're often under the illusion that we make a difference by talking about issues in this forum. The reality of it is that we don't make a difference - at least, not in any way that counts. Misguided or not, these kids are rocking the boat - making ripples in the pond, and attracting attention from international media. They're shouting their displeasure of the status quo from the rooftops while we're content whispering about it here. A positive outcome from all of this might be that regular people might start asking questions. That's a good start.

Do I approve of what they're doing? No, I don't, because I obey the law. But everything we (Slashdot and similar tech forums) have tried so far has been ineffective. Our numbers are too small for the usual "boycott x and y" to make a difference.

Re:I don't think so

[Pstrobus]

Maybe harassing me is practice for them. :-(

How long has the world revolved around you and are you seeking counseling for this? :-)

Re:I don't think so

[Beetle B.]

Their entire method of life involves: provoke problem where there was none, call police.

If they are calling the police, then by definition, they are not vigilantes.

Your post, while illustrating a real problem, is taking away from the more relevant post by the parent who is talking about real vigilantes, who generally cause a lot more serious problems than harassment.

Re:I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a fair enough thing to do, actually... in fact, if you can't extrapolate from your own experiences, what CAN you do? Scientists do it all the time (it's called "hypotheses"). It's only bad if you then refuse to change your opinion in the face of new evidence.

I'm wondering how an arguably off-topic rant like the GP's got modded to +5 here, though. (And +5 Funny? I'm pretty sure it was not a joke, either.)

Re:I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

So why is 4chan still up?

If a muslim charity website so much as farts the FBI shuts them down and confiscates their servers. Everyone knows 4chan is where these punks hang out, and now they are DDOSing internet sites using illegal botnets. 4chan is perpetually full of kiddie porn. And yet there it is, untouched, still up and running.

No wonder these punks think they are untouchable.

Re:I don't think so

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI has admin rights to 4chan's /b/ servers.

Re:I don't think so

[MichaelKristopeit310]

you pretty much describe an ignorant hypocrite with no understanding of the concept of FREEDOM TO NOT PROVIDE A SERVICE.

cower some more, feeb.

you're completely pathetic.

Spamhaus announcement

[pinkushun]

In the case of it getting /.'ed or DOS'd (like TFA link to nanozen.info)

Wikileaks Mirror Malware Warning
2010-12-14 17:00 GMT, by Quentin Jenkins

On Monday Spamhaus became aware that the main Wikileaks website, wikileaks.org, was redirecting web traffic to a 3rd party mirror site, mirror.wikileaks.info. This new web site is hosted in a very dangerous "neighborhood", Webalta's 92.241.160.0/19 IP address space, a "blackhat" network which Spamhaus believes caters primarily to, or is under the control of, Russian cybercriminals.

Important: this warning is issued only for wikileaks.INFO, NOT Wikileaks itself or any other Wikileaks site. Wikileaks.info is NOT connected with Julian Assange or the Wikileaks organization. For a list of real Wikileaks mirror sites please go to wikileaks.ch

The Webalta 92.241.160.0/19 netblock has been listed on the Spamhaus Block List (SBL) since October 2008. Spamhaus regards the Russian Webalta host (also known as Wahome) as being "blackhat" - a known cybercrime host from whose IP space Spamhaus only sees malware/virus hosting, botnet C&Cs, phishing and other cybercriminal activities. These include routing traffic for Russian cybercriminals who use malware to infect the computers of thousands of Russian citizens.

The fact that recently some unknown person or persons decided to put a Wikileaks mirror on Webalta IP address 92.241.190.202 should raise an alarm; how was it placed there and by whom. Our concern is that any Wikileaks archive posted on a site that is hosted in Webalta space might be infected with malware. Since the main wikileaks.org website now transparently redirects visitors to mirror.wikileaks.info and thus directly into Webalta's controlled IP address space, there is substantial risk that any malware infection would spread widely.

Spamhaus also notes that the DNS for wikileaks.info is controlled by Webalta's even more blackhat webhosting reseller "heihachi.net", as evidenced by the DNS records for the domain:

wikileaks.info. 14400 IN A 92.241.190.202
wikileaks.info. 14400 IN NS ns2.heihachi.net.
wikileaks.info. 14400 IN NS ns1.heihachi.net.

Spamhaus has for over a year regarded Heihachi as an outfit run 'by criminals for criminals' in the same mould as the criminal Estdomains. The Panama-registered but Russian/German-run heihachi.net is highly involved in botnet command and control and the hosting of Russian cybercrime.

We also note that the content at mirror.wikileaks.info is rather unlike what's at the real Wikileaks mirrors which suggests that the wikileaks.info site may not be under the control of Wikileaks itself, but rather some other group. You can find the real site at wikileaks.ch, wikileaks.is, wikileaks.nl, and many other mirror sites around the world.

Spamhaus takes no political stand on the Wikileaks affair. We do have an interest in preventing spam and related types of internet abuse however and hope that the Wikileaks staff will quickly address the hosting issue to remove the possibility of cybercriminals using Wikileaks traffic for illicit purposes.

More information on the SBL listing of Webalta's 92.241.160.0/19 is here:
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL68370

Spamhaus is not alone in issuing this Wikileaks mirror malware caution. On Sunday researcher Feike Hacquebord at fellow anti-spam system Trend Micro issued a similar warning in the Trend Micro Malware Blog. (http://blog.trendmicro.com/wikileaks-in-a-dangerous-internet-neighborhood/)

Re:Spamhaus announcement

[jfengel]

Ah. I was wondering why Spamhaus would bother having an opinion. Answer: if you get your Wikileaks download from the dot-info site, it might be malware infested, because everything else from that domain is. Go download it from somewhere else.

It would be helpful if Wikileaks were to at least put up hashes of the downloads. That would make it abundantly clear if the dot-info site were including malware. But I suppose they've got other things to worry about.

Re:Spamhaus announcement

[Anonymous Coward]

Spamhaus has for over a year regarded Heihachi as an outfit run 'by criminals for criminals'

Ah shit! Tekken is happening! Where is Jin?

my guess

[Anonymous Coward]

the russian criminals are using the whole wikileaks/anonymous affair as a cover to attack one of their archenemies: spamhaus, while trying to paint spamhaus as the bad guys.

Re:my guess

[stumblingblock]

Yes, that sounds reasonable. The criminal element has taken advantage of the Wikileaks chaos to hijack the Wikileaks name and use it to sabotage their enemies. Easy to make a misjudgement in this situation and they take advantage of this. Smart guys.

Re:my guess

[DavidTC]

The spammer^Wfelony computer hijack (Let's call them by their worse crime) crowd have always had a 'we're being censored' mentality, so it makes sense they'd decided to host a mirror of a site that actually is being censored by various governments. (Admitted, not censored well.)

Then they can imply their 'censorship' (aka, the fact no sysadmin wants anything to do with them at all because they harm other computers on the internet, both via spam and felony computer hijack, so sysadmin quite sanely stop their users from reaching those places and vis versa) is the same as Wikileaks censorship (aka, the fact that various governments are actually putting pressure on their host to take them them down and removing their domain names, and forcing them to relocate.)

And then, thanks to Anon's goddamn fucking stupid DDoS, the criminal gangs of felony computer hijackers can even attack people who are 'censoring' them and people blame it on Anon. This despite the fact that Spamhaus, even if it was actually anti-Wikileaks in position, which they've made clear they are not, has not actually done anything to harm Wikileaks in the slightest way.

Apparently only THEIR censorship is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Mark my words. The kinds of people who run and support Wikileaks are NOT a good replacement for the kinds of people who currently run the world.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". This could be revised "Meet the new boss, same or even worse than the old boss; but claims to be better".

Re:Apparently only THEIR censorship is bad

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

It's called a revolution for a reason.

Please note:

[guruevi]

1) This DDoS attack does not seem to be originating from Anonymous but from AnonOps which is a cybergang-related IRC server and the DDoS seems to be originating from a real botnet of hijacked Windows computers, not LOIC.
2) Spamhaus warned about wikileaks.info which seems to be hosted by the same criminals and is posting false Wikileaks statements.
3) Wikileaks.org has been taken over by these criminals and is redirecting to http://mirror.wikileaks.info/ which is NOT sourcing from wikileaks.ch (and other mirrors like http://www.wlmirror.com/)

It seems to me the US Gov'mint has 'fixed' their Wikileaks problem by a campaign of misinformation and probably paid these Russian criminals to host the false Wikileaks site. It wouldn't surprise me if the wikileaks.info sites started to have certain damning documents disappear or specific ones infected just to track who's reading what.

Re:Please note:

[M4n]

Then why would WikiLeaks leave the .org URL on their Twitter profile? Surely they must be aware...

I'M CONFUSED!!

Re:Please note:

[jfengel]

Any idea why the Russian criminals waited this long to attack Spamhaus? They've been enemies the whole time. I assume Spamhaus has always had mighty powerful anti-DDoS tools.

Perhaps they're redirecting some of their spam power to the DDoS instead, using the Wikileaks story as some kind of cover for that. (Though I don't really get it; they don't need it.) I wonder if that would show up as a drop in spam traffic, though unfortunately, you wouldn't be able to use Spamhaus to measure that.

Re:Please note:

[nytmare]

"It seems to me" that you're another stupid conspiracy theorist whose train of thought is not grounded in reality.

Re:Please note:

[Dachannien]

It seems to me the US Gov'mint has 'fixed' their Wikileaks problem by a campaign of misinformation and probably paid these Russian criminals to host the false Wikileaks site.

What makes you certain that the US is behind this? There's at least a possibility that the Russian government is doing this on the basis of attempting to prevent the release of documents that are embarrassing to the Russian government. They even get free plausible deniability because everyone's going to point fingers at the US government.

Re:Please note:

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to ease back on the masturbation, and get out of your mom's basement.

Re:Please note:

[migla]

Just because s/he's another stupid conspiracy theorist whose train of thought is not grounded in reality doesn't necessarily mean s/he's wrong, though.

Re:Please note:

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

As they say; you aren't really paranoid if someone is really out to get you.

Yeah Yeah Blame AnonOps

[Haedrian]

Anonymous is very weird to understand. It functions similar to a terrorist bloc (note I am not calling anyone a terrorist).

If I toss a bomb in the middle of a street and kill 50 people - and I write "Terrorist Group X was here" - who's to say it wasn't them? Or if say a terrorist group decides to take credit for the BP spill - who's to say its not?

Its impossible to work out whether it was anon or not. Its impossible to actually call 'anon' a group. Its just a bunch of people who - at will - decide to partake in DDOS attacks. Its not a collective body, its a number of individuals - and its stupid to think otherwise. If I'm in a group with 100 people, and someone says "Lets DDOS Bank of America", if I agree with it, I'll take part. If someone says "Lets DDOS Spamhaus", and I disagree, I won't take part. There's no real leader. Its all chaotic.

So enough with blaming anonymous for this ddos. For a start you have no proof. To continue, anon isn't a group - its a bunch of people following 'random' leaders, and the ranks change frequently depending on who feels like 'some lulz' that day, and who agrees or not.

In fact how do you determine an action as being done by Anon? Done by the 'leader' ? No real leader. Done by a large amount of the group? Not a very good measure.

If I succeed in telling (say) 50% of anonymous that attacking this site is for their better - then will 'anonymous' be attacking the site? Does it matter?

Summary: Anonymous isn't a rigid structure with leaders, anonymous is an amount of individuals who individually follow a leader at that point in time because they agree with that leader at that point.

Re:Yeah Yeah Blame AnonOps

[horza]

Impressive, you got this far down the thread without reading any comments at all.

Phillip.
PS bunch of Russian criminals != Anonymous

Re:Yeah Yeah Blame AnonOps

[Caraig]

"Traditionally," there are a number of ways that terrorist groups would identify themselves as being responsible for a given act. The most well-known is the IRA (or the Real IRA (yes, that was their name)) having arranged certain code phraseology and signs to the Royal Ulster Constabulary that would be sent following an action to confirm that it was the RIRA that committed the act.

Obviously the action isn't available to Anonymous, but Anonymous -- specifically, the kids over at 4chan who call themselves 'Anonymous' -- doesn't need it. Anonymous can't keep a secret and doesn't even try. It's security through obscurity, or rather anonymity, but so fine-grained that it actually seems to work. Anonymous can't help but telegraph its actions because it doesn't even really bother with security except on a personal, individual level. In a sense this is even better than the cellular structure favored by terrorist and covert cells: Even if you bust one person, you may not be able to get at even their closest accomplices. Unfortunately, this does leave Anonymous up for subordination, though the counter to that is, ironically, reputation of individual members to each other. The threat of subordination is there but generally only long-term. A newbie to Anonymous who proposes DDOSing the Pentagon is going to be suspected immediately, while if someone with more reputation proposes it, it may be seriously considered.

No matter what one thinks of Anonymous, or even if they should be considered as a single entity at all, it does make for some fascinating studies in fifth-generation warfare.

Re:Yeah Yeah Blame AnonOps

[Haedrian]

Indeed I have, I'm becoming quite an experienced /. user ;)

Is it my fault that when I see "Anon" and "Wikileaks" my mind hops to Anonymous?

Re:Yeah Yeah Blame AnonOps

[Anonymous Coward]

Its impossible to actually call 'anon' a group. [...] If I'm in a group with 100 people,

"Impossible"? You just did, in your own analogy. Or this:

There's no real leader. [...] aonymous is an amount of individuals who individually follow a leader at that point in time because they agree with that leader at that point.

So, what is it now? You probably meant that it's all voluntary and that people may or may not decide to go along with what the leaders say, but just because you don't have a Fuhrer at the top doesn't mean that there's no command structure or no leaders or no authority.

You folks seem to be very good at claiming that "anonymous isn't this" and "anonymous isn't that", but you're contradicting yourself. Maybe you should focus on describing what it is in positive terms: "anonymous is this" and "anonymous is that".

Kiddiots. Again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me first be crystal clear on this: I support wikileaks.

Let me then be equally crystal clear on this: I consider anonymous morons.

There is no conflict.

On a personal sidenote, I would personally think that the CORRECT way to handle KIDDIOTS would be to return their packets to the kiddiot in question, by air mail. Written out. On stone tablets...

Spamhaus jumping to conclusions?

[leromarinvit]

Spamhaus seems to be pretty quick in assuming that wikileaks.info is malicious.

Apparently the site is hosted by a Russian company known to host malware and phishing sites. But how does this prove anything? They might as well be ordinary customers of a webhoster who doesn't take sites down easily.

Somebody who won't take malware sites down probably won't bow to political pressure to take down a Wikileaks mirror - or so they hope. "Outlaws" of whatever kind have a very reasonable interest in common: to evade prosecution and punishment. Whether you're stealing credit card numbers or publishing government/corporate secrets doesn't matter in this context.

Re:Spamhaus jumping to conclusions?

[jav1231]

"Apparently the site is hosted by a Russian company known to host malware and phishing sites. But how does this prove anything?"

No. But they say that hot chic down the street has the clap...and she's flirting with you. What could happen?

Re:Spamhaus jumping to conclusions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up.

This is just a wikileaks mirror hosted on a less than desirable IP address. The Spamhaus article uses phrases like "probably-false Wikileaks mirror" and "might be infected with malware." I'd be much more willing to side with Spamhaus if they had some demonstrate-able proof that this mirror was infected, rather that just form of guilt by association - at its finest.

Granted, that's no excuse for the blind DDOS, but that's a completely different issue.

Re:Spamhaus jumping to conclusions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing, he's a slashdotter.

Re:Spamhaus jumping to conclusions?

[Anonymous Showered]

He puts on his robe and wizard hat...?

Re:Spamhaus jumping to conclusions?

[migla]

"Apparently the site is hosted by a Russian company known to host malware and phishing sites. But how does this prove anything?"

No. But they say that hot chic down the street has the clap...and she's flirting with you. What could happen?

I think your analogy is lacking something. If I wanted to host a mirror on her server, I don't think I'd get the clap from that.

Re:Spamhaus jumping to conclusions?

[CyberDragon777]

Well I would still rather use one of the other mirrors that one from these guys: http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL68370

Re:Spamhaus jumping to conclusions?

[russotto]

No. But they say that hot chic down the street has the clap...and she's flirting with you. What could happen?

Goddamn it, I'm not getting fooled again. Last time I hooked up a hot chick with free antibiotics, her interest disappeared when the course of treatment was finished.

Re:Spamhaus jumping to conclusions?

[dbIII]

It's the same sort of assumption that would be made if Charles Manson opened a childcare centre and dingo petting zoo. Once trust is lost it is very hard to get it back. If they have been using similar sounding URLs to popular sites in the past to spread malware how do we know they are not doing it again?

Re:Spamhaus jumping to conclusions?

[leromarinvit]

They are using the same hosting provider. Nobody claimed they were the same people.

Re:Spamhaus jumping to conclusions?

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the release?

A Russian ISP, and a Russian/German-run DNS host who is based in Panama (that's not a red flag?), both of which seem to be run by shady and/or criminal individuals and appear to strictly host criminal material.

I'm sorry, but even normal freedom-loving ISPs will take down malware. As well, wikileaks.info's mirror list is different from the lists on wikileaks.ch and the other Pirate Party-run mirrors. It's extremely suspect based on that alone, not even taking into account that it's being hosted by crooks.

Re:Spamhaus jumping to conclusions?

[Compaqt]

I fail to see what malware is being hosted there.

It's just some ZIP file downloads (which contain text files).

The only Javascript seems to be WikiMedia related.

Google confirms there's been no malware there in the past 3 months:
http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=wikileaks.info

Where else would Spamhaus have them host it? Rackspace?

you do realize

[chronoss2010]

"Anonymous" can be the CIA trying also to discredit the other Anonymous ......

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me for asking, maybe I'm the teenage dumbass here, but where is the proof that AnonOps is actually behind the DDoS currently aimed at Spamhaus? And why are there so many here bashing at AnonOps without asking this crucial question first?

Hanlon's Razor strikes again!

[splerdu]

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
+1 for you, sir.

Re:Hanlon's Razor strikes again!

[Anonymous Coward]

And stupidity of a sufficient degree is indistinguishable from malice.

Re:Hanlon's Razor strikes again!

[amplex]

Roffle. Your post is indistinguishable from pure truth. Sums up the high school (and early work (and maybe 85% of life in general)) experience perfectly for most of us here =]

ok well lets take a wikieak here + have a look

[bpsheen]

Screw all this talk, lets look at the page source code and go from there. I booted Knoppix, and pulled up Iceweasel and copy and pasted the page source from wikileaks.info. My html and Javascript skills are not the sharpest. My skills are best in other areas. However, I noticed there is too much talk and not enough transparency here so I posted the page source so hopefully someone would analyze it and talk about the contents rather than jumping on sides of the arguments like some deranged trolls. Lets have a discussion that not owned by a bunch of drama queens, True geeks work with logic, not Drama. End of anti-troll rant.. Heres the pastebin link. http://pastebin.com/dyMkdZEG

Re:ok well lets take a wikieak here + have a look

[Anonymous Coward]

mirror.wikileaks.info actually seems to be more useful than wikileaks.ch at the moment. It contains all the old leaks in the old (better imho) wikileaks format, together with the wikileaks analysis articles. It also contains links to the new leaks found on wikileaks.ch. I've checked a few of the articles there, and they all look just like I remembered. I couldn't see anything wrong.

I agree that it is strange that the site still uses the old format. It is also strange that the old leaks (from before the Afghanistan, Irak and Cable stuff) aren't available at wikileaks.ch. I'm not sure what to think, but I am far from convinced that there is anything wrong with the .info mirror.

Re:ok well lets take a wikieak here + have a look

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a shell HTML page with no real code in it.
(damn I was excited too)

Re:ok well lets take a wikieak here + have a look

[hat_eater]

Yeah, their press release also contains a link to Google Safe Browsing info that clears them of any wrongdoing. If I were them, I'd also wait some time for peoples defenses to come down, for them to add a NoScript exception for this page, before inserting anything malicious into the code. It might be they're simply rooting for WikiLeaks, but I wouldn't bet on it. This press release in which they come very close to impersonating the WikiLeaks team is rather damning.

Re:ok well lets take a wikieak here + have a look

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that it is strange that the site still uses the old format. It is also strange that the old leaks (from before the Afghanistan, Irak and Cable stuff) aren't available at wikileaks.ch. I'm not sure what to think, but I am far from convinced that there is anything wrong with the .info mirror.

Wikileaks discontinued their MediaWiki platform nearly a year ago in order to bring the Afghan and Iraq war logs to a new platform.

Re:ok well lets take a wikieak here + have a look

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the current listing status for wikileaks.info? This site is not currently listed as suspicious. What happened when Google visited this site? hmmmm.... Lets have a look at the output of Google safe browsing here Of the 13 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 0 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2010-12-17, and suspicious content was never found on this site within the past 90 days. OK so far This site was hosted on 3 network(s) including AS6772 (IMPNET), AS41947 (WEBALTA), AS8473 (BAHNHOF). hmmmm BAHNHOF..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahnhof and also this video of this incredible data center which by the way is one of the offical wikileaks servers and also i believe part of the swedish pirate party. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwlATf9xse4 I find it really ironic that the CIA's motto is "the truth will set you free" at the moment :) Consider this anti psy-ops. more stuff from google: Has this site acted as an intermediary resulting in further distribution of malware? Over the past 90 days, wikileaks.info did not appear to function as an intermediary for the infection of any sites. Has this site hosted malware? No, this site has not hosted malicious software over the past 90 days. Enough said...

Re:ok well lets take a wikieak here + have a look

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would they list all the other current mirrors on the main page if this wasn't another effort to mirror WL? I have a feeling that this may be one of the best places to host content such as this; after all, criminals don't care what you do with their systems as long as you keep paying on time.

Re:ok well lets take a wikieak here + have a look

[Anonymous Coward]

furthermore, why is everyone so alarmed that it appears to be a mirror of the old-school site? the narrow, sensationalist scope of the new, 'cablegate' wikileaks undermines the vast majority of its originally proclaimed value and purpose.

Re:ok well lets take a wikieak here + have a look

[Anonymous Coward]

"This kid's building something dangerous. Give him a turd so golden he can't help but polish it to the end of his days; he'll be busy showing it off to all, adoring fans and hateful opponents alike, obsession and fame tying his hands while the real threat to us, the original weapon, crumbles to dust, forgotten and unmaintained."

Re:ok well lets take a wikieak here + have a look

[cheekyboy]

wlcentral.org is the main press related info site.

Re:ok well lets take a wikieak here + have a look

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Has anyone actually uncovered any malware thus far? Spamhaus issued that warning based on other sites in the IP block; that's nice and all but if the wikileaks.org/.info sites themselves aren't infected... the .info site has been around a long while as well, when did it actually switch to this IP?

I noticed them using the old format on .org and having the pre-Warlog leaks up as well

Proof?

[Anonymous Coward]

Any proof that the DDoS is caused by Anonymous, or is that what all DDoS'es are gonna be blamed on from here on out?

Isn't spamhaus

[Anonymous Coward]

The ones that once they black-list your IP address, they ask for money in order to remove you from the list? I say nuke the trolls

Re:Isn't spamhaus

[CyberDragon777]

To have record SBL68370 (92.241.160.0/19) removed from the SBL, the Abuse/Security representative of RIPE (or the Internet Service Provider responsible for supplying connectivity to 92.241.160.0/19) needs to contact the SBL Team by email (use this link) to explain how the spam problem has been terminated (we need to know exactly how the issue has been dealt with and that this spam problem is fully terminated). If the spam problem that caused this listing has been terminated we will normally remove the listing from the SBL without delay.

They don't mention payment on their site.

Re:Isn't spamhaus

[Kalriath]

No. You're thinking of SORBS (now GFI).

Don't underestimate the tards

[box2]

It seems much more plausible that either this wikileaks.info related cybergang is performing the DDoS themselves, stirring up other communities to perform DDoS, or both. I have no experience with this AnonOps group, but I have spent a lot of time looking at *chan culture. As haphazard as a collection of 'anonymous' users generally is, they do not actually get to the point of performing an attack against something without hearing many sides to the story. That is one of the benefits of having so many individuals actively involved rather than an army unthinking zombie computers.

For example, given enough .jpg's, between their collective experience they can collate enough data to link seemingly completely unrelated photos to the same household or person. I have seen this happen over the course of a few threads and the experience was like watching a higher consciousness at work. It totally blew me away.

They will have people who actually do look at what is specifically being blocked by Spamhaus, why, and verify the authenticity of said claims. When you have threads of people calling for destruction it may be hard to turn away the mod mentality, but when people start posting clear facts it can and will do so, leading to the impending attack falling apart before it reaches critical mass.

I don't know much about this AnonOps group as of now, but if they are made up of enough individuals even this article will definitely reach them. As to if they will care, depends what their real goal is I suppose.

spamhaus DDoS

[sarah123ed]

Who would benefit from even just one leaks site having compromised material?

crime gangs

[Anonymous Coward]

Hyperbole much?

Wikileaks.info response posted

[dbreeze]

http://wikileaks.info/press/spamhaus-false-allegations-against-wikileaks.html

Spamhaus' False Allegations Against wikileaks.info

Published 15-Dec-2010, 8:00 AM GMT

On Tuesday, 14-Dec-2010 Spamhaus has issued a statement wherein it labels wikileaks.info as "unsafe", as they consider our hosting company as a malware facilitator:

http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=665

We find it very disturbing that Spamhaus labels a site as dangerous without even checking if there is any malware on it. We monitor the wikileaks.info site and we can guarantee that there is no malware on it. We do not know who else is hosted with Heihachi Ltd and it is none of our business. They provide reliable hosting to us. That's it.

While we are in favour of "Blacklists", be it for mail servers or web sites, they have to be compiled with care. Just listing whole IP blocks as "bad" may be quick and easy for the blacklist editors, but will harm hosters and web site users.

Wikileaks has been pulled from big hosters like Amazon. That's why we are using a "bulletproof" hoster that does not just kick a site when it gets a letter from government or a big company. Our hoster is giving home to many political sites like castor-schottern.org and should not be blocked just because they might have hosted some malware sites.

Fortunately, more responsible blacklists, like stopbadware.org (which protects the Firefox browser, for example), don't list us. We do hope that Spamhaus hasn't issued this statement due to political pressure.

Wikileaks.info will always be safe and clean. Promised:

Google Safe Browsing Check for wikileaks.info

Update (15-Dec-2010 17:00 PM GMT): Spamhaus has updated their statement to say that they don't blacklist us.

The wikileaks.info Team

Re:Wikileaks.info response posted

[dbreeze]

http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=665

Update 15 December

In a statement released today on wikileaks.info entitled "Spamhaus' False Allegations Against wikileaks.info", the person running the wikileaks.info site (which is not connected with Julian Assange or the real Wikileaks organization) called Spamhaus's information on his infamous cybercrime host "false" and "none of {your} business" and called on people to contact Spamhaus and "voice your opinion". Consequently Spamhaus has now received a number of emails some asking if we "want to be next", some telling us to stop blacklisting Wikileaks (obviously they don't understand that we never did) and others claiming we are "a pawn of US Government Agencies".

None of the people who contacted us realised that the "Wikileaks press release" published on wikileaks.info was not written by Wikileaks and not issued by Wikileaks - but by the person running the wikileaks.info site only - the very site we are warning about. The site data, disks, connections and visitor traffic, are all under the control of the Heihachi cybercrime gang. There are more than 40 criminal-run sites operating on the same IP address as wikileaks.info, including carder-elite.biz, h4ck3rz.biz, elite-crew.net, and bank phishes paypal-securitycenter.com and postbank-kontodirekt.com.

Because they are using a Wikileaks logo, many people thought that the "press release" was issued "by Wikileaks". In fact there has been no press release about this by Wikileaks and none of the official Wikileaks mirrors sites even recognise the wikileaks.info mirror. We wonder how long it will be before Wikileaks supporters wake up and start to question why wikileaks.info is not on the list of real Wikileaks mirrors at wikileaks.ch.

Currently wikileaks.info is serving highly sensitive leaked documents to the world, from a server fully controlled by Russian and German malware cybercriminals, to an audience that faithfully believes anything with a 'Wikileaks' logo on it.

Spamhaus continues to warn Wikileaks readers to make sure they are viewing and downloading documents only from an official Wikileaks mirror site. We're not saying "don't go to Wikileaks" we're saying "Use the wikileaks.ch server instead".

Update 18 December

A DDOS attack was launched on www.spamhaus.org today in retaliation for us warning Internet users about the Russian-German cyber criminals behind the Wikileaks mirror wikileaks.info.

Spamhaus is currently under a 2.1Gbps DDOS attack which began at 05:20 CET. As we are used to DDOS attacks from cybercriminals our anti-ddos defences are holding and our web servers are still operating, a little slower than normal.

By no coincidence, the 'AnonOps' DDOS group irc.anonops.net is also hosted by the same Heihachi Russian-German cybercrime gang in the same CIDR as wikileaks.info:

wikileaks.info = 92.241.190.202
irc.anonops.net = 92.241.190.94

In addition to the LOIC and *OIC tools issued to dimwitted script kiddies to DDOS "enemies of Anon" with, AnonOps appears to be now escalating its DDOS attacks using dedicated criminal botnets (botnets of illegally hijacked PCs), and now appears to be directing DDOS attacks not at "enemies of Wikileaks" but at "enemies of our criminal bosses".

There is palpable irony in a DDOS being used to prevent exposure of a probably-false Wikileaks mirror that could potentially harm Wikileaks and Wikileaks readers. We hope that AnonOps supporters appreciate the irony as much as we do.

Re:Wikileaks.info response posted

[dbreeze]

Wow. Everybody prepped for Armageddon?

Is it Anon?

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks more like the Russian crime rings who operate in that IP range is protecting their new malware distribution mechanism (wikileaks.info).
They obviously have the power to DDoS.
It would benefit to veil this DDoS as Op:PayBack.

spamhaus ticks off everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

They block entire subnets and shut off your service without warning with their free lists. Very unfriendly behavior. I won't use them because they are dicks.

Re:spamhaus ticks off everyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

this just in, failed internet racketeer spamhaus ddos's the shit out of themselves, regains credibility!

Re:spamhaus ticks off everyone.

[Kalriath]

That's SORBS, not Spamhaus. Fact check much?

What do you expect...

[Anonymous Coward]

... 14 year old kids fully read warnings. Or thoroughly look in fridges for what they want.

2840 infected sites on AS:41947

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=AS:41947

Fool

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

A girlfriend? See, we already know he's lying.

Wasn't AnonOps

[Anonymous Coward]

Not one mention of Spamhaus being a "target" on anonops irc. Apparently there was a decision made earlier today for one of the irc servers/nodes to be killed/discontinued. Could the server getting offed be the one Spamhaus said was on the same network/subnet as criminals?

Can't quite figure out where the AnonOps link to the Spamhaus DDoS comes from besides that, considering calls for ceasefire/"peacefire" and this image were being passed around since this morning.

There was someone DDoSing the hell out of AnonOps starting yesterday, which ended (at least it seems to have) just a few hours ago, constant netsplits and stuff, so I don't know how anybody could even organize an attack on Spamhaus with that kind of disruption, let alone with little to no reason.

It's interesting to note that there was a group using the AnonOps irc network today that wanted to attack a "bilderberg group" website, and would do so even if it wasn't officially condoned or agreed to. A similar attack happened on DynCorp the other day but I heard claims that they "pulled out". If Spamhaus was to be attacked it would have been noted in the topics of popular channels, but it was not. Note that the argument "they're just denying it" doesn't work because the people who partake in these attacks are usually "proud".

I think in this case in particular, it's safe to say that AnonOps/OperationPayback/et al, were not involved.

I don't partake in any of the morally/legally ambiguous stuff, I just report on it.

Here's a quick survey in #target @ AnonOps irc

(una****) just to confirm: spamhaus wasn't anonops?
(ano****) no
(sti****) nope
(Sky****) no
(una****) okay thanks

Names partially withheld to protect the innocent

Re:Wasn't AnonOps

[Tacvek]

Spamhaus outed the Russian network, which took or already had control of an old AnonOps domain, and began a real botnet attach against Spamhaus.

Spamhaus misinterpreted that as in indication that the russians were somehow in control of AnonOps.

Anonymous was never responsible for the Spamhaus attacks, but the russian cybercriminals were, retaliating for outing wikilinks.info.

Spamhaus has since apparently realized this mistake, since they have apparently removed all mention of Anonymous from the page they are now serving.

bullllllshit

[SuperBanana]

As I understand it, some of these servers are hosted on IP addresses shared with other websites, and apparently this setup is incompatible with SSL

Bullshit. There's nothing about virtual hosting that prohibits the use of SSL.

In addition, we have not yet identified a signing authority that we feel confident that would be resistant to coercion and subornation by agencies looking to discredit or manipulate Wikileaks. (Got a suggestion? Reply to this post!)

Oh PLEASE. Then make your own CA (it's not hard, you need a laptop and a safe deposit box) and publish the CA's public key via multiple methods. If the tech community can distribute the keys to DVD/Bluray encryption schemes, it can probably handle this.

Also: dump Julianne - he's toxic as hell. The media are being whipped up into a feeding frenzy and focusing on him and his legal issues exclusively, instead of the content of the leaks. Which is the dream of the governments around the world, because the press are no longer covering the leaks. The second those charges came out he should have stepped down officially, and let someone new take the helm, at least as the public face. Preferably someone who wasn't having sex with near-strangers and bragging about his "work" on a free dating site.

Your organization's mission has been completely subverted by the fact that Julianne didn't have the foresight to realize that it might be a good idea to keep his dick out of strange pussy before and during the organization's work.

Re:bullllllshit

[brain159]

Please expand on how you set up virtual-hosting-by-name to support SSL properly - i.e. all the sites on the same IP being able to do SSL with their own domains.

Re:bullllllshit

[Alex Belits]

1. One server may have multiple IP addresses.

2. Even if it doesn't, one site may still use SSL with matching name in the certificate (others will get a mismatch error if user tried to access them with https).

Re:bullllllshit

[akanouras]

Server Name Indication (SNI) is what you are looking for.

SNI, combined with using a different port for each certificate (domain name) in case the client doesn't support it, will serve most clients - except the ones that a) don't support SNI AND b) are behind a firewall allowing SSL/TLS connections on port 443 only.

self-signed ssl certs

[Anonymous Coward]

can you use OpenSSL/CyaSSL/PolarSSL with a self-signed certificate? GnuPG?
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Web_of_trust

wikileags.org domain

[Compaqt]

The thing I don't get is how they were able to wrest control of wikileaks.org.

The .org domain was with DynaDot and they had (and still have) CLIENT TRANSFER PROHIBITED set.

So why would a US-based domain firm which suspended Wikileaks in fear of the US government then control back over to either
1) a group purporting to be WikiLeaks, or
2) a group they knew was Russian criminals

?

Great summary.

[h00manist]

All this fighting among activists only helps the established powers. I think many people would agree on the issues to fight for with some more patient, calm discussion of them. It's necessary to stick to the central, universal issues, and leave aside the minor details and issues. I think the central issue, which many can fit their flag with, is violence - all forms of violence, including economic exploitation, religious intolerance and exclusion, racial violence and discrimination, as well as sexual, moral and psychological violence. Ideas from the humanist movement. In the case of Wikileaks here, many of those forms are being used against them.

Re:Great summary.

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Alternatively, it could be that "the established powers" are the way they are for ... a reason. And that details like due process and rule of law are actually a good thing. And yes, even the wars (the ones by America) in the middle east ... are a good thing (or at least better than the alternatives, esp. better than the vigilante "justice" (mob justice is what it is, at best) that is represented here, by wikileaks itself, by the "anonymous" script-kiddies, and the russian criminals).

But don't let me detract you from thinking your specific personal version of revolution would make things so much better.

Re:Great summary.

[M. Baranczak]

Due process and the rule of law would be an excellent idea.

Re:Wikileaks.info response posted MORE UPDATES

[dbreeze]

http://www.spamhaus.org/news.lasso?article=665

Update 18 December ***Incorrect data redacted*** (click to read)

[See newer information on DDoS in update below]

A DDoS attack was launched on www.spamhaus.org today in retaliation for us warning Internet users about the Russian-German cyber criminals behind the Wikileaks mirror wikileaks.info.

Spamhaus is currently under a 2.1Gbps DDoS attack which began at 05:20 CET. As we are used to DDoS attacks from cybercriminals our anti-ddos defences are holding and our web servers are still operating, a little slower than normal.

By no coincidence, the 'AnonOps' DDoS group irc.anonops.net is also hosted by the same Heihachi Russian-German cybercrime gang in the same CIDR as wikileaks.info:

wikileaks.info = 92.241.190.202
irc.anonops.net = 92.241.190.94

In addition to the LOIC and *OIC tools issued to dimwitted script kiddies to DDoS "enemies of Anon" with, AnonOps appears to be now escalating its DDoS attacks using dedicated criminal botnets (botnets of illegally hijacked PCs), and now appears to be directing DDoS attacks not at "enemies of Wikileaks" but at "enemies of our criminal bosses".

There is palpable irony in a DDoS being used to prevent exposure of a probably-false Wikileaks mirror that could potentially harm Wikileaks and Wikileaks readers. We hope that AnonOps supporters appreciate the irony as much as we do.

Update 19 December

We have been analyzing the traffic patters of the attempted DDoS attack against Spamhaus that started yesterday. We are seeing that it is made up of UDP and Syn flood type packets. This is not the profile of DDoS traffic from the LOIC and other *OIC tools issued to script kiddies to DDoS "enemies of Anon" with. In fact, at some semi-private forums, the AnonOps members have denied the DDoS and have stated how much they hate spam and would not attack Spamhaus. It would seem some actually read and understood what our warning message was about. Rumors are that they have also distanced themselves from members who were promoting the use of botnets to attack sites.

This now looks far more likely to be the work of people running, or hosting at, Webalta or the Heihachi cybercrime group. Possibly angered with the attention this wikileaks.info article brought to their dirty section of the internet. When one hosts spam servers, malware, Zeus and other botnet command and control (C&C) servers, bank phish sites and "backends", child exploitation sites and other badness, keeping off-the-radar is a must. Perhaps Russian authorities are now looking closer at this Webalta and its datacenter, as Russian citizens and banks are often the target of the people running systems there.

As we do when hit by these attacks, Spamhaus is working with both network experts and law-enforcement agencies to find and shut down the botnet used for the DDoS and to try and track who may be behind it.

Re:Easy to beat with a custom HOSTS file

[hairyfeet]

Oh Good Lord, its the HOSTS file troll. I thought you only irritated people on Opera and other browser threads? For the rest of us you can either just use the free Comodo Dragon browser and pick the "yes I'd like to use the secure Comodo DNS" box on install, or if you are attached to your browser one can just go here for simple instructions on switching over to Comodo Secure DNS.

Either way you'll have real time blacklists that you don't have to maintain, phishing and DNS cache poisoning protection, and most importantly don't have to play "whack a mole" by futzing with HOSTS files. I mean jeez, what do you think this is, 1997?

Why do things have to get so complicated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did this oversimplified world of right and wrong just get a little grayer? This is starting to sound a little like the petty political goings on of a national state department. I think someone should establish a clearinghouse for the disclosure of private correspondence of these organizations. Then we could feel self righteous about the whole thing by reading small exerts of complicated issues and making snap judgments about things that are far more complicated than we have time to really understand. After all we can use computers better than most people so isn’t it our obligation to disproportionately use that power to push our opinions especially on anyone who disagrees. I mean people need to know things. Things like: it is not right for countries with big guns to force their will on countries with smaller guns. And if they don’t get it, we will have to “convince them” using the weapons; I mean tools, at our discretion. Then the world will know we are not like them at all!

Hey, "big talker": You're invited... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34607890

See you there... & there? Well - we'll see how that "bottom-of-the-barrell U" mere certification stands up to someone that has 2 actual degrees around the computer sciences, on the topic of HOSTS files, browser addons, & DNS servers!

(You called me some names? Let's see if an ad hominem attacking troll like you can "back up your bluster"... this is going to be FUN!)

APK

Re:Here's the man from "bottom of the barrell U"

[Anonymous Coward]

tb;dr

(too bold; didn't read)

Keep "burning up" your "mod points" boys, lol!

[Anonymous Coward]

Per my subject-line above? Your "effete downmod squad" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kd85Qim_Z6A (lol)?

That rather effete retaliation just doesn't appear to be very effective vs.:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34608660 (the "downmod squad")

or most especially, this ->

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34606776 (my points in this post on where & how HOSTS files can help you) now, is it?

Nope.

Still - go ahead, keep downmodding me (because, sooner or later you'll run dry on "mod points" which is what I am hoping to achieve, lol) & showing everyone here reading just HOW WEAK & TECHNICALLY INEFFECTIVE YOU ARE, vs. facts in favor of HOSTS files!

APK

P.S.=> I can keep this up, & keep pointing others to what you're "downmodding" me on, & no stupid "10 posts per day AC restriction limit" stops me either, IF you're hoping for that... apk

Re:Easy to beat with a custom HOSTS file

[Anonymous Coward]

APK is not a troll, he is mentally ill.

Got your PHD in Psychiatry? No??

[Anonymous Coward]

"APK is not a troll, he is mentally ill." - by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 19, @02:12PM (#34608996)

No, I am just LAUGHING MY ASS OFF, watching "hairyfeet" post in reply as AC & running from a challenge I gave he, instead of disproving the points in my post here about HOSTS here -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34606776

HOWEVER most especially, here, he's doing the same -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34607890 (vs. Adblock, & DNS deficiencies)... hehe, the captcha for me is "LAUGHTER", no doubt!

By the way, since you're using more "adhominem attacks" calling me crazy etc. quoted above?

Ahem: Care to show us your PHD in Psychiatry, & your license to practice it, as well as your formally administered examination of myself in professional settings for your "snap prognosis/diagnosis" there, Mr. /. "sidewalk surgeon"?

Watch the troll run!

APK

P.S.=> Getting the better of "the likes of you", complete with your EFFETE "DownModSquad" (lol -> ) tactics? Ah, I gotta say it, as per usual, vs. your running like scared chickens, lmao "too, Too, TOO EASY", just TOO ez...

(Especially when you're confronted on things you have NO CLUE ON, after shooting your mouths off stupidly as usual (which you know is true, hence, the "downmod squad" puny tactics - you're only showing us all, you f'd up!)... apk

Re:Got your PHD in Psychiatry? No??

[hairyfeet]

You want me to disprove something that EVERYONE ON THE PLANET already knows? How about the fact that EVERY SINGLE VIRUS in the free world can trivially change the HOSTS file dipshit. Want examples? Here are 18 billion of them.

You're like the idiot that thinks your computer is a "magic box" and by saying the right incantation you can protect yourself. Well I hate to break the news to ya kid, but this isn't your MMORPG and buffs don't actually work in real life. You trick actually worked for about 4 weeks in 1997 and after that every virus and his retard cousin blows through your precious HOSTS like you blow through tissues reading Master Chief fan fics.

But of course such things are beyond your tiny immature brain, because then you would have to learn about things like layered security and least permissions instead of blinding hanging onto HOSTS as a woobie to protect you from the big bad world out there. But please, keep insulting the paper degree I had to get to get the bank to approve my business loans (which BTW my shop is doing VERY well, thanks) while thinking a HOSTS file, shit everyone with a brain dropped in 1998, will protect you. The spammers I'm sure have already made your PC their bitch. May I suggest your local repair shop? They'll have to charge you extra because of the ID10T error, but I assure you those are VERY hard to fix.

Re:Got your PHD in Psychiatry? No??

[Wandering Idiot]

Nothing in your writing style suggests he was in any way incorrect in implying that you're crazy.

You might want to fix that.

Hi MR HOSTS FILE TROLL!

[hairyfeet]

Hey everybody, I'd like you to meet my new pet, please excuse the smell or the fact it seems to piddle on itself a lot.

This is the HOSTS file troll, which is a fourteen year old Halo player that recently discovered HOSTS files (you remember, those things we used in the mid 90s before EVERY single virus on the planet figured BUTT SIMPLE ways to get around them? Yeah those) and now, since he is so hopped up on Mountain Dew and hormones because he never gets laid, has taken it upon himself to have a HOLY CRUSADE where he uses lots of leet speak and weird CAPS IN SENTENCES to spread the gospel of the HOSTS file, which is older than Betty White and frankly isn't nearly as interesting.

But I hate to break the news to you, poor little lost LEAVE THE FUCKING CAPS LOCK ALONE! latchkey child, but this isn't Digg, or one of your gaming forums populated by little clueless I SAID PUT IT DOWN! hopped up basement dwellers such as yourself, you see this is /. where not only does everybody already know about your new religion, the HOSTS file, but we actually wrote the thing you now clutch like a security blanket because you soiled your regular one. And you know what? We gave up on that lame shit around the time of WinME.

I know trying to educate a moronic youth such as yourself is like pissing in the wind, because you've had all your opinions beaten into you by the MSM but what the hey, it is close to Xmas and the Feet isn't a complete grinch, so I'll try. You see grasshopper, your precious HOSTS file leaves you in what is known as an "arms race" which to explain that in little words you can understand, it is like CTF in Halo. You see all it takes is ONE, just one, bad guy to NOT be on your precious static text file and the next thing you know he is teabagging you while all his friends throw up gang signs and rip off all your stuff. The rest of us have long moved on to things we don't have to manually update where these good people known as "security professionals" constantly update and configure so we don't have to.

But don't worry, we understand. when your DSL is just too laggy for some DM and you have rubbed your little winkie raw to fan fic of Master Chief you really need something to do, so I suppose letting you play with the HOSTS file is better than letting a cretin like yourself anywhere near system32. BTW did you know putting in deltree C:/ in command line will speed up your HOSTS file by 500%? Try it! But thinking just because one of your butt buddies on the Army of Two match ladder thingie told you about HOSTS makes it the newest thing since the x360 doesn't mean it isn't as old as...well that pair of your mother's panties you keep sniffing which is wrong on SO many levels. All you do is make yourself look like an absolute tard by constantly spouting off about HOSTS like it is some new hotness. On second thought God only know what else your pathetically limited mind would speak about if you didn't blather on about HOSTS, so carry on.

You forgot he mentions ACL and MAC usage

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the fact that EVERY SINGLE VIRUS in the free world can trivially change the HOSTS file dipshit by hairyfeet (841228) on Sunday December 19, @03:37PM (#34609634)

That's not true hairyfeet, and if he uses acl protections he mentioned? You're wrong. For example, if he logged on as an adminisrator or root superuser, and does his edits, saves the hosts file and while as an administrator he applies an ACL or MAC setting that only allows an admin/root/superuser to modify that file? Then while he runs as a limited privelege lesser user (which is the case with UAC and Linux least privelege setups by default), he is safe. You are wrong right out of the gate. No small wonder you are only an ITT man who has a big name tossing mouth and your dumbness got you into a huge jam, because now you have to eat those words.

Re:You forgot he mentions ACL and MAC usage

[hairyfeet]

Sigh, do you work at Best Buy? Because I frankly only deal with THIS level of stupid when I have to fix what the geek squad fucks up. BTW nice to see when you take your meds you can STOP putting CAPS all over the PLCE. Now I'm gonna use little words, do try to keep up. The reason why nobody recommends HOSTS file for anything more than keeping Little Billy off the chat sites? Well you see there is this little thing called privilege escalation. you know that HOSTS file? Yeah, you know who ALWAYS has access to it? THE SYSTEM. And hey, guess how the bugs drop their payload in your system folder? Why with system rights of course! Dumbass.

So I really hate to whizz all over your precious HOSTS file fantasy, but the malware writers figured out in....ohh around 1997, that an easy way to steal data was to infect THE VERY FILE YOU ARE DEPENDING ON so that when you go to mail.google. com you instead go to maill.google.com which presents you with a shiny google login, which since the HOSTS file troll has bet his ass on his HOSTS file, will promptly give away his data and enjoy a good pwning. And don't even bring Linux into this, we are not talking security by obscurity but thinking a HOSTS file will protect Windows. News Flash...it won't. All a HOSTS file does is put you in an endless race with malware writers, which since you are looking at around 100,000 new pieces of nasty a week, and around 2000-3000 infected websites, which changes constantly? Yeah you WILL lose. And of course the first piece of malware to get in will use a privilege escalation bug in...ohh lets say Adobe, because everyone forgets to update and new bugs are found in that shite daily, and then will promptly teabag your precious HOSTS file while flinging poo.

But please, don't believe me. Hang onto your HOSTS file like a magical woobie that protects you from all the nasties. Both the repair guys like me and the malware writers and botnet herders just LOOOOOVE when you believe in magical thinking. Because it makes us lots of $$$. Of course we repair guys are nice enough to laugh at you behind your back and call you PEBKAC and ID10T, whereas the botnet herder will blow through your bandwidth like shit through a goose if you are lucky, if not he will use your PC for illegal activity in which case please enjoy the conversation with the nice men in dark suits with crewcuts and large black guns.

Time for you to "eat your words", too, Too, TOO EZ

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yeah, you know who ALWAYS has access to it? THE SYSTEM. And hey, guess how the bugs drop their payload in your system folder? Why with system rights of course! Dumbass." - by hairyfeet (841228) on Sunday December 19, @10:53PM (#34612590)

See subject, & this testimonial from others here using HOSTS files, especially vs. VIRUSES (which you noted):

---

"Ever since I've installed a host file (http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm) to redirect advertisers to my loopback, I haven't had any malware, spyware, or adware issues. I first started using the host file 5 years ago." - by TestedDoughnut (1324447) on Monday December 13, @12:18AM (#34532122)

FROM http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34532122

---

Seeing as that is the case with he, and myself (I can produce other such quotes also for you, just ask (& since 1995, I haven't gotten a virus/malware/trojan/worm etc. in fact))?

IF I DON'T GET VIRUSES, THEN HOW ON EARTH WILL YOUR "VIRUS THEORY" TAKE HOLD HERE, IF I DO NOT GET MALWARE INFESTATIONS @ ALL?

Plus, even IF my HOSTS file was somehow "compromised" (like if someone physically had access to my system)? I update it daily anyhow... & I do have backups (like anyone should of their critical data).

OH, lastly - Anymore names you want to toss, Mr. "ITT TECH"?? Right about now, you are doing what the other guy said:

YOU HAVE TO EAT YOUR WORDS!

(Especially the names you tossed my way, lol... who's the "dumbass" now? Not I... Ah, too, Too, TOO EASY! Just TOO EZ...)

APK

P.S.=> The other fellow you replied to isn't myself, but he's on the right track (except you have to do a LITTLE MORE than just rely in ACL/MAC usage, due to SOME malware (rare though, thank goodness) like rootkits being able to subvert the OS, or, run via system level impersonation): You additionally HAVE to scan from external system setups to see if you are infested OR NOT, for sure (2nd disk w/ OS setup & antivirus/antispyware (multiple ones) updated to current signatures, for scanning your "REAL" system you use daily)... apk

Beg your pardon, READ IT AGAIN

[Anonymous Coward]

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34608996

"I am the Lord of the Wasteland"... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Whatever exists here is mine..." -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834

APK

P.S.=> Including ITT Tech Man, Professor hairyfeet, who got owned by not only proof from myself, but also others here on /., with more by request no less (but, I think what's there does the job - my std. "Kung Fu" has been HUGELY administered, & it was, as-per-my-usual? Just too, Too, TOO EASY... 2 EZ! RofFlMaO... apk

"I am the Lord of the Wasteland"... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Whatever exists here is mine..." -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834

APK

P.S.=> Including ITT Tech Man, Professor hairyfeet, who got owned by not only proof from myself, but also others here on /., with more by request no less (but, I think what's there does the job - my std. "Kung Fu" has been HUGELY administered, & it was, as-per-my-usual? Just too, Too, TOO EASY... 2 EZ! RofFlMaO... apk

Re:Here's the man from "bottom of the barrell U"

[Xest]

Hi man, you sound really smart, can you tell me which universities you got your degrees at and which courses you took at those unis? I'd love to learn from someone as clever as you.

Can you give me the names of any good books to read that will help me obtain your awesome level of knowledge and understanding?

"I am the Lord of the Wasteland"... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

"Whatever exists here is mine..." -> http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834

APK

P.S.=> Including ITT Tech Man, Professor hairyfeet, who got owned by not only proof from myself, but also others here on /., with more by request no less (but, I think what's there does the job - my std. "Kung Fu" has been HUGELY administered, & it was, as-per-my-usual? Just too, Too, TOO EASY... 2 EZ! RofFlMaO... apk

Fascinating story!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wrote an article http://tron-delta.org/en/news/latest/anonymous-anonops-and-heihachi.html [tron-delta.org] to put it on my website and really would like to hear what you think about it. It's basically a summary of *this* Slashdot discussion, plus a comment from Scneier, some reading on Spamhaus and a few other online sources as well as my own thoughts.

I'm as "smart" as the next guy I suppose

[Anonymous Coward]

LeMoyne College is 1: Great school, jesuit taught largely. Just put your time in and you get good at whatever it is you do.

APK

Re:Time for you to "eat your words", too, Too, TOO

[hairyfeet]

Oh poor trollie, Afraid to place anything for your magical woobie on the front page? I thought you believed in your HOPES file? Maybe you should just paste your IP address here so we can all "see" what a magical woobie can do! And you STILL haven't figured out the math yet? Tsk tsk, I'm disappointed in you! I mean, surely there is a "statistics for dummies" book you could have perused by now? Well I understand, it is kinda hard for you to count only using your fingers and toes, especially with the tears in your eyes thanks to my cock slapping you in the face. Now pay attention, and learn! I'll even draw it in a nice simple picture format!

Now here is you...( ) with nothing but your magical woobie to protect your gaping hole from the train fucking that awaits it, and here is the bad guys....123498763487364983276492836 91827364981273649128764 981273649812736498127346 91823649812736498127364 18236491827639481263 9123874612938746219 9187236491287364981 9872634981263947 91827346912873469 9182743691827364 9128736491287364 91723469187236 91287364 91287364 91927346 91287364 1928734 691278364 912873 641927346 91287364917823491782 6491287364912634912873649128374619 91276349182 98712349

Now that is NOT to scale of course, otherwise your hole would be MUCH larger, and those cocks lined up to screw you would number...ohh around 230,000 at last count. Now pay attention trollie, here is the hard part! Of those 230,000 roughly 98,000 are what is known as transient avenues of attack, now I know that is a big word and hurts your little head, but what that means is a website could be dangerous right now...and now it is not...and now it is. A site can literally be "clean" and 2PM, be infected by 3PM, be clean by 4PM, and be reinfected by 5PM.

So it is actually simply trollie. For your magical woobie to work you will not only have to have EVERY site you visit that MAY OR MAY NOT be infected at that very moment in your magical HOPES file, but every single site they link to such as ad servers and your list has to be accurate to the minute or it is nothing but a woobie. So even if you subscribed to Securina and every single security site on the planet, and updated your woobie every single minute of every single day the math proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you WILL lose.

But you KNOW this already, don't you trollie? Or else you wouldn't be so desperate to get anyone to listen to your delusions. And the really sad part? You have bet your ENTIRE existence on a 20 year old tech nobody uses anymore! How fucking sad is that! It is like arguing for the superior sound quality of 8 tracks, or for the incredible versatility of the floppy disc. But answer me this trollie: If your HOPES file is so damned good why did everyone abandon them over a decade ago hmmm? The ONLY thing a HOPES file is good for anymore is for blocking ad servers, because their IP addresses never change unlike malware which changes by the minute. But here is your chance trollie, prove the math wrong. That is if you know how to do even the most basic of statistics. You DO know how to do statistics, don't you trollie? Because otherwise you are just praying to the magical woobie to save you, just like in my LOLCat example. Sad and pathetic, but cock slapping you is quite entertaining I must admit. It isn't often one gets to meet such a naive and easy mark. Poor little trollie.

And Correlation != Causation. I can set up an XP Sp2 machine with NO patches, NO AV or antispy, and then change the background to a LOLCat. Then when I use the machine only on the LAN I will have NO viruses, but I don't really think I can claim my magic LOLCat picture done saved me, do you trollie?

Now do try to keep up: For the HOSTS file to provide a truly effective protection he will have to have ALL the websites that he crosses that can infect him, as well as any and all of the sites THOSE link to, all loaded into his magical HOSTS file. Now considering we are talking on average

A "downmod" is the "best you've got"?

[Anonymous Coward]

See subject-line, & realize this: When ALL YOU HAVE is an effete "mod down", vs. the facts in my post here:

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34647708

?

(You've LOST, & lost badly!)

APK

P.S.=> hairyfeet? You're just "too, Too TOO EASY" to get the better of... 2 EZ! apk

So much for YOUR MATH, lol, see inside... apk

[Anonymous Coward]

FROM -> http://mobile.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1930156&cid=34717188 (where hairyfeet FINALLY had some courage, albeit where he trolled me & got SHOT DOWN FOR IT, trying to use his so-called WEAK "point" here - you didn't have the BALLS or skills/know-how to combat me, directly, here! Too bad, because this? FLOORS ALL OF YOUR WEAK REMAINING POINTS, easily):

"which after repeated requests to show how a 16Mb static HOSTS file can scale against a threat of over 1.3 MILLION infected sites [softpedia.com] with more than 200,000 being added or removed PER DAY has refused to show proof and instead throws insults." - by hairyfeet (841228) on Thursday December 30, @05:50PM (#34715872)

Don't YOU recall, this: hairyfeet ->

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834

Which was MODDED UP no less, & shot you down, in SECONDS, too easily! It's also where you RAN AWAY, too, once your "so-called point" was easily shot down?

LMAO... TOO Easy!

---

1.) Now - I have over 920,000 KNOWN malicious sites blocked out (more from this article too no less) in my HOSTS file.

Many get cleaned up too, & get removed from that 1.3 million # you quote

(See my lists from hpHOSTS I cited here for example, they post removal lists & update, EVERY HOUR - Thus, I am, literally, up to the minute on these things)!

So, 1.3 million, minus the removal lists I note from say, hpHosts & others? It's JUST ABOUT RIGHT that I have 920,000 known bad sites currently blocked in my hosts file (& hpHOSTS? They update, HOURLY!)

You lose hairyfeet, as per usual, but you didn't have the BALLS or skills/know-how to combat me, directly, here!

---

2.) Also: Your "faith" in math? Since you went to "ITT TECH" (bottom-of-the-barrell U),b>?? Try explain to me why MATH FAILS HERE:,/b> .999 = 1 (true or false) False, you KNOW it, but... read on:

Let a = .999
10a = 9.999 (this is 10x.999)
10a - a = 9.999 - .999
9a = 9
a=1

Explain that, "ITT TECH MAN"... a was .999 at the START OF THIS - how come it comes out as 1 then?

See, that's what your "ITT TECH" degree gave you - - EGG ON YOUR FACE HERE!

(Yea - I was going to do that where you RAN from, in the 1st URL I posted above, but... this is as good a time as any! No wonder you RAN from that first URL - you KNEW I'd "smoke you", due to better education & experience on MY END!)

---

I think even an "ITT TECH MAN", lol, like you can manage it, right?? Tell us why MATH isn't right there... ok???

Good luck!

---

"Not to mention on any machine before Vista it will seriously slow down the machine broadbandreports.com] as it is read line by line per access, and frankly isn't much better on Vista/Win 7" - by hairyfeet (841228) on Thursday December 30, @05:50PM (#34715872)

Did they turn off the local DNS client cache? No?? That's why... In fact that point's covered here, for Windows users:

http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

Right off the bat! Of course, even a 2nd rate tech knows that, but... NOT YOU! LMAO!

(Too bad you didn't know about it, & it makes you VERY easy to "dispatch" as usual, ITT Tech boy, lol!)

APK

P.S.=> Arstechnica also had their forums members have the police called on them for harassing me, threatening my LIFE, & posting defamatory material on me that wasn't true also & also for impersonating me...!

(So much for your POOR attempt at 'discrediting me', you fool... they impersonated me numerous times on their own forums/sites