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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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'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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

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

[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

[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

[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.

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...

[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]

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?

[jmac_the_man]

He must be a false flag.

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

[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.

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

[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 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

[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

[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)

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

[haderytn]

I trust them to be unable to keep a secret.

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.

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

[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]

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

[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

[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.

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.

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:

[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?

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 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?

[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

[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

[cheekyboy]

wlcentral.org is the main press related info site.

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?

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: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?

Fool

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

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

Re:Apparently only THEIR censorship is bad

[MokuMokuRyoushi]

It's called a revolution for a reason.

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

?

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.

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:Isn't spamhaus

[Kalriath]

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

Re:spamhaus ticks off everyone.

[Kalriath]

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

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: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?

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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