Slashdot Mirror


HBGary Federal Hacked By Anonymous

An anonymous reader writes "As the coin was tossed to kick off Superbowl XLV, Anonymous unleashed their anger at a security firm who had been investigating their membership. HBGary Federal had been working on unmasking their identities in cooperation with an FBI investigation into the attacks against companies who were cutting off WikiLeaks access and financing. Unlike the DDoS attacks for which Anonymous has made headlines in recent months, this incident involved true hacking skills."

5 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. Sigh by hirvonen · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ought to have been better prepared if you go kicking a nest full of hornets...

  2. Security is for Other people! by Herkum01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the article,

    HBGary was victimized by a combination of social engineering and a shared password between systems

    Evidently, being a security firm means not having to following good security practices.

  3. Re:hack by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And by true hacking, we mean true cracking.

    Languages are fluid, and you can't prevent it from happening. You've already lost this battle.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  4. Re:clever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, Americans decide to peacefully toss a few sacks of tea into Boston harbor and get the entire harbor shutdown.. so they counter with even more illegal activity and a revolution that will get them even further into the shit

    great plan numbnuts

    Point being... if everyone on Earth was afraid to break a few laws, we'd still be under the rule of British monarchs. Thank god some people don't tuck tail and run whenever Big Brother stares in their direction.

  5. Re:Line between Civil Disobedience. . . by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I suspect that neither Wikileaks nor Anonymous are interested in engaging in "Civil disobedience".

    In the case of Wikileaks, they aren't "Civily disobedient"; because they don't actually tend to break laws. They do obviously have some contact with people who do; but their operations(while deeply unpopular) are not illegal.

    Anonymous, on the other hand, is perfectly happy to do illegal things; but doesn't seem to see the point in getting punished in an effort to maintain the moral high ground. They are(aside from the ones who are in it purely for amusement), essentially engaging in the logic of retributive or revolutionary violence, albeit in bloodless and electronic forms. Irregular resistance fighters have no interest in being caught to "generate sympathy", they have an interest in inflicting damage on strategic targets, obtaining intelligence, discrediting their enemies, and then getting away(so do criminals, of course. The classification depends on the percieved legitimacy of their actions).

    As you say, these guys are definitely not in the same class as the followers of Ghandi or MLK. This appears to be by design. Wikileaks, by all appearances, is interested in maintaining a legal operation to lower the cost of whistle-blowing in situations where that could open one to heavy retribution. Anonymous, while too nebulous to have a single agenda, consists of a sort of core that has embraced the logic of violent(but bloodless) direct action, along with a cloud of recreational me-toos who participate in some of the more trivial ops.

    Whether you think that this is good, bad, or just a matter of style is a different question; but it would appear that they are not aiming at "Civil disobedience"(having judged it as either too personally costly, too ineffective, or perhaps both)...