Slashdot Mirror


Anonymous Claims Possession of Stuxnet Worm

An anonymous reader writes "Last night, a member of hacker group Anonymous announced on Twitter that the group was in possession of the Stuxnet worm. Recently, Anonymous has been in the news for its high profile attacks on software security firm HBGary, after Aaron Barr, the CEO of HBGary's sister firm HBGary Federal, claimed to have acquired the names of senior Anonymous members and threatened to release them to the public. This is where the possibility for Anonymous getting its hands on Stuxnet increases."

234 comments

  1. Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    N/t

    1. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol u mad bro ?

    2. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      trollololol
      Your argument is invalid.

    3. Re:Good. by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      Grinman is grinning at you.

  2. Senior anons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NIGGA WHAT? Someone is clearly not getting the core concept here.

    1. Re:Senior anons? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Anonymity does not imply a flat hierarchy. It simply means that screen names cannot (in theory) be tied to real ones. For example, Spartacus may be notionally equal to everyone else in Anonymous, but if he/she is well-respected in the group you might well find other members happy to follow his/her lead in coordinated actions.

      Similarly, anarchy does not automatically imply disorder, only a lack of rulers. There's nothing to stop people self-organising into whatever organisational structure they desire.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    2. Re:Senior anons? by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Anonymous" is not simply a group that uses anonymity.

      Anonymous is an un-group. It is the collection, at any single moment in time, of people attempting to achieve a common goal loosely organized via anonymous internet communications. The anonymous people working on a common goal, can change from day to day or moment to moment. The goal(s) being worked on can change from day to day and moment to moment. A call for action is thrown out in various anonymous Internet places, and some people who frequent those places decide the goal sounds worthwhile to them for various reasons, different for each person. Others decide the goal is not worthwhile and ignores it or calls out the original poster for having selfish reasons for the call to action ("We're not your personal army").

      To say there are "members" and a "hierarchy" or even an actual group called "Anonymous" in any normal sense of the word reveals a lack of understanding of the phenomena.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    3. Re:Senior anons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anonymity implies lack of hierarchy, because a hierarchy needs identifiers. What you have in mind is pseudonymity. Pseudonyms can be names or even encryption keys which are used for signing messages, but with actual anonymity there is no way to tie a message to a person, and without that you can't have a hierarchy.

      (Anarchy does not imply disorder, but it does imply lack of willful structure. When people willfully self-organize, than that is no longer anarchy.)

      Signed, AC.

    4. Re:Senior anons? by clang_jangle · · Score: 2

      To say there are "members" and a "hierarchy" or even an actual group called "Anonymous" in any normal sense of the word reveals a lack of understanding of the phenomena. Yes well, here on earth we call that "indoctrination". Help is available!

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    5. Re:Senior anons? by poity · · Score: 1

      Those who would fit the label of "senior member" would be ones who make the greatest contributions in its high profile exploits (and I'm not talking about wearing Guy Fawkes masks in public) or those who are given the greatest trust, for instance the handful who possessed HBG's email archives before it was put up as a torrent. We can call it a confederacy of individuals if it makes you happier, but you choosing to buy into their mythology does not make such a distinction any less valid.

      There clearly are security experts within this confederacy who stand out from your typical school-aged males on 4chan, and the LOIC-using kids who get caught up in the emotions (or the lulz if you wish) behave not unlike human shields for those few individuals who have the both ability and willingness to cause real damage. Some 16 year old kid gets arrested in Europe and takes the brunt of the media attention, and a sliver of sympathy for being a dumb kid, while the provocateurs and black hats remain in operation likely behind proxies and public access points.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    6. Re:Senior anons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad said "senior members" can be replaced in 2.5 seconds.

    7. Re:Senior anons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's probably easier to introduce Anonymous as a culture. Saying "Anonymous DDoS'd a website and the FBI is now trying to identify them" is like saying "Punks spray-painted a wall and now the FBi is trying to identify all punks" (you can replace 'Punks' by 'Rappers', 'Goths', 'Bikers' and whatever else).

      Once you think of Anonymous that way, you can then try to understand what they really are. Comparing them to an organization or an open, drop-in/drop-out group is much less accurate.
      There's lots of 'Anonymous' people who did not take part in any DDoS attacks. Lots of those involved in Project Chanology did not take part in Operation: Payback and many involved in Chanology probably did. Some people call themselves 'Anonymous' because they share the same views or ideals, the same mindset...

      Culture is definitely the best way to define Anonymous. Some (many?) adherents of this culture just happen to take part in those DDoS attacks because it fits in with the ideology of their culture. Just like eco-terrorists all happen to have strong environmental beliefs, and yet that doesn't mean that ecologists are all closely tied to eco-terrorism activities.

    8. Re:Senior anons? by clang_jangle · · Score: 0

      The reality is that while you entertain yourself with semantic fantasies about your pet org the rest of the world just it sees a mindless mob acting like a petulant child. Which it pretty much is.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    9. Re:Senior anons? by shiftless · · Score: 3, Interesting

      To say there are "members" and a "hierarchy" or even an actual group called "Anonymous" in any normal sense of the word reveals a lack of understanding of the phenomena.

      To say that there are NOT members and a hierarchy or an actual group called Anonymous reveals a lack of understanding of human social dynamics. There most certainly IS a group called Anonymous, composed of members (some more active than others), and organized in a hierarchy.

      Someone who just posts random ideas to IRC and is never listened to by anyone is not a high ranking member of the hierarchy. Another guy whose many good ideas are listened to and followed is de facto a high ranking member of Anonymous. Some other guy who often works for the cause, and has carried out many successful attacks, also has status within the group. Just because nobody is able to view the whole system from the top down transparently and SEE who is who and who has status, and judge this based on concrete terms like facts and numbers, since the whole thing is based on anonymity, doesn't mean that said status/ranking does not exist. It is an inherent property of ANY humans working together socially in groups of two or more.

    10. Re:Senior anons? by Znork · · Score: 1

      A hierarchy needs identifiers if it's led by merit of names rather than merit of message.

      A hierarchy built on message can exhibit structure, yet be anonymous and without persistent leadership.

    11. Re:Senior anons? by hoggoth · · Score: 2

      > reveals a lack of understanding of human social dynamics

      Are you sure Anonymous is all humans? I have it on good authority that Dogbert is a high ranking official in Anonymous.
      There may be some lizard-people in there as well.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    12. Re:Senior anons? by shawb · · Score: 1

      So, are you saying that all members of Anonymous are equal, but some are more equal than others?

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    13. Re:Senior anons? by JordanL · · Score: 2

      False. You do not speak for the "rest of the world".

    14. Re:Senior anons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A hierarchy of individual messages is not what we're talking about. "Senior anons" means we're talking about a hierarchy of people. Such a thing can not exist without being able to tell if two messages come from the same person, and for that you need identifiers.

    15. Re:Senior anons? by clang_jangle · · Score: 0

      You do not speak for the "rest of the world".

      No, but I do observe and report pretty well. You, OTOH, are probably caught up in imagining yourself somehow "important" because you can click on some link provided by a group of script kiddies and "stick it to the man". Too bad the effort results in mere vandalism, achieving nothing but making a minor nuisance of yourself.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    16. Re:Senior anons? by Noitatsidem · · Score: 1

      I think you forgot the definition of anonymous.

      --
      Feel free to mod me down, just know that unlike some Anonymous Cowards I'm not afraid to express my views as myself.
    17. Re:Senior anons? by JordanL · · Score: 1

      Nice try, I've never participated or talked with anyone who does any anon ops.

    18. Re:Senior anons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That wasn't a very grown up thing to say Billy. Perhaps your understanding of the situation is as immature as the actions being described.

    19. Re:Senior anons? by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      The internet is one large glass house, Mr JordanL. :)

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    20. Re:Senior anons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you for bringing up Operation Chanology. That shit is what started all this fucking public anonymous moralfaggotry. And there's a huge fucking difference between real anon--the way this "group" all started out--and the faggot anon you see parading around today.

    21. Re:Senior anons? by Nocuous · · Score: 2

      Since you say it's not a group, but a shifting number of people who do what they individually decide, then you can't rail against "all this fucking public anonymous moralfaggotry" and "huge fucking difference between real anon--the way this "group" all started out". You can't have it both ways. The people who identify themselves as Anonymous are, in fact, Anonymous, whether you approve of the changing nature of their behavior or not.

      It's like calling someone who treats others in a particularly cruel and sadistic manner "inhuman". Well of course, they're not, they're exactly human. Inhumane perhaps, but not inhuman.

      Don't keep correcting people by telling them they're mis-identifying a group or hierarchy in Anonymous, while complaining about the motherfuckers who just don't act how YOU would like them to.

      Me, I take them at their word, er, self-identification, and I'm comfortable applying a broad brush to them. They're all Anonymous. And they're all douchebags.

      --
      Don't take it personally, but I'm not going to read your pithy response to my post.
    22. Re:Senior anons? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no you!

    23. Re:Senior anons? by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      substitute "anonymous" with "the USA", and "the rest of the world" with the rest of the world.

    24. Re:Senior anons? by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      one could safely say that there are now two anonymouses. the one that wants to keep it on 4chan, and the one that has become an organised (albeit extremely decentralised) legitimate group with a real structure and points of command (which are transient and relatively anonymous). it's quite clever really.

      of course, "oldfags" are irked greatly by the politically active group that has sprung out of them (and goes by the same name).

      and anonymous at it's very core is trolls trolling trolls, pissing in an ocean of piss.

      as such, i approve of anonymous successfully trolling anonymous.

    25. Re:Senior anons? by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      Are you sure Anonymous is all humans?

      furries don't count.

    26. Re:Senior anons? by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      except the senior anons thing is bunk.

      there are certain people who have done more "anon" activities than others, people who want to be leaders, or just people who unwisely make themselves too visible.

      they are only leaders if their ideas are popular.

      let's call anonymous "cloud activism". we don't know where it all is, and it's not relevant.

    27. Re:Senior anons? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      To say there are "members" and a "hierarchy" or even an actual group called "Anonymous" in any normal sense of the word reveals a lack of understanding of the phenomena. Yes well, here on earth we call that "indoctrination". Help is available!

      Actually, we call it a "Flash mob". Which also means that outside of arresting the occasional person and trying to make an example out of them (something that, to be honest, will only piss them off or amuse them immensely), they can't really do much about it. What are they going to do, make anonymous internet discussion boards illegal?

      Good luck with that, guys.

      You have a army of a few thousand (at least) bored computer professionals of questionable ethics and high integrity, alongside a vastly higher number of 13 year olds antagonizing them into doing the things that prior to Anonymous, they would have just sat around the water cooler saying "man, wouldn't it be cool if..."

      Perhaps a better course of action for the powers that be would be to stop attempting to criminalize embarrassing journalism like Wikileaks, and start actually investigating murderous pyramid schemes acting like religions, and maybe you won't have the Internet version of mobs wielding pitchforks and torches running around.

    28. Re:Senior anons? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      To say there are "members" and a "hierarchy" or even an actual group called "Anonymous" in any normal sense of the word reveals a lack of understanding of the phenomena.

      Phenomena? It's just a bunch of groups (with or without interchanging members) that operate under the same name. Looking at 'Anonymous' in the context of any one operation clearly reveals a 'group'. If it were just a collection of people attempting to achieve a common goal then the operations would not be coordinated, you can't coordinate such an attack (time, target, and even the cancellation of an operation) without some organisational hierarchy.

  3. I'm Spartacus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh look, I post a comment without logging in. I must belong in some kind of terrorist group or something.

    Seriously, when did we forgot the meaning of the word "anonymous"?

    1. Re:I'm Spartacus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Case sensitivity. anonymous !~ Anonymous

      Though by that I'm some sort of cowardly DDoSer right now...

  4. What does possession mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    TFA doesn't say if they have the source code or not.

    Iran was in "possession" of the worm too, btw.

    If Anonymous was all that, why don't they take out the NSA? Hmmmmmmmm?!?

    I double dog dare them!

    1. Re:What does possession mean? by TyIzaeL · · Score: 1

      They have decompiled source code and have posted it on GitHub.

  5. So? I have a copy of Code Red by thomasdz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, so? I have a copy of the Code Red and Nimda somewhere in my office. Am I dangerous? No. Because they are known viruses and the holes the exploits used have been patched shut now.

    --
    Karma: Excellent. 15 moderator points expire sometime.
  6. And? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

    Is Anonymous planning to deploy Stuxnet on, um, hacked sites? Stuxnet is really bad for people who tend to collect centrifuges, but it's just another virus when it comes to people with PC's. Doesn't every AV application check for this yet?

    1. Re:And? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I thought Stuxnet was written specifically for Siemens control systems, not Windows.

    2. Re:And? by DarkAce911 · · Score: 1

      Building a botnet of Siemen's PLCs would be bad or hiding exploit code on them to attack windows systems. lots of people run PLCs on their main network.

  7. No such thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no such thing as an "Anonymous Hacking Group". There are no senior members, or official members of any kind. You are only a member of anonymous while actively participating. The media has blown this way out of proportion. Most people don't actually understand what Anonymous is(or rather, what it isnt).

    1. Re:No such thing... by lordandmaker · · Score: 1

      Didn't we go through this with Al Quaida not many years ago?

    2. Re:No such thing... by Omestes · · Score: 2

      There is no such thing as an "Anonymous Hacking Group". There are no senior members, or official members of any kind. You are only a member of anonymous while actively participating. The media has blown this way out of proportion. Most people don't actually understand what Anonymous is(or rather, what it isnt).

      Yes, "Anonymous Hacking Group" is a bit stupid. And there may be no "senior members" or "officials", but in any group, no matter how egalitarian, there are natural leaders. I'm guessing a small number of people in Anonymous have a larger effect than the rest; they post the ideas, organize the attacks, provide the links. I've found this true in every group. Hell, being that Anonymous is pretty much a changing ad hoc group, some percentage will participate more than others, and by this they can be said to have more influence, as well.

      There is no such thing as a group of equals, hierarchy and power structures self-arise naturally. Anyone who has ever been in a randomly selected group with no enforced power-structure can attest to this.

      Also, just because you don't have an identifiable name, doesn't mean you aren't able to lead. There is more to indentify you than a mere name, your speech structure, writing style, style of direction, etc... also provide some amount of pseudo-identity. Look at the "Hosts file" troll who posts here every time a web browser is discussed (with his bold cites, and such), I don't know who he is, he could be you, but I sure as hell recognize his posts on sight.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  8. Whelp by Leraika · · Score: 1

    I don't know why Slashdot is still tagging this 'wikileaks' when it's clearly no longer about wikileaks at all.

    1. Re:Whelp by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      I don't know why Slashdot is still tagging this 'wikileaks' when it's clearly no longer about wikileaks at all.

      Where have you been? In 2011 everything is about WikiLeaks.

    2. Re:Whelp by jdpars · · Score: 1

      I wonder if eventually Wikileaks will just post the news.

    3. Re:Whelp by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      And then people will register an account there, and comment on these news, or just, you know, post anonymously.

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    4. Re:Whelp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, there's always the possibility that they'll be acquired by Google.

  9. at this point who hasn't got a copy of stuxnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    it's been available for ages.

    It's a great PR move by Anon in that it's garners a stack of press due to the combinations of:

    "shadowy hackers"
    "stuxnet"

    Well played anon.

    What is actually more significant is the upcoming http://anonleaks.ru
    The potential for them to claim the popular mindshare that wikileaks has had is very real.
    None of the other groups have managed (openleaks, crowdleaks, abcleaks, xyzleaks, 123leaks, etc etc etc).

    1. Re:at this point who hasn't got a copy of stuxnet by lordandmaker · · Score: 1

      "The potential for them to claim the popular mindshare that wikileaks has had is very real."
      Really? I'd have thought that, given your last sentence, it's less so. To your average person anon is a bunch of kids DDoSing websites, and I'm not sure they're viewed in any better light in techy circles. I really don't see what anon has done to build up confidence in the sort of trust you'd need to be a successful *leaks.

      To over-stretch the military analogy, they're much more the light infantry than the intelligence corps.

    2. Re:at this point who hasn't got a copy of stuxnet by hey! · · Score: 4, Funny

      "shadowy hackers"

      With each passing year of hacking I've become so increasingly shadowy that by now I'm not just *shadowy*, I'm positively *shady*. On summer days people position themselves so that I'm between them and the sun.

      I prefer to think of myself as "attractive". When my daughter entered the science fair, I used my attractiveness to help her win. Her rival was explaining the Cavendish experiment, but I sabotaged his demonstration by standing next to the apparatus.

      Some people say I'm self centered. They say I've lost touch with the outside world. But look at it from my point of view: I've been hacking so many years that my arms are now shorter than my Schwartzchild radius. I'm not fat, though. They say if you're not fat if you can see your feet. Thank $deity for gravitational lensing.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:at this point who hasn't got a copy of stuxnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was excellent.

    4. Re:at this point who hasn't got a copy of stuxnet by lennier · · Score: 1

      To over-stretch the military analogy, they're much more the light infantry than the intelligence corps.

      I would have thought 'the crazed LSD freak tossing live frag grenades into the barracks at random between shooting own toes with shotgun' would have been a more appropriate analogy. Has Anonymous ever actually done *anything* constructive and useful, or do they just create mayhem?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    5. Re:at this point who hasn't got a copy of stuxnet by c0lo · · Score: 2

      it's been available for ages.

      Even HBGary has had one. I'm surprised that everybody concentrates on "What Anons would be able to do with it" rather than "How the Anons got their copy".

      The article quoted by TFA:

      A source from Anonymous says that most of the new e-mails from Hoglund are still unchecked and it is unclear who will be most liable when the information is made public, but added that briefly skimming the emails had revealed “three different malware archives, two bots, an offer to sell a botnet, a genuine stuxnet copy, and various malware lists.” Not entirely surprising given that HBGary is a security firm, but the source speculates that botnets aren’t typically rented out for “research.”

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    6. Re:at this point who hasn't got a copy of stuxnet by muridae · · Score: 1

      That a security leak is usually a person who thinks that the information they have is being misused, or that the public is being mislead, and is more likely to not see things the same way the average person does. Anon, having just taken on the FBI, a record of speaking out against CoS, and an aura of anarchy makes them a visible place to leak information. Remember, a security leak wants the information they have to be seen and Anon offers a very tempting public face; even if that face is just a mask.

    7. Re:at this point who hasn't got a copy of stuxnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To your average person anon is a bunch of kids DDoSing websites

      have you seen the same news shows as me?

      i would say...."To your average person anonymous is dangerous militant criminal hacker group supporting that traitor assange in his quest to destroy the free world by exposing dangerous classified information"

      usually said by the same network that's just had a feature on a new wikileak, while they claim to be guardians of truth, and wikileaks are the destroyers of democracy.
      while: to the average /.er anon is comprised of a large number of kids DDoSing websites.
      maybe that's why i watch very little tv.

      would it be another stretch to say that anon are more disposable shock-troopers?

  10. don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's a virus, it's supposed to be distributed. I'm sure lots of people have this virus ...

  11. OH NOES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What a complete waste of an article.

  12. Genital Herpes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So?
    I'm in possession of a sample of genital herpes, you don't see me going around bragging about it.

    1. Re:Genital Herpes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet, you just did...

  13. So basically, by unity100 · · Score: 1

    Anonymous found out who produced the stuxnet worm, and the other parties are trying to threaten anonymous to keep silent ...

    1. Re:So basically, by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 0

      Anonymous found out who produced the stuxnet worm, and the other parties are trying to threaten anonymous to keep silent ...

      Yeah, that seems unlikely.

      Anonymous is a bunch of kids who rarely breathe outside air. No matter what origin story you believe, Stuxnet appears to have been developed by a group or groups that routinely kills people. It's rather hard to see the former threatening the latter.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  14. Same Anonymous? by Ynot_82 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This can't be the same Anonymous (off-shoot of 4chan) that thinks writing an aggressive Windows GUI ping program is "hacking"

    Some proper organised crime group has usurped the name, surely.

    "Hey, we announce ourselves as Anonymous, then all these script kiddies, who just DOS websites and leave blazingly obvious trails for authorities to follow, get sent down for our criminal deeds"

    1. Re:Same Anonymous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not everyone on 4chan is a bunch of script kiddies and/or simple cracker/hacker types.
      There are actually pretty damn smart people on the boards. (whether it is making hacking tools, making general programs, translating languages, making games and other stuff like that. And i don't mean preset game making tools like RPG Maker, which there are quite a few of)

      Looks like someone fell for the Deliberate Stupidity thing.
      While it is true that most of the site is pretty thick these days compared to a few years back, there are still a large number of smart people there.
      Also, please do not use /b/ are a reference point for the rest of the site. That place is where most of the actual stupid people come from.

      Also, the whole Anonymous thing never was 4chan.
      While it started there as a joke, and then got blown up by Fox and the like, it was merely the starting grounds for where other people from other sites joined in with it.
      4chan is a conversation and recruiting place mainly, along with loads of other sites.
      But it IS the same people. People from all walks of life. There is also no such thing as the same people when it comes to Anonymous.
      The term itself is a blanket term for people with the same goals.

    2. Re:Same Anonymous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait. So are you telling me that if I run "ping -t" that I am NOT hacking? I will have to ask my mommy about that.

    3. Re:Same Anonymous? by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      This can't be the same Anonymous (off-shoot of 4chan) that thinks writing an aggressive Windows GUI ping program is "hacking"

      I always thought it was the media who came up with that in order to try to explain to Neanderthals what a DDOS is.

      Now I wonder who came up with "Hacktivism"

    4. Re:Same Anonymous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous is anyone that does something remotely in-line with the chan culture and calls themselves Anonymous. It's better to get under that umbrella, put a few "lulz" here and there, than to be some other easily targeted group or individual.

      When people in Anonymous start stepping up and claiming that certain actions are against the nature of Anonymous, then authorities will know who's calling the shots too.

    5. Re:Same Anonymous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Also, the whole Anonymous thing never was 4chan."

      Back in the day, it was all about /i/, and they were attacking little girls etc.. Eventually /i/ was removed from 4chan so everyone exiled to 420chan and others. That's when the attacks on Nazis started happening iirc., that's when it started gaining momentum in the more official form.

    6. Re:Same Anonymous? by JamesP · · Score: 1

      ... that thinks writing an aggressive Windows GUI ping program is "hacking"

      Well, I thought that was brilliant.

      A non-anonymizing DoS program flooding big names with identifiable aggressor information;

      lamer magnet

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    7. Re:Same Anonymous? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Anonymous' reputation for quality has been sullied, eroding its brand equity! Heads will roll at its corporate headquarters!

    8. Re:Same Anonymous? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      For some reason I think it was some group like cult of the dead cow that came up with hactivism.

      With peekabooty.

      But I'm probably making it up. I am almost certain I heard it self-described before I heard it in the media.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    9. Re:Same Anonymous? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Some proper organised crime group has usurped the name, surely."

      And if we were to find out about that, that criminal group would be inundated with a CP shitstorm the likes of which this world has NEVER seen, then they would be reported to the police for said CP and that's the end of their asses.

      You seriously underestimate the power of mob mentality.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    10. Re:Same Anonymous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This stuxnet variant won't cause me any trouble at all. I have installed curtains and I bought a dog. Anonymous cannot touch me.

    11. Re:Same Anonymous? by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Aren't all criminals anonymous? At least the ones who get away with it.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    12. Re:Same Anonymous? by Gunstick · · Score: 1

      my guess is that the anonymous folks try to perpetuate the myth about kids using scripts to hack websites. So they are considered no threat and can operate as they wish. It's a decoy of some sort.

      --
      Atari rules... ermm... ruled.
  15. Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Ziekheid · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Anonymous is no longer related to any chans, it has become something on its own full with scriptkids wanting to belong to something bigger. Anonymous can officially be clasified as a terrorist group in my book with threats and attacks all over the world to defend their points of view.
    It has totally lost the anarchistic feel it had and has become a group consisting of a handful of 'smart' guys giving out orders to the masses of zombie idiots who give up their connection voluntarily.

    I hope everyone realizes that eventhough it recruits on sites like 4chan this version of anonymous is now out of their hands and became a radical splinter cell of the original anonymous.

    1. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be careful! Someone over there has been posting Slashdot threads and commenters who have been criticizing them and posting non-anonymously. Looks like there is going to be some retribution...

    2. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by hsmith · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sarah Palin, is that you?

    3. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has totally lost the anarchistic feel it had and has become a group consisting of a handful of 'smart' guys giving out orders to the masses of zombie idiots who give up their connection voluntarily.

      Lots of potential there.

      Hey guys, I'm your new leader, it's very important you each put $50 into this offshore account for, um freedom, yeah thats it.

    4. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "original" anonymous hasn't been active for at least the last five years. And to talk about "anonymous" as a single entity is completely meaningless at this stage. Mostly, it is as you say, more or less a voluntary botnet with a few brainy guys (and some not-so-much) at the top, but there are any number of people who do write-ups, media contact, and barely tangentially related stuff calling themselves Anonymous, and there's nothing wrong with that. The whole point of calling yourself "anonymous", is, of course, to actually be anonymous.

      Now.. Classifying any group of anonymous as a terrorist group? Really? Are you even aware of what you are suggesting by that? They may be pathetic lowlifes launching DDoS-attacks and hacking unsecured e-mail accounts from their mother's basements, but terrorist? Surely, some care should be warranted before using that label. I understand that US governments labeling of Wikileaks as "high-tech" terrorists (and many many earlier and later examples) have muddied the waters somewhat, but still, shouldn't at least some kind of violence be required?

    5. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely, some care should be warranted before using that label. I understand that US governments labeling of Wikileaks as "high-tech" terrorists (and many many earlier and later examples) have muddied the waters somewhat, but still, shouldn't at least some kind of violence be required?

      What is terrorism. It is through fear to change peoples behaviour or politics or whatever. If someone blows a bomb to kill plenty of people that is not terrorrism. If the another person blows a bomb to make people not buy windows, then that is terrorism.

      If someone fears the tooth fairy and by showing pictures of the tooth fairy, that person can be averted from a certain tooth paste, then that is terrorism, no violence needed.

    6. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      It has totally lost the anarchistic feel it had and has become a group consisting of a handful of 'smart' guys giving out orders to the masses of zombie idiots who give up their connection voluntarily.

      *Emphasis mine*

      So the kiddies are doing this all voluntarily and they're free to stop whenever they want. Isn't that a workable definition of anarchy?

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    7. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous can officially be clasified as a terrorist group in my book with threats and attacks all over the world to defend their points of view.

      I think you mean it can now be classified as the USA.

    8. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but in today's world, no care need be exercised when labeling people as "terrorists". Hell, even schoolteachers label their more rowdy students as terrorists. Overheard by an elementary school teacher: "Hey, punk, I'm going to whip your ass til your mother cries after school!" The headline read statewide, the following day: "School teacher busts terror network, and exposes possession of WMD" The WMD being described was a pile of rocks, for god's sake.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    9. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

      Anonymous can officially be clasified as a terrorist group in my book with threats and attacks all over the world to defend their points of view.

      In such case almost every big country can be classified as a terrorist group.

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    10. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >...attacks all over the world to defend their points of view.

      "points of view" sounds like you can still argue with them. Maybe you shouldn't call people who are just headstrong, terrorists. There has been an inflation of that lately and it doesn't lead to proportionality in responses from either party.

    11. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Jahava · · Score: 1

      What is terrorism. It is through fear to change peoples behaviour or politics or whatever. If someone blows a bomb to kill plenty of people that is not terrorrism. If the another person blows a bomb to make people not buy windows, then that is terrorism.

      If someone fears the tooth fairy and by showing pictures of the tooth fairy, that person can be averted from a certain tooth paste, then that is terrorism, no violence needed.

      You seem to have a grossly-simplified take on the matter. While the definition of terrorism is (understandably) difficult to state, legally-accepted definitions range from straight-up "harming large amounts of people" to coercion. Your example suggests you see terrorism as identical to Coercion, which is one naive take on the matter. However, all of your examples fall under one legal definition of terrorism or another.

      Here are a few definitions from the Wikipedia article:

      • "Terrorism sprouts from the existence of aggrieved groups. These aggrieved groups share two essential characteristics: they have specific political objectives, and they believe that violence is an inevitable means to achieve their political ends. The political dimension of terrorist violence is the key factor that distinguishes it from other crimes." - L. Ali Khan
      • "Terrorism is the deliberate, negligent, or reckless use of force against noncombatants, by state or nonstate actors for ideological ends and in the absence of a substantively just legal process." - David Rodin
      • "Terrorism is the deliberate use of violence aimed against civilians in order to achieve political ends" - Boaz Ganor
      • "An act is terrorist if and only if (1) it is committed by an individual or group of individuals privately, i.e. without the legitimate authority of a recognized state; (2) it is directed indiscriminately against non-combatants; (3) the goal of it is to achieve something politically relevant; (4) this goal is pursued by means of fear-provoking violence." - Daniel D. Novotny

      So is Anonymous (or, rather, are those who have operated under that pseudonym) a terrorist organization? Core to all of these seem to be violent acts by non-state actors against noncombatants. It seems to me that Anonymous actors and targets match, so the real question is whether or not Anonymous' actions qualify as violent acts.

      While some things (like hacking websites) seem more akin to vandalism, in that they are not intended to cause harm, others, like DDoS attacks, could very well be the Internet equivalent of a violent attack. However, putting a DDoS attack against Mastercard on the same level as a subway bombing so grossly trivializes the latter. I think, rather than attempt to pervert words by drawing Internet parallels, the Anonymous actors should be regarded as persons sympathetic to terrorist ideals, but not actually terrorists. Idealistic Internet Vandals seems more appropriate.

    12. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      So the kiddies are doing this all voluntarily and they're free to stop whenever they want. Isn't that a workable definition of anarchy?

      I think the GPs point was that while the foot soldiers are free to come and go as they please, that the actual direction of the group is being controlled by a shadowy cabal of leaders with an agenda. So that these leaders are using the gullibility of the foot soldiers (ie belief that they are part of some altruistic group that is ridding the planet of evil) to achieve their desires. And I don't think that this falls under the auspices of anarchy.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    13. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see that day, when Anonymous attacks hardcore geeks such as the slashdot crowd. Expect nothing short of armageddon, rofl.

    14. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Anonymous can officially be clasified as a terrorist group in my book with threats and attacks all over the world to defend their points of view.

      In such case almost every big country can be classified as a terrorist group.

      Well, yeah.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    15. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a fuck if you call it a terrorist group?

      Terrorism is using VIOLENCE to affect a political agenda. Name ONE GODDAMN TIME when somebody has gotten violent with somebody else in the name of Anonymous? You can't.

      Go fuck yourself, stupid.

    16. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will people stop calling other people terrorists whenever they disagree with their political views? Terrorism implies *violence*, like in blind bombing a civilian crowd, spreading a virus in city or an airport, shooting people in the street with a machine gun... not like in DDOS-ing a fucking web server, releasing a bunch of documents on the web or pushing source code on github. If it does not *directly* kill or physically harm people to spread fear in a population, then it is not terrorism. It might be other kind of illegal activities but it cannot be called terrorism. By calling everything terrorism you are slowly eroding the meaning of that word.

    17. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by lyml · · Score: 1

      Yes, because that's how it works. When you "hack" someone it's a fight between the pure intellectual, the one who concentrates the hardest manages to infest the other persons computer through use of pixies and fairy dust.

      The moment anonymous attacks slashdot will gain the great super brain power of all it's members and lash out and counterstrike against a distributed network of millions of individual nodes.

      It's not like slashdot is a message board riddled with bugs. Hell even if the backend has ten times less bugs it would still be a bug-riddled nightmare.

      Let's face it, even if anonymous had the ability to ddos slashdot it would be incredibly boring and nobody would participate.

    18. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Careful when calling Anon's targets 'noncombatants'. What is and is not a combatant depends on context. I assume you were thinking Combatants = Military when you wrote this, but that is only true in the situation of violent conflict. I think a combatant is anyone fighting any kind of fight, whether it be a violent fight or an intellectual one. For example, if a group is fighting against some corporations because they bribe politicians, then these corporations are indeed combatants in the fight for corrupting the system.
      I also think the means used to fight these 'combatants' are important and must be proportionate to the people you are fighting and their actions. If a corporation bribes politicians, the conflict is not a violent one. If those fighting this corporation use violent methods, they turn the conflict violent. That conflict is then no longer the one the corporation was fighting in, and thus the people targeted by violent attacks are noncombatants. On the other hand, if a corporation bribes politicians to get permission to dump toxic waste in a fashion that kills dozens of people, then that corporation just created a violent conflict.

      I'm not saying whether or not Anonymous is targeting noncombatants, I just think assuming Combatants = Military or armed people is a simplification. There are different kinds of fights, and thus different kinds of combatants.

    19. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Anonymous can officially be clasified as a terrorist group in my book with threats and attacks all over the world to defend their points of view.

      How many people have they killed ? How much property damage have they caused ? How much data have they destroyed ?

    20. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      While some things (like hacking websites) seem more akin to vandalism, in that they are not intended to cause harm, others, like DDoS attacks, could very well be the Internet equivalent of a violent attack.

      It is difficult to see how a DDoS, or even a website defacement, could be considered "violent". No person is harmed. No property is damaged. Even if you want to stretch it more than (IMHO) you should, no data is lost.

      If you set the bar for "violence" so low, it is difficult to see how anyone, anywhere, could disagree with the status quo in any way, without being considered "violent".

    21. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are you to officially clas[s]ify a non-entity? A non-entity that acts upon concentrated blurbs of free will.

      Spin the word as much as you want, it doesn't change the fact that there is no central leadership on the imaginary 'radical splinter cell'.

      Watch less TV.

    22. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      a terrorist group? really?

      who was the last doctor shot by anonymous? or bomb placed?

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    23. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on now, you really don't think that genocide (Native Americans), enslavement (African Americans), the mass murder of civilians (Dresden, Nagasaki, Hiroshima) constitute terrorism do you?

      Think of the children!
      Protect the homeland!
      Enshrine our values!
      USA, USA, USA!

      We are now at threat level 6, bile green (STUPIDITY).

    24. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? I mean really? Anonymous is decentralized madness, and happily so. While script kiddies and n00bs DO run code passed onto them, it isn't produced by some shadowy cabal. Check out the IRC channels, they're public and open and you can see the development process on everything. "Foot soldiers," leaders, and hierarchy are just a way to dismiss the idea that open development and cooperation can actually produce results. It's like saying that although open source software seems like a collaborative project, it's really just the Illuminati wanting people to use GNU products.
      +1 for entertaining reactionary hysteria.
      -9001 for not knowing what your talking about.

    25. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous can officially be clasified as a terrorist group in my book with threats and attacks all over the world to defend their points of view.

      If that's the extent of your definition for terrorist group, how do you feel about the US government? Surely they are the epitome of terrorist organizations under that classification.

    26. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by lennier · · Score: 1

      a shadowy cabal of leaders with an agenda.

      Sources in the underworld tell me - and this is just an unsubstantiated rumour, so please don't freak out, but I think it's worth repeating as an advisory - that the Conspiracy may now have not just an agenda but minutes.

      Please, try to remain calm. They don't yet have Daytimers. For now.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    27. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate Sarah Palin and even I know that Anon is a cyber terrorist group now. Is it that hard to see? They hack for revenge, hack things they don't like. Hack to stop businesses. Proclaim they have weapons (in this case viruses) to scare people that dislike them. If you can't see how they're behaving as cyber terrorists then you've officially gone off the deep end with them.

    28. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous is no longer related to any chans, it has become something on its own full with scriptkids wanting to belong to something bigger. Anonymous can officially be clasified as a terrorist group in my book with threats and attacks all over the world to defend their points of view.
      It has totally lost the anarchistic feel it had and has become a group consisting of a handful of 'smart' guys giving out orders to the masses of zombie idiots who give up their connection voluntarily.

      I hope everyone realizes that eventhough it recruits on sites like 4chan this version of anonymous is now out of their hands and became a radical splinter cell of the original anonymous.

      Haha! classic!

    29. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it adds to the validity, I and many others I've chatted with see the USA (or more accurately, the DOD) as a terrorist organization. Do what they want, or you WILL pay severe consequences, possibly up to and including a full-on armed war.

    30. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Ziekheid · · Score: 1

      Maybe I think the same about part of the US government, I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one.

    31. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Ziekheid · · Score: 1

      Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion. No universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition of terrorism currently exists. (cp'd from the article Terrorism).

    32. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Ziekheid · · Score: 1

      Terrorism may imply violence to you, officially it does not. And I'm not saying a DDoS is an act of terrorism, it goes a lot further than that and spreads to real life scenario's where random members will terrorize families of facebook/youtube girls and threaten to kill people that are against their cause.
      Sure, all big man talk on the internets but people have to realize that the joke ends when you threaten someone like that.

      I'm not some hardcore anti anon advocate, I just think it's sad how some people seem to think they can claim what anonymous as a whole thinks about politics and what not and try to lead (and abuse) them.

      Oh and btw, I do not disagree with their political views when it comes to the last 'campaigns', I disagree with the way they try to push their views (by force).

    33. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Ziekheid · · Score: 1

      Well excuse me but I haven't seen Wikileaks actively threatening to kill people over the phone. Before you call me out on this statement, look up some of the material from Anonymous on youtube, some phone conversations are posted there for example.
      And let's not forget fake bomb threats, not talking about the stadium bomb spam (which got a guy busted by the way) from several years ago but the recent ones related to for example Scientology HQs.

    34. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by Ziekheid · · Score: 1

      Well excuse me for speaking 3 other languages (including English) beside my native one.

    35. Re:Anonymous is getting out of hand.. by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion.

      If the things Anonymous have done count as "terror", can you identify anything that *doesn't* count as "terror" ?

  16. Mountains out of mole hills much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Barr never threatened to release anything to the public. He did some research on how social media can be exploited to positively identify people and was going to present his methods at a few conferences; proof of concept level stuff. No names of actual people released whatsoever. But the hyper paranoid hacker punks of Anonymous got all in a dither and decided to lash out. I give them a rating of "Meets Expectations." Nobody is out to get them. It would be hard for the world to care less about this group of dipshits fucking around on the Internet to make themselves feel powerful and relevant.

    1. Re:Mountains out of mole hills much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I'm pretty sure Barr said he would sell the names to the FBI.

    2. Re:Mountains out of mole hills much? by Zancarius · · Score: 2

      Actually I'm pretty sure Barr said he would sell the names to the FBI.

      Yes and no. He claimed that he wasn't going to release names, and Ars Technica seems to confirm that from publicly released information related to this incident.

      However, this tidbit would probably explain why Anonymous retaliated:

      But Barr got his Financial Times story, and with it the publicity he sought. He also made clear that he had the real names, and Anonymous knew he would soon meet with the FBI. Though Barr apparently planned to keep his names and addresses private even at this meeting, it was easy to see why Anonymous would have doubts.

      Considering that Barr mentioned elsewhere (in the leaked e-mails Ars reported) that he was doing this for publicity and to bring in money--and probably also to bolster his company's name since that wing of HBGary was going to be sold for ~$2 million--I'm not sure you could trust him as far as he could be kicked. Even his programmer expressed concerns with what Barr was doing (both to Barr as well as company executives). So no, Barr never publicly stated he would release names--maybe he did in the leaked e-mails--but the guy was an arrogant tool. I don't condone what Anonymous did, mainly because it hurt many other people in the process, but I can't imagine a more deserving target of public embarrassment than Mr. Barr.

      Barr's typing was also atrocious. In a way, I think they should have gone after him for that alone, but I think that's just my inner grammar Nazi talking.

      --
      He who has no .plan has small finger. ~ Confucius on UNIX
  17. That's like... by QuantumBeep · · Score: 1

    That's like having possession of the ultimate supervirus, which will KILL ALL HUMANS who have blond hair, brown eyes, a beard, and a vagina.
    The thing is so damned specific it's useless.

    1. Re:That's like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick! Hide your centrifuges!

    2. Re:That's like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      speak for yourself... now i better go shave

    3. Re:That's like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A beard /on/ their vagina?

    4. Re:That's like... by Lazyrust · · Score: 1

      So... basically the only person it will affect is Elijah Wood?

  18. possession by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone know a good exorcist?

  19. Re:So? I have a copy of Code Red by alphatel · · Score: 2, Funny

    But are you code red reseller? Anonymous is now an official Stuxnet Gold affiliate

    --
    When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
  20. Can you see Anonymous from your house? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How else would you know so much about them?

  21. In other news by mseeger · · Score: 5, Funny

    In other news: Iran claims posession of the Stuxnet virus as well

    1. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ROFL! Oh to have mod points...

  22. What is the target of the announcement? by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    They could have the source or not, the vulnerabilities that it used to spread could have been patched already (starting with the disabled autorun). Was safe to spread it at the very start because the specific hardware for that payload wasnt very used afaik, and all the techniques that it used to hide itself should now known by security products vendors.

    So, it will should be able to damage only the windows users without updates nor running antivirus? Is the target of this announcement people that can't tell if a gun made of soap is real? Or with that (and very little extra effort/knowledge) they could do something close to undetectable that target normal windows systems used in critical environments?

    Well, even in the worst case are good news, if there are reasons to be scared then could force to migrate critical environments to safer OSs.

  23. From a IT security perspective. by AftanGustur · · Score: 5, Informative
    This has to be one of the dumbest posts on /. since I started reading it (and that was a loooong time ago)

    Anyone can get a copy of the Stuxnet worm, just create an account on the right security forums and download a copy.

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    1. Re:From a IT security perspective. by OzPeter · · Score: 0

      This has to be one of the dumbest posts on /. since I started reading it (and that was a loooong time ago)

      I'd almost like to say "Are you new around here". Unfortunately the quality of this site has been dropping and I have no iea how low it will go in the end. I know I am starting to look to other aggregators for more timely and relevant news.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:From a IT security perspective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has to be one of the dumbest posts on /. since I started reading it (and that was a loooong time ago)

      I'd almost like to say "Are you new around here". Unfortunately the quality of this site has been dropping and I have no iea how low it will go in the end. I know I am starting to look to other aggregators for more timely and relevant news.

      AftanGustur (7715) --- (7715)

      So, no, not very new.

    3. Re:From a IT security perspective. by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      AftanGustur (7715) --- (7715)

      So, no, not very new.

      Whoosh

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    4. Re:From a IT security perspective. by QuoteMstr · · Score: 1

      The quality of the articles really has been in the toilet lately, and Slashdot's editorializing is more sensational than ever. Just look at another one of today's headlines: "Two Huge Holes In the Sun Spotted".

      This nonsense is ridiculous, immature, and intellectually insulting. It's getting to the point where I only check the site out of habit, and because it has a decent rank on my awesomebar. This can't last.

    5. Re:From a IT security perspective. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like where? I'm interested in finding another too :P

  24. i r have stuxnet source code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NOW do you feel safer
    thats what the article means to say. YA knwo if this guy has some knowledge he can play with and alter it.

  25. Hacker group Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Chaos Computer Club is a Hacker group. Anonymous is a bunch of rude kids growing up on the internet.

  26. Senior members of Anonymous? by ndogg · · Score: 1

    That's the most hilarious thing I've read in a while!

    --
    // file: mice.h
    #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    1. Re:Senior members of Anonymous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, they should have written oldfag.

    2. Re:Senior members of Anonymous? by AftanGustur · · Score: 1

      That's the most hilarious thing I've read in a while!

      I read your comment and immediately looked below the text for the "LIKE" button.

      --
      echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    3. Re:Senior members of Anonymous? by Lazyrust · · Score: 1

      What they mean is they found the people who were in their Senior year in High School that are in Anon.. why am I even trying to justify this article with a bad joke?

  27. I disagree by Haedrian · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lets look at the situation properly:

    Anonymous is a group composed of [Members N], lead by [Leader L] of [belief X], who attempt to attack [Company Y] over [Reason Z].

    Now, we know nothing about L or N. We don't know who took part in DDOSing mastercard (or who lead it), we don't know who hacked into the site (or who lead it), nor do we know their link to whoever DDOSed scientology, google bombed scientology, or protested in the streets. We don't know anything.

    So assuming that N and L are variable. X changes with L.

    So Anonymous isn't really a group. Its not a 'group of people which are now becoming a terrorist group'. Its an ever-changing grouping of different people by a different leader who chooses their target and their method. Do they have a master plan? Not really.

    So viewing how anon changes is rather useless, since pretty much everything changes all the time.

    This is the equivalent of looking at the human race at a whole and claiming that "The human race attacked Iraq, after attacking Poland in 1942, and Troy at some point in history" and trying to draw a conclusion.

    1. Re:I disagree by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The term leader suggests some sort of authority. Anon has none. The only way direction is decided is by an anon suggesting something and other anons deciding to join in. The idea stands purely on its merits, not who suggested it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every group has leaders, someone who starts the group, and decide what the group will do. Otherwise, there would be chaos on what Anon represents.

    3. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The term leader does not suggest some sort of authority.
      All that the term leader suggests is the presence of followers.
      But hey, way to harp on your own stupidity :)

    4. Re:I disagree by stonewallred · · Score: 1

      See, Anon is already changing the history books.

    5. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's basically a franchise.

      A "good cause" comes up and a couple of loudmouths try to stir up the crowd and direct it. Then a bunch of yahoos volunteer.

      The group name is only to make them feel powerful as they gain and reinforce the notoriety.

      Think of a gigantic "headless horseman".

    6. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bull. IRC ops on can decide what is a good operation and what should be banned from discussion.

    7. Re:I disagree by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Anonymous is not a group. It is a social movement, similar to grungers, hippies, and tea party members.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    8. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are assuming that X and L change. You have absolutely no proof that X and L change. The most you could ever claim is that ideas are suggested and beliefs pushed by some different irc handles... but you have no idea if those handles are the same people or different people or an organized company actively engaged in various acts using "Anonymous" as a cover. Do they have a master plan? Does it matter? They are engaged in illegal activities. You cannot justify their actions based on their supposed "loose collection of members", however, you can condemn their methods and actions no matter who they are or who leads them.

    9. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have described the Stand Alone Complex.

    10. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More importantly, Anonymous is just another reflection of our society. One that uses the current openness of the technology infrastructure, to it's advantage. I'm more afraid of the day when Anonymous isn't capable of existing at all.

      It's been said before, but I believe it is appropriate in this discussion:

      "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

    11. Re:I disagree by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      But the difference with Anonymous is that anyone can claim to be the the leader at any time, and none of the others can tell the difference because they're all -- wait for it -- anonymous!

      Keep in mind, this is not the same thing as a group keeping the identities of its leaders secret from outsiders; Anonymous keeps the identities of its leaders secret from itself.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    12. Re:I disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or in other words, from TFS:

      "An anonymous reader writes"

      -Anon

  28. There is no anonymous by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you are talking about the Anonymous from 4chan, then there isn't any group like that. That implies to much organisation, a hierachy, an organization.

    The idea originally was related but NOT the same to "I am Spartacus". And many people don't even understand that statement.

    The "I am Spartacus" statement is this: "I hereby declare that I am the person you are seeking and accept all responsibility for my actions." If you state this, you BECOME Spartacus, you are it and LOOSE yourself with it. You can't say, "I smallfurrycreature represent Spartacus", you surrender yourself to the cause and become it. In the movie, the people all nailed up, are ALL Spartacus and by doing so the idea of Spartacus if not the person becomes invincible. No matter how many Spartacusses you nail to a cross, there is always one more just around the corner. It is the undying hero, the person dies but the idea goes on.

    This doesn't sit well with our individual culture.

    Anonymous takes this even further, if people understood it. You cannot state "I am Anonymous" for this is silly. The moment you tie yourself to this concept, you are no longer anonymous. You can speak with a thousand voices, you can at best be one voice representing a thousand but never a thousand. You cannot be anonymous only be a non-significant part of it.

    The real idea behind it all on 4chan was to give a name to the movements/actions that were observed. It is like watching the migration patterns of animals and calling them Bob. Just because it now sounds like a person doesn't mean that a wildebeast migrating represents Bob or is controlled by the motives of Bob.

    Does any of this rant matter

    Yes. The Muslim brotherhood, are they the protesters in Egypt? Some western "news" stations would have you believe this. BUT this has NOT been an Islamic revolution. It might or might not become one but the protests where NOT guiden or orchastrated by them... some PROTESTERS might have been but not the "protest". It can be hard to grasp the difference. It is the difference between the resentment of the masses and individual grievances. Same as the protests in Tunesia were not about a closed vegetable stand or in Egypt about the beating of a youth or in France about cake or in the USA about tea.

    Anonymous is not a group that exists on 4chan in /b/. If anything it is the behavior of individual but unknown people who use the web to do something in a minimally organised way to have a far reaching effect. It is the mob effect on the internet.

    That means that there is no point in ousting its leaders. You can get the leaders of one mob and might even be cheered for that by the mob next to it. Anonymous cheers cat killers and hunts them down. It is not a singleton, it is a class. You can spawn things from it but almost by its nature, the moment you do that is ceases to be the idea and it becomes Anonymous XYZ the group.

    Anonymous doesn't have its hands on anything and has its hands on everything because we can all be Anonymous and we all aren't.

    But media doesn't grasp that since they need to put a face to the name. But ultimately this means that Anonymous will just get more legenday. Strike one group down and another will take its place. Just as killing a few hundreds protestors, and arresting/torturing far more, did NOTHING to stop the protest in Egypt. Or killing all the buffalo stopped Bob.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:There is no anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cut off one head and two more will take its place! Hail HYDRA!

      -
      Bob

    2. Re:There is no anonymous by hoshino · · Score: 1

      In reality, there are multiple independent groups acting under the banner of Anonymous, along with a much larger group of passive participants who identify themselves with the cause. One of the most prominent and active groups runs the anonops.ru IRC server and these are the ones who are/were at war with HBGary Federal. Sure, they are not that structured or organized, but they clearly exist as an independent sub-group of the "Anonymous" movement. Aaron Barr tried to identify them and supposedly almost came close on a few counts, although his methodology was more or less random guesswork.

      So the real issue is just a matter of what to call this sub-group, because calling them "Anonymous" conflates one single sub-group with the larger social movement. We can label individual al-Qaeda cells by their base of operation, but it's pretty unwieldy to do the same for Anonymous.

    3. Re:There is no anonymous by guyminuslife · · Score: 1

      That means that there is no point in ousting its leaders

      I don't think that's necessarily accurate. It may prove to be the case, but it's certainly not a foregone conclusion.

      It's a risk/reward structure. People participate in Anonymous, they get some sort of ideological or social reward for it, and they view their risk as being fairly minimal. (WE ARE ANONYMOUS. YOU CAN'T CATCH US. BLAH DEE FUCKING BLAH.) It's entirely reasonable to posit that there is a relatively small group of die-hard Anonymous types, who are ideologically driven to...mayhem, for whatever reason. And that there's a much larger group of sheep in the flock, who are either attached to a particular social milieu or just think DDoSing makes them cool. The way that Anonymous works (for the moment, at least), it needs some sort of critical mass of participation. So if you're the Feds, you increase the risk of participation, you make some high-profile convictions, then you grin and say, "Hey, dude, you're next." You won't scare off the wolves, but the sheep might think twice if they're actually putting their asses on the line...for something as meaningless as bringing down the MasterCard website.

      And it's not just about chipping away at the morale of the extant Anonymous. The point is to spread FUD. Anonymous is "recruiting." Setting an example may curb that growth.

      Of course, this sort of thing doesn't always work. (See, the drug war, for instance, or even the *AA's attempts at curbing file-sharing.) The difference, I think, is that the incentives are relatively soft compared to the punishments that the Justice Department is capable of doling out. The anarcho-lunatics will keep doing what they're doing, which is more or less okay, because without massive participation Anonymous is toothless.

      --
      I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
    4. Re:There is no anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that was a fantastic post, well done.

    5. Re:There is no anonymous by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Does any of this rant matter

      No. It's pretty much lame sophomoric 'philosophical' twaddle where it isn't crappy sophomoric 'philosophical' twaddle.

    6. Re:There is no anonymous by DrJimbo · · Score: 1

      Is that you Keyser Soze?

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
    7. Re:There is no anonymous by karuna · · Score: 1

      HBGary was trying to do exactly what you suggested and they failed miserably. If anything, the outcome is only going to increase the numbers of Anonymous followers.

      Ddosing MasterCard wasn't entirely meaningless. It took down 3D secure for a while and many online businesses could not process credit cards. It certainly was painful to them and made them aware that restricting free speech has consequences.

      In fact, I also loaded my canon against Mastercard because people have to stand up when their rights are being taken away.

    8. Re:There is no anonymous by Aldenissin · · Score: 1

      That means that there is no point in ousting its leaders

      I don't think that's necessarily accurate. It may prove to be the case, but it's certainly not a foregone conclusion.

      Foregone in so much as we'll never be free of computer viruses. Too many people got a taste of the power they have, and like the idea of being "anonymous".

      The anarcho-lunatics will keep doing what they're doing, which is more or less okay, because without massive participation Anonymous is toothless.

      It doesn't sound like the HBGary attack took all that massive of participation. DDOSSing did, but the point was that helped people stay anonymous by using a mob. Reminds me of what they used to do in my hometown. 2-3- poeple would all walk out of Walmart at the same time with their hands full at the "right" time. Then they'd all get on the bus. They figured that they could only catch 1-2 of them, if any, in the confusion.

      --
      Like a city whose walls are broken down is a man who lacks self-control.
    9. Re:There is no anonymous by maxume · · Score: 2

      The lesson they learn won't be about the consequences of 'restricting free speech', it will be about the consequences of operating their business on a network that is exposed to the internet at large.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:There is no anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool story bro but check out my doubles ^^^

    11. Re:There is no anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...So if you're the Feds... ...that the Justice Departmentis capable of...

      What makes you think US laws apply to anonymous?

    12. Re:There is no anonymous by zdepthcharge · · Score: 1

      Well said, Sir.

    13. Re:There is no anonymous by tboulay · · Score: 1

      "There is no anonymous"

      "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was making the world believe he didn't exist."

    14. Re:There is no anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the real issue is just a matter of what to call this sub-group, because calling them "Anonymous" conflates one single sub-group with the larger social movement.

      If the sub-group is Anonymous, the parent must be Anonymi surely

    15. Re:There is no anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous is NOT 4chan anymore.

      Anonymous is much bigger

    16. Re:There is no anonymous by karuna · · Score: 1

      Lol, to make business online, you have to be online. It was just an ultimate slashdot effect. It is the online equivalent of demos similar to what just happened in Egypt. If banks are not learning then they will suffer even more when more people wakes up.

    17. Re:There is no anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I doubt the attack on HBGary would have had any effect, hadn't there been a lot of supporters on IRC. If noone is going to take the time to look through the e-mails, nothing will happen. The same goes for spreading the news: if noone retweets the links to the torrents and/or web viewer noone will be aware of it.

      Sure, the attack was carried out by only a few people, but the masses were needed to ensure that the attack had an actual impact.

    18. Re:There is no anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are wrong

      --Anonymous

    19. Re:There is no anonymous by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Oh, the drug war "works" fine - it's just that the real dynamics of social movements rarely turn out to be in line with stated ones / with what participants convince themselves in (likewise with *AA's - it's not about file-sharing (or commons; or, now, streaming), it's about the ascendancy of indies)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  29. Anonymous could do something useful--heaven forbid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Revealing all of the HBGary emails (whoever named the company this had better not admit it) revealed other things such as the Chamber of Commerce's involvement in a smear campaign. They could turn into a more active form of Wikileaks pretty easily, providing lots of skeletons to gawk at. Truth is far better than fiction.

  30. Re:So? I have a copy of Code Red by camperslo · · Score: 0

    Hmmmm, someone needs to give those guys the worming tablets that get used on dogs... maybe that would help.

    Someone with Stuxnet might be very dangerous.

    If this is the same family of code that migrates through Windows but alters configuration of specialized industrial control systems (like Iran was using for centrifuges) I'm concerned that this may have or could hit other infrstructure.

    It's already been shown that software can cause abnormal functioning of natural gas pumping systems. Operating normally but programmed to operate out of tolerance later there'd likely be no obvious signs of a problem beforehand.

    http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/it-strategy/2004/03/01/us-software-blew-up-russian-gas-pipeline-39147917/

    There were a couple of explosions in the eastern U.S. last week, and one in San Bruno, California last September. In the last one, utility company P.G.&E. (Pacific Gas and Electric) has been inconsistent with the story given. Last night NBC Nightly News claimed the cause was a bad weld. P. G.& E. has made claims of brief elevated pressure tests stressing the pipe causing later failure. They also mentioned a malfunction causing a surge.
    (It rupture the indication of a failed test???)
    Some reports say that periodic running up of the pressure was enough to avoid some more costly testing requirements. Some reports say P.G.&E. though it was seamless pipe having no welds to fail.

    http://it.slashdot.org/story/10/11/18/140253/Stuxnet-Virus-Now-Biggest-Threat-To-Industry

    The San Bruno explosion and reports of Stuxnet affecting operations in Iran occurred around the same time.

  31. Do you not understand? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anonymous isn't people. Anonymous Isn't organized. Anonymous doesn't have members. The person who claims anonymous has "senior members" is merely antagonizing the assembly that is anonymous, and feeding into the fear of the public regarding what it dose not understand and wants gone for that sole reason. There are no rules for anonymous, because there is no anonymous. IT IS A STATE OF MIND NOT A FACTION OF WAR.

  32. Am I missing something? by devnull17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wait, so they have a copy of something that was designed to replicate itself and is known to have spread to literally hundreds of thousands of unsecured machines? And they have a binary copy of it? I'm going to write the rest of this post from my bomb shelter.

    The media talk about Anonymous like it's some shadowy terrorist super-villain collective, but that's really missing the point. Anonymous is, at its core, the world's most prolific troll. Look at the sites they attacked in the whole WikiLeaks affair. Visa.com and MasterCard.com? It's obvious to anyone with a clue that these are symbolic targets. If they'd had the desire (and arguably the capability) to inflict real damage, they'd have gone after the payment processing infrastructure instead. But their goal isn't to break stuff. It's to do something relatively inconsequential, and see how many media organizations they can get to shit their pants over it.

    This is (roughly) the same group whose crowning achievement was getting Oprah to say "over 9000 penises" on national TV. Even if they have the capability to inflict real damage—and some members clearly do—they seem to be more interested in getting attention and playing the media for complete fools. Which is way more entertaining than indiscriminately wreaking havoc on the world.

    And that's the bottom line. Everything they do is for entertainment value. Because they're not terrorists; they're trolls.

    1. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing something. There are two very different groups that call themselves Anonymous.

      The first (and older) group was closely tied to 4chan's /b/ (random) board. They mostly stuck to relatively small-time (ie: nothing that was going to make the national news) pranks and trolling - things like Tom Green, Hal Turner, the original Habbo invasions, etc. There was no particular agenda or ideology behind it, they were simply doing it to get a reaction out of people and laugh afterward. The old Anonymous did little, if any, "hacking". Most of what they did was making prank phone calls and a bit of social engineering (ie: getting Oprah to talk about penises on TV).

      The second (splinter) group (which I'll call Neo-Anonymous for simplicity's sake), only came into existence after /b/'s "war" on Scientology. Anonymous were the people doing things like prank calling Scientology centers. Neo-Anonymous were the people protesting on the streets and wearing Guy Fawkes masks. There was some overlap between the groups at first, but now they're completely separate (largely due to Anonymous despising Neo-Anonymous for having an agenda and a political ideology). Neo-Anonymous is the group behind the Visa/Mastercard/Paypal DDoS attacks. They do have an ideology, and they do have an agenda. Unlike Anonymous, Neo-Anonymous has very little to no connections to 4chan or /b/ - occasionally, they'll put up some spam trying to get people to join them, but they're not part of 4chan or /b/ anymore. The only things the two groups have in common are the name and (not necessarily as much now) some of their logos (ie: the green-skinned faceless man in a suit).

      As someone who has been a part of both groups (I was with Anonymous during the days of the original Habbo raids up until about the time of the Oprah prank, and was part of Neo-Anonymous for a short time during the Scientology debacle but quit after a couple of weeks when I realized what was really going on with them and haven't been back since), I can tell you that they're not a shadowy terrorist super-villain collective (except maybe inside their own heads). They're just a bunch of bored teenagers (now twenty-somethings) who think they can change things. Most of them probably never expected to be on national news and hunted by the FBI.

    2. Re:Am I missing something? by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1

      Everything they do is for entertainment value. Because they're not terrorists; they're trolls.

      You're missing the point of "who anonymous is" just like all the media organization who call them an elite group of "hackers on steroids" or a domestic terrorist organization or any kind of organization. Anonymous is anyone who shows up on 4chan, or their IRC channels, or who DOESN'T show up there but participates in things that started there like trolling all their favorite tagets, posting flicker animations to epilepsy boards, Project Chanology, DDOSing the flame of the day, or whatever. Or anyone who doesn't show up there, doesn't participate, and calls themselves part of "Anonymous."

      Anonymous is full of "moralfags" who hate the trolling. And it's easy to prove that a lot of the people who have recently been the most attention-grabbing members of Anonymous regarding HB Gary Federal are some of the most anti-troll people you can find. How? The female CEO of HB Gary [NOT Federal] actually popped by the AnonOps IRC channel to ask (or really an odd combination between beg and demand) them to remove her company's emails from the torrent.

      So a bunch of people you're classifying as trolls have the female CEO of a large security company popping into AnonOps IRC to beg them for mercy... so they troll the fuck out of her, right? Wrong. In fact, the one total troll who pops up quickly has a bunch of the rest of the channel asking for +m to shut the trolls up. Nearly everyone is polite and courteous to her. Read it yourself, she comes in at 522, but it's interesting that before that there's a lot of discussion about setting +m to shut up the trolls. Everyone seems to admonish everyone over and over to slow down and be nice to her.

      So again... don't classify Anonymous. Is it riddled with fierce trolls? Absolutely, a lot of people who hang out on 4chan are "the internet's hate machine" and love trolling the fuck out of anybody. But that doesn't mean you can classify Anonymous as trolls, because Anonymous is whoever shows up, or whoever doesn't show up but participates, or whoever doesn't show up or participate and calls themselves Anonymous. So Anonymous is scared deranged 12-year olds who hide in their parents basements and taunt strangers with horrible obscenities for lulz because they get beat up at school, but it's also people who will lay their personal well-being on the line to try damage a dangerous cult, and it's people who will risk potential life imprisonment to defend their views on freedom of speech, and people who want to help the people of Egypt communicate when their dictator shut down the internet, and it's apparently some people with actual cracking skills, and it's a surprisingly large number of people who want to maintain a civil dialog with a CEO who comes into an Anonymous forum to talk to them.

      Only classify anonymous by the actions readily attributable to whoever's calling themselves Anonymous these days. If they were overwhelmingly a pack of trolls at one point, they could include the My Little Pony fan club next week. They include trolls. Maybe they do include terrorists. Maybe they include heroes. Certainly some of the members want to be V for Vendetta style terrorist-heros, and V was chivalrous in his heroism, an anti-troll.

      --
      Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    3. Re:Am I missing something? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally, somebody who understands. All these "there is no anonymous" comments and these self-proclaimed sociology experts are really taking themselves way too seriously.
      This is really not much more than the internet equivalent of those guys you knew in high school who would yell "penis" in the auditorium or walk around slapping girl's butts. Except that the guys in high school were able to get girlfriends.

    4. Re:Am I missing something? by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

      no, for you're analogy anon would be the person who called in the bomb threat or activated the sprinklers, or printed and posted the answers to the end of year exam questions. the difference is in the title of the group. I equate the anon movement to spur of the moment protests.

  33. Oh Shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You mean I wasted all that time tweaking Gentoo to run on my centrifuges? Should I switch to Yellowcake Linux instead?

  34. Re:So? I have a copy of Code Red by OzPeter · · Score: 3, Informative

    The San Bruno explosion and reports of Stuxnet affecting operations in Iran occurred around the same time.

    And the same time Mubarak resigned, I drove past Washington DC with no traffic delays.

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  35. Wait, wat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So people who don't log into /. to post comments get a free Stuxnet worm?! That's almost as good as a new car!!!

  36. Terrorist? Get a clue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anonymous can officially be clasified as a terrorist group [...]

    I'm getting tired of those tasteless exaggerations. Whenever soomeone defaces a Website, (s)he is compared to someone blowing himself up and taking 26 other innocent people with him.

    Defacing a Website might be obnoxius. You could argue that it might be counterproductive. But terrorism? Get a grip.

    1. Re:Terrorist? Get a clue! by flowwolf · · Score: 1

      They go much further than defacing websites. I believe they make demands of their targets and hold databases hostage on a regular basis. Look it up.

  37. It's a sad day for the authorities by poity · · Score: 1

    They thought those centrifuges they've gathered were finally going to take down WikiLeaks and spin Assange into prison, but Anon will now put an end to such dreams.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  38. The whole world has Stuxnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    https://github.com/Laurelai/decompile-dump

  39. Re:So? I have a copy of Code Red by maxume · · Score: 1

    Or, infrastructure tends to fail occasionally and someone is throwing this out there for some attention (as to whether it is someone who has operated as 'part' of Anonymous in the past or someone just trying to make them look bad, who knows).

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  40. Re:So? I have a copy of Code Red by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

    I seriously doubt they'll be able to modify it in any meaningful way. The thing seems to have been designed specifically to hit Siemens centrifuges, which would imply that the creators had some very, very good knowledge of the software used in those centrifuges. I doubt there are too many Anons out there with enough knowledge of how natural gas systems or other dedicated industrial hardware works to do much with Stuxnet.

    Not to mention just having the virus doesn't mean much of anything. Stuxnet was all over the place a while back. Big whoop.

  41. Why is this an article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Who the fuck cares if they have copies of the code?
    So do many other private analysts.

    And HBGary is a joke of a company.

  42. I am Anonymous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am Anonymous /The Anonymous Coward

  43. not anon, but gov't "press release"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Anonymous" claims that the "group" has possession of [insert dangerous thing here]...

    Since no one else seems to have pointed out this particular point (at the time of my posting this, obviously), allow me:

    As we all know, claiming Anonymous is a group is silly, and playing this up as though "the group" got their hands on the digital equivalent of nukes is even sillier.

    So what this leads me to believe (tin-foil hat on) is that it is possible someone in the government actually issued the announcement on twitter, counting on the press to stupidly jump all over it (because they still can't wrap their heads around the concept of what Anonymous really is) and "copy/paste" your typical scare-tactic press release, substituting Stuxnet for "dirty bombs" or whatever ("oh noes! the [organized bad people] have [dangerous thing(s)] that threaten the safety of America! ), and are therefore giving themselves an excuse to justify treating Anonymous as any other terrorist and going after them without any due process. Note also that by continuing to treat them as an actual organized group, they can even claim that anyone they arrest belongs to that group and ship them off to Guantanamo, because as far as the gov't is concerned, Anonymous is just a new word for Terrorist.

    And THAT is something to be wary of, because now it's an even shorter leap from Anonymous to Citizen.

  44. There is no Cabal! by sznupi · · Score: 1

    There is no Cabal, I say!


    PS. I think saying "This doesn't sit well with our illusory individual culture." would be somewhat more accurate, BTW.

    And I can't help but wonder how similar all those revolutions ultimately might be... in past examples - whatever ideologically-guided people like to believe (and would like you to believe) - economic reasons were the major motivation for uprisings behind the Iron Curtain, for movements of the 80s. Ordinary people simply wanted better pays in relation to rising prices, better benefits, more free days, keeping holiday company funds & assets. They were fed up with some crisis of the moment, when the system was having problems providing goods and services they were used to, at the cost (to them) they wanted.

    Political postulates were mostly added by "intelligentsia", piggybacking on mass discontent (and not without support of CIA funds, at the least)

    (ironically enough, many former protesters sort of reversed their views when they got what they "wanted", during political & economic transformation - but by then, huge unprofitable workplaces were no longer kept alive by the state, protests directed at the latter couldn't do much)

    --
    One that hath name thou can not otter
  45. The Big Picture by pitr256 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think everyone is missing the biggest point of whether or not Anonymous has access to the Stuxnet source code and that is, with the source code the actual creator could possibly be identified. Imagine if HBGary in some way knows what organization created Stuxnet or perhaps they had a hand in helping create it? The repercussions could be quite severe especially if it was as many claimed created by Israel with US backing. The idea in the article of the ways Anonymous could possible modify Stuxnet are simply stupid.

    The other thing that everyone seems to be missing is the fact that HBGary also had in their possession a botnet that they were wanting to sell. Who would a company specializing in federal security be trying to sell a botnet to? This totally seems to be their modus operandi. "Hey government! Why create your own botnet that could be traced back to you? We can sell you one for a cheap million dollars!" Sort of the same thing they did with the Wikileaks stuff if you ask me.

    And the last thing is how if the release of this information does confirm that some federal/government group did in fact have a hand in Stuxnet or was interested in buying a botnet, how totally idiotic they are in utililizing such an inept company like HBGary to help them. It really says something about security companies that specialize in government security contracts.

    1. Download Metasploit/OllyDbg
    2. Get Top Secret clearance
    3. ???
    4. Profit!!!

    --
    Your mom always said, a PB&J is better than nothing, and God is nothing, is a PB&J better than God?
    1. Re:The Big Picture by karuna · · Score: 1

      No need for conspiracy theories. HBGary emails are now freely available to everyone to read. They were mostly trolling and FUD because they wanted to get a nice million dollar contracts with the FBI. Also Aaron Barr appears to have delusions of grandeur. Here is an example of his e-mail:

      From: Aaron Barr
      Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:06:00 -0400
      Subject: Re: Accepted: Invitation: CyberSecurity Discussions @ Wed Oct 27 2pm - 3pm (camille@executivebiz.com)
      To: Camille Tuutti-Winkler

      Camille,

      Something to think about. Something I think needs a lot of attention.
        I am becoming more and more knowledgable how easy it is to target,
      collect, and exploit people and organizations using social media.
      When looking at stuxnet and the certain future of weaponized malware
      and use of cyber for military and political purposes. The potential
      use of social media data is ever more frightening. I am collecting
      methodologies that can be used for exploitation and it's startling.

      Talk to you Wednesday.

      Aaron

      From my iPhone

    2. Re:The Big Picture by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      1. Download Metasploit/OllyDbg
      2. Get Top Secret clearance
      3. ???
      4. Profit!!!

      Sounds like a good plan, actually.

      Over the last decade I've seen some really dumb people with some really stupid ideas become insanely rich. Just because I *knew* as an expert it couldn't work or wouldn't do what you would want it to do - and the idiots didn't have a clue about it but managed to sell the idea to people with even less knowledge but a great deal of money.

      Sometimes I wonder if I'm not the one being utterly stupid for having ethics and being a professional. Or if everyone that I consider to be an immoral idiot is just extremely smart and only trying to look silly to get away with stuff that'd otherwise get you arrested and convicted.

      Sometimes, I just get very depressed about the state of humanity.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    3. Re:The Big Picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you look at the leaked emails, it certainly appears as if HBGary either had a hand in creating Stuxnet or knows the US government agency / project responsible for its creation.

    4. Re:The Big Picture by pitr256 · · Score: 1

      I don't think I'm looking for conspiracy theories. I'm just surprised that the media are missing the bigger picture than the simple (and stupid) reaction "ZOMG! They can make a better Stuxnet!"... whatever. I doubt that was even what Anonymous intended by their leak.

      But you certainly brought up a good point about the emails being available to anyone to investigate further... I just might have to do that. The sample email you posted certainly shows how opportunistic HBGary is/was... and how ignorant their customers were. I CAN HAZ EXPLOIT SOCIAL MEDIA. WANNA C?

      --
      Your mom always said, a PB&J is better than nothing, and God is nothing, is a PB&J better than God?
    5. Re:The Big Picture by karuna · · Score: 1

      I agree that news about stuxnet are irrelevant. There are too much information from this leak that it is a little bit too hard to process. I am reading the log where Penny tried to negotiate with Anonymous (whatever they are) about not releasing e-mails and I found strange that she said that she didn't understand how torrents work.

      But I liked this line :)

        IE) "OHH LAWD YOU HURT MY STOCK PRICE!" is an okay weapon against "OHH LAWD YOU ILLEGALLY DETAINED ME FEDS!"

    6. Re:The Big Picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think everyone is missing the biggest point of whether or not Anonymous has access to the Stuxnet source code and that is, with the source code the actual creator could possibly be identified.

      I've looked through the leaked emails and all I can find are references to HBGary being asked to analyze Stuxnet, which makes a lot of sense because HBGary (different from HBGary Federal) is actually a malware detection company, not a security company as Anonymous likes to claim.

      The other thing that everyone seems to be missing is the fact that HBGary also had in their possession a botnet that they were wanting to sell. Who would a company specializing in federal security be trying to sell a botnet to? This totally seems to be their modus operandi. "Hey government! Why create your own botnet that could be traced back to yaou? We can sell you one for a cheap million dollars!" Sort of the same thing they did with the Wikileaks stuff if you ask me.

      Again, all I see are emails talking about "hey, we could make a botnet if you want to buy one Mr. Government"... which isn't exactly a big deal, remember, HBGary Federal (again, different from HBGary) is apparently a three person company, two managers and one developer... not surprising that a small-time company would toss out thousands of proposed what-if ideas in an attempt to make money.

      And the last thing is how if the release of this information does confirm that some federal/government group did in fact have a hand in Stuxnet or was interested in buying a botnet, how totally idiotic they are in utililizing such an inept company like HBGary to help them. It really says something about security companies that specialize in government security contracts.

      You are mixing HBGary and HBGary Federal again... different companies, though they are apparently related based on HBGary Federal being a spin-off or something...

      Lastly though, how far can you trust Anonymous and it's supposedly leaked data? Are there digital signatures on the leaked email? No. Are there server authentication/message integrity/DKIM or SMTP-AUTH headers? No. Is there encryption/integrity of any kind? No. Could any of this email be forged? Yes. Could Anonymous, who often touts itself as having thousands of members, have forged a couple hundred emails in the 30-ish hours they had before leaking them? Yes.

      I don't trust Anonymous or HBGary Federal, but more and more this smells like Anonymous grabbing for media headlines.

    7. Re:The Big Picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am reading the log where Penny tried to negotiate with Anonymous (whatever they are) about not releasing e-mails and I found strange that she said that she didn't understand how torrents work.

      Why do you find it strange that a corporate President doesn't know how torrents work? 90% of Americans probably don't understand how torrents work. It's not like she is technical.

    8. Re:The Big Picture by karuna · · Score: 1

      You are taking this all too seriously. I think all this fiasco with HBGary is absolutely hilarious. The only good guy in this story was the programmer who actually knew the math and challenged Aaron Barr calling him bluff. But it is a great story anyway that will be remembered for many decades.

    9. Re:The Big Picture by karuna · · Score: 1

      I am not a technical guy either. And I am not even American :) And I am not talking about technical details but the general concept. It is as simple as knowing how the phone network works or something like that.

      But maybe you are right that corporate presidents are not supposed to know anything about the business they manage. As we already know, she completely failed at the negotiations and all Greg's e-mails got released just an hour ago. They are all here: http://hbgary.operationfreedom.ru/greg_hbgary_com/

    10. Re:The Big Picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Symantec requested samples of Stuxnet from various security vendors including ESET, F-Secure, Kaspersky Labs, Microsoft, McAfee, and Trend. Together they managed to obtain 3,280 unique samples of the worm. HBGary having a single copy does not mean they're a green-lighted Super Villain for the US. In fact reading through the emails gives you a sense that, they don't really do security either...

      http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/updated-w32stuxnet-dossier-available
      http://anonleaks.ru/

    11. Re:The Big Picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The repercussions could be quite severe especially if it was as many claimed created by Israel with US backing.

      And the repercussions could be even more severe especially if it was as many have not bothered to consider someone like China or Russia who also have an interest in being the primary nuclear power in the region.

  46. Re:So? I have a copy of Code Red by jbengt · · Score: 1

    . . . though it was seamless pipe having no welds to fail.

    Seamless pipe may have no longitudinal weld, but (in most cases, like this case) still has welds at joints and fittings connecting pipe segments together.

  47. Playing with fire by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    I don't really get the point of this article. As dozens of people have said above, who cares.

    But if you accept the premise of the article as placing Anonymous somehow in control of something that was previously under the control of Israel, I would say, how stupid can you get? Mossad's most recently exposed assassination was fairly sloppy, but they did kill the guy. That's certainly not the kind of wrath I'd want to bring down on myself.

  48. Re:It's a social movement by maxume · · Score: 1

    Like cholera?

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  49. Re:So? I have a copy of Code Red by camperslo · · Score: 1

    I'm not suggesting that "anonymous" was responsible, only that an attack using similar software could cause lines to burst. The national NBC reporting that just aired Saturday February 12th failed to mention ANY of the issues that were raised locally.

    The welds were of variable quality and of course pressure-induced failure will be at weak spots. Report say there were multiple failures at once. I've been unable to find any explanation as to why the pressure shot up right before the explosion.

    The line was a 30" major distribution line about 50 years old run at pressures of up to 400 p.s.i.

    P.G. & E. didn't even for sure know what kind of pipe they had, which calls into question whether they even knew how much pressure it could safely handle. Their records are incomplete and some were wrong. They claim to have no records of numerous calls from people reporting smelling gas as far back as two months before the explosion. They've switched their public statements around. It took them about two hours to even get people to a valve to cut off the gas. They had reported that a malfunction caused a pressure spike but later backtracked trying to claim that running the pressure up to the normal limit two years earlier somehow weakened the line. The period in question was summer/fall. If line pressures had to be elevated to overcome demand-related pressure loss in downstream lines that would have been during winter. (more likely to be an issue with the explosions in the eastern U.S.). The utility neglected to install and use any automatic shutoff equipment.

    There are clearly problems with the utility company procedures, but it's that recanted malfunction causing pressure spike part that would be consistent with an attack via software.

    There were a number of reports by California media regarding what happened. Some pulled offline later.
    There are videos on YouTube with various local residents commenting on what happened.

    http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110122/WIRE/110129816

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:pHP2Kpjo9OgJ:articles.sfgate.com/2011-01-09/news/27020428_1_gas-pipeline-pg-e-fatal-blast+gas-pipeline-pg-e-fatal-blast&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com

    http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-01-11/news/27022021_1_pg-e-gas-line-spike

    http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20110122/WIRE/110129816

    http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/ktxl-tv-pgesanbrunopipe,0,4690306.story

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3z9VRqxOtE

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6Uza3-EDRc

    The worm is not limited to what's in use in Iran. The people in the field that use Windows systems to spit out the code actually used by the control systems generally don't have the knowledge to disassemble the code and spot problems that aren't immediately apparent (like periodic instability or a timed attack). Given that things like pumping stations aren't set up often, expect that most use outside contractors.

    http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9185419/Siemens_Stuxnet_worm_hit_industrial_systems

    The national reporting simply blaming the incident on welds was misleading. At least region

  50. All right ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One more reason to hunt them down and toss em in jail.

  51. Hacker group? by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 1

    Last night, a member of hacker group Anonymous

    *sigh*

    1. Re:Hacker group? by lennier · · Score: 1

      Last night, a member of cat macro group Anonymous

      Better?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
  52. RTFA by oliverthered · · Score: 2

    Here's a synopsis.
    Olson quotes a source from Anonymous who briefly rattles off the contents of a slew of emails uncovered during the HBGary takedown. “Three different malware archives, two bots, an offer to sell a botnet, a genuine stuxnet copy, and various malware lists,” are supposedly among the contents.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:RTFA by acedotcom · · Score: 1

      its a good thing the US Government created Stuxnet so they know how to protect their systems from it.

      --
      they say it is often more relevant then the comment above, all we know is its called the Sig!
    2. Re:RTFA by Khyber · · Score: 1

      They can't protect themselves.

      These are the same idiots that leave nuclear infrastructure available on the internet.

      A couple of IBM researchers broke in remotely and had control within two weeks.

      You think we're safe against Stuxnet? You're sorely mistaken.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:RTFA by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      so ur saying HBGary is a money laundering operation for some US government official or bum chum there of.

      Hey Obama, I run out of doe to pay the hookers and to Sanchez for that next coke shipment, and they caught that CIA Jet I was flying it in on last time.
      Know worries, just do a press release from HBGary saying you got Anonymous's details and we'll do a money transfer from the F.B.I., should keep you in hookers till the wife gets home.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  53. We're Doomed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If any of you happen to be running Siemen's Nuclear Control Rod software, be careful!

  54. Stuxnet is no threat by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Except to the truly incompetent. The media-hype was completely out of proportion with with reality. Stuxnet is a mediocre piece of malware at best, that was created by people that did not really understand what they were doing. The only impressive part of it is the exact intelligence on how the Iranian Uranium centrifuges were wired. Apart from that, Stuxnet is basically a second-rated knockoff of technologies well known and understood.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  55. Re:So? I have a copy of Code Red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't remember where I read it (that's why I'm AC), but I'm pretty sure Stuxnet wasn't just brand-specific, but model specific. It replicated via flash drives, but was uploaded to the centrifuges during firmware upgrade.

  56. I was tempted to post this as "Anonymous Coward" by LiteralKa · · Score: 1

    "The mask of anonymity is not intensely constructive." -- Andrew "weev" Auernheimer

    --
    nonconformity at work
  57. Re:So? I have a copy of Code Red by mug+funky · · Score: 1

    i know a guy in the mining industry in a position of quite a bit of control over what goes on in a major operation.

    first time i met him i caught him using a meme.

    i am now scared.

  58. i think anonymous is a pretty cool guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    eh owns stuxnet and doesn't afraid of anything

  59. Re:So? I have a copy of Code Red by camperslo · · Score: 1

    I didn't mean to suggest that I thought "Anonymous" had anything to do with the San Bruno event. I don't know very much about them and am not making judgement of them.

    That said, Stuxnet really scares me and I hope it isn't used.

    I did see a news site posting elsewhere minutes ago to the effect that they were backing something new. I hope they don't get carried away in the emotions of the moment and do anything they might regret.

    May people everywhere be free and not live in fear.

  60. Re:So? I have a copy of Code Red by rtb61 · · Score: 1

    Are you kidding, Anonymous did nothing, it does not exist, it is an activism meme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group). People do things using the Anonymous name, nothing more.

    To say Anonymous has possession of the stuxnet virus, is meaningless nonsense. Anyone at any time can say they are and are not a member of Anonymous, as there is no membership, no leadership, just temporary causes. In fact any false flag event can be named as Anonymous activity if the government professionally paranoid choose to do so, they are of course very unlikely to get much or any support from people who choose to commit reasonable acts of activism in the name of Anonymous.

    This is just nothing more than a beat up driven by mass media and in this case likely paid for by Bank of America to obscure it's criminality in invading the privacy of people and their families and BoA's disclosed willingness to fabricate evidence. All in same vain effort to bury a certain hard disk drive likely full of criminal culpability. It isn't in Forbes by accident.

    No person can stand up and publicly state they are a 'member' of anonymous, as that act refutes their anonymity and logically any association with the Anonymous activism meme. At the very most people can say, they have done some 'Anonymous' stuff, hmm, which is what you are doing right now on the internet in this forum.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  61. Blessings Come From Above by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is an important piece of evidence against Barak-O Vision and his wolves at DHS, DOJ, DOD and DOS.

    How important? It links criminal acts by Barak-O Vision's Regime against the sovernty of Iran!

    Many have deep troubles with the Theocracy of Iran. Yet that does not exempt Barak-O Vision and his wolves from acts of murder, sedition, espionage, and terrorism.

    Indeed!

    Barak-O Vision, DOJ, DHS, DOS and DOD are the Terrorists! They are the criminals! They are the lawless. And they will be hanged for crimes against humanity.

    -308

  62. Re:So? I have a copy of Code Red by muridae · · Score: 1

    I seriously doubt they'll be able to modify it in any meaningful way. The thing seems to have been designed specifically to hit Siemens centrifuges, which would imply that the creators had some very, very good knowledge of the software used in those centrifuges. I doubt there are too many Anons out there with enough knowledge of how natural gas systems or other dedicated industrial hardware works to do much with Stuxnet.

    I would not be so certain of that. It doesn't require that the person working on the devices decides to write a virus for them; consider the extended family. Someone comes along and grabs a few of the specialist's books, maybe reference manuals, and passes those to another activist with a bit of knowledge. Suddenly, the activist has the insider knowledge necessary to target those specific plants. One would hope that a specialist worker in a nuke or gas plant would keep a tighter rein on their plant documentation, but family happens.

  63. Re:So? I have a copy of Code Red by Narcogen · · Score: 1

    I'd have thought the real danger would be of Anonymous using the virus to discover-- or perhaps to claim to have discovered-- the origin of the Stuxnet virus, or information about what was being planned with Stuxnet by those Anonymous obtained it from.

  64. I'm Brian! No I'm Brian! We all know everything Anonymous says should clearly be taken as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. On another note, I'm confused how Anonymous can be in possession of the Stuxnet worm. Does this mean everyone who has ever affiliated themselves with Anonymous is in possession? Or just a few people going by the name? Maybe that was the point, maybe this was meant to confuse use. I don't know any more...

  65. Re:So? I have a copy of Code Red by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

    Are you unable to separate work from leisure? Your acquaintance may well be able to, even if you're not.

    Allow me to present to you a fundamental fact of the internet: Internet Fuckwad Theory

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  66. Re:So? I have a copy of Code Red by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't post that on FoxNews.com or let Oprah know.. you'll end up the center of a media firestorm as the possible leader of the terrorist group The Anonymouses, and Mid-Westerners with dial-up access will draw wanted posters of you for "tryn'a bring down 'Merica"

    The truth is inconsequential in matters like this, since it involves a modicum of logical thinking and more than two technical facts, seven eighths of the general population needs to defer to Glen Beck's (or in this case Chris Barth's) "intelligent perspective" to understand if they're angry or not.

    Anonymous did their job perfectly here.. They post something completely inane in the perfect place and made me laugh like fucking hell at the absurdist fallout... Big shout out to Chris Barth for being such a tool to somehow make it sound serious, but he got my blog hit, so win-win.

    I'm glad to see as they continue to be infiltrated by people with agendas, Anonymous remains true to their roots of trying to make me snicker.

  67. Be very, very scared? by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    The scary thought is that some clever('Anonymous') person might program a socialist engineer to attack Windows World-sys. If Anonymous do that then the world's nuclear infrastructure may very well be in the hands of democrat terrorist herbal Viagra specialists. I am sure that this is all Facebooks fault. Compiling the latest Ubuntu kernel snapshot may save us. But I doubt it.
    Seriously this is a non-event.

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
  68. Translation by Lanteran · · Score: 1

    A random group of strangers claims possession of stuxnet worm.

    --
    "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.