Slashdot Mirror
Attacked By Anonymous, HBGary Pulls Out of RSA
itwbennett writes "HBGary Federal cancelled a talk the company's CEO Aaron Barr was planning to give at the BSides San Francisco conference on his investigation of WikiLeaks. 'I was receiving death threats,' Barr said in an interview Tuesday. 'There was lots of talk that was being made of in the Anonymous IRC channels of harassing us at our booth and sending people to heckle [HBGary speakers at the conference].' The company has also decided to pull its booth from the RSA Conference floor after it was vandalized on Sunday, said Jim Butterworth, HBGary's vice president of services. 'We... came back the next morning and it was very apparent that the group responsible for the activities in the news had decided to make another statement,' he said."
Ars has a really good summary of the attack that used really run-of-the-mill stuff from social engineering via e-mail to an SQL injection of HBGary's CMS using this URL: http://www.hbgaryfederal.com/pages.php?pageNav=2&page=27
My work here is dung.
Vandalized booth = a sign that says "Anon...In it 4 The LuLz..." http://yfrog.com/gzbvtllj I was expecting the booth to have been burned to the ground or something.
It's an all-out war between the forces of good and evil that has never stopped and will never stop.
Wait, is that part of the Green Lantern Corps creed or something from the Thundercats?
I could take stuff like this more seriously if people didn't have such cartoonish perceptions of what "good" and "evil" actually mean, and stopped trying to pretend they are some sort of freedom fighters when all they are is vandals and bullies who get off on what they are doing
If *real* fascists ever took control in this country, most of these people would shit themselves on a continuous basis before the secret police killed them, their families, their pets, burned down their houses and killed a few others standing around just to send a message.
So, let's take a look at this:
Option 1: Members or associates of a loose-knit group of hackers who are likely subjects of federal interest after illegally penetrating and utterly humiliating a private-sector spook shop decide that it would be a great idea to show up, in person, at an event with some amount of security likely to be in the vicinity, just to heckle somebody they have already pwned good and hard. They think that this is a good idea because showing up in crowded areas and making a disturbance is an excellent way to remain anonymous.
Option 2: Aaron Barr and the rest of the losers at HBGary really don't want to show their faces at RSA, after having been ruthlessly punked by a bunch of amateurs; but decide to cry about "security threats" in an attempt to look less than totally pathetic.
Y'know, I don't think that this is a terribly difficult decision...
If *real* fascists ever took control in this country, most of these people would shit themselves on a continuous basis before the secret police killed them, their families, their pets, burned down their houses and killed a few others standing around just to send a message.
Which is why attempting to foil incremental steps in that direction, before they reach fruition, is sort of a good idea, no?
Anonymous is just the first of many future darknets that will be nearly impossible to destroy. You might take out a ringleader or two, but 4 others would stand up to take their place if they felt that it was unjust. And in the end, it's death by a thousand harmless cuts, or in this case, 1,000 users that don't like something running the their Ion cannons under central control. In this case, this dude is using social networking like facebook to figure out who are hackers. I doubt they have many connections to other hackers on facebook or twitter. It's most likely random unrelated acquaintances, so I think the guy's research is flawed anyway.
The best example of what one of these organized systems could do is a story by Bruce Sterling called Maneki Neko. It is what happens when people get organized but maintain some level of anonymity. We are not to this level yet, but I suspect it right around the corner. It will do strictly good at first, but eventually it will ruin someone's life. Just as Anonymous has ruined some people's lives, they've done a little good for some, like a great birthday. It doesn't justify the destruction, but it's bored kids on the internet, so what are you going to do?
The news media will make a big deal about future 'attacks', but some will be harmless kids having fun. But if you start to push that everyone involved in these groups must be destroyed, those people who are marginally involved will suddenly get VERY involved in your destruction. So be careful.
Gonzo Granzeau
"Nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for.." -Roy Batty
This doesn't look like destruction of property:
http://yfrog.com/gzbvtllj
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If *real* fascists ever took control in this country, most of these people would shit themselves on a continuous basis before the secret police killed them, their families, their pets, burned down their houses and killed a few others standing around just to send a message.
Which is why attempting to foil incremental steps in that direction, before they reach fruition, is sort of a good idea, no?
Yes, but there is the whole "boy who cried wolf" aspect to constantly calling everything you don't like "fascism." Not everything presages the immanent collapse of American civilization. And the AC has a good point about people's cartoonish perception of good and evil.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
You are still in Fox mode, trying to see the conspiracy behind events because your mind cannot grasp that shit just happens.
Anonymous has no organization, it cannot by its very nature. Some people who HAVE grouped together have used the name for themselves BUT by that they have seized to become Anonymous.
Is it really that hard to grasp? Just because you know the identity of ONE A. Nonymous author doesn't mean that every other book written under that name is linked to it in anyway. Anonymous, the concept to give a mystic to the random actions of people that sometimes seem to work together and groups calling themselves anonymous are NOT the same thing.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It's not ironic or hypocritical at all!
When you are in a position of authority over other people, you must be held to a higher standard. With your greater authority comes greater responsibility. Responsibility requires transparency. Therefore, the more power you have, the less secrecy you should be allowed to have, because secrecy allows you to abuse your power.
All of the above applies to groups as well as individuals. Churches and their clergy, goverments and their bureaucrats, corporations and their executives, military and their officers, ALL have great power over people and therefore must be held accountable for their use of that power. However, private individuals who do not exercise power over others should have no requirement for higher transparency. If you aren't in a position to harm others, any exposition of your private affairs won't do anything to help anyone else. It can only be used to harm you, and is an abuse of power. Therefore, you in fact should have a right to privacy.
Consider the issue of gun ownership. If you choose to own a gun, you are taking some power. With that power comes responsibility. That gun's characteristics should be on file with law enforcement, so they can potentially match crime scene bullets fired from your gun. Make sense? More power = more transparency.
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
The CIA doesn't operate inside the USA...
Hahahahaha!!!!
Apparently, with today's abysmal science (or even critical thinking) teaching, it's quite common to sell magic beans to teh gubbemint.
Why should the cybersecurity market be any different?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT200
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadro_Tracker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniffex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_6
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Why is this ridiculous sort of mob justice tolerated ? We've all been in the playground, we've all seen mob justice in action, and we all know what WILL happen. So why do these people get any support whatsoever ?
Are we truly such hypocrites ? Insist on rights, when it's about us ... And then demand and defend swift illegal and criminal action against anyone we don't like ? Is that what is meant by "internet protest" ? Because if it is, frankly, it must be squashed with any amount of violence necessary.
I can't say I'd participate, but I can certainly understand the frustration of seeing an incompetent government security firm in action. Think about the last 12 years for more than a second, and the word 'security'... well, a shiver runs down my spine. The *immediate* surrender of the country's principles and well-being following the bombings in 2001 while dissenters are booed from the spotlight and ostracized. All the things done in the name of security that made us less secure, all (all!) of the money spent on endless, fruitless military operations and grandma groping. Like many /.ers it troubles me deeply, and I see the country breathe a cheeto-stench sigh of disinterest while all but a handful of legislators jerk off on their bases while doing nothing to manage the cancerous meme of security uber alles, all out of cowardice and greed.
Maybe some people think mob justice is the closest they'll ever get to the real thing.
Huh. Guess I'm a little more pissed off than I thought... I'm going to go get some coff... eh, decaf.
"All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
I am at RSA, I was part of a long conversation with Art Coviello last night and he did not mention it. It his his confernce and it is a security conference. If the ckaim was true and had been reported i would have expected it to be mentined.
I think it rather more likely that they did not have the courage to show their faces.
They have been punked for a start. That is an embarrassment. But what would make them pariahs was the proposal to engage in criminal attacks and political misinformation. Many of us are ex law enforcement or ex intelligence. Others work closely with them. You cant do that if you are committing criminal acts yourself.
If i thought there was a chance he might show his face i would have gone to his session earlier. But that was never likely.
Last year he was talking about hacking online games and club penguin.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/