Slashdot Mirror


HBGary Federal CEO Aaron Barr Steps Down

Gunkerty Jeb writes "Embattled CEO Aaron Barr says he is stepping down from his post at HBGary Federal to allow the company to move on after members of the online mischief making group Anonymous hacked into HBGary Federal's computer network and published tens of thousands of company e-mail messages on the Internet. In an interview with Threatpost, Barr said that he is stepping down to allow himself and the company he ran to move on in the wake of the high profile hack."

156 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. Oh no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  2. BF Gary by yoyoq · · Score: 1

    oh man , my BFF Gary is stepping down.

  3. owned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    This will go down in history as an awesome example of the firepower of the fully armed and operational battlestation.

    1. Re:owned by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Fully armed and operational, except for the bit that actually aims the weapons. Anonymous might demolish a genuine bad guy, or they might destroy the life of some innocent teenager. Being what it is, Anonymous has only a small chance of evolving into real hacktivism and away from it's "for the lulz" roots. That makes it even more dangerous than most vengeful vigilante groups. I mean, "That teenage girl is a camwhore!" is as much of a motivating battle-cry to Anonymous as "That guy is subverting the law to attack wikileaks." Needless to say, I'm happy this creep got his comeuppance. But I would much rather his downfall were accomplished through the rule of law and not vigilante justice. Still, when real justice is hopelessly corrupt, what else is there?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:owned by spun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh do they now? Classy. Hope you're the next one in the gunsights, dude. You need the perspective.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:owned by guspasho · · Score: 1

      This has very little to do with vigilante justice. Anonymous demonstrated how embarrassingly incompetent HBGary is at what it claims to be its area of expertise. The management of any company that is exposed to be so incompetent deserves to be shamed and fired. Not to mention that Aaron Burr was misusing his position to pursue a personal obsession that had nothing to do with the company's goals. That "vigilante justice" has anything to do with it is completely circumstantial and only marginally related to Aaron Burr's incompetence and corruption.

    4. Re:owned by spun · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How is this not vigilante justice? Anonymous went outside the law to punish someone they see as an evildoer. That is pretty much the definition of vigilante justice.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:owned by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      I thought it was the awesome firepower of the LOIC.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    6. Re:owned by spun · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, Batman doesn't beat up fat kids and camwhores.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    7. Re:owned by nobodylocalhost · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just put this in perspective here... Let's take track records,

      This is what rule of law has accomplished.

      This is what rule of law asked these scumbags do

      And this is in the plans, not to mention DoJ recommended firms to BoA to do this.

      At this point I am wondering where is Thomas Jefferson when we need him now, and you honestly are thinking about the wellbeing of some teenager's personal on-line life? They don't even come close in term of scope! If I have to be a sacrifice for Anon in order to stump out the rampant corruption then so be it! I am Spartacus!

      --
      Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
    8. Re:owned by guspasho · · Score: 1

      He wasn't punished, he was shamed, (there's a difference), and he quit of his own volition. That's not vigilante justice.

    9. Re:owned by definate · · Score: 1

      So, to his sweeping comments that they deserve it, you thought "I know, I'll take the high road" and then proceeded to use similar sweeping comments against him.

      It was wrong for him to suggest that its okay for the others to get hurt, and you show him hes wrong by hoping that he gets hurt.

      Hello Mr. Argument, meet Mr. Self Defeating Proposition, or to put it another way, two wrongs, where the second wrong, is actually just the first wrong repeated, don't make a right.

      You just got spun!

      Also, in response to the grand parent, you should never sacrifice the individual, in the name of the group or concept, because through this logic, you can rationalize anything. A group or concept is a subjective abstract construction, you may think its objective and tangible, but under rational scrutiny you'll find it isn't. As such, the group/concept could be anything, allowing you a lot of lea way. But this is probably getting a little to philosophical, so I'll end it there.

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    10. Re:owned by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Quit of his own volition?

      Call me cynical, but yeah... right, sure he did.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    11. Re:owned by miserere+nobis · · Score: 2

      Well said, but there is another side to be considered, an alternate way to read the remarks. Something like "You should be the first to taste your own medicine," or "Very well, then I hope you have to live by your own rules if you're going to promote them as good for other people to endure" isn't necessarily completely accurately portrayed as "two wrongs make a right". If spun went out and actually brought about such an attack or tried to make one happen, that would be a stronger case for reading it the way you do.

    12. Re:owned by definate · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I got what he meant, but found it was more hypocritical than anything.

      --
      This is my footer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    13. Re:owned by guspasho · · Score: 1

      Or forced out by unhappy corporate masters after his corruption and incompetence was exposed to the world. But Anon didn't force him out, and no one is decrying vigilante justice on the part of the corporate masters. AFAIK no one has even suggested he was illegally forced to quit, which is a bare minimum for calling the act vigilante justice. In fact, the standard line when a company owner fires their CEO is that, far from it being illegal punishment, they own the place and it's their God-given right.

      To defend Aaron Burr by calling his resignation in disgrace an act of vigilante justice is nothing more than to flak for him. He got what was coming to him, and no one illegally punished him.

    14. Re:owned by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Spot. On.

        What I find hilarious about this whole thing is this Media assumption that "Anonymous" is some sort of organized group. What, there aren't a lot of pissed off, unemployed (yet intelligent) people about who have nothing to do but play crusader in front of their computers? (I envy them to the time and resources to do so, I'm busy just working to survive).

        IMO it's the same sort of institutional paranoia that gave the human race wonderful parts of history such as the "cold war" (of which I grew up into) and still seems endemic amongst certain social climber types.

        If that offends any of the corporate fanatical types out there, I'm afraid I have no sympathy for you. Fuck Off.

      SB

       

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    15. Re:owned by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Wait - who "went after" who, first? Didn't Barr start this whole thing? Or, am I just getting senile, and imagining stuff? As I recall, Barr was intent on exposing some of Anonymous' top people - and Anonymous responded by destroying Barr's shoddy-assed network. Punished? No, Barr hasn't even been punished, merely exposed for the fraud that he is. As a Navy man, I would say that Anonymous has Damage Control down pat. Oh - the self appointed vigilante - that might be Barr. After all, he's the guy who was perfectly happy to bend, fold, and mutilate the law in order to go after Julian Assange, and any other high profile targets that might have helped inflate Barr's ego.

      --
      "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
    16. Re:owned by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Not cynical at all, buddy. If you'll go back, and read the chronology - HBGary Federal was going to be shut down anyway, because they weren't making money or meeting expectations of the parent company. HBG Federal's days were numbered BEFORE this great fiasco. Anonymous may or may not have driven the final nail in the coffin of HBG Federal - but how does that matter? Dead is dead, no matter how many nails are driven into the coffin. And, it all comes back to one thing, really. Barr was trying to sell something that almost no one needed or wanted. Barr is a con man, with nothing of value to sell.

      --
      "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
    17. Re:owned by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Its true she did threaten to make everyone a brain slushy. I mean, COME ON I thought "cola" was inappropriate as a slushy flavor - this is just going too far.

    18. Re:owned by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      A couple nights ago Colbert had a rather amusing segment summarizing the chain of events. I believe a phrase similar to "Hey, look at that hornet's nest; I'm gonna stick my dick in it!" was used. Look it up, you'll laugh. :)

    19. Re:owned by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Funny stuff - and about as accurate as any other account I've read!

      --
      "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
    20. Re:owned by vertinox · · Score: 2

      Anonymous might demolish a genuine bad guy, or they might destroy the life of some innocent teenager.

      FFS! People need to stop treating Anon as some organized group.

      If a flash mob helped a lady across the street in LA and another lynched a man in New York, would you consider them the same group of people?

      Serioiusly, its just like old time lynchings they used to have in the old days when a bunch of people got together and doled out random justice... Often picking the wrong person to extract it on (like the time a bunch of laid of car workers in Detroit killed a Korean man because they were pissed off at Japanese carmakers in the 1980's).

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    21. Re:owned by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 2

      A couple nights ago Colbert had a rather amusing segment summarizing the chain of events. I believe a phrase similar to "Hey, look at that hornet's nest; I'm gonna stick my dick in it!" was used. Look it up, you'll laugh. :)

      I decided to look this up because I missed that episode. It is pretty hilarious. Here is the link.

    22. Re:owned by pitje · · Score: 1

      you're absolutly right. The 13 year old child said some things that are unforgivable, and she deserved everything she got. Where is the world going to these days, when normal people can't just use the internet without being constantly bothered by the rants of a 13 year old girl. There isn't a place on the internet where you can go and not be bothered by the inane things children say.

    23. Re:owned by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Also, in response to the grand parent, you should never sacrifice the individual, in the name of the group or concept, because through this logic, you can rationalize anything. A group or concept is a subjective abstract construction, you may think its objective and tangible, but under rational scrutiny you'll find it isn't. As such, the group/concept could be anything, allowing you a lot of lea way. But this is probably getting a little to philosophical, so I'll end it there.

      What utter crap. If you never sacrificed individuals in the name of a group or concept, you couldn't have laws or rules of any kind, and would have pure anarchy.

      We punish murderers for the benefit of society, not the individual murderer.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    24. Re:owned by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, Batman doesn't beat up fat kids and camwhores.

      I was under the impression that what we got in the comics was just the highlights of batman's career. Maybe he does beat up fat kids and camwhores when all of Gotham is quiet.

      Careful, Batman might sue you. It's not like he's a purely fictional character or anything.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    25. Re:owned by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Dead is dead, no matter how many nails are driven into the coffin..

      Heh heh. I like that. I may have steal, er, quote and attribute it.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    26. Re:owned by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    27. Re:owned by andrea.sartori · · Score: 1

      We should punish murderers for the benefit of society, not the individual murderer.
      FTFY

      --
      Mostly harmless.
    28. Re:owned by AB3A · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Does anyone wonder why Jefferson was one of the staunch supporters of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution? This is the answer. And no, I'm not speaking of guns in this case, I'm speaking of self defense against evil governance. We have laws against domestic surveillance without a court approved cause. The kind of information gathering that HBG perpetrated against Glenn Greenwald is exactly the reason why such laws exist.

      This is actually a very nice example of defensive action by people against a very nasty abuse of power by government.

      --
      Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
    29. Re:owned by spun · · Score: 1

      She didn't deserve it. Yes, she's a tool, and a camwhore, but this part is VERY IMPORTANT: she was a thirteen year old girl. You have just exposed yourself as the kind of person who would viciously attack a thirteen year old girl for being, well, a thirteen year old girl. Here's hoping any future employers read these comments, and get a good idea of what kind of person they won't be hiring.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    30. Re:owned by spun · · Score: 1

      Shaming is not illegal, if that were all it were, I would be slightly more sympathetic, but Anonymous broke the law and caused actual monetary damage to this company. The fact that they deserved it is entirely beside the point, unless it can be shown that our legal system is so hopelessly corrupt that we can not achieve justice any other way. Even so, the correct response to that situation is to reform the legal system, not take up vigilantism.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    31. Re:owned by spun · · Score: 1

      You are saying that this girls actions were criminal? Her actions are the equivalent of shooting someone? That she deserved the punishment she got? Honestly, you think that this kind of attack will somehow help neurotic, imbalanced people? Anonymous was just acting out of love for her, like a parent? No, you don't really care if Jessi gets better, you want her to suffer.

      The thing is, yeah, she should suffer a little, she was an idiot online and she deserves to be called an idiot and made to feel embarrassment. A little. But anonymous doesn't come with an off switch, or a little dial that lets everyone involved know how much pain and suffering the group has meted out. Therefore, everyone thinks they are doing just a little bit, punishing just enough, but the overall effect is far out of proportion to whatever wrongs this thirteen year old may have done.

      And THAT is the problem with vigilante justice, it is never proportional to the crime.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    32. Re:owned by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1
      Do I really have to explain to you what an analogy is? Come on. This isn't your first rodeo, you're grasping at straws.

      Anonymous was just acting out of love for her, like a parent?

      No, you dunce, since you obviously didn't get it the first time, let me repeat myself: if you don't control your kids behavior, the world will do it for you, and it won't be kind about how it does it.

      Parents are supposed to get their kids in line in a loving way before the world does it in an unloving way. Never did I say that Anonymous (of all things!) was acting out of love, and if you're so dense that's what you're taking away just so you can set up some ridiculous strawman, I'm wasting my time writing anything.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
  4. yeah and more time with his family by inkscapee · · Score: 5, Funny

    and rehab, and the blahblahlblah usual excuses that mean "I don't know the first thing about security, but I have insider connections and can con almost anyone, especially other ignorant stupid CEOs. It's been a wonderful, lucrative experience! God bless, see you all in my new venture, securitized subprime mortgage loans!"

    1. Re:yeah and more time with his family by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You were modded "Funny" and rightfully so. But the sickening thing is, he WILL get another CEO job because he has experience. Of course, if any of us peons fucked up as bad as he did, we would have been canned, walked out by security, and be struggling to find another job.

      Corporate America is so fucking retarded!

      The rich get richer and the poor get poorer and the middle class gets fucked.

      Remember kids: go to an Ivy league school, join the best frat, make friends at parties, use those connections to get executive jobs and profit! Oh, and make sure to keep up the old BS American Dream story how "work hard and you too can be rich!"

      Look at Facebook jackoff! DO you honestly think he would be where he is if he started FB at Indiana State?!? Fuck no! At Harvard he got noticed by the big shots!

      Fck'n A ... Bullshit!

  5. Need to focus by starfishsystems · · Score: 1

    “I need to focus on [...] rebuilding my reputation."

    Hey, it's never too late to start.

    --
    Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
  6. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    And nothing of value was lost...

  7. Majorus Cokhup by tiptone · · Score: 1

    Excuse him folks, it's going to be a while before he can get that foot out of his mouth.

    --
    Please don't read my sig.
    1. Re:Majorus Cokhup by AndroidCat · · Score: 2

      Considering where his head is located, I'm amazed that he could get his foot in there too.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  8. Anon wins. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    FLAWLESS VICTORY

    1. Re:Anon wins. by gatkinso · · Score: 1

      Not really.

      --
      I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  9. Let me be the first to say... by SanityLapse · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ha. HaHa. HaHaHaHa. Sure, some nasty Anon broke the law here. But if anybody ever had it coming, it was this guy.

    1. Re:Let me be the first to say... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      When your business is security and you get owned by hackers, I don't care if it was illegal, it's justified.

      If someone broke into a brinks truck and stole everything inside after the Brinks CEO said something ridiculously stupid, I would not shed a single tear.

      (Unless it was my shit that was just stolen. If it was valuable enough to be transported by Brinks though, it's probably insured anyway.)

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    2. Re:Let me be the first to say... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      That's exactly my point though.

      I don't hear of stories where corporate officers of brinks or Loomis Fargo intentionally pissing off and looking for trouble either.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    3. Re:Let me be the first to say... by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      ROTFL almost but yah pretty much.

      By that point they had SQL Injected, gotten the username/password hashes, used rainbow tables to get the passwords for CEO and that other dude, got the root password and old one from their email..... then used those emails to contact support and used the info in them to effectively pose as the person in question.

      At that point, they dropped in a firewall rule to let them in, and reset the user account password. Not exactly an invitation :)

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  10. The moral of the story by Locke2005 · · Score: 2

    I learned this years ago: Don't get into an online pissing contest. Just don't. Both sides inevitably lose.

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:The moral of the story by fishexe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I learned this years ago: Don't get into an online pissing contest. Just don't. Both sides inevitably lose.

      Hard to see how the Anon side lost here. Their prestige is up, their deadly rep is more solid than ever, and still nobody knows who they are IRL. So maybe the lesson should be, "don't get into an online pissing contest, unless you really are the most badass hacker gang in history."

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    2. Re:The moral of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even if Anonymous loses, Anonymous wins.

    3. Re:The moral of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think the moral of the story was "Don't stick your penis into the hornet's nest."

    4. Re:The moral of the story by Predius · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anon provided more ammo for those who want to implement multiple forms of 'internet controls' or harsher punishment for 'cyber' crime. They just fortified the positions of those they're trying to scare off.

    5. Re:The moral of the story by spyder-implee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They also exposed the fraudulent plans of a major security firm. Shouldn't it fortify the position that corporations holding those kind of government contracts should come under more scrutiny?

      --
      Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
    6. Re:The moral of the story by biodata · · Score: 1

      This is probably anon's gameplan. Who else is the government going to give all the tax dollars to to build all the new locks and backdoors? The clampdown plays right into anon's hands.

      --
      Korma: Good
    7. Re:The moral of the story by dave562 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All that will happen is that HBGary's competitors will update their marketing material. "Don't pull an HBGary. Use XYZ Security instead."

    8. Re:The moral of the story by locallyunscene · · Score: 2

      I learned this years ago: Don't get into an online pissing contest. Just don't. Both sides inevitably lose.

      Hard to see how the Anon side lost here. Their prestige is up, their deadly rep is more solid than ever, and still nobody knows who they are IRL. So maybe the lesson should be, "don't get into an online pissing contest, unless you really are the most badass hacker gang in history."

      And a gov't connected security agency has logs and logs of data that were collected during the attack. This may not have been an intentional honey pot, but that doesn't mean it can't still be used that way unless the attackers were really good.

    9. Re:The moral of the story by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      "...the most badass hacker gang in history."

      What? I'm pretty sure the Russian mob (one of the most notorious black-hat hacking gangs in the world) would have half of Anon sobbing into their mothers' skirts within about 10 minutes if they ever got challenged by those hacker wannabes.

    10. Re:The moral of the story by pyrr · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Wouldn't that be CDC or something? No, wait, it would probably be a group we have never even heard of, because hackers are like ninjas, right?

    11. Re:The moral of the story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem for Anonymous is they are now the Internet's equivalent to 1984's "Emmanuel Goldstein". Anyone can use them in a false flag operation now.

    12. Re:The moral of the story by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Those wastes of flesh at WBC were the first to pull that particular trigger already.

    13. Re:The moral of the story by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

      He managed to point the finger at a few bored teenagers, who may, or may not, self identify with a hacker organization, and may or may not be involved with the actual hacking. He has no proof of any sort of wrongdoing, and who knows if the names he gathered are actual people.

      On the other hand: He lost his high paying job from the company he founded. He was publicly humiliated. His company is embarrassed. His clients are embarrassed. His company may not recover, they've certainly lost a lot of future business, and been made the laughingstock of their industry, and their only hope is to rename and rebrand.

      So... doesn't seem anywhere close to me.

    14. Re:The moral of the story by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      I thought this was kinda the point. Or A point in any event.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    15. Re:The moral of the story by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      A member of Anonymous with a girlfriend? Clearly a red herring.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    16. Re:The moral of the story by cheesecake23 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think the moral of the story was "Don't stick your penis into the hornet's nest."

      I'm all for citing Colbert, but you should at least give him the credit for the quote and provide a link, especially when the segment is so hilarious.

    17. Re:The moral of the story by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      That's not how corporations work.

      Tech CEO's are going to look at this and say "holy shit! That could happen to me!" And then they're going to call the politicians who have gotten so much money from them and their companies, and say "You gotta make it harder for people to do what Anonymous just did!"

      And then the politicians will pass a law that significantly ups the penalties for "hacking," but because the politicians don't so much as know the difference between a Macintosh and a Nintendo, they'll screw up the definition of hacking to the point that people doing totally legitimate things with their computers, like, say, writing a program to automatically check their bank balance, are now breaking the law. And THOSE people will get the book thrown at them so hard their heads will spin, while still no one knows who the hell Anonymous is, and so the original target of all the CEOpolitical angst will just keep doing business as usual.

      Trying to apply logic to the workings of corporations is somewhat like trying to teach calculus to a cat. A totally hopeless endeavor.

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    18. Re:The moral of the story by 605dave · · Score: 1

      absolutely the best metaphor i've heard too.

      --
      Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
    19. Re:The moral of the story by CFTM · · Score: 1

      Colbert's conclusion is epic :)

    20. Re:The moral of the story by CFTM · · Score: 1

      He probably is a majority share holder, while the board can force him to step down they cannot take his shares. It's in his own economic best interest, at this point, to step down and allow others to lead the company and for him to be completely out of the picture for the next two years.

      That allows the government to continue working with HBGary and provides a return on investment for investors and himself. Anonymous has not struck a great blow against the system, merely forced a douche bag out of the spotlight for the time being. He'll be replaced by someone else who has a better vision for creating a profitable business in the current economic environment. This is what companies do...

    21. Re:The moral of the story by fishexe · · Score: 1

      "...the most badass hacker gang in history."

      What? I'm pretty sure the Russian mob (one of the most notorious black-hat hacking gangs in the world) would have half of Anon sobbing into their mothers' skirts within about 10 minutes if they ever got challenged by those hacker wannabes.

      You wanna test them? I'd very much like to see this Russian mob--Anonymous showdown. If you have any mob connections, make it happen.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    22. Re:The moral of the story by fishexe · · Score: 1

      I learned this years ago: Don't get into an online pissing contest. Just don't. Both sides inevitably lose.

      Hard to see how the Anon side lost here. Their prestige is up, their deadly rep is more solid than ever, and still nobody knows who they are IRL. So maybe the lesson should be, "don't get into an online pissing contest, unless you really are the most badass hacker gang in history."

      And a gov't connected security agency has logs and logs of data that were collected during the attack. This may not have been an intentional honey pot, but that doesn't mean it can't still be used that way unless the attackers were really good.

      How is this any different from any of the previous Anon attacks? There are always logs, and nobody ever gets caught, except maybe a few sheeple who downloaded and ran LOIC without even realizing it would expose them. I'll believe the core of Anonymous getting de-anonymized when I see it.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    23. Re:The moral of the story by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Anon provided more ammo for those who want to implement multiple forms of 'internet controls' or harsher punishment for 'cyber' crime. They just fortified the positions of those they're trying to scare off.

      Not really. Everybody even casually familiar with the situation, even people who know nothing about hacking or security, comes away from this story feeling like Aaron Barr is a colossal douche who had it coming to him. I think that fortifies our position, that further controls are unnecessary, by demonstrating that further 'internet controls' would only protect people who stick their penises into hornets' nests.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    24. Re:The moral of the story by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Trying to apply logic to the workings of corporations is somewhat like trying to teach calculus to a cat. A totally hopeless endeavor."

      Is that why the finance industry's derivatives didn't work out?

    25. Re:The moral of the story by miserere+nobis · · Score: 1

      Actually, if he is truly a majority share holder, then I don't think the board can force him to do anything, because he is the one who appoints them.

    26. Re:The moral of the story by udoschuermann · · Score: 1

      Those who feel that HBGary et al. deserved what they got may feel that there was a moral lesson to be learned. The rest will simply feel that HBGary was attacked by a vigilante group, that HBGary's defenses were lacking, and that better security and larger guns (laws) will be needed to counter similar threats in the future.

      As is so often the case, the truth lies somewhere in between, getting banged by the ones who make the rules.

      --
      --Udo.
    27. Re:The moral of the story by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >"Trying to apply logic to the workings of corporations is somewhat like trying to teach calculus to a cat. A totally hopeless endeavor."

      Bad analogy dude... if you can find a way to communicate the concepts within the cat's frame of reference - the cat actually has a (very small) chance of learning calculus. Where-as getting a corporation to act logically is pretty much an NP-Complete problem !

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    28. Re:The moral of the story by shadowfaxcrx · · Score: 1

      Point taken ;)

      --
      "I disagree with you" does not equal "flamebait."
    29. Re:The moral of the story by cOldhandle · · Score: 1

      From what I remember, Anon ordered (via IRC) an owner of the company to fire Barr in return for calling off the continued attack on HBGary Federal. So this is a clear victory for Anon, who are basically dictating to this "security" company how to run their business.

    30. Re:The moral of the story by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You're over-thinking it. This isn't Hollywood. Security contractor pokes Anon, Anon pokes back. Pretty simple.

  11. Re:He wasn't fired? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You must be thinking of little people rules...

  12. Re:He wasn't fired? by geminidomino · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Stepping down" is basically the corporate-speak equivalent of seppuku. They get rid of his disgraced ass and in return, he gets to pretend he still has some dignity.

  13. Re:He wasn't fired? by peragrin · · Score: 3, Informative

    He partially owned the company. you can't fire someone like that. you have to buy them out.

    Which means he got a nice golden parachute too. Hopefully it was real gold and they kick him out of a large building with it.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  14. Revisionist history anyone? by Chas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    From the argh-tickle.

    "By combining a SQL injection attack on HBGary's Web site with sophisticated social engineering attacks"

    Uhm. WHAT?

    Sophisticated? I wouldn't call a couple of e-mails from a hijacked account asking to back-door a server "sophisticated".

    What the HBGary hack was:

    Basic SQL Injection
    Weak passwords
    Password Re-use
    SIMPLE social engineering

    Your basic molotov cocktail of fail.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Revisionist history anyone? by peragrin · · Score: 2

      It is sophisticated because the emails could have come from the person sending them. Proper grammar,similar writing styles, with enough background information to sound like it was legitimate.

      basically unless you were a close personal friend you couldn't easily tell the difference, unlike the $38.6 million that some guy who just emailed me has stashed in Libyan and is having a hard time getting it out safely.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    2. Re:Revisionist history anyone? by oamasood · · Score: 1

      To elaborate 'Weak passwords': Their passwords were hashed using the MD5 algorithm, and no salt. These passwords can be easily decrypted using online tools like http://www.md5decrypter.com/

    3. Re:Revisionist history anyone? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 2

      Of course they're going to say it was some sophisticated uber attack that only ninja net gods could have done. Their stock and their reputation has taken enough of a beating. The truth would be FAR worse. "No, we were pwnt by really simple stuff like crappy passwords and ignoring basic safeguards. In the light of that though, may we work out a service contract with you to make you business secure?"

      Nope, not happening. The truth wouldn't do anything but tank them harder. Lies would be pretty much your only choice.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    4. Re:Revisionist history anyone? by PraiseBob · · Score: 3

      Their attack was vastly more complex than anything Kevin Mitnick ever did, and he is arguably the most famous hacker in history.

    5. Re:Revisionist history anyone? by nobodylocalhost · · Score: 1

      You, sir, are greatly underestimating the average computer user. Mind you, this is the same mistake Barr made when he went after anon. He thought his company was only going to get DDoS-ed. Well, he thought wrong. It actually takes quite a bit technical know-how and general savvy to survive /b/ and not being trolled into oblivion. My point is, don't make assumptions on the average user, especially those who are not being forced to use computers.

      --
      Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
    6. Re:Revisionist history anyone? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      A single round of unsalted MD5. Bad idea.

      The first three major steps are in increasing order of stupidity.

      SQL injection on a CMS, especially a homebrew one, is a common enough problem. You should probably assume your CMS has an SQL injection vulnerability in it and plan accordingly.

      Having unsalted, single-MD5 passwords is just bad. It's far too easy to instead use MD5 with a large salt, which really make the problem much better. Unless you have a high volume of logins, though, you might as well go overboard and use SHA1-based PBKDF2 with, say, 20 bytes of salt. Why not? It's trivial to code.

      Using the same password for your CMS (remember, you should assume it has vulnerabilities) and for your corporate e-mail is critical mistake.

    7. Re:Revisionist history anyone? by Chas · · Score: 1

      Not talking about the technical portions of the break in.

      Talking about the social engineering.

      They used a known-trusted e-mail address to essentially tell the admin of a server

      * Give me my username
      * Give that user password "12345"
      * Open up this port and accept traffic from this block of IP addresses.

      They already had access to the guy's e-mail. So they had copious quantities of samples to construct a legitimate sounding e-mail from.

      This is hardly rocket science.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    8. Re:Revisionist history anyone? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Oh for fuck's sake, give them some credit. Your random script kiddie never would have managed what they pulled off.

      What's cool about their hack is they strung together a series of weaknesses in a short amount of time, including writing some very convincing and urgent emails from "the boss" asking for an obscure and temporary hole.

      I'm willing to bet a lot of admins would have accommodated this kind of request. Is it easy to crucify the admin after the fact? Yeah. In the real world, do people break security rules all the time for expediency? You bet, especially if the risk seems low.

    9. Re:Revisionist history anyone? by Chas · · Score: 1

      Please understand the finite point I was trying to make, instead of blowing it up into some blanket denigration of the overall crack (which I did not do).

      My sole beef is with the description of the social engineering portion of the attack as "sophisticated", when it was anything BUT.

      Feel free to agree or disagree at your own leisure.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    10. Re:Revisionist history anyone? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      My sole beef is with the description of the social engineering portion of the attack as "sophisticated", when it was anything BUT.

      Yet you listed all the steps in the attack, concluding with "Your basic molotov cocktail of fail." So you can hardly claim you didn't go beyond just the social engineering aspect.

      Also, it's unfair to look at the social engineering step in isolation. What made it sophisticated was the series of hacks surrounding it, lending it legitimacy and potency. An unsophisticated and routine attack would be calling up and posing as some random 3rd party. Hacking into a high-value target's email account and mining it to make an extremely convincing impersonation is sophisticated social engineering.

      I think this is just typical geek "yeah, that's easy, anybody could have done that" mentality.

    11. Re:Revisionist history anyone? by Chas · · Score: 1

      Yup. Feel free to keep thinking this.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    12. Re:Revisionist history anyone? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      And feel free to keep making empty responses.

  15. I miss greatly by kubitus · · Score: 1
    the Anonymous mask as the icon to this story!

    -

    same bullshit goes on in my company: big manager boasting security - justifying any expenses - but are not able to remember more than one password at a time and reuse it everywhere!

    1. Re:I miss greatly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      god damnit, it's not an "Anonymous" mask it's a Guy Fawkes mask. the historical connection is important as it's apt as all hell.

      There should be no reason etc, see you next bonfire.

    2. Re:I miss greatly by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Informative AC is informative.

      Tired meme is getting annoying.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    3. Re:I miss greatly by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      god damnit, it's not an "Anonymous" mask it's a Guy Fawkes mask.

      Yeah, but the only reason Anonymous uses the mask is because they loved the movie V for Vendetta.

      the historical connection is important as it's apt as all hell.

      That's arguable. I'd say the connection to the motives in the Vendetta movie are more apt to Anonymous' use of the Guy Fawkes mask... The historical significance was important to the V movie, but I don't think making a direct link to Guy Fawkes (and all that he stood for) is really that "apt".

      For instance. I'm positive that Anons care not of Guy Fawkes' support of Catholicism (many a flame-topic has burned under this banner). I'd also say that this historic fact adds irony to the Guy Fawkes masks used in the Vendetta movie (since the protagonist fought against an oppressive Catholic like state/church).

      Additionally:

      Wintour introduced Fawkes to Robert Catesby, who planned to assassinate King James I and restore a Catholic monarch to the throne. The plotters secured the lease to an undercroft beneath the House of Lords, and Fawkes was placed in charge of the gunpowder they stockpiled there. Prompted by the receipt of an ANONYMOUS letter, the authorities searched Westminster Palace during the early hours of 5 November, and found Fawkes guarding the explosives.

      Heh, I'd posit that, given that Guy Fawkes was foiled by an Anon, you could argue the use of Guy Fawkes visage by Anonymous is doubly ironic (that, or the historic link is not quite as "apt" as you believe).

      To be fair, Fawkes is best known for the Gunpowder Plot wherein he "became involved with a small group of English Catholics, led by Robert Catesby, who planned to assassinate the Protestant King James and replace him with his daughter, third in the line of succession, Princess Elizabeth."

      This was made the Guy Fawkes mask in V for Vendetta apt, but the imagery and plot of the V for Vendetta movie (wherein thousands of citizens don the Guy Fawkes mask to become anonymous and rise up against their oppressive government), was much more influential in the choice to use the masks by Anonymous.

      Never attribute to insight that which can be adequately explained by pop culture references.

    4. Re:I miss greatly by megalol · · Score: 1

      Cry me a river. Oh noes! My poast does not meet your exacting standards! All my hopes and dreams have been crushed by your stunning pseudo-cultural critique! Get bent.

      Whiney post is whiney.

  16. and... by woboyle · · Score: 2

    This butthead should be in rehab, not running a "serious" security company...

    --
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
  17. I'll bet... by masterwit · · Score: 1

    I'll bet he is going back to school. Learn some basics.

    --
    We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
    1. Re:I'll bet... by masterwit · · Score: 1

      (...and needs more schooling)

      --
      We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
  18. Re:He wasn't fired? by newcastlejon · · Score: 4, Informative

    He partially owned the company. you can't fire someone like that. you have to buy them out.

    That depends on how much a portion he owned. If, say, he owned 15% of the shares and the other 85% of the shareholders say GTFO then that's just what he has to do. He'll still own shares but he won't be CEO or what have you.

    --
    If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  19. Disturbance in the Dark Side? by mfh · · Score: 2

    Emperor Palpatine: "I felt a great disturbance in the dark side, my apprentice, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in joy and were suddenly heard by those in power. I fear something terrible has happened."

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
  20. From TFA by Kozar_The_Malignant · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >Leavy said that the company's partners had been supportive following the hack. The proposals for Bank of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce were simply responses to requests for services that HBGary had received. "HBGary Federal is a services company and they were asked to develop proposals," she told Threatpost.

    I see. That fact that the "services" are illegal, immoral, and unethical really doesn't enter in, because they're a service company and this is a service. Sort of like a hit man is just an HR professional specializing in staff reduction services.

    --
    Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
    1. Re:From TFA by calmofthestorm · · Score: 1

      > Sort of like a hit man is just an HR professional specializing in staff reduction services.

      I smell a sequel to "Up in the Air"

      --
      93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
  21. Re:He wasn't fired? by locallyunscene · · Score: 1

    More likely, he doesn't get the same benefits for "quitting" that he would get for being "fired".

  22. Re:He wasn't fired? by sjames · · Score: 2

    And the money. They always shower them in big piles of money.

  23. Re:He wasn't fired? by fishexe · · Score: 2

    How was this man allowed to keep his job after his shenanigans were made public?

    They couldn't fire him without getting the whole board together and that was cumbersome. Didn't you read the chat logs?

    --
    "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  24. A sign of the times? by Fallout2man · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You know in many ways I'm starting to wonder if the rise of Anonymous could be considered a legitimate political/social phenomena linked to the recession and how people feel increasingly left out of the political process/system because of big money buying our congress' collective ears? Widespread piracy is widely considered by many to be an economic indicator that the market has become too one-sided, maybe this is the political equivalent?

    I saw a post suggesting they may be targeting the Koch Brothers for their involvement in the current Wisconsin/multi-state effort to completely bust Unions. Is this finally the people striking back? Not to say I'm not thankful someone's taking the time to respond, but oh what a sad thing it says about humanity that we have to resort to these types of solutions to keep from getting completely steamrolled by the almighty dollar?

    1. Re:A sign of the times? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't think going up against the Koch brothers or the WI governor is something that'll catch the attention of anonymous. It's too partisan. After all, a good portion of anonymous would like to go up against the unions. Anonymous will go after 'no-brainer' evil... which is basically, in their wordview, censorship. Maybe religion. Maybe fraud.

    2. Re:A sign of the times? by Fallout2man · · Score: 1

      It could possibly be a fake, that's one thing I'm curious about too. The Westboro Baptist Church recently tried to bait them so this could be more bait, or slashdot being a bit cautious after front-paging the fake WBC anon story previously.

    3. Re:A sign of the times? by ron_ivi · · Score: 1

      "the Anonymous vs Koch ... Is it for real?"

      You already know the answer to that.

      Even if you don't realize that you know it.

      But in case you really need it spelled out to you --- yes, indeed someone anonymously ranted something about Koch on teh internet.

      That makes him part of Anonymous just as much as Ben Franklin lobbying European governments under pseudonyms like Benevolous to support the colonies. And as much as Thomas Paine when he Anonymously published his pamphlet Common Sense. Just as you were Anonymous when you asked (and therefore answered) that very question. Just as Spartacus was when all his fans clouded him with anonymity by co-claiming his given name.

      So to answer your question most directly:

      Yes, you too are anonymous, and yes, you did indeed put that Koch thing on slashdot.

    4. Re:A sign of the times? by Fallout2man · · Score: 1

      I think that given the level of transparent cartoonish villainy that's starting to pop up in politics that while yes, a lot of the same people that make up Anonymous are the same people who voted for Ron Paul. Maybe it's just me, but coming as someone who used to share that mindset I would think enough exposure to the current political climate would make them be more likely to side with the Unions than against them.

      I know when I was attracted to that whole Ron Paul, limited government movement my concerns were 100% social justice and social issues and I really didn't concern myself hardly at all with the economic platform. You can imagine my dismay when I found out well over half of the most vocal supporters didn't care at all about social issues and many were in fact advancing horribly regressive social policy (as bad and in some cases worse than the current GOP) and dressing it up as "m0ar fr33d0mz!!!" and were really in it for the economics side because they just wanted to never pay taxes and didn't want Big Mean Ol' Gubbmint' from stopping them from hating on minorities and the poor.

      All it took for me to see that, ironically enough, was for me to stop looking at politics from an ivory tower as a game of theories and to look at real-world data on what policies actually produced results, and were likely to ever be passed in this lifetime in our government. Good politics and good policy are inseparable, because even the best plan in the world is useless if you can't convince anyone to follow it.

    5. Re:A sign of the times? by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Sounds more like public "union" employees are spending too much time during the workday on 4chan.

    6. Re:A sign of the times? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I was in that thread.

      The sentiment was almost entirely pro-Koch Brothers & anti-union. Most capable hackers are as uber conservative as they are uber l337. For that matter, most capable people in general are anti-union, and considering the quality public education experiences of most 4chan users, I would imagine they are anti-teacher's union in particular.

      TLDR: a bunch of no talent liberal newfags tried to personal army request the Koch Brothers and they were greeted with almost universal contempt.

  25. Too late... by oamasood · · Score: 1

    A little background info: Aaron Barr was the CEO of HBGary Federal, a smaller company made by HBGary to do government contracts. HBGary only owned about 15% of HBGary Federal. However, both companies shared username/password information for Aaron Barr, which is why Anonymous easily hacked into HBGary after hacking into HBGary Federal. Anonymous released the HBGary Federal e-mails immediately, and then later on released HBGary's e-mails. My comment: Before Anonymous released HBGary's emails, Penny (the president of HBGary) actually made a deal with Anonymous: If Aaron Barr was fired and his salary given to the Bradley Manning defense fund, then Anonymous would not release the HBGary e-mails. If only Barr had stepped down a bit earlier, HBGary could've possibly saved millions of dollars.

  26. Re:He wasn't fired? by drsmithy · · Score: 2

    More likely, he doesn't get the same benefits for "quitting" that he would get for being "fired".

    You have that backwards. Most likely, he gets all the benefits from "quitting", and would get none for being "fired" (though these days CxOs are so brazen in their greed that their employment contracts probably give them benefits even if they were fired for raping children in the company boardroom).

  27. Re:Next Headline: by thestudio_bob · · Score: 1

    Barr hired by Republican Party (or Fox)...

    I would think that his antics would be more suited for one of the **AA's, which of course is more in line with the DEM's. But whatever.

    --
    The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
  28. Also read as: by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "I'm getting the hell out of here because I got exposed as a fraud that really knows nothing."

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  29. May I recommend: by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    May I recommend also shuttering the company and all the companies like it, and the US government? How is it okay to use intimidation to try to prevent the release of incriminating documents? Moving on from that should mean reversing course. Does anybody care that the US government operates with fewer scruples than the mafia? This is insane.

    1. Re:May I recommend: by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

      Actually, most people do not care, and if you bring it up, they will shrug it off as if it is something to be expected. For all the high ideals on which our country was founded, most people just do not care, as long as they can get their entertainment and celebrity gossip and whatnot.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:May I recommend: by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      Yeah, quite frequently people argue that this is just the way the game is played. Might be a valid excuse for a country the size of Belgium. However the US - one of the biggest economies of the world, controlling of half the world's military - has a big say in how the game is played.

    3. Re:May I recommend: by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Except that, having one of the largest economies, and half the worlds military, means being pretty invested in this game.

      Ever heard Bill Hick's old rant about how "life is a ride"?

      The World is like a ride in an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it you think it's real, because that's how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round, and it has thrills and chills and is very brightly colored, and it's very loud. And it's fun, for a while.

      Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they've begun to question, 'Is this real, or is this just a ride?', and other people have remembered, and they've come back to us and they say 'Hey, don't worry. Don't be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride.' and we KILL THOSE PEOPLE.

      "Shut him up! We have alot invested in this ride! SHUT HIM UP! Look at my furrows of worry. Look at my big bank account, and my family. This has to be real."

      It's just a ride.

      (More of it is here: http://anti-union.blogspot.com/2008/10/bill-hicks-life-is-but-ride.html )

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  30. hes actually going to start an MMO by decora · · Score: 1

    go to the archive of their emails and do a keyword search for MMO

  31. Re:He wasn't fired? by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

    though these days CxOs are so brazen in their greed that their employment contracts probably give them benefits even if they were fired for raping children in the company boardroom

    When did that become a firing-worthy offense for these guys?

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  32. its been trademarked by anonymous they will .... by decora · · Score: 1

    just kidding

  33. anonymous chooses targets that target it. by decora · · Score: 2

    the only reason it went against scientology is because scientology was attacking random people all over the internet with lawsuits. that is why anonymous fought back.

    anonymous is never going to go after drug lords or human traffickers or etc. they go after people who @#$$ with them. The HBGary guy was going after them directly, trying to 'out' them by scraping facebook etc. that is why they went at him.

  34. Re:Next Headline: by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

    A definite shoe-in for the Cyber Security Czar position.

  35. The real reason he is leaving: by hey! · · Score: 2

    He shot Alexander Humilton.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  36. Ah, nice logic by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So basically, I shouldn't use any freedoms because that might give fuel to someone wishing to limit them?

    So gay people, don't be gay or people might forbid it.

    A spine, you need one. Or afraid if you get one, people will forbid it?

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

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

    1. Re:Ah, nice logic by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      And if the antics of Anonymous were 100% legal, you'd have a point. As many of their antics are clearly illegal (like hacking into a security firm), you really have no damned point and just look like an idiot. You are not free to break the law.

    2. Re:Ah, nice logic by fishexe · · Score: 2

      And if the antics of Anonymous were 100% legal, you'd have a point. As many of their antics are clearly illegal (like hacking into a security firm), you really have no damned point and just look like an idiot. You are not free to break the law.

      Laws are nothing more and nothing less than devices for controlling people.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    3. Re:Ah, nice logic by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Most laws are created by those with money and power in an attempt to maintain the status quo, e.g. keep the money and power in the hands of those that currently have the money and power. "Controlling people" is not necessarily a bad thing; as a society we agree that certain acts such as murder, assault, theft are harmful, and laws simply codify punishment for these antisocial acts. Other laws seem designed primarily to protect corporations' existing business models; these laws appear to themselves be antisocial. Laws are just tools; like any other type of tool, they can be used to achieve societal good or harm.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    4. Re:Ah, nice logic by DurendalMac · · Score: 1

      Under false pretenses as the person on the other end had hijacked an employee email account. Not to say the sysadmin wasn't an idiot, but the hacker still did some very, VERY illegal things.

    5. Re:Ah, nice logic by fishexe · · Score: 1

      I agree with everything you just said.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
    6. Re:Ah, nice logic by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are not free to break the law.

      Yes, yes you are. There may be consequences.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  37. Good riddance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Frankly I lost all respect for the guy back when the sonuvabitch shot Alexander Humilton.

    1. Re:Good riddance. by darjen · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I didn't mind that so much. That Humilton guy was kind of a douche, imho.

  38. No. by Rix · · Score: 1

    Please have an orderly shut down of your company. The internets haz spoken. Disobey at your peril.

  39. Irrelevant by Rix · · Score: 2

    They could find and prosecute every single person even tertiarily involved and the hive would simply get stronger.

    We are all Anonymous.

    1. Re:Irrelevant by newcastlejon · · Score: 2

      We are all Anonymous.

      No, you have to tick that box up there ^

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
  40. the zen of arrogance by slick7 · · Score: 1

    It just goes to show that those who know do not speak and those that speak, do not know. Actions always prove stronger than words.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
  41. Um, wait by toby · · Score: 1

    You just posted THIS on SLASHDOT???

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:Um, wait by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Uh... good point. In my defense, I certainly hope that this slashdot account is in no way traceable to my actual identity, even though one acquaintance has been able to deduce my actual identity from my posts.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  42. Still doesn't get it by macraig · · Score: 1

    Barr still doesn't grasp the obvious fact that he did Bad Things, meaning things that aren't ethical and damage rather than serve the Common Good. Good riddance, psychopath. Yet another corporate criminal who got off easy when he should have got the guillotine.

  43. You do realize that Aaron Barr is the real winner by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Book and movies deals. Made for tv movies about his now public divorce. Paid interviews. Perversely a paid consultant about what NOT to do.... The dude is going to be a millionaire.

    I posted this as anon coward a few times, nobody seemed to notice.

    This whole shabby experience will set up this sleaze bag for life.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  44. Re:You do realize that Aaron Barr is the real winn by udoschuermann · · Score: 1

    Unless Anonymous grabs him by the ankles and drags him straight to hell.

    --
    --Udo.
  45. Summary, please. by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

    Useful summary information might include answers to, what's an HBGary Federal? Maybe something about what was in the emails that caused embarrassment. Those kinds of things.

    --
    Their they're doing there hair.
    1. Re:Summary, please. by fishexe · · Score: 1

      Hand in your geek card.

      If this were not Slashdot, I would agree with you, but...this is Slashdot. Everyone's supposed to know what HBGary Federal is by now.

      --
      "I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
  46. drug lords as in the guys in mexico beheading kids by decora · · Score: 1

    thats the type of drug lords im referring to.

  47. Level the playing field by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

    The way to level the playing field against large corporations is for citizens to form their own corporations. For example a "Buyer's Cooperative" which would use the buying power of it's members to negotiate better deals.

  48. Re:He wasn't fired? by coolgeek · · Score: 1

    Not so sure about that. If they didn't already have protective clauses against negligence built-in to their partnership agreement, they might be able to wrest the shares away from him with the threat of litigation for his negligence.

    --

    cat /dev/null >sig
  49. Re:You do realize that Aaron Barr is the real winn by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    Uh huh.

    I would suggest that Anonymous stay behind the keyboard. In the real world messing with a bunch of Iraq war veterans might not go as well as their online exploits.
     

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  50. Re:He wasn't fired? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    Not before the video shows up on the internet.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  51. Re:drug lords as in the guys in mexico beheading k by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    What came first, the powerful drug lord, or the drug laws?

    Before the drug laws, the biggest "threat" from drugs was some snake oil salesman selling you an addictive "cure all" based on ridiculous claims.

    Now we have huge professional companies who specialize in that legally.... and whole classes of illegal drugs with their violent drug lords, who behead kids. Take away their drugs and prostitution and what have you got? A few violent thugs who would be a minor nuissance going around shaking down stores for protection money, and other more risky, less profitable crime.

    Certainly they are bad guys but... they are worst for the power they are given, for the huge market that was left for them to rule.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"