Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous Denies Sony Claims of Disruption, Credit Info Theft

Posted by timothy on from the singular-or-plural-dammit dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Yesterday, in a letter to Congress, Sony detailed the steps they were taking to resolve the issues that have been plaguing them since the PlayStation Network and SOE online components were hacked, claiming to have found evidence linking the crime to Anonymous. Now, Anonymous has responded."

27 of 275 comments (clear)

  1. No they havent by OverlordQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now, Anonymous has responded.

    No, one person has responded. As has been touted many many many times by people on Slashdot whenever news organizations do it, there is no central authority, there is no registered list. So yes, while that clique may not have done it, does not mean another clique didn't.

    --
    Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    1. Re:No they havent by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Funny

      In other words, some part of the infantile emotionally-retarded "collective" didn't penetrate Sony's network, but some other part of the infantile emotionally-retarded "collective" did. But, maybe they were forced to do it while John Travolta held a gun to their head and Halle Berry gave them a blowjob.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:No they havent by Ruke · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This brings up some interesting questions about the Anonymous collective. If some Serbian hacker who wanted credit cards, and does not participate in any of the IRC/BBS/etc that "Anonymous" hangs out in, claims to be Anonymous, is he? Do you need to hold any of the (loosely defined) common values that Anonymous tends to, in order to be properly considered Anonymous?

      I understand that the implication in this case, however, is that some members of Anonymous are claiming that this was done by a person or group who would not self-identify as Anonymous; rather, this person or group merely wants to make it look like the loose-collective "Anonymous" performed the hack in order to shift attention away from themselves and towards others who would self-identify as Anonymous.

    3. Re:No they havent by Legal.Troll · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a rather predictable consequence of forming a "group" based on anonymity and total absence of central authority. Anyone who claims to be Anonymous is Anonymous. Anyone who says "Anonymous" did something is lying if and only if the thing was NOT ACTUALLY DONE. Wonderful message-spreading platform you've got for yourself, kids.

      --
      "Outdated business models" is code for "I don't like paying for things, but want them anyway"
    4. Re:No they havent by anomaly256 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      call them whatever names you want, they've still done a lot of good work bringing to light corruption and lies our governments feed us. The means might not justify the ends but I dare say they do..

    5. Re:No they havent by mug+funky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      i'd contend that if nobody shared their intention with others, then there was no acting as a group.

      even if "the leader of anonymous" performed this data grab, if they didn't tell anybody there's no way you can say "anonymous did it".

      so IRC chat logs, postings on anonops or whatever they call it, etc. it's a trivial matter to look this stuff up if you want to find it.

      if there's no sign of these places discussing hacking into PSN and stealing member's details, you can be pretty sure that Anonymous didn't do it.

      i believe they've actually stated early on that their DDoS was hurting PSN users, and they didn't want that - they wanted to hurt Sony, but not gamers. so they changed their strategy (or at least, issued a statement saying "if you're DDoSing PSN, plz stop lol kthxbai", which is as much authority as anon can have over its own members).

      of course, some internet tough guy might have got in during the anon attacks, who identified as anonymous, and decided to take it upon him/herself to steal shit and leave a calling card on behalf of his group. remember there's a lot of misfits out there.

    6. Re:No they havent by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sony alleges that 'Anonymous' did it; that clearly implies the flavor of the group that has become surprisingly centralized for such a decentralized organization. That core group is presumably the one that responded. Within this context, 'Anonymous' must mean the somewhat centrally led version, otherwise the central question ('Did Anonymous do this?') isn't even well posed.

      Put another way, if the allegation itself can't even be properly bounded, it doesn't really need to responded to. And if Sony can't do better than 'Anonymous did it', they certainly won't get to issuing subpoenas, asset seizures, or criminal charges anyway, making the point moot anyway.

      Basically, put up or shut up, Sony. You need better evidence than 'Kilroy was here'.

    7. Re:No they havent by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If you want to understand Anonymous you need to watch the Ghost in the Shell anime. Anonymous is a seeded attempt at the "Laughing Man" of the series.

      With respect to this case, the entire body of evidence linking Anonymous with this intrusion is nothing more than a single file that Sony "claims" to have found on their system. Even "if" this file actually existed, and was found rather than "placed" by Sony employees, it's is analogous to finding a business card on the bank floor after a heist has taken place.

      Regardless of who actually penetrated Sony's systems, there is a serious issue that doesn't seem to be getting the attention it deserves. Sony wasn't minding the shop. Independent researchers informed Sony of their vulnerable systems and Sony ignored them. If a very attractive girl decides to strip naked and run around inside a men's prison should the girl not be at least partially responsible for anything that happens to her. Now in the case of Sony it isn't much different, except for them they aren't just opening themselves up for abuse, they are opening up everyone of their customers whom entrusted them with their exploitable financial data.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    8. Re:No they havent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "If you want to understand Anonymous you need to watch the Ghost in the Shell anime. Anonymous is a seeded attempt at the "Laughing Man" of the series."

      And you need to re-watch it. The name "Stand-Alone Complex" comes from the fact that there was no Laughing Man. All the "Laughing Man" attacks were all actually inside jobs, corporate attempts at scamming insurers and securing government bailouts. They were all "copycats" for which there never really was an original.

      Anonymous isn't trying to recreate "Laughing Man" here, Sony is, and for the same reasons.

    9. Re:No they havent by schnell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      they've still done a lot of good work bringing to light corruption and lies our governments feed us.

      I thought this was about Anonymous, not Wikileaks. Anonymous in particular and 4chan in general has not brought to light anything I'm aware of except tentactle porn torrents.

      Or have all Slashbot favorite entities merged into one? We can call it GNU WikiBuntuDroidNonymous. Like "Muad'dib" becoming a killing word, its very name will become a nerd totem of +5 Righteousness and +20 Defense Against Potential Girlfriends.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    10. Re:No they havent by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they did any good it was purely a side effect that occurred while they were getting their lulz.

      Which makes the good they do that much sweeter.

      Noble intent is fleeting and often unreliable as a motivation. Lulz are forever.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    11. Re:No they havent by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I beg to differ, a stupid victim is in part responsible and so do in a manner of speaking by your statement about Sony failing to apply due diligence. Which of course they hadn't. Researchers months prior discovered that they not only did not have a firewall, but also, unpatched server software. These researchers notified Sony of this vulnerability but Sony ignored them.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  2. Deflection by Trip6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Blame your own incompetence on a well known public entity. A trick as old as the hills.

    --
    I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
    1. Re:Deflection by shish · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And made all the easier by Anonymous' nature -- it only takes one member (or one mole) to say "we did it", and even if all the others say "we didn't", the media can still point at that first voice as an authoritative one...

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
  3. Derp by Lysander7 · · Score: 5, Funny

    People need to research more before assuming anything. Sony explicitly stated they found verifiable evidence it was Anonymous, as the files the hacker had left behind said "We are Anonymous. We are legion." How that can be confused for anything else is beyond me.

    1. Re:Derp by Lysander7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Also, Anonymous is more than a well-known public entity. Many are trolls, whiteknights, immature children, and sophisticated hackers. I know, as I'm one of them. Not just a casual 4chan lurker, I mean the Anonymous underground. I don't agree with the hackings, but just because Anonymous officially denies it does not mean their word is to be trusted, or that it wasn't a member doing it independently of the organization.

    2. Re:Derp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      $ echo "We are legion" > Anonymous.txt

      Should I call the FBI now and get them to investigate an "intrusion perpetrated by Anonymous"?

      Seriously, if you think a text file left behind is proof of anything, I hope you never get called into jury duty.

    3. Re:Derp by Ruke · · Score: 5, Interesting

      While the DDOS-attack does seem like it was very likely Anonymous, the credit breach doesn't quite seem their style. Anonymous tends to be in it to make Sony look bad - if they had stolen 100 million PSN accounts, I'd expect to see 100 million PSN accounts up on The Pirate Bay pretty quick. I'd expect a statement bragging about how easy it was, how lax Sony's security was. I wouldn't expect for-profit identity theft. Stealing credit card info seems a step or two above "doing it for the lulz."

      I could be wrong. It would definitely be wrong to put Anonymous above suspicion; they have a motive and and the ability. It just doesn't seem like their MO.

    4. Re:Derp by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not just a casual 4chan lurker, I mean the Anonymous underground.

      Soooo.... you post on 4chan.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    5. Re:Derp by mentil · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It gets stranger. According to their recent updates for the SOE hack, the hackers used 'sophisticated means [...] to cover their tracks'.
      Why go to a lot of trouble to cover your tracks, yet purposely leave a file implicating Anonymous? Either the access was done over a period of time, and the tracks were covered to keep continued access (not something I'd imagine Anonymous would care to do), or the evidence was left to divert investigators away from the real source of the hacks.
      Leaving behind a calling-card then letting Anonymous make 2 statements (one when the PSN outage first began) that they weren't responsible, without releasing a counter-statement claiming responsibility and acting on behalf of Anonymous, suggests that this person is either so on the fringe of association with Anonymous they have no contact with other members, or they're trying to pass suspicion/investigative efforts/blame to Anonymous.
      Any way you look at it, you can't blame the greater body of Anonymous.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    6. Re:Derp by JWSmythe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You know, I was tracking defacement attacks for a while. For the ones I investigated, I found that the "evidence" they left behind rarely if ever really corresponded to the actual hacker. I saw so many "Chinese" and "Russian" defacement, that could be easily traced to kids in the US, especially during school vacations.

          Hell, if I just broke into Sony's network, stole a metric fuck-ton of passwords and credit card credentials, I'd sure as hell leave behind some "evidence" that pointed towards someone else. What'd they expect? "Hi, I just broke into your server. My name is JW Smythe. My address is 14 Hacker Way, New York, NY, 10011. Come by and visit me any time. I'll be buying Internet porn with all these stolen cards, so knock before you come in."

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  4. But Anonymous says it isn't top-down organized by poity · · Score: 3, Informative

    They're like-minded individuals who coalesce to serve a shared whim at a particular time. If so, then it is indeed difficult to pin any particular action or crime upon its body for prosecution, but at the same time it is equally difficult, if not more so, to unpin any accusations. I think we're seeing here one of the downsides to organizations whose structure of responsibility is nearly flat, where not only does the left hand not know what the right is doing, each hair on each finger doesn't know what the rest are doing. In light of their historic antics, those who align themselves with Anonymous fight an uphill battle to shed themselves of ill-repute whenever any such indictments surface. But they get no remorse from me -- it's a choice they've made and a reality they have to deal with.

    --
    your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  5. No Plausible Deniability by bluemonq · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was under the impression that *anyone* can be Anonymous. If that's the case, Anonymous can't prove that Anonymous didn't do it.

    1. Re:No Plausible Deniability by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who says those people make the rules? How does one impose order on an anarchist organization?

    2. Re:No Plausible Deniability by shish · · Score: 4, Informative

      Some of them have communication channels that they use to co-ordinate. If there was no mention of it on those Anonymous channels, then it's not activity of that branch of Anonymous. According to the article linked, some of them invite journalists into some of their channels.

      FTFY

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    3. Re:No Plausible Deniability by exentropy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Innocent until proven guilty.

  6. WHO responded? by melikamp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the response was anonymous, how do we know that the people who responded were the same as those who DDOSed? This, in a nutshell, is the idiocy of treating Anonymous as a group of people, however loosely organized. It would be better to call them what they are in this particular instance: Sony customers who are really pissed off.