Hacker Group LulzSec Challenges FBI

Tiek00n writes "Hacker Group 'LulzSec' has gained some attention recently for their hacks of PBS and Sony. Their most recent target: FBI affiliate Infragard. The group claims, 'It has come to our unfortunate attention that NATO and our good friend Barrack Osama-Llama 24th-century Obama have recently upped the stakes with regard to hacking. They now treat hacking as an act of war. So, we just hacked an FBI affiliated website (Infragard, specifically the Atlanta chapter) and leaked its user base. We also took complete control over the site and defaced it...'"

Comments

Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

Well done LulzSec. Exposing the hypocrisy in the US government... condemning hacking while funding it themselves.

Re:Haha

[MacTO]

How is that hypocrisy? If you define hacking as an attack on military or civilian infrastructure, then you're playing with the big boys. And those big boys get to define it as anything from a teenaged prank to a full out declaration of war -- based upon who attacked and what the consequences of those actions are. In a lot of respects it's no different than launching an assault by good old fashioned physical means.

So if you're treating this as a joke, grow up. These are real actions with real consequences.

Re:Haha

[Anonymous Coward]

Or recognize the reality that governments have a different set of priorities and agendas from those of the /. crowd.

Re:Haha

[gl4ss]

**How is that hypocrisy? If you define hacking as an attack on military or civilian infrastructure, then you're playing with the big boys. And those big boys get to define it as anything from a teenaged prank to a full out declaration of war **

that's the point, now they have to decide which is it.

they have to make a public stand about if hacking fbi counts as an "act of war", it either does and they have to start thinking what that actually means, or it doesn't, in which case, what the fuck would count as hacking equivalent to act of war if not messing with internal police operations(a real batch of irony forming in there).

anyways, who are they gonna bomb? la suburbs? same with iran though.

Re:Haha

[stanlyb]

Then they have to define the "Global Warming" as an act of war. And then beware global warming, you are warned, either give up, or face the powerful and undefeated USA army. Then in matter of a few day/months/years/decades their leader will be killed, in the eye, while watching "hot" events. I just imagine...

Re:Haha

[pipatron]

You haven't read 1984? The government need the excuse of a permanent war against an unspecified enemy in order to get away with most anything, making it easy to approve tax hikes, keeping operations secret in the name of state security, and keeping the citizens in place. A few decades ago you had the "Communists". Up until recently you had the "Terrorists". In a decade you'll have the "Hackers". Since they do not really exist in any tangible or organized way they can not be beaten and they are no real threat, but they are useful for scaring the population.

Re:Haha

[future assassin]

>So if you're treating this as a joke, grow up. These are real actions with real consequences.

So you're one of those neighbors who'd sell out the guy next door if he stood up to the governments corruption. I see.... Revolution Action has to start somewhere and if its someone using their skill to do it and making others take notice so be it.

Re:Haha

[jhigh]

I realize that asking people posting on Slashdot to RTFA is asking too much, but if half the people posting on this article understood basic English...well, there would be about half as many posts and LulzSec would look like the morons that they are.

The Pentagon does not classify hacking as an act of war. What they are doing is stating that hacking by a foreign power may constitute an act of war. There is a world of difference, and understanding that difference sheds some light on just how dumb LulzSec really is for their behavior. Here's hoping they get the jail time that they deserve for acting like spoiled teenagers.

Re:Haha

[nonsequitor]

Attacking the utility infrastructure versus defacing an FBI website and rooting their server without causing any significant harm are 2 very different crimes. Considering the effect the lulzsec group is having on security awareness, it could even be considered a good thing. These guys are operating for the most part transparently, they aren't hacking the servers and keeping it secret to use against the targets. Yes, it's an embarrassingly public data breach, but after compromising the infrastructure, they don't go and exploit this access stealing identities or otherwise engage in criminal activities (from the sound of it).

They're providing a service free of charge that most responsible corporations pay good money for, if anything we should be thanking them for encouraging good security to prevent embarrassment before someone does something truly malicious to all those people effected by these data breaches. Think of it this way, if you were the emperor and wore no clothes, would you persecute the person who pointed it out?

Re:Haha

[econolog]

Not to be a douche but they are called cyber-terrorists and the US has already thrown the term around some. To be fair to the US government there are people who want to harm the US and people in general. There is information publicly available on how to build nuclear devices, bio-weapons, and chemical weapons. These can be as small as a briefcase and smaller. There is a legitimate need for security and monitoring considering the number of people one of these alone can kill. To counter this, there was a time when "freedom" was worth lives. Today it still is though the way this is done is differently. The world is not a simple place. Within these clumped together groups (IE: US Government, NSA,etc.) you have individual actors who can have individual motives contrary to those stated. There can be double (or more) agents. There can be conflicts about methodology internally. There are a lot of factors in every event/action and I think the internet in general has been blind to this.

Re:Haha

[Original Replica]

Sadly the service that LulzSec is providing is that of: "Now Feds have reason for totalitarian internet laws and broad ISP log searches."

Re:Haha

[IICV]

A few decades ago you had the "Communists". Up until recently you had the "Terrorists". In a decade you'll have the "Hackers". Since they do not really exist in any tangible or organized way they can not be beaten and they are no real threat, but they are useful for scaring the population.

Ah, but see - the difference between "Communists", "Terrorists" and "Hackers" is that the first two didn't really speak English, and they didn't ridicule their targets. If, instead of flying planes into the WTC on 9/11, the terrorists had just made the airplanes do loop-de-loops to show how useless airline security was, you can bet that our response would have been significantly different.

The outcome of ridicule, which seems to be the future, is much different than the outcome of direct confrontation.

Re:Haha

[xyourfacekillerx]

It's not their data. It's not their property. They don't have a right to inspect or collect or distribute someone else's data. It's not any different than someone breaking into your house, rooting through your drawers, and handing out photocopies of whatever documents they find there.

For every pro-hacker on Slashdot, these are people who will still call the police if someone breaks into their house. Will the police say, "We see no reason to pursue this; those crackheads were providing you with a free service, exposing flaws in your security measures! Lesson learned". No, and the pro-hacker would be distraught if that was the response. These are the true hypocrites. The hackers and pro-hackers value their own property, demand everyone respects their ownership rights, but then they claim universal ownership over everyone else's things.

Re:Haha

[xyourfacekillerx]

Sadly the service that LulzSec is providing is that of: "Now Feds have reason for totalitarian internet laws and broad ISP log searches."

Very true. All the post-9/11 "freedom restriction acts" legislated by the US or enacted by executive order, these policies were made under provocation. They wouldn't exist if the terrorists left us alone. And this talk about taking on hackers? It wouldn't be happening if hackers would stop poking the sleeping giant. But how will the US take them on? By sweeping infringements on all citizens rights. Thank a lot for nothing, Lulzsec. You aren't protesting for freedom's sake. You're the ones ultimately to blame for the coming civil rights mess.

Re:Haha

[xyourfacekillerx]

Hypocrisy... based on what exactly? You strung some words together, but you didn't use them to make any kind of intelligible point.

Re:Haha

[xyourfacekillerx]

Yea, and when we went to Afghanistan and Iraq, all the anti-war demonstrators argued terrorists are just a scare tactic; terrorists don't exist in any tangible way, they're an unorganized, unassociated, loosely connected mystery lurking in the shadows; they weren't real targets, they said.

Well, we found them, and we still do, and we kill them. Hackers can be found. I dont' know why hackers think they're immune to the law. Maybe it's just been a long time since they had anyone with the resources to do anything about their antics, but now they are people of interest. And if they keep it up, resources will be dedicated to find them, and kill or incarcerate them.

Re:Haha

[kuei12]

You miss your online Playstation, don't you?

Re:Haha

[DarkOx]

Yes, but big government infringes peoples rights each and every day, they just might not happen to be infringing on yours today. The thing is from you post I can tell you are the type that will sit by and say nothing while I get shipped down the river without cause or justice on the side of those taking such action.

They only way to get you to stand up and do the VERY LEAST YOU COULD and VOTE to throw the bums out, is cause a little of the grief to come your way. The larger the part of the population the government can be teased into abusing at the same time, the great HOPE there is for REAL CHANGE.

Re:Haha

[biodata]

>Will the police say, "We see no reason to pursue this; those crackheads were providing you with a free service, exposing flaws in your security measures! Lesson learned" That's exactly what they would say if you left your door open in a known crackhead area I suspect.

Re:Haha

[cavreader]

These guys are a godsend to those fighting to clamp down on the Internet. They have already given enough ammunition to those looking to increase government monitoring and restrict both access and content. They are also playing with fire. If you don't think the government 3 letter agencies have access to both the people and technology needed to identify groups like this you fooling yourselves. And the penalties being leveled these days on those who are caught are severe.

Re:Haha

[Fjandr]

They wouldn't exist if the terrorists left us alone.

You don't know much about intelligence works then. When there is no real enemy, one is frequently manufactured in order to consolidate power by those at the top. The ones to blame are those who continue to support the political status quo. They're the ones who either vote for the same people, or refuse to vote at all. To pull from a previous discussion, Lulz is responsible in part for the response by the government. However, the people culpable for the policy are those who make the reactive policy, and ultimately the US populace in general who put them into power.

It's entirely likely that there exist hacker groups who have been or will be used, directly or indirectly, by intelligence services in order to justify measures they wish to put into place.

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/COINTELPRO is but one example of this.

To put it another way, this statement is both as true and false as the above quote from your post: Terrorists wouldn't exist if we left them alone.

Re:Haha

[cffrost]

Here's hoping they get the jail time that they deserve for acting like spoiled teenagers.

Acting like spoiled teenagers is punishable by imprisonment?

Re:Haha

[gd2shoe]

So... You're under the mistaken impression that greater attacks lead to fewer freedoms which in turn lead to changes in the political structure and more freedom? You're nuts.

... the VERY LEAST YOU COULD and VOTE to throw the bums out...

While I agree with the sentiment, It's not that simple. "The bums" inhabit both political parties (they look different only superficially). Duverger's law states that any first-past-the-post voting system will result in a two party system. Stated simply, people know that third party candidates cannot win, therefore they only vote for the lesser of two evils, and therefore third party candidates cannot win. It's stupid and cyclical, but it's also reality. Bringing about change in a two party system is very, very slow and painful. It would be somewhat faster if we could change our voting system, but that too is a long, long ways off.

Re:Haha

[bedouin]

The bin Laden hunter: ex-CIA man had bin Laden in his sights 10 times

Yep, told to hold fire 10 times so 10 years of bullshit scare tactics and neo-colonization could continue.

Re:Haha

[mick_S3]

You haven't read 1984? The government need the excuse of a permanent war against an unspecified enemy in order to get away with most anything, making it easy to approve tax hikes, keeping operations secret in the name of state security, and keeping the citizens in place. A few decades ago you had the "Communists". Up until recently you had the "Terrorists". In a decade you'll have the "Hackers". Since they do not really exist in any tangible or organized way they can not be beaten and they are no real threat, but they are useful for scaring the population.

ding ding, we have a winnar!

Re:Haha

[nonsequitor]

I'll have you note I referred to both as crimes, one is criminal mischief, the other an act of war.

Re:Haha

[nonsequitor]

A better analogy would be the 'hacker' walking on to a secure military facility, in real life, completely unchallenged, collecting sensitive data to prove he got in and out undetected and going to the town hall with it to present his evidence to the community to report the vulnerability.

Do you even know what a SQL injection attack is? A common one is the user/password authentication, you enter in a fake user/pass combo and put

' or '1'='1

at the end to terminate the sql string and inject additional script so after the fake user/pass lookup fails, the or 1=1 test passes and you log on anyway.

The fact that these sort of dumbass errors abound, when these vulnerability classes have been known for over a decade is beyond negligent. The fact the law says that having half ass security makes it a crime to access the computer is fine, but when millions of individuals confidential data is protected by the rule of law instead of actual state of the art security practices, it's a problem.

Re:Haha

[sixsixtysix]

While I agree with the sentiment, It's not that simple. "The bums" inhabit both political parties (they look different only superficially). Duverger's law states that any first-past-the-post voting system will result in a two party system. Stated simply, people know that third party candidates cannot win, therefore they only vote for the lesser of two evils, and therefore third party candidates cannot win. It's stupid and cyclical, but it's also reality. Bringing about change in a two party system is very, very slow and painful. It would be somewhat faster if we could change our voting system, but that too is a long, long ways off.

let's start with term limits for everything.

Re:Haha

[gd2shoe]

I once agreed with that sentiment. Unfortunately, the net result tends to be that it chases out the few people who aught to be there just after they figure out how congress works. On the other hand, there's always someone willing to do exactly as the lobbyists and special interests ask. It's done a real number on California politics (which was messed up to start with).

Re:Haha

[torgis]

>

The outcome of ridicule, which seems to be the future, is much different than the outcome of direct confrontation.

Given the astronomical levels of stupidity I've seen from the ruling class in America, most politicians seem to not only be immune to ridicule, many might actually thrive on it. As long as the hackers stick to ridicule and not direct confrontation, they should be fine.

Re:Haha

[DaveV1.0]

An attack by a small group of people against a government installation may be considered a criminal attack or an act of terrorism.

An attack by another nation against a government installation would probably be considered an act of war.

Substitute computer system for installation in the above and you will see you are using a false dichotomy. It depends on who is committing the attack. If the North Korea hacks the FBI, then it may be considered an act of war. If YOU do it, then it will probably be considered a criminal act.. If a coordinated group does it, it may be considered an act of terrorism as well as a crime. And, if the group is backed by a government, it may be considered an act of war, an act of terrorism, and/or and criminal act.
 
Really, your understanding of the law is quite simplistic and childish.

Re:Haha

[sixsixtysix]

all candidates should know how [position they're running for] works before the first campaign dollar is raised. maybe a test or something. they should be required to read anything they vote on. besides term limits, i'd like to do away with all lobbying, as their is a very, very fine line between pacs and bribery. also, no more piggybacking things onto other bills. each one should be straightforward and on-topic. maybe then they could weed out the unscrupulous ones.

Re:Haha

[sixsixtysix]

fuck. their = there. /self-punch

Re:Haha

[Agent0013]

All the post-9/11 "freedom restriction acts" legislated by the US or enacted by executive order, these policies were made under provocation. They wouldn't exist if the terrorists left us alone.

This is false. It is quite well known that the laws (PATRIOT ACT) were written before the attack had occured. In fact, there was not even enough time for congress to write new bills after 9/11 before they passed them into law.

Re:Haha

[jambox]

Indeed, if those responsible for 9/11 really had a legitimate protest to make, they may well have done loop-de-loops, or something more like that. Blow up the Old Bailey like in V for Vendetta, why not? What they really wanted was to provoke a military response and that's what they got. In their reasoning, that's the best way to hurt the US. Same strategy sure worked pretty good on the USSR; the constant drain of their Afghan war certainly hastened the end.

Section 31

[improfane]

FBI? Puh-leaze.

Hack Section 31 and then I'd be impressed.

Re:Section 31

[improfane]

The songs on your site remind me of Hawkwind a bit.

Re:Section 31

[arisvega]

And I hope they never get them, because their treatment will be really unfair. Even by FBI standards.

Re:Section 31

[LizardKing]

Glad you like it! Our influences are pretty broad - punk, new wave and goth mostly but there's also a lot of electronic stuff and even a smattering of ska in our shared tastes. We mostly play venues like The Underworld and Purple Turtle in Camden, and clubs like the Slimelight. We missed out on the European festivals this year, since we didn't have a promo ready in time, but should be playing some club gigs on the continent in the Autumn.

Re:Section 31

[LizardKing]

I'm not denying that there may be some Hawkwind in our record collections ... I may even be listening to "Quark, Strangeness and Charm" since I read your comment :-)

Re:Section 31

[welshmnt]

Good God! Is the Slimelight still going? Not far from the Angel tube, yes? Haven`t been there in YEARS.

Re:Section 31

[LizardKing]

Yup, Slimelight's still going - in the same venue it's had for the last twenty or so years. They've even started cleaning the toilets occasionally.

Clever

[asto21]

Take a site down first and then make sure it stays down by slashdotting it.

Thay also defaced Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is Slashdot slashdotted? These 503 errors have been happening for a couple of days now.

Re:Thay also defaced Slashdot

[zach_the_lizard]

They seem to happen most on my iPhone, and only on certain articles. Very annoying.

Re:Thay also defaced Slashdot

[drinkypoo]

To me it has nothing to do with which article, they just sort of come and go. I haven't tried accessing /. yet from anything but my natty x64 desktop with firefox.

Re:Thay also defaced Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

But it gives more of us a chance to see the "Guru Meditation" gag. That's worth it.

Re:Thay also defaced Slashdot

[taiwanjohn]

I've been wondering the same thing for the last week or so.

Re:Thay also defaced Slashdot

[Qzukk]

Slashdot has so many gurus meditating, the entire damn datacenter had better be levitating a mile off the ground.

Re:Thay also defaced Slashdot

[gl4ss]

that would explain why firehouse is full of spam.

but seriously, nope. it's just that other tech blogs are now full of hype shit, moderation and censorship.

Re:Thay also defaced Slashdot

[nospam007]

I have a permanent turning '*Working..." message at the bottom on all discussions.

Re:Thay also defaced Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhhmmmmmm iiiiggaaaaa.

Re:Thay also defaced Slashdot

[NeutronCowboy]

That's noscript blocking addthis.com.

Re:Thay also defaced Slashdot

[catmistake]

If we don't finish our meditation, we get... cranky.

Re:Thay also defaced Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't seen Guru Meditation numbers since my old Amiga 1000 days. Scared the hell out of me the first time I saw one. Whole screen shifts down, big bright red flashing box appears at the top of the screen with this nasty infernal Guru Meditation number (a few years after I got the box, I got an error listing to determine what the numbers mean). I added "Guru Meditation numbers" to my own site's 404 page.

Re:Thay also defaced Slashdot

[sjames]

The working message isn't working!

Re:Thay also defaced Slashdot

[MagusSlurpy]

They seem to happen most on my iPhone, and only on certain articles. Very annoying.

Would that be the articles about MacDefender?

Act of war.

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's clear from the emails leaked that the US of A just started a war with Libya.

Re:Act of war.

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean, "started"? USA has been bombing Libya for weeks already.

Re:Act of war.

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean, "started"? USA has been bombing Libya for weeks already.

You don't honestly expect slashbots to be aware of what's happening in the world around them, do you? And besides, as everyone knows, they're NEVER wrong...

Clear acts of War

[Khyber]

I wonder if the people of the USA have any legal recourse to arrest our own government for illegal acts of war since the evidence is out in the open, not to mention violating human rights by attempting to maintain slave labor conditions (The recent Levi Strauss/Haiti revelation) for profit.

Oh, and shall we drop on charges of illegal renditions of other countries leaders (how do you think Haiti happened?)

Re:Clear acts of War

[erroneus]

There are measures which can lead to a recall of government leaders. Problem is, you need to organize and the moment you do, somehow you end up on no-fly and other lists and if you wish to "legally" assemble into a group, you have to ask permission.

Re:Clear acts of War

[countertrolling]

'Legal" recourse? No... But the law is inconsequential now... Only the power of weaponry matters.. Laws are for the weak and the stupid

Re:Clear acts of War

[Warmlight]

It's not law but the Declaration of Independence says:

...that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence....

Again, it's not law but it is one of the documents on which our country is based.

Re:Clear acts of War

[geekymachoman]

Evidence is out on the open for a long long time now. It's the lack of awareness and abundance of apathy, that's why they get away with this stuff, and they'll continue to get away with blackmail, murder, theft, etc. for a long time.

Re:Clear acts of War

[Dunbal]

Why rise up when there's plenty of bread (read "easy credit") and circuses (read "tv/movies/internet/shiny iPhones") to go around...

Re:Clear acts of War

[TubeSteak]

You, sir, are a coward. Show me an example of someone winding up on a no-fly list as a result of peaceable assembly. Yeah, I didn't think you had anything.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/04/another-enemy-of-people.html

"Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the [American Airlines clerk] said. "

That's just the first result off of google.
If you don't think people aren't being put on the no-fly list for asserting their right to free speech and to publicly assemble, you haven't been paying attention.

Re:Clear acts of War

[erroneus]

See what the guy wrote before I did. Also see a lot more. I'm no coward. Denial is the first act of a coward. And when denial is impossible, it will be "protecting one's self" by not getting involved. And when everyone else is gone, there will be no one left to protect you.

I'm actually surprised to hear anyone respond as you did. Denial simply isn't possible any longer. At this stage, denial just makes you look like a fool.

Re:Clear acts of War

[erroneus]

Wish I had remembered to quote this:

"A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point." So wrote the celebrated Stanford University psychologist Leon Festinger

This has been an established fact of human behavior for ages. The only thing different about your denial is that it is YOUR denial and not someone else's. In this case, you are at the "questioning the sources" phase of denial. And when you can't deny it any longer, you will simply fail to see the point... in this case, you will simply tell yourself you are "staying out of trouble."

These situations are like infections. Sometimes an infection will go away on its own because the immune system will do its job. But sometimes the infection attacks the immune system and it grows out of control. Our county's immune system is our constitution. It is our constitution which is under attack. And without it, we all have much to fear.

Re:Clear acts of War

[biodata]

Geneva convention anyone? I thought governments weren't allow to commit acts of war against civilians.

Re:Clear acts of War

[Fjandr]

For the record, though, I don't personally believe that this is worth getting your knickers in a knot over.

Poster's covered "question the sources" and "failing to see the point" at the same time.

Re:Clear acts of War

[Fjandr]

And people pay it only lip service, much as people pay the Constitution (which is the law of the land) only lip service.

With recent rulings on the 4th Amendment, and previous rulings that evidence illegally obtained is admissible as long as the police can manufacture a reasonable excuse why they thought it wasn't illegal, there is no more rule of law. It's rule of "what can I get away with next?" The 9th and 10th Amendments gasped their last breath when Lincoln came to power. About the only reversal that's been made is the Supreme Court now recognizing the term "the people" means the same damn thing in the 2nd Amendment as it means every other place it's used in the Constitution. Who knows how long that will last though.

Amusing signature

[Anonymous Coward]

"Now we are all sons of bitches , Lulz Security". I approve of the Manhattan project reference.

Re:Amusing signature

[click2005]

Do LulzSec have weapons of mass DDoStruction?

LOL

[benjamindees]

Donate BitCoins for more lulz: 176LRX4WRWD5LWDMbhr94ptb2MW9varCZP

Bring it down! Bring it all down!

[Anonymous Coward]

We see with Apple and Google phones tracking people, SSD not being securely erased, police with gadgets that rip all data off cell phones, back doors in routers, NSA rooms on the AT&T backbone servers, printers with secret yellow codes, carriers recording GPS coordinates 8 times a hour, TOMTOM and ONStar snitching the list goes on and on... We see EXACTLY what the jack booted government thugs are making the industry do with products we need to use, grossly invading the rights of everyone in the process and under the guise of trying to catch a few bad guys. Enough is ENOUGH!

Re:Bring it down! Bring it all down!

[Bloodwine77]

Don't put that all on the shoulders of the government. The corporations want all of our information and metrics as well, so that they can better tailor their advertising, marketing, and sales. Not to mention that information is very, very valuable and people need to realize that in many cases we're the products being sold. Our information is the product.

Re:Bring it down! Bring it all down!

[TubeSteak]

Don't put that all on the shoulders of the government. The corporations want all of our information and metrics as well, so that they can better tailor their advertising, marketing, and sales.

The government, under sealed subpoenas, requests that information from the corporations.
Then argues in court that if those dockets were unsealed, the corporations might feel pressure to resist government requests for information.

So, while the corporations aren't entirely blameless for giving up the goods without a fight, the government is actively aggressing against its people and refusing us the ability to fight back.

Re:Bring it down! Bring it all down!

[hvm2hvm]

so that they can better tailor their advertising, marketing, and sales

That's the bullshit they tell us to make it seem harmless but they want power just the same the government wants it. I'm pretty sure, the big companies are doing more with the information than just marketing.

Re:Bring it down! Bring it all down!

[xyourfacekillerx]

Uhhh, your blame is misplaced. You should be pointing your finger at the "bad guys" provoking the government to invade our rights. If they could restrain themselves, the government would have no need to do that. Seriously, how can you let them off the hook and focus all your discontentment on the government?

Re:Bring it down! Bring it all down!

[EdZ]

SSD not being securely erased

Unless you use an OS that sends the TRIM command, or have an SSD that does garbage collection (read: didn't cheap out and buy something with a JMicron controller), you're data is so securely erased that no recovery company not lying through it's teeth will claim to be able to get it back. Hell, just getting data out of an SSD with just FAT corruption is a huge chore, and almost impossible with some controllers (especially for files much larger than the block size).
It's one of those "Everyone Knows" things, just like Everyone Knows that you have to use dban with 32 random passes in order to securely erase your HDD, rather than run the faster and better (deletes areas listen in the G-list) ATA SECURE ERASE command built into the drive controller.

Re:Bring it down! Bring it all down!

[Fjandr]

If they could restrain themselves, the government would have no need to do that.

If there is no enemy to a power, one must be created. Otherwise people will call for that power to be diluted, since it is obviously not necessary.

False flag operations abound in intelligence work. One notable, proven one is https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/COINTELPRO

So while the bad guys did bad, the other bad guys also do bad. Just because the government does good things does not mean it should be held blameless when it overreaches its authority.

Re:Bring it down! Bring it all down!

[jimrthy]

These days, where do you draw the lines between government and corporations?

Just a bully

[Prosthetic_Lips]

LulzSec just showed their hand that they are operating like a schoolyard bully. "Do what we want / act like we want, or we'll hack you."

You might think they are standing up to a bully (USA), but taking down 3 different Sony companies smells of a bully, kicking them while they are down.

Re:Just a bully

[Anonymous Coward]

Well of course. That's what these groups do (LulzSec, Anonymous, etc.). They aren't heroic crusaders against "the man". They are immature idiots who happen to know how to use hacking tools (and I'm sure some of them are experts). It doesn't make them people to admire or emulate. Hopefully these tools will get caught.

Re:Just a bully

[Elbereth]

Worse than that, I'd contend that the intention is not to embarrass Sony, but rather to attack Sony's customers. I hate to use the T word, but this clearly is dictionary-definition terrorism: attacking a soft target in order to bully them into falling in line with your demands. Sony's customers are seen as the enemy, as much as Sony itself is, because they provide positive reinforcement to Sony (in the form of revenue), while breaking any attempts to boycott Sony. By adding a negative consequence to being Sony's customer (privacy invasions), they hope to influence the customers' actions.

Obviously, they're not setting off bombs in crowded cities or crashing planes into skyscrapers. They're just a bunch of stupid kids inconveniencing people. That doesn't change what word the dictionary uses to define such actions, however...

Admittedly, I've spent so many years trolling Slashdot, it's difficult for me to switch out of "troll" mode and make a legitimate point without resorting to any trolling, but this time, I'm honestly just sayin'. And, that, kids is the danger of a lifetime of trolling: eventually you can't even tell when you're trolling or not.

Re:Just a bully

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, they are bullying Sony. However, as some might attest, once someone stands up to the bully, the bully generally chills out, or shows its true colors. Sony was a bully initially-- and hackers have reduced them. Sony, however, has not and will not learn the error of its ways. Call it my opinion, but if, after the first attack, Sony got all its network and use back, do you really think they'd change? Based on what we've seen in the past, they'd become only more draconian. Sony is more like a gang member.

You mess with Sony, they lean on government (the gang.) The US then starts subduing the neighborhood by force, and threat, and (pick your rules, restrictions, and/or persecution). So the US wins and the company is finally restored-- do you really expect them to be kinder? Gentler? More understanding?

I don't like LulzSec, personally. I don't like what they're dong to everyone else-- all we end users. It tells me just what they think of 'ordinary people', but, is that unique for a hacker? Break the law and get around security enough, and you feel you have more power than most-- not condoning their activities, just explaining it. The government doesn't think they have to abide by their own laws either. How is that much different? Rather than posting user info on a website, they store it all in searchable databases for future use. Not much better, IMHO.

Personally, as one of those 'end user' people, I could care less about this action. The USA screws me. Sony screws me. Now LulzSec is screwing me. However, when they all start trying to screw each other, I don't get screwed so often, or so hard. Most of us know how easy it is to get info about people over the internet. So long as I'm online, I have two considerations-- do I want the government snooping in my stuff, or a group of hackers? One gives a shit about me and all my actions and will bring it up against me at the next available opportunity. The other doesn't, but might. I'd rather the government leave the internet entirely. They won't. Therefore, I'd rather have two, or three "gangs" in control, or fighting for control. While they're so busy fighting each other, I can take a moment to go fishing, or post on facebook (don't actually have one, but), or buy some bleach without the tag that I might use it for meth or a bomb or something other than making my socks white. So in this case, I'll root for LulzSec while I go about my normal life. In fact, I think I will go fishing.

Re:Just a bully

[Anonymous Coward]

Worse than that, I'd contend that the intention is not to embarrass Germany, but rather to attack Germany's People. I hate to use the T word, but this clearly is dictionary-definition terrorism: attacking a soft target in order to bully them into falling in line with your demands. Germany's People are seen as the enemy, as much as Germany itself is, because they provide positive reinforcement to Germany(in the form of revenue), while breaking any attempts to damage Germany.

Just for some perspective. We called that "Strategic Bombing" in WWII...

Re:Just a bully

[Kernel Krumpit]

....operating like a schoolyard bully. "Do what we want / act like we want, or we'll....."

...they are standing up to a bully (USA), ....

The US was ever a bully wielding economic clout as one of their sticks. I am happy to be living in these times of a visibly declining world power and "spy vs. spy" internet activities. Really it's just a matter of knowing which side of the fence you're on when the revolution comes. And I, will be leading the mobs into Harrods!

Re:Just a bully

[Kernel Krumpit]

Well, I think they are heroic crusaders and I do admire them. But then again I always like Robin Hood too.

Re:Just a bully

[Kernel Krumpit]

They're just a bunch of stupid kids inconveniencing people.

The *** Insert government body here (e.g. DoD, IRS, etc..)*** are also a bunch of kids inconveniencing people - especially the less fortunate. Such inflammatory & value laden rhetoric leaves no doubt as to which side of the revolutionary fence you sit on.

Re:Just a bully

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to use the T word, but this clearly is dictionary-definition terrorism: attacking a soft target in order to bully them into falling in line with your demands.

What is the reported damage to Sony customers? So what if their account details are posted? Every credit union, every other large company that they do business with, every government agency that they've ever interacted with on a federal, state, and local level, every intelligence agency that vacuums up mind-boggling amounts of internet data a day, every Facebook friend, etc. can find that info rather easily. There's literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people that can find out that info about Sony customers, yet no one seems to worry about that. Yet when the hoi-poloi can see it (if they're at all interested), suddenly it's OMG!!1 TERRRORISTS!!!!

Secondly, what demands has Lulzsec made?

Re:Just a bully

[1s44c]

LulzSec just showed their hand that they are operating like a schoolyard bully. "Do what we want / act like we want, or we'll hack you."

You might think they are standing up to a bully (USA), but taking down 3 different Sony companies smells of a bully, kicking them while they are down.

Organizations that don't protect against SQL injection or don't use decent authentication are going to get cracked by someone sooner or later. Lulzsec may be publicly embarrassing various groups but they don't seem to be involved in any crime above and beyond that. You call them bullies but what if credit card scammers got hold of Sony's data and quietly started robbing everyone involved? The situation would be way more messy.

Re:Just a bully

[1s44c]

Well of course. That's what these groups do (LulzSec, Anonymous, etc.). They aren't heroic crusaders against "the man". They are immature idiots who happen to know how to use hacking tools (and I'm sure some of them are experts). It doesn't make them people to admire or emulate. Hopefully these tools will get caught.

Yes, because once these idiots are locked up we can feel safe as only proper criminals will steal our personal data from careless multinationals.

The real problem is that multinationals and governments care about compliance with dumb regulations and not about security. They therefore suck big time at security.

Re:Just a bully

[sensei moreh]

Personally, I have no anonymity.

Sure you do - you posted as an AC

Re:Just a bully

[Dhalka226]

Yaknow, a lot of people can--and did--defend the Sony hacks. Some could probably defend the "FBI" hack, though when I hear words like "FBI-affiliated" I just cringe at what they're hiding behind that term.

But how do you defend hacking PBS? These people are obviously just scumbags with too much time on their hands, and articles like this are exactly what they want. Ignore them. They're not worth the attention.

Re:Just a bully

[Idbar]

For what is worth. As I recall correctly from my youth, in a battle between bullies, kicking them while they are down seems like a right approach. You shouldn't give them the chance to stand back up, because you know they will be really pissed.

Re:Just a bully

[amicusNYCL]

taking down 3 different Sony companies smells of a bully, kicking them while they are down.

In all fairness, sometimes Sony deserves a little down-kicking.

Re:Just a bully

[Libertarian001]

"Obviously, they're not setting off bombs in crowded cities or crashing planes into skyscrapers. They're just a bunch of stupid kids inconveniencing people. That doesn't change what word the dictionary uses to define such actions, however..."

Yes it does, and that's an absolute epic failure on your part for not understanding that. Perhaps you don't understand the definition of "terror?"

Re:Just a bully

[aaaaaaargh!]

They are immature idiots who happen to know how to use hacking tools (and I'm sure some of them are experts). It doesn't make them people to admire or emulate.

I admire them. Let's hope that guys like you will never have reasons to admire them. (If they do their job right, you will never admire them. Let's cross thumbs it stays that way.)

Re:Just a bully

[Prosthetic_Lips]

Wow, so much to respond to.

First, your response is hard to read with the curse words. Nothing with more power than an f-bomb? Reasoned sentences (with punctuation!) can get your point across much better than random profanities. But I do appreciate the CAPS for emphasis.

Second, "releasing information on evils?" I thought they were publishing user names, emails, and passwords. Are you saying that everyone that signed up with a Sony account are evil? For example, everyone who bought music, signed up for a newsletter to keep up with their favorite music artist (Weird Al FTW!), or wanted to play an online game with a far-off friend are evil?

Finally, "standing for freedoms, against wars" is quite the oxymoron. If you aren't willing to fight for your liberties, then they will be taken from you. Should the US just give up let Al-Quaida / Iran / (insert group here) take over? Let them start doing more suicide bombings within the US borders, instead of keeping them busy at home? Help them to establish Sharia law here? Instead of listing some examples, which would seem like trolling, I'll just let you do a Google / Bing / heck, even an Alta Vista search.

Re:Just a bully

[hajus]

Reminds me of Ender's Game.

Re:Just a bully

[Raenex]

Me too. So you basically have to kill the bully or put him in a wheelchair when he's down, because even if you fuck him up real bad, he's gonna be pissed when he recovers.

Re:Just a bully

[Artemis3]

And yet, they provide an invaluable service by pointing out the weakness in your security...

Re:Just a bully

[Elbereth]

What you're saying is that it's moral for you to do the same exact action that is immoral for your enemy to do, simply because your enemy has more power than you do.

I don't buy that. Either privacy invasions are moral or they are not moral.

How are you going to act once you have more power? Will you stop invading people's privacy, or will you continue to do so, because you've found some other rationalization for it?

Re:Just a bully

[AK Marc]

I hate to use the T word, but this clearly is dictionary-definition terrorism:

I was about to agree when I noticed you weren't talking about Sony...

Re:Just a bully

[DaveV1.0]

Forget Sony. LulSec did it to PBS over a story LulSec didn't like. They did it to censor PBS. That is acting like a bully.

Re:Just a bully

[DaveV1.0]

I see, so you support their censorship. Good, glad to know you are for censorship of PBS by LulSec. Shows exactly what you are.

Re:Just a bully

[DaveV1.0]

You, apparently, have no idea what "strategic bombing" is. Strategic bombing is the bombing of infrastructure to reduce the enemy's ability to produce war materials. We bombed factories, rail lines, resource production and distribution systems. We did not bomb the "Germany's People". We did not intentionally bomb schools, churches, hospitals, etc. Nor did we bomb indiscriminately as the Germans did to England in WWII using buzz bombs, which did hit churches, schools, etc.

I suggest you actually study World War Two and military strategy before making such inane comments.

Re:Just a bully

[MaDeR]

Another retard that contributes to making "terrorist" word meaningless, or rather meaning "I do not like these people".

Re:These guys are beyond stupid.

[erroneus]

Those guys are faceless and nameless. We won't know who disappeared when they disappear. We will just know they disappeared.

False flag.

[Larryish]

Prepare to see your Interwebs go on 24/7 lockdown.

Time to set up that VPN on a foreign VPS that you always wanted.

Re:False flag.

[lxs]

Maybe we can get a global VPN exchange project off the ground. You guys get freedom and we get Hulu.

Re:False flag.

[Larryish]

Let's hook that up.

Re:False flag.

[RadiantPhoenix]

That sounds like a fair exchange.

Re:These guys are beyond stupid.

[Larryish]

They'll be in supermax prison for decades when they get caught!

Who is "they"?

No, "LulzSec" is not the answer.

Permission...

[Andy Smith]

...to find this all frickin' hilarious?

Wildly entertaining as a spectator.

It's only an act of war if done by a foreign power

[alexam]

I mean, right?

Let's say a citizen, or many citizens, are shot. If it's done by another US citizen, it's murder, a crime, and not an 'act of war.' If it's done by some organization, it's homebrew terrorism. If it's done by another country, it's an act of war. That doesn't seem like a wholly unreasonable stance to hold, although it certainly can be debated, I guess.

I don't know, are these people going for the "That's a ridiculous stance on hacking, what are you gonna do, declare war on US?? How ludicrous! See, hacking is not an act of war" angle to this whole thing?

If so.....lulz.

This is bound to end well...

[Zero1za]

(and by well, I mean with prison sex).

Re:This is bound to end well...

[xyourfacekillerx]

Ahh, a prison rape joke. Always a favorite among the more knuckle-dragging portion of the Slashdot community.

Oh no. I think Zero1za pissed off a hacker who got raped.

Re:It's only an act of war if done by a foreign po

[alexam]

^ I don't mean to compare hacking with killing people, by the way. What I meant is that it should be pretty obvious, really, that the same actions would be classified in and treated in different ways depending on who the perpetrators are.

Anonymous Coward Comment Ratio

[OnTheEdge]

Funny how the ratio of Anonymous Coward comments to logged in user comments seems to have spiked on this thread.

Re:Anonymous Coward Comment Ratio

[nedlohs]

Which is completely irrelevant to the ratios being different in a particular item.

Re:Anonymous Coward Comment Ratio

[OnTheEdge]

Thanks nedlohs.

Re:Anonymous Coward Comment Ratio

[OnTheEdge]

I might have to agree with you on that one!

Re:These guys are beyond stupid.

[westlake]

As long as these guys don't brag about it openly in pubs, I bet many will never get caught.

You pull at the loose threads until the whole fabric begins to unravel.

I mean, c'mon - they couldn't find Osama Bin Laden when he was living in the same house for many years - what makes you think they'll magically be able to find hackers?

The hacker is an adolescent braggart who thinks he is bullet-proof.

Osama's father made billions on construction projects for the Saudi royal family. Osama's share was worth $100-300 million. That bought a lot of protection these hackers do not have.

But Osama is still dead.

Really, no salt?

[definate]

So, they didn't even salt the md5 hashes. How lazy does this "security" firm want to be?

Also, how simple do some of these passwords want to be? LOL "infragard26j" are you kidding me? Come on IBM, lift your game!

Here's a copy of the exposed file on PasteBin

I've noticed that the "cracking" method of choice was just "see if these are known values in public rainbow tables". Which, many of them were. Huzzah!

Also, I thought that all md5's had been cracked before, however it seems not so. So, I decided to calculate how many gb such a table would AT LEAST have to be. Well, I was quite surprised. Unless there's collisions or my math is fucked, that's quite a lot!

Seems Unveilance, the company which had its CEO's private emails leaked, has responded and sort of, also authenticated the hack too. Unveillance Official Statement

Re:Really, no salt?

[Seth024]

Your math is correct if you want to know how many entries it would take to cover the entire hash space.
However more advanced tables don't store all entries. (rainbow tables)

In short: they repeatedly hash a word and turn the hash into another word. After many of these iterations they store the word they started with and the word they end up with. If you want to look up a hash, repeatedly turn it into a word and hash it until you find a word that's in the table. They you can start off at the starting word of that chain and continue until you end up at the password you were looking for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_table#Precomputed_hash_chains

It saves you a ton of storage space.

Re:Section 3

[TaoPhoenix]

Re Section3 Band
"Glad you like it! Our influences are pretty broad - punk, new wave and goth mostly but there's also a lot of electronic stuff and even a smattering of ska in our shared tastes. We mostly play venues like The Underworld and Purple Turtle in Camden, and clubs like the Slimelight. We missed out on the European festivals this year, since we didn't have a promo ready in time, but should be playing some club gigs on the continent in the Autumn."

Heh you made me nuke my moderations so I could reply to you!

As a Real Live Artist why do you only have "stream playing"? Why no mp3 downloads? What is your opinion on the copyright mess?

(Don't hurt me mods, copyright tyranny is 3 degrees of separation from hacking!)

Re:working

[TaoPhoenix]

Yeah, that's been there for ages now. I ad-blocked the spinning thingie but it's still there.

LulzSec is retarded

[makubesu]

I've always wondered how secure slashdot is. Let's do an experiment. Mod me up to +5 insightful, and see if LulzSec hacks /. to bring my post down.
And for good measure: Assange should be in jail, child pornography is evil, and Ron Paul would make a terrible president. There, that should lure them out.

Re:working

[the_other_chewey]

This rule in Adblock Plus takes care of it:

slashdot.org##.busy.genericspinner.hide

Interwebs go on 24/7 lockdown.

[TaoPhoenix]

I'll reply to you.

We can't even tell if this is a False Flag or some semi-well-intentioned young hacker group.

The Govt is playing a pretty good chess game "establishing the pre-requisites of tyranny". Of course they have some logical fallacies built in, that's why Division by Zero is illegal in math - you then enter fantasy land.

I am only one of many who saw this coming, but all I can do is educate and hope someone with some clout notices.

Re:Interwebs go on 24/7 lockdown.

[Duradin]

I believe division by zero is undefined in math, not illegal.

Re:Interwebs go on 24/7 lockdown.

[dead_user]

It's not even undefined in math. It's - Infinity. Computers just don't handle infinity well.

Re:Interwebs go on 24/7 lockdown.

[Fjandr]

Or some infinite subset of a larger infinite series. :)

Re:Interwebs go on 24/7 lockdown.

[bipbop]

No. Context is important, here. It is defined in some contexts, but that is the exception rather than the rule. It is undefined in most common contexts.

Learn more: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DivisionbyZero.html

Dumbasses

[Saint Stephen]

I think Osama Bin Laden tried something similar once...

Well, I guess they pretty much guaranteed now that the US government will kick their asses eventually...

Well played, dumbasses, now everyone is paying attention!

To all those who are praising Lulz ...

[Jerry]

Are you positive that Lulz is not a government/theocratic cyber warfare unit operating out of Europe or the Mid-East or China or Cuba or Venezuela? In other words, people who have ponies in the race? How can you be sure?

Or, is it your attitude that while the above mentioned countries can and do have cyber warfare units it is wrong for the USA to have its own unit too?

One never reads about these "hackers" breaking into Russian or Chinese government websites and then releasing documents they steal. Why is that? Could it be that they know that they are not as "invisible" as they brag to be, and that if they did attack those sites it wouldn't be long before they were sleeping with the reporters whom Putin didn't like, or they'd suddenly wake up in a Chinese or Iranian prison?

And, to the idiot who claimed that "hacking never hurt anyone", talk to the people who were put in harms way by WikiLeaks sloppy editing of stolen documents containing the names of people.

The RICO and PATRIOT Acts, along with the TSA, have done enough damage to citizens of the USA without having hackers further the harm. It's time for rational people to replace the Rude-Goldberg security arrangements created by the DHS. But, let's imagine that Lulz and WikiLeaks are successful in creating a citizen uproar that results in the activities of USA espionage agencies being severely, although irrationally, curtailed. When those agencies can no longer prevent the smuggling of a disassembled Pakistani or Iranian nuclear bomb into the country and, say, Denver, CO disappears in a mushroom cloud, will you be happen then?

Re:To all those who are praising Lulz ...

[netflusher]

They'll get caught, they always do.

Re:To all those who are praising Lulz ...

[walllaby]

Scaremongering was the strategy that got the US embroiled in two fruitless wars in the Middle East. To suggest that giving some "atta'boys" to a group of vigilante hackers could result in a nuclear attack on a major US city is... a little far-fetched.

Governments can play their cat-and-mouse games of cyber warfare all they want, but when they begin restricting the freedoms of their citizenry or invading their privacy without warrants, I'd say some vigilante justice is justified. That wouldn't be the case here as LulzSec is simply out to make a name for itself, and the tech community's frustration with government tracking and foreign policy is an easy flash point.

Re:To all those who are praising Lulz ...

[TheCarp]

> And, to the idiot who claimed that "hacking never hurt anyone", talk to the people who were put in harms way by WikiLeaks sloppy editing
> of stolen documents containing the names of people.

To be fair though, wikileaks is about exposing conspiracy, not about protecting the good name, or even lives of the conspirators.

Nobody was put in danger for anything that they didn't actually do. What about the lives ruined by the silence of the secret cables? What about the Tunisian and Egyption peoples who, only through the exposure of those cables, came to know the extent of their own governments corruption? What about the theft of their resources, their very livelihoods given up in taxes, their lives curtailed by military rule?

I have no sympathy for those named in the cables, not a single one of them. Can't take the heat from being discovered as a back room dealer with the biggest bully on the block? Then don't do the crime.

Re:To all those who are praising Lulz ...

[skyraker]

Are you positive that Lulz is not a government/theocratic cyber warfare unit operating out of Europe or the Mid-East or China or Cuba or Venezuela? In other words, people who have ponies in the race? How can you be sure?

Government sponsored hackers do not brag about obtaining access to a small affiliated company, or to PBS. They do not want people to know they have gained access, as such knowledge will surely bring resources against their hack.

Re:To all those who are praising Lulz ...

[Master of Transhuman]

None of whom were harmed in any way, as admitted by just about everyone including the Pentagon.

Re:To all those who are praising Lulz ...

[AfroTrance]

or they'd suddenly wake up in a Chinese or Iranian prison?

How would they get to China or Iran in the first place...?

And, to the idiot who claimed that "hacking never hurt anyone", talk to the people who were put in harms way by WikiLeaks sloppy editing of stolen documents containing the names of people.

Specifically, which people are these? Provide a source that states someone was exposed and was in danger as a result.

And what are you talking about? What "hacking"? Wikileaks didn't hack anybody. Bradley Manning didn't hack anybody. Do you consider Manning copying documents from a server he had authorisation to as "hacking"? Or are you just completely uninformed and are spouting absolute bullshit?

Re:To all those who are praising Lulz ...

[TheCarp]

Actually, I knew who he was referring to, and those are the same people I was referencing too. No sympathy for them either. Just because the soldiers are from my country doesn't change my opinion of foreign invasion and occupation. Its wrong, and nobody should cooperate with a foreign invader...even if my people are the ones doing the invading. I wouldn't collaborate with a Chinese invasion, even though I hate the sitting government here now.

Re:To all those who are praising Lulz ...

[Randomalities]

I pity the nation(s) that actually manage to set off a nuclear device in the United States. More, I pity any other nation on the same continent - we're not known for measured and rational responses. I also think that other nations know this. The US as a sheer landmass is too big for anyone other than MAYBE China (ok, and N. Korea, because that fucker's just crazy) to think that you could nuke anything here without immediately devastating results for yourself. The US only inspects 5-10% of container ships entering the country - pretty sure it's not that complicated to sneak something in if you really wanted to.

Re:Free Entertainment

[Jerry]

Oh yes you have, you just don't realize it.

If you are not posting with your real name from a country were you feel no fear of exposure then you are doing a LOT of boot licking.

Re:These guys are beyond stupid.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you're probably wrong there. These guys have a whole lifetime of hiding ahead of them. They'll always be looking over their shoulders. Just run the numbers: What, 35,000 FBI employees, erm, now enemies, and similar numbers of Sheriffs, Secret Service, CIA, DIA, Marshals, Naval, Army, Air Force, Marine Intelligence. That's just the U.S. Government. How about other countries security agencies. I'm particularly worried about Australia's security agencies which are empowered by some particularly onerous laws concerning hacking. But what about the non-governmental agencies. Criminal groups that may be threatened by this type of behavior. Rival hacker groups, jealous lovers. All the people that have been negatively impacted by this. Or what about just ordinary people who disagree with their actions and willingly help the authorities, network operators and employees who may have seen something suspicious on their network and reports it? Just as LulzSec obviously enjoys what they do, there will be an analog of people who will enjoy finding them. No, these persons have clearly not thought out the consequences of their actions. Eventually, they will be caught. The weight of running and hiding will be a prison in itself. Can they picture themselves, living like Sadaam Hussein in a hole, or Bin Laden in a virtual prison, never venturing out in public? The pressure to maintain sanity will be enormous. Any people foolish enough to help hide them will also find their guest's presence a burden. Even their "freedom" will not really be freedom at all.

Re:It's only an act of war if done by a foreign po

[elashish14]

Well the US government managed to declare a war on terror which is essentially a war on its own citizens given how they've starting tracking them, invading their privacy, and essentially stripping them of any of their human rights (rights provided by the constitution or otherwise). So they've already got their internal war. Not much more for them to do there, all they've got left to do is the same thing for all other nations which they haven't done it to.

Re:How will this work...

[theshowmecanuck]

There is a thought that if you have a very large army you have to use it on external targets every now and then. Otherwise it will get bored and start flexing internally. Kind of like banana republics that have extensive (for their size) militaries but aren't quite big enough to safely fight anyone around them. Eventually they turn on themselves and the generals become presidents for life. Given that America spends more on their military than the rest of the world combined, they need to continually be fighting, or else the next white house will be the pentagon. The other option is to stop spending so much on the military so they can afford to take care of their own people without worrying about the budget ceiling all the time.

govt secrecy has killed more people than terrorism

[decora]

the 20th century should have been the end of legitimate arguments for overreaching state power, govrment secrecy, and police states, with (at least) 50 million people directly killed in concentration & labor camps for the benefit of a bureaucracy.

compare that to a few thousand people killed by terrorism, it doesnt even begin to compare. we should be locking up anyone who even approaches moving in a dictator-ship like direction, because the threat of terrorism is just about as dangerous as the threat of perscription medication or tornados, while the threat of overreaching government is as real as the bricks at auschwitz.

information about bio, chem, and nuke weapons is not rocket science. building a nuclear bomb is not rocket science. its nuclear science and its not that hard. the only hard part is gathering enough fissile material.

but governments are paying more attention to frisking babies than to keeping tight controls on uranium mines.

there was a whole warehouse full of yellowcake sitting in Iraq before the war - the us barely even tried to secure it.

I'm also not sure how the US is hypocritical

[Sycraft-fu]

As far as I can tell they haven't said, or done, "We are going to go around hacking anyone we want and nobody can do anything about it. However if you hack us we'll bomb you!" What they've said is "An attack on US infrastructure by a foreign power is an act or war, and it really doesn't matter what form that attack takes."

That is a position quite consistent with US history and law, and internationally too. It isn't like there is only a well defined set of things that can qualify as an act of war and if you can find a way to attack outside of that you are a-ok. If a government commits or sponsors an attack against another country, whatever the nature, that can be an act of war. Hence the clarification.

If you want a somewhat similar example, any damage/disruption to the computer labs at work (a university) that I run are grounds for me to call the police and you to get arrested. If you physically damage the hardware, paint on the walls, whatever, that'll do it. However hacking, same shit. If you screw up the systems or install keyloggers or something I'll still call the police nad you'll still get arrested. Trying to say "But it didn't hurt anything real!" isn't a defense. If you cause damage or disruption, physical or virtual, you caused harm and you are gonna get in trouble.

I think too many geek types have this view that anything done on a computer shouldn't count. They are people who will argue they should be allowed to freely break in to any system they are capable of doing so without any repercussions, yet would be furious if I broke in to their house. In the real world, doesn't work that way.

Re:I'm also not sure how the US is hypocritical

[zeroshade]

There is a real difference between rooting the computer in a university computer lab and breaking into someone's house. The fact that so many fail to see the difference, frightens me.

Miss the old days

[skyraker]

I miss the old days where a hacker was just someone who gained access to networks 'just because' and not to reveal the private information of strangers. And there is a big difference between hacking because someone disagrees with you, and hacking as a response to government intruding on freedom of speech. Lulz is just silly.

Re:Miss the old days

[thePuck77]

I miss the old days where a hacker was just someone who gained access to networks 'just because' and not to reveal the private information of strangers. And there is a big difference between hacking because someone disagrees with you, and hacking as a response to government intruding on freedom of speech. Lulz is just silly.

And once upon a time we called them crackers or script-kiddies to distinguish the difference between "I was up all night hacking code, but I got the damn thing working" and "OMGZORZ WE R INZ UR INTERNETZ STEALING UR MEGAHURTZ LOLOLOL!!11!!!1!!"

Re:It's only an act of war if done by a foreign po

[rastoboy29]

Uh, you mean hacking a computer is like shooting someone?

Really?

Re:working

[hajus]

Ah, finally. Thank you, that's one annoyance gone.

Here's some interesting info on this Karim Hijazi

[Master of Transhuman]

A Twitter contact pointed me to this article over at Jaded Security. There's something shady about this guy Karim Hijazi who allegedly was extorted.

Who is to blame for the success of the latest round of attacks?
http://jadedsecurity.net/2011/06/04/who-is-to-blame-for-the-success-of-the-latest-round-of-attacks/

Re:working

[nospam007]

Ditto here. Thanks

Re:working

[sconeu]

ZOMG!!!! Ponies!!!!

Thank you Thank you THANK YOU!!!!

the Tea lady says

[the tea lady]

Hello how are you. I don’t think you’ve met me before but I am the tea lady here at Netvillage.com and thought I would invite you along for a cuppa. I have some interesting social networking recipes for you. Well, bye for now, The tea lady

No PHYSICAL harm was done

[mangu]

The Pentagon does not classify hacking as an act of war. What they are doing is stating that hacking by a foreign power may constitute an act of war

I don't see what the difference may be.

What are the ultimate consequences of hacking? People will die? Or is it just a website that will be defaced? Some embarrassing emails that will be published?

If a foreign power really attacks the country, the consequences will be dead people and destroyed property. If that does not happen, if the only result is lost face by a few government officers, then it's definitely *NOT* an act of war, just a normal diplomatic snafu.

Re:No PHYSICAL harm was done

[gd2shoe]

I don't know what the FBI et al will consider acts of war, but they are certainly possible (if rare). Pen testers found a water treatment facility where chemical additives were controlled by a vulnerable computer. If the entire inventory were emptied into the system I suspect it would have caused some kind of harm (either directly, or indirectly when the water was shut off to the city). It has been suggested that our power infrastructure is vulnerable. A creative hack may be capable of significant financial damage. Officials have warned that a real cyber attack (ex: disabling emergency services) may be blended with a more traditional form of terrorism. Other ideas have been floated. Some involve killing people, others are simply economic. None are likely, but we must assume that something of them are possible. (I think prevention and pen testing are better methods than threats of war, but each to his own.)

Re:No PHYSICAL harm was done

[thejynxed]

Of course it is vulnerable. A large part of the power/sewer/water infrastructure uses Siemens control systems, with their (now) widely known vulnerabilities. Systems directly connected to the public internet and open wi-fi devices so they can be controlled remotely.

This is where the "cheap, fast, secure - pick two of the three" comes into effect.

These systems were designed and implemented before the current age of readily available malware/"hacking" kits were even a wet dream.

To be honest, our entire national infrastructure needs to be rebuilt from the ground up, but it will only happen over decades, as it is now with "smart grid" functionality, etc.

Re:No PHYSICAL harm was done

[DaveV1.0]

If someone absconds with the designs for a nuclear weapon, copies of blue prints for government installations or vessels, the president's itinerary, names and addresses of informants, intelligence collection methods in various location, etc. , it is not "lost face by a few government officers", it is serious damage to national security.

With the the Stuxnet incident, insertion of a virus could cause damage later. Also, the installation of back doors into critical systems could set up a future attack.

Your understanding of the situation is simplistic and you do not think about the full consequences. You just think about people being embarrassed rather than what information could be taken and how it could be used.

Please stop...

[WaffleMonster]

Has anyone else noticed the army geospatial and a bunch of other army core sites have been down for days with the very same error message from a previous hacking episode in Janurary?

I guess it is all fun and games until some resource you want to access is offline due to some stupid cracker.

Re:Please stop...

[benjamindees]

US Army complains about stupid crackers destroying things.

i need safe

[linkkei]

Your need safe

Re:Division by Zero

[TaoPhoenix]

"Undefined" is math's polite way of saying it's illegal. (Think about it, semantically how can something not be defined?)

Division by Zero is the famous step in those classic 1=2 proofs. Basically, once you allow it in a sequence of operations everything afterward is pure nonsense.

Strong Passwords

[myoparo]

I'm guessing those accounts for which there is no provided passwords were those with 'strong passwords' that did not fall to a dictionary/brute force attack. Good for them! And that just shows that having a strong password is a good idea.

LulzSec missing the point

[xpwlq]

I highly doubt that when the Pentagon declared cyberattacks an act of war, it was with groups like Lulzsec or Anonymous in mind. They're probably a little more concerned about a scenario in which a country like China or North Korea announces they have the U.S. power grid by the virtual short and curlies.

NATO may be coming to your neighborhood soon.

[aftac]

Does this mean Obama may send in attack forces to the neighborhood from which a cyber attack might have originated? Might he allow the nuclear option if the attack is considered harmful to the security of the remainder of the country? Watch out Texas or any other state that showed red in the last elections.

Re:How will this work...

[feepness]

The other option is to stop spending so much on the military so they can afford to take care of their own people without worrying about the budget ceiling all the time.

That ship has sailed. The deficit is over twice DOD spending. Interest on the debt alone is a third again of DOD levels, and that's at record low interest rates.

Those in Washington probably figure the military will be needed when the populace finally figures out there is no way to continue all the spending, like Greece.

Re:one party wrong, one party lying.

[MaDeR]

"LulzSec tried to extort money from them while LulzSec claimed they offered the money to stop the hacking"
And it is not same thing because...?