LulzSec Phone-Bombs FBI and Blizzard

Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:45 · Score: 1

They've got balls of steel.

Re:Balls of steel by enderjsv · 2011-06-15 09:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Doesn't take much courage to throw a rock into a window when you're wearing a ski mask and there's no one around.
Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:51 · Score: 1

BalzSac
Re:Balls of steel by mykos · 2011-06-15 09:51 · Score: 3, Informative

They're here to kick ass and chew bubblegum, and they're all out of gum.
Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:52 · Score: 0

According to their twitter acc they have just taken down cia.gov
Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:52 · Score: 0

Yeah, they're just looking for attention. The best thing to do media-wise is to ignore them, otherwise they'll just continue with their temper tantrum since they're getting what they want that way.
Re:Balls of steel by OverlordQ · 2011-06-15 09:52 · Score: 4, Insightful

Being behind a ski mask (7 proxies) doesn't really mean much unless you're outside the country, what with all the taps the NSA have, I'm sure if they wanted them gone it wouldn't take much.

--
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Re:Balls of steel by enderjsv · 2011-06-15 09:54 · Score: 1

I guess "outside the country" would be covered by "no one's around". Too vague? :)
Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:56 · Score: 0

The entire FBI is on holiday?
Re:Balls of steel by jhoegl · 2011-06-15 09:59 · Score: 1

Winner of Most used cliche for advocating violence.
Re:Balls of steel by DigiShaman · 2011-06-15 10:00 · Score: 0

One might think they would eventually hack websites and servers belonging to oppressive regimes (I will purposefully not name any examples). But no, they would rather punk on the defenseless.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:04 · Score: 1

hack websites and servers belonging to oppressive regimes
USA?
Re:Balls of steel by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2011-06-15 10:07 · Score: 1

Honore? Touche!

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Balls of steel by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2011-06-15 10:11 · Score: 1

Now they crashed Twitter.

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

But no, they would rather punk on the defenseless.
If the FB fucking I is defenseless then a lot of people need firing.
Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:16 · Score: 1

And nothing of value ...
Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:19 · Score: 0

Very true, it is most likely being done by some government entity as a way to pass legislation to stranglehold our freedoms on internet even further.
Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:38 · Score: 0

Doesn't take too much brains either, it seems. (and I'm not talking about their hacking skills)
Re:Balls of steel by Gwala · 2011-06-15 10:46 · Score: 0

*whooosh*

--
#!/bin/csh cat $0
Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:59 · Score: 0

Your tax dollars at work.
Re:Balls of steel by Dan667 · 2011-06-15 11:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

i doubt it. The NSA had no idea about 9/11 and was unable to find bin laden for 10 years.
Re:Balls of steel by Nethemas+the+Great · 2011-06-15 11:55 · Score: 1

Or ... brains of mush.

--
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 12:20 · Score: 0

You either don't live in the US or you do not know the definition of the word oppressive. In either case you are wrong.
Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 12:26 · Score: 0

This is the FBI we're talking about. They're probably too busy throwing consenting adults into jail for victimless drug/gambling/prostitution "crimes" to worry about such trivialities like hackers wrecking other peoples' property.
Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 12:27 · Score: 0

Besides that, we're pretty sure we had his location back in 2007. He escaped, but it didn't take ten years to find him either time.
Re:Balls of steel by arkane1234 · 2011-06-15 12:49 · Score: 1

Yeah, too vague. "no one's around" could be somewhere in Montana/{north|south} dakota/texas/etc...

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Balls of steel by moortak · 2011-06-15 12:56 · Score: 1

Possibly the only time my sig will be relevant to a conversation.

--
Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 13:06 · Score: 0

Being behind a ski mask (7 proxies) doesn't really mean much unless you're outside the country, what with all the taps the NSA have, I'm sure if they wanted them gone it wouldn't take much.
Yes, because the NSA and the US Government are infallible and omnipotent.
Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 13:06 · Score: 1

9/11 was an unexpected attack. Lulzsec isn't exactly unexpected anymore and thus could be tracked easily by the NSA if a judge issued warrants to allow the appropriate domestic taps (and they presumably wouldn't need permission for tapping foreign nets).
Also, bin laden was not exactly using the internet and conducting DDoS attacks and phone flooding. Much harder to track someone totally off the grid than it is to track someone abusing the grid...
Either way, I doubt the NSA cares about Lulzsec.
Re:Balls of steel by Dan667 · 2011-06-15 13:22 · Score: 1

you are seriously trying to get people to believe the NSA would only look for bin laden in the middle east? Learn about how people can travel geographically you fucking septic prick.
Re:Balls of steel by Dan667 · 2011-06-15 13:23 · Score: 1

the NSA is suppose to be defending the US. It is in their charter to be all over intelligence like 9/11.
Re:Balls of steel by Larryish · 2011-06-15 13:49 · Score: 1

That is because Bin Laden died in late 2001 as a result of renal problems.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled Fox News.
Re:Balls of steel by poopdeville · 2011-06-15 14:01 · Score: 1

9/11 was an unexpected attack.
Google "Project Bojinka".

--
After all, I am strangely colored.
Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 14:27 · Score: 0

it takes brass balls to sell real estate.
Re:Balls of steel by hairyfeet · 2011-06-15 14:59 · Score: 0

Ya know the first thing I said when it was announced the "got Bin Laden" is to say "which one?" as looking at just the videos where the CIA said "yep, that's him, uh huh" there appears to be two, maybe three of him. unless of course they claim he had a really REALLY good makeup artist or plastic surgeon on tap, but I've never heard anything like that.
I still think it smells funny that we just so happen to dump him in the ocean after going "yep that's him, uh huh" with the excuse that "it'll become a shrine for terrorists". Uhhh...wouldn't that make them pretty damned easy to catch then? We'd know where they are, right by his grave.
As for TFA while I doubt the NSA, CIA, or any other three letter bunch is behind this (after all they've cost corps money, and if its one thing the US Gov does it is kiss the corp booty) but never underestimate the ability of the gov to use a situation to their advantage. I have a feeling a nice domestic spying wish list is being made up on PPT slides as we speak, and Anon/LulzSec will be the new "suspected pedo/terrorist" since so many got burned by crap like all the game site hacks that it'll be easy to make the public get out the pitchforks just by showing a Guy Fawkes mask or Trollface.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:Balls of steel by Luckyo · 2011-06-15 15:19 · Score: 1

And brains of mush.
Seriously, you get the short term lulz, followed by long term time behind bars for most of these guys. Not to mention that laws will get toughened, and people who fight cyber crime will get extra funs.
Either these guys are really stupid, or they're CIA/FBI.
Re:Balls of steel by lgw · 2011-06-15 15:29 · Score: 2

The NSA was all over signals intelligence. The basic intelligence failure of 9/11 was human intelligence. We moved so far away from useful human intel the we were easy to blindside, mostly because, by executive order, the CIA stopped employing "bad people" as sources. Idealistic, but not very practical, and the best crypto skills in the world don't help much against plotters who never use electronics for planning.

--
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Re:Balls of steel by Larryish · 2011-06-15 16:07 · Score: 1

You might be right, my friend. :(
Re:Balls of steel by X.25 · 2011-06-15 16:09 · Score: 1

One might think they would eventually hack websites and servers belonging to oppressive regimes (I will purposefully not name any examples). But no, they would rather punk on the defenseless.
Well, they are hacking (in one way or another) US government websites.
So yes, they are eventually hacking websites and servers belonging to oppressive regimes.
Re:Balls of steel by maugle · 2011-06-15 16:26 · Score: 1

I still think it smells funny that we just so happen to dump him in the ocean after going "yep that's him, uh huh" with the excuse that "it'll become a shrine for terrorists". Uhhh...wouldn't that make them pretty damned easy to catch then? We'd know where they are, right by his grave.
They're right, though. Any grave site would become a shrine and call-to-arms for militants and, sadly, we wouldn't be able to kill/imprison/tail everyone who visited it. So we couldn't hand the body over. We couldn't take the body back the USA either, because showing off his bullet-riddled corpse is just a half-step above dragging it through the streets, and would piss off way too many people/groups/nations. So really, dumping it in the ocean was the best of a set of bad options.
Re:Balls of steel by Antonovich · 2011-06-15 16:50 · Score: 1

Really you people! US government "enforcement" agencies have never cared a hoot about borders, rights or the law. They have, like a small group of other countries (supported by the US), never respected territorial integrity or international law. The CIA and other organisations have committed extra-judicial arrests, even executions, for decades. Sometimes we find out about it, sometimes we don't. No one inside the US cares - when you get terrorist attacks no one in the US ever mentions this sort of behaviour as a contributing factor. Let's get real - NOBODY hates freedom - it's just that when you insist people behave one way and then do whatever you want, people get fed up very quickly... LulzSec members would all be in Guantanamo (or the bottom of a lake) in a week if there was any real desire for it. They aren't actually causing any real trouble for the moment, so why do anything?
Re:Balls of steel by anotheryak · 2011-06-15 17:52 · Score: 1

If they're so tough, why do they hide under a rock?
Re:Balls of steel by SharpFang · 2011-06-15 18:13 · Score: 1

There's always this option of leaving a tail of 4 proxies way back, and forwarding all traffic back there, and looking just like another chainlink in the chain while some innocent chap sits at the computer at the last hop.

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:Balls of steel by SharpFang · 2011-06-15 18:18 · Score: 1

punk on the defenseless.
FBI? CIA?

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 19:58 · Score: 0

There is actually some value in what LulzSec is doing. Maybe not in this particular case, but in the Sony case, they made it very clear that Sony was storing very sensitive data (credit card numbers) in a very insecure way.
Re:Balls of steel by mcvos · 2011-06-15 20:04 · Score: 1

But no, they would rather punk on the defenseless.
Are you talking about LulzSec? I don't think I've heard from any attack on the defenseless by them. They attack mostly really big corporations and government agencies. If anyone should be able to defend themselves against such attacks, it's them.
Re:Balls of steel by bcmm · 2011-06-15 21:55 · Score: 1

with the excuse that "it'll become a shrine for terrorists".
Note that Bin Laden hated shrines for religious reasons. Clearly, they were worried about all those terrorists who love Bin Laden, while disagreeing with him on religious matters.

--
# cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
Re:Balls of steel by stiggle · 2011-06-15 22:18 · Score: 2

They'll just declare them a terrorist and then use rendition to ship them somewhere from anywhere, or if they're in the UK then the UK government will just roll over and ship them to the USA before asking "so what did you want them for?"
Re:Balls of steel by kevinNCSU · 2011-06-16 00:21 · Score: 1

Minecraft is a really big corporation now? That's like what, 10 people tops? So if someone comes into your neighborhood of 50 people and starts lighting houses on fire that's your own fault because that many people should be able to defend themselves?
Re:Balls of steel by mcvos · 2011-06-16 00:30 · Score: 1

You've got a good point with Minecraft. Obviously Minecraft is not comparable to Sony or the FBI.
Re:Balls of steel by smelch · 2011-06-16 01:14 · Score: 1

"If you're so tough, why can't I shoot you in the face?"

--
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Re:Balls of steel by Coren22 · 2011-06-16 02:14 · Score: 1

I was thinking of suggesting the next target be lulzsec, that would solve the problem for a little while at least.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:Balls of steel by tehcyder · 2011-06-16 02:32 · Score: 1

Its "kick ass or chew bubblegum". That's why Duke's original is funny.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Balls of steel by tehcyder · 2011-06-16 02:37 · Score: 1

i doubt it. The NSA had no idea about 9/11 and was unable to find bin laden for 10 years.
Ha! That's exactly what they want you to think! We all know that Obama Bin Laden was on the CIA payroll up until a week before his so-called "death".

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Balls of steel by Chemtox · 2011-06-16 02:39 · Score: 1

Exactly. After all, Bin Laden was using a hardened variant of IPoAC, the transmission method most resilient to wire tapping. His implementation further reduced attack vectors by 50% (namely, bread crumbs baiting), leaving his communications vulnerable only to the (curiously old) "shoot the carrier" approaches.
Re:Balls of steel by tehcyder · 2011-06-16 02:44 · Score: 1

"If you're so tough, why can't I shoot you in the face?"
Because I'd enjoy it, and I prefer pain. Now, you die.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Balls of steel by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 02:54 · Score: 0

They also released said data, making it easier for crooks to commit identity theft. Regardless of your misgivings regarding Sony, throwing all of that data out there is reckless and could be considered to be party to identity theft. Despite whatever good may eventually come of it, these folks are thugs and I can't wait for them to be caught.
Re:Balls of steel by Eulogistics · 2011-06-16 03:00 · Score: 1

The point is that the National Security Agency was not assigned to look for Bin Laden at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Agency
Re:Balls of steel by Gryle · 2011-06-16 04:30 · Score: 1

Right, because religious groups never disregard the words of their teacher in their zeal to "do the right thing"

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Re:Balls of steel by Risen888 · 2011-06-16 05:31 · Score: 1

9/11 was an unexpected attack
Yeah, it's not like they tried to blow up the same damn building before. Oh wait.

--
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!

Skyrim needs to come out now! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:46 · Score: 0

This is what happens when game companies start releasing awful crap like Duke Nuke'm Forever. Script kiddies have nothing better to do

Re:Skyrim needs to come out now! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:42 · Score: 0

Except it's not retro. If it was retro, it might be decent instead of a piece of shit. If it was retro it wouldn't have regenerating health, a two gun limit, or set piece based corridor style levels. And if it was a true throwback to the Duke era of FPSs, it would be refreshing, and fun for a little while until it ultimately reminded you of why those things kind of sucked. Instead it's just a mess, a half assed modern shooter with a half assed Duke skin thrown on it.
Re:Skyrim needs to come out now! by LurkerXXX · 2011-06-15 10:59 · Score: 0

If it had 2011 graphics pre 2000, sure...
But Duke 3D had lots of interactive items in the world. DNF, not really.
Duke 3D had lots of places to explore int he level, hidden location/treasure. DNF is really linear.
DNF is awful, not retro.
Re:Skyrim needs to come out now! by creat3d · 2011-06-15 11:22 · Score: 0

I can't believe there are still people trying to defend the piece of shit that DNF seems quite likely to be from that god awful demo. I'll take that back if the full game turns out to be NOTHING like the demo and doesn't include anything from it.

--
Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.

first post by sneakyimp · 2011-06-15 09:46 · Score: 2

Doesn't this make them griefers?

Re:first post by mwvdlee · 2011-06-15 10:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

It was... "interresting" in the start.
But that has worn off long ago.
They're not doing anything intelligent or justifiable; they're just bullies out to hurt easy targets.

--
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:20 · Score: 1

Their name is LulzSec, it was clear from the start that they were griefers.
Anyone who did not realize that needs to read up on lulz.
Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:20 · Score: 0

www.cia.gov
Re:first post by ALeavitt · 2011-06-15 11:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

The fact that easy targets still exist in this day and age just goes to show that LulzSec does serve a purpose, even if you disagree with their methods.

--
This sig has been stolen. Return it to its original user for a reward.
Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:14 · Score: 0

u mad brah?
Re:first post by cavreader · 2011-06-15 12:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

And exactly what purpose is that? Launching indiscriminate DDOS attacks are child's play since almost everyone is vulnerable to this type of attack. The only purpose they are serving is to give the government more reasons to start trying to take control of content and access. These guys are nothing when compared against those responsible for Stuxnet. Now that required some intelligence and also served a good purpose.
Re:first post by MikeBabcock · 2011-06-15 12:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

Children in school yards are easy targets for rifles. That doesn't in any way imply we should shoot them for lulz.
Neither is anything lulzsec does justified except by people with absolutely no sense of justice.

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 13:07 · Score: 0

Children in school yards are easy targets for rifles.
Childrens' hyperactive and erratic nature in school yards combined with their relatively small stature makes them rather difficult targets for rifles.
Adults in suits and lazy gamers make much easier targets.
Re:first post by Darinbob · 2011-06-15 13:12 · Score: 4, Insightful

Thus anyone who breaks into your house and vandalizes it is serving a purpose, since they're demonstrating that your security could be better.
What is the state of the art security to prevent being phone bombed other than by disconnecting your phone service? What security weakness are they revealing here?
Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 13:31 · Score: 0

So they're like cops now?
Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 16:26 · Score: 0

Easy targets? Either you were being sarcastic by assuming we would know that you think the FBI and CIA are retards and hence "easy targets" or...you're a retard.
Re:first post by anotheryak · 2011-06-15 17:51 · Score: 1

Wish I had mod points. You've made the only intelligent argument in the thread today.
Re:first post by SharpFang · 2011-06-15 18:25 · Score: 2

Are you comparing the two most powerful intelligence/investigation agencies in the USA (CIA and FBI) to children in school yards? Seriously?

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:first post by Gaygirlie · 2011-06-15 18:36 · Score: 1

Children in school yards are easy targets for rifles.
Childrens' hyperactive and erratic nature in school yards combined with their relatively small stature makes them rather difficult targets for rifles.
Adults in suits and lazy gamers make much easier targets.
Well, to be honest, throwing candy bags which you've just injected with rat poison or something using an injection needle -- would leave only a negligibly small hole and thus be really easy to miss -- would work wonders.
But well, that's besides the point. I personally agree with what was said a few comments up: just because something is easy it doesn't somehow become the right thing to do. Killing is easy. Harassing others is easy. Damaging property when there's no one around to stop you is easy. And you're still a douche if you do any of those. I'll be glad when lulzsec gets taken down.
Re:first post by Xest · 2011-06-15 20:42 · Score: 1

"they're just bullies out to hurt easy targets."
Yeah, I know the FBI and CIA have made numerous major cock ups over the years, but calling them "easy targets"? that's a bit harsh isn't it?
Re:first post by sourcerror · 2011-06-15 20:45 · Score: 1

Well, the weakness here is in the phone system, it's not in the victim side. Not that I'm support anything Anon/Lulzsec does.
Re:first post by richlv · 2011-06-15 21:03 · Score: 1

Children in school yards are easy targets for rifles.
did you just compare fbi to children in schoolyards ?

--
Rich
Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 21:05 · Score: 0

"Children in school yards are easy targets for rifles. That doesn't in any way imply we should shoot them for lulz."
I have no idea which school yards you go hunting in but the ones I hunt in have children that are very active and fairly small. What with all the running around and falling down and such, they are actually quite difficult to hit.
The best technique is to send a bullet just past their ear. That way they just kind of stand there afterwards and have a sort of "dear in the headlights" look to them. Sending a bullet between their eyes at that moment is usually fairly easy despite the small target. If you use a high velocity round, the child just kind of drops rather than falls or tumbles. This makes it easier to collect the carcass afterwards. MmmMmm. Hickory smoked child sure is tasty.
Re:first post by Random2 · 2011-06-15 23:49 · Score: 1

Hopefully my house isn't responsible for the intelligence and internal affairs of an entire nation. If it were, I'd be damn happy the only thing they did was vandalize my house.
The company hacks were a bit uncalled for, but the government ones are important.

--
"Our goal each year should be to increase the number of goals we set for ourselves!"
Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 00:12 · Score: 0

It was... "interresting" in the start.
But that has worn off long ago.
They're not doing anything intelligent or justifiable; they're just bullies out to hurt easy targets.
You mean when you started paying attention to them, they were doing 'interresting' [sic] things. What you're seeing right now is business as usual.
And just for the record, the linked article is pure bullshit, it's just some asshole blogger who obviously is using other people's information and can't even bother to provide links to his sources. I'm not a huge IP fanatic, but you need to give credit at least, or else you're just a fucktard.
Re:first post by AmiMoJo · 2011-06-16 00:20 · Score: 1

You can't really compare murdering children with embarrassing large organisations over their poor security. I'm not justifying it, merely saying that Lulz Sec are not comparable to child murderers.
I do find it useful to know which companies definitely cannot be trusted with my private details though. When you get such epic failures as Citibank you have to do everything you can to protect yourself.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 01:36 · Score: 0

Including such easy targets as the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency.
Re:first post by MikeBabcock · 2011-06-16 03:32 · Score: 1

Yes and no. Troll said soft target. I compared soft targets.
The entire point of the rebuttal was that "being a soft target" does not make for a valid target. That was of course the point I was rebuking.
If you think there's some other reason the CIA should be attacked, feel free to state it. But "because they're a soft target" is idiotic.

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Re:first post by MikeBabcock · 2011-06-16 03:33 · Score: 1

As I said in my other reply, my point was in reply to

The fact that easy targets still exist in this day and age just goes to show that LulzSec does serve a purpose, even if you disagree with their methods.
State your response in context or its irrelevant.

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Re:first post by KingBenny · 2011-06-16 03:42 · Score: 1

gratz on the first post, to the posters however, i feel this sharing this kind of shit is not helping, if they do it for ego it shouldn't be encouraged, if they don't it doesn't matter (yes it does) only retards boast, it's a hormone thing, don't get sucked up in the vortex of success, it will inevitably go down and you will crash ... you want to stay out there (please tell me off like the ignoramant moron i am =)

--
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Re:first post by SharpFang · 2011-06-16 03:44 · Score: 1

I guess there are many, many reasons why it should... but "because they're a soft target" is not one of them. Arguably hether that's a good reason or not, definitely because they are not a soft target.

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:first post by KingBenny · 2011-06-16 03:47 · Score: 1

sharing this kind of news to the gp is harmful, whatever anyone is doing, it's never enough, but it shouldn't be based on coke-sniffin grey-hats

--
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Re:first post by LordSnooty · 2011-06-16 03:59 · Score: 1

They're not embarrassing large corporations over their poor security. They're running DDoS attacks which anyone would find difficult to defend against.
Re:first post by Risen888 · 2011-06-16 05:33 · Score: 1

Someone who breaks into the government's "house" and "vandalizes" it is in fact serving a purpose. It demonstrates that your tax dollars could be much better spent on more competent help.

--
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 05:33 · Score: 0

I think they are secretly working for the US government so they will be able to slip new internet security bills by us because of the threat of 'domestic and foreign net terrorism'. Just watch, soon the government will have ultimate control of your ISPs big and small, (americans in) LulzSec, and file sharing, anonimity, and other useful, revolutionary, great things about the internet will be gone for us in america. Quick stirring up the fucking hornets nest for no damn good reason kids....... Realize what you are doing.. Wow the capcha is 'bounty' for this post.. lol

False flag by mykos · 2011-06-15 09:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

I don't want to sound like a tinfoil hatter (even if I do), but something tells me that these guys are contracted by the government because supporters of the Patriot Act are thinning in numbers.

Re:False flag by Zironic · 2011-06-15 09:50 · Score: 0

Well, it at least made me a supporter of whatever gets those assclowns thrown off the internet.
Re:False flag by gnick · 2011-06-15 09:53 · Score: 2

Probably right - I know that when I found out that magnets.com's phones were temporarily tied up, the first thing I did was write my congress critter asking him to tap every phone in the district.

--
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Re:False flag by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:14 · Score: 0

came here to post this... somethings not right here. They are doing everything possible to get arrested and nothing that makes any difference or sense.
Re:False flag by Restil · 2011-06-15 10:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

It makes perfect sense. They're children, looking for attention. And they're getting tons of it. I wouldn't go so far as to say news outlets should stop reporting on it, as that gets into censorship territory, and it IS newsworthy to a point, and yet if they knew that the only ones paying any attention to them were law enforcement, and the only reason they hadn't gotten caught yet is because they're waiting to collect enough evidence to ensure the sentences last multiple decades... maybe it would stop all on its own.
As for being out of reach, NOBODY is out of reach. Even if a country is unlikely to allow extradition, consider the fact that if some small country was causing an abnormal amount of grief for the rest of the world, surrounding allies might consider cutting off all internet access to prevent it. Just something to consider.
-Restil

--
Play with my webcams and lights here
Re:False flag by Cl1mh4224rd · 2011-06-15 10:30 · Score: 1

I don't want to sound like a tinfoil hatter [...]
"I'm not a racist, but..."

[...] but something tells me that these guys are contracted by the government because supporters of the Patriot Act are thinning in numbers.
That people may take advantage of a situation is not evidence that they are responsible, directly or indirectly, for that situation. Politicians are, if anything, opportunistic. Also, it's not like there's never been a group of assholes on the Internet making trouble for a bunch of people.
Your conspiracy theory is just empty calories.

--
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Re:False flag by mykos · 2011-06-15 10:50 · Score: 1

I believe this is the first time, on the internet or otherwise, that someone implied that I was racist after taking a completely unrelated statement out of context. I implore you to read more than half of my sentence.
Re:False flag by X0563511 · 2011-06-15 10:58 · Score: 2

Woosh?
Hint: he's not saying anything about racism. He's bitching about the whole "I'm not X, but..." construct.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:False flag by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:59 · Score: 0

came here to post this... somethings not right here. They are doing everything possible to get arrested and nothing that makes any difference or sense.
They think they're untouchable. They're going to screw up eventually and make a slip that will cause one or more of them to get caught. Then they'll find themselves dealing with people whose idea of lulz is locking them up and throwing away the key. To avoid this they'll spill their guts and start stabbing everyone else in the back in order to save their own asses.
Re:False flag by OctaviusIII · 2011-06-15 11:29 · Score: 1

You definitely do. Tangentially linking the two things because they're related is the nature of tinfoil-hat thinking.

A good way to examine whether a theory is nutty or serious is to think about the end you're purporting the government is trying to achieve, and think of the best and simplest way they could achieve that. In this instance, a far better thing to do would be to tout a how authorities narrowly thwarted a major attack on a well-known, beloved landmark, and toss in a detail or two about wiretaps. Ensure security hawks know the details, that security doves sound silly, and let the campaign shake out as it always does. Hiring hackers is too risky, and too fringe, to shift public opinion, not to mention far removed from the center of opinion. Something tells me your hunch is wearing a particularly shiny hat.

--
What's this? Another weblog? On transit?
Re:False flag by creat3d · 2011-06-15 11:30 · Score: 1

That's what they WANT you to think!

--
Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
Re:False flag by westlake · 2011-06-15 11:38 · Score: 3, Informative

I don't want to sound like a tinfoil hatter (even if I do), but something tells me that these guys are contracted by the government because supporters of the Patriot Act are thinning in numbers.
LulzSec has been rapidly escalating its campaigns since the legislation has been passed. It was not on anyone's radar during the debate in Congress.
May 27, 2011:

Overcoming objections from a bipartisan clutch of libertarian-minded lawmakers, the legislation passed the Senate, 72 to 23, and the House, 250 to 153.
Senator Rand Paul won a small battle with his opposition to the Patriot Act by reaching a deal with Congressional leadership to add votes on two amendments, one of which would exempt some gun records from government searches.
That was the score late Thursday afternoon following Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) announcement that after days of grueling debate over the renewal of three key Patriot Act provisions, Senate leaders had reached a deal on allowing votes on two amendments proposed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
Under the agreement, announced less than nine hours before the law currently extending the Patriot Act provisions was to expire, the Senate would vote on two amendments proposed by Paul: one that would limit "suspicious activity" reporting requirements under the Act to requests from law enforcement agencies, and another -- the one that had seen the greatest opposition from Reid -- that would exempt certain gun records from being searched under the counterterrorism surveillance law.
The victory for Paul wasn't so much that either of his amendments would pass -- in fact, both fell well short of the 60-vote threshold necessary for approval, with the gun-rights amendment receiving the support of only 10 senators.
Rather, it was that after days of vowing to block the passage of the Patriot Act extension -- even at the risk of missing Thursday's deadline -- Paul, a tea-party freshman who has served in the Senate for less than five months, was granted votes on his two amendments.
Patriot Act extension signed into law despite bipartisan resistance in Congress
Re:False flag by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:52 · Score: 0

Please tell me you don't mean that. If you do, you're a nutter.
Re:False flag by Cl1mh4224rd · 2011-06-15 12:02 · Score: 1

I believe this is the first time, on the internet or otherwise, that someone implied that I was racist after taking a completely unrelated statement out of context.
X0563511 got it. If you don't want to sound like X, then just don't say the thing that you think will make you sound like X. If you're going to make the statement anyway, spare us the useless preface and either 1) expend a little effort to support your claim, or 2) accept your outward appearance.

I implore you to read more than half of my sentence.
And here I thought that my response to that other half of your sentence would have been sufficient evidence of my having done as you suggested. Ignoring evidence? Conjuring up fantasies? Nope; not a tinfoil hatter at all...

--
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Re:False flag by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 12:25 · Score: 0

As for being out of reach, NOBODY is out of reach.
True, but computers aren't magical devices. The FBI (or whoever) can't just decide to track their router to give them these people's addresses. If they're behind out-of-country proxies that securely delete their logs (or a VPN), I doubt they're going to find them.
Re:False flag by cavreader · 2011-06-15 12:39 · Score: 1

The FBI might have limitations but the NSA certainly does not.
Re:False flag by Culture20 · 2011-06-15 13:00 · Score: 1

if they knew that the only ones paying any attention to them were law enforcement, and the only reason they hadn't gotten caught yet is because they're waiting to collect enough evidence to ensure the sentences last multiple decades... maybe it would stop all on its own.
they're screwing with the CIA now. They can only be killed in their sleep once.
Re:False flag by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 13:19 · Score: 0

Yes, but again, they can't just magically find them. If these people took proper precautions, finding them will be extremely, extremely difficult. I've noticed a tendency for people to act like the "bad guys" always get caught and the police/government has magical devices that allow them to trace anything. While it's true they have more technology at their disposal, catching someone who took proper precautions is still nearly impossible, even for them.
Re:False flag by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 13:47 · Score: 0

I agree. It seems odd that they have the time and manpower to do so many successful hacks in such a short amount of time, and that they are picking so many different (and high profile) places to hack. I think "real" hackers would never ever touch Government websites in a million years, knowing how much of a penalty they are facing.
All they have to do is bring down something big, and the Conservatives can use them as an example to enforce more draconian rules. Say this phone thing interrupts a 911 call center and somebody dies. Then they have the perfect excuse.
And if you think the government wouldn't let someone die to bolster their own causes, just look at 9/11.
Re:False flag by mykos · 2011-06-15 13:57 · Score: 1

Not that it wouldn't be anything new: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Re:False flag by Erie+Ed · 2011-06-15 14:59 · Score: 1

Oh come on now this is the 21st century as soon as we get their location we will just send in a reaper or predator and drop 500lbs bombs on them for the lulz.
Re:False flag by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 16:52 · Score: 0

[T]hink about the end you're purporting the government is trying to achieve, and think of the best and simplest way they could achieve that. In this instance, a far better thing to do would be to tout a how authorities narrowly thwarted a major attack on a well-known, beloved landmark, and toss in a detail or two about wiretaps.
O RLY?
Physical operations have far more costs and potential for discovery than a well crafted manipulation of chan-tards by a small team of government hackers. 6 x100k/yr and the cost of their lab is peanuts vs running a physical op.
Re:False flag by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 17:08 · Score: 0

Wrong.
One of the people behind LulzSec is more likely to be this Ryan guy who betrayed Anon than the government. LulzSec share a culture with Anon and when this Ryan guy backstabbed Anon he justified it with "I'm just showing you how vulnerable you are".
I agree it COULD be the US government, but it's less likely. It's also possible this Ryan guy backstabbed Anon because the feds forced him to work for them, in which case we're both right.
Also, when the Feds keep silent about an investigation, you know they have a lead.
It's when they hit a wall that they start yapping and quacking.
Re:False flag by Lesrahpem · 2011-06-15 18:45 · Score: 1

Nice idea, and I am sure the government will try to use this that way, but no... they absolutely do not work for the US Government. They are illustrating a very important point and for a good reason. Just keep an open mind, open ears, sit back, and observe this educational demonstration for the human race. You are welcome to participate, but keep in mind that the only rule is that once you are "in" the "game" there are no rules except that you cannot leave "the game".
Re:False flag by sourcerror · 2011-06-15 20:49 · Score: 1

I don't want to sound like a tinfoil hatter (even if I do), but something tells me that these guys are contracted by the government because supporters of the Patriot Act are thinning in numbers.
That's what they want you to think ...
Re:False flag by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 21:27 · Score: 0

yep man, you got it. It's just a way to forge and prepare the public opinion to further internet legislations.
It's so obvious.. I wonder how average informed people don't see it coming.. (at a higher level AlQaeda = lulzsec, it's the same idea).
This is all forged because it's too much really too much. How can a group of hacker activists hack the whole world every couple of days? And this just to piss them off? Ohh c'mon. Stop the fooling.
"US create their own reality." That's what they do for the past 50 years (actually since the TV). I'm confident enough this will have consequences. We have the technology today to prove apollo man pics/vids are forged, all of them and still 99% on earth believe US went to the moon (why not today again? why not the russian then and now? why not china now? Why not any other power that has the money and advanced tech like the US? and they did it almost 50 years ago, ohh c'mon for a 2nd time). Wait 50 years and we'll be able to see the actual supposed landing location on moon for real and guess what we'll find none because we'll be told that solar/moon wind will have destroyed everything. It's a silent and psychological war.
They are masters in making you believe stuf that is plain impossible at a specific point in time (apollo missions, vietnam/irak/terrorism - benladen dead 10 years already). And for 'patriotic' reasons the US people do want it. That's where it hurts. They want to be able to see themselves as 'number one' and they probably are close to it that's true BUT they want the feeling that says: 'I'm born in the biggest country/civilisation of all time'. Sure they do and that's what they get but the price those people pay is brainwashing (their culture of 'show' everywhere at every level is a partial cause to it).
Media in its original meaning is dead (at least from mainstream). All media are fed daily superscoops which aim at one thing: prepare public opinion for what's coming next.
And all of us eat that crap on a daily basis and ask for more. Until you can read between the lines.
That's the world of today: idiots deserve what they get.
I don't agree but I don't disagree. We do what we can to get what we want and not get caught.
Re:False flag by werewolf1031 · 2011-06-15 21:56 · Score: 1

Be careful what you wish for.
Very, very careful.
Re:False flag by AmiMoJo · 2011-06-16 00:25 · Score: 1

the only reason they hadn't gotten caught yet is because they're waiting to collect enough evidence to ensure the sentences last multiple decades
Yeah, the FBI usually just sit by watching their web site and phone systems get trashed, while trying to ignore the pleas from multinational multi-billion dollar companies who are losing millions due to data breeches. They are probably waiting for Lulz Sec to fax a copy of Obama's ass to every machine in the country before making a move.

--
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Re:False flag by cavreader · 2011-06-16 01:15 · Score: 1

The government or law enforcement agencies do not necessarily need to track the source of these attacks by scouring the internet looking for any footprints left behind. They are more likely to recruit someone to infiltrate groups like these and gather information from the people participating in the attacks. The enforcement agencies can set up the agent to pull off a noteworthy infiltration to get peoples attention and work from there. The most useful intelligence today is still culled from people rather than technological sources. Even most of the malware attacks today rely on social engineering and user actions to initiate the attack process.
Re:False flag by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 01:23 · Score: 0

I've noticed a tendency for people to act like the "bad guys" always get caught and the police/government has magical devices that allow them to trace anything.
You're assuming that the "bad guys" have to be found using certain methods that you've already thought of and worked out a defense for. It's probably more reasonable to assume that law enforcement won't come get 'em using the most obvious and well defended route.
Re:False flag by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 01:39 · Score: 0

I'm have to agree. I think they've been infiltrated or perhaps even designed from the start to be this way, though of course not everyone involved would know this, just like with COINTELPRO in the 60's and 70's. Anonymous was political, popular, and consistent, while LulzSec is what the government, intelligence agencies, and corporate media wish Anoynmous was. They have some similar attacks to Anonymous yet also indiscriminate attacks and attacks that harm regular people. This creates confusion because the 2 can be linked together for sharing some similar targets, while the negative actions of LulzSec can be used to smear all hactivism. People can support a group who targets massive corporations only (Anonymous), but will hate a group who unleashes their username, password, and credit card numbers among other things.
Considering how the US government and other governments have been talking about "cyberterrorism", and their history with infiltration and set ups, I think it would be naive not to be suspicious of what is happening. Unfortunately, if that is the case, we may not know for many years.
Re:False flag by tehcyder · 2011-06-16 04:06 · Score: 1

it's not like there's never been a group of assholes on the Internet making trouble for a bunch of people.
That's pretty much a definition of the internet: lulz and porn.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

meh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:46 · Score: 0, Troll

Hope all those useless attention whores remember to bring lube to prison. Can't wait till they get caught. Tired of seeing that stupid name in the headlines.

Re:meh by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:54 · Score: 0

Thanks for reminding all the mods that their daddies didn't use lube you insensitive bastard!

Keep up the good work, crackers!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:47 · Score: 0

Fu**ing magnets, how do they work?

Re:Keep up the good work, crackers!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:57 · Score: 0

There MUST be a link to Sony here. Perhaps Sony secretly include mind-controlling magnets in their products?

Wankers by EQ · 2011-06-15 09:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

So screwing over WOW players trying to get customer support is now "justice"? What a bunch of wankers.

--
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO

Re:Wankers by gclef · 2011-06-15 09:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Justice? I don't think they were ever about justice. Their name says it all: they're in it for the lulz.
Re:Wankers by Omnifarious · 2011-06-15 09:54 · Score: 1

I do not think justice has ever been a goal. They are in it for the lulz. The way to attract their attention is to complain about what they're doing. I'm amused, but have no feeling that much of what they're doing is morally justified in any way. I will be similarly amused (and a bit impressed) if they're caught.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:Wankers by bonch · 2011-06-15 09:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

Slashdot circa 1999: "Free Kevin Mitnick!"
Slashdot circa 2011: "These damn hackers are interfering with my WoW time."
Re:Wankers by syousef · 2011-06-15 09:59 · Score: 2, Insightful

So screwing over WOW players trying to get customer support is now "justice"? What a bunch of wankers.
Can we stop giving these jokers the attention they crave for every little idiotic stunt they pull? Every 10th story seems to be about LulzSec. I'm not really sure it's even news anymore. These guys are like internet trolls and will continue until they either don't get the attention they want or they get their asses arrested.

--
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:01 · Score: 0

They're shooting a crowd with a shotgun full of lulz.
The pellets hitting the people we don't like is the "justice" ;)
Re:Wankers by OverlordQ · 2011-06-15 10:07 · Score: 2

There's a big difference between what Mitnick did and mass disruption of services

--
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:08 · Score: 0

Slashdot circa 1999: "Free Kevin Mitnick!"
Slashdot circa 2011: "These damn hackers are interfering with my WoW time."
Free Mitnick? Nah, it was more like screw Mitnick, he Social Engineered his way in.
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:18 · Score: 0

I do not think justice has ever been a goal. They are in it for the lulz.
Granted that's obviously true for most of them but I'm sure that SOME members of the FBI must be interested in justice. Okay, maybe not.
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:25 · Score: 0

Justice? I don't think they were ever about justice. Their name says it all: they're in it for the lulz.
Take it a step further: they get their lulz by being pricks. I'd say their name should be PrickSuck rather than LulzSec, but that'd be an insult to gays.
Re:Wankers by Znork · 2011-06-15 10:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Frankly, with the latest series of indiscriminate attacks it's starting to look less like griefers run amok and more like false-flag psyops run to reduce support for hacktivism through guilt-by-association and create fertile grounds for some new draconian legislation.
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:27 · Score: 0

because in 1999 we were mostly teenage hackers, now we're computer security professionals and these kids are messing with our free time.
AFAIK Mitnick only ever really broke into networks for fun and to steal mobile phone firmware so he could explore networks more safely.. no DDoSing, no releasing credit card dumps, no messing with innocent people. What these LulzSec kids are doing is the digital equivalent of putting gum in locks and nails under tires. They'll grow up eventually.
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:33 · Score: 0

Frankly, with the latest series of indiscriminate attacks it's starting to look less like griefers run amok and more like false-flag psyops run to reduce support for hacktivism through guilt-by-association and create fertile grounds for some new draconian legislation.
Thank you for mentioning the big elephant in the room that no one else seems to want to bring up.
Re:Wankers by Dark4Sorrow · 2011-06-15 10:43 · Score: 1

Lulzsec isn't doing anything for "justice" or any other higher call for morality. It's all for the lulz.
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:47 · Score: 0

Don't underestimate the idiocy and egoism of script kiddiez and wannabee anarchists. Occam's razor.
Re:Wankers by X0563511 · 2011-06-15 11:00 · Score: 2, Insightful

Looks more like a riot, to me. Except on the internet.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:04 · Score: 0

But that is what drives ad revenue... so no the attention wont stop
Disclaimer, this was not taking a shot directly or solely at /.
Re:Wankers by MrHanky · 2011-06-15 11:07 · Score: 1

Wrong. In 1999, the hacker (as defined in the Jargon File) ethic was widespread on Slashdot, whereas these days the site is occupied primarily by dilettante gadget consumers.
Re:Wankers by mckorr · 2011-06-15 11:16 · Score: 1

That will be their name after Homeland Security tosses them in prison. It's not rocket science. Fuck with corporations, they pay politicians, laws get passed, profit. Fuck with the US Senate, the FBI, they _find_ you. And you know very well the US doesn't care about jurisdiction.
Re:Wankers by Lemmy+Caution · 2011-06-15 11:33 · Score: 4, Funny

As a dilettante gadget consumer with a 4-digit user ID, I resent that.
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:48 · Score: 0

Lulzsec will probably turn out to be a very pissed off Chinese-US national adolescent girl with her first menstrual period starting off this whole 'Lulzsec' wave of attacks on everyone she feels like attacking at any given moment.
Re:Wankers by Lehk228 · 2011-06-15 12:00 · Score: 1

agreed, i bet that less than 1 in 5 iphones and ipod touch's owned by slashdotters is jailbroken

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:Wankers by Omnifarious · 2011-06-15 12:01 · Score: 1

Granted that's obviously true for most of them but I'm sure that SOME members of the FBI must be interested in justice. Okay, maybe not.
Point taken, and agreed with. :-)

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 12:11 · Score: 1

Whose Kevin Mitnick? That dude from War Games?
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 12:12 · Score: 0

Justice? I don't think they were ever about justice. Their name says it all: they're in it for the lulz.

To carry over from last night's discussion of character alignment, LulzSec is neither Chaotic Good nor Chaotic Evil: they're Chaotic Stupid. And the people they're going up against are Lawful Stupid.
I have no dog in this fight, just a big bowl of popcorn. However it ends, it's gonna be hilarious.
Re:Wankers by MikeBabcock · 2011-06-15 12:42 · Score: 2

It shocks me how many geeks seem to support these obvious acts of bullying.
Its wrong, no matter who its done to.

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Re:Wankers by cavreader · 2011-06-15 12:44 · Score: 2

But both actions are illegal and look at the sentence Mitnick got handed and this was back in time before the Internet was on any governments priority list. The laws and sentences have been increasing rapidly since then with little or no complaints from anyone except those who get caught.
Re:Wankers by MikeBabcock · 2011-06-15 12:45 · Score: 2

At what point did Mitnick take down any network you were trying to use for fun or profit?
Mitnick was also a real hacker -- he could tweak code to serve him without being detected most of the time.
From a criminal perspective:
Lulzsec: breaking someone's house down with a rocket launcher
Mitnick: sneaking past your security system in broad daylight and memorizing your diary then getting out without leaving fingerprints
Watching other peoples' lives and work blow up might be fun, but both irresponsible and immature.

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Re:Wankers by cavreader · 2011-06-15 12:46 · Score: 1

The vast number of malware attacks today are Social Engineered.
Re:Wankers by Tolkien · 2011-06-15 12:53 · Score: 1

Social engineering is just as viable and acceptable a tactic as any. It can also save time if the targets are fooled easily enough, like with HBGary:
Cracker: What's the password?
Local Sys Admin: Imadoofus
Cracker: K thx. cracks system wide open

--
how is babby formed?
Re:Wankers by arkane1234 · 2011-06-15 12:54 · Score: 1

Gotta get onto T-Mobile somehow ;)

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Wankers by arkane1234 · 2011-06-15 12:57 · Score: 0

In 2 seconds I got the info you were asking.
!2! SECONDS.
This here intarweb thing is awesome.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 14:00 · Score: 0

What's the difference?
Re:Wankers by Dutch+Gun · 2011-06-15 14:02 · Score: 1

Except PLEASE post the story the first time one of these arrogant, maladjusted little fuckers is caught and locked away for 10-20. I definitely want to read about that. These asinine attacks? Yeah, not so much.

--
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 15:27 · Score: 0

Yeah, the difference being that you are a faggot.
Re:Wankers by jv+lee · 2011-06-15 16:50 · Score: 2

Frankly, with the latest series of indiscriminate attacks it's starting to look less like griefers run amok and more like false-flag psyops run to reduce support for hacktivism through guilt-by-association and create fertile grounds for some new draconian legislation.
This would have to be one of the most sophisticated false-flag ops in history, considering how accurately they've managed to nail the subtle nuances of /b/tardism, down to appropriately asinine attacks on video game servers and porn sites that no one but a complete loser of the truest stripe could even imagine considering worth the effort. And all that for so little gain. It defies logic to think that anyone would attempt to deceptively mimmic the MO of 4chan rejects liks LulzSec, whom the mass majority of people couldn't even hope to understand without years of experience in dealing with the type of depraved juvenility they exemplify, when there are so many far more effective foreign boogymen on which to lay blame.
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 17:04 · Score: 0

And if you spent more than !2! SECONDS reading that information you would have modded my fellow anon +1 funny/insightful.
Humour, try reading up on it sometime.
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 17:54 · Score: 0

Mitnick used social engineering and a few simple technological tricks to gain access to information, computational resources and source code.
LulzSec seems to basically just use basic exploits and DDoS attacks to annoy everyone "for the lulz".
Now, for trolling purposes you could of course reply to my post with "They're both hacking! SAME THING!" but that would be an oversimplification and an appeal to authority (since both are committing crimes). There is a clear difference in their actions and most likely in their motivation as well.
Re:Wankers by Lesrahpem · 2011-06-15 18:50 · Score: 1

No.... People have become complacent and instead of doing useful things with their time, like taking an active hand in their government, they are spending their time being pseudo-entertained in a digital world where nothing they do ultimately matters or benefits anyone. Furthermore, they are paying for this privilege. That money is being used for unjust things. Also, the information (think data mining) collected from observing the actions of MMO players is quite useful for many things, as it accurately models many facets of human society. It is a way to get people to be honest about how they would really prefer to act in a given situation than how they feel they have to act because of social reprisal. This is just one thing which can be learned. This information is not being used for the betterment of the human species. It is being used to generate profit, consolidate power, and exert control.
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 18:55 · Score: 0

He was a con man. No respect for the guy whatsoever.
Re:Wankers by Lesrahpem · 2011-06-15 18:56 · Score: 1

No.... People have become complacent and instead of doing useful things with their time, like taking an active hand in their government, they are spending their time being pseudo-entertained in a digital world where nothing they do ultimately matters or benefits anyone. Furthermore, they are paying for this privilege. That money is being used for unjust things. Also, the information (think data mining) collected from observing the actions of MMO players is quite useful for many things, as it accurately models many facets of human society. It is a way to get people to be honest about how they would really prefer to act in a given situation than how they feel they have to act because of social reprisal. This is just one thing which can be learned. This information is not being used for the betterment of the human species. It is being used to generate profit, consolidate power, and exert control.
Re:Wankers by werewolf1031 · 2011-06-15 22:12 · Score: 1

You seem to be missing a whoosh. Here, have this one:
Whoosh!
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 00:53 · Score: 0

You seems to watch too much hollywood movies.
Re:Wankers by powerlord · 2011-06-16 00:54 · Score: 1

Actually the main problem with Mitnick was that a lot of people felt the punishment did not fit the crime.
For one thing, despite egg on their faces, and the copying of some digital data, I don't think he directly impacted the lives of anyone (except perhaps those directly involved in his Social Hacks, and even then, only at their performance reviews). LulzSec on the other hand seems to aim for high profile/high impact targets.
If the people behind LulzSec were caught and sentenced to 50-Life, you might see a very different reaction on SlashDot to what you're seeing now. People may want them caught and punished, but if the punishment was "excessive" (a nebulous term), then public sentiment would easily shift to "but what harm did they really do?". So long as they continue to impact peoples lives, and receive no karma payback for it, people will reset them. Works the same way with government leaders also. Why do you think people enjoy a good political scandal and want to "vote out the bums"?
Mitnick also seems to have grown.
He now runs Mitnick Security Consulting LLC, a computer security consultancy. (at least according to Wikipedia), and he has written two Security books, with an autobiography due out this year.
I eagerly look forward to LulzSec's Autobiography.

--
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 00:56 · Score: 0

Circa 1999: "Its crackers not hackers!"
Circa 2011: "damn hackers"
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 01:07 · Score: 0

Kevin Mitnick: Hacked into numerous high profile targets to demonstrate insecurities with various financial institutions, etc. Economic damages were $0 because while he took data he didn't do anything with it other than prove that the systems he was dealing with weren't that secure.
Lulsec: Called Magnets.com so much they couldn't process orders for no reason other than that they are petulant ass-tards. Their whole reason for "hating" magnets.com is because they wouldn't tell Lulzsec how magnets work, because it's a stupid internet meme.
So yeah, in 1999 I supported Freeing Kevin Mitnick, as did most of the people here. But in 2011, I'm all in favor of crucifying Lulzsec, and there's no disconnect there because the crimes and the motive behind those crimes is so vastly different.
It's one thing to show the world that a guy can call into a bank pretend to know the people there and gain full access to every account, and that every account is in jeopardy. It's another to learn a phone number and call it so much that they can't have working phones on lines that are publically listed and MADE to be easily accessible.
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 01:46 · Score: 0

Because in their heart of hearts, many geeks are cryptoanarchists, but in the "crypto-judaism" and "cryptography" senses of the word.
Re:Wankers by The+Moof · 2011-06-16 01:46 · Score: 2

You're entirely missing the point with Mitnick - he was held without trial for an unreasonable amount of time: four and a half years. He was deemed a "threat" to global security (literally, a judge said he could "start a nuclear war by whistling into a pay phone"). Yea, it's absurd, we all knew it, and that's why people rallied behind Mitnick. Not because they just arrested a hacker.

Not to mention that these are large scale attacks intended to piss people off and cripple systems. Mitnick just gained access. The comparison isn't even close.
Re:Wankers by Borland · 2011-06-16 02:15 · Score: 1

"Frankly, with the latest series of indiscriminate attacks it's starting to look less like griefers run amok and more like false-flag psyops run to reduce support for hacktivism through guilt-by-association and create fertile grounds for some new draconian legislation."
Actually, your post is more of a false-flag psyops designed to discredit the fact that they are petty dickhead hackers with too much time and lulz. Jeebus, the government does some pretty bad shit, but pissing off gamers and hitting a few minor govt sites isn't going to have the same effect as say...hitting the stock market servers.
So if you're going to engage in paranoid delusion, at least ramp it up 9/11 truther style to something that causes FEAR. Take it to an 11 man.
Re:Wankers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 02:54 · Score: 0

Lulz Sec is no Kevin Mitnick.
Re:Wankers by bobaferret · 2011-06-16 03:05 · Score: 1

If I remember correctly Mitnick was not a very nice guy, and a bit of a poser. Most of his hacks were based off of other peoples (LOD) and not his own. I didn't really care for him as a person or hacker, but I did feel he got the short end of the stick. LulzSec reminds me a bit of Mitnick from a personality point of view, and a simplicity of attack point of view. There's doing it because it's fun and interesting, and then there's doing it because you think you're cool and need to brag about how l33t you are. A collection of script kiddies will always be a collection of script kiddies, no matter how big a news splash they make.
Re:Wankers by cavreader · 2011-06-16 04:51 · Score: 1

I missed nothing sport. You think these posers today will be treated any differently then Mitnik if caught? If anything it will be worse. The department of HomeLand Security will see to that. And an attack is an attack. Whether for fun or profit the people executing these attacks to "piss off people" will be surprised at the draconian penalties thrown their way if caught. I am not saying it is fair but when has fairness ever mattered? People will pitch a fit and rage about the injustice of it all and we will finally start getting some entertainment value out of the whole episode.
Re:Wankers by tehcyder · 2011-06-16 20:04 · Score: 1

I do not think justice has ever been a goal. They are in it for the lulz.
Granted that's obviously true for most of them but I'm sure that SOME members of the FBI must be interested in justice. Okay, maybe not.
I see what you did there.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Wankers by tehcyder · 2011-06-16 20:09 · Score: 1

Frankly, with the latest series of indiscriminate attacks it's starting to look less like griefers run amok and more like false-flag psyops run to reduce support for hacktivism through guilt-by-association and create fertile grounds for some new draconian legislation.
Thank you for mentioning the big elephant in the room that no one else seems to want to bring up.
Apart from all the tinfoil hat wearers here who have already mentioned that big elephant, of course.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Wankers by tehcyder · 2011-06-16 20:10 · Score: 1

Looks more like a riot, to me. Except on the internet.
Riots have a point to them though.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

i like it by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:49 · Score: 0

I havent thought of that. Just forwatd all your phonecalls to someone you dont like. Going to start doing that. Most of my incomming calls are from thai prostitute tha Re more than happy to get a new falang on the hook

Re:i like it by Coren22 · 2011-06-16 02:38 · Score: 1

Is it a ladyboy?

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Oh god. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:49 · Score: 0

When will they stop :x

cia.gov by Huluvu · 2011-06-15 09:51 · Score: 4, Informative

“Tango down - http://t.co/2QGXy6f - for the lulz.” http://twitter.com/#!/LulzSec/status/81115804636155906 wtf

Re:cia.gov by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:08 · Score: 0

confirmed. cia.gov seems to be down at the moment.
Re:cia.gov by hannson · 2011-06-15 11:05 · Score: 1

All I have to say is "lulz". I can haz lulzworthy?
Re:cia.gov by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 12:04 · Score: 0

Talk about cruising for a bruising...
Re:cia.gov by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 16:34 · Score: 0

And how do we know this is NOT CIA and related behind lulsec??
1. create a perception of a threat
2. pass laws to deal with "Cyber Terrorism"
3. declare war on "Cyber Terrorism"
4. profit! profit! profit! (money, power, and control)
There is not even a need for ??? anymore. If Lulsec is just some retards, then this will be dealt with by police. A few arrests later, no more "lulsec".
But if we start seeing "Cyber Terrorism" talk from politicians, legislation getting passed, etc.. then I don't think this is just a bunch of retards running around on the internet.
Re:cia.gov by ShaunC · 2011-06-16 02:26 · Score: 1

Is there really a point in linking to http://t.co/2QGXy6f instead of http://cia.gov? I guess URL lengtheners are the new trend?

--
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!

Coincidence? by saintory · 2011-06-15 09:51 · Score: 1

I was sitting in our office when all of a sudden all the phones in the office rang at the same time. The number that came up was 800.555.1212, or 800-Directory Assistance. Since there are only a handful of us in the office today, it was ironic that only a few of us experienced it. According to our phone clocks, this happened about 2:55PM EDT. That's a little off from the article report time of attack but is it merely a coincidence? I'm curious if any other Slashdotters out there experienced this same phenomenon today.

Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:27 · Score: 1

Their newest target as of 3:00 PM ET? HBGary.
Aha.
Re:Coincidence? by saintory · 2011-06-15 10:39 · Score: 1

So can I infer that all my calls are going through an HBGary trunk? Interesting...
Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:12 · Score: 0

Since there are only a handful of us in the office today, it was ironic that only a few of us experienced it.
No, it was not.
Re:Coincidence? by saintory · 2011-06-15 11:51 · Score: 2

Since there are only a handful of us in the office today, it was ironic that only a few of us experienced it.
No, it was not.
I concede that it was not ironic at all.
Re:Coincidence? by Grail · 2011-06-15 11:54 · Score: 1

Ironic would be if you set up a firewall on the PABX to prevent Lulzsec performing a DDoS on your call centre, but then a major disaster occurred and half the people trying to call you for help weren't able to get through because of your firewall.
Ironic would be if you were participating in the Lulzsec DDoS and ended up taking out your own services.
Ironic would be writing a song titled "Ironic" which proceeds to describe a whole raft of scenarios which are actually not irony at all.
What you experienced was neither irony nor coincidence. What you experienced was simply as would be expected in the scenario that occurred.
Re:Coincidence? by BigSes · 2011-06-16 01:06 · Score: 1

Yes, the whole world did, Job just made it into the mainframe. Its the sound of his birthcry.

Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 09:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

"Anonymous hacker group"...with phone lines? Does not compute.

Re:Wait a minute... by DigiShaman · 2011-06-15 10:05 · Score: 2

Most likely they're using a collection of hacked Asterisk servers or other such IP PBX systems. They may have a "line", but I seriously doubt it was ever theirs to begin with.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Wait a minute... by TubeSteak · 2011-06-15 10:33 · Score: 1

"Anonymous hacker group"...with phone lines? Does not compute.
Voice Over IP is a wonderful thing.
They've probably got a hacked/donated VOIP PBX and are routing everything through that.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Wait a minute... by X0563511 · 2011-06-15 11:02 · Score: 1

Indeed. You don't even need all that much horsepower to call that many people at once.
Now, to actually -talk- to them is another story, but all it takes is a SIP Invite to ring the phone.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Wait a minute... by qubezz · 2011-06-15 12:57 · Score: 1

It would appear they are using the call routing/forwarding feature of Global Crossing's VoIP service, the phone number is their Harrisburg OH point of access. The clever bit is getting the phone number 614-LULZSEC, since 614-585-xxxx is a Global Crossing block.
Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 13:39 · Score: 0

Most likely they're using a collection of hacked Asterisk servers or other such IP PBX systems. They may have a "line", but I seriously doubt it was ever theirs to begin with.
Most likely they're using their own phones, the government......er....... "lulzsec" surely has the resources.
Re:Wait a minute... by MasterOfMagic · 2011-06-15 22:42 · Score: 1

That's the beauty of a well-equipped Asterisk server: all of the convenience of direct SS7 access with none of that pesky paper trail!
Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 02:59 · Score: 0

You're joking right, since when does hacking only include computers? Many of the early hackers started by working with the phone system, phreaking is just a slang term for hacking telco equipment.

This has gotten crazy by makubesu · 2011-06-15 09:53 · Score: 2

These fiends have gone to far. Quick, someone turn on the internet bat signal!

Re:This has gotten crazy by Caratted · 2011-06-15 10:27 · Score: 1

It probably went on, at full capacity about 10 minutes ago - cia.gov is down and per their tweet it's their DDoS. Act of war, any one?
Re:This has gotten crazy by alostpacket · 2011-06-15 10:46 · Score: 2

Buffering...

--
PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
Re:This has gotten crazy by RightSaidFred99 · 2011-06-15 12:12 · Score: 1

Nobody needs to, these idiots will be caught and it won't be long. It amazes me that time after time some punk who watched Hackers a few too many times thinks he's going to be able to do something like this and that the (grown up) professionals who have worked in the field for 30 years, are paid $100k-$250k a year, and who have huge resources behind them somehow magically _won't_ be able to track them down. Rank idiocy.
Re:This has gotten crazy by SethJohnson · 2011-06-15 16:52 · Score: 1

No disrespect to you, because I think a few years back, this was a very relevant criticism. People like MafiaBoy were making a single splash, then promptly put behind bars without much delay.

Natural selection has largely removed those type of cyber vandals from the populace. What remains are the smarter hooligans who have learned from the failures of others how to properly cover their tracks.

The weakest link in any group of criminals is the group itself. In this case, I suspect the members have intentionally maintained anonymity between themselves. This will insulate their group from any member that might become compromised by law enforcement and/or promises of rewards.

Seth

--
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Re:This has gotten crazy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 21:55 · Score: 0

Or even better, Obama could press the Internetwork killswitch button.
Re:This has gotten crazy by Coren22 · 2011-06-16 02:55 · Score: 1

I always thought the ending of Hackers the most unbelievable part. So they admit to hacking a oil companies mainframe, and they are let go? Yeah right, they would get the cell next to The Plague.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Magnets! by pandymen · 2011-06-15 09:55 · Score: 0

How the f*ck do they work?!!?

Black Hats by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:00 · Score: 1

Seems like if I were a serious Black Hat and not just some anonymous/lulzsec script kiddie, I wouldn't welcome the unwanted attention drawn towards internet security. It might not be a good thing to anger both sides of the fence.

And in other news by ideaz · 2011-06-15 10:00 · Score: 1

the LulzSec manages to get its daily scoop of attention on SlashDot.

I wonder if we could have a new section on the left for them now.

Re:And in other news by Dinghy · 2011-06-15 10:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Would you prefer another BitCoin story?
Re:And in other news by ideaz · 2011-06-15 10:18 · Score: 1

Book reviews are better. I can simply ignore them without worrying the news content I'm missing on.
Re:And in other news by hort_wort · 2011-06-15 10:37 · Score: 1

I was thinking the same thing. I haven't seen so many duplicate topics since Android was coming out.
Re:And in other news by qubezz · 2011-06-15 13:03 · Score: 1

Hey the editors are now showing restraint, at least when the story is a guy getting $500,000 of bitcoins stolen....
Re:And in other news by daid303 · 2011-06-15 21:21 · Score: 1

How could you forget the wave of apple/iphone related stories?

Phreak-a-diddle-doo by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:07 · Score: 0

Phreaking is the best they have here?

Whatevs.

Re:Phreak-a-diddle-doo by MoldySpore · 2011-06-15 10:24 · Score: 4, Funny

Call them Lord Nikon. The King of Nynex.

--
"I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."
Re:Phreak-a-diddle-doo by X0563511 · 2011-06-15 11:03 · Score: 1

SIP Invites hardly qualify as phreaking.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Phreak-a-diddle-doo by arkane1234 · 2011-06-15 13:02 · Score: 1

lol if I had mod points right now I'd so dole them out, man.
That retro rocked.

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!

Possible? by Jibekn · 2011-06-15 10:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

Can we use mod points to try and get an article off the first page? please? LulzSec stuff should never hit front page on principle.

Re:Possible? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:20 · Score: 1

It's called the firehose.
Re:Possible? by discord5 · 2011-06-15 10:34 · Score: 1

It's called the firehose.
Ah yes, imagine having an editor pick the best of a few articles each day and spend some time reading them, perhaps adding some value. Now we have another slashdot system to game.
Re:Possible? by Hatta · 2011-06-15 10:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

What principle is that? The LALALALAICANTHEARYOU principle?

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Possible? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Do Not Feed the Trolls principle.
Re:Possible? by Lehk228 · 2011-06-15 12:07 · Score: 1

the principle of authoritarian fuckwaddery?

--
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Re:Possible? by Lesrahpem · 2011-06-15 14:08 · Score: 1

You are mistaken. Here, I have a song to aid in your re-education: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApsVWUGcnqg&feature=related
Re:Possible? by Phil06 · 2011-06-15 16:43 · Score: 0

The principle of I have no class whatsoever.

--
"...and yet, I blame society" Duke - Repo Man
Re:Possible? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 19:43 · Score: 0

what fucking principle? are you trying to sweep them under the rug? are you retarded? are you saying that phone bombing fbi and taking down cia.gov(website) isn't newsworthy? are you reeeeaaally so dumbumb? hell, all security publications should be reporting on them. you mad that they hit your eve wankfest? one of the lulz points is that there's nothing anyone can do to stop some random guys doing this, though they're not random anymore, the phone calls are from real people.
Re:Possible? by gottabeme · 2011-06-15 19:49 · Score: 1

You flatter Slashdot. I can see them now, using their bot hordes to slashdot Slashdot to be the first to see their latest crimes posted and comment on them before anyone else. Yeah....
The principle of not feeding trolls is context-sensitive. They aren't trolling Slashdot, they're trolling the world. Truth is the best weapon against them.

--
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
Re:Possible? by iainl · 2011-06-15 21:45 · Score: 1

Probably the same principle that says "don't feed the trolls".

--
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Re:Possible? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 00:18 · Score: 0

Jeez. Never heard of emergent copy cat behavior? Or watched Ghost in the Shell at least?
Re:Possible? by Ash-Fox · 2011-06-16 02:24 · Score: 1

are you saying that phone bombing fbi and taking down cia.gov(website) isn't newsworthy?
CIA's website is working fine for me. They're not really good at it apparently. I've seen better attacks against Dalnet that took them out for over a month and that was with ISP supported systems with numerous black holes put in place to prevent the attacks.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

I miss wikileaks by Thud457 · 2011-06-15 10:14 · Score: 4, Funny

what's SCO up to these days?

--

the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Re:I miss wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:24 · Score: 0

what's SCO up to these days?
Guys I hear Duke Nukem's coming out
Re:I miss wikileaks by Restil · 2011-06-15 10:30 · Score: 1

It's summer time in Texas. I might be more receptive to the global warming articles now.
-Restil

--
Play with my webcams and lights here
Re:I miss wikileaks by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 14:25 · Score: 1

Apple has drm.
Re:I miss wikileaks by Ksevio · 2011-06-15 15:23 · Score: 2

*prods SCO with foot*
Yep, still dead...no story there. Unless we can get a 10 year anniversary or something...

Phone DoS! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:27 · Score: 0

Now that's old-school.
Fetch me a telegraph!

lulzsec by aahpandasrun · 2011-06-15 10:28 · Score: 1

I, of course, do not condone the actions of LulzSec. However, they represents the true spirit of what 4chan was always about before so called "Anonymous" hijacked our name and took things way too seriously. Anyone remember the Internet Hate Machine video? It was a joke. The most dastardly thing /btards had done at that point was prank call Tom Green. Before letterhead and newsletters, before stupid legion, it was always about just fucking around and having fun. While this is taking things too far, obviously, it is fun to sit on the sidelines and watch.

Re:lulzsec by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 02:45 · Score: 0

There's a huge difference between those LULZ and the major attacks carried out by LulzSec. I missed where TR00 4channers used to release people's CC info, usernames, passwords, and attack US government websites (not that I am siding with the US government, just that being involved with that for no more than the "lulz" as you're suggesting takes some serious balls of steel).

Great, I can see where this is going... by cjb658 · 2011-06-15 10:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Lawmakers today announced new legislation that will take away more of our civil liberties, in response to recent attacks by the groups LulzSec and Anonymous."

Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2011-06-15 10:37 · Score: 0

"Lawmakers today announced new legislation that will take away more of our civil liberties, in response to recent attacks by the groups LulzSec and Anonymous."
No mod points today or you'd get +1 Insightful. This is exactly what will happen. Targeting the FBI is a good way to graduate from "annoyance" to "menace".

--
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by HockeyPuck · 2011-06-15 10:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

What "civil liberties" are you worried about losing? I'm not aware of any that explicitly grant you the ability to phone-bomb some organization. Are you still pissed that you cannot send spam faxes to people?
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Anonymous+Psychopath · 2011-06-15 10:57 · Score: 2

What "civil liberties" are you worried about losing? I'm not aware of any that explicitly grant you the ability to phone-bomb some organization. Are you still pissed that you cannot send spam faxes to people?
How about legislation that requires telephony providers to provide call detail and subscriber records to law enforcement on demand?

--
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:02 · Score: 0

If you can induce a serious enough crackdown, you may cause enough anger to trigger revolutionary waves. By accelerating the process, it becomes more obvious what is happening. Are you telling me that when all of your rights have been stripped away, you'll blame Lulz and the government will be blameless? This is an attempt to throw a match on a powder keg. The government needs to think very carefully.
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by hedwards · 2011-06-15 11:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's not generally the offense that's the problem, it's the investigative techniques involved. Nobody had an issue with the NSA investigating terrorism, but most of us have a problem when they claim to need warrantless wiretaps and the CIA need for black sites to do interrogations.
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by sixsixtysix · 2011-06-15 11:15 · Score: 1

and that'd be 100% on said lawmakers. they could say it was in response to *anything*, but in the end, they'd be the ones taking away said liberties/rights/etc. it's like blaming the wife of an abusive husband.

--
...
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:19 · Score: 0

They're good at taking away civil liberties that have nothing to do with or no effect on the problem at hand. TSA is a perfect example.
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by firewrought · 2011-06-15 11:20 · Score: 2

What "civil liberties" are you worried about losing? I'm not aware of any that explicitly grant you the ability to phone-bomb some organization.

How about the liberty to build software? You must be pretty naive to not see the connection between threat and legislative response, between legislation and executive power, between power and government encroachment, and between encroachment and abuse*. Try reading a wide variety of news sources for 1 or 2 years and you'll wise up.
*Footnote: If you're one of those types that thinks government should have all the tools it wants to control individuals but none whatsoever to regulate to businesses, substitute "stifling bureaucracy" for "abuse"... the fruits of accumulated power are bad all around.

--
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by memnock · 2011-06-15 11:21 · Score: 1

This plays well for the conspiratorial: the government is behind LulzSec. People get their panties in a bunch about LulzSec antics and the government looks like they're doing the right thing by increasing monitoring, restricting access, etc. Although I think the government might come up with a better false flag if it really wants to tighten the screws.

--
"To stop the terrorists."
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:26 · Score: 0

How about legislation that requires telephony providers to provide call detail and subscriber records to law enforcement on demand?
Um.. so which civil liberties would be lost?
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by c0lo · 2011-06-15 11:43 · Score: 1

It's not generally the offense that's the problem, it's the investigative techniques involved. Nobody had an issue with the NSA investigating terrorism, but most of us have a problem when they claim to need warrantless wiretaps and the CIA need for black sites to do interrogations.
And with these already happening, what exactly other liberties are lost?

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:55 · Score: 0

Don't the phone companies already do this? It's not legal, but apparently nobody cares.
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 12:11 · Score: 0

All they need to do this now is a court order, which is pretty trivial for them to get these days anyway...
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by MikeBabcock · 2011-06-15 12:49 · Score: 1

"Back when I was young, the Internet was free and open. We had anonymity and could be anyone we wanted. Then these idiots screwed it up for everyone, and in the name of a few lulz, destroyed our future possibilities. That's why you have to use your citizen card to access the library Internet."

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by cavreader · 2011-06-15 12:52 · Score: 1

What civil liberties have we lost? These attacks are just the electroinc version of vandalism.
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 13:33 · Score: 0

ready and willing yuppie wants to suck the fascist dong...
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 15:10 · Score: 0

And without a warrant. Oh wait, they already do both of those (depending on your ISP/Telco...)
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 15:21 · Score: 0

I don't think you get it. THis is an obvious "false-flag" done by USCYBERCOM to piss off enough people so that they can bring in some legislation for Internet IDs as well as government ability to censor the internet at will. I'm sure if these guys were real, they'd have feds slamming down their doors days ago.
Why do you think they're going after mostly gaming sites? They want gamers and geeks to scream for the government to take their rights, because geeks are the number one hurdle for creating a censored internet. I suppose they figure if they get the geeks on board, then everyone else will go along with it, so they can pass some sort of legislation to turn the internet into a glorified TV box, rather than the open fount of unfettered information that it currently is.
The CAPTCHA for this was "Prophesy". See? Even CAPTCHA agrees with me!
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 16:03 · Score: 0

The laws could have a much broader scope and overlap with legitimate fair.
Example: p2p is used for copyright infringement so pass laws that outlaw the use of p2p software
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by atgaaa · 2011-06-15 17:12 · Score: 5, Funny

I don't know where you live, but in the United States, we believe rights are inherent to all human beings. Rights are not "ganted".
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Culture20 · 2011-06-15 17:40 · Score: 1

How about the liberty to build software?
I mentioned that the future of computing with further walled gardens is that compilers (and programmers) are licensed by the state. Looks like the EU will beat us to that punch.
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 17:40 · Score: 0

If this gets any worse they are likely to crack down further on internet anonymity, using groups like this as a bogeyman.
It won't affect these types, but will affect legitimate users.
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by thetartanavenger · 2011-06-15 17:47 · Score: 1

What "civil liberties" are you worried about losing?
The ones they'll decide they need to track down said phone-bomb organisations

--
Who need's speling and grammar?
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Yvanhoe · 2011-06-15 20:20 · Score: 1

Does anyone else think that lulzsec might be a false flag operation aiming exactly at spreading FUD to spend billions in "cyber defense" ?

--
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 22:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

And all LulzSec is doing is violating other people's rights, such as the right to enjoy your property without it being broken into, copied, and posted in public for all to see.
Your right to swing your fist does not permit you to punch me without consequences. Your right to free speech does not permit you to slander me without consequences. Your right to free activity on the internet does not permit you to interfere with my activity on the internet.
Any government action taken against LulzSec will be taken in defense of the rights inherent to all human beings. I for one cannot wait to see these smug cowards forced to stand up in court and take responsibility for their sociopathic behavior.
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Syberz · 2011-06-16 00:05 · Score: 4, Informative

I'm pretty sure that's he's not worried about losing his right to phone-bomb. Rather, he's worried about the fact that the authorities will be allowed to tap his phone, access his computer and arrest him all without a shred of evidence and because they think that he *might* be doing something illegal like.

--
~Syberz
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Combatso · 2011-06-16 00:31 · Score: 1

IRights are not "ganted".
...but are often taken for granted.
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by gsslay · 2011-06-16 00:43 · Score: 3, Informative

What "civil liberties" are you worried about losing? I'm not aware of any that explicitly grant you the ability to phone-bomb some organization.
The problem is not what is being legislated against, but how it is legislated. Are you unfamiliar with government thinking in cases like these?
"This phone-bombing was performed by unidentified people with a phone line, therefore we shall make it illegal to use a phone without first routing it through a government controlled call-centre and informing it who you are, where you are, who you are going to phone, and for what reason. Problem solved. The innocent have nothing to fear. Anyone complaining their civil liberties are being removed must have something to hide."
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 00:45 · Score: 0

Im just waiting for Anonymous to hit LuzSec...... waiting........
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Ash-Fox · 2011-06-16 02:29 · Score: 1

I don't know where you live, but in the United States, we believe rights are inherent to all human beings. Rights are not "ganted".
Don't know where you got that from. I understood that in the US, rights were actually granted to you in bills. Such as "The bill of rights".
But, as I'm apparently wrong on this, could provide more precise information on the matter?
Google isn't being very helpful on finding your source material for me.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 04:08 · Score: 0

I'm not aware of any that explicitly grant you the ability to phone-bomb some organization.
Thisd says it all - people who argue the "you're not losing rights" angle can't do it without making some retarded argument that involves distorting a thought process into something that has nothing to do with the issue. It's called DUE PROCESS you asshat, everytime something happens, the government uses it as an excuse to reach further and further.
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Gryle · 2011-06-16 05:04 · Score: 2

I am not a political theorist by any means, but I'll take a swing at this The US concept of "inherent rights" derives from the philosophies of Enlightenment-era philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Thomas Paine. Wikipedia has a pretty good article natural rights vs legal rights here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

In US political theory, the Declaration of Independence carries a significant amount of weight, because it publicly stated on what philosophical and moral grounds the North American colonies felt justified in breaking away from the British Empire. From the second paragraph:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....
After the US colonies gained independence, they tried something called the Article of Confederation, which was an absolute disaster. So all the Founding Fathers got together to figure out a way to create a system of governance that held true to the principles they had laid out in the Declaration of Independence When they sat down to write the Constitution was written, they intended it to be lens through which the law was viewed (except for Jefferson, who thought it should be rewritten every few years to reflect the prevailing attitudes of the times). However when they got done writing the thing, they realized that, while they do indeed have "certain unalienable Rights", without clarification governments on down the lines could easily say "show me where free speech is a right". Thus, they added the Bill of Rights to clearly define what they felt these natural, inalienable rights were. For further education, start with the Wikipedia pages on the US Bill of Rights, the US Declaration of Independence, and the above-posted link on natural vs legal rights

--
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 05:39 · Score: 0

No, but they'll make old analog modems illegal by classifying them as "hacking tools."

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by Paul+Bain · 2011-06-15 10:35 · Score: 1

LulzSec's disabling of the CIA's website (CIA.gov) is currently being discussed on ZeroHedge: LulzSec Takes Down Cia.gov One thing is certain. The crackers in LulzSec are damned good, OR they have considerable "inside" help at the CIA and FBI. Or BOTH!!

--

A lawyer & digital forensics examiner. Also an expert on open source software (OSS).

This is a first by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:39 · Score: 0

An article that DOESN'T link to an ad-laden, absolutely overloaded media outlet crap-laden filler page? Impossible! This one must have slipped right by samzenpus.

Isn't this along the same lines as... by Rivalz · 2011-06-15 10:40 · Score: 2

Isn't this along the same line as causing a traffic jam at a busy intersect just to say hay you should have a police officer watching every traffic corner?
Maybe I'm missing the point but mostly they just seem to cause petty disturbances. Are they trying to make it so companies have to weigh every new venture they role out with the thought of risk vs reward?
I always wanted to be a person who achieves something not someone that goes over to the next guys sand castle and kicks it down and says damn should have made that sucker hurricane proof. Better luck next time.

I'm just surprised these guys don't naturally just turn on each other over time.

Re:Isn't this along the same lines as... by nurb432 · 2011-06-15 11:35 · Score: 1

I'm just surprised these guys don't naturally just turn on each other over time.
They will..

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:Isn't this along the same lines as... by c0lo · 2011-06-15 11:47 · Score: 1

I'm just surprised these guys don't naturally just turn on each other over time.
Without any principles/program/ideology but "doing it for the lulz" (i.e. nothing to argue about), where's the motivation to turn each other?

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Re:Isn't this along the same lines as... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 00:45 · Score: 0

They do. If you look at their Twitter feed, there's references to "/b/ tards" trying to take them down, challenge accepted, etc. We might be seeing the first skirmish in a 4chan civil war
Posting anon to preserve well-deserved moderation
Re:Isn't this along the same lines as... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 01:07 · Score: 0

I'm just surprised these guys don't naturally just turn on each other over time.
Without any principles/program/ideology but "doing it for the lulz" (i.e. nothing to argue about), where's the motivation to turn each other?
The Lulz. Just imagine the fun if they've been trying to keep their connections anonymous, but one member has figured out who someone is.
Turn them over, and watch the hunters circle THEM instead of looking for you. Then you can enjoy the Lulz of watching them twist in the wind. If you've had a few virtual arguments with them, you might enjoy it even more.
Despite the old saying, there is no honor among thieves.

Like DRM to software piracy by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:43 · Score: 0

Like DRM to software piracy, LulzSec will probably only further annoying restrictions on useful stuff. I can understand the feeling of frustration and the helplessness that is felt when you consider the logistics of actually making a difference, but unlike the actual organized help that wikileaks have provided, LulzSec really only seems to be doing it for the lulz.

LulzSec new toilet stall denial of service attack by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:44 · Score: 0

Recently LulzSec began a campaign of denying access to public toilets. By using technical means of using up toilet paper and using it to clog pipes they have shut down many public facilities, denying access to both paper and flushing....

Look, we know the entire Internet isn't secure. But we all *should* also know it is easier to destroy than create. Grow up just a little bit please. Denial of service on a service available to the public is typically pretty easy no matter what it is.

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by Hatta · 2011-06-15 10:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

One thing is certain. The crackers in LulzSec are damned good, OR they have considerable "inside" help at the CIA and FBI. Or BOTH!!

Or the CIA doesn't use the public facing web server for anything important, so they didn't bother securing it very well.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Next /. article of LulzSec by csumpi · 2011-06-15 10:47 · Score: 1

better by their mugshots. This is getting annoying. At this point they pissed lots of people off, someone will find them.

Pfft! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:50 · Score: 0

These frak knuckles are going to force the hand of law makers to well and truly make their activities classified as acts of terrorism.

Way to go frak knuckles.

Seems like... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 10:54 · Score: 0

Seems like everyone that has bitched about the loss of rights, the encroachment of the federal government, and the crimes committed daily by CEOs and banks, while begging for someone to do something, is now crying for the something that someone is doing to be stopped.

Look. You can't have your fucking cake and eat it too. Either you want these criminals (CEOs, bankers, government officials) to suffer or you don't.

Bitching about your precious MMO downtime, IMHO, means you don't. Which makes you part of the problem.

KUDOS LULZSEC, KEEP FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT MY BROTHERS

Re:Seems like... by Dunbal · 2011-06-15 11:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm sorry I don't see the connection between "criminal" CEOs, bankers and government officials, and EVE Online, magnets.com and Minecraft. Please elaborate.

--
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.

hackers? really? by Charliemopps · 2011-06-15 10:57 · Score: 2

Does anyone honestly believe that LulzSec is anything other that some government agency. They're clearly trying to piss off the general public... and to what purpose? Support for some key upcoming regulatory changes to the internet?

Re:hackers? really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:14 · Score: 0

That's what i am starting to think too.. I guess LULZCOM, HACKINT, or Operation Btards were too obvious.
Re:hackers? really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:16 · Score: 0

not just hackers...hackers on steroids.
Re:hackers? really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:38 · Score: 1

On a cursory analysis, LulzSec apparently have employed massive amounts of resources and skills in a pretty much blinding amount of time and have media complicity of being invariably mentioned in the same breath as Anonymous so as to disparage both names. Meanwhile, Anonymous has struggled in vein to get straight media coverage anywhere near the same extent while doing much more actual (and effective) blackhat ops for a far longer amount of time. Also note the LulzSec name alone has military jargon embedded in its damn marketing (air force anyone?). So the evidence is heavy in favor of your theory.
For instance, to the average public: "I do not know what say PROTECT IP means but it sure sounds like something I would support if it stopped these horrible 14 yro boys in LulzSec from making me unable to access the cia.gov site!"
Re:hackers? really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 13:20 · Score: 0

unfortunately, you are probably correct.
Re:hackers? really? by Torodung · 2011-06-15 13:56 · Score: 1

When the prominent drumbeat hits the major news agencies, and is on the front page of print-dinosaur-buggy-whip newspapers, I'll buy into that one. Until then, seriously, it's making the front page of Slashdot. Nobody is going to sway public opinion with that. ;^)
--
Toro
Re:hackers? really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 15:36 · Score: 0

You miss the point of the psyop. YOU are the focus, not the general public. A major roadblock in the agenda to control and regulate the internet are who? The general public is being fed cartoonish stories about hackers shutting down the power grid via the internet, or hackers blowing up nuclear plants via the internet. That is meant for your Grandmother and Uncle who only know how to write an email or hit the FWD button on Kitten Pictures to their contact list. You, as a geek, whom understands that it would be impossible to do such a thing, will not buy a shut down of the free internet on those pretenses.
Enter "LulzSec". This is the PsyOp for the tech savvy: The hard ones to crack. They will increasinly piss you off, attacking geek sites, online games, et cetera, until you are willing to stand shoulder to shoulder with Grandma Mabel to demand that our enlightened leaders do something about this menace we call the "uncensored, free internet".
Re:hackers? really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 16:22 · Score: 0

I can see this happening. It happened to "Anonymous." Using the same techniques learned through anonymous with mind games and social engineering to create a world of havoc on the people stereo typed for 4chan. Make it look like it was one of them to destroy them all as predicted to create new spying and censorship laws that are implemented and tested in Tennessee!
Re:hackers? really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 21:25 · Score: 0

Completely true.
Re:hackers? really? by Charliemopps · 2011-06-15 23:11 · Score: 1

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/06/16/cia.website.hacker/index.html?hpt=te_bn3+
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/06/hackers-break-into-senategov-web-site.html
http://techland.time.com/2011/06/15/hackers-claim-to-sting-cia-website-attack-senate-site-again/
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/sc-dc-0616-cia-hacker-20110616,0,3833205.story
http://blogs.forbes.com/andygreenberg/2011/06/15/testing-the-limits-lulzsec-takes-down-cias-website/
Re:hackers? really? by gtall · 2011-06-15 23:18 · Score: 1

Another brilliant theory backed by what, exactly? The human brain generally connects the dots together, any collection of dots, whether there is an actual underlying connection or not. Maybe you could point to your evidence before running off at the mouth over your latest inspiration?
Re:hackers? really? by BigSes · 2011-06-16 01:22 · Score: 1

To get their paperwork through to start LulzSec PAC.
Re:hackers? really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 01:37 · Score: 0

Anonymous/4chan have been doing annoying things like this for years. The government doesn't need to step in when there's idiots willing to do it for free.
Re:hackers? really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 01:45 · Score: 0

Exactly! There's as much evidence these are CIA/NSA operatives as there are they are 14 year old script kiddies on summer break or Chinese agents trying to fuck with our internet. Cite some sources or please keep the conspiracy nonsense to a minimum.
Re:hackers? really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 02:08 · Score: 0

Anonymity is bad, Mmm-kay?
Re:hackers? really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 05:21 · Score: 0

If so they are doing a rather poor job, when you look at the steadily increasing number of followers on twitter...

Why you mad tho? by biodata · 2011-06-15 11:00 · Score: 0

Anyone would think there is some kind of serious crime being committed here. My idea of serious crime is when someone's house is broken into or someone gets punched in the face for no reason, or worse. This is just a form of protest/advertising and harms noone personally.

--
Korma: Good

Re:Why you mad tho? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:11 · Score: 0

You will be happy if they block your office's phone lines? They are messing with real people that has a job to do... If they are so brave why they do not knock down NSA? Nah, is easier to piss off thousands of persons. Would you be happy if they do not let you navigate through the web?
Re:Why you mad tho? by biodata · 2011-06-15 11:42 · Score: 1

In the UK on 30th June lots of civil servants are going to go on strike. Previous governments made General Strikes illegal, so each group of civil servants is going to be protesting their own disputes but conveniently doing it on the same day. This will be a major denial of service to a wide range of people in schools, transport etc. Does it piss me off? Not nearly as much as the widespread abuses of power they are trying to draw attention to. For me, lulz ddos ranks on the same scale. The inconvenience can be annoying but I'm glad someone is demonstrating that power is more diffuse than generally acknowledged. At least they are not taping their lunch to their heads and occupying the city centres until the government is toppled, as recently happened in several countries. I'd find that much more disruptive.

--
Korma: Good
Re:Why you mad tho? by MikeBabcock · 2011-06-15 12:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Interfering with someone else's electronics is in fact a serious crime in most places. The Internet is primarily privately run these days, so you might find it strange but private companies' resources being misused is not the same as dancing like an idiot in a public park. Its a direct assault on private property, like your examples.

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by X0563511 · 2011-06-15 11:01 · Score: 1

It takes almost no skill to execute a DDoS attack, which is all this bullshit is.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Fucked by cosm · 2011-06-15 11:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

Either these guys are fucked and we are about to get rammed with legislation, or the government is pulling this off and we are about to get rammed with legislation. Either way the general public takes the red white and blue schwanze in the end.

--
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF

Re:LulzSec new toilet stall denial of service atta by X0563511 · 2011-06-15 11:06 · Score: 1

a DDoS has nothing to do with security. It's only about wasting resources. It's not even hard to do.

These guys should be taken out and shot. Ignoring all the service disruptions etc, just stop and think of all the power these jackasses are wasting.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...

Whats the point...? by twebb72 · 2011-06-15 11:06 · Score: 5, Funny

FBI... ok, so you're an anarchist
WoW... ok, so you're anti-capitalist
Magnets.com... uhh, so you don't like your shitty kid's art messing up your fridge...?

Re:Whats the point...? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:19 · Score: 0

Magnets are the secret that power 4chan.
Re:Whats the point...? by c0lo · 2011-06-15 11:52 · Score: 1

Magnets are the secret that power 4chan.
So secret that even they don't know how magnets work?

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by ginbot462 · 2011-06-15 11:08 · Score: 2

>> Or the CIA doesn't use the public facing web server for anything important

A honey pot would be important :). (but one with enough challenge to obfuscate the fact)

--
Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion

The linked article doesn't mention Blizzard... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:36 · Score: 0

Did Revotron get his game makers mixed up or does he have additional knowledge of the situation?

Re:The linked article doesn't mention Blizzard... by Revotron · 2011-06-15 13:44 · Score: 1

Thanks for noticing, it's additional knowledge. I did a little research before I submitted, and according to @LulzSec on Twitter, they targeted WoW Customer Service as well. FWIW, my original headline focused on the FBI and HBGary. But for whatever reason, samzenpus thought "Blizzard" fit better in there... not quite sure why.

Re:Hey old men, this is fun? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:36 · Score: 0

There's nothing to understand, there's nothing deep about it, it's just some morons being morons (you seem to be pretty good at that as well).

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 11:51 · Score: 0

It takes almost no skill to execute a DDoS attack, which is all this bullshit is.

totally agree

Trolls by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 12:08 · Score: 0

Please don't feed the trolls.

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 12:17 · Score: 0

Yeah, great. Like an idiot, I clicked the shortened URL. :P

Expecting heavy boots in the hallway any minute now.

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 12:18 · Score: 0

One thing is certain. The crackers in LulzSec are damned good, OR they have considerable "inside" help at the CIA and FBI. Or BOTH!!

Or the CIA doesn't use the public facing web server for anything important, so they didn't bother securing it very well.

Can you say honey pot?

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 12:23 · Score: 0

One thing is certain. The crackers in LulzSec are damned good, OR they have considerable "inside" help at the CIA and FBI. Or BOTH!!

Or the CIA doesn't use the public facing web server for anything important, so they didn't bother securing it very well.

This.

Lulzsec gains root access to senate.gov servers by Cito · 2011-06-15 12:25 · Score: 1

Lulzsec posted proof and documents downloaded from senate.gov site.

they put up a text file of the initial proof

http://lulzsecurity.com/releases/senate.gov.txt

along with config files, usernames, and enough data for others to get back in, of course security has probably been increased 100 fold since the root hack

They have all the password file for that FBI site they hacked up on their torrent account: http://thepiratebay.org/user/LulzSec

They are in pretty damn deep, even though there is many lulz, for their sake I hope they know what they doing, or they will soon meet Bubba in prison

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by kvvbassboy · 2011-06-15 12:31 · Score: 1

Not all.

lulzsec versus goatsec by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 12:38 · Score: 0

I miss weev.

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by MikeBabcock · 2011-06-15 12:47 · Score: 1

Attacking people with the resources to find and make you disappear is stupid.

You know that moment in a super hero movie where the idiot bad guy says something insulting to the hero and you know he's going to get his backside handed to him six ways from Sunday? Lulzsec just did the insult bit.

--
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)

MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 12:48 · Score: 0

Here's some goat.seman to tide all of us over.

Better for the Lulz than the Stash by Cogent91 · 2011-06-15 12:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Sony hacks illustrated just how exposed our data is; the treasure trove of personal data sitting out there for the EASY taking by real criminals is a disaster waiting to happen on an unprecedented scale. I'd rather a group like Lulz go around poignantly dispelling our notions of information security rather than have actual identity thieves take on the mantle of a wake up call themselves. I applaud their point: if you can't even stop people compromising systems for laughs, you'll never be able to stop those who are doing so for profit.

Re:Better for the Lulz than the Stash by cavreader · 2011-06-15 12:56 · Score: 2

If they notified the victim of the security lapses before they went public it would be helpful. And if these guys get caught they will be treated as criminals.
Re:Better for the Lulz than the Stash by Cogent91 · 2011-06-15 13:16 · Score: 2

I'm not necessarily saying I agree with what they are doing, just that its a best case scenario for how our historically lax information security measures can be exposed as I don't think the polite approach would drive the point home sufficiently. Pulling the pants down of major companies who should have already prepared better sucks for the companies disgraced but for every one they embarrass are scores more who are doing what they can to tighten their own belts. Whitehats have been trying for years to demonstrate, unsuccessfully, better efforts are needed. The best cure for our complacency is a tame threat encouraging solid fences are built before the real, wild threats arrive. And keep in mind, it's OUR data these companies have so poorly guarded.
Re:Better for the Lulz than the Stash by Hatta · 2011-06-15 14:11 · Score: 1

If they notified the staff of security lapses, everyone would just wait around until they got notified. If they name and shame indiscriminately, that's motivation for everyone to be proactive about security.
I agree, if they get caught they will be treated as criminals. But that's just the kind of fucked up things are these days.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Re:Better for the Lulz than the Stash by arth1 · 2011-06-15 14:14 · Score: 0

If they notified the victim of the security lapses before they went public it would be helpful
Why would that be helpful? It would give them a chance to pull their pants up and not be exposed to the world, which is the entire point?
You have to publicly shame these companies and firms into taking security seriously, or else they won't do more than the bare minimum to cover up. Unfortunately for Lulzsec and us, it won't work on the CIA, because they have no shame whatsoever.
Re:Better for the Lulz than the Stash by cavreader · 2011-06-15 15:07 · Score: 2

"Why would that be helpful? It would give them a chance to pull their pants up and not be exposed to the world, which is the entire point?" Outing them does more harm to the users than it does to the company. Shaming would be an valid option if the company was warned of a vulnerability and did not fix the problem in a timely manner. "You have to publicly shame these companies due if the company was informed of the vulnerability and firms into taking security seriously" How do you know the are not taken security seriously? No matter what level of security you put in place there are still potential vulnerabilities. There is no online site that is 100% secure or free from vulnerabilities..
Re:Better for the Lulz than the Stash by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 19:01 · Score: 0

Good point.

Re:Hey old men, this is fun? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 12:53 · Score: 0

When you get arrested, don't forget your soap on a rope dude.

Re:Hey old men, this is fun? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 13:03 · Score: 0

enjoyment is now illegal? a felony no less??

Wow, Slashdot, a new low. DIAF

Re:Hey old men, this is fun? by arkane1234 · 2011-06-15 13:11 · Score: 1

While I agree fully (hey, I was part of the old era of the different layers of hacking, most of us probably (hopefully?) were...)... I'm only worried about another revamp of the near totalitarian political shift that occurred back then due to the "anarchy". That word was dolled out so much it was pathetic and meaningless.

The day we have to worry about the FBI tracking us down for downloading the wrong thing, or transferring the wrong kind of encryption across country lines is a sad day again... wait, what's that? It's still that way? The FBI has been too worried about what? Stuff in people's shoes on planes? At least there's a slight distraction for the gestapo the last 10 or so years...

--
-- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 13:11 · Score: 0

Or its a honey pot?

Re:Hey old men, this is fun? by c0lo · 2011-06-15 14:15 · Score: 1

While I agree fully (hey, I was part of the old era of the different layers of hacking, most of us probably (hopefully?) were...)... I'm only worried about another revamp of the near totalitarian political shift that occurred back then due to the "anarchy".

Hmmm... how old? Because last time a counter-culture decided to "stick it to the man" was about half a century ago. And, after a while (with McCarthy and Nixon gone), it was better... for about 20 years.

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.

Re:Hey old men, this is fun? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 14:34 · Score: 0

Yeah, I remember, I was there.....Hell, I was involved in court cases....all easily googlable unfortunately....."h/p/a"....that was enough to bring the wrath of hell upon a poor unsuspecting SysOp...who didn't have CDC back then? VAS? OCAP? Jolly Rogers? ACB...etc, etc, etc a million times over.....t-files....

But does that make it right? That sounds like persecution in any other context....

Of course that doesn't make it right...sure, worth worrying about, but, fortunately AND unfortunately, that doesn't justify it for either side.

Re:Hey old men, this is fun? by Daneurysm · 2011-06-15 14:35 · Score: 1

and "they" had a much more compelling case back then

Time to grow up now children. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 15:00 · Score: 1

I used to think that websites getting hacked was a bit of a laugh. Now it's a PITA. I am sick of getting emails from large companies stating that they have been compromised, and X data has been stolen. It's time to take the nappies off and get out into the real world.

All you are doing is pissing people off, and it WILL come and bite you in the arse.

YES - Perhaps, & here is why by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 15:02 · Score: 0

Don't you think that various editors in printed news (or otherwise) who have an interest in computing, especially security look around here?

* NOW - "Believe-it-or-not", there are places online that rate THIS VERY WEBSITE as "#1" as far as technically oriented websites go!

E.G./Case-in-Point -> http://www.topsite.com/best/tech

(So, "that all said & aside"? It's possible that this site "sways opinions" out there, or informs various news agences... you never know!)

APK

P.S.=> Perhaps you ARE correct though - most of what gets put up here is 2nd hand news, but, it's a great "aggregator" of "geek-news" here too: Saves time for those who are interested in the CSC field & all of its facets, as well as other technical fields in the sciences, etc./et al!

... apk

Re:YES - Perhaps, & here is why by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 20:40 · Score: 0

Kill yourself, you freak.

Perhaps, perhaps not (think PRS) & all the sud by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 15:10 · Score: 0

Legislations being proposed, & rather "suddenly" lately, in regards to "stopping online crime and hacker/crackers" etc.!

Addtionally, the typical way to "sway the masses/polarize them"?

Trumpet it from the rooftops in ALL media, yes, including online too & THEN CREATE AN "INCIDENT" or series of them (PRS - Problem/Reaction/Solution)...

Same as happened w/ 911 for instance (& I am pretty much sure that was all a setup, don't know about you though).

In fact, We had a discussion here:

http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2231322&cid=36416026

About that VERY THING/CONCEPT, just a couple days ago here in fact... & yes, there are others that think as you do... and those that CLEARLY, don't!

Me? Well... Not sure.

APK

P.S.=> I only know I do my part to stop these "hacker/cracker" &/or "malware maker" types, & have since 1997 online http://www.neowin.net/news/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text... AND, more recently, e.g., here:

http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22HOW+TO+SECURE+Windows+2000%2FXP%22&go=&form=QBRE

... apk

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 15:22 · Score: 0

Or the CIA doesn't use the public facing web server for anything important, so they didn't bother securing it very well.

Anything important? How about their reputation?

Internet Security and Cyberwar are headline news in Middle America, and the CIA gets punked by smartass kids on their own homepage.

And it doesn't make sense they wouldn't secure it well. The CIA page would be a prime drive-by target for disgruntled teenagers around the world since it opened.

KILL LULZ !!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 15:43 · Score: 0

KILL LULZ !!! They become internet terorist now !!!
First they attack Sony, later they attack CIA, now they attack WOW.
Lulz must die ... Literally !!!

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by CodeBuster · 2011-06-15 16:08 · Score: 2

Or the CIA doesn't use the public facing web server for anything important, so they didn't bother securing it very well.

In fact, they probably set it up this way on purpose with an eye towards attracting interesting targets to their honey pot. It's a cheap and effective method when compared to other forms of surveillance and the CIA need only spend minimal effort and resources to promote their honey pot where desirable targets are likely to find it and follow up on any promising leads.

CIA? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 16:14 · Score: 1

Attacking the CIA website is like kicking a nest full of killer bees.

Who would do such an idiotic thing and hope to have a life worth living afterward?

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 17:21 · Score: 0

You'd think it'd be worth securing if only to save face.

Old criminal line "They are asking for it". by anotheryak · 2011-06-15 17:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

When a guy breaks into your house and steals your belongings, "Hey, he had a lousy alarm system and was gone over Labor Day Weekend, he was asking for it!"

A rapist: "She was wearing a provocative outfit! Anyone could see that she was asking for it".

Now these script kiddies: "Hey, we broke in and found plaintext! Sony was asking for it."

Same logic. "It's not my fault, you did not prevent me from committing a crime so it is your fault. I am not responsible for my criminal actions, you are. You are also responsible for the third-parties I hurt because you did not adequately prevent me from doing it".

Re:Old criminal line "They are asking for it". by horza · 2011-06-15 22:56 · Score: 1

That's a poor analogy. A woman in a provocative outfit isn't holding the personal details of millions of other people. Presumably your belongings in your house don't either, and if you have a laptop that does and the details are not encrypted then I WOULD hold you responsible if it was stolen.
tldr; not the same logic
Phillip.

--
Property for sale in Nice, France
Re:Old criminal line "They are asking for it". by loufoque · 2011-06-15 23:13 · Score: 1

When a guy breaks into your house and steals your belongings, "Hey, he had a lousy alarm system and was gone over Labor Day Weekend, he was asking for it!"
Actually, if you leave your house unprotected and someone steals your belongings, you cannot claim money from your insurance. So insurance companies use the same logic.
Re:Old criminal line "They are asking for it". by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 00:45 · Score: 0

No thats more like a bank having a deadbolt on their safe and the money was just sitting inside then when some robber breaks in they say WE DID EVERYTHING WE COULD ITS ALL THEIR FAULT.
You're terrible at analogies.
Re:Old criminal line "They are asking for it". by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 01:36 · Score: 0

Sure you can. A few months ago, I fucked up and left the door to my apartment unlocked, and it got robbed. Insurance payed for the stolen stuff (minus the deductible). Then my premiums went up, naturally, because they realized that I'm the kind of idiot who leaves his apartment unlocked in fucking Baltimore, but that was expected, I guess.
Get an insurer that doesn't suck.
Re:Old criminal line "They are asking for it". by N1AK · 2011-06-16 01:42 · Score: 1

No, your insurance company refuses to offer insurance products which don't require a level of security to be maintained. They aren't judging the morality of the theft, they are making a profit/loss decision that has nothing to do with whether the theft was legal/moral/ethical etc.
Re:Old criminal line "They are asking for it". by remiked2009 · 2011-06-16 03:09 · Score: 1

When a guy breaks into your house and steals your belongings, "Hey, he had a lousy alarm system and was gone over Labor Day Weekend, he was asking for it!" A rapist: "She was wearing a provocative outfit! Anyone could see that she was asking for it". Now these script kiddies: "Hey, we broke in and found plaintext! Sony was asking for it." Same logic. "It's not my fault, you did not prevent me from committing a crime so it is your fault. I am not responsible for my criminal actions, you are. You are also responsible for the third-parties I hurt because you did not adequately prevent me from doing it".
This world's leaders are such a bunch of knuckle-heads and criminals, they all deserve far worse than hacking. LulzSec is just implementing a few bitch-slaps where due. Get over it.

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by anotheryak · 2011-06-15 17:49 · Score: 2

Exactly...does anyone here really have that "action movie" idea that some massive mainframe inside CIA headquarters is really running the CIA website? And that it's not just farmed out to some contractor like rackspace?

Re:Hey old men, this is fun? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 17:55 · Score: 0

Until it's your personal information that's stolen, and you can't even get credit at the video store any more. Asshat.

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by Xest · 2011-06-15 20:52 · Score: 1

Or like most public sector organisations across the globe.

They're just pretty fucking incompetent when it comes to this kind of thing.

Having worked in public sector, for 6 years, I know where I'd place my bets.

Re:Perhaps, perhaps not (think PRS) & all the by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 20:53 · Score: 0

Visit some English class, you moron.

FIRST OF ALL - Note, I use "0.0.0.0" vs. "127.0.0.1"
(That is simply because iirc, the zero's based one leads to a NULL port type of request, rather than your "loopback adapter" (i.e.-> YOUR OWN MACHINE fielding requests) for a couple of reasons (which it took me some time to come up w/ & testing as to which is "better" to use)).
SECONDLY, 0.0.0.0 is SMALLER than 127.0.0.1, & thus, parses + loads FAR faster, & is smaller on disk is why - AND, in RAM once loaded: THUS, I am logically concluding that 0.0.0.0 is better to use period for HOSTS file blocks - same function, & @ LESSER cost, nearly all the way around (less diskspace, faster loadspeed, less memory occupancy, & etc. et al). A MORE EFFICIENT STRUCTURE!

Bwahaha! You are nothing more than a cargo cult quack, simpleminded and skill-less.

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by iainl · 2011-06-15 21:47 · Score: 1

Frankly, I think they hit that point the other day, when they took down Goonswarm's EVE fun.

--
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"

Ars Technica down by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 22:02 · Score: 0

A lot of Ars Technica users were hitting out at LulzSec yesterday and now their site is down (and has been for the last 30 mins or so). Coincidence?

KGB by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-15 22:22 · Score: 0

My guess this is some old communists or their successors. If not them directly then they are providing money, resources and direction. A cell of individuals who don't know they are being "handled" and a few professionals that will disappear when the group is caught. The model for this goes back to Clfford Stoll. Re-read "Cuckoo's Egg" and see how the hackers are probably being manipulated.

The only thing this will accomplish... by EmagGeek · 2011-06-15 22:56 · Score: 1

... is the further erosion of Internet freedom, personal civil liberties, and the consolidation of more power to government.

The government will respond to these embarrassing attacks by clamping down even more on liberty, and by more tightly regulating the Internet. They will use it as justification for more warrantless eavesdropping, reading your email (they already do that, actually), and tapping your phones.

were they successful wqith blizzard? by hesaigo999ca · 2011-06-16 00:36 · Score: 1

I did not hear if blizzard was really affected, i mean so what, instead disrupt their servers for the online gaming, that would be impressive, just taking up their phone support lines, blizzard could have done on their own to avoid costs, and blamed it on some stupid hacking group....er....wait a minute....

An application of..."ReVeRsE-PsYcHoLoGy" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 01:06 · Score: 0

Take your own advice:

".kaerf uoy ,flesruoy lliK" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16, @04:40AM (#36460066)

No: How's that suit you?

(Now, go take your emotional problems elsewhere, & get on topic instead, troll... ok? Thanks!)

LMAO!

APK

P.S.=> Hey - I even wrote it in "troll-speak", the way you like, & understand it best!

(Plus - with an application of "ReVeRsE-PsYcHoLoGy" put 'in-the-mix', so-to-speak)!

Because, after all - lol, I speak in terms of those I am speaking to, & in a language they understand (which in your case, is OFF-TOPIC "trollspeak" of course)... lol!

... apk

Is that why MS own mgt. has to admit by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 01:16 · Score: 0

I am correct on that much? See here, where the Senior VP of the Windows Client Performance Division (foredecker/Richard Russell) had to admit I am correct on that much in fact:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30384918

He has his CSC degree too... do you? Doubt it!

So when YOU have done the likes of that?? Then, you can get back to us, ok??

We'll be waiting (probably until the "12th of never, & when the clock strikes 13" (lol, on a leap year)) in YOUR case, you off-topic "ne'er-do-well" troll!

This?

Ah, I just GOTTA say it, as-per-usual vs. off topic "ne'er-do-well trolls" like yourself: It was just "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2EZ'".

APK

P.S.=> Lastly/in closing/BOTTOM-LINE here:

Oh, on this "note" from you also quoted next below?

Well, when you have done the likes of this VERY partial list only on MY PART, & before I did, to greater acclaim in the art & science of computing?

?

"My Name is Ozymandias: King of Kings - Look upon my works, ye mighty, & DESPAIR..."

----

Windows NT Magazine (now Windows IT Pro) April 1997 "BACK OFFICE PERFORMANCE" issue, page 61

(&, for work done for EEC Systems/SuperSpeed.com on PAID CONTRACT (writing portions of their SuperCache program increasing its performance by up to 40% via my work) albeit, for their SuperDisk & HOW TO APPLY IT, took them to a finalist position @ MS Tech Ed, two years in a row 2000-2002, in its HARDEST CATEGORY: SQLServer Performance Enhancement).

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, 1997, "Top Freeware & Shareware of the Year" issue page 210, #1/first entry in fact (my work is there)

PC-WELT FEB 1998 - page 84, again, my work is featured there

WINDOWS MAGAZINE, WINTER 1998 - page 92, insert section, MUST HAVE WARES, my work is again, there

PC-WELT FEB 1999 - page 83, again, my work is featured there

CHIP Magazine 7/99 - page 100, my work is there

GERMAN PC BOOK, Data Becker publisher "PC Aufrusten und Repairen" 2000, where my work is contained in it

HOT SHAREWARE Numero 46 issue, pg. 54 (PC ware mag from Spain), 2001 my work is there, first one featured, yet again!

Also, a British PC Mag in 2002 for many utilities I wrote, saw it @ BORDERS BOOKS but didn't buy it... by that point, I had moved onto other areas in this field besides coding only...

Being paid for an article that made me money over @ PCPitstop in 2008 for writing up a guide that has people showing NO VIRUSES/SPYWARES & other screwups, via following its point, such as THRONKA sees here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=ee926d913b81bf6d63c3c7372fd2a24c&t=28430&page=3

It's also been myself helping out the folks at the UltraDefrag64 project (a 64-bit defragger for Windows), in showing them code for how to do Process Priority Control @ the GUI usermode/ring 3/rpl 3 level in their program (good one too), & being credited for it by their lead dev & his team... see here -> http://ultradefrag.sourceforge.net/handbook/Credits.html or here http://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2993462&group_id=199532&atid=969873

AND lastly: http://g-off.net/software/a-python-repeatable-threadingtimer-class [g-off.net] where I got other programmer's work WORKING RIGHT (in PyThon no less, which I just started learning only 2 week ago no less) by showing them how to use a "Dummy Proxy Function" as I call it,

Can you stay on topic please, troll? Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 01:29 · Score: 0

I had no trouble reading it and it actually makes good sense for hosts file users. If he wrote that he is making a good case but if you're going to say someone wrote something at least provide proof in a link to its source. He seems to admit writing about that type of material in a topic in his reply to you here which I doubt you've done the same as he has and he asked you to show proof that you have done the same. Still you offer no proof of where what you quoted actually came from either. You're obviously not big on providing proof of your sources either. You put down words but no source, no quote, nothing. You're not too credible and you are definitely off topic and trolling. Grow up.

Re:Can you stay on topic please, troll? Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 02:33 · Score: 0

Fucking moron. It's from his own link he posted.
And if you seriously think it makes sense you need your head examined and stay away from anything technical.
Re:Can you stay on topic please, troll? Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 03:22 · Score: 0

Link? You post text with no source. Your technical mistakes on hosts files here http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2242250&cid=36463000 you repeatedly make trolling as an ac on his hosts files posts also puts you in your place and further severely damages any credibility you think you have (which is none after I read that, and seeing you run from the challenges he made to you calling you out on them to disprove his points on hosts files use). Microsoft's own senior managers of the performance division had to admit he was correct on his points on hosts files too. That man has a computer science degree and a position of technical authority. Do you? No. Not that I can see. Go away troll and take your profane trolling with you please. Once again, thank you.
Re:Can you stay on topic please, troll? Thank you by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 17:31 · Score: 0

Oh, now APK needs another ass clown to back him up. He couldn't write almost correct sentences himself, could he?
Congratulations, Dumb and Dumber, Laurel and Hardy or should I call you two clowns The 2 Stooges?
Judging from APK's photograph his degree is from the 70s and that's where he stopped evolving technically. Now he's just a retired and bitter old man trying to understand why everyone laughs at him and his quack "science".
Greet the nurse and don't forget your meds again, grandpa. And leave technology to the fit people.

..... sooooooo l33+ by whoppo · 2011-06-16 01:29 · Score: 1

Y'know.. I remember a day when we had to have an actual understanding of network protocols, operating systems and applications... and write our own "tools" to exploit system weaknesses "for fun".

Apparently these days all you need to be cool is a freshest copy of MetaSploit and no life.... and if m'Sploit can't get you in, just DoS the target and claim responsibility for being so skilled.

Shouldn't you kids be outside playing?

--
chown -R us /base

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by Whorhay · 2011-06-16 01:31 · Score: 1

I don't know that technical incompetence is exactly right. It's more likely management incompetence.

I worked once as a government code monkey. The most imporant thing was getting stuff done according to schedule. Security was important but nobody knew the details of what was required until it was too late. Security configurations should have been considered and built in from the design phase on, instead it was always tacked on at the end. Which means there is never any money/time to get anything but the most trivial issues addressed.

gmhowell's trolling as ac again by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 01:42 · Score: 0

Let gmhowell tell you all about himself. A quote from the troll gmhowell says it all, off topic as usual, but the point is here in his own words quoted:

"I do whatever amuses me at the moment. Sometimes that is trolling. As far as AC? I only do that to avoid undoing moderations." - by gmhowell (26755) on Wednesday April 20, @12:49AM (#35877174) Homepage

That's why nobody here takes you seriously, or pays you any heed: You're a troll!

If the above's not enough, here's more from you:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1907528&cid=34543612

Same here also:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2087330&cid=35846218

Judging by the time of that post, that's in the timeframe that gmhowell typically trolls around here (between midnight & 6 a.m., East Coast time).

Not even a "nice try" at your typical off topic trolling, George M. Howell.

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by Coren22 · 2011-06-16 02:39 · Score: 1

How is it cracking a web site to DDoS it? These guys aren't cracking shit, unless it is the routers cracking under the strain.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by Xest · 2011-06-16 02:42 · Score: 1

You're lucky you even had schedules :)

When I was there it was more a case of "Hi, I know this is last minute but this needs doing by Friday" on a Monday.

Then on Tuesday morning "Why isn't it done yet, I said it needed to be done by last night?".

i.e. no planning, no scheduling, no competence, random decisions as to what needed doing and when!

But I did find IT deeply polarised there, amongst a team of around 40 IT staff I'd say only about 10 were truly competent and were holding organisation up for the other 30 by fixing the things they broke and doing their work for them.

Without a doubt public sector has competent people, but in my experience, more often than not, they're an absolute minority, and when they raise issues like security flaws they're treated as troublemakers creating extra work which was an affront to the work-shy co-workers rather than being seen as people who just want to honestly do a good job and make sure tax payers were getting what they paid for.

Funny: MS SENIOR MGT. ADMITTED I AM by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 02:52 · Score: 0

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2242250&cid=36461770

Who's the moron now, in regard to this little off topic ac reply trolling tidbit from you?

"And if you seriously think it makes sense you need your head examined" - by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 16, @10:33AM (#36462722)

Tell me what is wrong there then, technically... ok?? Plus, your profanity only makes you look like a frustrated troll, period.

I mean, hey - Is THAT the "best you've got", troll?

Apparently so, because you blunder on this vs. myself ALL THE TIME (see below).

After all - It's not the 1st time you've tried to troll me on HOSTS files either... lol, here are 2 of your "classic technical blunders" in fact, Mr. AC troll:

---

E.G. #1 - LARGE HOSTS FILES BEING CACHED BY THE LOCAL KERNEL-MODE DISKCACHING SUBSYSTEM (recently here no less, you screwed up THERE, hugely):

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2220314&cid=36379004

E.G. #2 - HOSTS ON ANDROID PHONES (yes, they work there):

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2204000&cid=36318508

---

LOL!

APK

P.S.=> On your best day, You couldn't touch me on technical issues if you're LIFE depended on it, and you know it...

However, since I am of an open mind & I can only get STRONGER VIA VALID CRITIQUE?

Well - What's computer-science oriented technically wrong with my points on HOSTS files then?

(Especially since I even showed that I had an MS mgt., SENIOR VP mind you, of the "Windows Client Performance Division" for years & at that time, agree that I was correct on my points on HOSTS files)?

... apk

Well.. by Stregano · 2011-06-16 04:34 · Score: 1

Hmm, going after all of these sites (including government sites), might not be a good idea. They may be in it for the lulz, but if they get found, they are kinda fucked. I will say though, that what they did with the phone bombing is kinda funny though. The DDoS attacks were not all that funny, but when you redirect your phones to other places creating a little bit of chaos, then it gets amusing. I know that they are not affiliated with Anon, but I do personally find it odd that they started getting in the headlines after all of the Anon stuff. Were they around before Anon and just got headlines because Anon did a bunch of crap, or did they form after Anon? I know they are not affiliated, I am just saying that it is fishy that I have not heard much from Anon since the WBC was hit (I think they did another attack after that as well) and then they just kinda dropped from the headlines and LulSec hopped up.

--
The world is how you make it

Lulzsec is the Joker by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 05:35 · Score: 0

The reason why a large number of people are fascinated by lulzsec is the same reason why people like characters such as the Joker and Tyler Durden. The fascination with someone outside the norms of society. Someone without an ethical code, who acts purely on what will entertain them.

George M. Howell? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 06:39 · Score: 0

George's a jerk in real life also. I know him. George M. Howell is just another dime a dozen web page flunkie http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=George+M.+Howell&btnG=Google+Search who thinks he knows about computers. George M. Howell's a joke. Now that I see how he spends his time online bothering others I stand by what I said even moreso.

The whole media whore shit storm does not compute by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 14:56 · Score: 0

government psyops indeed.. needed to justify taking over the internet and more of our freedoms.

Mr. AC Troll fail list on HOSTS vs. myself... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-16 18:46 · Score: 0

After all - It's not the 1st time you've tried to troll me on HOSTS files either...

In fact, here are 2 of your "classic technical blunders" in fact, Mr. AC troll, in regards to HOSTS files usage:

---

E.G. #1 - LARGE HOSTS FILES BEING CACHED BY THE LOCAL KERNEL-MODE DISKCACHING SUBSYSTEM (recently here no less, you screwed up THERE, hugely):

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2220314&cid=36379004

E.G. #2 - HOSTS ON ANDROID PHONES (yes, they work there):

http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2204000&cid=36318508

---

Proof's in the pudding, Mr. AC troll... and your blatant stupidity as well as your off topic trolling!

3 for the price of one... lol!

APK

P.S.=> Face it - On your best day, You couldn't touch me on technical issues if you're LIFE depended on it, and you know it...

However, since I am of an open mind & I can only get STRONGER VIA VALID CRITIQUE?

Well - What's "computer-science oriented technically wrong" (for lack of a better expression here) with my points on HOSTS files then?

(Especially since I have even shown that I had an MS mgt., SENIOR VP mind you, of the "Windows Client Performance Division" for years & at that time, agree that I was correct on my points on HOSTS files, ala -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30384918 )?

I can also cite many posts where my points on HOSTS files were modded up also, ala:

---

Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by tehcyder · 2011-06-16 20:13 · Score: 1

One thing is certain. The crackers in LulzSec are damned good, OR they have considerable "inside" help at the CIA and FBI. Or BOTH!!

Or the CIA doesn't use the public facing web server for anything important, so they didn't bother securing it very well.

Exactly, you aren't going to put your secret plans for world domination on the fucking internet, are you?

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Mr. AC Troll fail list on HOSTS vs. myself... a by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-17 00:11 · Score: 0

<o))))><

For you.

Rinse, lather, and repeat by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-17 00:22 · Score: 0

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2242250&cid=36471760

Slashdot Mirror

LulzSec Phone-Bombs FBI and Blizzard

404 comments