Slashdot Mirror


LulzSec Phone-Bombs FBI and Blizzard

Revotron writes "Anonymous hacker group LulzSec has begun to harness the power of the crowd in their latest griefing attempts. After a day of numerous DDoS attacks on a handful of famous MMOs, LulzSec's phone lines lit up with an estimated 20 calls per second. Using a fairly simple phone redirect, they sent all of their incoming calls to various offices, among them the FBI office in Detroit, Blizzard Customer Support, online retailer Magnets.com, and most recently, the corporate offices of HBGary." Update: It looks like they also brought down the CIA website tonight, but it is up now.

69 of 404 comments (clear)

  1. first post by sneakyimp · · Score: 2

    Doesn't this make them griefers?

    1. Re:first post by mwvdlee · · 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?
    2. Re:first post by ALeavitt · · 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.
    3. Re:first post by cavreader · · 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.

    4. Re:first post by MikeBabcock · · 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)
    5. Re:first post by Darinbob · · 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?

    6. Re:first post by SharpFang · · 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
  2. False flag by mykos · · 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.

    1. Re:False flag by gnick · · 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.
    2. Re:False flag by Restil · · 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
    3. Re:False flag by X0563511 · · 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...
    4. Re:False flag by westlake · · 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

  3. Wankers by EQ · · 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
    1. Re:Wankers by gclef · · 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.

    2. Re:Wankers by bonch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Slashdot circa 1999: "Free Kevin Mitnick!"
      Slashdot circa 2011: "These damn hackers are interfering with my WoW time."

    3. Re:Wankers by syousef · · 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
    4. Re:Wankers by OverlordQ · · Score: 2

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

      --
      Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
    5. Re:Wankers by Znork · · 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.

    6. Re:Wankers by X0563511 · · 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...
    7. Re:Wankers by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 4, Funny

      As a dilettante gadget consumer with a 4-digit user ID, I resent that.

    8. Re:Wankers by MikeBabcock · · 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)
    9. Re:Wankers by cavreader · · 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.

    10. Re:Wankers by MikeBabcock · · 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)
    11. Re:Wankers by jv+lee · · 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.

    12. Re:Wankers by The+Moof · · 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.

  4. Re:Balls of steel by enderjsv · · 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.

  5. cia.gov by Huluvu · · Score: 4, Informative
  6. Re:Balls of steel by mykos · · Score: 3, Informative

    They're here to kick ass and chew bubblegum, and they're all out of gum.

  7. Re:Balls of steel by OverlordQ · · 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.
  8. Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    1. Re:Wait a minute... by DigiShaman · · 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.
  9. This has gotten crazy by makubesu · · Score: 2

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

    1. Re:This has gotten crazy by alostpacket · · Score: 2

      Buffering...

      --
      PocketPermissions Android Permission Guide
  10. Re:And in other news by Dinghy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would you prefer another BitCoin story?

  11. Possible? by Jibekn · · 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.

    1. Re:Possible? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What principle is that? The LALALALAICANTHEARYOU principle?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Do Not Feed the Trolls principle.

  12. I miss wikileaks by Thud457 · · 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

    1. Re:I miss wikileaks by Ksevio · · Score: 2

      *prods SCO with foot*

      Yep, still dead...no story there. Unless we can get a 10 year anniversary or something...

  13. Re:Phreak-a-diddle-doo by MoldySpore · · 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."

  14. Great, I can see where this is going... by cjb658 · · 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."

    1. Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by HockeyPuck · · 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?

    2. Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Anonymous+Psychopath · · 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.

    3. Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by hedwards · · 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.

    4. Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by firewrought · · 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
    5. Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by atgaaa · · 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".

    6. Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    7. Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Syberz · · 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
    8. Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by gsslay · · 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."

    9. Re:Great, I can see where this is going... by Gryle · · 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
  15. Isn't this along the same lines as... by Rivalz · · 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.

  16. Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by Hatta · · 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!
  17. hackers? really? by Charliemopps · · 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?

  18. Re:Seems like... by Dunbal · · 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.
  19. Fucked by cosm · · 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
  20. Whats the point...? by twebb72 · · 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...?

  21. Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by ginbot462 · · 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
  22. Re:Balls of steel by Dan667 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i doubt it. The NSA had no idea about 9/11 and was unable to find bin laden for 10 years.

  23. Re:Coincidence? by saintory · · 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.

  24. Better for the Lulz than the Stash by Cogent91 · · 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.

    1. Re:Better for the Lulz than the Stash by cavreader · · 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.

    2. Re:Better for the Lulz than the Stash by Cogent91 · · 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.

    3. Re:Better for the Lulz than the Stash by cavreader · · 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..

  25. Re:Why you mad tho? by MikeBabcock · · 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)
  26. Re:Balls of steel by lgw · · 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.
  27. Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by CodeBuster · · 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.

  28. Old criminal line "They are asking for it". by anotheryak · · 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".

  29. Re:LulzSec disables CIA web server, too! by anotheryak · · 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?

  30. Re:Balls of steel by stiggle · · 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?"