Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

LulzSec Phone-Bombs FBI and Blizzard

Posted by samzenpus on from the poking-the-bear dept.

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.

35 of 404 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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
    2. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. cia.gov by Huluvu · · Score: 4, Informative

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

  5. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

  8. 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."

  9. Re:And in other news by Dinghy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Would you prefer another BitCoin story?

  10. 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?
  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

  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. 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.

  15. 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 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.

    2. 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".

    3. 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
    4. 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."

  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. 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.
  18. 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
  19. 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...?

  20. 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.

  21. Re:Wankers by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  22. 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.

  23. 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)
  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.

  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: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?

  27. 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".