Anonymous Hack One Gigabyte of Data From NATO

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous Hack One Gigabyte of Data From NATO

Posted by CmdrTaco on Thursday July 21, 2011 @01:23AM from the wear-a-helmet dept.

GeekTech.in writes "The AnonymousIRC hacking organization have claimed this afternoon that they have hacked into NATO servers. As one of their tweets says: ' Yes, #NATO was breached. And we have lots of restricted material. With some simple injection. In the next days, wait for interesting data :) '"

304 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Again ? by Chuby007 · 2011-07-21 01:26 · Score: 4, Funny

This is happening so often that better make a hack.slashdot.org and just add the site that was hacked and when... this is getting old...
1. Re:Again ? by Shrike82 · 2011-07-21 01:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  This is happening so often that better make a hack.slashdot.org and just add the site that was hacked and when... this is getting old...
  Agreed, but what I haven't seen is follow up stories about these breaches. I though Anonymous or LulzSec were due to release loads of News of the World/News International e-mails they'd obtained? Did I miss a story or are they still holding onto it?
  
  --
  You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
2. Re:Again ? by SquirrelDeth · 2011-07-21 01:47 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Plans? Budgets? Inter-office memos? Payroll? They are holding onto diddly squat and I think the turds are actually working for the government to scare the peoples that their data is not safe and we need for gov to step in with more laws.
3. Re:Again ? by bberens · 2011-07-21 01:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Say what you want about wikileaks but they understood media/marketing. Releasing so much stuff so frequently makes it difficult for the media to absorb and create a media frenzy, which is the only way the plebes ever even hear about stuff like this.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
4. Re:Again ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  This is happening so much I'm frankly worried about the supposed security on computers of other places too.
  Seriously what the fuck IT. I'd like to hear about places that either prevented or blocked hacking from occurring JUST ONCE to show that the money spent on IT hasn't been completely wasted.
  Or, if it's because they don't have enough money, show the goddamn numbers so we can prevent this crap from happening again. Yeah, sure, information should be free, but it is DEPRESSING to know how incompetent our security is.
5. Re:Again ? by History's+Coming+To · 2011-07-21 01:58 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  From their Twitter account: "We think, actually we may not release emails from The Sun, simply because it may compromise the court case."
  
  --
  Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
6. Re:Again ? by Danieljury3 · 2011-07-21 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  Security through obscurity?
7. Re:Again ? by n1ywb · 2011-07-21 02:01 · Score: 1
  
  One time I set up snort on an open box thinking I'd set up a firewall to block hackers on the fly; then I realized that a veritable firehose of hacks were streaming in at all hours of the day and I'd have to block half the Internet to stop it. I gave up.
  
  --
  -73, de n1ywb
  www.n1ywb.com
8. Re:Again ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  Anonymous working for the government; yep, that's most certainly it.
9. Re:Again ? by omnichad · 2011-07-21 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  That's like applauding a pipe for not leaking every time water flows through it. Continuous success is continuous. At what point is there anything to say about that?
10. Re:Again ? by gcnaddict · 2011-07-21 02:05 · Score: 1
  
  Lockheed after the RSA breach.
  
  http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/security/229700151
  
  --
  Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
11. Re:Again ? by pedestrian+crossing · 2011-07-21 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  I'd like to hear about places that either prevented or blocked hacking from occurring JUST ONCE to show that the money spent on IT hasn't been completely wasted.
  Not to feed the troll, but...
  
  Places block/prevent hacking -constantly-, but that's not news.
  
  If you spend some time monitoring the traffic on the outside interface of anywhere interesting, the number/variety of attempts are astounding.
  
  Add to that the fact that the people on the inside (especially -not- the IT people) are incredibly apathetic, if not antagonistic toward security and it's really amazing that there aren't more successful attacks.
  
  IOW, STFU, you don't know what you're talking about.
  
  --
  A house divided against itself cannot stand.
12. Re:Again ? by countertrolling · 2011-07-21 02:14 · Score: 0, Troll
  
  Why would you doubt it? Bin Laden worked for the CIA, right up to his "death"
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
13. Re:Again ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  Since when did they care about compromising anything? I thought they were l33t rebels?
14. Re:Again ? by ctrimm · 2011-07-21 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  Posted to LulzSec Twitter on hour ago:
  
  "We're currently working with certain media outlets who have been granted exclusive access to some of the News of the World emails we have."
15. Re:Again ? by GooberToo · 2011-07-21 02:27 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Say what you want about wikileaks but they understood media/marketing. Releasing so much stuff so frequently makes it difficult for the media to absorb and create a media frenzy, which is the only way the plebes ever even hear about stuff like this.
  That used to be true. Its not longer true. The largest media outlets created data warehousing applications which allow them to not only comb through these large data releases, but allows them to locate and follow trails of subject matter in which they are interested. It even allows them to discover sub topics, and so on.
  Literally, if these groups claim they are not releasing all of their information because media can't digest it, its a lie and is only self serving.
  Anyone else notice a lot of shit which Wikileaks was suppose to release was never released in spite of the fact people are still manning the shop? Wikileaks existed solely to benefit, blackmail, extort, and steal information. The fact the information was never released seems to hint it was sold to the highest bidder. Otherwise, according to their claims, a lot of CEOs should be jail by now.
16. Re:Again ? by blackraven14250 · 2011-07-21 02:28 · Score: 3
  
  They probably, for the most part, really want the lawsuit to go forward, as they have no problems with corruption being punished.
17. Re:Again ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:29 · Score: 0
  
  maybe hack.slashdot.org should be used differently.
  Open letter letter to anonymous:
  "if, among the various hacking activities, you guys should decide to hack slashdot we have prepared a server just for you so that you don't disrupt the user base that it's typically very friendly to you.
  Thank,
  the slashdot team".
18. Re:Again ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  Since the FBI knocked on their door and their underwear turned brown.
19. Re:Again ? by halivar · 2011-07-21 02:32 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Or they didn't find anything terribly incriminating and didn't want to pull a Geraldo. Besides, in hacking their email, it's already compromised as evidence, anyway.
20. Re:Again ? by rwven · 2011-07-21 02:37 · Score: 2
  
  Most of this is just due to the ineptitude of IT in general, and lazy/bad coding techniques. Preventing SQL injection is elementary, yet LULZSEC and Anon seem to get a huge portion of their data by using it. The majority of the remainder of their data seems to come from social engineering, which IT departments should have weeded out a decade ago. The simple college computer lab support I did back in 2002 had explicit requirements for verification of identify before I did anything concerning accounts, security, etc.
  While I don't believe that the users/customers themselves deserve to have their data exposed by the irresponsible practices of companies, I do believe these companies get exactly what's coming to them when stuff like this happens. This really isn't rocket science...
21. Re:Again ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  The optimist in me: At least they have honor.
  The cynic in me: They fear attracting the media and legal feeding frenzy this close to the recent arrests.
  I feel a bit more hollow every time the cynic is the correct one. I hope they don't disappoint.
22. Re:Again ? by DrgnDancer · 2011-07-21 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  Lots of stuff gets stopped. Orders of magnitude more stuff gets stopped than actually gets through. No one cares about that. It's what we expect, shit is going on out int he Internet, we stop it from getting to our network. It's only when we fail that it's a story. Think about how crime statistics are reported: There were around 500 murders in New York City last year. That sounds horrible. What are the cops doing? Of course that means that approximately 8.2 million people (plus or minus tourists and short term residents) weren't murdered in New York City last year. Sounds a lot better than way, but no one says it like that.
  The situation with hacking is both better and worse that you imagine from looking at these recent high profile events. Worse becasue for every one of these stories you see there are probably a hundred more minor and far less publicized (or downright buried) events. Better, because in actual fact the vast majority of the attempts fail. I wouldn't even care to count the number "hacking attempts" I get just on my home network everyday, let alone the networks of anyone that actually matters or has resources.
  
  --
  I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
23. Re:Again ? by ryantmer · 2011-07-21 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure whether your name applies perfectly to that comment, or vice versa...
  
  --
  Whatever it is, it's notablog.
24. Re:Again ? by MischaNix · 2011-07-21 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't that entirely hypocritical?
25. Re:Again ? by Toonol · 2011-07-21 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  The trolling is to be expected. What's unexpected, and a little sad, is that somebody modded this up.
26. Re:Again ? by Anonymus · 2011-07-21 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  A bit, but if you want something to make an impact, you need the media on your side. The best way to get the media on your side is to please a few specific outlets with major scoops.
  It's the reason WikiLeaks operates the way it does... people are risking (in some cases) their lives to release the data, they want it to make an impact. If they think it's just going to end up on page 12 after the local bake sale, why bother?
27. Re:Again ? by jellomizer · 2011-07-21 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  ONE GIGABYTE OF DATA!
  C:\Windows\System32\ Folder open as a honeypot. Just hoping you get to their host file and access the network of some more honeypot servers to verify the connector.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
28. Re:Again ? by jellomizer · 2011-07-21 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  These groups values.
  We hate the USA for reasons that it is cool to hate the USA because USA does things the rest of the world doesn't like... So we will hack into their computers and corporations to show that USA and many of their corporations do things the world doesn't like.
  It is like the political adds that shows the Republicans show that the Democrats follow a "LiBeRaL" agenda. And the ones the Democrats show that the Republicans have a "ConServeAtive" agenda. It is a great way to scare the Idiots. But all in all it tells us Nothing of value.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
29. Re:Again ? by Danse · 2011-07-21 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  Anyone else notice a lot of shit which Wikileaks was suppose to release was never released in spite of the fact people are still manning the shop? Wikileaks existed solely to benefit, blackmail, extort, and steal information. The fact the information was never released seems to hint it was sold to the highest bidder. Otherwise, according to their claims, a lot of CEOs should be jail by now.
  No, hadn't noticed. What shit, specifically, are you referring to?
  
  --
  It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
30. Re:Again ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  NATO != USA
31. Re:Again ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 04:35 · Score: 0
  
  I'm pretty sure that's what it would be used for anyhow. You don't really make a site called "hack.mysite.org" and expect people to NOT try to hack it...
32. Re:Again ? by Martz · 2011-07-21 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  "seems to hint it was sold to the highest bidder"
  Do you have any evidence to support this, or are you just guessing based on a "seems to hint" gut feeling?
33. Re:Again ? by x2A · 2011-07-21 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  I find it anything BUT depressing! Is nice to know that no one's too big to be able to just throw their weight around, do whatever the hell they like, and be completely invulnerable to retaliation while doing so. Okay, liberating a gig of data isn't much in the way of retaliation, it doesn't exactly remove their ability to wage war, so accomplishment is between little to none, but even so, getting all depressed that Goliath is even vulnerable to stones seems to be a little divorced from reality really.
  
  --
  The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
34. Re:Again ? by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · 2011-07-21 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  Um, NATO is sort of like the UN's toothless grandmother.
35. Re:Again ? by Truekaiser · 2011-07-21 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  this is why cryptome which has been around longer has been thoroughly ignored. They did not work with the media to get the information out. granted this allows those who you piss off to have a target resulting in stuff similar to what is happening to assange.
36. Re:Again ? by SleazyRidr · 2011-07-21 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  In addition to what everyone else has said, the second someone stands up and says that they have such great security that they've stopped hacking attempt X, every other hacker in the world will say "oh, yeah?" and they'll be bombarded. No security is perfect, so eventually someone will find a way in.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
37. Re:Again ? by Quiet_Desperation · 2011-07-21 05:18 · Score: 0
  
  The realist in me: they're all shitheads on all sides. Maybe they'll all destroy one another.
  There's no one left to root for. Not really.
38. Re:Again ? by jellomizer · 2011-07-21 05:24 · Score: 1
  
  But
  USA SUM(NATO)-USA
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
39. Re:Again ? by kevinNCSU · 2011-07-21 05:40 · Score: 2
  
  Did the bank of america stuff ever get released? Wasn't that supposed to shed light on the whole economic meltdown and put people in jail and save the world and shit? Or did it get released and the news never picked up on it?
40. Re:Again ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 05:41 · Score: 0
  
  A plebe is a freshman at a military academy. Your superiority complex is full of holes...
41. Re:Again ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 05:42 · Score: 0
  
  Seriously what the fuck IT. I'd like to hear about places that either prevented or blocked hacking from occurring JUST ONCE to show that the money spent on IT hasn't been completely wasted.
  Dumbest post so far for this story. Congrats!
42. Re:Again ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 05:46 · Score: 0
  
  Say what you want about wikileaks but they understood media/marketing. Releasing so much stuff so frequently makes it difficult for the media to absorb and create a media frenzy, which is the only way the plebes ever even hear about stuff like this.
  
  That used to be true. Its not longer true. The largest media outlets created data warehousing applications which allow them to not only comb through these large data releases, but allows them to locate and follow trails of subject matter in which they are interested. It even allows them to discover sub topics, and so on.
  He isn't talking about data warehousing. He is talking about marketing. Your analysis is so obviously stupid I am curious as to why you got modded up so high (Oh, I could make some pretty intelligent speculations about that). It's like saying that marijuana is going to be legal very soon because there is so much scientific information publicly available that everyone now knows that it is plain stupid to persecute marijuana users.
  
  Literally, if these groups claim they are not releasing all of their information because media can't digest it, its a lie and is only self serving.
  Anyone else notice a lot of shit which Wikileaks was suppose to release was never released in spite of the fact people are still manning the shop? Wikileaks existed solely to benefit, blackmail, extort, and steal information. The fact the information was never released seems to hint it was sold to the highest bidder. Otherwise, according to their claims, a lot of CEOs should be jail by now.
  Everybody knows that "CEOs" rarely get prosecuted. They are the ones who donate to politicians, don't you remember? They are the ones who go to the police ball and encourage more policing to help suppress humanity (in Toronto we have the Morality Squad, though I think they changed their official name to something less sensational. I can assure you that they aren't arresting CEOs or doing anything moral). They are instead acting on the behest of the CEOs and the Right Wing of society.
  Now we see your agenda. Basing arguments on ideology instead of logic is what does make a person popular. Congratulations on being a Winner.
43. Re:Again ? by chromas · 2011-07-21 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Trolls have mod points, too.
44. Re:Again ? by Danse · 2011-07-21 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  Did the bank of america stuff ever get released? Wasn't that supposed to shed light on the whole economic meltdown and put people in jail and save the world and shit? Or did it get released and the news never picked up on it?
  Didn't get a lot of play in the news, but yeah, they did release it.
  http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/03/anonymous-hackers-release-bank-of-america-emails/1
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/mar/14/anonymous-hackers-release-bank-america-emails
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/14/bank-of-america-anonymous-leak-mortgage_n_835220.html
  
  --
  It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
45. Re:Again ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  POPPYCOCK! In fact the evidence obtained from the leak would be legally admissible since it was not sought by the police!
  Release it all now!
46. Re:Again ? by interkin3tic · 2011-07-21 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Alternatively, if they are just anarchists who just like watching large organizations in trouble, the court case would be far more damaging than an e-mail leak.
47. Re:Again ? by kevinNCSU · 2011-07-21 06:08 · Score: 1
  
  From your own article:
  
  WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said previously he planned to post internal Bank of America documents. It's not clear whether or when that might happen or whether the material is the same as what Anonymous has leaked.
  Looks like this is a separate leak, but maybe of the same documents but no one knows?
48. Re:Again ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  Now that there are more hacks than the media can absorb, it's not about revealing data that will upset/motivate the plebes... it's about the fear of insecurity that it evokes in the establishments. Unfortunately, the only thing it will lead to is more TSA-like security theater for your online experience.
49. Re:Again ? by RoccamOccam · 2011-07-21 06:27 · Score: 1
  
  What?? But I've been rooting for you!
50. Re:Again ? by venril · 2011-07-21 06:38 · Score: 1
  
  So, basically they're SPECTRE?
  Where's James Bond when you need him?
51. Re:Again ? by Duradin · 2011-07-21 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  MIA presumed KIA, someone leaked his identity.
52. Re:Again ? by SockPuppetOfTheWeek · 2011-07-21 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  Seems I had that backward. Sorry.
  That's what I get for trying to remember stuff I learned in high school instead of just using Wikipedia.
53. Re:Again ? by GooberToo · 2011-07-21 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  Since CEOs are not in jail and the public doesn't have torches in hands, either Wikileaks lied or something else entirely happened. Regardless, allowing for a cooling down period is good for the guilty, good for Wikileaks, if they are hoping to extort, and bad for everyone else. So again, the original point remains.
54. Re:Again ? by GooberToo · 2011-07-21 08:11 · Score: 2
  
  No, it was never released. Or I should say, if it has, I sure never read anything about it and I've been watching and looking. One thing I can tell you I'm absolutely sure of, if they have proof of collusion behind the economic meltdown, without a doubt, all roads lead to Goldman Sachs.
55. Re:Again ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  Are you retarded? You must know you are else you wouldn't post such garbage anonymously.
  Holy shit slashdot has fallen.
56. Re:Again ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/plebeian
57. Re:Again ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 09:43 · Score: 0
  
  Are you retarded?
  No. My IQ is in the 130 range (from what I can remember from high school et al, so I'm far from average or normal when it comes to IQ).
  
  You must know you are else you wouldn't post such garbage anonymously.
  I only post "anonymously". I don't see the point in signing in or signing up. Most people who sign up don't even post their real names.
  
  Holy shit slashdot has fallen.
  That's the same sentiment that I have had for a long time.
  To bad there are so many people like you who take the time to Flame others, Troll, or use logical fallacies to support their ideologies. Its' sad and pathetic, but it is a mirror of the real world. The real world is a very Conservative (Right Wing) place.
58. Re:Again ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 10:01 · Score: 0
  
  No. It's not compromised.
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206348/Sex-offender-caught--thieves-steal-laptop-awash-child-pornography.html
59. Re:Again ? by Nyder · 2011-07-21 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  ...
  
  --
  Be seeing you...
60. Re:Again ? by lennier · 2011-07-21 10:55 · Score: 1
  
  it is cool to hate the USA because USA does things the rest of the world doesn't like
  Little things like invasion and bombing and assassination, yes. But what's a few global wars between friends?
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
61. Re:Again ? by Danse · 2011-07-21 13:29 · Score: 1
  
  Since CEOs are not in jail and the public doesn't have torches in hands, either Wikileaks lied or something else entirely happened. Regardless, allowing for a cooling down period is good for the guilty, good for Wikileaks, if they are hoping to extort, and bad for everyone else. So again, the original point remains.
  Your original post said there was a lot of shit they haven't released. What other info have they not released so far? I'm very curious to know, as I couldn't think of any aside from the BoA docs.
  
  --
  It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
62. Re:Again ? by SquirrelDeth · 2011-07-21 14:50 · Score: 1
  
  Without trolls there would be no need for mod points. But without trolls what would be the point of posting. Without trolls the internet would be a quiet place void of communication. If everyone knew everything and agreed on everything there would be no need to even talk and your biggest conversation would be with your C compiler.
63. Re:Again ? by scubamage · 2011-07-22 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  No, it's not. The exclusionary clause stops the government from stealing stuff to be used as evidence. It doesn't stop a thief from stealing things from you, and then turning them over to the police.
64. Re:Again ? by halivar · 2011-07-22 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  It also doesn't stop a defense attorney from pointing out that the source is no longer pure. It has been tampered with. Someone has had access to the information, and there is no guarantee the information hasn't changed. Rooting someone's email server provides "a shadow of a reasonable doubt." A DA could bring forward evidence obtained illegally by a third party... but would it be wise for them to?
65. Re:Again ? by scubamage · 2011-07-22 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  That's absolutely true! And that's where the whole rhetoric part of law comes in. Who can swing the jury to their side; the prosecution or the defense. That part all comes down to showmanship :)
66. Re:Again ? by chromas · 2011-07-22 11:28 · Score: 1
  
  Sometimes, I think my compiler is trolling me.
67. Re:Again ? by RockDoctor · 2011-07-24 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Besides, in hacking their email, it's already compromised as evidence, anyway.
  How so? Say that Anonymouse reveal the fact that on 2001-09-11 12:00 +00:00, Murdoch (father or son, I don't care which) sent an email instructing "you 19 towel-heads to quit whinging and get on with it, or your familes get it!" ; the appropriate authorities then descend upon Iron Mountain (or whoever has the contract for News International's off-site archiving), clutching whatever subpoenas are required (an used condom, say ; probably something that binding), shoot everyone in the building, then start raking through the boxes of tapes. A fair bit of tape loading and searching later, in forensically controlled conditions, they demonstrate that such an email was sent, from Murdoch's computer, when the CCTV footage shows him to have been alone in the building.
  Is that evidence compromised? I think not. Even though it is the same evidence, simply from a non-tampered source. Or to be more precise, from a source with no evidence of unauthorised access between it's creation and it's seizing by the evidence teams and a maintained chain of custody since then.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Again by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 01:27 · Score: 0, Insightful

Juste hope that whatever they leak dont kill anyone, that's the problem if you dont check what you leak, Endangering lives is not commandable.
1. Re:Again by asto21 · 2011-07-21 01:31 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Of course it is! The US Govt commands such things all the time!
2. Re:Again by nschubach · 2011-07-21 01:53 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Makes you wonder though... what would the world be like if people were actually held responsible for their actions and were not able to do things anonymously. Wouldn't that mean that Anonymous should eventually be self exposing?
  (I'm not saying it's right/wrong/etc. Just wondering.)
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
3. Re:Again by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  Except now it is a good thing.
  Disagree? You're racist.
4. Re:Again by jimmerz28 · 2011-07-21 02:06 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Makes you wonder what would happen in the world if people in the armed forces were actually held responsible for their actions and were not able to do whatever they wanted.
  http://www.collateralmurder.com/
5. Re:Again by drinkypoo · 2011-07-21 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  In such a world, we would neither need nor have Anonymous.
  Your brave new world is, however, undesirable. Various organizations keep trying to set the clock to 1984, however.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
6. Re:Again by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:13 · Score: 0
  
  War is hell get over it.
7. Re:Again by houghi · 2011-07-21 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  what would the world be like if people were actually held responsible for their actions and were not able to do things anonymously.
  For one, it would make running a government agency less fun.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
8. Re:Again by kilfarsnar · 2011-07-21 02:20 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I know you're AC, but seriously, the US government kills innocent people every day of the week. And yet people are concerned about whether the release of a given set of information (perhaps about said killing) will get one person killed. Can I get a re-working of priorities up in here?
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
9. Re:Again by nschubach · 2011-07-21 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  It's not my "brave new world" ... I like a bit of anonymity/privacy. I read something about someone's utopia a while back and one of their requirements was total lack of anonymity. I couldn't figure out why it was a requirement for their utopia, but their only rationality for it was crime.
  
  --
  Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
10. Re:Again by mmcuh · 2011-07-21 02:24 · Score: 2
  
  Or just don't start any.
11. Re:Again by countertrolling · 2011-07-21 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  ...what would the world be like if people were actually held responsible for their actions and were not able to do things anonymously....
  Yes, it does make you wonder
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
12. Re:Again by FhnuZoag · 2011-07-21 02:35 · Score: 0
  
  So, uh, murder is okay now because the US government exists?
13. Re:Again by drinkypoo · 2011-07-21 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  I'm sympathetic to the notion of full transparency. In a surveillance society you can see that everyone else is human too, and that they do stuff while you're not watching. As reality is even wackier than fiction, I imagine that it would pretty much kill ordinary television, too. On the other hand, I don't believe in governments that don't try to overstep their bounds, which is why I too prefer a world with privacy. Ultimately I don't believe we'd ever get to actually see what everyone was doing all the time, and without that, we ought to err in the other direction.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
14. Re:Again by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  Seeig as this data is probably along the lines of how many crates of dried parsley some air base is requisitioning doesn't strike me as a life or death matter.
  The military doesn't seem to be concerned with who they kill with their drones anyway so why should anyone else care.
15. Re:Again by Nidi62 · 2011-07-21 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  but seriously, the US government kills innocent people every day of the week.
  
  Except the US government does not intentionally go after unarmed civilians (and no, do not bring up WW2 or Vietnam as counterexamples of that). We don't bomb crowded markets or restaurants, we use precision guided weapons to limit collateral damage as much as possible(and yes, also because 1 bomb is usually cheaper than 50). We train our soldiers to identify hostile targets and not fire indiscriminately. The people we are fighting use civilians as human shields. Our soldiers use themselves to shield civilians. They see dead civilians as political tools. We see them as a tragedy to avoid at all costs. And yes, I've seen the heavily edited "collateral murder" propaganda. Those men looked armed, and there was no way the chopper pilots could have been able to tell there were children in the van.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
16. Re:Again by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  intentional or not, there are a lot of innocent deaths. And it's not like it's a new thing, there's a huge history of civilian deaths during US invasions/wars. Don't justify it, you can't. If you want to blame anyone, blame their shoddy IT security practices. Sensitive information should not be on the internet period.
17. Re:Again by SilentStaid · 2011-07-21 03:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I'm biased. I was in the US Army. Now that that's out of the way -
  
  Plenty of people join with nothing but the best intentions; if you think the guys actually pulling the trigger in that video don't lose sleep over it I don't think you know many soldiers. If you simply must condemn someone for that video, by all means - go after the people who attempted to cover it up. Not the poor guys who had to find out after watching the news that they killed innocent men.
  
  War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. - William T. Sherman
18. Re:Again by perpenso · 2011-07-21 03:13 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Seeig as this data is probably along the lines of how many crates of dried parsley some air base is requisitioning doesn't strike me as a life or death matter.
  You need to read up on Bletchley Park and Ultra. Mundane information about military units and individuals turned out to be amazingly useful.
19. Re:Again by Nidi62 · 2011-07-21 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  And it's not like it's a new thing, there's a huge history of civilian deaths during EVERY invasions/wars.
  Fixed that for you. Civilians have always died and suffered from war. But no government in history has gone to such lengths and measures and the US and other Western governments have in trying to prevent innocent deaths in the legal and cultural environments of their respective militaries. And remember this, for the last 70 years, these soldiers have been risking their lives to protect civilians not of their own state, but of whichever state they are fighting in. They have no connection to these people whatsoever, and yet they still try to protect them. As opposed to other people who have no qualms about blowing up their own countrymen.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
20. Re:Again by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  I don't think its possible to endanger the lives of US soldiers any more than they are already.... being uninvited in a barbaric country that doesn't want them there.
21. Re:Again by sourcerror · 2011-07-21 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with that video are the guys who insist on shooting the people, who are obviously just recovering the bodies.
22. Re:Again by sourcerror · 2011-07-21 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  "Except the US government does not intentionally go after unarmed civilians"
  Just like Wikileaks ...
23. Re:Again by dgatwood · 2011-07-21 03:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  A reasonable state should provide for decreasing levels of privacy as your power increases. For example, those with significant power to sway opinion—politicians, celebrities, etc.—should have much less right to privacy than Joe Random. Indeed, this is the way our privacy laws are structured today.
  Where our privacy laws break down is when it comes to corporate privacy and government privacy—the privacy of large groups acting as a single hive mind. These groups should have almost no privacy because they have much greater power than the average citizen. Unfortunately, this is seldom the case, and this is the problem that needs to be fixed—not reducing the privacy of individuals, but rather reducing the privacy of individuals in their official capacity while working together in large groups. That's not very easy to do, though, at least without decreasing their privacy as individuals, which is why things go horribly wrong (whether because you gave them too much privacy and got corruption or too little privacy and got MonicaGate absurdity).
  I tend to lean on the side of targeted laws in this area—sunshine laws, open records laws, open meetings laws, etc. When these are insufficient, the flaws should be corrected. When these are ignored, the perpetrators should do jail time to serve as an example to others. If this were happening consistently, we'd have a lot fewer problems with our democracy.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
24. Re:Again by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  especially illegal ones based on lies...
25. Re:Again by jimmerz28 · 2011-07-21 03:48 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Of course the majority of people have nothing "but the best intentions" at heart.
  However, my point was if we're going to start attempting to make these "anon" people start owning up for their actions let's start with the ones committing actual atrocities. You know the ones covering up the things Anon uncovers.
  And I'm not sure if we watched the same video, but the boys in that one firing the guns didn't seem too hesitant about killing those people. I don't think they're losing any sleep.
  My boyfriend is in the marines (gay), so I know a few people in the forces (now that that's out of the way).
26. Re:Again by Americano · 2011-07-21 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  And you cite a creatively edited propaganda piece as your sole argument?
  Oh please, tell us about Loose Change next. I love seeing that hot mess of debunked conspiracy theory cited as a compelling "documentary." It's almost as funny as the assertion that "Collateral Murder" is raw, unedited war footage.
27. Re:Again by Americano · 2011-07-21 04:23 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see the problem with that. It's an unsecured area, where people carrying weapons have just been killed; the weapons and the scene haven't been secured, so why would they let every Tom, Dick and Osama roll up, strip the corpses of useful intelligence and weapons, and disappear off into the city?
  You presume that it's possible to divine someone's intentions from a couple thousand yards away through a grainy black and white video camera mounted on a moving vehicle that's circling over the city blocks where the event occurred. That notion is either naive, or arrived at through deliberate obtuseness in an attempt to bolster your own predetermined conclusions that war is always evil and anybody who pulls a trigger is automatically a war criminal.
  You claim that it's "obvious" they were "just recovering the bodies," yet what proof can you provide of that that's NOT based on knowledge available only because you know what the people arriving at the scene on foot reported after the fact, or gleaned from careful frame-by-frame reviews of the video footage? Remember, this happens in real time, there's no time to load up video footage in an advanced video analysis tool to figure out what you're looking at.
  The people in the helicopter simply know that they shot some people who appeared to be carrying weapons, and some other people drove up and started trying to load those people into a van. If you see people, in a war zone, carrying what appear to be assault rifles and RPGs, and you know that they're not part of YOUR military... what conclusion, exactly, would you draw?
28. Re:Again by SilentStaid · 2011-07-21 04:28 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That's awesome, actually. Well, thank him for /that/ particular service, has to be rough if he's open about it.
  
  Like I said... I'm biased... I look at a lack of hesitation as good training. I heard a saying in basic - "Ready, aim, fire, yours, theirs, bodycount and regrets - in that order." and while we could argue all day about the morality of striking targets with no feasible means of fighting back (foot vs chopper) they did everything according to procedure - a procedure that's designed to protect your significant other and my friends when they've got boots on the ground, so... that's a win in my book.
  
  It sucks... but war isn't pretty and it never will be. I would butcher 100 to save 1000 - and our ROE save lives every day - don't forget it.
29. Re:Again by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 04:33 · Score: 0
  
  Example 1
  Example 2
  Viewer Discretion Advised
30. Re:Again by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  This presumes that it's not mostly 1GB of inter-office memos that read like: "Remember this Friday is Jeans Day!" and "Next Thursday, the cafeteria will be featuring a special Sushi station. Sample a variety of exotic tastes from Asia!"
  They claim it's sensitive data. Is it really? I know if you hacked into my company and grabbed a couple gigs of random data from the first server you compromised, it would be FAR more likely to be random hum-drum memos and everyday emails than it would be some incredible dump of incriminating hush-hush data. I'm guessing this is the case, given the claim that it'd be "irresponsible" to publish it - I'm fairly certain that Anonymous has never really cared about whether or not their activities were "responsible."
  They published one memo that was "NATO Restricted" - that sounds like one of the lowest confidentiality levels at my company, where we have a "$Company Confidential" level of document security. Things that fall under this are normal memos, emails, and other day-to-day information - anybody inside the company is fine to have a copy of it and see it, but they don't want us to forward it to people outside the company without good reason.
31. Re:Again by x2A · 2011-07-21 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  No they do not! Commies, brown people and the poor aren't "living", they're simply targets to be destroyed, and if you disagree you must be a commie, brown, or poor.
  
  --
  The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
32. Re:Again by jimmerz28 · 2011-07-21 05:08 · Score: 2
  
  I agree on lacking hesitation: people die from hesitation.
  The glee, enjoyment and frivolity displayed by these men, however, seems to add to the reasons why these incidents are covered up.
  And again I agree with punishing those who covered it up, but that frivolity is sickening.
33. Re:Again by NetNed · 2011-07-21 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  So the US government is the only government killing innocent people every day? Not that it makes any of it right, but you seem to want to paint a picture where it's only the US doing this. Truth is, the US is even close to being number one in this category by a long shot.
34. Re:Again by NetNed · 2011-07-21 05:18 · Score: 1
  
  If war was pleasant it would be called a debate.
35. Re:Again by sourcerror · 2011-07-21 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  Do you shoot medic vans just because they belong to the enemy?
36. Re:Again by Americano · 2011-07-21 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  Of course I don't.
  Now, since that question has absolutely no bearing in any way to what happened in the case of the "Collateral Murder" video, may I presume you're just trying to save face and make it look like you had a point, rather than conceding that my points have merit, and you're just knee-jerking in relation to a cleverly edited propaganda piece?
37. Re:Again by sourcerror · 2011-07-21 08:00 · Score: 1
  
  On the video I saw it was pretty obvious what the people from the second van were doing. If you see it differently that's your problem.
38. Re:Again by kevinNCSU · 2011-07-21 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  How exactly do you obviously tell the difference between insurgents picking up a comrade and his intelligence form a battle and evacuating him and civilians picking up a wounded person from a battlefield and evacuating him? No ones debating whether they were picking up a wounded man, but what you don't seem to be clear on is that soldiers are legitimate targets if they are trying to remove a wounded or incapacitated enemy soldier from an active battlefield to avoid surrender. So it all comes down to a matter of identifying them as insurgents or not from the gun cam video which you both cant keep your eyes locked onto 100% of the time cause you gotta do other shit too, like flying and reading instruments.
39. Re:Again by Americano · 2011-07-21 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Was the van marked with a red cross, or some other internationally-recognized symbol which would designate it as a protected non-combatant vehicle, which would afford your point some measure of logic?
  A soldier - or in this case, an insurgent - rendering first aid and assistance to a wounded comrade is still a combatant. You don't get a special "don't shoot me, bro" immunity from being shot in a war zone because you're trying to slap a bandage on your friend's wound. There were absolutely no markings on that vehicle that would lead anybody to remotely suspect they were anything but fellow insurgents trying to evacuate wounded, weapons, and possibly actionable intelligence.
  But if you want to talk discuss "atrocities," we should also include events like the killing - and subsequent mutilation, burning, and hanging - of contractors in Fallujah - remember that one? Getting killed is certainly a risk military personnel and contractors have to live with. Where's the Collateral Murder video & your outrage over that *actual* atrocity, or any of the other documented cases of Taliban or al Qaeda linked executions, torture, abduction, murder, and other assorted savagery?
  Or have you unilaterally redefined the word "atrocity" and the phrase "war crime" to mean "that thing that only happens when a soldier with an American flag on his shoulder pulls a trigger, no matter what the situation, no matter what the circumstances, and no matter what the outcome?"
40. Re:Again by DarwinSurvivor · 2011-07-21 09:39 · Score: 1
  
  Hawkeye: War isn't Hell. War is war, and Hell is Hell. And of the two, war is a lot worse.
  Father Mulcahy: How do you figure, Hawkeye?
  Hawkeye: Easy, Father. Tell me, who goes to Hell?
  Father Mulcahy: Sinners, I believe.
  Hawkeye: Exactly. There are no innocent bystanders in Hell. War is chalk full of them - little kids, cripples, old ladies. In fact, except for some of the brass, almost everybody involved is an innocent bystander
  As much as I hate quoting TV, this has more truth in it than any other quote I've read.
41. Re:Again by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-21 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  The biggest problem in all this is that your "war zone" is in the middle of a large, densely populated city. Of course there will be civilians in the middle of such "war zone", including where you've been shooting - they fucking live there! So if you insist on making it a "war zone", you better watch out who you target - not giving due diligence to separating combatants from non-combatants is a war crime, and Geneva conventions say that you have to assume non-combatant status by default, unless there's evidence to the contrary (e.g. the people in question are armed).
  
  If you see people, in a war zone, carrying what appear to be assault rifles and RPGs, and you know that they're not part of YOUR military... what conclusion, exactly, would you draw?
  They are combatants, and you can fire at will. However, the people in the van were unarmed. That is what the fuss is about, not a bunch of guys with AKs that got killed at the very beginning.
42. Re:Again by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-21 09:49 · Score: 1
  
  Various insurgent factions perpetrate numerous atrocities - this is well-known, and not really disputed. Though it's bitterly ironic that US and West in general deliberately ignored all that when it was happening in e.g. Soviet-Afghan war - where Mujahideen would, on occasion, flay captives alive, and beheading was routine - or in Chechnya, before Bush suddenly became friends with Putin over the whole war on terror thing, and "freedom fighters" quickly became "terrorists".
  However, Taliban and other Islamist insurgents don't claim the moral high ground of being the torch-bearers of liberty, democracy and human rights, whereas US uses precisely that rhetoric to justify its military intervention. When Taliban folk say that apostates and unbelievers will be beheaded, and actually carry out that threat when they get captives, they are evil, but not hypocritical - the evil is out there in the open for everyone to see. When US says that it is in Iraq to save lives and provide for a free and stable society, and then goes on to kill local civilians because they happened to be at the wrong place and the wrong time, it's both evil and hypocritical.
43. Re:Again by Americano · 2011-07-21 09:55 · Score: 1
  
  They are combatants, and you can fire at will. However, the people in the van were unarmed.
  After the fact, we certainly know that they were unarmed.
  At the time, they were driving up to a group of men who were armed with AK-47s and what appeared to be RPGs, and attempting to load some of them into a vehicle. They were not medical personnel, they were not in a vehicle that was marked as a medical vehicle.
  This event is certainly - in hindsight, with full knowledge of the circumstance - tragic, but the decisions of the soldiers involved were also completely legitimate, given their view of the activity on the ground: unmarked, non-medical personnel driving up and attempting to load combatants (and possibly equipment) into a vehicle and drive them away minutes after they've been attacked by a gunship certainly also appear to be combatants, and thus, legitimate targets.
44. Re:Again by Americano · 2011-07-21 10:05 · Score: 1
  
  Your statement that it's evil assumes a deliberate intent to kill civilians who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, and that simply isn't the nature and character of the military's behavior. In civilian life, this is why we have different punishments for manslaughter and murder.
  What you're suggesting here is - to use an extreme example - Mother Theresa getting in a car accident that resulted in someone's death would make her an evil hypocrite, and invalidate every principle of charity and good works she ever espoused.
  There is no inherent hypocrisy in stating that you are pro-liberty, pro-freedom, pro-democracy, and having unfortunate - even tragic - collateral civilian deaths as the result of military action prompted by those principles. The military - overwhelmingly as an institution, there are of course individual exceptions, as there are in ANY large group of people - goes to extraordinary lengths to reduce and avoid these events, and suggesting that they set out with the express intention of killing civilians in some sort of evil hypocrisy while using talk of freedom and democracy as a smoke screen is naive and fatuous.
45. Re:Again by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-21 12:09 · Score: 1
  
  At the time, they were driving up to a group of men who were armed with AK-47s and what appeared to be RPGs, and attempting to load some of them into a vehicle.
  The key word here is "were" armed. The men were not armed by the time the van came onto the scene - they were lying around, some wounded and some dead, their weapons away from them. This, by the way, was clearly visible to the gunner, because he did focus on one guy trying to move, urging him to grab the gun so that he would became a legitimate target.
  
  They were not medical personnel, they were not in a vehicle that was marked as a medical vehicle.
  It does not matter. Per Geneva, by default, they are non-combatants, unless there's clear evidence to show otherwise. If this was a battlefield where no civilians are expected to be present, you'd have a point. In the middle of a large city? The likelihood that people on the scene are civilians is very high, and soldiers are expected to understand that when determining the combatant status.
  
  the decisions of the soldiers involved were also completely legitimate, given their view of the activity on the ground: unmarked, non-medical personnel driving up and attempting to load combatants (and possibly equipment)
  It is clear on the video that none of the people in the van attempted to pick up any weapons (if they did, the gunner could start firing without ascertaining the ROE).
  In any case, the claim that decisions were "completely legitimate" is obviously hotly contested; and since neither you nor me are lawyers, much less specializing in international customary law, we normally have war crime tribunals like ICC to refer such cases to. But, of course, US does not submit its citizens to those pesky foreigner kangaroo courts, and I'm not aware of any prior examples where a US soldier was found guilty of war crimes (rather than some unrelated offense solely to make the punishment a "dishonorable discharge" at most) by a US court. So we'll probably never know the truth.
46. Re:Again by quantumphaze · 2011-07-21 16:17 · Score: 1
  
  Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI
  
  --
  Unicode in Slashdot
47. Re:Again by kilfarsnar · 2011-07-22 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  I don't see how you got that from my post. My point is that we should be more concerned about the effects of US foreign policy than about whether releasing information about that policy and its effects would lead to someone's harm.
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
48. Re:Again by kilfarsnar · 2011-07-22 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  So the US government is the only government killing innocent people every day? Not that it makes any of it right, but you seem to want to paint a picture where it's only the US doing this. Truth is, the US is even close to being number one in this category by a long shot.
  I never said anything about that. All I said was that people seem to get upset that someone might be killed if information about US foreign adventures is released, but don't seem to be upset that many more people are killed by those very adventures. It's a matter of priorities.
  
  --
  "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
49. Re:Again by Schlacht · 2011-07-22 04:56 · Score: 1
  
  People with such opinions are exactly the problem in America (Nice name by the way).
  What is this whole insurgent / soldier bullshit. When did or how does Freedom Fighter become Terrorist? What's the difference between blue coats and their "atrocities" of shooting from undercover at the red coats lined up in the open field and the "atrocities" carried out using suicide bombers or IEDs? BOTH are fighting to win a war to survive against a bigger foe, not to win some popularity contest. After you have had your little sister raped, your Dad beaten, and watched your brother and grandfather get shot do you really think that anyone gives a fly-fuck about your popularity contest and what constitutes an "atrocity".
  At this point the Atrocity Boat has sailed and the gloves are off. Blue coats fighting like savage Indians from the underbrush and the local "insurgents" keeping someone from invading have something big in common. They are outgunned and doing whatever they can to get the other assholes out of their country. This all boils down to why-the-fuck-we're there in the first place. What defines who is the 'asshole' and what defines who is the 'defender of freedom'? Some of the poor soldiers sent over there don't even know they are going until they are in the air and over the Atlantic. I don't blame soldiers (unless they are grooving to Enter Sandman while they mow-down their targets) ... soldiers are underpaid, under-appreciated, ill-trained (for the most part) grunts that the government uses like pampers to populate their military industrial systems of destruction. I know plenty of them, and 99% are honorable and good guys, and many have become pretty damn jaded to the whole 'defending democracy' bullshit.
  So, as I always say, "Follow the money!". Whose getting rich off the soldiers sweat and blood? The soldiers? HAHA! The American people and all their 'freedoms' that have been defended (as a TAS agent gropes you)? You tell me Americano, who? Then you can have your definition of "war crime" and "atrocity".
  
  --
  rm -rf ms/*
I thought they arrested anonymous by i+kan+reed · 2011-07-21 01:28 · Score: 3, Funny

Like all of them, ever. Not posting as AC because I'm not currently in jail.
1. Re:I thought they arrested anonymous by bruce_the_moose · 2011-07-21 01:39 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  They arrested a few people stupid enough to use Low Orbit Ion Cannon to participate in the DDOS attack against PayPal and MasterCard/Visa sponsored by Anonymous. The mainstream media probably does think that's all of them.
  
  --
  To reduce crime, make fewer things against the law.
2. Re:I thought they arrested anonymous by taiwanjohn · 2011-07-21 01:49 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  One gets the impression that this new hack is a direct response to the arrest reports. It certainly makes the feds look foolish claiming to have nabbed them.
  
  --
  XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
3. Re:I thought they arrested anonymous by guspasho · 2011-07-21 07:03 · Score: 2
  
  Except that NATO didn't arrest anybody, the FBI did. However, NATO is engaged in an illegal and very prominent bombing campaign in Libya. That is the more likely motivation.
Time Warp? by kyrio · 2011-07-21 01:29 · Score: 1

Didn't sites that keep track of this retarded hacking shit disappear with the 90s?
This is getting sad by Gr33nJ3ll0 · 2011-07-21 01:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

Really if a bunch of vigilantes can do it, imagine what the gov't sponsored Chinese hackers can do!
1. Re:This is getting sad by RazorSharp · 2011-07-21 01:34 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Really if a bunch of vigilantes can do it, imagine what the gov't sponsored Chinese hackers can do!
  More like, if a bunch of vigilantes can do it, imagine what the gov't sponsored Chinese hackers do!
  
  --
  "From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
2. Re:This is getting sad by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:11 · Score: 0
  
  more like, if a bunch of vigilantes can do it, imagine what EVERY gov't sponsord hacker does!
3. Re:This is getting sad by Xest · 2011-07-21 02:26 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I hear this sentiment a lot, but it would imply that the Chinese government is more competent than Western governments who allow for this type of fuck up in the first place.
  Is there any evidence that Chinese public sector is somehow more competent than that in the West?
  It's quite possible that the opposite is true, that the Chinese are managing to acquire fuck all, and that Chinese government systems themselves are equally vulnerable.
4. Re:This is getting sad by countertrolling · 2011-07-21 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  And we're singling out the Chinese, why exactly? Are all the world's governments outsourcing this type of work to China? Maybe Murdoch should have..
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
5. Re:This is getting sad by Sir_Eptishous · 2011-07-21 02:47 · Score: 2
  
  The fact that their government is communist(funded by loads of capitalist cash) leads one to believe that their "command and control" in regard to cyber-espionage is probably very tight.
  
  --
  We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
6. Re:This is getting sad by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  More like, if a bunch of vigilantes can do it, imagine what the gov't sponsored US military hackers do!
  There, FTFY; go look up STUXNET.
7. Re:This is getting sad by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 03:17 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  A recent Chinese military airshow featured a brand new stealth fighter (flying prototype), with features and performance of amazing similarity to our US F-22 Raptor. Ooops.
  I think we've already seen what govt sponsored Chinese hackers can do!
8. Re:This is getting sad by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  This IRC is second grade level chinese class of 8 year old hackers doing this.. this not good. >|-D
9. Re:This is getting sad by Danse · 2011-07-21 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Seems more likely that both sides' networks leak like sieves, and both are getting a lot of data from each other. Chinese are certainly more tolerant of less convenient systems and processes than those in the West, so I think they might actually be able to deal with greater security measures and the tedious tasks and inconveniences that go along with it. Then again, from what I've seen, they do a pretty half-assed job in a lot of their construction, so maybe they do the same with their networks.
  
  --
  It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
10. Re:This is getting sad by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  It doesn't imply that at all. I'm sure Western hackers could hack Chinese systems, and they probably do.
  I think it's much more likely both sides have effective hackers and ineffective defences. After all, it's a lot harder to defend than it is to attack.
11. Re:This is getting sad by Intropy · 2011-07-21 07:35 · Score: 1
  
  Tight control is not at all the same thing as competent. The controllers could be meddlesome idiots who screw everything up with an iron fist. Or the people being controlled could themselves be entirely incapable of following through. I have no reason to believe that is or isn't the case, but neither follows from tight control even assuming that communism does imply tight control (which I'm willing to grant it probably does tend to do).
12. Re:This is getting sad by i+kan+reed · 2011-07-21 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Error in logic detected. You're assuming it's equivalently easy to prevent attacks as perpetuate them. Day to day life as a programmer should show you that's not true.
13. Re:This is getting sad by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 08:55 · Score: 0
  
  why do you assume they are not gov't sponsored?
14. Re:This is getting sad by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 10:34 · Score: 0
  
  When you don't have to deal with all those silly "rights" and "laws" the rest of the world is constrained by.... You can get alot of stuff done i bet.
15. Re:This is getting sad by Xest · 2011-07-21 20:25 · Score: 1
  
  Error in reading comprehension detected. I never made such an assumption, nor stated such an assumption, I merely pointed out that the situation could potentially be completely the opposite of the commonly portrayed idea that China is hacking the US left right and centre, ignoring what the US may or may not be doing back.
1GB hummm by JamesP · 2011-07-21 01:30 · Score: 1

They probably downloaded tons of non-ocrd scanned documents, stored as images
"Yes sir, it's all in the computer!"
Or maybe 100k of data has the most important info... they only have to find an EBCDIC decoder first

--
how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
1. Re:1GB hummm by cowboy76Spain · 2011-07-21 01:34 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I am betting on porn... I always bet on porn.
  
  --
  Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.
2. Re:1GB hummm by rommi04 · 2011-07-21 01:36 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  In a volatile market the only stable investment is porn
3. Re:1GB hummm by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't be very surprising given what NATO forces were to blame for in the Kosovo.
4. Re:1GB hummm by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  Most of it is probally casualty reports saying , Fuck we really have to train our troops to stand behind the Americans,
5. Re:1GB hummm by 1s44c · 2011-07-21 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  dd conv=ascii <in >out
6. Re:1GB hummm by JamesP · 2011-07-21 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  iconv works as well
  
  --
  how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
7. Re:1GB hummm by Sulphur · 2011-07-21 02:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I am betting on porn... I always bet on porn.
  That's classified. Non classified material cannot get into classified places.
  Seriously, if they want security, then they should have "Tiger Teams" , that is people who try to breach security to FIND OUT if it is any good.
8. Re:1GB hummm by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  Other way around. The idea is classified cannot get in non-classified areas. Things that shouldn't be classified are constantly being marked classified so people can cover their asses. It's a problem.
9. Re:1GB hummm by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  CYMRU, NIGGA
10. Re:1GB hummm by tantaliz3 · 2011-07-21 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Or garbage...
11. Re:1GB hummm by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 10:24 · Score: 0
  
  Tiger teams to find out if the porn is any good? Isn't it time we give the man a break, and let him play some golf?
12. Re:1GB hummm by Lunzo · 2011-07-21 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  WHOOSH!
Cloud by StripedCow · 2011-07-21 01:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

I certainly don't want to provoke anyone, but I wonder how long it will take until they hack gmail and other cloud-based services, and put all the data into the open?
Thanks to these guys, I'm not so sure anymore whether I like this idea of the cloud.

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
1. Re:Cloud by Aladrin · 2011-07-21 01:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  You do realize that the things these guys do aren't that spectacular, right? They're little better than script-kiddies.
  Real hackers are out there right now doing much, much more. And they aren't telling you about it.
  So what you are essentially saying is that you feel perfectly safe, no matter the real situation, unless someone starts describing reality to you.
  Anonymous/LulzSec has done a great job of showing people what the internet is really like. It's a very scary place.
  
  --
  "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
2. Re:Cloud by Scott64 · 2011-07-21 01:40 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Your information is every bit as safe as it ever was. Which, as it turns out, might not be as safe as you thought it was.
3. Re:Cloud by alphatel · 2011-07-21 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  Nor will it get any better.
  
  --
  When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
4. Re:Cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  GMail has a much more real threat to worry about: China.
  I've enabled 2-step authentication for my account and installed the Android app on my phone. Good luck with it :P
5. Re:Cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  It's the ol' "Ignorance is bliss" way of thinking ;)
6. Re:Cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  Quite. I'll be hosting my own email very soon. Not as secure as gmail, perhaps, but definitely less of a target.
7. Re:Cloud by bberens · 2011-07-21 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Your 2-step authentication does nothing when the servers themselves are compromised. Luckily I have nothing but my own personal financial information at risk which is completely worthless to a foreign government and a dime a dozen in the hacking/cracking circles.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
8. Re:Cloud by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-07-21 01:55 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Thankfully hacking is still a fully manual enterprise and email servers aren't remotely distinctive on automated scans, or of any value if compromised, so obscurity should keep you nice and safe...
9. Re:Cloud by Charliemopps · 2011-07-21 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  I think that's kinda their point.
  Security is easy, very easy. The fact that none of these huge companies or government agencies can do rudimentary things to secure their sites should scare you. Hackers should keep plucking away at them until they either secure their sites or take them down entirely. Hacking should be legal, it's the only thing that tells us if a site is secure from the real bad guys... the ones that don't publish their results.
10. Re:Cloud by godless+dave · 2011-07-21 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  If you've finally realized that data in the cloud isn't secure if you don't handle the encryption yourself, then Anonymous has been successful. You should thank them for bringing it to your attention.
  
  --
  "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
11. Re:Cloud by Thiez · 2011-07-21 02:32 · Score: 1
  
  > I certainly don't want to provoke anyone, but I wonder how long it will take until they hack gmail and other cloud-based services, and put all the data into the open?
  Well, given the fact that gmail now allows over 7.5GB of storage per account, hackers stealing a single GB of data probably wouldn't affect that many users. Of course that doesn't make it right, but it does limit the damage somewhat.
12. Re:Cloud by mlts · 2011-07-21 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  I have heard of hacks for other sites that use two step authentication that install themselves as browser add-ons and slurp the cookie typed in. Then the blackhat is able to add or remove the second factor authentication, change the password and the account is theirs.
  The first line of defense is making sure your endpoint is secure. Compromise that and the game is up, regardless of what authentication one has.
13. Re:Cloud by alphatel · 2011-07-21 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Hackers target smb references this exact issue - lulz/anon are harmless. Everyone sees the big headlines but its thousands of small businesses that are getting their data stolen every day and left with no ability to recover.
  
  Granted, you make your own mess when you hire the $20/hour web guy out of college who thinks that online transactions are safe because he used magento out of the box, but the real hacking is occuring daily and there's no way to stop it, or even properly monitor it. Even when these are overseas cybercrimes and owners get the secret service or other agencies involved, the end result is nothing.
  
  We're too busy monitoring Americans online terrorist activity to worry about real crimes.
  
  --
  When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
14. Re:Cloud by FhnuZoag · 2011-07-21 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  This argument seems a lot like saying 'your house is just as flammable as it ever was', right after an arsonist torched the place. Ultimately everything has to be a trade off between usability and convenience, and security. Similarly with stuff like wikileaks, we expect that there should be mechanisms by which specific crimes might be exposed to the public over and beyond conventional security policy. But when these holes are publically exploited, then they have a number of spill-off effects.
  Firstly, for the users, it creates more burdensome security procedures that are often senseless and wasteful. For criminals, it provides inspiration and encouragement, as well as availability of resources when attempts to close security holes are inconsistently applied. For future whistleblowers, it shuts down avenues for them to smuggle out future information that might be more important and more specific than the 'oh here's a huge bunch of documents dumps'. And for politicians, it embarrasses those working for greater transparency, and provides political leverage for those clamping down.
  I find it difficult to say that the world has really benefitted at all from all these hacking cases. If Anonymous, Lulsec, Wikileaks et al had really wanted to affect positive changes, instead of score infamy points, there are very difficult ways they could have gone about things.
15. Re:Cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that the things these guys do aren't that spectacular, right? They're little better than script-kiddies.
  For being little better than script kiddies, they've rapidly found vulnerabilities in multiple high-profile locations. They've proven to have the psychological skills to talk people into giving them access over the phone (I'll remember the term for this after I have my coffee), they're credited with bringing Sony down for a month, their leader Sabu is said to have been an IT security contractor for ten years, and one of their IRC logs discussed a 0-day that they'd developed. These aren't things that mere script kiddies do. They also know how to use the systems that they are breaking into, like the phone system that they reconfigured, which puts them above script kiddies.
  I suspect that the early talk about them being script kiddies came from security researchers hoping to piss them off enough that they'd react poorly and make a mistake to reveal themselves. They didn't.
  
  Real hackers are out there right now doing much, much more. And they aren't telling you about it.
  The "real hackers" are doing much of the same but keeping quiet about it and selling their findings to Eastern European crime gangs.
16. Re:Cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 03:19 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Real hackers are out there right now doing much, much more. And they aren't telling you about it.
  Wait, if no one knows what "real hackers" are doing then how do you know they are doing anything?
17. Re:Cloud by Riceballsan · 2011-07-21 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  In general at least groups like anon and luzlsec have been fairly weak attacks targeted at poorly secured pages with vulnerabilities that are years old. Mainly I think they are pointing out that the security of these places is pathetic, rather then nothing is secure. Google has an incredible track-record for deflecting large scale attacks. I'm not saying they are invincible, but they do actually seem to know what they are doing.
18. Re:Cloud by Sprouticus · 2011-07-21 04:15 · Score: 1
  
  Dont put Lulz, Anon and Wikileaks in the same category.
  Wikileaks provides a non-standard method for whistle blowing. The same would have been said for a newspaper in 1500. Imagine what would have happened to a reporter in the Court of Henry the VIIIth. It is a valid outlet because our media has been co-opted and corrupted.
  Anon takes it one step further but actively trying to get information. I am far less comofrtable with their actions, although I do understand the intent of most of their recent crusades.
  Lulz was just a bunch of jerk who were out to tweak the noses of some people who pissed them off. Not a fan, just like I wouldnt be a fan if someone set the car of the Sony VP who deicded to Sue Geohot on fire as revenge.
19. Re:Cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  You don't have any clue what a hacker is. These guys may or may not be hackers. Hacking is at its root the desire to learn how things work. The work that these guys have done could be considered hacking. It doesn't have to be though. People I'd consider hackers are the guys working in the GNU/Linux arena right now and similar.
  It has to do with the fact free software at its heart encourages and enables learning. Anything short of this and you aren't a hacker. You don't support freedom. You don't support learning about the systems in which you exist/use. Cracking is not what hacking is about.
  Any real hacker (having actually broken into or otherwise) with a deep understanding of security realises the systems are simply too complex to maintain and a complete overhaul is needed. An analysis of ALL the code is needed and the striping away of unnecessary components and protocols.
  Things should be drastically simplified and analysed thoroughly. We should be seeing simpler terminal based applications. Not fancy and ever more complex GUIs and 3d accelerated graphics layers. Code should fit on a floppy disk. Not take up 20GB of disk space.
  There should be a limited number of chipsets and components which we use going forward. They should be well understood and drivers/firmware/BIOS/and other code pieces released under a free software license. Standardise and continue to produce these components for 10 or 20 years. Then we can actually achieve something that resembles security. This isn't all that needs to be done. It is a start.
20. Re:Cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 05:20 · Score: 0
  
  You do realize that the things these guys do aren't that spectacular, right? They're little better than script-kiddies.
  Real hackers are out there right now doing much, much more.
  Doing so much more, but for unknown reasons and not publicly disclosing them. I wish one of these articles won't have multiple comments treating this like a hacking competition, nobody cares that what they do isn't awesome super white hat hacking. Atleast nobody that matters
21. Re:Cloud by MurukeshM · 2011-07-21 05:23 · Score: 1
  
  Wikileaks provides a non-standard method for whistle blowing.
  What's the ISO standardised method for whistle-blowing, then?
22. Re:Cloud by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 06:21 · Score: 0
  
  It's only scary if you don't know what you're doing. Unfortunately, that's a vast majority of internet users. The people who believe the "superiority" of Anonymous, and by proxy the stories the mainstream media spews out about them are not changing their ways and habits to be a more savvy internet user... It's rather like someone not being concerned about break-ins until one happens to him. Being diligent should be the same online as it is offline. People don't wander around with their cc#'s draped like capes or spouting private information to everyone in earshot at the mall, so why do they do it online? Because they're uneducated. Rather than scaring them to death, we should educate them, since the dire warnings about security are basically falling on deaf ears... Then perhaps, just perhaps, the Anonymous kiddies of the world will go away because it will actually require hacking skills to do ANYTHING... And the media will find another scary boogeyman to conjure up and try to whip the unwashed into a frothy mess of paranoia and "please, government! protect me at all costs!" :)
  We can only hope, right? :)
23. Re:Cloud by RivenAleem · 2011-07-21 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  It's a very scary place.
  With Ponies
24. Re:Cloud by guspasho · 2011-07-21 07:08 · Score: 1
  
  I'll remember the term for this after I have my coffee
  Social engineering? Manipulation?
25. Re:Cloud by KahabutDieDrake · 2011-07-21 07:24 · Score: 1
  
  The biggest deterrent to hacking something like Gmail is that the amount of data is far to vast to be moved around. At least, as a whole. You'll probably never see anything like "Gmail hacked, all emails from every user are on pirate bay". Because every email from every user wouldn't FIT on pirate bay, or BT as a whole. (ok, maybe it would, but it would sure be a pain in the ass to find seeders). I've got about 3tb of storage here locally. But I'm not likely to give all of it, or even half of it over to massive archives of emails.
  
  Much more likely, we'll see specific accounts compromised, which we've already seen (sarah palin, yahoo mail, etc etc). Cloud services have been around a long time, and they've never been secure, not really.
26. Re:Cloud by KahabutDieDrake · 2011-07-21 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  A lawyer and a representative from The Department of Industrial Relations.
  
  Or if you prefer grand standing, a lawyer and a reporter.
27. Re:Cloud by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-21 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  Things should be drastically simplified and analysed thoroughly. We should be seeing simpler terminal based applications. Not fancy and ever more complex GUIs and 3d accelerated graphics layers. Code should fit on a floppy disk. Not take up 20GB of disk space.
  There should be a limited number of chipsets and components which we use going forward. They should be well understood and drivers/firmware/BIOS/and other code pieces released under a free software license. Standardise and continue to produce these components for 10 or 20 years. Then we can actually achieve something that resembles security. This isn't all that needs to be done. It is a start.
  Who's "we"?
28. Re:Cloud by sjames · 2011-07-21 20:57 · Score: 1
  
  And by doing that are performing a public service that none of the others have to date. That is the spectacular part.
29. Re:Cloud by Aladrin · 2011-07-22 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  I think the ponies are the problem. People see ponies and they think, "See? There's ponies. How bad could it be?"
  
  --
  "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Yawn by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 01:34 · Score: 0

Yeah just like wiki leaks was interesting...yawn
Typo in summary by MrBippers · 2011-07-21 01:39 · Score: 0

There != their
Big hairy deal. by SquirrelDeth · 2011-07-21 01:39 · Score: 2

Everyone is hacking into government computers and learning the secrets of the government oh noes. I have government data on my computer maybe more than some of these hackers claim to have liberated here is the catch. Gov data is very boring. For example my latest gov communique was plans for a building with a rotten roof. Yes I have to look at it and bid on repairing.
I think the government is running out of terrorist and need a new batch of international terrorists with computers. You are not safe they can get the government they can get you. I think this stuff is all a ploy to try and push stricter rules concerning your rights online. And a way to make nerds everywhere potential terrorist suspects. Soon that laptop bag will be just as bad as a turban and a dynamite vest.
1. Re:Big hairy deal. by Opportunist · 2011-07-21 01:45 · Score: 2
  
  Well, eventually the feds caught on. They noticed that adding "with computers" to whatever is being done changes everything. For reference, see laws.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
2. Re:Big hairy deal. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 01:49 · Score: 0
  
  Five years ago, I'd have suggested that you buy another tinfoil hat for your collection thereof; now I'm not convinced you are incorrect.
3. Re:Big hairy deal. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 01:55 · Score: 2
  
  Average citizen: "It's just not normal to carry around a computer all the time! It makes me feel less secure." *proceeds to check i-phone*
Big deal? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 01:40 · Score: 0

NATO is ancient anyway and should be in a museum, maybe this will speed up the process.
In other news: After pulling levers, monkeys gained access to the State Department..........
NATO Hacking by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 01:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

I know, it's a stupid question but I have to ask it. Why are government and military servers and computers that store sensitive data connected to the internet at all. Shouldn't they be on isolated local networks only?
1. Re:NATO Hacking by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 01:50 · Score: 0
  
  I know, it's a stupid question but I have to ask it. Why are government and military servers and computers that store sensitive data connected to the internet at all. Shouldn't they be on isolated local networks only?
  Because the gov like all large institutions is extremely lazy, if you told them that they could not access their work from home their diapers would need changing pronto. Jokes aside, government workers have to compete with private corporations now that all loan out laptops to get shit done, uncle sam has to follow suit.
2. Re:NATO Hacking by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:01 · Score: 0
  
  I know, it's a stupid question but I have to ask it. Why are government and military servers and computers that store sensitive data connected to the internet at all. Shouldn't they be on isolated local networks only?
  Because the gov like all large institutions is extremely lazy, if you told them that they could not access their work from home their diapers would need changing pronto. Jokes aside, government workers have to compete with private corporations now that all loan out laptops to get shit done, uncle sam has to follow suit.
  The real answer is: deny government employees access to porn and they will quit the service in masses!
3. Re:NATO Hacking by KarrdeSW · 2011-07-21 02:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Can't reach TFA due to high traffic right now but from TFS it doesn't really say whether anything they stole was that expensive, just that there was "One Gigabyte" of it.
  It could just be cafeteria menus.
  It'll be a dark day when NATO's enemies hear about next Tuesday's Salisbury steak.
4. Re:NATO Hacking by KarrdeSW · 2011-07-21 02:03 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  sensitive, not expensive, damn my lack of coffee.
5. Re:NATO Hacking by Oligonicella · 2011-07-21 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Then by all means, let us do so.
6. Re:NATO Hacking by Nidi62 · 2011-07-21 02:26 · Score: 2
  
  I know, it's a stupid question but I have to ask it. Why are government and military servers and computers that store sensitive data connected to the internet at all. Shouldn't they be on isolated local networks only?
  Because government agencies cooperate and share information routinely over very large distances with their personnel in different states and with agencies of other states as well. NATO is a very large organization comprising of 28 states. This means the military and intelligence agencies of 28 states cooperate with at least a fair degree of regularity, often across the ocean. Each state more than likely has their own internal information and communication system, yes. But to get each member state to agree on one type and model of communication system to be put in place at every single military installation, command center, or intelligence/analysis agency/department is a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare. However, just about any computer can connect to the internet these days, even the most basic of field computers. The question isn't why are these servers attached to the internet, the question is why haven't they been secured as much as possible, if they are holding classified information.
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
7. Re:NATO Hacking by Andy+Dodd · 2011-07-21 02:26 · Score: 2
  
  It's either not that sensitive, or someone REALLY fucked up.
  Actual classified data is supposed to be airgapped, or protected by NSA Type I crypto. If these guys broke an approved Type I system, that would be some of the biggest news in crypto history.
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
8. Re:NATO Hacking by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  I stand corrected bravo sir! Porn is the new gold!
9. Re:NATO Hacking by halivar · 2011-07-21 02:39 · Score: 2
  
  Yep. Remember that Wikileaks needed someone on the inside to get the information. I find it highly unlikely that Anonymous got any really important documents. Sure, maybe they were marked classified. That doesn't mean shit.
10. Re:NATO Hacking by CapnStank · 2011-07-21 02:44 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Or:
  
  They *don't* have sensative data stored on networks accessable to the internet. I certainly believe its possible for a NATO web server to contain 1GB of documents... The same kind of crap that you find on publicly owned company intranets, documents and documents of rambling and meeting minutes and useless garbage stored because they're being transparent to the public. For all we know at this point Anonymous *hacked* a bunch of files that were accessible by a internal search engine to the site.
11. Re:NATO Hacking by Scarred+Intellect · 2011-07-21 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  Some are. Classified SECRET computers are on SIPR net (Secure Internet Protocol Router, now more often referred to as SECRET Internet Protocol Router) which is totally separate from the Internet, except for the fact that it runs on the same lines once it is cloud-side. It's supposed to be unreadable because it uses packet switching, but otherwise functions the same as NIPR (Non-Secure Internet Protocol Router) net. Thing is, I know of an example where I had to wipe several new computers because the vendor-supplied network cards were sending usage statistics back to the vendor when these machines were connected to SIPR. So it's obviously not quite right.
  I hope JWICS is more secure, because it handles TOP SECRET...
12. Re:NATO Hacking by captainpanic · 2011-07-21 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Because there's no point in having a massive intelligence network if your people can't access the info. And it's really not practical to have to travel to a very specific office somewhere to get the data.
  All your personal data (and mine) is available in a couple of thousand offices too... and can therefore be hacked as well.
13. Re:NATO Hacking by he-sk · 2011-07-21 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Apparently, isolated local networks are no defense to Lady Gaga CDs.
  
  --
  Free Manning, jail Obama.
14. Re:NATO Hacking by blizz017 · 2011-07-21 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  They are for the most part (Packet switching over shared lines for certain networks being the obvious case of non-isolation physically). Hitting internet connected servers nets you some unclass/fouo maybe confidential level stuff. If you're lucky and hit the right place at the right time, you might get some info that was accidentally uploaded that's classified higher and hasn't yet been cleansed. Keep in mind we have whole groups of people dedicated solely to finding classified info uploaded to NIPR/Public Internet facing systems and to investigate the cause and clean the affected systems. This is why I always take the 'We've hacked NATO's public facing servers and netted some juicy info!!!' type stories with a very big grain of salt. Remember none of the Bradley Manning/Wiki-leaks stuff came from a internet connected network.
15. Re:NATO Hacking by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  Why are you people always bragging about your dependency on caffeine? It's not "cool". It's a weakness, and I will never understand why you all constantly bring it to the attention of the public.
16. Re:NATO Hacking by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  Sure, maybe they were marked classified. That doesn't mean shit.
  I guess you're the expert, Beavis. All those Tom Clancy novels you read in high school (last year) paid off in the end.
17. Re:NATO Hacking by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 06:24 · Score: 0
  
  And with the billions upon billions upon billions of military budget, they can't afford to run their own private lines?
18. Re:NATO Hacking by guspasho · 2011-07-21 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Don't get me started on Friday's mystery meat! Veal, my ass.
  -former chef at the NATO cafeteria
19. Re:NATO Hacking by Sepodati · 2011-07-21 09:46 · Score: 1
  
  Just because the NIC was sending a packet, it doesn't mean that packet was being delivered. It wasn't.
20. Re:NATO Hacking by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 14:51 · Score: 0
  
  go to church... maybe there you'll find someone who gives a shit about you puritanical views...
  DRUGS ROCK!
21. Re:NATO Hacking by Scarred+Intellect · 2011-07-22 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  It was being delivered. It was being received by the vendor.
there must be some undisclosed SQL exploit by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 01:42 · Score: 0

How else do they break in to all these places so easily? Incompetent admins? No way, those administrators all have degrees from expensive colleges, of course they know what they're doing...
1. Re:there must be some undisclosed SQL exploit by GameboyRMH · 2011-07-21 01:54 · Score: 2
  
  The rumor is that they have an unknown Apache exploit.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
2. Re:there must be some undisclosed SQL exploit by mcvos · 2011-07-21 03:20 · Score: 1
  
  Incompetent developers. I haven't read everything, but my impression is that Anonymous and LulzSec simply used SQL injection for many of their cracks, which is something that any competent web developer should know how to prevent without even trying.
Sensitive data... again? by geogob · 2011-07-21 01:45 · Score: 1

By now, with all that happened in the last 6 months on this front, you would have though that any computer holding sensitive information was already moved behind an air gap. That IT security experts would have learned that they cannot protect their networks against attack as long as the network is opened to the outside world.
Either people do not learn, or they are really way to slow at making things change...
1. Re:Sensitive data... again? by wwwrench · 2011-07-21 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Well, is the data that sensitive? Here is one they released: http://pdfcast.org/pdf/nato-1 Old and dull. And Sabu yesterday claimed they were about to release a bunch of Sun emails. Now they say they won't. There's a bit more smoke than fire.
  
  --
  
  Deconstruct the State
2. Re:Sensitive data... again? by TheCarp · 2011-07-21 01:54 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Yah maybe if there were actually real threats that NATO was needed for... they might take security seriously. Given that they are just an excuse for nations to dump money into military contractor pockets (much like the US military who hasn't fought a real threat since the early 40s)... well why should they give a shit?
  Intrusions? Data gets lost? Clearly that means they need more budget. This will be a windfall for them.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
3. Re:Sensitive data... again? by trum4n · 2011-07-21 01:56 · Score: 1
  
  Both.
4. Re:Sensitive data... again? by bberens · 2011-07-21 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  Meh, "sensitive" is relative. Let me know when it's proven that there's actually some meaningful scandalous data here. Otherwise it's just a "Look what I can do!" Anything the military does or buys is considered sensitive by default. It's silly really.
  
  --
  Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
5. Re:Sensitive data... again? by Andy+Dodd · 2011-07-21 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Or Anonymous thinks the data is a lot more sensitive than it really is.
  
  --
  retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
6. Re:Sensitive data... again? by Xest · 2011-07-21 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  "By now, with all that happened in the last 6 months on this front, you would have though that any computer holding sensitive information was already moved behind an air gap."
  It goes a bit like this:
  "Nah, it's nothing to worry about, it'll never happen to us. Now get on with doing your Office 2010 upgrades."
7. Re:Sensitive data... again? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:58 · Score: 0
  
  this pdfcast file isnt available any more. anyone have a mirror, copy or reup of this nato #1 pdf document? thanks in advance.
8. Re:Sensitive data... again? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 03:15 · Score: 0
  
  >who hasn't fought a real threat since the early 40s
  WTF? Fighting the NVA (full military cadres with state of the art military materiel) was scrimmage? That little fuss in Korea was against unarmed Boy Scouts? Ask people who were there at the pointy end of the stick since the 40s if they felt threatened when somebody yelled "Charlie's inside the wire!!"
  I repeat, WTF?
9. Re:Sensitive data... again? by TheCarp · 2011-07-21 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Um duh yes, enemy soldiers that you are fighting, on the battlefield are a threat TO your soldiers. Way to miss the point.
  Please give me the date and location where the NVA or Koreans invaded continental US soil. Please show me the military assessment that showed that not dealing with them presented an immediate and real threat to the people of this country.
  Al Quida, of all of the "threats" came closest with... their one major attack, and a couple of failed attempts. However, closest was still a million miles away, as they were little more than a mosquito on the ass of our civilization. Our response harmed us thousands of times more than they ever could have realistically done.
  So yes... no credible threats that rose to the level of justifying sending our murder squads out to do war.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
10. Re:Sensitive data... again? by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-21 12:39 · Score: 1
  
  I think GP is making a hyperbole, but he's certainly correct if you look at post-Vietnam, and maybe even before. My definition of "real threat" on the battlefield would be a well-trained, organized army with artillery, armor and air support (not necessarily on par with US equipment, but not hopelessly outclassed in either quality or quantity - like not 10 howitzers for the entire army, and not T-34 vs Abrams). By that measure, in Korea US forces faced a "real threat", esp. once Chinese came in; Vietnam is debatable since US had air domination and much more artillery; and everything after that was a walk in the park.
11. Re:Sensitive data... again? by TheCarp · 2011-07-22 15:25 · Score: 1
  
  Real threat "on the battlefield" is totally not what I meant.
  If we met in a bar, I could put up a fight. I might not win, but I could make just about any man at least have to pay attention to me and use force to take me down. However, nearly anybody can put up a fight. The ability to put up a fight or even win a fight is not, in and of itself what makes someone a threat.
  I am no threat to you or anyone in a bar because... I have no desire to get into bar fights. I have a wife to come home to, a job that I rely on the income from. Just as Canada and France are not considered threats,... because of political ties.
  Nobody who has made threats, has been a threat, and nobody who could have been a threat was or is all that interested. Is some of it because of our defensive capability? Undoubtedly, but... defense can be done so much more effectively and cheaper. 50 well run state militias could defend us and deter real threats.
  I am saying there was no legitimate threat that justified Korea, Viet Nam, or anything since. I am not entirely above humanitarian missions, operations like Serbia.... sure.... but it does suck that a big international force is well... comprised primarially of our one country. Its high time that places like western europe kicked a bit more in for their own issues.
  But overall... I have no problem with taxes paying for roads and infrastructure.... but I don't think its right to be using tax money, which is involuntarily given, for foreign wars. I think a voluntary tax of those interested in it should pay for it. For anything that is not a direct existential threat. That is...threat to our very existence as a people. That is.... a whole fuckton bigger than Al Quaida. If its that...then use taxes....if not...then I see it as theft.
  
  --
  "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
12. Re:Sensitive data... again? by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-07-22 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  I am not entirely above humanitarian missions, operations like Serbia.... sure....
  It depends on which intervention in Serbia you have in mind. Well, maybe not... If this is actually about Bosnia, then that was a mess because of intervention being too little, too late, and partly also by picking sides. If you mean Kosovo, then that was fucked up by excessive civilian casualties due to designation of primarily civilian targets like bridges and other infrastructure as "dual use", even when no combatants were present (pretty much all targets in Belgrade except for Ministry of Defense, train in Grdelica etc).
Wha.... by AngryDeuce · 2011-07-21 01:51 · Score: 2

How is it that all these different sites keep getting hacked? I mean, NATO doesn't have access to experts in internet security that are able to defend against these attacks?
I'm not in the field, obviously, and I know that things are always evolving, but it seems to me that there needs to be more layers in web security. Also, why is there not more encryption on sensitive data? Is encryption more costly if it's more complex?
I can understand when a corporation gets hacked, they're going cheap on web security because of the costs. But one would think that truly sensitive information with major geopolitical players would be buttoned up pretty damn tight.
1. Re:Wha.... by flonker · 2011-07-21 01:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The thing is, they are not picking targets and then hacking them, rather they are mass scanning to see what is vulnerable then picking through the list to find stuff they find interesting. With that said, you would expect a military organization not to be the "low hanging fruit".
2. Re:Wha.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  How is it that all these different sites keep getting hacked? I mean, NATO doesn't have access to experts in internet security that are able to defend against these attacks?
  I'm not in the field, obviously, and I know that things are always evolving, but it seems to me that there needs to be more layers in web security. Also, why is there not more encryption on sensitive data? Is encryption more costly if it's more complex?
  I can understand when a corporation gets hacked, they're going cheap on web security because of the costs. But one would think that truly sensitive information with major geopolitical players would be buttoned up pretty damn tight.
  The world economy is kind of hurting right now. Guess what? The same breed of idiots who decided to cut their IT security people to save some cash at the big corporations also work for world governments. Did you think we were electing intelligent people or something?
3. Re:Wha.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  Yep. Back in the days we appeared on the second page of a google search for "powered by XYZ software (c) 2000 v.01.23.45.67.89".
  
  We didn't stand a chance.
4. Re:Wha.... by blueg3 · 2011-07-21 02:31 · Score: 2
  
  Keep in mind most of their targets are large organizations with tons of Internet-connected computers -- one of those machines is bound to have a vulnerability.
5. Re:Wha.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  NATO functions just like any other body. If the lost opportunity costs incurred by securing something outweigh the cost of data breach multiplied by the chance of said breach happening, it's not done. It's not like something being "secure" is a binary state, it's more things are "more secure" and "less secure". The more you secure something the less chance of a breach, but at the same time the more resources you might have to spend securing it and the utility of the thing may be reduced due to onerous security concerns.
  If NATO thinks is can save more lives (or have a better strategic advantage) by having say,lots of data resources that it knows might leak, opposed to only being able to have a much smaller number of repositories of reduced usefulness that it knows are secure, how can you blame them for taking that route?
Now we know by supernatendo · 2011-07-21 01:54 · Score: 1

So THIS is the real reason for the FBI roundup, I didn't think it was simply because of "The Sun".
Glad to learn that the boys aren't discouraged by by ArsenneLupin · 2011-07-21 01:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Glad to learn that the boys aren't discouraged by the arrests!
Shares by StripedCow · 2011-07-21 01:59 · Score: 1

These guys probably have shares in some security company...

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
1. Re:Shares by UninformedCoward · 2011-07-21 02:12 · Score: 2
  
  They probably are a security company.
Re:That's the point by b4dc0d3r · 2011-07-21 02:06 · Score: 1

They hack anything and everything, and essentially just demonstrate that poor security is everywhere. Whether that's what they want to prove or not, that's the point they end up making.
Don't trust anyone with your data until they are proven secure, and then always wonder if they made an update that breaks their security.
People trust the cloud, but don't think about what it actually means. Someone else has your data, and you trust them to keep it private, and not use or sell bits and pieces here and there when it suits them.
Re:Why so many US targets? by AngryDeuce · 2011-07-21 02:06 · Score: 1

How many other corrupt nations do you see with a military presence in half the other countries in the world? I'm sure if, say Germany, was transitioning to a full fledged Corporatocracy bent on nation building in the middle east and exploiting 3rd world laborers the world over you would see them get a focus, too.
Re:Why so many US targets? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:16 · Score: 0

You should see the glorious track record of Germany, Belgium, France, and whatsoever have in in Africa. Than you're going to see that maybe the Americans aren't that bad at all.
The USA has interfered with the internal politics of my country a few times. England financed and lobbied for the last war we fought: almost half of the male population of Paraguay died.
The Chinese also sucks. See Tibet. See Taiwan. Shit, see their own citizens.
There are no innocents.
I don't understand.. by blind+biker · 2011-07-21 02:17 · Score: 1

why does every piece of data have to be on the fucking Internet. Just because a computer or a network isn't connected to the Internet, it won't instantaneously burn or explosively self-destruct.

--
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
1. Re:I don't understand.. by ctrimm · 2011-07-21 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  Because it makes it accessible from places other than the physical location it's stored at. That can be really useful, you know?
2. Re:I don't understand.. by ceoyoyo · 2011-07-21 03:27 · Score: 2
  
  For really important stuff, that's what dedicated lines are for. For the rest, SSH tunnels and VPNs.
  It's this habit of putting your secret documents on the same machine that serves your website that's getting people in trouble.
3. Re:I don't understand.. by blind+biker · 2011-07-21 07:10 · Score: 1
  
  Because it makes it accessible from places other than the physical location it's stored at. That can be really useful, you know?
  Your condescending tone doesn't hide your ignorance: the same thing can be achieved with an internet - you don't need the Internet for that, you know?
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
4. Re:I don't understand.. by ctrimm · 2011-07-21 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  So they end up spending MORE money making sure each person who needs access has a dedicated line? What if those people change regularly, or are halfway across the world? That kind of networking is expensive, takes a long time to implement, and doesn't adapt to a changing environment very well. For things that aren't "national security will be totally compromised" important, I'd rather they hire competent system administrators and programmers than spend money trying to connect a bunch of people to a propriety network.
5. Re:I don't understand.. by farble1670 · 2011-07-21 09:57 · Score: 1
  
  because information is useful when it's shared, and physically carrying around the data on disks / whatever isn't necessarily safer when you consider the scale in which the data is shared.
I love this. by _0rm_ · 2011-07-21 02:19 · Score: 1

"Most of which we can not publish as it would be irresponsible."
Oh anonymous.

--
Boredom is bliss.
Think of the Data! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:22 · Score: 0

Anon will end up helping to pass some sort of unfair law to control the internet. Whether they're a false flag or legit, they make a juicy excuse for a gov't to impose harsh restrictions. As dumb as they are seem sometimes, politicians are damned good at framing a discussion. Eventually, one will find a way to argue that such-and-such a law is necessary.
I wish people would stop abusing the internet for their selfish agendas. They're going to ruin it.
Vaporware syndrome? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:22 · Score: 0

How about releasing the Sun/News of the World/News International emails they supposedly have first? You know like the announced they would.

This "just wait till you see what we have" is getting old fast. It's not a good symptom at all, it reminds me of when Julian Assange announced Wikileaks was "about" to release documents from a major American bank. Turned out it was just an empty threat - probably not what the whistle-blower who leaked the documents to Wikileaks had in mind.

I have a lot of admiration for some of the things Anonymous and Wikileaks have done, but they're both drunk on their own fame now. They need to sober up and keep their inflated sense of self importance in check. It would make them a lot more efficient.

Don't tell us you have important data/documents, either release or shut up. What ever happened to "Anonymous delivers"?
Re:Why so many US targets? by smelch · 2011-07-21 02:33 · Score: 1

exploiting 3rd world laborers
Yeah, right. How dare corporations give them a job that isn't up to 1st world standards! The fact that they take these jobs just shows how badly they need work, and it is wrong to give people a job if it isn't a great one. Better to make it so expensive that it isn't worth it to have the factories there at all, leaving them without 1st world knowledge, resources or money to dig themselves out of their current wretched state. Nevermind the industrialization of 1st world countries was pretty brutal. I want to change the world without being constrained by reality! No wait, scratch that, I want the world to change by itself while decrying the people who do invoke change as evil for not doing it to my standards!

--
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Re:Glad to learn that the boys aren't discouraged by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:34 · Score: 0

The FBI aren't going to be discouraged by more hacking either.
So it escalates.
But at the end of the day, some orgs lost some data, some people are going to be spend a lot of time in jail and the rest of us get more restrictive laws to deal with.
They didn't say classified, they said restricted. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:35 · Score: 1

There are many, many handling caveats used by the governments and militaries of the world.
NATO has to deal with just about all of those, and then some - there are NATO-specific caveats and equivalents on top of whatever the host or providing countries are using.
Just because something has a caveat (those neat little stamps on the top and bottom of the piece of paper) doesn't make it classified - "FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY/FOUO" is a great example of this from the US Gov't. FOUO is used to mark unclassified documents that fall into specific categories that are immune from FOIA requests. For example, personnel rosters, social security numbers, phone number lists, etcetera.
Anonymous has said they've obtained documents that are "restricted", which almost certainly means "NATO RESTRICTED/NR", which is the direct NATO equivalent of FOUO.
But, it sounds way cooler to throw around words that the average person doesn't understand, with the deliberate intent that they will misinterpret those things.
My guess would be, it's desk phone numbers or personal information of individuals. Yep, another true blow for freedom there.
Bull dust! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:37 · Score: 0

They hacked into a honeypot, not the real NATO. Watch, there will be mass arrests in the coming weeks.
Was it really them? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:37 · Score: 0

Want to go after a bunch of troublesome computer kiddies but copping flak in the media for it because, after all, what real harm are they actually doing other than making a bunch of unethical idiots look like....well...unethical idiots? Make it look like they're.....well...doing real harm.
Not saying thats the case, but it's what I'd do.
Why keep secrets in the first place? by IAmAI · 2011-07-21 02:46 · Score: 2

If governments were more open and didn't try to keep so many secret, it wouldn't be so bad if they got hacked. By definition, if there were no secrets, they'd be nothing to hack. Perhaps this a motivation behind the attacks by Anonymous: they want to show governments that keeping secrets is no longer worthwhile.
I think future governments have three choices: 1. Pay the cost of maintaining highly secure systems to keep their secrets (which can never be guaranteed) 2. endure the costs of their secrets being discovered/revealed by hackers or enemy states or 3. learn to make do without secrets.
It might seem that governments that keep secrets have an upper hand against those who do not. However, this advantage is entirely dependant on maintaining those secrets and maintaining secrets has an associated cost. The cost of maintaining secrets may very well be rising as cracking techniques become more sophisticated. However, by giving up on secrets, you are letting go of the associated costs. Perhaps in some ways you are giving up everything so that there's nothing left to loose. Though if the costs of keeping secrets becomes high enough, nations without secrets may have the overall advantage.
1. Re:Why keep secrets in the first place? by modi123 · 2011-07-21 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  This seems like pretty flawed international politics. Nation secrets are kept to because politics is not built to be a zero sum game with complete knowledge. Players are not of an equal background with complementary needs and abilities. Some player's needs may run contrary to another. Competition occurs as each player wants to preserve their people from destruction thus presenting imperfect or altered information helps a player achieve their goal (in a disharmonious environment). Thus secrets are required by definition of the imbalance in the system.
  Until nations can operate on "self sacrifice" to the extent that some of their own may die to assist player b's people to live we will have a problem with the system.
Re:Glad to learn that the boys aren't discouraged by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:47 · Score: 0

That's because they haven't been arrested yet. You can be assured that if those loser V for Vendetta fanatics were on the receiving end they wouldn't be so "brave" as they are pastebinning nonsense over Tor.
Anonymous hacks NATO by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 02:48 · Score: 0

Anonymous declares war on NATO http://wp.me/p1yzb4-16g
Government paranoia by the_raptor · 2011-07-21 02:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

"Restricted", "sensitive", and "secret" material is low level. That is the level of material that everyone in the military and government bureaucracy has access to. It is the sort of stuff that is either not very sensitive (ie enemy agents could figure it out easily just from observing a base or similar) or has only a small window in which it is useful (ie by the time the enemy could react it would be too late).
These days with the adversarial government/media relationship tons of material is classified like this just to discourage the media from baking scandals, and to prevent citizens from finding out about legitimate scandals (at least in the short term).
What was accessed in this case was probably some boring inter-NATO administrative emails, with the most interesting stuff being up-coming exercises and the like.
The stuff that Wikileaks released that inspired this spate of hackings WAS from an air-gapped computer.

--

========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
1. Re:Government paranoia by TubeSteak · 2011-07-21 03:42 · Score: 1
  
  "Restricted", "sensitive", and "secret" material is low level. [...] It is the sort of stuff that is either not very sensitive (ie enemy agents could figure it out easily just from observing a base or similar) or has only a small window in which it is useful (ie by the time the enemy could react it would be too late).
  Intelligence analysis involves a lot of time and effort collating non-secret, but "sensitive" material.
  Because frequently, sensitive + sensitive + sensitive = secret.
  As an example: Recall the grad student who compiled a map of the USA's fiber infrastructure?
  His master's thesis was classified and the Feds pulled all his citations from public access.
  Another example: The plane spotters who log tail numbers and figured out the CIA's network of private rendition jets.
  The world is full of non-secret information that points like an arrow at secret conclusions, if you just put the facts together.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
2. Re:Government paranoia by the_raptor · 2011-07-21 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but the answer to this isn't to classify all data as ultra-double-dog-secret. Especially when the people with the access to that data are low level guys who could easily be bought out by any half-decent espionage agency (eg air-gapped systems don't stop a disgruntled intelligence analyst).
  Classifying material doesn't matter when any of a few hundred thousand people with access could be co-opted or the information could be garnered from public sources or simple observation.
  Considering how often Western intelligence agencies were infected with Soviet agents during the Cold War I wouldn't trust the traditional security model anyway. From my experience of operating in a high espionage environment (EvE:Online, where people will create a fake identity and spend months playing it in order to take revenge) my opinion is that the only sure method is to presume your plans are compromised or soon to be compromised if more then one person knows them.
  Low-level classification is more about security theatre (ie making the bosses feel safe) then actual useful counter-espionage.
  
  --
  
  ========
  CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
The Ultimate Conspiracy by Sir_Eptishous · 2011-07-21 02:53 · Score: 1

Anonymous and LulzSec are really fronts for Mark Zuckerbergs push to demolish all anonymity.

--
We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
Re:Glad to learn that the boys aren't discouraged by morikahnx · 2011-07-21 02:57 · Score: 0

What motivates you to say such things? Is it the power trip of thinking you'll scare someone more competent that you? Seriously, you should have added at the end "and they'll get your little dog, too!" Did them rocking the boat a little shake your misplaced foundation in the infallibility of our western military? Your reaction is infantile, and more importantly, your anger is misplaced. The proper reaction is shock that some teenage script kiddies could hack into NATO at all. You should be venting your anger at the utter incompetence our military displays. As for those teenage script kiddies at Anonymous, I do believe, if you ever wanted to, you could probably get a job at NATO securing their servers now. I'd also recommend you don't disseminate the data you found, as you don't know what the consequences of releasing that information may be, or the lives it could cost. Point made. Leave it at that.
Hack by soloport · 2011-07-21 03:13 · Score: 1

Anonymous programmed one Gigabyte of data from NATO Huh...

"The AnonymousIRC software development organization have claimed this afternoon that they have programmed into NATO servers" Programmed into?

Hate to be a grammar Nazi but the message is a bit twisted. What did they do again?
1. Re:Hack by yahwotqa · 2011-07-21 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  No, you got it wrong. They arrived to NATO datacenters, and hacked away 1GB of data from their servers. With an axe! I'm just glad nobody was hurt. Axes are dangerous.
2. Re:Hack by lennier · 2011-07-21 11:12 · Score: 1
  
  They arrived to NATO datacenters, and hacked away 1GB of data from their servers. With an axe!
  But of course. "Brute force reprogramming" of centralised data banks has been standard practice since 2001, and first began in 1992 at the H.A.L. planet in Urbana, Illinois.
  
  --
  You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Some reference... by SCHecklerX · 2011-07-21 03:13 · Score: 4, Informative

For those of you who don't understand the military's networks. And there are a lot of you, it seems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIPRNet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigint
1. Re:Some reference... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  I've got one of those Sigint things at my house
2. Re:Some reference... by Lifyre · 2011-07-21 07:38 · Score: 1
  
  One of the more relevant posts. The fact they've gotten stuff gets them a pat on the head. However if they've gotten stuff off the SIPR I would be a bit impressed and expect stuff to hit the fan in short order.
  
  --
  I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
3. Re:Some reference... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 15:56 · Score: 0
  
  interesting. thank you for sharing. -AO
Try Russia or China... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 03:24 · Score: 0

If they're so skilled/brave, why not hacking into Russian servers? Isn't it because in democratic countries ppl like Anonymous feel secure?
Re:Why so many US targets? by mcvos · 2011-07-21 03:30 · Score: 1

China is already starting to develop its own brand of imperialism. They're buying lots of dirt cheap land in Africa in order to guarantee their own food supply, for example. Not to mention the amount of stuff in the US and Europe that they already own. China is every bit as corporatist as the US.
Is Slashdot full of sheep? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 03:47 · Score: 0

I mean seriously, as the primary content of these comments people are bitching and moaning left and right about the supposed incompetence of Anonymous and/or the incompetence of people who get hacked.
I don't see your fat asses doing anything for either side other than being a backseat know-it-alls, mostly deriving your experience of Anonymous from 4-chan how many years ago? Puuuhleeeze, if you want to know what anonymous has turned into since it's early /b/tard-days then all you have to do is punch in "Anonymous" on youtube.
At last. by unity100 · 2011-07-21 04:02 · Score: 1

Some info on the most undemocratic organization, supposedly participated in by democratic governments.

--
Read radical news here
1. Re:At last. by Nidi62 · 2011-07-21 04:11 · Score: 1
  
  Some info on the most undemocratic organization, supposedly participated in by democratic governments.
  This is about NATO, not the UN
  
  --
  The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
2. Re:At last. by unity100 · 2011-07-21 15:08 · Score: 1
  
  yes, it is about nato. u.n. is a democratic organization.
  
  --
  Read radical news here
How has Anonymous affected my life? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 04:12 · Score: 0

They have made me afraid of using the Web. Thanks for "de-riching" my life.
Re:Glad to learn that the boys aren't discouraged by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 04:24 · Score: 0

I have a point to make. You're a self-righteous porch monkey.
Re:They didn't say classified, they said restricte by ginbot462 · 2011-07-21 04:25 · Score: 1

Classification: FOUO
Caveats: Lame
BINGO
Classification: FOUO
Caveats: Lame

--
Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
Re:They didn't say classified, they said restricte by ginbot462 · 2011-07-21 04:26 · Score: 1

Yea, you can't do that combo ..

--
Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
N files by linear+a · 2011-07-21 04:43 · Score: 1

1 GB from NATO. That's 3, maybe 4 powerpoints?
1. Re:N files by Duradin · 2011-07-21 07:19 · Score: 1
  
  Short range tactical powerpoints perhaps, strategic powerpoints usually have a payload in the TB range.
Re:Glad to learn that the boys aren't discouraged by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 04:50 · Score: 0

Glad to learn that the boys aren't discouraged by the arrests!
Joking right ?Anonymous so far have shown that they are no better than a thug walking down the street and smashing windows. DDoS attacks are just unskilled, SQL injection is just as unskilled, and stealing and releasing information, personal details is worse than Rupert Murdochs minons hacking into voicemails with default passwords.
If your message was about poor security then do it respectfully, if you just want "LuLz" then go out to the pub.
COFFEE is a LIE by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 04:53 · Score: 0

Coffee is a way to evolve your normal state of being into sub-par. As long as you are high off your cafe you're OK. My advice... skip the coffee, take 4 or 5 days of Advil to get over the DT's, and enjoy steady sleep patterns, good deep sleep, and restore your normal state of being.
problem/reaction/solution by bender183 · 2011-07-21 05:08 · Score: 2

i dont buy for a second anonymous is legit at all, this is a CIA front creating problems to garner a reaction from the public so legislation can be passed to further restrict internet usage. I can smell scams like this @ this point in my life from a mile away. And I know alot of people who share my opinion. You cant fool all the people all the time you fucks. As an american citizen the constitution gives us the right to revolution in the case which the government becomes corrupt. Never forget that, and question everything.
Poor security by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 05:13 · Score: 0

The are highlighting the extremely poor security of these on-line resources. Why aren't the media talking about this aspect?
Why are we hearing about the firing of security staff and revamped security methods?
Instead the media say that these hackers are "evil", but I'd rather that they did the hacking and show the security holes than nasty governments.
1. Re:Poor security by unil_1005 · 2011-07-21 06:47 · Score: 1
  
  It's so easy, if only they'd RTFM....
Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 05:52 · Score: 0

OK, you can now officially consider yourselves international terrorists and you should be treated accordingly. You should change your name to Asinine...
taiwanjohn on target!!!!!! by sgt_doom · 2011-07-21 06:36 · Score: 0

Yup, tj, I believe you've gotten it. What should be obvious to everyone, is evidently too subtle for them, or else you are highly gifted and the gifted can comprehend the obvious.
Where is the Alien and UFO Info? by unil_1005 · 2011-07-21 06:44 · Score: 1

With all these other secrets coming out, you'd expect some of the true story to be leaked by now.

Sort of shakes my faith, it does....
Murdoch? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 07:04 · Score: 0

So where's all the rupert murdoch crap? I man come on, if anyone has ever begged to be hacked, it's that guy.
Tired of these brats by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 07:28 · Score: 0

Boring...
Anonymous freaks... you are old news guys. Go get a life rejects!
Next we will see... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 07:40 · Score: 0

...them hack a drug company and find out that AIDS was cured years ago.
And herpes was man made...
Re:They didn't say classified, they said restricte by Dragoness+Eclectic · 2011-07-21 08:23 · Score: 1

Well, it could be the local weather report / daily storm warning for the military base. Or the collected bulletins for "Generic Important Cause Awareness Day". Or the 9000 cc: All emails about the current status of the network repairs...
RESTRICTED does not mean CLASSIFIED; in fact, it specifically means UNCLASSIFIED but not for public release, aka FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY. Some of that is because it's Privacy Act information, as mentioned above. Most of it is mind-numbingly boring crap. What do you bet that Anonymous doesn't release the data because it's exactly that--privacy info or boring beyond belief?

--
---dragoness
security by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 10:50 · Score: 0

I admit I am out of the loop when it comes to web security but why does it appear to be so easy to attack SQL db's? Is the security of SQL really that terrible? I just don't understand.
Funny thing... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-21 12:11 · Score: 0

That some sources says it's Team Inj3ct0r (1337day) that did it/ found the exploit, but yet AnonymousIRC takes the credit..
LINKS PLEASE!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 02:07 · Score: 0

Where are the links so we can validate the "hack"?
#NATO Hack by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-22 02:20 · Score: 0

Yeah, we be all outraged that Rupert Murdock's people may have been hacking... but we be oh-so-happy-happy-happy when #NATO get's hacked. How nice we look with two-faces.
Perhaps it's what the "boys" are trying by Anonymous Coward · 2011-07-23 06:53 · Score: 0

To simply illustrate in the 1st place: Things are NOT being done as they should be, only as they are needed to make monies 'instantly/automagically" & no more...
(Which said monies get sucked away in lawsuits based on negligence in the end anyhow, because IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO A JOB, do it right 100% in the 1st place, instead of a 1/2 assed effort).
Plus, if you *think* about it? The ends will always be this anyhow if things continue as they are... & in a way, better LulzSec (who actually WARNED UK's NHS about exposed admin pwd's rather than abusing them), or Anon, AntiSec, etc./et al, than a foreign power bent on FAR WORSE THINGS!
I.E.-> They're pointing out the problems, before they REALLY become true problems... that's my view of it @ least.
In the end, the guys from lulzsec, anonymous, antisec & others show they can do it, just *think* what a FULL-FLEDGED/ALL-OUT attack by a mass-coordinated & yes, gov't. sponsored one would do!
Some "serious" & true "Food 4 Thought" that...
* In fact, were I to guess as to what their "end game" & TRUE motivations really are? Well...
Yes - I'd say THAT may be their point in the 1st place (just to show everyone how shitty things are out there in good & services you access/use & put your credit cards & such out there for)...
APK
P.S.=> But, that's ONLY A GUESS on my part really...
... apk