Slashdot Mirror


The Register Hacked

First time accepted submitter rjmx writes "Looks like The Register has been hacked. Its front page has been replaced with a page in tasteful red and black, apparently by a Turkish hacker."

122 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. oh shit! by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Funny

    looks like the hacker retroactively stole all their credibility!

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    1. Re:oh shit! by KiloByte · · Score: 4, Informative

      No credibility lost, it's not them who got hacked but their DNS provider.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:oh shit! by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      At least all of it in the last 6 years. Check the copyright on the page. Nice touch.

    3. Re:oh shit! by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      "their"

    4. Re:oh shit! by mickwd · · Score: 5, Informative

      Too late: his credibility is lost :D

    5. Re:oh shit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Their are several business grade registrars offering decent services. Look into MelbourneIT DBMS, Markmonitor etc.

    6. Re:oh shit! by turkeyfeathers · · Score: 2

      "stake"

    7. Re:oh shit! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So there credibility is lost. The number of businesses out there who stack everything on a $10 a year relationship is just insane.

      Oh, I see. I didn't realize that the problems was they hadn't spent enough money on their DNS services.

      Tell me, is that a new approach to network security? You just stack up piles of currency around the DNS server and then there's nothing to worry about?

      I can't think of a single reason that you shouldn't expect your DNS services to be secure, no matter how little you happen to be paying for it.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    8. Re:oh shit! by shentino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your credibility is lost when your customers say it is.

      Reputation's funny that way.

    9. Re:oh shit! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      looks like the hacker retroactively stole all their credibility!

      You know, I hear lots of people go off on the Register's credibility, but I've never myself noticed a problem. Do you have any examples of what earned them that reputation?

    10. Re:oh shit! by mapinguari · · Score: 1

      No â" just missing punctuation.
      So there. Credibility is lost.

    11. Re:oh shit! by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Your credibility is lost when your customers say it is.

      Since most customers only say what the marketing industry makes them think, most companies have very little to fear.

      But your point is taken. Reputation is funny that way. Strange how quickly reputations can be rehabilitated when there is a sufficient marketing budget, however.

      Judging from the long-form commercial I saw during one of the Sunday morning news shows today, British Petroleum is responsible for the pristine environment and smiling faces around all around the Gulf coast. I'm led to understand that before BP came along to clean it up, the Gulf was a horrible depressed mess of a place, without jobs or wildlife or American flags waving in slow motion over a happy group of shrimpers. After a few months of these spots running, I'm sure Gulf Coast schoolchildren and seniors will be writing thank you letters to the BP CEO and Board of Directors for making their world a better place. In fact, I'm pretty sure that line: "Making the world a better place" appeared in the ad. Probably flashed subliminally many times.

      They're not spending money on the lavishly produced commercial without thorough research showing it will have its intended effect.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:oh shit! by MrLint · · Score: 1

      Credibility will never be the same.

    13. Re:oh shit! by Sulphur · · Score: 2

      No credibility lost, it's not them who got hacked but their DNS provider.

      The Buzzard brand is safe.

    14. Re:oh shit! by Xest · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For me they didn't have any credibility to lose. I posted a response to one of Andrew Orlowski's articles the other week replying to someone that they shouldn't be surprised to see him agreeing with Murdoch as he's always had a historically right wing viewpoint.

      That evening I couldn't log in, and every post I'd ever made to The Register had been deleted.

      A site whose journalists can't even handle a post made summing up their political ideology in a polite, fair, and well sourced manner is quite comical. The worst part? my post was actually accepted by their moderator and in true Andrew Orlowski style was retroactively moderated away by him a few hours later (along with the account bad, and retroactive deletion of all my posts ever) I don't think Andrew likes it when he has to face intelligent response to his articles. None of their other bloggers... er I mean "journalists" are any more intelligent, although at least the others don't throw a hissy account banning, post deleting fit when someone disagrees with them. Of course, one might argue that it was my previous posts or something that got me a ban, and to an extent that's possibly true- not that I was trolling there, but that I often only posted to correct faults in their stories, to point out potential issues with their reasoning or to offer counter-opinions to their opinion pieces, but their readership seemed to agree with me as I had over 3000 upvotes against 1000 downvotes with even many of those downvotes stemming from engage in fanboy heavy discussions and daring to criticise some pet manufacturer's actions (cell phones, consoles etc.).

      Then on top of that it wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact Andrew Orlowski was constantly attacking sites like Wikipedia complaining about the clique there denying dissenting responses, or his complaints about CRU refusing to be transparent and open. None of that would be a problem if it weren't for the fact he himself often outright refuses to let people comment on his articles, and the few times he does, he goes through the already moderated comments and removes those that point out, with evidence, why he is wrong. At that point it's just sheer hypocrisy and any validity in the points he has to make is lost on the fact he needs to sort out his own inability to ensure he follows the facts, and accept that sometimes he may have been wrong before criticising others on it.

      It's amusing too, because all I had to do to get round their ban on my account was request a new password, so it seems they're pretty technically inept too. This was made more amusing by the fact I then really did post a few troll comments to wind them up a bit, only to be banned again, to find that yep, I could still reset my password and repeated this for a few days before it got boring. I swear their admin must've been sat their thinking "How does he keep coming back?".

      As you say, credibility goes as your customers say it does. Their actions have added me to the long list of people who also believe the site is a joke. The only reason to go there is for comedy - no, not the terribly written articles - I mean BOFH. But even that seems to be rarely produced now.

      Really, The Register is like the internet's version of FUD filled trash papers like News of the World, The Daily Mail and so forth. It's written for the terminally stupid, and intelligent discussion is frowned upon and crushed with an iron fist. If you don't agree with Supreme Leader Andrew Orlowski's mad rantings and often nonsensical drivel then you are wrong.

      So excuse me if I lol a bit when I hear they've been hacked.

    15. Re:oh shit! by Xest · · Score: 2

      See my post here:

      http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2412564&cid=37307402

      Or enjoy reading through things like this, of which Google searches will turn up many:

      http://www.edbott.com/weblog/2005/07/andrew-orlowski-is-a-hack/

      http://paulfwalsh.com/why-andrew-orlowski-from-the-register-is-a-twat/

      http://www.texttechnologies.com/2007/03/26/andrew-orlowski-berners-lee-spam-semantic-web/

      http://blogs.computerworld.com/16711/why_andrew_orlowski_is_wrong_about_net_neutrality

      http://ktetch.blogspot.com/2011/05/andrew-orlowski-drunk-unethical-or-just.html

      But ignoring Andrew Orlowski there's countless issues with their other authors too. Lewis Page is more reasonable in allowing dissenting comment in response to his articles, but his articles are time and time again completely ignorant. He for example often criticises British defence projects citing American options as being much cheaper by pure monetary, but despite having it pointed out to him time and time again he fails to realise that a $10bn UK defence project for say, some new helicopters is still cheaper than buying the helicopters for $8bn from the US, when the UK project brings back $5bn in eventual tax, whereas the $8bn US project it's just money straight out the British economy.

      Another example is the Eurofighter typhoons ground attack capabilities- he constantly derides the project because it wont have proper air to ground capabilities until 2020, but he's wrong because it wont have proper bombing capabilities until then- it's had Brimstone missiles added to it throughout this year. He ignores AGMs and focusses on bombing capability and then extrapolates that to say it can't do air to ground at all until 2020. This is complete and utter outright FUD.

      He's similarly criticised the armament of Type 45 destroyers, claiming they only have two weapons or similarly, but a quick look on the Royal Navy's own website and the specs of the ships confirmed that yet again, he's completely wrong.

      You can see this pattern with most of their staff- their articles are just often outright false. Where they're not false, they completely miss fundamental points. Where they don't miss fundamental points, they just outright lie.

      So that's really why they have the reputation- they're just too agenda based. Their writers all vehemently pursue their own political agendas without care for facts, without care for reason, and worst of all- without care for the truth. That's not journalism, that's propaganda.

    16. Re:oh shit! by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Wow, thanks for putting all that effort into your answer. Much appreciated.

    17. Re:oh shit! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      commercial I saw during one of the Sunday morning news shows today, British Petroleum

      To be fair, if you're watching commercials from 1998 or earlier and expecting them to give you information about the world of today, then you're probably doing something wrong...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    18. Re:oh shit! by 12WTF$ · · Score: 1

      The Buzzard brand is safe.

      But has been rebranded as Turkey Vulture

      --
      Cryonics - Keep cool and carry on.
    19. Re:oh shit! by towermac · · Score: 1

      "without jobs or wildlife or American flags waving in slow motion over a happy group of shrimpers"

      Heh. nice one.

    20. Re:oh shit! by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      The Buzzard brand is safe.

      But has been rebranded as Turkey Vulture

      Long live the Buzz; the Vult just sounds wrong.

    21. Re:oh shit! by Wowsers · · Score: 1

      Customers don't bother to tell companies their credibility is lost, they just don't use the company any more.

      --
      Take Nobody's Word For It.
    22. Re:oh shit! by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      The Register is so bad, it's hard to believe they're not part of Gawker.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  2. Oops ... by rjmx · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    its, not it's. Sorry about that.

    1. Re:Oops ... by DWMorse · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Last time accepted submitter rjmx writes

      Fixed that for you... ;)

      --
      There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
    2. Re:Oops ... by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1, Funny

      Neither. TITS.

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    3. Re:Oops ... by rjmx · · Score: 1

      And so you should be ...

    4. Re:Oops ... by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 1

      Is it?

      --
      Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
    5. Re:Oops ... by WidgetGuy · · Score: 1

      Or, maybe its like PHP. A recursive acronym. Here's an example you can run from my Dropbox account. IT'S (ha!) named (of course) "TITS". If you're using the BetterPrivacy plugin for Firefox (or something similar), you'll have to disable it or the page is blocked (I guess it doesn't like HTML files named "TITS.html" -- and BTW, BetterPrivacy, what does "TITS" have to do with my privacy?).

      Here's a description of what it does (and how it does it):

      function TITS(String theBigT, Number bandSize, String cupSize)

      Called from an HTML FORM that allows the user to select combinations of band size (ribcage size) and cup size (ahem...). The available band sizes (in inches) are: 30, 32, 34, 36, 38 and 40. The available cup sizes (in letter code) are: "AA". "A", "B", "C", "D" and "DD". The greater the band size, the larger the font. The greater the cup size, the brighter the font color. The idea being that 40AA, while large in font size, is still kind of hard to see. Whereas 30DD, while tiny in font size, is still quite visible. And, 30AA? Well, you really gotta look for 'em!

      The recursion is controlled by band size. So, a band size of 38 will result in the acronym being recursively generated 38 times.The resulting string is displayed like so:

      "TITS TITS TITS...(34 more TITS)...TITS"

      It ain't very scientific (or even useful), but it's kind of fun (and a little creepy too -- oh, well).

      At last, all that college has paid off!!

      --
      One "Aw, Shit!" is worth 100 "Ata boys!"
  3. HAxorS by UnlimitedFreakOut · · Score: 1

    website is down, cant wait to read odds and sods when its back up.... :O)

    1. Re:HAxorS by UnlimitedFreakOut · · Score: 1

      oh can se it now, yep, still hacked...

    2. Re:HAxorS by zonky · · Score: 5, Informative

      Looks like a number of sites affected, all of them seem to be using netnames.co.uk as their registrar, looks like DNS Servers all changed.

    3. Re:HAxorS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Coincidentally (or not) it appears Netnames failed on this almost exactly a decade ago, here's an archive of El Reg:
      http://web.archive.org/web/20090526000255/http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/09/14/dns_megahack_hits_thousands/

    4. Re:HAxorS by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      Where did you find the registrar for The Register? The whois information I get says

      Registrar:
              Ascio Technologies Inc t/a Ascio Technologies inc [Tag = ASCIO]
              URL: http://www.ascio.com/

  4. Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    the register is shithouse anyway

  5. Website hacked? by Qlither · · Score: 1

    Errr...UK here, seems all good to me...

    Did i miss the hack? Kudos to the admin if i did. I was reading it not two hours before this too.

    --
    -1 is for flame bait and trolls, not because you disagree with someone.
    1. Re:Website hacked? by Claws+Of+Doom · · Score: 2

      As I write, the site is still defaced. It's been up and down in the last few minutes though...

    2. Re:Website hacked? by Inda · · Score: 1

      Fine here too.

      Using Virgin Media's DNS.

      Their forum has nothing...

      --
      This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    3. Re:Website hacked? by Claws+Of+Doom · · Score: 1

      With apologies to the reg's admins, I tried to get to a story I was reading earlier on, and got the following in return:

      Not Found The requested URL /2011/09/02/samsung_webos_acquisition_no_not_ever/ was not found on this server.
      Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
      Apache/2.2.17 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.2.17 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 mod_auth_passthrough/2.1 mod_bwlimited/1.4 FrontPage/5.0.2.2635 mod_perl/2.0.4 Perl/v5.8.8 Server at www.theregister.co.uk Port 80

    4. Re:Website hacked? by Sarten-X · · Score: 2

      Picture of the UPS hack

      It's DNS, so not much actual harm done to the targeted servers.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    5. Re:Website hacked? by Dupple · · Score: 1

      In the UK here, not seen El Reg hacked at all today

      --
      Watch those corners
    6. Re:Website hacked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      thats not theregisters.co.uk 404, they have a custom 404

      what you are seeing is the result of DNS poisoning of your ISP, the 404 is from someone elses server
      the actual site is fine and has NOT been hacked.
      ps the real IP of the reg is 212.100.234.54

    7. Re:Website hacked? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      US here. Been on the site all day, since long before the report. Never hacked from here. Looks like DNS.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    8. Re:Website hacked? by vtcodger · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. I see them at 72.3.246.59 where they are responding to pings. The site called up from that IP looks like the Register.. I never thought about it before, but the page information from opera and konqueror doesn't seem to tell me what the IP I'm looking at is when I feed them a URL. Probably there's a stunningly obvious way to get the IP and I just need some sleep.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  6. (c) 2005 TurkGuvenligi by Lord_Naikon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Lol, why would he care about copyright? Afraid some other hacker might steal his logo?

    1. Re:(c) 2005 TurkGuvenligi by godrik · · Score: 4, Informative

      If they do that would be illegal!

    2. Re:(c) 2005 TurkGuvenligi by hattable · · Score: 2

      Sadly enough if they took that to a US court he would probably win.

      --
      OMG facts!
    3. Re:(c) 2005 TurkGuvenligi by metrix007 · · Score: 1

      Why is that sad? He could claim ownership of the logo without conceding to any wrongdoing. Better a court that doesn't assume guilt by association on an unrelated matter....

      --
      If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
    4. Re:(c) 2005 TurkGuvenligi by xenobyte · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of this super-stupid dude who went to the police to report his 'stash' stolen. He knew who did it and the police went with the dude to the home of the thief, and bingo - there was a big bag of weed. The police then asked him to identify it, and he confirmed "yeah, that is mine!". Presto, the police arrested him for possession and the guy that took it for theft and possession... Stupid...

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
  7. Site wasn't hacked, DNS was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    If you saw the "hacked" page, you were being routed to a different server.

    1. Re:Site wasn't hacked, DNS was by Rhodri+Mawr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mod parent up. This appears to be a case of DNS cache poisoning. Notably www.reghardware.com is unaffected.

    2. Re:Site wasn't hacked, DNS was by IonOtter · · Score: 2

      Uhmmm...actually, I kinda wish the site itself had been hacked? Knowing this makes me feel more than a little queasy...

      Lessee...

      Name servers:
      ns1.yumurtakabugu.com
      ns2.yumurtakabugu.com

      C:\Users\ionotter>ping www.theregister.co.uk

      Pinging theregister.co.uk [68.68.20.116] with 32 bytes of data:
      Reply from 68.68.20.116: bytes=32 time=99ms TTL=41
      Reply from 68.68.20.116: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=41
      Reply from 68.68.20.116: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=41
      Reply from 68.68.20.116: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=41

      Ping statistics for 68.68.20.116:
              Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
      Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
              Minimum = 90ms, Maximum = 99ms, Average = 92ms

      Hmmmm. When I try to go to the site via the IP address, I get...

      "The server at 68.68.20.116 is taking too long to respond."

      --
      [End Of Line]
    3. Re:Site wasn't hacked, DNS was by Angostura · · Score: 1

      Not resolving here using VirginMedia in East London, currently.

    4. Re:Site wasn't hacked, DNS was by owlstead · · Score: 2

      Poor buggers, their own site forwards you to www.theregister.co.uk :) So even entering the IP address won't work. If it is forwarding me, I think the server is still happily serving requests, to no avail. Yup, changing the hosts file has the wanted result all right.

      Oh, and I've seen very few articles from the reg during Sunday, so they might be waiting for the work week to begin, sleeping off their weekend beers.

  8. Still Hacked... by IonOtter · · Score: 1

    As of 2025 GMT, I'm still seeing the "hacked" page. Since I haven't specifically been to El Reg in over a week, I'm not seeing a cached copy.

    As for the "hack"?

    Wow. Going to be a very interesting read come Monday morning?

    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:Still Hacked... by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      They must have done a number on that DNS server to keep it in this state for 14 years.

    2. Re:Still Hacked... by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Nah, it's probably that new metric time. So roughly at 2025.2472500. :)

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    3. Re:Still Hacked... by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Its a DNS hack with a 24 hr TTL. Might take a while for service to resume. (Though I think Google DNS ignores TTL, so that might be fixed sooner than others).

    4. Re:Still Hacked... by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      24 hour clock: 2025 = 8:25 PM

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    5. Re:Still Hacked... by rapiddescent · · Score: 1

      24 hr clock (GMT), but the UK is 1 hour ahead (BST) so it was probably 2125Hrs (9.25pm)

  9. UPS.com too by madsci1016 · · Score: 1

    People are complain on twitter about him taking down UPS.com too. I only get a DNS error from them. This has to be a DNS hack.

    1. Re:UPS.com too by datapharmer · · Score: 1

      your dns just hasn't been refreshed either by you or your provider - the issue is actually with the whois record being updated so the authoritative nameservers are set to ns1.yumurtakabugu.com and ns2.yumurtakabugu.com. As a result this can take a while to finish propagating and can take a while to fix!

      --
      Get a web developer
  10. Re:Wha by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

    Copyright 2005?? What the fuck? lol

    Also, in the source I find:
    <meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3698" name="GENERATOR">

  11. /. is cruel! by I'm+Not+There+(1956) · · Score: 1

    And you slashdot their homepage at the same time? Poor admins!

    --
    "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing."
  12. Home of the BOFH? by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 2

    Front page still hacked, but fairly harmlessly. Does that hacker know what sort of wasps' nest he may have poked his nose into? No doubt, we shall hear more from the BOFH.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:Home of the BOFH? by jhoegl · · Score: 2

      Looks more like DNS poisoning.

    2. Re:Home of the BOFH? by boaworm · · Score: 2

      You were right, this was an upstreams DNS issue and not a hack on thereg itself.

      --
      Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
      Aristotele
    3. Re:Home of the BOFH? by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      "No doubt, we shall hear more from the BOFH."

      What was your user name again? Ah. Ok. "Clicky Clicky."

      You know, that wasn't a very nice email you just sent to the President.

      Oh, and here, hold this wire.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
  13. Re:Slashdot needs to be hacked with Goatse. by Kiaser+Zohsay · · Score: 3, Funny

    The last hacker only hacked it with OMG ponies.

    Next April 1st, slashdot announces that it will accept image tags in comments. However, in preview mode all linked images will be changed to goatse. After submitting all images will be changed to Bart writing on a chalkboard "I will not post goatse images".

    --
    I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
  14. ups.com acer.com vodafone.com ... by nicesecurity · · Score: 2

    Check http://www.zone-h.org/archive/notifier=TurkguvenLigi.info From the cache of http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/12/mckinnon_website_defaced/ "TurkGuvenligi is a serial website defacer whose previous victims include Secunia. An archive of his work can be found here [3]. Defacers typically use search engines to search for vulnerable sites before setting on victims and uploading digital graffiti on these sites. Such hacks, by themselves, are normally trivial and seldom expose more sensitive systems."

    1. Re:ups.com acer.com vodafone.com ... by nicesecurity · · Score: 2

      DNS hack. This is why it doesn't appear for everybody.. yet. Check their whois, they STILL all have these DNS: Domain servers in listed order: ns1.yumurtakabugu.com (NSYUMURT1119540) ns2.yumurtakabugu.com (NSYUMURT1119541)

  15. Re:whois records look hacked by Gonoff · · Score: 1

    What looks wrong with that?

    I came to /. from there it was working fine. Not hacked or slashdotted. (Using OpenDNS)

    --
    I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
  16. Re:Wha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Slowest hacking in history?

  17. Hacked nameservers hosted in the USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    along with lots of spammy sites ? dont you guys have a police force ? or is the USA still a spammers haven ?

    http://www.robtex.com/ip/67.228.37.8.html

    1. Re:Hacked nameservers hosted in the USA by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Nah, Hollywood is just not interested in having their boys - sorry, the FBI- do something about this. There's no movies involved.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  18. Never mind... by ajo_arctus · · Score: 1

    Looks like a DNS hack, which'd explain why some people are seeing it come back to life and others aren't -- all depends on ISP DNS servers (cacheing and whatnot).

    Anyway, can't say I'm particularly bothered. Once upon a time, about 7 years ago, the Register went downhill so badly that I stopped visiting it all together. They had a bone-headed editorial style that made them seem arrogant, dim-witted and sometimes just unpleasant. These days, whenever I accidentally follow a YC HackerNews link there (from Twitter), it looks like they're basically the same now as then.

    The tipping point for me came when some idiot on their staff wrote an article complaining that Google had drawn a special logo for a world water day, but not for St. George's day (an silly English thing that we have every year). It looks like a joke in bad taste, but I don't think it was - not least because the guy that wrote tended to have a 'toxic' element in most of his writing. I've seen a few articles since showing their scepticism of climate change, wheeling out the usual 'aren't we so clever for being able to think for ourselves' bullshit despite clearly not having 'a fucking clue'.

    I guess their tech coverage was OK, but their opinions got right up my nose.

    1. Re:Never mind... by St.Creed · · Score: 2

      In that case, we just witnessed an eclipse :)

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
  19. Corrections by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · · Score: 5, Informative

    If cannot live without The Register, put into your hosts file

    Linux: /etc/hosts
    Windows: C:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\host

    these two lines:

    72.3.246.59 theregister.co.uk
    72.3.246.59 www.theregister.co.uk

    And the summary of the article is apparently wrong, someone stole/hacked into TheRegister DNS zone, TheRegister www servers are intact.

    1. Re:Corrections by NickFortune · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the summary of the article is apparently wrong, someone stole/hacked into TheRegister DNS zone, TheRegister www servers are intact.

      ... which is actually kind of cool, seeing as how the Slashdot Effect seems to be wreaking it's usual havoc on the hacker's servers.

      Every now and then, reality self-organises in the direction of justice.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    2. Re:Corrections by dudpixel · · Score: 1

      Even without slashdot, I imagine the Reg gets a fair amount of traffic.

      I wonder if the hacker realised just how much...

      You wanna impersonate them? here, have their traffic...see how your servers cope. Who pays for the bandwidth in this case?

      --
      This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
    3. Re:Corrections by SameRepeatedSQL · · Score: 2

      I'm honestly not trolling here, but has anyone else stopped reading the register as much these days? They really seem to be sinking to tabloid levels, and their editorial line has jumped sharply to the right. Even BOFH just seems to be rinsing and repeating the same old formula. Maybe it's just me ...

    4. Re:Corrections by Bert64 · · Score: 1

      Someone else, i imagine the hackers are using another hacked server to host the defacement.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    5. Re:Corrections by SameRepeatedSQL · · Score: 1

      True ... it just feels all the more tired these days.

  20. meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3698" name="GENERA by aembleton · · Score: 2

    theregister.co.uk seems to be down but the same group has cracked ups.com and the source shows that they used a Microsoft product.

    There you are, Microsoft aid crackers.

    /sarcasm

  21. wtf is a yumurtakabugu? by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    host -t NS theregister.co.uk
    theregister.co.uk name server ns2.yumurtakabugu.com.
    theregister.co.uk name server ns3.yumurtakabugu.com.
    theregister.co.uk name server ns1.yumurtakabugu.com.
    theregister.co.uk name server ns4.yumurtakabugu.com.

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
    1. Re:wtf is a yumurtakabugu? by nomad63 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      it means egg shell for the uninitiated ... I happen to be bilingual :) In Turkish and English...
      On the technical side, I think if you are clever enough to come to /., you can check with any whois gateway to see who yumurtakabugu.com it belongs to. But I bet dollars to your pocket lint that, it is also a hacked site.

      --

      __________
      The more I know people, the more I love animals
    2. Re:wtf is a yumurtakabugu? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      it means egg shell for the uninitiated ... I happen to be bilingual :) In Turkish and English...

      Okay, WHERE WERE YOU when The Register's DNS provider was hacked?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  22. Re:Wha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    He was uploading the packets by individual pigeon.

    Unfortunately, he had to breed the pigeons himself.

  23. Gateworld.net too by Barryke · · Score: 1

    Gateworld.net is down too. FYI:

    NS1.DNSPARK.NET
    NS2.DNSPARK.NET
    NS3.DNSPARK.NET
    NS4.DNSPARK.NET
    NS5.DNSPARK.NET

    Also, i do not see what good is in slashdotting them at this time.

    --
    Hivemind harvest in progress..
  24. Re:Nothingofvaluewaslost tag by Spad · · Score: 2

    Not really. It's a pretty decent news site with a horrible tabloid editorial slant.

    When they're publishing press releases or writing humour, they're fine, but their opinion pieces & editorials are more often than not sensationalist nonsense.

  25. Re:cracked, not hacked by spatley · · Score: 1

    I know we all get it. A hacker is not a criminal, a hacker is one who likes to tinker and break new ground by using tools for things other than they were intended. Kevin Mitnick was not a hacker, Nikola Tesla was a hacker. I agree the distinction is important. But guess what, we lost that fight.

    The best thing we can do today is to come up with another word that means what hacker used to mean.

    How about bit wrangler? Or just come up with something yourself and start using it and let the best jargon win. But hacker has been lost to us, it is no longer our word. You dig?

  26. unfollowing an account by mcantsin · · Score: 1

    Turkguvenligi (http://twitter.com/Turkguvenligi/following) just unfollowed an account whom he was following one hour ago! YSR08 (http://twitter.com/#!/ysr08)

    1. Re:unfollowing an account by mcantsin · · Score: 1

      ... now following 3 including a Guardinan's editor. Twitter falsely counting 3 as 2 "Turkguvenligi follows 2 people": http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/819/turkguvenligitwitternew.png/

  27. DNS hack, some ok some down still, by Rovastar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Using Just-Ping to check from 50+ locations around the world only 5% have what is traditionally the correct IP (212.100.234.54 according to Netcraft) or so have the current IP most say the DNS is down.
    http://just-ping.com/index.php?vh=www.theregister.co.uk&c=&s=ping!

    I forced an update with Netcraft it now has a record of the another IP 68.68.20.116 with different server headers which I presume is the broken site.

    http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.theregister.co.uk

    The hackers could have done more damage if they also increased the TTL of the domains they poisoned. 24 hours seems to be the time atm.

  28. It's over already by new_confused_mind · · Score: 1

    As shown by a `dig www.theregister.co.uk +trace`, DNS servers are returning the correct data already. Same for ups.com.

  29. DNS Hack by Bert64 · · Score: 1

    Several sites, including the register and ups.com were redirected by DNS to a defacement page...

    A list of the sites is at:
    http://www.zone-h.org/archive/notifier=TurkguvenLigi.info/page=1

    It does not seem to be a DNS poisoning, since the whois servers also reported the hacker's dns servers.

    Also zone-h reports that the site was running Linux, but it is clearly whatever server the hackers redirected the DNS to that runs linux, it was not necessarily a linux system that was breached in order to actually carry out the defacement.

    It would appear that the registrar for the domains in question has been hacked, and the hackers chose a few high profile sites to deface.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    1. Re:DNS Hack by WoOS · · Score: 1

      Hmm, seems to be a bit more complicated. At least in the vodafone net itself (DSL from Arcor/Vodafone).

      --- snip ---
      $ nslookup
      > set type=ns
      > theregister.co.uk
      Server: 192.168.0.1 [The nameserver on the DSL router which forwards to vodafones DNS servers]
      Address: 192.168.0.1#53

      Non-authoritative answer:
      theregister.co.uk nameserver = ns3.theregister.co.uk.
      theregister.co.uk nameserver = ns4.theregister.co.uk.
      theregister.co.uk nameserver = ns2.theregister.co.uk.
      theregister.co.uk nameserver = ns5.theregister.co.uk.
      theregister.co.uk nameserver = ns1.theregister.co.uk.
      theregister.co.uk nameserver = ns6.theregister.co.uk.
      > set type=a
      > theregister.co.uk
      Server: 192.168.0.1
      Address: 192.168.0.1#53

      Non-authoritative answer:
      Name: theregister.co.uk
      Address: 68.68.20.116 [same address as ups.com, ..]
      --- snip ----

      So even though I get the correct NS entries there are the wrong A entries.
      whois is also correct here.

  30. And.... by bernywork · · Score: 1

    Their back..

    Looks like they have got themselves sorted again.

    --
    Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
    1. Re:And.... by DrBoumBoum · · Score: 1

      Their back, there wolf, why are you talking that way?

    2. Re:And.... by Kittenman · · Score: 1

      They're back... just continuing a theme.

      --
      "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
    3. Re:And.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're. For the love of all that is holy "they're back"

    4. Re:And.... by mr100percent · · Score: 1

      Kittenman? Are you a kitten with the muscle structure of a man? Or a man with soft body and spirit of a kitten? .

  31. Testrun? by WoOS · · Score: 2

    1) Get some SSL keys

    2) Redirect the DNS Servers

    3) Profit!

    1. Re:Testrun? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Once the DNS is redirected, you can get Godaddy to get you an SSL cert in about 1 hour. Just need access to create a txt record or modify your webpage, which shouldnt be a big deal, and since the entire thing is automated I dont think youd have any issues.

  32. Re:False flag by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

    Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

    It IS very timely, isn't it? And large scale, with no apparent profitable return for the (apparent) perps - no spyware, no stolen user data, BUT it changes our perception of Turkey in a way which suits Israel very nicely, doesn't it?

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  33. Re:Nothingofvaluewaslost tag by westlake · · Score: 1

    It's a pretty decent news site with a horrible tabloid editorial slant.
    When they're publishing press releases or writing humour, they're fine, but their opinion pieces & editorials are more often than not sensationalist nonsense.

    "News for nerds," eh?

  34. the telegraph, acer and others hacked by rickzor · · Score: 1

    This same guy (or group) hacked a number of high profile websites today, or at least their dns servers.

    The article is being updated with a list. So far ups.com, betfair.com, acer.com, vodafone.com, and telegraph.co.uk have all been defaced with the same image.

  35. thats what they get for... by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    biting the hand that feeds it, (pun intended)

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  36. Re:False flag by unitron · · Score: 1

    Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

    It IS very timely, isn't it? And large scale, with no apparent profitable return for the (apparent) perps - no spyware, no stolen user data, BUT it changes our perception of Turkey in a way which suits Israel very nicely, doesn't it?

    (I'm not usually known for speaking out in defense of Israel's actions and intentions, but...)

    Oh yes, I used to think that Turkey was a branch office of heaven, but now that I know (or have been tricked into believing) that out of the millions of Turks, one is an evil haxor, I'm instantaneously, irrevocably convinced that the entire country is in league with the devil.

    Sheeesh!

    --

    I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  37. The Register Hacked by crabboy.com · · Score: 1

    What did they hack???

    --
    The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money
  38. World hacking day by mustPushCart · · Score: 1

    The seem to have declared it 'world hacking day'. I wouldn't mind a world hacking day where everyone tries to attack websites. That way at least companies will pull up their pants once a year and it will be 'open season' on sites with crappy security. Could help.

  39. What about DNSSEC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Surprised this hasn't come up yet...

  40. Another one... by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

    h4ck1n9 is not a cr1m3

    Can somebody please shut the freaking script-kiddie who thinks he's cool up? I mean seriously...it's going on my nerves that those guys are called hackers. I mean, I'm not a hacker, not even close...hell, I'm not even a network coder because I suck at it...but I respect the real hacker community enough to exclude those guys from them.

  41. Re:New address http://212.100.234.54/ by ledow · · Score: 1

    That is, of course, assuming you've not done the DNS lookup after the attack, that the IP never changes, that they aren't running a DNS load-balanced setup, that they aren't running virtual HTTP servers (where an IP doesn't tell you which of the million-and-one websites that IP hosts that you actually want), etc.

    DNS is there for a reason. It shouldn't be possible to arbitrarily change the DNS details for a domain you don't own - for a start, it means you can receive all their email or, worse, really mess with their settings without them actually knowing until they specifically check DNS (e.g. add a false SPF record to their site, add two A addresses with the first one false to slow-down all accesses to their site).

    The problem here is the idiots controlling the DNS for The Register (and partly the Reg themselves for not being paranoid enough to have something check those settings religiously, or run their own nameservers) who allowed an SQL injection attack on their web interfaces that control the DNS and thus, presumably, bypass any authentication. Someone malicious could have done the same thing and routed all their traffic (including email) through a set of proxy servers and nobody would have noticed for ages.

    I'd give it a month before we see the NS servers for the Reg change permanently to someone else, purely because of this incident.

  42. Re:False flag by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

    Sarcasm aside, isn't that what happened to Afghanistan and Iraq after 9/11?

    "Oh, they might be harbouring al-quaeda!! Oh, they might have WMDs!" All due to the actions (or NON-actions in the case of WMDs) of individuals or small groups.

    This is exactly what happens, the news media and American government blow the actions of a few out of proportion to support their foreign policy decisions (i.e. wars for resources).

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  43. El Reg is down... by Tastecicles · · Score: 1

    ...as at timestamp.

    --
    Operation Guillotine is in effect.
  44. Why are they obligated to be fair and balanced? by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

    You can see this pattern with most of their staff- their articles are just often outright false. Where they're not false, they completely miss fundamental points. Where they don't miss fundamental points, they just outright lie.

    So that's really why they have the reputation- they're just too agenda based. Their writers all vehemently pursue their own political agendas without care for facts, without care for reason, and worst of all- without care for the truth. That's not journalism, that's propaganda.

    Hmmm. As long as the publication remains profitable, the staff should be able to write whatever the fuck they want to. You make it sound like there is some kind of obligation in the publishing business to be fair and balanced. I don't think there is. And I don't think it really matters to a discerning reader that they are calling themselves journalists when they are really just propagandists; getting all sides of a story, even the distorted side, is valuable.

    1. Re:Why are they obligated to be fair and balanced? by Xest · · Score: 1

      I'm saying the media is given a position of power- it is granted, in some cases, the ability to break the law in the case of public good.

      With that power should come responsibility- the responsibility to use that shield of being the media to produce factual and informative news.

      Publications not doing that should not legally be allowed to class themselves as media, journalists, news sites and so forth.

      For what it's worth I don't think there is any value in getting a completely false story- if there was some element of truth then that's interesting, but when a completely false story is given the same weight as a factual story and large elements of the public are misled because they beleive the publication behind the false story is something it isn't - a factual news outlet, then there's a problem.

    2. Re:Why are they obligated to be fair and balanced? by Xest · · Score: 1

      "The curious thing about calling someone "right wing" is that your accusation can never be wrong. Everyone is "right wing" from someone's perspective. So what information is conveyed? None. It's merely an insult, not a criticism."

      You've reached an interesting conclusion, but the problem is you completely missed the point.

      You assume that suggesting he was right wing was ever even meant to be a criticism, so jumping to the idea that it was an insult from that flawed premise is absurd.

      No, the point of the post I got banned for was to make it clear that Andrew's views align with Murdoch's (i.e. what is commonly accepted to be right wing), I did not suggest there was a problem with him having those right wing views, merely that it was not suprising that his viewpoint aligned so closely to Murdoch's - their political view follows a very similar path, a clearly right wing, for whatever that's worth.

      Yet Andrew has thrown his teddy out the pram before, in fact, so did the moderator there Sarah Bee, when others have suggested they and The Register held predominently right wing views- and you see, there's the problem, the only people assuming insult from the suggestion that they are right wing, was themselves, not I, not other commentators, but themselves. They don't like being called right wing, but their viewpoints, fit well under what is commonly accepted to be right wing viewpoints- pro-privatisation, climate change deniers (or whatever the PC term is nowadays) and so forth.

      You are however right about one thing- that I think poorly of Orlowski, but it's not for his viewpoint- each to their own. No, it's the inability to reflect on his own views, to accept others opinions, in his view he is right, and anyone else is not simply ignored, but where he has the power, outright silenced.

      Worse, you clearly recognise there's a difference between a journalist and a commentator, and I agree about your differentiation between them, the problem is Orlowski has, on numerous occasions, claimed to be a journalist, yet has demonstrably - no, not simply in my opinion, but demonstrably - been wrong on a number of occasions, and rather than accept that, tried to silence those who point it out in response to his articles

      It's odd because you (and the GP) are arguing that I'm suggesting people I disagree with aren't worthy of opinion. That's completely wrong, I'm arguing the opposite and pointing out that the problem with Andrew Orlowski is doing precisely what you accuse me of, and that's why he's an idiot- everyone should get their say, even people making a point or demonstrating that Andrew Orlowski is wrong. I'm fine with Andrew Orlowski having his opinion, I have a problem with him censoring counter-opinions and people pointing out flaws in his reasoning or arguments.

  45. SLASHDOT: CHANGE THE HEADLINE! by mbeckman · · Score: 1
    For cat's sake, if somebody is paying attention at Slashdot, please change the false headline! Nerds can dicker over the semantics, but "The Register Hacked" is clearly false, as is the body text: "Looks like The Register has been hacked..."

    I suggest the following much more informative and accurate headline and body:

    NetNames Hacked, Turks temporarily hijack The Register's DNS

    NetNames formal statement: At approximately 2100BST on Sunday 4 September 2011 a very small number of customer domains were redirected to an unauthorised domain name server (DNS server). This was done by placing unauthorised re-delegation orders through to the registries via our provisioning system. These orders updated the address of the master DNS servers responsible for serving data for these domains. The rogue name server then served incorrect DNS data to redirect legitimate web traffic intended for customer web sites through to a hacker holding page branded TurkGuvenligi. The unauthorised orders were added by using a SQL injection attack to gain access to a number of our customer accounts.

  46. defacement by unity100 · · Score: 1

    just a defacement probably through latest apache exploit.