The Register Hacked

oh shit! by larry+bagina · 2011-09-04 08:21 · 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.

Re:oh shit! by KiloByte · 2011-09-04 08:44 · 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.
Re:oh shit! by amiga3D · 2011-09-04 09:06 · Score: 2

At least all of it in the last 6 years. Check the copyright on the page. Nice touch.
Re:oh shit! by Aighearach · 2011-09-04 09:24 · Score: 2

"their"
Re:oh shit! by mickwd · 2011-09-04 09:28 · Score: 5, Informative

Too late: his credibility is lost :D
Re:oh shit! by turkeyfeathers · 2011-09-04 09:57 · Score: 2

"stake"
Re:oh shit! by PopeRatzo · 2011-09-04 10:56 · 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.
Re:oh shit! by shentino · 2011-09-04 11:13 · Score: 3, Insightful

Your credibility is lost when your customers say it is.
Reputation's funny that way.
Re:oh shit! by Sulphur · 2011-09-04 19:48 · Score: 2

No credibility lost, it's not them who got hacked but their DNS provider.
The Buzzard brand is safe.
Re:oh shit! by Xest · 2011-09-04 23:21 · 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.
Re:oh shit! by Xest · 2011-09-04 23:34 · 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.
Re:oh shit! by TheRaven64 · 2011-09-05 00:10 · 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

Re:Website hacked? by Claws+Of+Doom · 2011-09-04 08:25 · Score: 2

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

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

Re:(c) 2005 TurkGuvenligi by godrik · 2011-09-04 08:29 · Score: 4, Informative

If they do that would be illegal!
Re:(c) 2005 TurkGuvenligi by hattable · 2011-09-04 09:53 · Score: 2

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

--
OMG facts!

Site wasn't hacked, DNS was by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-04 08:28 · Score: 3, Informative

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

Re:Site wasn't hacked, DNS was by Rhodri+Mawr · 2011-09-04 08:38 · Score: 4, Informative

Mod parent up. This appears to be a case of DNS cache poisoning. Notably www.reghardware.com is unaffected.
Re:Site wasn't hacked, DNS was by IonOtter · 2011-09-04 08:41 · 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]
Re:Site wasn't hacked, DNS was by owlstead · 2011-09-04 10:09 · 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.

Home of the BOFH? by AliasMarlowe · 2011-09-04 08:35 · 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

Re:Home of the BOFH? by jhoegl · 2011-09-04 10:02 · Score: 2

Looks more like DNS poisoning.
Re:Home of the BOFH? by boaworm · 2011-09-04 20:44 · 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

Re:Slashdot needs to be hacked with Goatse. by Kiaser+Zohsay · 2011-09-04 08:37 · 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.

Re:Website hacked? by Sarten-X · 2011-09-04 08:39 · 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.

ups.com acer.com vodafone.com ... by nicesecurity · 2011-09-04 08:40 · 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."

Re:ups.com acer.com vodafone.com ... by nicesecurity · 2011-09-04 08:45 · 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)

Re:Website hacked? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-04 08:43 · 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

Re:HAxorS by zonky · 2011-09-04 08:43 · 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.

Corrections by Artem+S.+Tashkinov · 2011-09-04 09:03 · 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.

Re:Corrections by NickFortune · 2011-09-04 10:51 · 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!
Re:Corrections by SameRepeatedSQL · 2011-09-04 19:36 · 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 ...

meta content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3698" name="GENERA by aembleton · 2011-09-04 09:04 · 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

Re:Wha by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-04 09:17 · Score: 2, Funny

He was uploading the packets by individual pigeon.

Unfortunately, he had to breed the pigeons himself.

Re:Never mind... by St.Creed · 2011-09-04 09:26 · 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)

Re:wtf is a yumurtakabugu? by nomad63 · 2011-09-04 09:27 · 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

Re:Nothingofvaluewaslost tag by Spad · 2011-09-04 09:28 · 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.

DNS hack, some ok some down still, by Rovastar · 2011-09-04 10:26 · 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.

Testrun? by WoOS · 2011-09-04 11:22 · Score: 2

1) Get some SSL keys

2) Redirect the DNS Servers

3) Profit!

Re:And.... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-09-04 14:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

40 of 192 comments (clear)