Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Did Anonymous Take Down CIA.gov?

Posted by timothy on from the scheduled-demolition-of-the-old-bailey dept.

jfruh writes "The CIA's website has been down intermittently since Friday, apparently the victim of a DDOS attack. One of the more interesting questions of the story is whether elements of Anonymous are behind this — a question that even prominent members of the Anonymous movement can't seem to answer with any certainty. Perhaps this is obvious, but it seems that an anarchic, leaderless grouping can be hard to keep tabs on."

82 of 125 comments (clear)

  1. XKCD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think XKCD summed up this situation best: http://xkcd.com/932/

    1. Re:XKCD by asylumx · · Score: 2

      I see you're modded funny, but I think the comic is quite insightful -- Anonymous didn't hack the CIA, they just send a shitload of requests at their webserver. Such a huge difference!

    2. Re:XKCD by N0Man74 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah-ha! So you admit that Anonymous took down the CIA website using a slashdotting hack!

    3. Re:XKCD by lidocaineus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Did you really have to explain it? This is /.

    4. Re:XKCD by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I agree. The CIA website most likely (definitely?) doesn't contain any classified information, and taking it down isn't something that would stop the CIA website from going down. In the same way you aren't going to overthrow your US government by taking down the whitehouse home page, attacking the CIA public website doesn't cause any problems for the CIA, except for maybe a public image problem.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    5. Re:XKCD by KhabaLox · · Score: 4, Funny

      That comic is from 28 weeks ago!

      Randall is either a precog or the leader of Anonymous.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    6. Re:XKCD by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Ignorance breeds fear -> nothing messes with the human psyche like fear of the unknown.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
  2. The establishment needs a target to blame by Dainsanefh · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Any "terrorist" attack, blame it on Al-Qaeda.

    Any "hacking" on any government or multi-national coroporation website, blame it on Anonymous.

    Soon people will stand united against these "fringe" groups, and keep giving up their freedom in progress.

    --
    Twitter: @dainsanefh
    1. Re:The establishment needs a target to blame by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't forget: Any invasion of internet privacy is for child porn/piracy.

    2. Re:The establishment needs a target to blame by DesScorp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Any "terrorist" attack, blame it on Al-Qaeda.

      Any "hacking" on any government or multi-national coroporation website, blame it on Anonymous.

      Soon people will stand united against these "fringe" groups, and keep giving up their freedom in progress.

      Anonymous has quite openly made asses of themselves to the point where people suspecting them is pretty justified. They've made a MO of poking angry bears with a stick to hear them growl. I'll feel not one whit of sympathy when these clowns are sitting in a courtroom getting their federal indictments.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    3. Re:The establishment needs a target to blame by twotacocombo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Anonymous has quite openly made asses of themselves to the point where people suspecting them is pretty justified. They've made a MO of poking angry bears with a stick to hear them growl. I'll feel not one whit of sympathy when these clowns are sitting in a courtroom getting their federal indictments.

      Anonymous. They keep using this word, but I do not think it means what they think it means. It's like assuming that every Anonymous Coward is the same person. Anonymous here is really 'anonymous', not some group with structured leadership, dues to be paid, and a secret handshake. When you refer to them, you're referring to everybody and nobody in particular, so quit throwing around 'Anonymous' as if they were Al Qaeda or the New York Mets.

    4. Re:The establishment needs a target to blame by StefanWiesendanger · · Score: 2

      Anonymous here is really 'anonymous', not some group with structured leadership, dues to be paid, and a secret handshake. When you refer to them, you're referring to everybody and nobody in particular, so quit throwing around 'Anonymous' as if they were Al Qaeda or the New York Mets.

      Not really. Since many people chose to stand by their action and are not anonymous, you're not referring to everybody. Since nobody cannot do anything, you're not referring to nobody. So in the end, it really is just a bunch of anonymous cowards. ;-)

    5. Re:The establishment needs a target to blame by slick7 · · Score: 1

      Any "terrorist" attack, blame it on Al-Qaeda.

      Any "hacking" on any government or multi-national coroporation website, blame it on Anonymous.

      Soon people will stand united against these "fringe" groups, and keep giving up their freedom in progress.

      A fringe group like the white hats that believe the lies have gone on long enough.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    6. Re:The establishment needs a target to blame by jc42 · · Score: 1

      Anonymous. They keep using this word, but I do not think it means what they think it means. ... When you refer to them, you're referring to everybody and nobody in particular, so quit throwing around 'Anonymous' as if they were Al Qaeda or the New York Mets.

      Yeah, that sounds about right. In all three cases, we have a name, and maybe a few names that we'd never heard before that supposedly refer to their leaders. But nobody has bothered to show that there was an actual organization behind the names.

      For all we know, you and I and that guy over there could all be "members" of Anonymous (and Al Qaeda and the Mets ;-). After all, if they came and arrested you, for some appropriate value of they, how would you prove in court that you weren't a member? I for one don't know how I'd prove my non-membership.

      It's also sorta like back in the day of J. Edgar Hoover's campaign against the Red Menace that was threatening the US. I occasionally thought about how I would prove that I wasn't a Communist, if I were dragged before one of those Committees. I probably couldn't, and I'd read a lot about all the people whose lives had been ruined by such accusations, based on no evidence at all.

      So what's your defense against being Anonymous? Or Al Qaeda? Or a Met?

      Note that, if you visited cia.gov after reading this story, they have evidence that you were part of the "attack".

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    7. Re:The establishment needs a target to blame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's like assuming that every Anonymous Coward is the same person.

      As the Anonymous Coward, I am fully qualified to say that I am, indeed, the same person.

    8. Re:The establishment needs a target to blame by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      So what's your defense against being Anonymous? Or Al Qaeda? Or a Met?

      You can always join the local Tea Party. It's not perfect alibi, but I'd imagine it would make you much less likely to be questioned.

    9. Re:The establishment needs a target to blame by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      ...quit throwing around 'Anonymous' as if they were Al Qaeda or the New York Mets.

      Actually, there are some similarities between Anonymous and Al Qaeda... both of them have a group name and "militarized" rebels, but no actual central structure, with totally unrelated groups of people claiming to be members to get their own special point across. Both attempt to use shock tactics to get the sleeping public's attention and to draw others to their cause.

      After this, the parallel breaks down.

      As for the Mets, they've got longer clubs, better uniforms, and safer headgear than either of the other groups.

    10. Re:The establishment needs a target to blame by Sinn3d · · Score: 1

      "Note that, if you visited cia.gov after reading this story, they have evidence that you were part of the "attack"."

      Hah thought of that! So I first ping'ed em to see if the site was still responding, still down - so no need to visit the site and give them evidence...

  3. I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA by Agent+Z5q · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you think I would talk about it when I hack the CIA? Uh... I mean IF I hacked the CIA!

    If these guys in Anonymous have a tenth of common sense as they have hacking skills, they'll keep their mouths shut about specifics.

    1. Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      Anonymous can't keep secrets. You can be sure most of the IRC rooms where they coordinate attacks have feds and journalists (and anyone else who cares to observe or participate) in them. That's why when they want to do something that requires secrecy they split off a private group of people who know each other, like LulzSec.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Anonymous needs publicity to achieve their goals. Keeping what they do secret kind of defeats the purpose of their goals.

      Taking down someone's website without saying anything allows that entity to say, "We're experiencing technical difficulties."

      Blabbing about it and saying it was done as a protest gets a lot of attention.

    3. Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA by Phreakiture · · Score: 2

      That would have been funnier if you posted AC.

      --
      www.wavefront-av.com
    4. Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA by Eponymous+Hero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what's the big secret? they downloaded a LION or HION and ran it, big whoop. master hackers? master skiddies is more like it

      --
      insensitive clod overlords obligatory xkcd car analogy russian reversals whoosh pedant fanbois ftfy in 3...2...1..PROFIT
    5. Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      I was going to point out the same thing. If I had just accomplished something like this I would immediately pack my bags and take a six month vacation off the grid.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    6. Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA by noh8rz2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If these guys in Anonymous have a tenth of common sense as they have hacking skills, they'll keep their mouths shut about specifics.

      but they're in it for the lulz, remember? no lulz if it's a secret.

    7. Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA by DesScorp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you think I would talk about it when I hack the CIA? Uh... I mean IF I hacked the CIA!

      If these guys in Anonymous have a tenth of common sense as they have hacking skills, they'll keep their mouths shut about specifics.

      There are two kinds of skilled hackers: showboats and pros. Showboats brag in various places and settings about how good they are ("Look what I did!"). Pros keep their traps shut, and stay in the shadows. They also tend to have big paychecks because they keep their traps shut, and stay in the shadows. Showboats end up getting their doors kicked in by black-clad law enforcement. Though they're "Anonymous", they're still showboats, bragging to the world (and even threatening it... "We do not forgive").

      Sooner or later, the Anonymous guys are going to end very, very badly.

      --
      Life is hard, and the world is cruel
    8. Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      That's true, but for example they wouldn't want the fact that they've penetrated HBGary's email system to be known until after they've extracted all the emails they want.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA by sleigher · · Score: 1

      I don't think you get it. Of course you brag when you DDOS the CIA's servers and take down cia.com.

      You will never hear a word about them rooting all their servers though. Maybe one day but that's only because they have to do a release of information.

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    10. Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why does your classification matter at all? Would your family feel better knowing you where killed by a random inner city thug with his first gun or a professional CIA hit man? Does it matter who robbed your house? Your shit is still gone and the end result is the same. People can knock script kiddies all they want but "professional" hackers and killers are not someone to look up to and admire either. Why people repeat your statements and repsect one and knock the other or write them off as losers is strange to me. Each is just as dangerous and capable of equal damage and the backend security and diligence to avoid and handle both is exactly the same. I can hear it now at your place of employment. "Yes Mr. CIO, I know we had some data stolen and our web site is down and the public knows about it but it is only a bunch of script kiddies!"

      Showboats end up getting their doors kicked in by black-clad law enforcement.
      And the non showboater doesnt? Please.

    11. Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      I thought the whole point of Anon is that there's limitless numbers of them since they're part of a 'mindset', rather than a specific group. Hence by definition, they can't really 'end'.

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    12. Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA by lightknight · · Score: 1

      A DDOS attack isn't hacking / cracking a server. It's the real-life equivalent of staging a flash mob (which in of themselves are not illegal).

      A DDOS attack is simply sending so many requests for information to a server that it completely fills the server's queue. Since there are so many requests, the server eventually "gives up" trying to service them all. Hence its name -> Distributed Denial Of Service. The Distributed part implies that it's more than one machine doing it. You can achieve similar results with a misconfigured computer / router (hence IT's first question when something breaks -> "Is it because of something I did?").

      Hacking / cracking a server requires actually compromising the server, in whole or in part. If someone had managed to log into the CIA's web server, and began serving up something tasteful on their front page, like pr0n or mp3s, then yes, that would constitute hacking / cracking.

      However, I will note that DDOS attacks are annoying as hell. The must successful design / system I have heard of for dealing with them involved over-sized pipes, a set of redundancies, and blocking the IPs that the attacks were originating from. Not full-proof, but it apparently did work.

      And yes, while wandering around on 4chan / IRC saying "We did it" isn't advisable, it's not terribly difficult to know who was involved (given the level of complexity here, or so I would think). Even with forged address headers, it's not like the CIA can't Jacques Cousteau their way up the pipes until they find their 'attackers.'

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    13. Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA by lightknight · · Score: 1

      And if I were the CIA, I wouldn't have my web-servers physically on the same network as the rest of my machines.

      Hence the XKCD comic.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    14. Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Even with forged address headers, it's not like the CIA can't Jacques Cousteau their way up the pipes until they find their 'attackers.'

      Many if not most of whom will probably be unwitting owners of botnet infected machines..? ;)

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    15. Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA by sleigher · · Score: 1

      whatever, .com is a bad habit after this many years. I don't spend much time at *.gov...
      Maybe so... Most of them are downloading LOIC and joining in the fun. They are not hackers or crackers or anything. They are, if anything, protesters. The ones who are rooting and dropping the real dox aren't talking and that is the point.

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    16. Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Correct! I'm disappointed with what's happened to slashdot in the last couple of years. The level of discourse here used to be much higher, and I kind of miss the old ./. A lot of posters on this topic still can't seem to wrap their brains around Anonymous and what it is. They seem to swallow the media's view of Anonymous as an "organization." An organization implies a hierarchy with leaders and managers and footsoldiers and minions, like a corporation or an army. But Anonymous is nothing at all like that. Anonymous is a movement , not an organization. It is proof that anarchy can be a productive force in society, can expose graft and corruption and can make us all better off because no one individual can take credit for the actions of the group. Many people assume that governments, law enforcement agencies and corporations are corrupt and evil, but they accept this as simply the cost of doing business, the cost of running a community in a peaceful, orderly manner where the winners always win and the losers know they cannot win and should simply accept their lot in life. Anonymous does not accept this as the status quo, and will do whatever it takes to expose the corruption of politicians, police officers and CEOs and incite those who are paying attention into taking action against their oppressors. They've managed to change the world in only a few short years, triggered revolutions in the middle east, presented evidence of crimes committed by police and covered up by bureaucrats, humiliated multi-national corporations and exposed the FBI and Scotland Yard as a bunch of clueless blowhards who can't be bothered to observe even basic network security practices.

      Yeah, I'm proud of Anonymous and what we've accomplished, but I'm keeping my own mouth shut because Anonymous has many mouths and many minds and there are just too many of them to be silenced. The movement is growing all the time and no one knows who they are, even the police who claim to be hot on their trail, and no matter how many are arrested, there will be more who step up to take their place. The snowball has only just begun to roll down the mountain.

  4. DDoS is for script kiddies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, who cares that they were able to overload a website with their botnet? It might be interesting if they were actually able to hack into it.

    1. Re:DDoS is for script kiddies. by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think the point was to demonstrate their skill at hacking.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    2. Re:DDoS is for script kiddies. by Theophany · · Score: 1

      Yeah. Real interesting hacking into the CIA website. (I am assuming they are not cretinous enough to store anything of national security on their webserver, of course).

    3. Re:DDoS is for script kiddies. by History's+Coming+To · · Score: 1

      More interestingly, do DDOS hits count towards advertising revenue? If so I've got a great idea for a website that will annoy anonymous...

      --
      Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
  5. The short answer is: No. by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    No one took down the CIA.gov website. Did users "take down" Twitter when it faltered under too much load? There's a difference between unavailable and taken down. During a (D)DoS, the servers are still there, still serving content to some, not taken down at all, it's just that there is more traffic than they can handle.

    Compare this "taken down" to when the MPAA has a video "taken down" from Youtube. The specific video is no longer accessible, even when plenty of bandwidth is available.

    That said, I wouldn't put it past Anonymous agents, that they would send a DMCA "take down" notice complaining that the CIA.gov site is infringing on Anonymous' imaginary property rights; However, I don't think it likely that such an action would result in their site being taken down (the CIA's that is).

    1. Re:The short answer is: No. by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Informative

      No one took down the CIA.gov website. Did users "take down" Twitter when it faltered under too much load?

      If it's intentional it's a takedown. If it's accidental it's a slashdotting. Either way it's a DDoS.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Re:Truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    no comment, I'm way too scared of the CIA / FBI but that's because I live in the UK...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003
    US / UK Extradition Act 2003

  7. Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps this is obvious, but it seems that an anarchic, leaderless grouping can be hard to keep tabs on.

    I saw an article in the paper not too long ago that talked about the Mayor of Oakland having contacted the leadership of the Occupy movement to ask them to disavow Occupy Oakland. It made me want to smack my forehead. The hierarchy drones have a fundamental lack of comprehension of "distributed."

    When evils progress beyond what is sufferable, you pass a tipping point where there need be no rabble-rousers. The rabble become self-rousing. These are the warning signs that our leadership has overstepped its bounds and we need to re-examine our dedication to the principles that hold us together as a free nation and people. When the rabble start rousing themselves, we would do well to assume that the more civilized among us are likewise displeased, but with more self-control. The longer we fail to correct our course, the lower the barrier to rabble-hood becomes. It's just the nuttiest x% that are genuinely acting out right now. Soon it will be the nuttiest 2*x%.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
    1. Re:Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed by binkless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When evils progress beyond what is sufferable, you pass a tipping point where there need be no rabble-rousers. The rabble become self-rousing.

      And the rhetoric will be self-parodying.

    2. Re:Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Occupy movement "organically" formed a concept called "the General Committee" where they attempted direct democracy. It didn't turn out well as the worlds biggest committee decision, & one composed of homeless people. I'm sure this broke the hearts of the communist party plants who seeded the idea.

      Even anarchists will organize a government given sufficient logistics problems to solve.

    3. Re:Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed by TheCarp · · Score: 3, Funny

      > Even anarchists will organize a government given sufficient logistics problems to solve.

      And only those who couldn't get past a base dictionary definition of anarchism were surprised.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed by eternaldoctorwho · · Score: 1

      I know. Negotiating with the "leaders" of Anonymous or the Occupy movement is like negotiating a price with the guy selling you the Brooklyn Bridge.

    5. Re:Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed by Hatta · · Score: 1

      I wonder if this has anything to do with the rejection of evolution by the hard core religious right. There are few processes more distributed than evolution, and few mindsets more authoritarian then the extremely religious. Just a thought.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Wow Webster sure is getting opinionated these days. Guess everybody is fighting for eyeballs now.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    7. Re:Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      I know. Negotiating with the "leaders" of Anonymous or the Occupy movement is like negotiating a price with the guy selling you the Brooklyn Bridge.

      No, not really. That guy gave me a really good deal. I'm just waiting on a little cash from this hush-hush deal I'm working on with a Nigerian prince before I can commit to the bridge sale. Fortunately, the guy with the bridge was willing to pull it off the market for a time for a small fee.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    8. Re:Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed by equex · · Score: 1

      Are you beeing funny or is that an actual quote from the dictionary? If it is, oh man, never buying a dictionary again. Sounds like a teenager wrote it.

      --
      Can I light a sig ?
  8. It's a .GOV by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 5, Funny

    They all left early on Friday, came in late on Monday, and have been in a meeting ever since. It'll probably be back online sometime Thursday.

    --
    Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
  9. The long answer: Yes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Was CIA.gov apparently a target? Yes. Was access to it blocked for an amount of time, apparently at someone other than the CIA's will? Yes. These "attacks" credited to Anonymous are like blocking the entrance to a store or government building. Noone claimed to have "terminated" the CIA website, nor to have permanently "taken down" the website. Word in the Anon circle was that one or more servers, claimed to contain pedophilia, have been hijacked and programmed to continuously attack CIA.gov. As usual with Anonymous, its hard to confirm, pretty much need the CIA to admit what IP(s) is(are) hammering them. It's always funny seeing operations credited to Anonymous and funny to see people grumble. Realize any hacker in Russia, China, or the entire planet can claim Anonymous did it. Doesn't mean THE Anonymous did it. I would not be surprised if the Chinese Ghostnet has credited Anonymous by now. /shrug

  10. controlled opposition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Has anyone ever considered that "anonymous" is a wet dream for those who wish to deny freedom and destroy the net?

    It's perfectly tailored - even the name, to be a problem that those fascists who wish to legislate away our freedoms online will have the perfect solution for - and I suspect that solution is going to look like an "internet drivers license" type identification scheme. They will want to remove anonymity online completely.

  11. try the seafood platter by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

    Perhaps this is obvious, but it seems that an anarchic, leaderless grouping can be hard to keep tabs on

    And as for Anonymous, they're even worse!

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  12. Technically speaking... by Xacid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Technically speaking - if they don't know the culprit(s) then the culprit(s) is/are, by definition, anonymous.

  13. ABC Government Groups by poormanjoe · · Score: 1

    At its core the CIA just lays the ground work in advance for an invasion/occupation. Groups like this should be rolled into the military since that's all they are.

    RON PAUL 2012

    --
    I want to be retired when I grow up.
  14. Re:What about China? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Unclassified but Sensitive Internet Protocol (IP) Router Network (abbreviated as "NIPRNet," but commonly written "NIPRNET"), but prevalently referred to as the "Non-classified IP Router Network," is used to exchange sensitive but unclassified information between "internal" users as well as providing users access to the Internet.

    There is no classified information on NIPRNET. SIPRNET has information classified up to SECRET, which is not really all that valuable anyway. SIPRNET is not connected to the internet but is shared with our allies.

    The real important data is held on JWICS, which is cleared up to TOP SECRET and is not connected to the internet or shared with allies.

    The most sensitive data (TS/SCI) is held on other unnamed networks that are generally isolated by each government agency but may have a connection to JWICS.

    DDoSing or even hacking the CIA.gov website will give you exactly zero classified information.

  15. Anon accomplished nothing here by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

    The CIA only uses that site for public relations, they've got their own separate system for all of their real work.

    1. Re:Anon accomplished nothing here by QuincyDurant · · Score: 1

      But Anonymous did stymie those evil grade school kids who rely on the site for social studies reports. That counts for something, doesn't it?

    2. Re:Anon accomplished nothing here by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Anonymous isn't exactly a crack tactical team. More an amorphous general-purpose psy-ops.

      Symbolic victory is all they really ever need. As long as public perception remains that they caused a real headache, then it was a win.

      As long as they inspire someone to take up the mantle in the future, they win. Its all about hearts and minds. Every time some random person puts on the mask and stands on a street corner, they win.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  16. I need a VPN for SSL now? by BitwiseX · · Score: 2

    though it responded to port 443, a common port for VPN connections using Secure Sockets Layer encryption.

    Really IT World? *faceplam*

  17. Na... by AlphaZeta · · Score: 1

    I heard they just upgraded to the latest Windows 8 Servers?

  18. Re:"Anonymous" is a fake by oodaloop · · Score: 1

    I think you've confused reality with the plot of 1984. We actually do have enemies and threats, though I do not personally categorize Anonymous that way.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  19. Who Cares? by bwall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm so tired of hearing what Anonymous has DDoS'd now. I'm sick of them doing short sighted immature attacks that only end up giving legislators reasons to throw harsher laws on everyone else. Its just a bunch of low tech, high profile bullshit that's fucking everyone that uses the Internet FAR worse than their target.

    1. Re:Who Cares? by Vegemeister · · Score: 3, Informative

      giving legislators reasons to throw harsher laws on everyone else.

      Only slaves fear masters.

    2. Re:Who Cares? by bwall · · Score: 1

      Fearing a master is one thing, but common sense is another. Don't bite the hand that feeds, then complain when it beats us till we bleed.

  20. Interesting question by Eloking · · Score: 2

    It's an interesting question really. In the last years, the media have been pretty fast to put the blame of multiple take down on Anonymous. Of course, some of them were planned openly by them on website like 4chan, but let's not forget that the "victims" have other enemies too.

    For instance, how much thought did the Chinese (the 21th century bad guy) put about cyber-attacking the CIA "after" they heard about Anonymous plan? I'm no expert, but don't you think there's a great opportunity for them to take advantage of the situation?

    --
    Elok
  21. Re:prominent members? by StefanWiesendanger · · Score: 1

    Yeah... a "prominent member of anonymous" is kind of an oxymoron...

  22. Re:Probably not Anonymous by icebraining · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A group that splintered off is still Anonymous. That's the whole point of the term. Anyone who claims to be, is.

    --
    Dilbert RSS feed
  23. In the words of Old Ben Kenobi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Anonymous: They use a single name to hide their numbers.

    The treat about being "anonymous" is that it lacks the initiation rites. You can come and go as you please. No one will know you were here, no one will know you have left. Do you miss out on the accolades? Yes, but freedom is sweeter than accolades. Those who do not realize this, and go out to make a name for themselves rarely end up being free or anonymous at all.

  24. And from that.... by aztracker1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What the politicians hear: "Slashdot is a tool for pirates and child pornographers to attack the USA!"

    --
    Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
  25. And by unity100 · · Score: 1

    was anything of value was lost during this downtime ? I dont think such secret services have been serving their people's needs for a long time now.

    --
    Read radical news here
  26. The CIA know exactly who did it. by OldHawk777 · · Score: 1

    The CIA was testing some offensive DDOS tools.

    Whoops...blamestorm...Anonymous, the CIA took down the CIA.

    --
    Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
  27. Winners and Losers by ugglybabee · · Score: 1

    If Anonymous is going after the CIA, that probably means that Boxxy is in the clear.

  28. Re:prominent members? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

    You know what they say...
    Everyone is anonymous. Some are just more anonymous than others....

  29. Who Cares. by aldousd666 · · Score: 1

    The website is just a flag, a sign post, a Hello World, for the CIA. It's not related to operations. OOOOH! HAXORS! This is like calling someone who guesses your password a hacker.

    --
    Speak for yourself.
  30. Lmfao by multimediavt · · Score: 1

    Do you think I would talk about it when I hack the CIA? Uh... I mean IF I hacked the CIA!

    If these guys in Anonymous have a tenth of common sense as they have hacking skills, they'll keep their mouths shut about specifics.

    First of all, the CIA's website is inconsequential to their secret data, or their day to day business operations beyond PR. The CIA does not keep anything terribly interesting accessible to the Internet. Never have, never will. The best you might do is external email servers, and probably not advisable either. Whomever this is, they are basically barking at one of the largest honey pots on Earth, and only generating data that could be used against them. I would hope that Anonymous members would be more aware.

  31. Re:Probably not Anonymous by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    If they allow public participation, that would be true. Otherwise, not really.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  32. Re:Probably not Anonymous by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

    Yeah I saw it further down. However the goal of the op. was not to take down cia.gov but to get child porn servers raided, taking down cia.gov was just a means of getting it done.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  33. Re:Probably not Anonymous by icebraining · · Score: 1

    There's no one to allow or disallow. No one controls the term.

    --
    Dilbert RSS feed
  34. Re:Probably not Anonymous by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Public perception does, at least among those who know what Anonymous is. By definition an Anonymous operation must allow unrestricted participation. Likewise if someone calls a protest a sit-in while it doesn't block access to anything, nobody's going to buy it.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel