Did Anonymous Take Down CIA.gov?

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."

Comments

XKCD

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:XKCD

[asylumx]

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!

Re:XKCD

[N0Man74]

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

Re:XKCD

[lidocaineus]

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

Re:XKCD

[KhabaLox]

That comic is from 28 weeks ago!

Randall is either a precog or the leader of Anonymous.

The establishment needs a target to blame

[Dainsanefh]

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.

Re:The establishment needs a target to blame

[0100010001010011]

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

Re:The establishment needs a target to blame

[DesScorp]

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.

Re:The establishment needs a target to blame

[twotacocombo]

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.

Re:The establishment needs a target to blame

[StefanWiesendanger]

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. ;-)

Re:The establishment needs a target to blame

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA

[Agent Z5q]

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.

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA

[Phreakiture]

That would have been funnier if you posted AC.

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA

[Eponymous Hero]

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

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA

[noh8rz2]

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.

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA

[DesScorp]

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.

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

DDoS is for script kiddies.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:DDoS is for script kiddies.

[wisnoskij]

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

The short answer is: No.

[VortexCortex]

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).

Re:The short answer is: No.

[drinkypoo]

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.

Re:Truth

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed

[Bob9113]

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%.

Re:Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed

[binkless]

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.

Re:Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed

[TheCarp]

> 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.

It's a .GOV

[ShavedOrangutan]

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.

try the seafood platter

[Hognoxious]

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!

Technically speaking...

[Xacid]

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

I need a VPN for SSL now?

[BitwiseX]

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

Really IT World? *faceplam*

Who Cares?

[bwall]

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.

Re:Who Cares?

[Vegemeister]

giving legislators reasons to throw harsher laws on everyone else.

Only slaves fear masters.

Interesting question

[Eloking]

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?

Re:Probably not Anonymous

[icebraining]

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

And from that....

[aztracker1]

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

Re:Probably not Anonymous

[GameboyRMH]

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.