Slashdot Mirror


Anonymous Supporters Tricked Into Installing Trojan

dsinc sends this quote from a Symantec report: "In 2011, dozens of Anonymous members who participated in distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks in support of Anonymous hacktivism causes were arrested. In these DDoS attacks, supporters using the Low Orbit Ion Cannon denial-of-service (DoS) tool would voluntarily include their computer in a botnet for attacks in support of Anonymous. In the wake Anonymous member arrests this week, it is worth highlighting how Anonymous supporters have been deceived into installing Zeus botnet clients purportedly for the purpose of DoS attacks. The Zeus client does perform DoS attacks, but it doesn’t stop there. It also steals the users' online banking credentials, webmail credentials, and cookies. The deception of Anonymous supporters began on January 20, 2012, the day of the FBI Megaupload raid."

184 comments

  1. Not hackers? Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Further proof the bulk of "anonymous" are just brainless sheep on image boards.

    1. Re:Not hackers? Shocking! by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Further proof the bulk of "anonymous" are just brainless sheep on image boards.

      Sheep? Yeah, most of them are. Much like anything popular, what you're mainly going to attract are sheep.

      Brainless? Some, sure. I saw one that had decorated her Guy Fawkes mask "to make it prettier". Um. Yeah, brainless. But I think you'll find some smart ones too, if you look hard.

      Image boards? Nothing in TFA points to that. It's easy to think of Anonymous as a bunch of 4channers, but that's not really true anymore, if it ever was. IRC and Twitter are probably more popular than image boards for those who go beyond just sniffing at Anon. Probably Facebook too for the more careless ones. But there's very little Anonymous on image boards these days.

    2. Re:Not hackers? Shocking! by YodasEvilTwin · · Score: 2

      That's exactly what they'd want us to think, arth1. Or should I say ... anon1?

    3. Re:Not hackers? Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Curses! You've toppled my nefarious plan!

    4. Re:Not hackers? Shocking! by KingBenny · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      actually yea, i saw this video on youtube with a masked guy asking to download hoic and or loic for an attack on facebook (what they would want to achieve with that is a bit unclear ... blacking out facebook for a few hours has like zero consequence or political impact imo) sounded a bit like testosterone headbutting contest ... so i download it and scanned them both, avira gave nothing but housecall found malware in one of them ... so that's what i posted in a reply to the video ...
      i dont know who would be so smart as to just download something from anyone with a mask thats available anywhere and install it without scanning but apparently some people did ... stupid?
      yea
      i can not believe the core of this movement would do something that obvious knowing how it would damage their reputation, fodder for the feds and such now, discredit, anyone can don the mask, everything gets exploited but i'm a bit like well, if you installed that without scanning, you kinda had it like coming, just a little bit
      did i already say that anyone can don the mask and make any claim about anything at all ... i saw a post there at the time saying there was no mention of ddos attack on facebook on the 'official' anonymous channels, wherever that may be
      i still believe in it, tho i see way more potential in a cooperation between a faceless publishing house and wikileaks than a bit of ddos attacks by some disgruntled whatevers, assange was taken down because he brought to attention what would otherwise have stayed mostly in the usual channels, he had a public face and could be attacked ... masked resistance publishing leaked documents would be way harder to trace and like i said, way more useful than just painting funny moustaches on websites or blacking them out for a few hours
      we'll see :p (what struck me most was the total difference in style, the guy from the wall street video was clearly highly educated and very eloquent while the guy from the youtube facebook ddos was clearly not ... might have been a clue)
      or not
      we'll see :p

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    5. Re:Not hackers? Shocking! by WhitetailKitten · · Score: 0

      You don't get anything done on a public imageboard, unless that thing you're trying to do is posting porn/shock and gore/kittens/stupid image macros. Any serious organization is done in IRC or elsewhere. I took part in the RL protests against Scientology, but I'm not particularly interested in joining along in DDOSing large organizations with lots of lawyers.

    6. Re:Not hackers? Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ah the racist ACs, I was wondering where they'd gone.

    7. Re:Not hackers? Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My "AC posts goatse and nigger remarks" exposure meter for the day was disturbingly low, and I thought there was a major outage in the US. I'm glad it wasn't anything to worry about.

    8. Re:Not hackers? Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did this post get rated as insightful when the guy who made it clearly doesn't know anything about what he's talking about?

    9. Re:Not hackers? Shocking! by Smauler · · Score: 1

      FFS.... learn to use sentences.

      Virus checking _new_ files with virus checkers doesn't work very well.... up to you to figure out why.

      i still believe in it, tho i see way more potential in a cooperation between a faceless publishing house and wikileaks than a bit of ddos attacks by some disgruntled whatevers, assange was taken down because he brought to attention what would otherwise have stayed mostly in the usual channels, he had a public face and could be attacked ... masked resistance publishing leaked documents would be way harder to trace and like i said, way more useful than just painting funny moustaches on websites or blacking them out for a few hours

      Are you high? Just seems like you can't write anything that makes much sense. Try sentences.

    10. Re:Not hackers? Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes I wonder if part of Anonymous are people working for governments (doesn't have to be just US, any government) in order to find the disaffected and outrightly treasonous so later on, they are flagged and denied jobs, or outrightly arrested.

      It sort of makes sense from a lot of angles. One case might be a private corrections company. They want their jails full (preferably easily managed/cowed inmates, with just the threat of a dropped soap bar being all that is needed), and people arrested for computer charges are a lot less nasty than the people arrested for drug crimes. So, paying someone to beg people to DDoS a target then take the logged IPs and do a raid can pay big bucks. It isn't hard in the US to catch a felony, and it isn't hard to get life in prison either, so paying some guy $50,000 to goad a bunch of people to attack a target may rake in millions of people convicted and put away.

    11. Re:Not hackers? Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      I took part in the RL protests against Scientology

      IOW you're the moralfag cancer. FOAD.

    12. Re:Not hackers? Shocking! by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      no,i just hunt for grammer nazis the point was a.o. that virus checking new files still came up with one alert for one of the two new files and then only with one online scanner namely housecall trendmicro the other reported clean on all scans but never mind lets just not get our panties in a bunch over zero punctuation

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    13. Re:Not hackers? Shocking! by WhitetailKitten · · Score: 1

      This is /. and not /b/, you know.

    14. Re:Not hackers? Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Specimens are interesting too.

    15. Re:Not hackers? Shocking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do say they are Legion. Where did you think those legion were conscripted?
      Were you assuming all would be Cohorts?

  2. Jokes on them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anonymous members don't have bank accounts.

    1. Re:Jokes on them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I think the target is more along the lines of people who want to look 1337 by riding the Anonymous bandwagon while having now skills. In turn Anonymous or other parties took advantage of these wanna-bes and now the wanna-bes are paying the price.

      Fuck the wanna-bes. I hope Anonymous drains their accounts and leaves those punk ass bitches high and dry.

    2. Re:Jokes on them! by um...+Lucas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Or all the funds are transferred to a single account owned by some authority, who can then trace back who was participating in the ddos attacks by subpoenaing from banks the identities of all the accounts that had automated transfers made into the master account. Think fighting fire with fire.

    3. Re:Jokes on them! by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      What are "now" skills?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    4. Re:Jokes on them! by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      I'm pretty sure any evidence gathered that way will be inadmissible.

      That said, that would tell them who to focus their energy on. Once they did that, I'm sure piles of legitimate evidence would start appearing.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    5. Re:Jokes on them! by soundguy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Skills that are fully buzzword-compliant as opposed to coding in Cobol, manufacturing buggy whips, or operating a VCR. If you can fully actualize the cloud paradigm, you're hired!

      --
      Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
    6. Re:Jokes on them! by djlowe · · Score: 0

      If you can fully actualize the cloud paradigm, you're hired!

      You don't have to fully actualize, all you need to do is acknowledge the realization of past technological synergies and then extrapolate them into a new vision, nebulous, but enticing, which promises to leverage both the old and the new into something revolutionary.

      Or so I've been told.

      Regards,

      dj

    7. Re:Jokes on them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah... Admissibility of evidence? Who cares, Anonymous is a Terorist organization, extraordinary rendition is the NORM for them. Welcome to the hit squads, heck, USDOJ might as well outsource it to the Mexican Cartels, after all, enemy of our enemy must be our friend?

  3. what could go wrong? by lostsoulz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Installing software that allows a third party to orchestrate DDoS? Sounds legit...

    1. Re:what could go wrong? by Sorthum · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The circumstances surrounding this make it very hard to be sympathetic to people who get hit by it. "My banking information was compromised, and all I wanted to do was help take down the website of some entity that displeased me today" isn't really a rallying cry many people can get behind.

    2. Re:what could go wrong? by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "My banking information was compromised, and all I wanted to do was help take down the website of some entity that displeased me today" isn't really a rallying cry many people can get behind.

      Well, no. It's too long.
      "Tits, for great justice!" is shorter.

      Who said that a battle cry has to reflect all your causes? I don't see US marines crying "to protect the dollar being usurped as de facto currency for international oil trade" either. Instead they go with a slogan they don't know what means, don't know how to pronounce, but is short and goes well with beer.

    3. Re:what could go wrong? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What about running it in a sandbox? It's not like a DDOS tool needs to access your files, is it?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:what could go wrong? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      It's gratifying to see one of my dark predictions realized even if it does mean that a lot of morons got ripped off.

    5. Re:what could go wrong? by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      ... er, every marine I know damn well knows what it means, even if they can't say it right.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    6. Re:what could go wrong? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Smart idea on several levels. Make a tiny VM, and if your spidey-sense tingles, shred the disk file.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    7. Re:what could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even better...

      1) Install DDOS trojan on an old pc you have laying around;
      2) Packet away at $enemy_of_the_day!
      3) When/if the police come knocking at your door, play dumb (i.e. plausible deniability) and show them your malware-ridden old pc (for bonus points, install Antivirus2013 and friends, just to make the malware infection seem obvious)
      4) ???
      5) PROFIT! (or, at least, not jail)

      I'm actually surprised Anonymous hasn't come up with something like this before...

    8. Re:what could go wrong? by rssrss · · Score: 1

      "Tits, for great justice!" is shorter.

      Annonymous will never be able to use that one.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
    9. Re:what could go wrong? by memnock · · Score: 1

      Initially I supported Anonymous. It seemed like they were actually a group that stood up to organizations that abused power.

      However, it seems that some of the "members " of Anonymous have taken to abusing the power they themselves accumulated. Perhaps there are still people in that group who would rather crack FBI and intelligence company sites to upset their operations, but those divergent members who are using the Anonymous abilities and name to commit crimes against supporters are making Anonymous as a whole unlikeable.

    10. Re:what could go wrong? by icebraining · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you know enough to use a sandbox, you shouldn't be using LOIC to DoS a webserver anyway, since it's not effective. Something that works at the HTTP level (like Slowloris for Apache servers) will be way more effective.

    11. Re:what could go wrong? by icebraining · · Score: 2

      Anonymous started out by raiding forums for epileptics and posting images designed to trigger seizures.

      Being for or against Anonymous is meaningless. They're not a group with a purpose and a manifesto, they'll do whatever the random group of people who call themselves Anonymous that day will want to do.

    12. Re:what could go wrong? by icebraining · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because one can easily recognize their own kind?

    13. Re:what could go wrong? by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      Instead they go with a slogan they don't know what means, don't know how to pronounce, but is short and goes well with beer.

      Apparently you can be bigoted (as long as it is against soldiers), and still get a +5 here on slashdot. Well done.

    14. Re:what could go wrong? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but, my machine was compromised, end of story. Once it has been established the machine was compromised the owner of the machine is now guilty of nothing done by that machine.

      The fact that the machine is compromised breaks the 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt'. All the evidence on that machine is now questionable. In fact the only evidence on the machine that is valid is the existence of a Trojan, the perfect 'ALIBI'.

      So in this case, some amateur online activists will have been saved by their own lack of expertise. As for those banks who might have been defrauded (the bank not the customer) will have to return the money.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    15. Re:what could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahahahahhhahahahahahahahaahah
      lol

    16. Re:what could go wrong? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      for bonus points, install Antivirus2013 and friends, just to make the malware infection seem obvious

      And it has the added effect of delaying any action by the cops for at least a week while they try to boot it up.

    17. Re:what could go wrong? by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Well, whoever rose up to wield any significant amount of power learned also to steer their potential opposition to harmless or self-destructing activities. It is not like a game of chess, it is like checkers, a banal move to do, the "panem et circenses" way, or the "emmanuel goldstein"way.

      You feel like you have to deal with tattoos, drugs, loud music, DDoS, fight with police, and be a loner to be against the system? Doesn't all that make you easier to be sorted out from the "ordinary sheep" instead?

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    18. Re:what could go wrong? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being for or against Anonymous is meaningless. They're not a group with a purpose and a manifesto, they'll do whatever the random group of people who call themselves Anonymous that day will want to do.

      Sounds exactly like the tea party.

  4. Reminds me of prohibition by Billly+Gates · · Score: 0, Troll

    The US government was recently found guilty poisoning liquor with extra chemicals in addition to rubbing alcohol to make the boot leggers look bad.

    It would not surprise me if they are doing the same to make Anonymous look like evil crackers and criminals.

    1. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by Sevalecan · · Score: 2

      It would not surprise me if they are doing the same to make Anonymous look like evil crackers and criminals.

      Anonymous does a pretty good job of that themselves, if you ask me.

    2. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by abigsmurf · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, screw the government.

      Just the other day, I learnt that the awful smell of natural gas is actually because of something they add to gas and that it wouldn't smell if they didn't have it! Now, whenever my pilot light goes off or I don't quite turn the oven off, my house absolutely stinks! The smell's so bad that last time it happened, when I wanted to smoke, I had to go outside, and get well away from the house to escape the smell!

      Why can't the government accept that not everyone uses these so called 'dangerous substances' like they seem to think they should be used?

    3. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      But how do you knooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow?

      (All tin foil based headwear products 50% off, this Sunday only!)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    4. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yup. There is very little that "Anonymous" does that I could get behind, and even then their means (DDoS? It is to laugh) is silly as it does little damage.

      If you attack the front facing site (eg www.paypal.com) you do nothing. If you attack the transaction infrastructure, then maybe you offline and inconvenience a few hundred people in one time zone.

      With a lot of stuff moving "To the could" DDoS's become an easily solved problem by opening new instances and shutting down the previous ones. If you have bottomless amounts of money you just open more new instances until the DDoS is unsustained.

      Now ... the way to fuck over cloud infrastructure with a DDoS is to actually use their own infrastructure against them. Hijack peoples wordpress blogs on EC2 and then crush the target site with AB. Whoever owns the instance will probably discover the compromise within 4 hours.

    5. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a case of good intervention. It actually helps.

      Here is a case of bad intervention.

      UPS finds out it will cost them x number of dollars to fly over Europe to pay for 'carbon taxes'. "OH ok" they say. "We will just fly the longer flights over africa, russia, and the Mediterranean as it will be cheaper". Good intentions met with greed and cost optimization. Good intentions almost always loose in that case.

      Usually it ends badly when money is involved and no one benefits except the gov. In your example people actually benefit and no one really argues about it.

      For example the IRS they want to streamline. They want to make it easy to file and let you keep your money. They want easier laws to follow. They want full out automation (they already have all the information). Who argues against it? People who prepare taxes. They will loose their jobs. See? Good intentions meets cost optimization...

    6. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      To be fair they poisoned industrial alcohol that had poison labels on it, and it was no secret either.
      Industrial alcohol is used in quite a lot of applications, but to not be taxed for creating a alcoholic liquid the manufactures had to make it toxic. In the middle of prohibition when it was obviously not working, organized crime had hired chemists to de toxify the stuff, they increased the poisons put into the stuff to make it undrinkable again. This time apparently it was to much for the criminal chemists, not that that stopped them from selling it to everybody.

      The US government did kill thousands and thousands doing this, but adding poisons to a products that is clearly labelled as poison is not a horrible crime.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    7. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by X0563511 · · Score: 0

      I've never heard of "the could" - is that like a cloud of lost opportunities?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    8. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      How sad is it that I can't just assume that you're joking?

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    9. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by Goaway · · Score: 1

      The lack of evidence alone is proof of a conspiracy!

    10. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by tragedy · · Score: 3, Informative

      The difference being that adding a scent to natural gas saves lives, but adding poison to industrial alcohol definitely kills people. At least tens of thousands of people died from alcohol the government intentionally poisoned during prohibition. The government's position, of course, was that it was entirely the fault of the bootleggers who distilled that alcohol for human consumption and of the people who drank it. The reality is that it was a terror campaign run by the US government and the fact that those who died were breaking the law doesn't in any way excuse it.

    11. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by tragedy · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it kind of is a horrible crime when it wasn't poisonous (well, ok, it was, but no more than regular drinking alcohol) but they added poison specifically to kill people. When you make something dangerous specifically for the purpose of killing people, that's pretty horrible.

    12. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      No it was poisonous, industrial alcohol has always needed to be poisoned to be legal they just changed the ingredients of this poison to stop people getting around it.
      And they did not add poison to kill people, they added it to make it not drinkable. They underestimated organised crime's greed and peoples desire for alcohol.

      I assure you, at no point was anyone trying to secretly poison prohibition criminals.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    13. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Yeah, screw the government.

      Just the other day, I learnt that the awful smell of natural gas is actually because of something they add to gas and that it wouldn't smell if they didn't have it! Now, whenever my pilot light goes off or I don't quite turn the oven off, my house absolutely stinks! The smell's so bad that last time it happened, when I wanted to smoke, I had to go outside, and get well away from the house to escape the smell!

      Why can't the government accept that not everyone uses these so called 'dangerous substances' like they seem to think they should be used?

      Just open your Windows.

    14. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by tragedy · · Score: 4, Informative

      No it was poisonous, industrial alcohol has always needed to be poisoned to be legal they just changed the ingredients of this poison to stop people getting around it.

      Your statement is self-contradictory. You claim that the industrial ethanol was somehow magically poisonous despite the fact that, as you admit, it was only poisonous in order to kill people who tried to drink it. Now, some industrial alcohol did need more distillation to be safer for consumption while other industrial alcohol conversely was contaminated with benzene (although in pretty much safe trace amounts) from the extreme distillation process it had been through (to remove all the water). None of it was toxic on anything like the levels it became toxic after the poisoning program. Also, that "always needed to be poisoned" scenario you mention isn't really true. That program started during prohibition.

      You said that "they did not add poison to kill people, they added it to make it not drinkable". The reason that it wasn't drinkable after the poison was added was because it killed people. The poison was a terror weapon designed to terrify people away from bootlegged alcohol for fear that they would die. To accomplish this goal, the poisoners were deliberately killing people.

      I believe you that at no point were they trying to _secretly_ poison prohibition criminals. It wasn't much of a secret, they were reasonably up front about it. They did keep the information on the constantly changing mixture of poisons they were using secret so as to present a moving target to the chemists working for the bootleggers, however. The obvious consequence of this is that the bootleggers would be selling safe alcohol made from industrial alcohol one day and the next batch would be poisonous. You can claim that the poisoners were just naive innocents. I think that's unlikely, but even if it's true, it still makes them guilty of manslaughter.

    15. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      industrial alcohol has always needed to be poisoned to be legal

      Yeah, it has always needed to be poisoned to be legal, cause in this country, the death penalty is legal punishment for drinking perfectly good but un-taxed alcohol.

    16. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Did the government release the information that they poisoned the alcohol? If they did, then it WAS the fault of the bootleggers and the drinkers.

    17. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So if the terrorists gave a heads-up about 9/11 it would have been ok?

      Did the government release the information that they poisoned the alcohol? If they did, then it WAS the fault of the bootleggers and the drinkers.

    18. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this is what you claim happened:

      Government: Everybody, don't try drinking this alcohol--it's poisoned! For industrial use only.
      Wino: (Drinks) I'm not as think as you drunk I am! (dies)
      tragedy: Government, you're guilty of manslaughter!

      If you let someone know something is poisonous and try to stop them from drinking it, how can you possibly be responsible for them drinking it and dying?

    19. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      That is a case of good intervention. It actually helps.

      Here is a case of bad intervention.

      UPS finds out it will cost them x number of dollars to fly over Europe to pay for 'carbon taxes'. "OH ok" they say. "We will just fly the longer flights over africa, russia, and the Mediterranean as it will be cheaper".

      you think Russia would let people fly over it's land for free? haha!

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    20. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      Denatured alcohol is not usually poisoned so that you would just die if you drank it, nowadays. the point of the poisoning is to make it so foul that you _can't_ drink it. it's still possible to drink it and there's 100+ urban legends about how to remove the denaturing agents, ranging from filtering through bread to letting it drip over a sub zero piece of metal(I didn't ever deliberately go even looking for this info, but it's just Finnish street culture, also the notion that the ethanol itself would be somehow transformed in the denaturation process is deeply rooted into finnish street lore, even though that is a myth).

      as such, denaturing with methanol is a stupid idea. might just as well but a methanol label on the bottle then. it's also easier to distill.. as such it's a pretty bad practice to sell a product without specifying what's in it though.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denatured_alcohol

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    21. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by tragedy · · Score: 1

      If you let someone know something is poisonous and try to stop them from drinking it, how can you possibly be responsible for them drinking it and dying?

      Gee, maybe because you poisoned in the first place specifically so that your warning not to drink it because you'll die would be true. What exactly do you think happens to you if you mine your lawn and put up warning signs saying "minefield, you will die if you walk here" when neighborhood kids get blown to little pieces?

    22. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by tragedy · · Score: 1

      What is currently done with rubbing alcohol is pretty stupid and dangerous as far as I'm concerned, but it isn't a patch on the extremes they went to during Prohibition.

    23. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by tragedy · · Score: 1

      They did release the information that they poisoned it, but they kept the actual nature of the poisoning as secret as they could. Also, the intention was that customers of bootleggers, who didn't necessarily know where the alcohol came from would die and that all the blame would fall on the bootleggers.

    24. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Misrepresentation.

      Lawns are for walking on, in that it is reasonable to expect to be able to walk on grass and get at most yelled at by some guy in a rocking chair on his porch.

      Cleaning alcohol is exactly that, for cleaning not drinking. It says so right on the bottle. Have you really thought through what would happen if modern cleaning alcohol was not denatured, and the price left unchanged? I'm not sure that you have.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    25. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by tragedy · · Score: 1

      Misrepresentation.

      Sorry, lost me there. Are you saying that _I_ am misrepresenting something, or was that one word your response to the question I asked at the end of my post?

      Lawns are for walking on, in that it is reasonable to expect to be able to walk on grass and get at most yelled at by some guy in a rocking chair on his porch.

      I personally feel that lawns are, in fact, for walking on. There are a surprisingly large number of people out there who feel that lawns are for fertilizing, landscaping, and mowing fanatically (not just theirs, but the lawn of anyone nearby, even people who like long grass) and _not_ for walking on or marring in any way. There are also plenty of people who feel that _their_ lawn is only for _them_ to walk on and no-one else. If a leaf blows onto their lawn from next door, they will attempt to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Sometimes, in real life and not just in hypothetical examples, these people do booby-trap their lawns. Sometimes they put up a warning sign about it, and sometimes they don't. Sometimes the booby trap is just a dangerous dog. When people get hurt by these booby traps or vicious dogs, the people who set the traps usually go to jail. The people walking on their lawn in many cases are kids who knew they weren't supposed to be there, but were ignoring the warnings and breaking the rules (and possibly the law), but the law as well as basic principles of justice, recognize that such infractions do not deserve maiming or death as punishment, and certainly not handed out arbitrarily by a vengeful property owner rather than a neutral authority.

      Cleaning alcohol is exactly that, for cleaning not drinking. It says so right on the bottle. Have you really thought through what would happen if modern cleaning alcohol was not denatured, and the price left unchanged? I'm not sure that you have.

      Alcohol is used for a lot more things than just cleaning. As for what would happen if modern cleaning alcohol were not denatured and the price were unchanged... I suppose more people would drink it... and the people who drink it already wouldn't get so sick and die as much? If you're positing that people would get drunk vastly more, I don't see how. Most people who want to get drunk seem to find a way to get drunk. As it stands, if you walk into any liquor store, there's a staggering array of products available and many of them are significantly more expensive than the absolute cheapest high-alcohol content liquor you can find, but they seem to sell anyway. I think most people who want vodka are still going to buy vodka in a fancy bottle even if the vodka in the plastic bottle labelled "rubbing alcohol" in the pharmacy section at wal~mart is cheaper. In the big picture, it seems that it would simply reduce cases of poisoning and reduce tax revenues slightly from people who, for the most part, are desperately poor anyway.

    26. Re:Reminds me of prohibition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cleaning alcohol is exactly that, for cleaning not drinking.

      Ethanol is for drinking, not cleaning. Idiots who use perfectly good ethanol for cleaning deserve to die, not the other way around.

      See what I did there?

  5. Kinda unrelated by bwall · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I saw this article after I made this little infographic this morning and it made me laugh a bit. http://imgur.com/Vg5MT

  6. Re:Folks, this is an important announcement. by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

    After taking the prescribed pills, notonly have the nefarious Italian disinformation transmissions stopped coming from my espresso maker and shampoo bottles, but I also have become importent, which has sadly caused mearly half ofmy girlfriends, wives and mistresses to desert me. Good riddance,they were probably secret Italina agents anyway who left when they could no longer program my toaster-oven to hypnotically deceive me. Better fewer but better, I say.

    "mearly half ofmy girlfriends, wives and mistresses"? Yeah, Silvio, I know you got tossed out of office; is that why you're so angry at Italy?

  7. They don't need them by Viol8 · · Score: 5, Funny

    The pocket money they get from mummy and daddy doesn't make it worth while.

    1. Re:They don't need them by noh8rz2 · · Score: 1

      nice. best comment of the day imho.

    2. Re:They don't need them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous are undeads?

    3. Re:They don't need them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod down, 24 living in my OWN house with full time job. Judging by your UID your just a sad old man

      nawww...but still a butthurt script-kiddie.

  8. Its lambing season by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    Time for the sheep to be sheared....

    1. Re:Its lambing season by citizenr · · Score: 1

      Time for the sheep to be sheared....

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hngIzzQ0XZc

      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  9. So let me see if I understand this: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We are supposed to feel bad for these guys that were attempting to engage in premeditated malicious behavior, and in doing so they ended up getting robbed by someone else that took advantage of their stupidity?

    It sounds like your basic con: Person #1 offers something Person #2 wants at a great deal. Person #2 is really greedy, and tries to trick Person #1 into a deal where Person #1 is at a disadvantage. Person #1 agrees to this as Person #1 was never at a disadvantage and Person #2 would have lost regardless of how the deal went down, whether under the original terms, or the new terms that Person #1 manipulated Person #2 into creating.

    Although sometimes the original terms of the deal are extremely beneficial to Person #2 and they only become detrimental when Person #2 decides to change the terms.

    1. Re:So let me see if I understand this: by Tommy+Bologna · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, you're supposed to sit back, condescend, and radiate a false sense of superiority. You're right on track. Keep it up.

  10. FBI? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The summary and TFA seem to hint that this is an FBI sting, but the details don't seem to support that.

    Maybe more will come out about it later.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:FBI? by Spykk · · Score: 1

      It sounds like plausible deniability to me. "I didn't DDOS that bank, it must have been that crazy Zeus trojan I got somehow!"

  11. Symantec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Correct me if I am wrong.

    First, Anonymous hacked Symantec and revealed the source code for PCAnywhere. Symantec asked all users stop using PCAnywhere, because it contains backdoor (or "just" a hole? don't care).

    But nearly at the same Symantec tried to hack Anonymous.

    Something is wrong with that SOPA-loving company.

  12. DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously, the only purpose of a DDoS is to prevent somebody from being able to speak. I'm a huge advocate of freedom of speech, I love it when everybody is able to say whatever they want to say, and that includes people I don't like. I hate the MPAA/RIAA as much as anybody, but I want them to be able to say what they say. Websites are a form of speech, regardless of whether their purpose is to sell goods or to issue propaganda.

    When you shut down those websites (like anonymous tried to do with the vatican) you are no better than the mafia; just trying to shut somebody up for the sole purpose that you don't like them. To these people, freedom of speech is good but only when they agree with the person who is speaking. That is just fucked up and goes against everything our democracy stands for; so I say fuck anonymous. If they want to spread the truth about the bad things that an organization does (like they did with scientology,) that is perfectly acceptable, but shutting them up is not.

    To me this is poetic justice. No, I don't like to see people getting their identity stolen, but participating in inhibiting somebody else's ability to speak is just bad form, and I hope they get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    --
    Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    1. Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Picket Brick'N'Mortar store or DDOS OnlineStore.com... what speech is being halted? Either can still speak out (Press releases, backup location/sites, etc). The price is business lost, customers frustrated that shop elsewhere, bad press, etc

      You CAN stifle speech via DDOS, but to say it's the ONLY reason for doing it? that's a bit short sighted to say the least. Ignoring the forest for the tree you've focused on.

    2. Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A DoS rarely suppresses speech. It usually draws attention to points of view given by both the DoS-er and the DoS-ee. The mainstream news reports covering DoS don't commonly ignore one side of the argument. Besides, anyone who gets DoS-ed can just get another website for $20/month a spout more nonsense. Your post sounds nice, but I think you miss the point.

    3. Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit by nstlgc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only purpose of a DDoS is to prevent somebody from being able to speak? Seriously? As far as I can tell they serve mostly a symbolic meaning. DDoS'ing visa.com will not silence Visa. DDoS'ing the site of Interpol will do nothing that hinders the working of Interpol in any way. Or do you actually believe that shutting down the Vatican website will mute the Vatican? No, I didn't think so either. But it makes for a great strawman argument, doesn't it?

      Of course, DDoS *could* be used to silence someone who's only way of speaking out is through a narrow band on the Internet. And it probably is, too. But not in these cases.

      --
      I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
    4. Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit by xyzzyman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you picket Walmart, you aren't physically stopping others from shopping there as they normally would. If you DDOS Walmart.com, you are stopping people from shopping there.

    5. Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      If that isn't the purpose, then what is the purpose? You just don't like them and you want them gone? You just don't want them to be able to do business? Just because you don't want them to exist, means they don't have the right to?

      How is any of this in the spirit of democracy and freedom of expression?

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    6. Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So these people install dubious software that steals their bank account details in order to DDoS websites they disagree with, for the symbolism. What a herd of idiots.

    7. Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 2

      The price is business lost, customers frustrated that shop elsewhere, bad press, etc

      So in other words, it is up to you to tell their customers where they are and are not allowed to shop? If not by kicking their customers out of their store, then by forcing them out of business simply because you disagree with them? That sounds a bit arrogant, and is certainly not in the spirit of freedom.

      When godaddy supported SOPA, they didn't deserve to be DDoS'ed (and as far as I am aware, they weren't) however their customers are free to do business with somebody else. That is democracy; forcing them out of business is not.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    8. Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      I always thought the purpose of a DDoS was to make them stop and scratch.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    9. Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit by travbrad · · Score: 1

      I think it's pretty ridiculous to think DDoSing RIAA/MPAA is going to do anything anyway. Does anyone actually visit those sites?

    10. Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with you. Anonymous is a censorship movement, free-speech means allowing people you disagree with to speak.

      It's also worth noting that Anonymous once vowed to destroy Facebook for privacy violations, yet Anonymous routinely leaks data private data of innocent people.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    11. Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      Besides, anyone who gets DoS-ed can just get another website for $20/month a spout more nonsense. Your post sounds nice, but I think you miss the point.

      Oh so if we disagree with you you'll be happy to pay $20?
      I think you're sprouting nonsense, please PayPal me $20 to Dan@danscomp.net

      Thank You,

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    12. Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I would have thought DDoSing the mail server would cause more operational problems for most organisations. Although looking up a simple MX record is probably beyond the technical ability of your average anon.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    13. Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that isn't the purpose, then what is the purpose? You just don't like them and you want them gone? You just don't want them to be able to do business? Just because you don't want them to exist, means they don't have the right to?

      To make a statement that you are being watched by sufficient numbers of people to inconvenience you.

      How is any of this in the spirit of democracy

      Vote: Everyone who doesn't like X, raise your hand. Motion passed, sanctions are now in force.

      and freedom of expression

      You live in a bizzaro world where people can talk without arguing with other people who have opposite ideas. Reality doesn't work in your sunshine and rainbows "if everybody just spoke (to an empty room) without argument or enforcement then the world would be a better place" way. I take it you hate physical protesters as well? After all, the annoying people with signs are preventing you from getting in to your bank or political rally or whatever so are evil, huh?

      Anonymous is a hybrid of a protest (interfering with normal operations to deliver their message) and a riot (economic harm, destruction of property); personally, I'm glad DDoS and a bit of hacking is the worst they get. God forbid they go outside and start firebombing these places like old fashioned rioters.

    14. Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Of course, DDoS *could* be used to silence someone who's only way of speaking out is through a narrow band on the Internet. And it probably is, too. But not in these cases.

      So it's OK to shut down somebody's website if they can open up another one? This is terrible reasoning.

    15. Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you picket Walmart, you aren't physically stopping others from shopping there as they normally would. If you DDOS Walmart.com, you are stopping people from shopping there.

      Bad analogy. A DDOS is not like a (modern) picket line. A DDOS is like a sit-in where people chain themselves to the front doors, fill up the lobby in a flash-mob, etc. It's not lawful protest, it's civil disobedience.

    16. Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      Isn't a DDos also a form of speech? It might just be screaming nonsense at someone, making it impossible for anyone to hear what that person is saying, but it's still speech.

  13. HOW? by Iceykitsune · · Score: 2, Informative

    And this, people, is why you should only download software from the devs website.

    --
    GENERATION 24: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
  14. It simply shows... by wbr1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That Anonymous does not have any moral ground to stand on. Sure they may fight the man, but they'll have no compunction about robbing you blind either. That's not Robin Hood its street punk gangsta with a computer.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:It simply shows... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How exactly does this show 'Anonymous' has no moral high ground to stand on? There is no they. It isn't a group with a specific set of ideas or 'morals'. There is no leader. Participants come and go as they please and even contradict each other. Some may participate in attacks against the government while others participate in attacks in favour of the government. Some may reject attacks alltogether.

    2. Re:It simply shows... by MindPrison · · Score: 2

      There's a difference between Hackers and Crackers...

      In Anonymous there's probably 4-5 hackers, and 20+ crackers, 1000+ script kiddies + 10.000 fanboys.

      --
      What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    3. Re:It simply shows... by sociocapitalist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If I understood TFA correctly, the trojan was not distributed by Anonymous but by others who basically hijacked the distro, redirecting the wannabee DDOSers to another executable which contained the trojan.

      --
      blindly antisocialist = antisocial
    4. Re:It simply shows... by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      That Anonymous does not have any moral ground to stand on.

      They have no moral high ground? Sounds like an opinion.

      In any case, considering their past actions, what makes this case special? If they have no moral high ground now, shouldn't someone have realized in the past that they didn't have it then? I think they should've realized such a thing sooner.

  15. Re:Folks, this is an important announcement. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's just upset for being persecuted for sleeping with minors. Damn Italians and their standards of moral decency.

  16. It's Okay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stealing personal information was for the lulz

  17. lmao. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure there were people trusting enough to download an unknown "hack-in-the-box" kit. The same low hanging fruit that get swept up for DDOS'ing paypal without a proxy. Not many, but the internet is a big place, and a sucker's born every minute.
    OFC, hopefully their Anon computer and their banking computer aren't the same machines to begin with.

  18. I'd agree with you but I'm afraid. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd agree with you but I'm afraid that Anonymous may take my website down an cause me some grief - somewhere about a dozen places below not being able to find a matching sock.

  19. And you get what you deserve. by sirwired · · Score: 1, Informative

    I have about as much sympathy for the people victimized by this scheme as I do for people that sign up for 419 scams where the come-on letter is clearly asking the recipient to engage in money laundering, theft, and blatant violations of tax and banking laws.

    If you install malicious software on your computer on purpose, I have ZERO sympathy for you when it turns out the software includes you in the list of victims.

  20. This really sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Disinformation to frighten off the mindless hordes who support Anon.

  21. Anonymous...4...5..guys at best.. by MindPrison · · Score: 1

    I think Anonymous basically are 4 - 5 really skilled people that really knows what they're doing, the rest is just a bunch of posers and script-kiddies that does whatever Anonymous want them to do - in fact, the worst posers probably does exactly what anonymous doesn't want them to do as well, since there are no real connection between them, no real mail, no real addresses - just random causes that some follow or not.

    If there's an outrage in the world, it's very easy to make a distorted video, put on a guy fawkes mask, and post it on youtube via a tor connection. Any idiot can do that.

    And of course there are crackers with malicious intent, they're pretty much like any other criminals, just using computer knowledge (borrowed from real hackers) to steal and destroy for purposes only known to them.

    That's it - really...

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
    1. Re:Anonymous...4...5..guys at best.. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      When I look about the hacks that happened so far, I can't really agree with this. I'm not going to say that they are not skilled, but what happened so far was more a matter of rather simple, standard injection attacks, similar to the attempts I find thousands a day in our IDS/IPS logs. Attacks that would have been found in a standard security audit, I might add.

      In a nutshell, what Anonymous hacked so far were companies whose disregard for security borders on stupidity. And I say stupidity because I don't know exactly what the legal requirements concerning security are in various countries and hence do not want to accuse any companies that spend a million times more money on their legal department than their IT department of criminal negligence.

      So it's quite possible that they have a few or many good ITsecs in their ranks. But so far there has been little that I'd call impressive.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  22. Breaking News: people fall for the same tricks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like this hasn't been going on in malware since forever?

    Breaking News: your co-worker's have been tricked into installing malware by opening malicious emails!

    Hell 4chan used to warn you not to open links, people that do to download executable have to be the idiot cancer they spend half their time complaining about there. Pretty sure they'd get no sympathy on /b/ either.

    1. Re:Breaking News: people fall for the same tricks! by kyrio · · Score: 1

      No, 4chan's message warned about JavaScript Spam: http://www.lurkmore.com/wiki/JavaScript - there has never, to my knowledge, been a warning about general files, because those files don't attack 4chan and so they don't care.

    2. Re:Breaking News: people fall for the same tricks! by guitardood · · Score: 1

      No, 4chan's message warned about JavaScript Spam: http://www.lurkmore.com/wiki/JavaScript - there has never, to my knowledge, been a warning about general files, because those files don't attack 4chan and so they don't care.

      So it must be the truth, cause you never heard. Wait..........what's that on your shirt..............uh sir your retard is showing.

      --
      -- L8R, guitardood
  23. Nelson Muntz Alert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HA-Ha!

  24. I would log in to post this, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am anonymous. I would log in to post this, but now I'm afraid Zeus will get my slashdot password.

  25. To quote Qui-Gon Jinn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There's always a bigger fish."

  26. Not really new by Milharis · · Score: 1

    I was having a look at one annonymous IRC channel more than a month ago, and I saw a few guys asking for a link to the "LOIC without the trojan".
    I assume this is the same one they are talking about in this article; so this not relly new.

  27. Irony.... by guitardood · · Score: 1

    I find it quite ironic that Symantec, a company whose "antivirus" utilities allow the most virii into machines (both O/S and the antivirus software itself) and exhibits the most virus-like behavior when you try and remove it, is publishing the report.

    I've had quite a few associates with virii over the last 12 months and each and every one of them had either Symantec Internet Security, McAfee or MS Security that were supposedly defending their systems. Every case of infection required a complete O/S reinstall to recover from the damage with the only exception of one client who opted to buy new machines.

    FYI, there is a site called virscan.org where you could upload an infected/suspect file and they will run it through a host of antivirus software and provide results of each one. Each of the aforementioned products has been very poor on most of these, especially the EXE's masquerading as PDF's coming in via email.

    I really don't have a horse in the race, but based on results from virscan.org, ESET NOD32 is the best recommendation as of late as it recognized all the samples I could throw at it. A real solution would be for MS to "sandbox" installed software to at least protect the O/S from infection, compatibility be damned, but I'm sure that won't happen.

    As for the Anonymous angle, anything I would say has been said.

    --
    -- L8R, guitardood
    1. Re:Irony.... by kyrio · · Score: 1

      I don't see how the inability to program a properly functioning piece of software has anything to do with the ability to write an article about how downloading software from random links will get you infected.

    2. Re:Irony.... by guitardood · · Score: 1

      The OP said the report was from Symantec, I found it humorous and opined. Don't like it, don't read it.

      --
      -- L8R, guitardood
    3. Re:Irony.... by kyrio · · Score: 1

      No, it has nothing to do with that. You're trying to say that Symantec is unable to write a report about some event or fact because their software sucks at catching a virus.

    4. Re:Irony.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No vendor is 100% effective. Your preachy attitude isn't a very good AV system either.

      Oh and pro tip from someone in the AV industry: no one in the industry or on the blackhat end uses the word "virii".

      NOD32, what a joke.

    5. Re:Irony.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was the last time you read any papers on the subject? Everyone from SANS to researchers writing papers uses "virii", although personally I find other terms to more adequately describe the concepts involved, but none the less it is used. Also, I know for a fact that ESET NOD32 is deployed in multiple digital forensics labs around the world, multi-billion dollar defence companies and financial institutions.

    6. Re:Irony.... by guitardood · · Score: 1

      While rain on your wedding may be unfortunate......it is not ironic :)

      . Irony, sarcasm, satire indicate mockery of something or someone. The essential feature of irony is the indirect presentation of a contradiction between an action or expression and the context in which it occurs. - dictionary.reference.com

      Actually I was trying to use subtle humor (perhaps a little too subtle as it may be) to insinuate that, IMHO, Symantec knows nothing about virii and has no business writing an authoritative report about the subject, when their AV software does not perform it's ONLY function; detect and prevent the V from infecting the O/S or at the very least it's own code. Especially when the V is months old and has been on most other AV's detection list for months as well. For one of these V's, they have published removal instructions yet their AV software did not detect or prevent infection which is the whole reason we have allowed them to use our CPU cycles & RAM. It would be like Tom (Tom&Jerry) writing an authoritative report on how to build a better mouse trap or the Gorton Fisherman publishing a report about brain surgery, again IMHO.

      But rather than just slam Symantec, I tried to offer a nickel's worth of free advice along with my dissension regarding Symantec's "authoritative" report.

      --
      -- L8R, guitardood
    7. Re:Irony.... by guitardood · · Score: 1

      It appears you are correct on 'virii'. According to most dictionaries it is a non-word and the correct term is viruses. Though it is used extensively albeit incorrectly in tons of literature and papers about viruses.

      And you are correct that no software is 100% but the difference between the top performer and bottom performer is over 40%. Suffice to say that anyone here can take whatever virus samples they may have over to virscan.org and see the black and white data for themselves as to which detects the most. I'll choose to put my trust in the one that has the most detections rather than posts the most removal instructions. As soon as that changes, I'll change just as fast. I have '0' brand loyalty when it comes to security software.

      Also bear in mind that if the top 4-5 guys from anonymous are true hackers, I would be more frightened of the custom software they wrote and attached to LOIC that none of the AV detects rather than Zeus which everyone knows about. In about 10 lines of assembly code I could wreak a vast amount of damage on your system and not one AV program will detect it. We're lucky that most of the people putting viruses out in the wild are posers and not real programmer's. That is probably why I feel the bulk of the Symantec article is FUD, especially the irrelevant tie to the megaupload raid.

      --
      -- L8R, guitardood
    8. Re:Irony.... by kyrio · · Score: 1

      Symantec's anti-virus software catches viruses just fine. Actually, if you really knew anything at all about the AV industry, you'd know that all AV catch pretty much the same percentage of virus files. Their implementation may not be very good, especially at real-time virus defense, but they have no problem writing virus definitions. The next time you decide to write about something, get some facts before you make yourself look more retarded. In order for a joke to be funny, it has to actually contain humor, by the way.

    9. Re:Irony.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are so full of retard that it is flowing out of your very being.

    10. Re:Irony.... by guitardood · · Score: 1

      Actually if you read my fucking post you'd fucking see that from testing the fucking software they do not catch the fucking same. Not to mention that you have no fucking clue who the fuck you are fucking talking to. I've been doing this for over 25 fucking years you fucking retard flame jackoff. Why don't' you go and fucking flame some fucking one else's fucking posts. you cocksmoking motherfucker. Jesus fucking christ!!!!!!!!! Is there not one fucking sane person on this fucking planet. If you new anything about the computer industry you shut your fucking pie hole and return your head to the inside of your motherfucking ass. I've been programming at the machine code level for oh probably before the best part of you dripped down your mama's ass and ended up a brown stain on the fucking mattress. If you have any fucking facts to fucking add to the post, please do so. If all you have to fucking offer are smart aleck comments and insults because your fucking head is devoid of facts from sniffing your own fucking bile from the inside out then by all means do us all a fucking favor and shut the fuck up you motherfucking retard.

      --
      -- L8R, guitardood
    11. Re:Irony.... by guitardood · · Score: 0

      FUCK YOU!!!! You fucking anonymous coward. If you have any fucking facts as I said to the fucking tard above, then by all means let's hear them. Your lack of intelligence is flowing off of your fucking fingers like the jizz on your lips. Now give the fucking keyboard back to your fucking parents and get the fuck to bed you fucking child!

      --
      -- L8R, guitardood
    12. Re:Irony.... by guitardood · · Score: 0

      Is there nobody monitoring this fucking place for some fucking signs of intelligence??? I try to open up a reasonable discussion about a fucking relevant topic related to the fucking OP and all that comes back are fucking assholes who have nothing to contribute, no facts, no reputation just insult and name calling. What a fucking joke of a forum for any kind of half way decent talking. This should be new for cock smokers rather than news for nerds. Most nerds would love to point out where I fucking screwed up and post some fucking facts rather than just offer personal fucking attacks that have no relevance what-so-ever. Jesus fucking christ!!!!!

      --
      -- L8R, guitardood
    13. Re:Irony.... by guitardood · · Score: 0

      From punch cards to fuck tards..................I've seen em all. Asshole!

      --
      -- L8R, guitardood
    14. Re:Irony.... by guitardood · · Score: 1

      And so who the mother fuck are you????

      You don't see it

      I guess that means that cause "kyrio" doesn't see it, then everybody should shut the fuck up.

      who made you the fucking king of the mother fucking hill you cocksucking son of a bitch

      --
      -- L8R, guitardood
    15. Re:Irony.... by guitardood · · Score: 1

      Lurkmore? CamTran? You website is a veritable cornucopia of helpful information. It's so high-tech, vi took almost 1 second to load your html. Maybe should have your vim.

      You truly are one retarded little troll.

      --
      -- L8R, guitardood
    16. Re:Irony.... by kyrio · · Score: 1

      I'm glad I could use facts and logic to get you so butthurt that you went and wrote mentally challenged replies to the last 20 or so posts I made.

    17. Re:Irony.... by guitardood · · Score: 1

      Your problem is that you didn't present any facts, just your sooooooo obviously uninformed opinion and then called me a retard you cock sucking mother fucking child. Preset just one fucking fact to prove your fucking point or go back and bother the people on IRC you little fucking child.

      --
      -- L8R, guitardood
    18. Re:Irony.... by guitardood · · Score: 1

      My whole fucking post was about my fucking research you fucking fucktard. I don't give a fuck what any site you have to fucking offer has to say as I've had my fill of retarded fucking view talking to your dumb ass. Retard!!!

      --
      -- L8R, guitardood
    19. Re:Irony.... by kyrio · · Score: 1

      You told me to present factual information that you should have researched before commenting. I did.

    20. Re:Irony.... by guitardood · · Score: 1

      Actually, once you called me retarded, you lost all credibility. Gripping about it now is just plain too late and you truly are an idiot.

      --
      -- L8R, guitardood
  28. Oh noes by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

    I installed a virus on my computer! I didn't realize it would do something bad!

  29. Nothing interesting here by kyrio · · Score: 1

    Spread links to "LOIC" downloads through Twitter, Facebook and random forums. Attain control of hundreds, if not thousands of computers. This is why you verify a clean source for your downloads, so you don't get infected by viruses. It's part of the Common Sense 2012 Anti-Virus Suite.

    1. Re:Nothing interesting here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anonymous is, or at least the DDoS side of it is, legions of bored teenagers who may or may not know anything about computer security downloading shady "hacking" programs from shady websites. There isn't really a "clean source", and it's just begging for this sort of thing to happen. It's hardly a new idea, "hacking tools" have always been a popular target for viruses, as the people who download them tend to be morons.

    2. Re:Nothing interesting here by kyrio · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm glad we agree.

    3. Re:Nothing interesting here by guitardood · · Score: 1

      How much is that Common Sense software, you retard?

      --
      -- L8R, guitardood
    4. Re:Nothing interesting here by guitardood · · Score: 1

      That's it everybody. Kyrio has spoken. No further posting allowed, only one retard per topic.

      --
      -- L8R, guitardood
  30. hhmm... by buddyglass · · Score: 1

    pwn3d.

  31. Did you expect *not* to find malware...? by F69631 · · Score: 1

    actually yea, i saw this video on youtube with a masked guy asking to download hoic and or loic for an attack on facebook (what they would want to achieve with that is a bit unclear ... blacking out facebook for a few hours has like zero consequence or political impact imo) sounded a bit like testosterone headbutting contest ... so i download it and scanned them both, avira gave nothing but housecall found malware in one of them ... so that's what i posted in a reply to the video ...

    i dont know who would be so smart as to just download something from anyone with a mask thats available anywhere and install it without scanning but apparently some people did ... stupid?

    It's a piece of software intended to be used for DDOSing (even if participating is voluntary)... Did you really expect it not to register as malware if it's "legit"? I fail to see the point of scanning it in the first place.

    Anyways... "Anonymous" is a banner like "Feminism". Anyone can label themselves as such if they feel like it. So different kinds of people apply the term to themselves that the term itself is essentially meaningless. Interesting thing isn't what Anon stands for but rather the fact that so many people (from gamers to script kiddies to half-competent security guys) want to be part of that social movement. Medium is the message, etc.

    1. Re:Did you expect *not* to find malware...? by RagingMaxx · · Score: 0

      Feminism is simply the pursuit of equal rights for women in all things. Everyone should be a feminist. That doesn't make it meaningless, even if individual feminists don't agree on every issue or conform to some easily grasped stereotype.

      I understand the point you were trying to make, but I don't think "feminism" was the right term for comparison.

    2. Re:Did you expect *not* to find malware...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's a piece of software intended to be used for DDOSing (even if participating is voluntary)... Did you really expect it not to register as malware if it's "legit"?

      Sure, I'd expect it might scan as malware. I'd be far more interested to see if a scan reports malware of a different sort than I expect.

      I fail to see the point of scanning it in the first place.

      You probably fail to see the point of many things. Doesn't mean there isn't a point to those things.

    3. Re:Did you expect *not* to find malware...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it is : anyone can call him/herself a feminist , and perform actions in support of feminism , regardless of what those actions would be.
      The same is true of Anonymous : anyone can be 'Anonymous' , and perform actions to support it.

      Feminism isn't meaningless, is neither is Anonymous. They are both ideas.

    4. Re:Did you expect *not* to find malware...? by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      only one of the two reported as malware and then only on one virus scanner i used actually. MAybe it's the 'cool' that attracts the masses to it. Who wouldnt want to be a Kevin Mitnick (who actually would know that name still now i wonder). I think the least it is is a great sign that not everyone is just gonna sit by and swallow everything but like i said, i dont see the point in ddos attacks unless you get to actually hit some bank laundering money for corrupt politicians, definitely dont see the point in painting photos with silly faces either, but it's a start. I'm afraid a lot of careless 'script-kiddies' will fall victim to their own pride tho, can't bake a cake without breaking the proverbial eggs i suppose

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    5. Re:Did you expect *not* to find malware...? by KingBenny · · Score: 1

      maybe any kind of great idea or theory turned into an -ism has lost its original purpose and is to most people nothing but dogma, in fact making them more or less the same as what they're fighting usually : one-sided

      --
      Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
    6. Re:Did you expect *not* to find malware...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about those feminists who want MORE rights for women in all things? Or to force other women not to voluntarily do porn, strip tease or being prostitutes? Or to enforce a new moral conservatism?

    7. Re:Did you expect *not* to find malware...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about those feminists who want ... to force other women not to voluntarily do porn, strip tease or being prostitutes?

      If that's what feminists want then I guess anti-feminists want to force women involuntarily to do porn, strip tease and be prostitutes. %|

      Seriously though, have you considered that what might be highly profitable activities for a few individual women, may have negative consequences for women as a whole? It can be highly profitable for an individual American to spy for China, but American patriots might want to force other Americans not to voluntarily sell military secrets to China.

    8. Re:Did you expect *not* to find malware...? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Who wouldnt want to be a Kevin Mitnick

      Anyone who doesn't admire criminal con men?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  32. Warning! Warning! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  33. Re:Folks, this is an important announcement. by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Tells you something about the fucked up moral standards that he's being persecuted for sleeping with minors and not his political atrocities...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  34. FUD... by billybob_jcv · · Score: 1

    ...works.

    It really does amaze me that humans ever managed to crawl out of the evolutionary cesspool. We spend far too much effort attempting to protect the stupid. We should let the universe do much more pruning of the dead wood. Here's your sign...
       

  35. The SMART Anons are the idiots. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Think about it. If you know something and are caught, then you are punnished harder by the jewdges whereas someone whom is an idiot will get to collect trash along the freeway for a month.

    Yew rike muh Gay Faux masquerade? Alone at-last, in the true Robot 9K1 of 4Chon(.net).

  36. "Really 'skilled' people? No way... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I think Anonymous basically are 4 - 5 really skilled people that really knows what they're doing" - by MindPrison (864299) on Saturday March 03, @05:06PM (#39234165)

    Thinking they're "skilled'? Man, ANYONE can be 'bogus' & destructive - it's VERY easy to do, vs. being actually creative & constructive. That is the TOUGH part, in the latter... not what Anonymous does, which IS the former.

    * Some "Food 4 Thought" that - DO think about it!

    APK

    P.S.=> The only "GOOD" thing guys like Anonymous do, and yes, alongside "hacker/cracker" & even "malware" makers? Is point out what needs "shoring up"/reinforcement... but, that's about it, imo @ least!

    ... apk

    1. Re:"Really 'skilled' people? No way... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Fake* APK post - did not mention hosts file.

    2. Re:"Really 'skilled' people? No way... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. Another hacker named Virus called Sabu a script kiddie that merely uses tools others wrote http://pastebin.com/zDTEqcfD. This is not brilliant, it is what Virus said it was - script kiddie crap. He creates nothing and is merely a malicious noob and nothing more. Sabu = "wally wannabe" that got busted like the stooge he is.

  37. fbi = anonymous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And now right or wrong people will wonder if Anonymous is just an elaborate FBI honeypot to find tech "terrorists".

  38. Love it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clearly this trojan is just the modern day equivalent of a sit-in, the makers of it should be proud and supported, not arrested. That is, if we are to play by the same rules Anon wants us to play be for everyone.

  39. Ha! Ha! by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    Once again Anonymous has proven it isn't about robbing the rich and giving to the poor. They're out to fuck anyone who will sip from their cocktail they left unattended. Those who were compromised: you deserved it, now learn from it.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  40. FBI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The story is nonsense. I disassembled the program the original programs I also scanned them on a Windows system the story is just propaganda This Internet site is not popular enough for this propaganda to take effect. This is going to happen a lot.

    Anonymous is not a single group it never has been no one group knows all the groups. The idea comes from the Second World War and the Nazis invasion of Europe. When the Nazis captured people they tortured them to find out who were running the organisation, but the person being tortured didn't know all the groups and therefore could not inform on them.

    The idea was then taken up years later by the IRA and by Al Qaeda.

    Anonymous is not a single group it is many it is an idea.

    There will be many of these type of stories they will be accused of paedophilia, child stalkers and so on. If you cannot kill an idea discredit it.

  41. I love it by msobkow · · Score: 1

    The self-proclaimed "elite hackers" don't even know enough about system security to protect THEMSELVES. I absolutely LOVE it when the arrogant get taken down a notch through their own ineptitude.

    Mind you, these are the same people that are surprised when police and three-letter agencies come a-knockin' at their doors with charges in South America and elsewhere. I find it so amusing that "security experts" don't understand how easy it is for three-letter agencies with access to ISP resources to track an attacker down.

    The only thing that protects Anonymous from massive prosecutions is their sheer numbers -- there are too many of them for them all to be prosecuted, the same as for bit-torrent downloaders. So the three-letter agencies go after the few who seem to be coordinating and coding things, rather than the thousands of "members" who turn their machines over to participate in DDOS attacks under the control of someone else.

    Nelson of "The Simpsons" said it best:

    Ha-Ha!

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  42. Much Ado About Nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting this trojan was released before the actual operation. Anonymous recently had #OpSony compromised, likely what happened here. It seems Aaron Barr and his friends have been having some fun at Anonymous' expense. It seems people are unable to grasp the fact that anyone can schedule an Anonymous attack at any time. Anyone can post of Pastebin. This could easily be the US Military training for cyberwar, could be an opposing hacker group(they exist), or it could have been anyone else on the entire planet.

  43. Couldn't you say "Anonymous got pwned"? by tensigh · · Score: 1

    This is too hilarious. Anonymous types sit on a high horse claiming to be not only elite hackers, but smarter than the rest of us. The fact that many of them fell for an FBI trojan is too funny. The group as a whole has had a 'holier than thou' attitude and they've appointed themselves as judge, jury and hacksecutioner, so I find it too funny that they got hacked. When they finally get caught and eventually arrested I'll bet they'll cry in front of a judge when they face serious criminal charges. Can't wait. Maybe someone could make a crying Guy Fawkes mask?

  44. We are by jcsalomon · · Score: 1

    “We are Onymous.

    “Oops.”

  45. Stalking ac troll douchebag post (not fake) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "*Fake* APK post - did not mention hosts file." - by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05, @09:13AM (#39247051)

    Don't you have productive things to do instead of "stalking" my posts and having "such courage" on your part (not, lol) of replying to my post "anonymously"?

    APK

    P.S.=> Go away, worm... apk

  46. so you would have me believe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that a law enforcement agency had the smarts to do this?