Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous Supporters Tricked Into Installing Trojan

Posted by Soulskill on from the if-you-can't-beat-'em-subsume-'em dept.

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."

7 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. 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: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
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.