Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous Defaces Panda Security Site

Posted by Unknown on from the it's-anonymous-cowards-all-the-way-down dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Surviving members of anonymous and/or lulzsec have hacked Panda Security's systems and defaced their site. Looks like revenge is coming back." El Reg has screenshots of the defacement. Panda Security says the intruders only managed to exploit the web server and did not compromise their internal networks.

14 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. Remove one head..... by Moheeheeko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ....two more shall take its place.

    1. Re:Remove one head..... by bigpaperbag · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And those two shall continue in pointless vandalism that no one beyond their twitter followers and the people cleaning up after them care about.

    2. Re:Remove one head..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Quite relevant.

    3. Re:Remove one head..... by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      ....two more shall take its place.

      Eventually intelligent people realize there's something better to do than watch your leet skillz atrophy in prison and find something more constructive to do.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    4. Re:Remove one head..... by Khyber · · Score: 2, Informative

      ""Irony" is defined as "poignantly contrary to expectation""

      A security company lacks security to secure their own shit.

      That is the VERY definition of irony, you ill-educated nitwit. Go back to school.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  2. Oblig by g0bshiTe · · Score: 2

    Don't be a sad Panda!

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  3. umm why? by G00F · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So why hack panda?

    If it really was anonymous, who's a loose group of hackers trying to change/make things better, what was their goal?

    --
    The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    1. Re:umm why? by Kenja · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because they could and no one had paid attention to them (Anonymous) in a while.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    2. Re:umm why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well... according to the SECOND PARAGRAPH of the article (which you can get to if you click the hyperlink cleverly disguised as a hyperlink) Panda Security helped the FBI infiltrate chatrooms and messageboards.

  4. You ignore the threat of impunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    What's done is not important. That it's done with impunity is.

    One day someone will decide to kill someone "for the lulz",

    and it will be hilarious.

  5. "Surviving"? by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What, were they hit by a tornado? The FBI, got warrants on 5 people--one of whom was a traitor, and several others in countries where they haven't even been arrested yet. I'm pretty sure Anon is big enough to not be devastated by the loss of one Benedict Arnold and four foot soldiers.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  6. Re:Script kiddies revenge by afabbro · · Score: 2

    Defacing for defacing sake is childish.

    Defacing for defacing sake is the Anonymous motto.

    --
    Advice: on VPS providers
  7. Owch by Crasoose · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I would hate to be a member of a company who is supposed to focused on security and got hacked by script kiddies. I would say it isn't good for business but the majority of their customers wouldn't know or care.

  8. Re:Panda Security... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

    You've been down-modded, but I believe you are to some degree correct... the last I heard, the Church of Scientology owned a major stake in the company. The company is, however, a legit security company, and has employees/investors who do not belong to the CoS. So the observation is likely not all that pertinent to the discussion.

    Considering the historical Anonymous attacks on CoS though, there could be some sort of a tie-in.