Slashdot Mirror


Iran Blamed For Major Cyberattack On BBC

Qedward writes "Iran is privately being blamed for a major cyberattack on the BBC that blocked access to its popular Persian TV service and disrupted the Corporation's IT using a denial-of-service attack. The multi-pronged March 2 attack took down much of the BBC's email, overloaded its telephone switchboard with automatic phone calls, and blocked a satellite feed for the BBC Persian station. BBC servers were also on the receiving end of a DDoS. In an unprecedented tactic, the BBC has trailed a speech to be given this week to the Royal Television Society in which Director General Mark Thompson will mention the attacks in some detail while stopping short of formally naming Iran as the perpetrator."

21 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. Beats real war any day by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd rather have countries launching lame DDoS's than launching missiles.

    And I wouldn't mind living in a world where everyone put down their guns and just started being dicks to each other on the internet instead. Besides, in that world, all us losers on /. could finally be the badass war heroes who women want to sleep with.

    Of course, most will probably just use both the internet AND their guns/missiles.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Beats real war any day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      The use of the word 'overt' is very important here. Iran trained Iraqi insurgents. Iran funds Hezbollah and Hamas, who have both fired rockets on Israeli civilians. Hamas has done so as recently as this weekend.

    2. Re:Beats real war any day by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Informative

      The U.S. during the Cold War overthrew more countries than I can keep track of (or propped-up tyrants like Saddam Hussein).

      But since this topic is about Iran..... we overthrew their democratically-elected government in the 1950s and replaced it with a dictator (or king but that's the same difference). Why? We wanted their oil and a puppet to ensure we'd have it. Those old enough to remember the hell of living under that dictator have hated us ever since. And I don't blame them one bit.

      Oh and yes we started Desert Storm. We encouraged our long-time friend Saddam to invade Kuwait (document revealed by wikileaks & read on the floor by Congressman Paul). And then we acted surprised and attacked Saddam. We set it up. We executed it.

      Same way we set-up Libya.
      And Syria (we have troops there now).
      Time to wake up.
      Do some research on Senator McCain and his pals.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    3. Re:Beats real war any day by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Informative

      >>>Fixing banks with less regulation is like fixing Lindsay Lohan with more cocaine.

      I agree. But the truth is the number of regulations during the Bush era increased from 110,000 to 150,000 pages. To say he "deregulated", or that it caused the housing bubble, is so far from the truth it's ridiculous.

      BTW most of those regulations are god-awful stupid, like saying a banana must have at least 15 degrees of curvature or else it must be destroyed. And labeling water bottles with, "Drinking water does not cure dehydration."

      I'm not against regulations (especially the top regulations like the Constittuion and Bill of rights which block the government from harming us). I'm against stupid regulations that drive small business owners into bankruptcy and favor the consolidation of megacorp' power. That's what Congress has been busy passing these last several years.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    4. Re:Beats real war any day by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 4, Informative

      The US backed the 'Northern Alliance' and other Mujahideen to fight the Soviets (just as the Soviets backed the North Vietnamese and North Koreans in those conflicts - even going so far as for Soviet crews to fly and man missile batteries against US forces). The US did not create the Taliban, the Pakistani ISI did (and the Taliban are still supported by the ISI - which pisses the US off no end considering the degree of financial support given by the US to Pakistan).

    5. Re:Beats real war any day by SplashMyBandit · · Score: 4, Informative

      So the US overthrew the democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddeq. Big deal. Who they were really trying to stop is the Tudeh (the communist party of Iran) - who had a growing influense over Mosaddeq. At the height of the Cold War this made sense at the time. Yes, it would be lovely for the US to stick to its stated principles about democracy, but if the Tudeh got in power (backed by the Soviets) then the resulting 'democracy' would be meaningless. Just as the democracy is essentially meaningless under the ayatollahs. This was 'realpolitk' at its ugliest - sh!t like this was done so the West could win against the Soviet empire. If you know anything about the historical reality of the Soviet empire you'll also understand its a damn sight better that the West won (despite its own flaws) than the Soviets did. So, stop living in the utopian dream and come to the real world, you'll get a good perspective on why things were done. The US is bad (and getting worse), but they pale compared to the Soviets or the ayatollahs on the badness scale.

    6. Re:Beats real war any day by Sir_Sri · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unlikely. The British empire combined with the SU would have defeated Germany and Italy. The issue is more the state of europe at the end of it all. One can reasonably presume the soviets would have been farther west and the british not as far east proportionately. But without the US the war might have taken a very different flavour, the british forming the southern or northern flanks of a combined operation, that sort of thing. Africa would have probably ended up basically the same, given that the British controlled the med and the surface of the atlantic by the time the US entered the war. Asia is a different mess, because the US and britain entered the war at the same time. I'm not sure the Japanese could have gone after the allies minus the US in quite so grandiose a way.

      From the moment the germans failed to force the soviets to capitulate in barbarossa they were doomed (and that was about 3 weeks after the US entered the war, so not much the US did). How europe would have been carved up between the british and soviets would have been very different without the americans on the british side to be sure.

      Besides that, it's sort of a nonsense statement. A lot has happened since 1945. 70 years before WW2 the world looked at germany as a beacon of political progress. Just because the US picked the right war 70 years ago doesn't mean it was right or wrong about anything in particular that has happened since. If you really want to air 70 year old dirty laundry why did the US do bugger all when their oldest friend was being marched over by the Nazi's? Right. Being right once doesn't make you always right.

      Britain and france were on the right side of WW2 also, and what did that get them. Suez, Algeria, Vietnam etc. etc. aren't exactly beacons of justice, and the US has just as much dirty laundry post ww2 as they do.

    7. Re:Beats real war any day by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>>who had a growing influense over Mosaddeq.

      False.

      Saying Mosaddeq was communist is like the idiots who claim Obama is communist. There's no truth to it. (And even if either of those 2 things were true, that's what elections are for: So the people can remove the president. No need for outside military interference.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    8. Re:Beats real war any day by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They didn't create the Taliban, but they supported the same exact people who turned into the Taliban or warlords of varying degrees of acceptability.

      It's completely disingenuous to argue that because the Taliban didn't formally exist until the withdrawal of the Soviet Union, the US couldn't have had a hand in creating them. The only reason we don't like the Taliban right now is because they're fighting us instead of someone we don't like. That's it. If the Taliban would be fighting Al Qaeda, we wouldn't care how many girls they keep out of schools, or how many people they execute for blasphemy. But since they don't, we pretend we do.

      So don't even try the argument that the US somehow didn't support the same people we're trying to kill now. The only thing that has changed is who the Taliban are against. And it just so happens to be us.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    9. Re:Beats real war any day by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You missed the point. It is hypocritical of you if the only time you dislike rapists is when they rape you, but you are fine if they are raping someone else.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    10. Re:Beats real war any day by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      US funded them through Pakistan. Where the hell do you think the money went? To bin Laden. To all the "foreign fighters" that were streaming to Afghanistan. You know, the "free world fighting the evil commies" mantra, or payback for Vietnam, or however the heck you want to phrase it.

      Stating that US did not fund Taliban (later split off Al Quida) is like stating that CIA never were involved in drug trafficking. I guess you can never link them directly as gov't policy, but there is no question where the money was going.

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

  2. What evidence is there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Too easy to blame some country or entity for attacks these days. What proof do they have that it was Iran? It might have been someone else in the Arab region who wants to see Iran and Israel go at it because they benefit from higher oil prices due to a regional conflict, or that someone else is doing the dirty work for them.

    1. Re:What evidence is there? by netwarerip · · Score: 5, Funny

      Too easy to blame some country or entity for attacks these days. What proof do they have that it was Iran?

      I think they analyzed the packets from the DDoS and each header said either "SILENCE!" or "I KEEEL YOU!"

  3. Pure propaganda. by Beelzebud · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anyone else sick of these re-runs? For the past month the anti-Iranian propaganda has really ratcheted up. We're seeing the same tactics they used to scare the public in to supporting an invasion of Iraq.

    1. Re:Pure propaganda. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      And it's not like we are doing far worse - assassinations and overt spying with drones, plus at least two targeted computer viruses.

      This could just be the Iranian equivalent of Anonymous, just because the attacks appear to come from Iran doesn't mean "Iran" did it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Pure propaganda. by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Therefore we should cut-off food and starve 1 million Iranians just like we starved 1 million Iraqis during the 1990s embargo. And when that doesn't work (because it won't), we should bomb the hell out of them and kill (or maim) another 1 million innocent men, women, and children like we did in Iraq in 2002 to 2011.

      Why don't we listen to the head of Israel's Mossad who said, "Iran is not an existential threat to us." Therefore there's no need for us to go over there and start starving or outright killing people. I don't understand this desire of the U.S. or its people to hold the record for the most corpses created during the last three decades. It reminds me of how another nation circa 1931 to 39. (No not Germany..... Japan in China, Taiwan, and Vietnam because they needed oil and natural resources.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
  4. Re:Iran itself? by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Funny

    I hate the way the USA posts Goat.cx links to Slashdot all the time.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  5. OH NOES! IRAN THREATENS US AND UK!!!! by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Interesting
    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  6. FOR AMERICA WAR IS PEACE MORE THAN ANY OTHER VALUE by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Informative

    The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:
    * making the world safe for American corporations;
    * enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;
    * preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;
    * extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."
    This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.

    The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period.

    China, 1945-49:
    Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the Communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The Communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.

    Italy, 1947-48:
    Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.

    Greece, 1947-49:
    Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.

    Philippines, 1945-53:
    U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U. S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.

    South Korea, 1945-53:
    After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.

    Albania, 1949-53:
    The U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.

    Germany, 1950s:
    The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.

    Iran, 1953:
    Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S./British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.

    Guatemala, 1953-1990s:
    A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -indis

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  7. Re:FOR AMERICA WAR IS PEACE MORE THAN ANY OTHER VA by Rakishi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.

    If you think the Soviet Union wasn't using every dirty trick they knew to get pro-communists in power in those same countries you listed then you're delusional. Also, if you don't think they have done every legal and illegal thing they could have to maintain their hold over those "democratic" communist parties you're even more delusional. Of course, the Soviets had no legal mandate to ever release their records of such things.

    So yes there was a conspiracy in the same way as there was a giant pro-US conspiracy, a giant game of chess played across the globe at hideous cost.

  8. Re:FOR AMERICA WAR IS PEACE MORE THAN ANY OTHER VA by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

    El Salvador:...A handful of the wealthy still own the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to fear right-wing death squads.

    This is basically wrong. I've lived in El Salvador. The country is richer now than before the war (although some say the land re-distribution was a bad thing), no one is afraid to vote for the 'wrong' party. I attended rallies favoring the 'wrong' party. The FMLN was fully integrated into the government, and has even won elections. Hope you had a better source of information for the rest of your stuff there, because someone is misleading you. I'll bet your source of information had an agenda.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."