Wikileaks DDoSed Again

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by Unknown on Wednesday August 8, 2012 @02:50AM from the can't-catch-a-break dept.

twoheadedboy writes "After being hit by a '72-hour' DDoS in May, WikiLeaks is claiming to be under attack yet again. All its sites appear to be down and fingers have already been pointed at government entities. WikiLeaks, posting on Twitter, said it had its suspicions of why it was being targeted. It was either because of its ongoing releases related to Stratfor and Syria, or because of an upcoming release, Julian Assange's organization speculated. The fact that everyone is currently engrossed in the Olympics may have given attackers good reason to target the websites right now, WikiLeaks said."

82 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

ur mum by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 02:54 · Score: 0, Troll

her bum
1. Re:ur mum by Mister+Transistor · 2012-08-08 03:50 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe this is a takedown precursor DDOS like what happened to Demonoid? Gov't entities (or "white hats" working for them or the MAFIAA's) DDOS the site while preparing for a takedown so that the owners/users can't log in and change anything or delete any records?
  
  --
  -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
2. Re:ur mum by farrellj · 2012-08-08 07:53 · Score: 1
  
  It does sort of hit the "paranoia" button...first the "convenien" DDOS of Demonoid, now Wikileaks....if it *is* taken down, after the DDOS, it will definitely make people wonder who has hired some group to do the dirty work that the IP Industrial Complex would like done....
  
  --
  CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
engrossed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 02:59 · Score: 0

with the Olympics? Didn't those end already?
whats ..olym pics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 03:03 · Score: 0

OHHHHH you mean the corporate games, That place where rich people go and watch lil kids jump around and do stuff for money and advertising rites....
nope and wikileaks recently got ability to get funds form credit cards go donate and get them a array of gigabit servers....then we'll see how easy it is for this bone head to ddos them
1. Re:whats ..olym pics by TheGratefulNet · 2012-08-08 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  I refuse to even care about the money-grab (I mean olympics).
  it stopped being a pure form at least 50 years ago. and has only gotton more commercial every iteration.
  why do people support this? well, it must be that the corporatism of the world is getting more and more complete and we see 'nothing wrong' with how the whole event is funded and justified.
  I see nothing BUT wrong with it. so I boycott it. I could actually care less if it never happened again.
  competition will always go on and sports will always go on. but this isn't what it was supposed to be and its just an advertising frenzy, along with the latest chance for scandals.
  fuck it. zero interest here.
  
  --
  
  --
  "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
2. Re:whats ..olym pics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 03:13 · Score: 0
  
  why do people support this?
  They like to see people do meaningless things, of course. It would be like millions of people suddenly visiting Slashdot just to read this comment I'm making, and then treating it as if it's a big deal.
3. Re:whats ..olym pics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 04:26 · Score: -1
  
  I guess you don't know anyone who is or has spent years of their life training and working their arse off to get to the pinnacle of their sport with the main intention of being able to represent their country at the Olympic games. Tell them that it's all about the money, or there is "nothing but wrong with it". I know a number of teenagers who are currently serious contenders to represent us in 8 years time. They don't get paid to do this, quite the reverse, it costs their parents a small fortune. It takes up 20+ hours a week of their time, on top of school and homework. All for you to dismiss it. Maybe you got beat up a lot by the jocks and school. Maybe they were right.
4. Re:whats ..olym pics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 04:44 · Score: -1
  
  Seriously, do you honestly think that the average slashtard understands or cares about making any kind of sacrifice or putting forth serious effort at physical self-improvement? You might as well believe that the average Taliban member (Talibaner? Talibanista?) would take intellectual development seriously.
5. Re:whats ..olym pics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 04:48 · Score: 1
  
  Who cares (other than the participant of course) how much time they spend? The only advantage this provides society is perhaps better performance enhancing drugs and dietary programs.
  Otherwise, what benefit is there to being able to do the pole jump a few feet higher than someone else? None. These sports don't translate into real-world usefulness. If I wanted to lift 300kg, I'd use a machine, not risk blowing out my rectum trying to lift it by hand.
  At least someone who devotes their life to programming, construction, architecture, or engineering tends to produce something for society out of that time invested.
  Professional sports as it is today is a gross misallocation of time and money.
6. Re:whats ..olym pics by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 06:18 · Score: -1
  
  "Professional sports as it is today is a gross misallocation of time and money."
  However, Slashdot is worthwhile?
  How about your hobbies and free time? Is that a "gross misallocation of time and money".
  "The only advantage this provides society is perhaps better performance enhancing drugs"
  You are an idiot, an insulting one, but completely ill educated in the real world. For your information, the vast majority of athletes do not use "performance enhancing drugs". They train hard. Not that you'd know anything about working hard for anything I would guess.
  Your entire attitude reeks of a molly-coddled, spoon-fed world where you care not for anything outside your immediate needs.
7. Re:whats ..olym pics by BlackSnake112 · 2012-08-08 07:35 · Score: 2
  
  If they win gold, that is when the pay day starts. How many non medal winning people from the Olympics are on the Wheaties box?
It's me! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 03:03 · Score: 0

You'll never know my secrets!
Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 03:07 · Score: 4, Interesting

to stay in the spotlight.
1. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Desler · 2012-08-08 03:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  It's amazing how these DDoSes conveniently happen at around the same time Julian's name starts fading from the news headlines. Do we have independent verification that there really is a DDoS and not just more of Assange media whoring?
2. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by benjfowler · 2012-08-08 03:16 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Interesting.
  It probably wouldn't be hard for that loony to get some of his mates to DDoS the Wikileaks website whenever they need to raise a bit more money to keep Assange in his high-flying superspy lifestyle.
3. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-08-08 03:25 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  He isn't really high flying he has been under house arrest in England for quiet a while
  
  --
  ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
4. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 03:34 · Score: 1
  
  I guess last week's little stunt with creating fake documents under some else's name didn't get them enough publicity. Time to move on to a good old DDOS.
5. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by crazyjj · 2012-08-08 03:42 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Actually he's currently hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, trying to dodge extradition to Sweden (and likely, to the U.S.).
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
6. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by crazyjj · 2012-08-08 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  I guess last week's little stunt with creating fake documents under some else's name didn't get them enough publicity.
  Assuming that was even them and not a false flag operation from one of their MANY enemies.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
7. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Desler · 2012-08-08 03:48 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Except that they admitted to doing it? OMG! Wikileaks itself is a false flag operation!
8. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by HungryHobo · 2012-08-08 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  thank you for this. My opinion of wikileaks just dropped through the floor.
9. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by bug1 · 2012-08-08 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  You think an organsation dedicated to public disclosure would censor themselves by disabling their own servers.
  Thats a lot of tinfoil.
10. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by NeutronCowboy · 2012-08-08 04:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well, let's take your comment at face value, and assume that claiming a DDoS is happening is a good way to get back into the limelight. Is there ever a time for Wikileaks when claiming a DDoS is happening is actually not a good way to get extra publicity?
  They release data and get DDoSed - they can claim they are to be silenced.
  They have been quiet for a while and get DDoSed - they have something to talk about.
  Those are pretty much the only relevant situations I can think about. In short, every possible DDoS situation can be spun as beneficial publicity for Wikileaks. This means that your approach is utterly useless in determining whether the DDoS is real. Now, do you have some actual proof that the DDoS is fake, outside of your personal dislike of Assange?
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
11. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Desler · 2012-08-08 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  Since it will get their name back in the news worldwide? Sure.
12. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 04:47 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, so you've finally started paying attention? I hate to break this to you kid, but there isn't a Tooth Fairy either.
13. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Meditato · 2012-08-08 04:50 · Score: 1
  
  Baseless speculation.
  First of all, Bill Keller really did write an enormous ad-hominem piece on Assange. The Keller hoax was childish revenge, sure, but it was NOT just done for no reason.
  Second of all, the idea that Wikileaks would DDOS itself (thus removing the ability for anyone to actually hit the "donate" buttons on the site) is completely nonsensical. Wikileaks doesn't have the resources to hire a botnet to do that (and they'd need a botnet owing to the secure host Wikileaks uses).
  Third, Assange may be vain, but his publicity stunts are mostly confined to revenge and his extradition case. He seems to be pretty preoccupied with getting asylum, his leaks, and his work for RT.
  I don't think your conspiracy theory makes sense on multiple levels.
14. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Desler · 2012-08-08 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  The classic tactic of trying to shif the burden of proof. I'm not the one making positive claims about some global conspiracy to DDoS my website to silence me. If they want to claim that some government is DDoSing them, they need to prove it.
15. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by kiwimate · 2012-08-08 05:00 · Score: 1
  
  I guess last week's little stunt with creating fake documents under some else's name didn't get them enough publicity.
  Apparently not, since this is the first I've heard of it, at least. Out of interest, was it posted on Slashdot?
16. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 05:15 · Score: -1
  
  Actually he's currently hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, trying to dodge extradition to Sweden (and speculatively, to the U.S.).
  FTFY. Don't call something "likely" when there's no precident, evidence or expressed intent for it.
17. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 05:19 · Score: 0
  
  You are either incredibly naive, stupid, or both.
  It does not matter one iota what Bill Keller did. If the reason for your organizations existence is to spread 'truth' and 'openness' and 'transparency' then you had better make damn sure that is what you are doing. The hoax was not a 'childish revenge', it was a deliberately created false document, made for the sole purpose of making it appear that someone said something they didn't. In other words, the exact opposite of truth, openness, and transparency. Once you have been caught falsifying a single document, for any reason whatsoever, everything you claim to be true can, should, and must be called into question.
  Now, if the reason for your organization is not as stated above, but is instead just to embarrass and smear people and organizations you don't like, then the false document makes perfect sense.
  As for the DDOS attack, you don't actually need a botnot to make it appear like a DDOS attack, a simple 'misconfigured' firewall will do just nicely.
  People can't click the 'donate' button? Why would they be doing that anyway? The last thing you did was create a false document. On the other hand, if evviiillll people/governments/organizations are attacking you, then you can start screaming: See!!! We need more money!!! Donate now!!!
18. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 05:21 · Score: 0
  
  You think an organization dedicated to public disclosure would sit on a large chunk of supposedly important and incriminating information just so they could use it as personal insurance?
  Oh wait...
19. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  Oddly enough, if was not posted to Slashdot. Can't go around killing those sacred cows, now can we. Anyway, here it is.
20. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 05:39 · Score: 0
  
  No, I do not. By the same token, I don't think an organization dedicated to public disclosure would be making up documents either.
  Now, if you ask "do I think an organization dedicated to smearing and embarrassing people and organizations it doesn't like would do that", then my answer would be yes. And I would also expect them to make up documents to suit their purposes.
21. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by ACE209 · 2012-08-08 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  actually there seems to be intent
  http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html
  
  29 February 2012: Stratfor e-mails have revealed that a sealed indictment has been issued by a secret grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, for Julian Assange. The email is dated 26 January 2011. This means that there has likely been a sealed extradition order for over a year, which will be activated (unsealed) against Assange in Sweden, Australia and the UK when the US Government gives the order.
  
  --
  "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
22. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by crazyjj · 2012-08-08 05:54 · Score: 1
  
  Don't call something "likely" when there's no precident, evidence or expressed intent for it.
  Don't kid yourself. There is a reason Sweden has went to such extraordinary lengths to get him back (for a crime he hasn't even been charged with) and why they've twice now refused to question him in both the UK and Ecuadorian embassy. And it isn't because they've suddenly decided to become great defenders of justice for women who've both expressed ambiguity about the whole case.
  
  --
  What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
23. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 05:58 · Score: 0
  
  THANK YOU, NeutronCowboy. I always cringe to see fallacious accusations modded up as "interesting."
  What's more interesting to me than Wikileaks' cost-benefit of self-DDOSing is the fact that the comments here are quickly dominated by unsupported anti-Assange, anti-trust posts. Are these guys getting paid to roll out this astroturf? What is the benefit to a supposedly free-thinking individual of randomly dissing Assange and making up an accusation that "he DDOS'd himself"?
  And ad-hominem attacks, a "superspy lifestlyle"... Wouldn't you want to cover your ass and live like a spy if you were releasing docs belonging to the huge corporations and nation-states? Is it "media whoring" to draw attention to yourself if that's the type of work you do? You know, on the side, when you're not in the limelight enjoying rape allegations.
24. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by maroberts · 2012-08-08 06:30 · Score: 0
  
  Umm, because of European Arrest Warrant rules, he can't be extradited to a third country without the approval of the original country from which he was extradited. Given that this conspiracy theory has been floating around for ages and the number of years it has taken to get the UK Supreme Court to give their blessing to sending him on his way to Sweden, the UK Supreme Court would be highly likely to regard any attempt by the UK to approve his extradition to the USA as evidence that Assange was right all along and swiftly regard it as unlawful.
  
  --
  Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
  Karma: Chameleon
25. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  Says the anonymous coward...
26. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by NeutronCowboy · 2012-08-08 06:37 · Score: 2
  
  True: Wikileaks makes a claim, and they need to back it up. However, your claim is not for proof, but to the motivation of Wikileaks under circumstances that make it impossible for them to disprove your claim.
  I'd say your claim is actually worse than Wikileaks'. At least with all the shenanigans that have been going on, a DDoS attack is about the most benign thing to happen to them. Probably not a government, but most likely some Antileaks-type organization. Yours, on the other hand, is a simple attempt to smear Wikileaks and Assange as media whores by employing an argument that is best likened to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
27. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 06:45 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah I was okay with that. An excellent use of misinformation to fight misinformation.
28. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by elucido · 2012-08-08 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  actually there seems to be intent
  http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html
  
  29 February 2012: Stratfor e-mails have revealed that a sealed indictment has been issued by a secret grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, for Julian Assange. The email is dated 26 January 2011. This means that there has likely been a sealed extradition order for over a year, which will be activated (unsealed) against Assange in Sweden, Australia and the UK when the US Government gives the order.
  Under what law? I don't see how you can charge him when he's not a US citizen and wasn't in charge of classified information. I guess foreign countries can charge anyone in the USA when something leaks to a US journalist?
29. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by elucido · 2012-08-08 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  Don't call something "likely" when there's no precident, evidence or expressed intent for it.
  Don't kid yourself. There is a reason Sweden has went to such extraordinary lengths to get him back (for a crime he hasn't even been charged with) and why they've twice now refused to question him in both the UK and Ecuadorian embassy. And it isn't because they've suddenly decided to become great defenders of justice for women who've both expressed ambiguity about the whole case.
  They want to question him so they can attempt to recruit him to work for the CIA I bet.
30. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by toriver · 2012-08-08 09:05 · Score: 1
  
  You sound just as paranoid as the "9/11 was a plot to boost Bush ratings" crowd.
31. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by toriver · 2012-08-08 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  The Guardian is just biting the hand that once fed them. Maybe they expected their exclusive access to last longer than it did? And then someone leaked the whole shebang.
32. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by guises · 2012-08-08 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  True: Wikileaks makes a claim, and they need to back it up.
  What is this claim that they need to back up? That they've been DDoSed? You want them to release their server logs or something? Obviously they can't do that, it would be identifying everyone who reads their site. It's also stupid - Wikileaks has been unambiguously persecuted recently by webhosts and governments and payment processors and it should come as no particular surprise to anyone if some kiddie out there takes it on themselves to go a little further. There's no obligation of proof here, they've made a perfectly plausible claim and if some conspiracy nuts don't want to believe them then showing the real birth certificate isn't going to make a difference.
33. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  They U.S. will charge whomever they damn well please for any manner of bullshit. Look at what happened to Kim Dotcom.
34. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 12:21 · Score: 0
  
  In short, every possible DDoS situation can be spun as beneficial publicity for Wikileaks.
  That sounds like an argument in favor of GP's hypothesis...
35. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Meditato · 2012-08-08 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  You are either incredibly naive, stupid, or both.
  By pulling an Ad Hominem, you've forever cast your reliability into doubt! You're obviously a person who does nothing but smear people! I can't trust anything you tell me!
  Oh wait, that's your logic. Huh. How bout that.
  
  Once you have been caught falsifying a single document, for any reason whatsoever, everything you claim to be true can, should, and must be called into question.
  Nope, that's the slippery slope fallacy. You should analyze motives and context to figure out whether a particular action is likely to be a lie instead of perjoratively declaring that an individual's satirical counter-smear ends all possibility of future truth. It was immature, but Assange was never some sort of bastion of perfection and holiness. He does, however, serve a useful function on occasion.
  
  Now, if the reason for your organization is not as stated above, but is instead just to embarrass and smear people and organizations you don't like, then the false document makes perfect sense.
  Have they done that on any other occasions? Because if not, you can't declare a trend of "embarrassing and smearing".
  
  As for the DDOS attack, you don't actually need a botnot to make it appear like a DDOS attack, a simple 'misconfigured' firewall will do just nicely.
  Still going on with that silly conspiracy theory, I see. The site is hosted with others by an organization in Sweden at Bahnhof datacenter. Why would the datacenter wish to harm its reputation by going along with such an action? Up-time is a very critical metric for attracting new customers.
  Additionally, you haven't addressed by Wikileaks would harm the very site that hosts all of its donation information. How can they "donate now" if they can't get the relevant info? People have short attention spans, when the site comes back up it's not going to be as if there are thousands of people rushing all at once to donate to poor Wikileaks. This is the exact opposite tactic a person would take if they were looking for donations.
36. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by interkin3tic · 2012-08-08 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't be a good move on their part: the news agencies now have yet another reason to make the story about wikileaks and avoid covering what has been leaked.
  
  Not to say that means they AREN'T doing that, just that if this is a conspiracy on their part, it's a dumb one. And I guess the media was already doing a great job of it. "American involvement in the Syrian dictatorship? Boring. Kristen Stewart cheating? HELLO FRONT PAGE NEWS!!!"
37. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 15:24 · Score: 0
  
  And did everyone forget the time when wikileaks needed over half a million dollars to continue operating the site and threatened to take it down if they didn't get more donations? And did everyone forget the deal with cryptome and wikileaks, where John Young said wikileaks is just a honeypot? Considering how wikileaks has behaved towards its leakers, no defense funds, no protection, no anonymity, I'm inclined to agree with John Young 100%.
38. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 15:27 · Score: 0
  
  He has done it before? All the proof I need that he's just an attention whore.
39. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by nnull · 2012-08-08 15:41 · Score: 1
  
  Because wikileaks is bullshit: http://cryptome.org/0002/wikileaks-unlike.htm I don't need to say more. John Young has more credibility than Assange or his wikileak group will ever have.
40. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by bug1 · 2012-08-08 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  Now, if you ask "do I think an organization dedicated to smearing and embarrassing people and organizations it doesn't like would do that", then my answer would be yes. And I would also expect them to make up documents to suit their purposes.
  Strange that there are an unusually large number many negative posts made by Anonymous Cowards.
41. Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... by guises · 2012-08-08 19:01 · Score: 1
  
  Your link does not paint Wikileaks as bullshit. Mr. Young has some criticisms, mostly he seems to think that Wikileaks could stand to be more open about its operations, but he says the world is better off for having them around:
  
  It will be a great loss if attacks on Assange lead to loss of public confidence and trust in the initiative, and no doubt that is what some opponents intend. Some of those opponents, you will grasp, are now bear-hugging Wikileaks as putative friends to be sure it it is crippled or fails.
Which Olympic games? by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · 2012-08-08 03:09 · Score: 4, Funny

The cyber attack on Iran, or the ones in London?

--
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
Only getting what they deserve. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 03:10 · Score: -1, Troll

They put the USA's national security at risk. As such, wikileaks is an enemy combatant and should be treated as such. I just wish our current spineless and frankly unamerican president would just put our drones to better use to fix this problem in a more permanent and demonstrative way.
1. Re:Only getting what they deserve. by DerUberTroll · 2012-08-08 03:20 · Score: -1
  
  No, WL shows the true face of governments, especially the US government. The US is no different than nazi Germany, only the techniques are different.
2. Re:Only getting what they deserve. by 1s44c · 2012-08-08 03:26 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The problem is that according to the US everyone and everything is an enemy combatant. Even the mighty US doesn't have the resources to be at war with everyone at once.
3. Re:Only getting what they deserve. by overmoderated · 2012-08-08 03:41 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  They don't like the truth that much.... They should change the name of this site to slashtroll.com "Slashdot only allows a user with your karma to post 2 times per day (more or less, depending on moderation). You've already shared your thoughts with us that many times. Take a breather, and come back and see us in 24 hours or so. If you think this is unfair, please email posting@slashdot.org with your username "DerUberTroll". Let us know how many comments you think you've posted in the last 24 hours."
4. Re:Only getting what they deserve. by overmoderated · 2012-08-08 03:44 · Score: 1
  
  The US is not that powerful. They invest a lot in propaganda to make the rest of the world believe that they are. They buy their way into everything, which is unsustainable.
5. Re:Only getting what they deserve. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 04:29 · Score: 0
  
  Even the mighty US doesn't have the resources to be at war with everyone at once.
  Well, that's why they have to cut back on home heating oil subsidies. Sacrifices must be made, and everybody must do their part. If you want to stay warm next winter, just head down to the Salvation Army and pick up a sweater.
6. Re:Only getting what they deserve. by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-08-08 04:30 · Score: 2
  
  Your name tells me you may be trolling, but I'll bite.
  Where can you show me the US government, right now, attempting the extermination of an entire race of people?
  I have as much distrust of the federal government in me as the next guy, but the US !=Nazi Germany. That is hyperbole, and quite honestly is ridiculous.
7. Re:Only getting what they deserve. by __aaeihw9960 · 2012-08-08 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  While I agree with you, I do have one question:
  Isn't perception of power just as useful as actual power (or maybe even the same thing)? I don't have to punch you in the face to stop you from pissing me off if you believe that I will do it if you piss me off. Same sort of thing.
8. Re:Only getting what they deserve. by John+Holmes · 2012-08-08 04:38 · Score: 1
  
  "Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance." Sun Tzu
9. Re:Only getting what they deserve. by overmoderated · 2012-08-08 06:57 · Score: 0
  
  I think people should DDoS SD. It's a troll site moderated by trolls.
The flipside by DerUberTroll · 2012-08-08 03:19 · Score: -1

torshammer those govt sites...
The Jester? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 03:22 · Score: 0

The Jester had posted something about Wikileaks with his usual "#ticktock" threat on Twitter yesterday. He seems to have deleted the tweet since then, though.
1. Re:The Jester? by 1s44c · 2012-08-08 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  The Jester had posted something about Wikileaks with his usual "#ticktock" threat on Twitter yesterday. He seems to have deleted the tweet since then, though.
  That 'Th3 J3st3r' person is an internet troll who conducts minor DDOS attacks in the name of US Patriotism.
  The guy is a moron who is going to end up inside one of the jails of the country he claims to be fighting for sooner or later.
2. Re:The Jester? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 04:55 · Score: 0
  
  That much is undeniable, but he HAS taken out Wikileaks before. Although this time, he seems to be denying all involvement in the matter. There's a first for you.
Not DDoS by Penurious+Penguin · 2012-08-08 03:24 · Score: 0

It's just David Petraeus chewing on the FIOS cable. It'll all be over when he's full.

--
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
1. Re:Not DDoS by Penurious+Penguin · 2012-08-08 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  Ok Slashdot; are you listening? Here's a suggestion for a potentially great post: Publish an analysis of all the IP-addresses connected to down-moderated controversial political comments. Hint: Be thorough and honest and enjoy a very successful article.
  
  Seriously.
  - A very sincere and convinced "troll"
  
  --
  Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
group takes responsibility by LG740 · 2012-08-08 04:10 · Score: 5, Informative

A group calling themselves AntiLeaks has taken responsibility for the attacks. Here are a couple of stories on a german tech site about the group. You can translate it into german. http://www.gulli.com/news/19466-antileaks-ddos-angriffe-als-protest-gegen-wikileaks-2012-08-08 http://www.gulli.com/news/19456-ddos-angriffe-legen-wikileaks-lahm-2012-08-07
1. Re:group takes responsibility by John+Holmes · 2012-08-08 04:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  "The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know." President John F. Kennedy, April 27, 1961
2. Re:group takes responsibility by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 06:54 · Score: 0
  
  I think you just ddos'd gulli.com
3. Re:group takes responsibility by JockTroll · 2012-08-08 09:39 · Score: 0
  
  President John F. Kennedy, April 27, 1961
  "Gotcha, sucker."
  Lee Harvey Oswald, November 22, 1963.
  
  --
  Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
DDOS isn't the end of the world by trybywrench · 2012-08-08 05:02 · Score: 1

How does a DDOS prevent wikileaks from spreading information? Go somewhere else, upload whatever you have to any of the bazillion file upload services then seed the address in the social networks and the rest takes care of itself. I don't think any government thinks a DDOS would prevent information that wikileaks has from being made public. My guess is it's just a publicity stunt by wikileaks themselves.

--
I came to the datacenter drunk with a fake ID, don't you want to be just like me?
Qui Bono by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 05:18 · Score: 0

Assange? He's been villified and minimized by his attempt to avoid prosecution.
Wikileaks? If they DDoS'd their own site, it only serves to make them appear vulnerable, desperate and irrelevant.
The U.S.? The Empire is fickle. DARPA giveth & the NSA taketh away. (You didn't think Congress was serious when it enacted FOIA, did you?)
Let me teach you how to get censored by EnergyScholar · 2012-08-08 07:53 · Score: 2

It's really not very hard to draw attention from people who will censor you or otherwise block your message. Try to distribute information that is inimical to the operations of COINTELPRO spies attempting to manipulate the internet, and you can experience this for yourself. For one example of such forbidden content, read and then try to distribute The Gentleperson's Guide to Forum Spies, which describes in detail the methods used by spies to manipulate internet forums. Slashdot is one forum that is so manipulated, but there are many others. Read that document, then make a concerted effort to get it in front of many eyeballs, and see what happens. After your attempts to communicate are suppressed you will have a much better understanding of "some global conspiracy to DDoS my website to silence me". After such an experience you will be much less prone to doubt others who claim to experience the same thing.
This author now has so much experience in this area that I can generally tell in advance which material will, and will not, be suppressed, and can often correctly guess which method(s) will be used.
1. Re:Let me teach you how to get censored by Anonymous Coward · 2012-08-08 17:20 · Score: 0
  
  I read this and a huge amount of it is to generate assorted forms of spam.
  It takes an insane amount of effort to misdirect forums with a low volume of posts, and extremely specific focuses with people who are informed on the subject at hand. Case in point, I've been a member of several sites dedicated to API development to hook into various games (and some other stuff, but mostly games). The applications of these tools range from experimentation to full fledged bots, and sometimes outright cheats and hacks. The people in the inner sanctums of these sites are all extremely informed on the material at hand, and someone caught fabricating information is subject to irrevocable account termination. Even if someone somehow attained some degree of moderator power, EVERYTHING is logged, and while general users may not be able to see it, the administrators can simply undo the actions of a moderator.
  I've actually seen it several times. A dev attains some weak privileges and then uses them with the subtlety of a cudgel, or starts spouting misinformation and winds up banned, and in a few cases ends up with his docs dropped. I've never seen the damage last more than a few days, and in many cases it lasts mere hours, and it almost always results in free publicity for the site. It's also not like the devs could construct a site like this themselves as a honeypot/for misinformation. Again, the people here are informed. They know what is bullshit.
  High traffic public sites are easy to spam, but that's so blindingly obvious it hurts. Everyone knows that. You can shift opinion in much the same way as you can stir up shitstorms with basic trolling. The techniques are extremely similar. If you are not informed, you can be led astray. Anyone who knows anything about moderation on the net knows this. It's practically in the first half of the semester in internet 101.
  After running through this quickly for editing, I realize this post could be taken as a way of mitigating the relevance of that article. I find the prospect of someone being paranoid enough to think this quite amusing.
Yes there IS atroturfing going on here! by EnergyScholar · 2012-08-08 08:01 · Score: 1

Read The Gentleperson's Guide to Forum Spies and learn about the many techniques used. You just named several of them. Some of the messages posted above, which you mentioned, probably ARE astroturf. There's been rather a LOT of astroturf on Slashdot lately. The funny thing is, once the readership is EDUCATED about the methods used to manipulate them, those methods no longer work. So educate yourselves, learn how to identify and counter astroturfing, and it won't work as well. Information will set you free.
Good example of an astroturf post by EnergyScholar · 2012-08-08 08:03 · Score: 1

The post directly above, by an AC, is a case in point. I'm morally certain that whomever posted that brief blurb is an astroturfer.