PayPal, Symantec Hacked In Anonymous November 5 Hacking Spree

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

PayPal, Symantec Hacked In Anonymous November 5 Hacking Spree

Posted by samzenpus on Monday November 5, 2012 @02:35AM from the history-repeating dept.

New submitter Journe writes "Anonymous claims to have begun a hacking spree for the 5th of November. In their spree, they've laid waste to several Australian Government sites, and, for some reason, the site of Saturday Night Live. They also claim to have leaked VMware source code, along with user and employee info from Paypal and Symantec. There's some argument however that Anonymous is falsely taking claim for Symantec."

101 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Slashdot too by SJHillman · 2012-11-05 02:43 · Score: 5, Funny

They also tried to deface Slashdot by correcting the spelling of "Symnatec", but the Slashdot editors kept them at bay.
1. Re:Slashdot too by Farmer+Pete · 2012-11-05 02:50 · Score: 2
  
  Snap! Anonymous strikes again! The spelling has been fixed!
2. Re:Slashdot too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 02:55 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  No this is the website for the Egyptian Pharoah Sym-Na-Tec
  sorry...
3. Re:Slashdot too by Elminster+Aumar · 2012-11-05 04:57 · Score: 2
  
  Thank GOD they fixed the misspelling... I was up all night last night worrying about it.
4. Re:Slashdot too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 06:06 · Score: 0
  
  I can understand you being up all night worrying. Following the ramblings of folks that can't spell is (IMO) a sure sign of wasting time. It is pretty simple to spellcheck... and for things like Symantec... it is pretty easy to verify. I would like to see the ration of initial posts that have grammar/spelling errors. We can use WoW as a "worst case" scenario. ;)
5. Re:Slashdot too by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-11-05 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  "Sym-Na-Tec. Sym-Na-Tec. Sym-Na-Tec." (Cut to scene of a guy with a huge penis diving off a building to eradicate the Evil One.)
  
  Wait... was that a 70s flashback? I only have these visions when I'm in my Den.
Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 02:49 · Score: 0

It's ironic that these douches consider themselves the good guys. Maybe not... people can rationalize -anything-. They do like their soft targets- I think they've been broken of making threats to drug cartels.
1. Re:Irony by Sarten-X · 2012-11-05 03:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Having no leadership, no structure, and no goal (beyond that afforded by the community politics of certain outspoken folks), Anonymous is free to rationalize anything however they like. There is no need for logic or restraint. In an orgy of solidarity, the "with us or against us" mentality reigns supreme. PayPal, MasterCard, government, and anybody else who opposes their attacks are just added to the list of targets.
  To each individual, the notion that they could be doing more harm than good is offensive. They've already passed judgement on their enemies, and deemed them evil, and anybody who disagrees must be evil as well. Sure, PayPal, Symantec, and every other company have done some bad things in their history, and should not be lightly forgiven. However, it is important to remember that every individual has also done equally bad things, and should not be the sole judge and executioner of any person, corporation, idea, or organization.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
2. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 03:29 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Your post is well thought out and your points elegantly stated, but I think I'll stick with "they're a big box of douches".
3. Re:Irony by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-11-05 03:41 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Let he who is without transgression launch the first low-orbit ion cannon.
  
  --
  My God, it's Full of Source!
  OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
4. Re:Irony by flyneye · 2012-11-05 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, it seems to be a strange form of group intelligence, this hive. They are evolving into an entity of the desires and fears of the participants. I want to envision a throng of torch and pitchfork bearing peasants on the steps of $cientology , like when it began. Instead I see the usual bullshit that wears a subculture down to a cult of hardcores, while the others move on to the "NEXT BIG THING". In like a lion, out like a lamb. Mark my words.
  
  --
  *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
5. Re:Irony by helix2301 · 2012-11-05 04:20 · Score: 0
  
  Usually something sparks the attack like an event. I am curious what inspired this?
  
  --
  http://www.thetechnologygeek.org
6. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 04:29 · Score: 0
  
  NO kidding. . . Let's see. . . for one, they go after a company owned by a libertarian. . . ahhh yeah. . . that'll show that big bad evil government. . . . and doesn't VMWare donate a ton of money to Linux? Oh yeah. . . . real effective. . . dumbfucks. . .
7. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 04:51 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Can't get too upset about Anonymous. Think about it. Aren't drone strikes just like Anonymous hacks? They are acts of judgement and execution without due process wrought by anonymous people from a far away distance. Oh, and there is always collateral damage and victims can't mount a legal defense. If you want to call acts like that chicken-shit and douchy, then go ahead.
8. Re:Irony by TubeSteak · 2012-11-05 05:55 · Score: 2
  
  Sure, PayPal, Symantec, and every other company have done some bad things in their history, and should not be lightly forgiven. However, it is important to remember that every individual has also done equally bad things, and should not be the sole judge and executioner of any person, corporation, idea, or organization.
  Really?
  Really?
  What was the last thing YOU did that was "equally bad" as the shitshow that is PayPal?
  Or maybe you worked for Union Carbide and are responsible for the Bhopal disaster
  99% of individuals will never have the opportunity to do anything "equally bad" as a multinational corporation.
  Your kind of false equivalence is a weak attempt to minimize the negative effects of corporations on the citizenry.
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
9. Re:Irony by Type44Q · 2012-11-05 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  Anonymous is free to rationalize anything however they like
  Even just using the word "they" to describe Anonymous implies that it's a specific group when, in fact, it should be treated literally as "anonymous." Perhaps we need to lose the capital "A" at the start of the word; it has incorrect implications that most people are too stupid to see past...
10. Re:Irony by Ravaldy · 2012-11-05 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  You've pretty much summed up most Slashdot users. They favour mostly one platform (Linux in this case) and in turn have a bias opinion on any competitor of their favourite platform.
11. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps we need to lose the capital "A" at the start of the word; it has incorrect implications that most people are too stupid to see past...
  You think you're so great with your edu-cation and you're book-lernin.
12. Re:Irony by DaveV1.0 · 2012-11-05 06:42 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Actually, no. With drone strikes, there is a public command and control structure that can be held accountable. They are not "anonymous people", but rather publicly known, elected officials.
  All of Anonymous hides, therefore they are chicken-shit and douchy, just like you.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
13. Re:Irony by Sarten-X · 2012-11-05 06:57 · Score: 2
  
  What was the last thing YOU did that was "equally bad" as the shitshow that is PayPal?
  For starters, this morning, on my way to work, I took a place in line at an exit ramp, delaying and irritating a few hundred other cars slightly. I do that every morning. Under a very conservative estimate of only one hundred other people irritated daily, I've managed to annoy about 10% of my city (about 36,000 people total) slightly in a year. For comparison, how many people are irritated with PayPal, and how annoyed are they? How many years of traffic disruptions does it take to equal one PayPal?
  
  99% of individuals will never have the opportunity to do anything "equally bad" as a multinational corporation.
  Almost everyone is evil, in some small part. Yes, there are some that commit their trespasses all at once in heinous acts of negligence, apathy, or malevolence, but most "evil" effects come from individuals doing things they don't think are wrong. Small offenses like bringing home pens from work or delaying others' commute add up to a far greater total of distress in the world.
  
  Your kind of false equivalence is a weak attempt to minimize the negative effects of corporations on the citizenry.
  There is no false equivalence here. I am absolutely certain that my actions and inactions have resulted in somebody's death. I do hope that my death toll hasn't hit the 10,000 of the Bhopal disaster, but I can't be sure. I could indirectly be a homicidal maniac and not know it.
  Let's suppose though, for argument's sake, that I am a pristine pinnacle of innocence, never having harmed anyone, directly or not. Do I now magically have the right to judge others and deem them worthy of attack? Am I qualified to assert that a civilian killed in a war is so important that anyone who stops encouraging the endless retelling of their story is to be condemned to eternal harassment, even if their support was withdrawn under duress? After all, that's the train of thought that made MasterCard a target for withdrawing support of WikiLeaks.
  Anonymous does not seek justice. Anonymous is a vigilante group, attacking anyone for any perceived wrong, without the need or desire to dole out appropriate punishments to fit the crimes. Yes, multinational corporations do bad things. So do national corporations, local small businesses, nonprofit charities, religions, and individuals. That does not excuse anyone from causing harm to anyone else.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
14. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 06:59 · Score: 0
  
  The major, glaring difference is people who call in the drone strikes aren't anonymous, we all know who runs the US military, and there is somewhere to place blame. Anonymous, on the other hand, hides from their consequences.
  
  They also intentionally harm innocents, while drone strikes try to avoid collateral damage. It's been a long, long time since the US took the "that one guy did something, level the city" approach.
15. Re:Irony by Sarten-X · 2012-11-05 07:12 · Score: 0
  
  ...but that's only because the competitors are demonstrably inferior.
  No, really... I have a demonstration all ready to explain how the NT kernel's scheduler is 27% less efficient than the Completely Fair Scheduler (under a particular workload, with particular hardware, during a particular phase of the moon)! This means that Windows users are losing several milliseconds every day because of their scheduler's inadequacy. I've done some research into the amount of multitasking that Windows users do, and I've concluded that Windows is costing global industry several whole hours of productivity every year! That's tens of dollars wasted! That's enough to fund a whole pizza party for the entirety of Mrs. Johnson's 3rd-grade class!
  Disclaimer: This is sarcasm. Slashdot users need this disclaimer, too.
  
  --
  You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
16. Re:Irony by albacrankie · 2012-11-05 07:43 · Score: 2
  
  With drone strikes, there is a public command and control structure that can be held accountable.
  And there are often wedding guests that can act as witnesses.
17. Re:Irony by Type44Q · 2012-11-05 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  And this got modded down because... it doesn't fit with the particular message that's convenient for the purposes of TPTB? That's the only thing I can think of...
18. Re:Irony by Bryansix · 2012-11-05 08:19 · Score: 2
  
  I think you don't understand the rules of engagement. The Military is not a police force and the people they fight with are not civilians in the strict sense. Yes, drone strikes may be sent against non-governmental fighting forces but they are still armies and they are still at war with us and to insinuate that they are not is just wrong.
19. Re:Irony by osu-neko · 2012-11-05 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  Um, no. Drone strikes are "just like" Anonymous hacks in the same sense that the Nazi invasion of Poland was just like knocking on your neighbors door to ask to borrow a cup of sugar. You can find things in common between the two, but it would be exceedingly idiotic to equate them as "just like" one another due to the similarities you find.
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
20. Re:Irony by AliasBackslash · 2012-11-05 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  It's a Guy Fawkes reference. "Remember remember the 5th of November"
21. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 11:01 · Score: 0
  
  After reading your post, it seems pretty obvious to me who the douche is.
22. Re:Irony by Qu4Z · 2012-11-05 12:30 · Score: 2
  
  It'll be a V for Vendetta movie reference, more accurately.
  
  Which is sort of derived in part from the whole Guy Fawkes thing, but I bet most of Anonymous have very little idea about anything outside of that film[1].
  
  [1] I initially meant "anything about Guy Fawkes outside of that film", but I'll leave it as it stands.
23. Re:Irony by Qu4Z · 2012-11-05 12:31 · Score: 1
  
  I'm perfectly capable of getting upset about Anonymous vandalism and drone strikes thank-you-very-much.
24. Re:Irony by DaveV1.0 · 2012-11-05 12:45 · Score: 1
  
  Aw, look, the anonybots have taken offense.
  
  --
  There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
25. Re:Irony by Qu4Z · 2012-11-05 12:57 · Score: 2
  
  I'm relatively sure "they" has a long history of being used for a set of people without implying they're a specific group with any sort of organisation.
  
  For instance: "Bakers are excellent. They make delicious things for me to eat."
  
  If you think bakers are a more concrete group than Anonymous then you're kidding yourself. Anonymous is simply "anyone who identifies as Anonymous in some context".
26. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 13:29 · Score: 0
  
  You lost me when you said we've all done things equally as bad. Sure, we're all a bunch of evil assholes; I get that. But EQUALLY as bad as these corporations? No.
27. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 13:32 · Score: 0
  
  I just wanted to say I really enjoyed this comment. Thank you.
28. Re:Irony by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 19:57 · Score: 0
  
  You SERIOUSLY cannot compare slight irritation at traffic to the dangers of Paypal!
  As a business owner, we are very much under the whims of Paypal and they pose a very serious risk to our business. Just last month, despite we are supposed to be protected from fraudulent customers (ie. doing chargeback just to get free services) we lost 5% of our monthly revenue to dispute cases! Usually it is exactly 0. One bad month years ago we lost more than 20% of our monthly revenue because PP decided to take more than double the payment! (Months later we got it back tho!)
  and by no means are we a bedroom tiny operation, we are one of the biggest hosting providers in our small niche, with hundreds of of thousands of euros annual revenue, quite not yet in the 7 figures range tho.
  At any given time we have at least 40k € at risk with PP. The only reason we trust PP not to screw us over is because we pay huge amounts in TRX fees each month.
29. Re:Irony by TubeSteak · 2012-11-05 21:53 · Score: 1
  
  For starters, this morning, on my way to work, I took a place in line at an exit ramp, delaying and irritating a few hundred other cars slightly. I do that every morning. Under a very conservative estimate of only one hundred other people irritated daily, I've managed to annoy about 10% of my city (about 36,000 people total) slightly in a year. For comparison, how many people are irritated with PayPal, and how annoyed are they? How many years of traffic disruptions does it take to equal one PayPal?
  More false equivalency.
  I assume you weren't intentionally setting out to irritate a few hundred people per day,
  but even if you were, as a society we understand that rush hour is annoying and it is something we all deal with.
  On the other hand, Paypal doesn't have to be a dick, intentionally or unintentionally.
  The corporate honchos choose to create and enforce policies that are anti-consumer.
  
  Almost everyone is evil, in some small part. Yes, there are some that commit their trespasses all at once in heinous acts of negligence, apathy, or malevolence, but most "evil" effects come from individuals doing things they don't think are wrong. Small offenses like bringing home pens from work or delaying others' commute add up to a far greater total of distress in the world.
  More false equivalence.
  Taking home a pen from work is not the same as going on a shooting spree.
  Delaying others' commute is not the same as intentionally hiding a manufacturing defect that leads to deaths.
  '"evil" effects from individuals doing things they don't think are wrong' is not the same as corporations intentionally pursuing harmful policies.
  
  Yes, multinational corporations do bad things. So do national corporations, local small businesses, nonprofit charities, religions, and individuals. That does not excuse anyone from causing harm to anyone else.
  Man, you're really pushing this theme.
  You start with a national corporation and somehow end up equating them to an individual.
  That argument would stand up fine in a philosophy class, but in the real world,
  99.9% of us will never do anything that leads to a multi-million dollar settlement with a Federal Agency.
  Every individual is not "equally bad" as "PayPal, Symantec, and every other company"
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
30. Re:Irony by AmiMoJo · 2012-11-06 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  If they are an army you are at war with then why don't the laws of war, such as treatment of POWs an alleged war criminals, apply?
  The US wants it both ways. Fight a war but declare the enemy soldiers to be civilian terrorists who no rights.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
31. Re:Irony by AliasBackslash · 2012-11-06 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, you're more than likely correct that Anon isn't well versed enough in history to realize it's based off of actual events.
  I wouldn't doubt it if they all started blasting the 1812 Overture during this hack spree.
32. Re:Irony by Bryansix · 2012-11-06 09:13 · Score: 1
  
  Terrorists are scum of the earth. You have to fight fire with fire. They use asymmetric warfare and this is how we compensate.
Political motivation? by Coisiche · 2012-11-05 02:53 · Score: 1

and, for some reason, the site of Saturday Night Live
It's not broadcast here but 4 years ago it got media mention because of Tina Fey's Sarah Palin impersonation. Have they perhaps hurt the feelings of a particular candidate's supporters this time round?
1. Re:Political motivation? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 03:13 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I think believing that these attacks are targeted that finely, or that there haven't just been a bunch of random people attacking anything that looked vulnerable isn't realistic.
  What probably happened is they searched for particular sites running particular combinations of software (it's not all that hard to find out what someone *claims* to be running), or even had just an automated sweep which returns a few likely candidates (my web server is hit all the time by people looking for proxy / malware PHP files that obviously only exist if you're vulnerable / infected already).
  I mean, there were Ghanan consulates in that list and all sorts. I think it's more a question of "what was vulnerable" when a particular date for a hacking spree was decided upon rather than any political message (although, sure, one of the hackers might have a motive, or they might look at certain websites first, etc.).
  And the age-old argument - Anonymous is not "any one person". It's not even a coherent group. Just about anybody that hacked a site and bothered to tell Anonymous would have been listed there because, by their own admission, they have no idea who their members are / are not and they have no "entry requirement" as such.
  It seems much more random to me. If you wanted to make a political statement, you could have gone for US presidential candidates or particular organisations and made the news. But obviously most of those places secure their stuff quite well.
  So we end up with PayPal (who are currently denying that anything happened, which I wouldn't be shocked about - there's been a lot of "didn't actually happen" hacks lately where people just post convincing lists of usernames as if they are hacked data), an antivirus vendor and an embassy in some African state.
  It's hardly targeted anarchy. It's more like "who left their window open?".
2. Re:Political motivation? by Samantha+Wright · 2012-11-05 03:15 · Score: 2
  
  It was NBC in general, not SNL. Also, this may surprise you, but Anonymous is not generally known for having a conservative bias, given their extremely anti-authoritarian core moral values. And four years is an awful long time to remember something like that—did you think they were elephants or something? ;)
  
  --
  Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
3. Re:Political motivation? by thePowerOfGrayskull · 2012-11-05 03:23 · Score: 1
  
  and, for some reason, the site of Saturday Night Live
  It's not broadcast here but 4 years ago it got media mention because of Tina Fey's Sarah Palin impersonation. Have they perhaps hurt the feelings of a particular candidate's supporters this time round?
  You're cute, with your attempts to ascribe rational motivations to an unruly group of monkeys.
4. Re:Political motivation? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  rational motivations to an unruly group of monkeys.
  Right - Sarah Palin was a Republican candidate - unruly groups of irrational monkeys consistently vote Democrat.
  BAZINGA!
5. Re:Political motivation? by Dishevel · 2012-11-05 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm. Interesting and possibly true.
  OTOH.
  I would think that most of you techie, anti corp, end justifies the means people are the ones that applaud SNL for that.
  Could be wrong , but I think the odds are on my side.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Saturday Night Live? by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2012-11-05 02:57 · Score: 1

Obviously this is the end of civilisation as we know it!

--
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
1. Re:Saturday Night Live? by NIK282000 · 2012-11-05 03:01 · Score: 1
  
  I know, I just changed all my passwords because twitter said my account had been compromised, now I have to do it all again! A growing percentage of our waking lives will be consumed creating and changing passwords until that's all that any one does!
  
  --
  Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
Symantec Hacked? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 02:58 · Score: 1

You would think a company like Symantec would be able to protect themselves against hacking..? Jeez.
1. Re:Symantec Hacked? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  They could but they stubbornly insist on using their own snaik oil.
False Flag/Tin Foil Hat Time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 03:00 · Score: 0

Napolitano and Leiberman will no doubt be pleased by these events. We clearly need more cybersecurity and clearly the federal government is the only ones that can do it. Posted Anonymously for obvious reasons.
1. Re:False Flag/Tin Foil Hat Time by History's+Coming+To · 2012-11-05 04:13 · Score: 2
  
  The US government (and, in fact, any government, political organisation etc) have the right to be part of Anonymous if they want to. It's the single biggest problem with any "anarchy", if all people are free to do what they want then this must include setting up a governmental system of whichever type they choose, be it dictatorship, democracy, or a dictatorship dressed up as a democracy. In this case the "anarchists" may well be assisting the political aims of their "enemy" who, for all Anonymous know, are also part of Anonymous.
  
  With great anonymity comes great confusion as to which side is which.
  
  --
  Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
2. Re:False Flag/Tin Foil Hat Time by Mister+Transistor · 2012-11-05 06:19 · Score: 1
  
  They are so secret you don't even know if you're a member or not, until it's too late!
  
  --
  -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
3. Re:False Flag/Tin Foil Hat Time by Teun · 2012-11-05 06:52 · Score: 1
  
  Leiberman
  Who?
  
  Posted Anonymously for obvious reasons.
  Pray explain!
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
4. Re:False Flag/Tin Foil Hat Time by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 07:21 · Score: 0
  
  Who?
  Senator representing Israel.
5. Re:False Flag/Tin Foil Hat Time by Bryansix · 2012-11-05 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  Napolitano needs to go. Vote accordingly tomorrow.
6. Re:False Flag/Tin Foil Hat Time by Teun · 2012-11-06 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  Ah *Lieberman*!
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Stick it to the man by slashmojo · 2012-11-05 03:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

by releasing user and employee data from paypal and others? So only us regular people actually suffer the consequences.. good move!
1. Re:Stick it to the man by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 03:07 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  It's just random. They hack (or claim to hack) whatever low hanging fruit they can find (often using other peoples exploits) and then claim that they were targeted attacks. Why else would the supposed targets be so randomly assorted?
2. Re:Stick it to the man by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  There have been suggestions that Anonymous has been turned and will attack more or less anybody as long as they're from civilised countries. The lack of leadership means that technically savvy but young/naive hackers don't really question the targets they're given, meaning many of these sort of pointless attacks which prove/demonstrate nothing other than that a lot of badly defended sites exist.
3. Re:Stick it to the man by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  Or that they are just moron script kiddies sharing exploits that should be patched by the time they get them. So they go and target random things that they don't like or think would get them attention. Keep doing so until your exploit doesn't work or get bored. Then create a news release after x amount of people respond with their giddy little hack. It's just a bunch of kids and social rejects trying to show off and be cool.
4. Re:Stick it to the man by Tharkkun · 2012-11-05 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  It's just random. They hack (or claim to hack) whatever low hanging fruit they can find (often using other peoples exploits) and then claim that they were targeted attacks. Why else would the supposed targets be so randomly assorted?
  They are desperate for attention. Their last two hacks turned out to be false. One more and they won't even be relevant anymore.
paypal? by Nyder · 2012-11-05 03:02 · Score: 1

Think the paypal is a mistake, it's on the link to the imageshack & symanetc info, but no mention of it there.

--
Be seeing you...
1. Re:paypal? by Cinder6 · 2012-11-05 04:28 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Here's an article I found (by clicking through a few times from TFA). For those who don't want to read:
  
  However according to PayPal’s head of PR, they claim to be investigating the alleged hack, but so far they have stated that they are unable to validate any evidence that there has been a security breach which we can only take to be a good thing.
  They also say 28,000 accounts, which means the odds of an individual being hacked are very very low (considering there are over 110 million users). Even still, it's a good idea to change your password, at least.
  
  --
  If you can't convince them, convict them.
Is there intelligent life within Anonymous ? by vikingpower · 2012-11-05 03:06 · Score: 1

and, for some reason, the site of Saturday Night Live
So TFA thinks that Anonymous actually does things for solid and ponderable reasons, subject to logic ? Interesting...

--
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Yawn! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 03:11 · Score: 0

Are Anonymous even relevant anymore?
A few minutes of not being in the news, and they pull a stunt - a rather weak one at that which only reinforces the governments agenda of net surveillance.
Kind of makes you wonder at the level of maturity the average Anonymous member has.
1. Re:Yawn! by vikingpower · 2012-11-05 03:14 · Score: 2
  
  Kind of makes you wonder at the level of maturity the average Anonymous member has.
  Profile: pickly-faced youth, average age about 15.4 years, dwells in mum's basement, no sexual experience to speak of, no political sensibility, pot-smoking and rootbeer-swilling, more computing power at his fingertips than is good for him... or for you and me, that is.
  There, FTFY.
  
  --
  Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
2. Re:Yawn! by Trilkin · 2012-11-05 03:36 · Score: 1
  
  Mountain Dew-swilling*
  Rootbeer has no caffeine.
  
  --
  Nobody cares what the CAPTCHA for your post was.
3. Re:Yawn! by Merls+the+Sneaky · 2012-11-05 03:55 · Score: 2
  
  A few minutes of not being in the news, and they pull a stunt - a rather weak one at that which only reinforces the governments agenda of net surveillance.
  Does that not make you question whether or not it is "anonymous" at all"? After all it does further many governments agendas in relation to the internet.
4. Re:Yawn! by vikingpower · 2012-11-05 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, damn... my lack of US culture gave me away.
  
  --
  Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
5. Re:Yawn! by BattleApple · 2012-11-05 04:57 · Score: 1
  
  Barq's root beer has caffeine (although, less than half the amount in MD)
6. Re:Yawn! by DMUTPeregrine · 2012-11-06 19:21 · Score: 1
  
  That's fixable by dissolving no-doz (or other brand) caffeine pills in it first. Or powdered caffeine.
  
  --
  Not a sentence!
A Religious Order by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 03:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

They've already passed judgement on their enemies, and deemed them evil, and anybody who disagrees must be evil as well.

I see. So they're a religion.
1. Re:A Religious Order by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  I see. So they're a religion.
  Amen
2. Re:A Religious Order by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 04:17 · Score: 0, Funny
  
  I see. So they're a religion.
  Or the Republican party. Oh wait...
3. Re:A Religious Order by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  Humans appear to be hard wired to such stupidity.
  Being good at computers doesn't exclude people from that.
4. Re:A Religious Order by kiwimate · 2012-11-05 05:17 · Score: 0
  
  Like Linux users.
  Or KDE advocates.
  Or FOSS advocates.
5. Re:A Religious Order by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 07:07 · Score: 0
  
  Like Linux zealots.
  Or KDE zealots.
  Or FOSS zealots.
  Fixed that for you.
6. Re:A Religious Order by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  They've already passed judgement on their enemies, and deemed them evil, and anybody who disagrees must be evil as well.
  I see. So they're a religion.
  I think of them more Rush Limbaugh. At first not many people cared, then a few statements were made that got some wide-spread attention. Now the focus is gone and they're just an older gas-bag trying to start a few headlines
7. Re:A Religious Order by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 07:17 · Score: 0
  
  For Aiur!
8. Re:A Religious Order by osu-neko · 2012-11-05 08:19 · Score: 1
  
  No no. In the context of a Slashdot discussion, "religion" means a belief in any ideology other than the dominant one here, which is naturally considered logical and obvious. ;)
  
  --
  "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
9. Re:A Religious Order by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 18:58 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty much.
Falsely taking claim for VMware too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 03:17 · Score: 3, Informative

The VMware source is old and has been on Pirate Bay for six years. Nothing new there.
1. Re:Falsely taking claim for VMware too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 03:26 · Score: 0
  
  Didn't VMWare release the source anyway?
  There is an SDK or something that allows users to build their own drivers.
2. Re:Falsely taking claim for VMware too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 21:31 · Score: 0
  
  An SDK and the source of the hypervisor are quite different things.
Saturday Night Live by nomad-9 · 2012-11-05 03:31 · Score: 2

As for SNL, turns out that was an - Alcoholic - Anonymous who defaced their site. He had much to drink and thought it was a funny thing to do at the time.

Now that he has sobered up, he can't even "Remember, Remember The Fifth of November".
Australian Government sites... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 03:45 · Score: 0

Good, anything that draws attention to the fact the government is trying to sneak mandatory data retention in under the radar, is fine by me.
Not quite correct by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 04:08 · Score: 1

HTP (HackThePlanet) were responsible for ImageShack and Symantec: http://bin.par-anoia.net/?797d5dc59c69b7e5#lgN8gF9nPwZ+eFLKtVq7vfskyj6uatkrAB2VbsTfH54=
Anonymous has one goal and care nothing for... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 04:27 · Score: 0

Simply put, Anonymous as a whole cares nothing for collateral damage. They want to embarrass big companies who often deserve to be. Don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting their methods but honestly if you wanted to point out someone for doing wrong, how would you do it today and expect change?
Their methods work, though many unfortunate people get hurt in the cross fire. Change often does happen. Better security that should have been there before, people being terminated for not doing their jobs... unless you're Sony. Then you just get hacked again.
These are ideologists with enough skills to force the hands of many companies. Though most have the grammar skills of 12 year old texters.
1. Re:Anonymous has one goal and care nothing for... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 06:48 · Score: 0
  
  These are ideologists with enough skills to force the hands of many companies.
  You misspelled "douchebags".
Josh Groban was hacked, too by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 04:59 · Score: 0

Haven't seen reports of this (would anyone admit going to a Josh Groban site?), but Josh Groban's bulletin board was "hacked" too. My guess is these were cookie-cutter sites set up with an album release (Groban, Gaga, etc) and haven't been touched since. Not updated. My expectation is that "anyonymous" found some really low, low, low hanging fruit and this is being trumpeted all out of proportion.
Rationalized vandalism by GodfatherofSoul · 2012-11-05 05:23 · Score: 0

That's all it really is. A bunch of kids who think it's cool to throw bricks through store fronts; running around looking for a march to do it in.

--
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Where is the source for Paypal? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 06:06 · Score: 0

I followed the link train to the original article for the Paypal claim, which is written in broken English on some obscure blog. It makes no mention of Paypal.
It's Not Kids by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 07:20 · Score: 0

I think it's funny to see so many comments about the members of Anonymous living in their parent's basements and drinking caffeinated soda. Wake up fools, they are smart and not "organized" in the traditional sense which makes them stronger. No political agenda, no age requirements, no standardized agenda. No member lists/fees. Howdy, We come in peace :)
1. Re:It's Not Kids by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 08:43 · Score: 0
  
  Ok, so they're "smart" adults living in their parents basement. Even better
2. Re:It's Not Kids by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 17:00 · Score: 0
  
  "Howdy, We come in peace"
  Sounds familiar - wasn't that what the Americans said to the Indians as they moved west right before slaughtering half the population?
happy guy fawkes day by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 09:19 · Score: 0

obvious now that you think of it
PayPal deserver whatever they get by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-05 09:38 · Score: 0

I'm no fan of Anonymous but, in this case, we're talking about a truly abusive company who deserve to lose their near monopoly. One horror story after another: http://www.paypalsucks.com/