Slashdot Mirror
Cyber-Terrorists Attacking U.S. Banks Are Well-Funded
An anonymous reader writes "A DDoS attack targeting American Express on March 28th was just one in a series of incidents by self-proclaimed 'cyber-fighters' over the past few weeks. Beyond that, it's part of a much longer campaign to disrupt financial infrastructure using attacks over the internet. Ars details the group behind the most recent attacks, called 'the cyber-fighters of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam.' From the article: 'Named after a Muslim cleric who led The Black Hand, an anti-British and anti-Zionist jihadist organization in the 1920s and 1930s, and sharing a name with the military wing of Hamas (which the group's statements claim it is tied to), Izz ad-Din al-Qassam has taken credit for a variety of attacks on U.S. financial institutions over the past year, all allegedly in protest against the posting of trailers for the film The Innocence of Muslims on YouTube. Until the film is removed, the group said it would target "properties of American-Zionist CapitalistsThis attack will continue till the Erasing of that nasty movie." [sic]' There are concerns that the group is providing cover for organizations looking to defraud those banks. 'But even if the group behind the attacks isn't profiting from them, [Arbor Networks' Dan Holden] said it's clear that there are very real investments being made in their activities—maybe not in servers or hard assets, but in the form of countless hours of maintenance of the botnet by finding new servers to exploit, and further development of attacks. "Regardless of who's behind this," Holden said, "it has to be funded at some level. Even if it's hacktivists, it's got to be funded hacktivism." That, he says, is because of both the amount of time dedicated to the attack, and to its ongoing refinement. "It's not that these are the most sophisticated things in the world," he explained, "but it has been getting more sophisticated, and it's growing."'"
No, Seriously: Fuck that noise.
It's either cyber-criminal or hacktivist. There is no such thing as a cyber-terrorist. Normal terrorists can even use the interwebs to cause loss of life, but if it causes loss of life it is just terrorism by any other means.
As someone who believes terrorism should be treated as a serious subject matter, I find these petty attempts to cash in on the DHS cash-cow absolutely disgusting. Anti-terrorism is better funded than normal law enforcement so now every cop walking the beat wants to redefine their job title to include hunting parking-terrorists, and speeding-terrorists.
It's retarded, and it poses a threat to the 8th amendment.
Clearly these 'terrorists', however adequate their funding, are a bunch of amateurs.
As the recent history of the US(and more recently EU) banking sectors has demonstrated, the best way to disrupt financial infrastructure is to operate it. Plus, politicians will fight like dogs to see who can bail you out more generously, and you'll walk away with a fat bonus and no legal consequences!
Pull the other one. It's got BELLS on it.
This is a pure propaganda allegation. Unsourced, with out validation. Hamas? Gimme a break.
Wait for the shoe to drop, with additional restrictive and obtrusive laws on Internet users.
Even the "underwear bomber" has now been positively outed as a US "intelligence" operation. Not that anyone is noticing that little story.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Stop being level-headed. You're ruining the opportunity for rich people to declare war on something.
I hate printers.
In a fight between an Islamic fundamentalist group and the banks, who do I want to win?
Please never again use the word "cyber-terrorist" in any function. It is way too easy to turn that word into "anything someone does on the internet that you are scared of" and the internet is not always well understood by political classes and established interests. It is a word which too easily invites disastrous misinterpretation (e.g. Aaron Swartz-like situations).
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
Even before the 1890's, banks have been hold the world hostage.
If you have money in the bank, you ARE supporting the terrorists.
If you are using a credit card, you ARE supporting the terrorists.
But for those of you who say they can't live without banking services,
just ignore this message.
For those of you who dare not believe that your ever so loving bank
could or would ever harm you,
ignore this message.
Just keep working till you die...
I can't believe all these BIG companies are trying to save a few nickels in IT while spending millions on bonuses for the execs and company perks. Like you guys get kicked in the junk because you think you don't need protection.... What ev
Steve Jobs would have fired PHB's like that.... We need more CEO's that are nerds.... To keep the suits in line...
is the attack still going on? Or are the attacks not affecting Bluebird.com? Just wondering cuz i can log into my BlueBird account just fine.
whenever I see the word Zion i think of Zion National Park, not capitals. The park, located in Utah, is really pretty. no offense to people of Jerusalem.
It's pretty fucked up to equate "oh noes my credit card got declined at starbucks" to "I just died due to my planet getting driven into a skyscraper"
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
"Pull the other one. It's got BELLS on it."
Black hand, this is racist shit. I don't want a black hand in my white cheese.
*plane
Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
Points, sir. I award them to your non-sequitir!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Sooo relevant question:
Do the people working for DHS or for the cyber-criminals make more money?
Why?
Why not?
Who's to say these criminals (the Jihadis, not the banksters in this instance) are working for who they believe themselves to be? They could be working on the payroll of banksters or some shadowy government agency who want to create a 'reason' to pass legislation they can't pass without a tradegy taking place first...
Even the "underwear bomber" has now been positively outed as a US "intelligence" operation. Not that anyone is noticing that little story.
The article to which you linked is about a separate incident (in 2012) from the original underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was not a CIA spy and very much intended to cause harm (in 2009).
Yes, let's rage all over the Internet against an amateurist stupid, stupid film that nobody likes, and to make our point we'll attack banks and other miscellaneous financial institutions. Why? Because they funded and posted the film? Uh, no. Because they, well, have nothing to do with it but might complain to governments that also didn't fund or distribute the film? Because these governments will cave in and ban things, and that will totally prevent the film from spreading over the internet when they do?
Idiots.
A) why in multiple god's names would you think this would stop something from being spread all over the net? B) pick a *relevant* target, you idiots, C) don't you have anything better to rage against?
Yes, let's all rage on the interwebs until we get a (divinely blessed) pony and as much (divinely blessed) chocolate as we can eat. These are a bunch of amateurs who don't understand the internet, politics, religion, or much else. Get a real job, cyber "terrorists".
People in the business of robbing banks have lots of money? You don't say! I wonder where they got it all from?
Obviously it's "well funded" because it take billions of dollars for a bored schoolkid to leave LOIC running on his computer all day.
LOL.
No hacker worth their salt would use that word. In fact - I've only ever heard that word being put to use in three places - the first is obvious for anyone who used a chat room in the late 90's.. the remaining two? Hollywood and the media - coincidence? It's not about who is losing out - it's about who really gains.
Terrorism is the act of inducing fear into a society, to the point that individuals don't feel safe anymore.
You can, online, destroy the trust of people into banks, stalling any transactions because of fear/uncertainty. Without the loss of life.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Why do these scare-mongering articles always seem to quote people who have a vested interest in hawking products and services designed to combat "cyberterrorists" for governments and corporations?
Which of course makes the most powerful terrorist organization in the world the US Government, which is happily facilitated by the media.
Why do you stalk and harass apk?
Whenever a bureaucracy has nothing worthwhile to say (i.e. always), they turn to hyperbole. There are no cyber-terrorists. At most, these people are vandals, and they are not well-funded either as these attacks are cheap, get you press, but don't do any damage if the target has a minimal level of preparedness.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
I liked planet better. The planes just waited until the earth rotated the buildings into them.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You haven't figured it out yet? He IS apk!
But I thought I was apk. I even killed the previous apk and drank his blood, just like he did to the apk before him -- isn't that how it works? That's what they said at orientation.
Am wondering how much you think cyber profiteers could make by taking down a few major financial institutes for a couple of days? Does the market care about large consumer data breaches?? I realize if you hold too much of short position the goverment will realize it was you. But if your time it during a time when there are other reasons to be on the short side am thinking you could profit immensely with relatively minor suspicion.
BS. Your post completely misrepresents the information. There were two underwear bomber attack plans. The first one was unsuccessful and the guy ended up in jail. The second one, an informant volunteered to do the deed and instead turned the device over before going into an airport. He didn't get on a plane and try to detonate it in an attempt to scare the public into accepting new laws.
Increased spending on "Cyberwarfare defence" also increase these kinds of attacks?
This attack will continue till the Erasing of that nasty movie.
...if they'd be so kind as to add the Star Wars prequels to their list.
WTF is a Cyber Terrorist?
It's the working title of our next Hollywood blockbuster, along the lines of Argo and Zero Dark Thirty. Propaganda at its very best. You just can't argue with success.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
...the cyber-fundamentalists that North Korea is behind that movie.
I mean, they're godless communists, right?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Uh, wait. +5? Here's a hint, mods: buy a dictionary if your OS doesn't come with one installed. Read it more than one minute per week, and not just for words you have not seen before. buchner.johannes, nice troll. It is factually incorrect, but looks plausible, so you get double points.
If opportunity came disguised as temptation, one knock would be enough.
3^2 * 67^1 * 977^1
The Underwear Bomber? this guy? Why is he still in prison?
Quickly, we are getting DDoS launch the drones!
Though useful one should not limit their perceptions of the meaning of words merely by what is in the dictionary. Words are ever changing and oft used in multiple ways. One can be extremely educated and skilled in their use but still appreciate an insightful comment by the village idiot, unless of course one's views are prejudiced in too great a manner towards the person or their choice and application of words.
There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term "terrorism". Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of "terrorism". Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed upon, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.
Terrorism is the act of inducing fear into a society, to the point that individuals don't feel safe anymore.
You can, online, destroy the trust of people into banks, stalling any transactions because of fear/uncertainty. Without the loss of life.
Bullshit. Terrorism specifically involves violent acts towards civilians or military groups not currently involved in a war. Normally killing them in visible and public ways such as bombings.
Cyber-terrorism can be perfectly reasonably defined; things like: taking over train control systems and inducing the trains to crash into each other; opening dam flood gates and killing people; reprogramming medical systems to kill patients etc. etc.
People losing trust in banks which get broken into is called "good commercial sense". People publicising such attacks should be seen as "public spirited" given that they could just take the money and run.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
yes you heard right and i know where you live your blood will quench my thirst soon apk
You think you have what it takes to become apk? You're ten years too early to defeat me.
Patsy takes fall. News at 11.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Case in point:
Compare
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semitic
To
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti%20semitic
Quote: ""It's not that these are the most sophisticated things in the world," he explained, "but it has been getting more sophisticated, and it's growing.""
That doesn't sound like a class project to you? Let them carry on. It's Educational; good practice.
When the students practicing in the project are well enough trained, they will be able to qualify for work Visas and will be able to come to the U.S. Companies who can't find "as qualified" candidates coming out of U.S. schools (at least who will work for as little).
We need Cyber-Terror 101, 102 and 103, et seq. courses in our U.S, tech schools! That's what we need. Call your Congressman!
I think you are confusing the two underwear bombers. The second was an agent. He volunteered so the plot would be stopped and handed the bomb over. What was the CIA supposed to do? Out one of their agents? Now I don't trust the government and agree airport security is nuts, but that doesn't mean there aren't constant plots to kill Americans.
But I thought I was apk.
I was the Walrus - Paul wasn't the Walrus!
I was just saying that to be nice, but I was actually the Walrus!
"Believe us. Now that you caught us, we only ran the ONE fake-terror op. We aren't involved in manufacturing the others, and we have a professional code of ethics against lying."
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
but who wants to be well funded is the government force against them.
Be seeing you...
But it wasn't a fake terror op. As I see it, an undercover agent foiled a plot by volunteering and then surrendering. Nobody was "caught" other than in the sense an undercover operative was recklessly outed by the NYT. This was not a "false flag" attack or anything of the sort. Had an intelligence operative not volunteered, there would have been an actual terror attack, as there was just two years prior in 2009 that very nearly resulted in loss of life. As a result of what the agent did, lives were saved and nobody was ever in danger, as Obama said (and if you've read any of my posts, you'll no i'm hardly an Obama fan, nor was I of his predecessor, bush. As much as I like transparency, when it endangers intelligence operatives, it's not a good thing. There are instances where secrecy is a necessary thing, and when it comes to interfering with plots against the United States, it's a necessary thing. I realize how sometimes the government has cried wolf so many times and lied about so many things that it's hard to take any of their claims seriously, but sometimes there actually is a wolf.
Dear hackers: please attack banks in Bahamas, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Netherlands Antilles, Panama, Hong Kong, Ireland, Lebanon, Liberia, Panama, Singapore, and Switzerland too. Thanks.
Found him: http://images.wikia.com/dreamworks/images/b/bd/Kowalski.gif
So the US DOJ is a terrorist organization because they intimidate suspects? Heck they're at least using the threat of violence.
Actually, you're claim doesn't make anywhere near that much sense. Fear is not lose of confidence.
You lose almost all credibility when you apply the word terrorist to any non-violent activity. If you want to keep that credibility, you should either work around using the word terrorism by saying stuff like "confidence" or else try to invent some phrase like non-violent terrorism that exposes your bullshit.
The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
Moral equivalence ! Also known as the idea that stoning women and mining oil is the same : they're "both bad", and there really isn't any more to say on the subject than that. This absurd pseudo-atheist Jacobian standard must die (The Jacobins were famous for their absolute standards of good and evil, and magnitude doesn't matter. Stealing a loaf of bread is evil and so is massacring a kindergarten, and they're really just the same thing. This is the same thing here).
Of course in reality the problem is that there is tension between those who have an actual decent standard of good and evil versus the (majority) who just think right and wrong is whatever is convenient for them at the time. Accusing muslims of stoning women, starting wars and genocides as part of their religion, is the literal truth, confirmed by as many qurans, fatwas and historical events as anyone could possibly need, but it's also very likely to have real consequences when you say that. In reality this moral equivalence is nothing more than taking the opinion that's least likely to get you beat up. And the American government thinks you have rights ... muslims think that killing anyone who merely doubts them or otherwise creates any tiny problem for them should be tortured first, then murdered. They have historically done that on a large scale, and even though they can't kill anyone in the US, they can still threaten.
The sad part is that we have tolerance for grand speak about justice from those who are simply defending bullies.
I'm chuckling currently of the "dim lits" currently DDOS'ing Wells Fargo,(where I bank). No one at W.t.F is even staying late to assess these clowns next "scarey" move. A source at W.t.F comment was, "Ya, we gotta an app for that."
Ironic, and not in the funny way, that you should mention stealing a loaf of bread. In 1997, an American citizen was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison for stealing a loaf of bread, and only released after serving 13 of those years due to an appeal by Stanford Law School's Three Strikes Project. His previous two convictions were in the previous decade before that, stealing a purse and trying to rob a man on the street, neither involving weapons or violence. The country that imprisoned him? The United States. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/gregory-taylor-homeless-m_n_684828.html
And if you might be hoping the above has to be some kind of "exception to the rule", I'm sorry, read this one: http://www.eurasiareview.com/29032013-you-have-the-right-to-remain-silent-the-united-police-states-of-america-oped/
That by and large I like the Americans I've met and talked with, makes me all the sadder that their government has turned - and continues to turn - oppressive and violent. Yeah, you guys aren't Evil. But you've been "paving the road with good intentions", and America never seems to be one for doing anything by halves when it could shake the world instead. Well, consider us shaken.
You can, online, destroy the trust of people into banks, stalling any transactions because of fear/uncertainty. Without the loss of life.
So wouldn't most spam and phishing attacks be called "cyber-terrorism?" Oh it isn't.... What about run of the mill bank robbers? Why is an "attack" that most people don't even know it exists, be cyber-terrorist? Ohh because it isn't.
They are a bunch of thieves. Plain and simple.
Everyone should be posting the video as much as possible
war and terrorism in my opinion are now changed ... the economic attacks in Europe are a clear demonstration that these methods are more effective than any bomb. Without taking into account the damage that it can cause a massive computer attack on any structure, company or even country.
http://www.tipografialeone.net
When he learned of a newly-designed explosive device meant to be pass undetected through airport security to take down a U.S.-bound airliner, the informant volunteered for the mission and was given the device, which he then handed over to U.S. officials.
The underwear bomber in the article that you linked was NEVER a bomber or terrorist to begin with. He was an informant. The bomb was NOT a plot to sow the seeds of terror amongst the general public, it was the delivery of intelligence.
Is this "underwear bomber" the same one that was actually trying to blow up an airplane on its way from Amsterdam to America? What the fuck?
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen