Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FBI Reports US Agencies Hacked By Anonymous

Posted by timothy on from the can't-quite-put-a-finger-on-it dept.

Rambo Tribble writes "Reuters is reporting that the FBI has issued a warning to several U.S. Government agencies that the Anonymous collective has hacked their systems. Included in the list of compromised agencies are the U.S. Army, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services, and potentially many more agencies. The avenue of attack: Adobe Cold Fusion."

156 comments

  1. Huh, that's surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I thought the only people left in Anonymous were FBI informants.

    1. Re:Huh, that's surprising by pieterh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The War on the Internet is as much about creating an environment of fear that will justify increased spending, as it is cracking down on the young smart kids who are the real threat to the corporate para-State.

      So it's fairly likely that the FBI/NSA and their legal or criminal subcontractors are heavily involved in any dramatic security-related event. The fact that government websites are targeted makes no difference. Simple little false flags that keep the pressure up on legislators.

      It's easy to mock all this but the threat to our digital lifestyle is real and serious. We're a few years away from a fully regulated Internet where if you don't conform -- by running approved hardware, approved software, approved monitoring -- you simply won't get access, period. Clipper chip, remember that?

      And the only way to convince the mass of "who cares?" public are a series of dramatic, dangerous, unacceptable attacks on websites, infrastructure, transport, etc.

      --
      My blog
    2. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      You just don't understand what Anonymous is then.

    3. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was about to post something that would go line by line of your post arguing the usual things against conspiracies that I'd parrot from Skeptics like Michael Shermer.

      Then, I though about the latest events, the PATRIOT Act. the lobbying by big IT firms and defense contractors, and just the pathetic power hungriness and narcisism of our elected officials.

      So, I said to myself, "What the parent has suggested is completely probable in this day and age."

      It's not an individual super villian, but it is bunch of sociopathic people all working towards the same goal as stated in the parent's post. And they have the greatest weapon on Earth - people's irrational fear and desperation to feel safe.

      We are all fucked.

    4. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Erh... yes? So? How do you plan to justify the next batch of internet-lockdown legislative?

      Is it me or is it interesting that this "attack" hit Healthcare and Energy instead of, say, NSA or HS, two targets that would be much more fitting to the Anonymous profile?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Huh, that's surprising by pieterh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's a dark irony in so-called skeptics pushing their own conspiracy theories (mysterious gangs hate our way of life) to muffle out the obvious truth that it's (always) all about the money.

      It's not only probable, it's by far the simplest explanation, that the military-security complex needs to create threats to justify its existence, so a handsome slice of its budget consistently goes back into black operations against the very people it's meant to be protecting. If you argue that only crooks would do this, then my question is, what evidence do you have that the FBI, CIA, NSA, GCHQ et al are not run by simple crooks?

      As for being pessimistic, it's a normal feeling but not useful. Read my book (free, see below) for a background into how this state of affairs came to be, and how to fix things.

      --
      My blog
    6. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Put on your tin foil hats folks. This is nothing but paranoid ranting. You sound like a typical teabagger waiting for the black helos to arrive in your underground survivalist bunker while eating MREs and beating your kids.

    7. Re:Huh, that's surprising by girlintraining · · Score: -1, Troll

      as it is cracking down on the young smart kids wh...

      Today's fail post brought to you by Derpy McStereotypes and the Dept. of Redundancy Department. The government isn't discriminating on the basis of age here. They're discriminating on the basis of ability. We do not have the director of the FBI coming out and going "Generation Y: We gotta Pokemon This Shit And Catch Them All!"

      So it's fairly likely that the FBI/NSA and their legal or criminal subcontractors are heavily involved in any dramatic security-related event.

      Great. Another guy who thinks the NSA is the personification of the character Agent Smith from The Matrix. They're everywhere! They're everyone! They're responsible for every bad thing that happens! Please.

      The fact that government websites are targeted makes no difference. Simple little false flags that keep the pressure up on legislators.

      Whenever I hear someone mumble "false flag" I think of one thing: Fox News viewer. Because invariably they're trying to roll their conspiracy theory around in the batter of a phrase that sounds better than "tin foil hat brigade" and then deep fry it in bullshit reasoning.

        The question here that's being begged is: Why would the government shoot themselves in the foot? Because it's fun? To keep the tin foil hat brigade on their toes? Because "pressure" on the "legislators" is a bullshit thing.. especially since you mention the "corporate para-state"... which in Tin Foil Speak(tm) is the corporate-military superstructure that already owns the legislators. So what's the point in convincing people of something you've already bought off? An actual false flag, like, from the military-- involves carrying out a tactical strike against an enemy (or occasionally neutral party) while pretending to be a different actor so as to prompt a retaliatory strike against them.

      It's easy to mock all this but the threat to our digital lifestyle is real and serious.

      Yes sir, the NSA is working tirelessly to take us away from our dull facebook posts and cat videos off Youtube.

      We're a few years away from a fully regulated Internet where if you don't conform -- by running approved hardware, approved software, approved monitoring -- you simply won't get access, period.

      Yes... the NSA is going to assassinate Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds, then go murdering and gin-suing their way through the entire open source community. We'll all be shipped off to concentration camps where we'll be forced to either recant on our heretical devotion to open standards and start carrying iphones and wearing turtlenecks, or it's into a pit of acid. Let's be clear: That's about the only way you're going to get this fairy-tale world you're aiming for.

      Clipper chip, remember that?

      I remember it died. Horribly. I guess you forgot.

      And the only way to convince the mass of "who cares?" public are a series of dramatic, dangerous, unacceptable attacks on websites, infrastructure, transport, etc.

      Okay, are you some kind of troll? Seriously. How is it that you can first claim the government is engaging in "false flag" operations to blow itself up, and then turning around and saying that the only way to get the public engaged is to blow up government websites? Nevermind the historical success rate of terrorism like this (it's a goose egg), please tell me how all this fits together.

      Because as it sits right now, your logic here looks like a box of randomly assorted conspiracy theories strung together without an obvious conclusion, any supporting facts, and make about as much sense as believing all those animals Noah rescued fit on a boat, or that the world was created by a benevolent flying spaghetti monster and we're all derived from primitive manicotti. Actually... FSM probably has you beat.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    8. Re:Huh, that's surprising by girlintraining · · Score: -1, Troll

      There's a dark irony in so-called skeptics pushing their own conspiracy theories (mysterious gangs hate our way of life) to muffle out the obvious truth that it's (always) all about the money.

      You're one of those so-called skeptics, buddy. You just vomited up a Level 5 Tin Foil Rant in this very thread with false flags, the matrix has you, and a limited-edition Agent 'NSA' Smith on display. Then you turn around and invalidate your own post by saying "it's (always) about the money."

      As for being pessimistic, it's a normal feeling but not useful. Read my book (free, see below) for a background into how this state of affairs came to be, and how to fix things.

      On sale now: "The Sky Is Falling", by Chicken Little. A stunning critique of the government, with intro by Sir Tinfoil Hatsalot.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    9. Re:Huh, that's surprising by pieterh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm impressed by the quality of your arguments. Wait, you didn't make any arguments, you were just rude and dismissive...

      --
      My blog
    10. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      What did daddy do, touch you up when you were little? That why you spew hate all over the place?

    11. Re:Huh, that's surprising by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      It would appear that it has become a case of FBI vs. FBI?

    12. Re:Huh, that's surprising by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      The War on the Internet is as much about creating an environment of fear that will justify increased spending, as it is cracking down on the young smart kids who are the real threat to the corporate para-State.

      Just like the 'war on drugs' is. And people get in line willingly to support it.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    13. Re:Huh, that's surprising by melikamp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't shake off a feeling that the law enforcement and friendly news sources are using "Anonymous" as a boogeyman. When I see "Anonymous collective has hacked their systems", I read "Their systems were hacked. FBI has no leads". The law enforcement has finally found a perfect line for every situation where they demonstrate incompetence, since "anonymous" turns into "Anonymous" so easily.

    14. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Don't expect much more. girlintraining is one of the most outspoken idiots I've seen on here in a while.

    15. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Velex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes... the NSA is going to assassinate Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds

      That's not the point. If they did that, they'd lose a great deal of credibility, and I mean real credibility---the kind of credibility loss that wakes the people up, sparks real debate, and gets congress critters elected that really will defund this crap on a meaningful level. Of course they wouldn't do that.

      If I were going to compare the NSA to a character from The Matrix, I'd rather pick the Architecht. The Architecht is an interesting character because of his complete disinterest in how the goal of funneling bio-energy from the humans in the matrix to the machine city is accomplished as long as it's accomplished. In the same way, the NSA/FBI/CIA/TSA/DHS/OMG/WTF/BBQ seem to be in a role, domestically at least, of ensuring that a steady stream of tax revenue find its way to the military-industrial complex.

      The average person has absolutely no idea how web pages are served or what the infrastructure of the internet looks like beyond the physical of copper and fiber, and they have no idea how to gauge whether their sensitive, private data is being stored according to best practices or whether there are some serious concerns to be had. Sure, when somebody "breaks in" to a computer system and gains access to sensitive information, it's not right, but it's not always a crime either. Did the stewards of that information use best practiceses, was there a lapse and somebody forgot to lock a door behind them, or did they leave it out on the sidewalk with a giant "take one!" sign next to it? The public, at present, is completely unequipped to evaluate that, because networked computers are sufficiently advanced technology. They're indistinguishable from magic.

      That may not always be the case, and there's definitely room for improvement in primary education to include basic introductions to what constitutes information security and how the internet works.

      The point is that "hacking" is a scary thing to the public. If government websites are being hacked, there must be some very scary enemies out there, and it might even be an act of war. Our lifestyle might be under attack once again in the same way it was during the height the cold war.

      That's a very profitable thing for the military-industrial complex.

      The last thing they'd want is a public that, weary of over a decade of security theater, might actually question whether all the military spending is necessary, especially given national debt and budget deficits and the revelations that the NSA might not be making the best use of its funding, and start cutting that funding.

      (The argument of whether that would be effective or not in balancing budgets is beyond the scope of this post.)

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    16. Re:Huh, that's surprising by cavreader · · Score: 1, Troll

      The FBI, CIA, or the NSA are not collecting credit card information or other personal data used to commit online fraud against the average citizen. If your credit card information or your SSN has ever been compromised your screwed. If you live in the US I assure you the government already has a lot of your personal data. Just your SSN and Tax Returns provide everything the government would need to find you if they wanted to. Of course they have had this data long before the Internet ever came into play. The FBI, CIA, and NSA are not randomly publishing the confidential information in every media outlet on the planet regardless of the consequences large or small. The FBI, CIA, and NSA are not launching nuisance attacks to tie up or deface websites. As a matter of fact there has been no verifiable proof that the FBI, CIA, or NSA has caused any harm to US citizens or misused the data collected. So far all the complaints and accusations are about what they "could" do not what they are actually "doing" with the information. If everything published about the NSA capabilities is true then they would certainly be able to identify the people behind these type of attacks. After all they are supposedly intercepting and storing all the traffic moving on the Internet. The have supposedly cracked SSL, TOR, and other encryption systems used by companies and individuals. They are suppose to be able to compromise Google data centers as well as other large data centers at will. With all these capabilities tracking IP's back through multiple proxies is child's play in comparison. But it's always possible that the capabilities ascribed to the NSA are exaggerated in the extreme. Personally I am more worried about private and public corporations collecting and selling my data and online habits to others for profit. Hell Google drives down every street they can find collecting addresses and scanning for active Wi-Fi signals. Of course they just want to improve their mapping applications and they swear they are telling the truth about their motives.

    17. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I resemble that!

    18. Re:Huh, that's surprising by melikamp · · Score: 1

      I don't think "resemble" means what you think it means. But then may be you do, Anonymous Coward.

    19. Re:Huh, that's surprising by symbolset · · Score: 1

      Anonymous includes people who actually run these systems all day at their JOB. They don't have to steal info from inside... just a hint on an anonymous board will do. "mbry at fbi.gov, mid-level bureaucrat, local and net admin access, clueless, valuable shared volume access, DB admin, fancies /., Chase, FB, FARK and Brony fansites. Cannot resist smiley packs and IE toolbars."

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    20. Re:Huh, that's surprising by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      pieterh, you pretty well summed it up, dude!

      I'm with you, brother!

    21. Re:Huh, that's surprising by tlambert · · Score: 1

      The War on the Internet is as much about creating an environment of fear that will justify increased spending, as it is cracking down on the young smart kids who are the real threat to the corporate para-State.

      Just like the 'war on drugs' is. And people get in line willingly to support it.

      The war on drugs doesn't crack down on young smart kids, it cracks down on kids who spend all day on the couch eating Cheetos and watching T.V. because they can't muster up the energy to play Call of Duty after the last bong hit, and then they head out to White Castle at two AM because they saw Derek and Kumar do it in a movie, and, besides, they have the munchies and there's no food left in the house. Neil Patrick Harris on the unicorn is optional at that point.

      Typically, the war on the Internet also only cracks down on the young smart kids who have overstayed their welcome on the wrong side of the "you are no longer a minor" line, or have been sufficiently annoying to move that line past the "you will be tried as an adult" boundary.

    22. Re:Huh, that's surprising by garompeta · · Score: 1

      Maybe his face looks like a slashdot post. You Insensitive clod!

    23. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for posting this.

      You were fairly safe until your follow-up, where you pissed all over their money God.

      It is amazing, the holy outrage flung your way.

      Good work.

      We're a few years away from a fully regulated Internet where if you don't conform -- by running approved hardware, approved software, approved monitoring -- you simply won't get access, period. Clipper chip, remember that?

      This is no conspiracy, this is fact.

      Why do people think a military invention somehow ever belonged to anyone else?

      Look at how real borders work and you will see the digital borders being built. Things are no different in their minds.

      Look at the centralized concentration of computing power foisted on us as "the Cloud" from our masters.

      Ever-greater dependence and obedience upon our masters, in their never-ending pursuit of greater and greater power.

      This is simple human nature, it is not some massive hidden operation.

      Why do people cling to this myth that any government does not feel like it owns its people and they must obey?

      This is not even a government thing, this is a people thing.

      As far as they are concerned, we are just their captives and slaves.

      This isn't some amazing new revelation, this is how war has always worked.

      Coincidentally, the world is always at war.

      If it is not, why would anyone need a military in the first place?

      How dare you act like a human being who is not under someone else's thumb.
      How dare you not believe and parrot what you are told.
      Who do you think you are, making up your own mind?

      I love the implication that anyone who questions things is a "skeptic" and paranoid.

      Sorry pieterh, it doesn't seem like people can handle your opinions, all they can do is rush to
      shoot the messenger.

      You must be fairly close to the truth.

      How dare you insult their false idols. How dare you tell the truth.

    24. Re:Huh, that's surprising by gweihir · · Score: 1

      They probably have gone rogue after realizing where the US is headed...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    25. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's an old Foghorn Leghorn joke.

      "I resemble that remark".

    26. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no, someone with a female-looking username said something I don't like... better make some irrelevent and vile sexual comment, that'll show her who's boss!

    27. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Isn't that rather sexist of you?

    28. Re:Huh, that's surprising by FriendlyLurker · · Score: 3, Interesting

      what evidence do you have that the FBI, CIA, NSA, GCHQ et al are not run by simple crooks?

      What, facilitating the sale hard drugs in America or selling military equipment on the black market to "axis of evil" type countries is not criminal enough? People forget the criminal history of some of these organizations rather quickly and seem to ignore the current ongoing continuation of the same. Guess that propaganda and a firm grip on the corporate mass media message reaching the majority just works. We have a serious amount of evidence that those organizations have committed egregious crimes, so the real question is: How do we know/guarantee that they are NO LONGER being run by criminals?

    29. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that really her picture?

      https://badoo.com/girlintraining/photos/

    30. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my question is, what evidence do you have that the FBI, CIA, NSA, GCHQ et al are not run by simple crooks?

      You can't prove a negative. It's always prudent to look for evidence to disprove your theory, but you don't want to stray into Glenn Beck territory where you say things like "how do I know you're not a secret Muslim working for the enemy?"

      It completely destroys your position by sinking it in paranoia and endless unproved possibilities that could be true. Not good enough - you need actual evidence supporting your theory to convince anybody.

    31. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Girl in training? More like punkass in the wild.

    32. Re:Huh, that's surprising by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      This is not a conspiracy it is simple logical extrapolation. The FBI is aware of incursions into specific computer networks, they do not know who has committed the incursions, hence literally those person or persons are anonymous, as they are anonymous logically they must be a member of "Anonymous", else they would not be anonymous.

      Fucking, Bloody, Idiot, thinking, what could be more obvious. Here's a hint, unless they have been caught and prosecuted and they publicly claim to be a member of Anonymous, they are not members of "Anonymous". Which in turn, logically would be illogical, because once your claim to be a member of "Anonymous", you are no longer anonymous and logically can no longer be a member of "Anonymous". After all logically to be a member of "Anonymous" one must be and remain anonymous.

      So now extrapolating the current claim according to Fucking, Bloody, Idiot, thinking every questionable act committed by person or persons unknown, who are anonymous as a result of being unknown, must all be members of "Anonymous", which then according to the FBI must be by far the largest conspiratorial multi-national organisation upon the face of the planet. Here's betting with that kind of logic the FBI will end up spending an awful lot of time chasing their own tails.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    33. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that really you? I remember you, we went to school together...

      https://badoo.com/girlintraining/photos/

    34. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen worse. coldfjord and enthanol fueled comes to mind.

    35. Re:Huh, that's surprising by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      So ... the FBI have stopped paying, and now the informants are turning on their handlers?

      Just a second while I get my popcorn. This is going to be good.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    36. Re:Huh, that's surprising by romons · · Score: 1

      The War on the Internet is as much about creating an environment of fear that will justify increased spending, as it is cracking down on the young smart kids who are the real threat to the corporate para-State.

      So it's fairly likely that the FBI/NSA and their legal or criminal subcontractors are heavily involved in any dramatic security-related event. The fact that government websites are targeted makes no difference. Simple little false flags that keep the pressure up on legislators.

      It's easy to mock all this but the threat to our digital lifestyle is real and serious. We're a few years away from a fully regulated Internet where if you don't conform -- by running approved hardware, approved software, approved monitoring -- you simply won't get access, period. Clipper chip, remember that?

      And the only way to convince the mass of "who cares?" public are a series of dramatic, dangerous, unacceptable attacks on websites, infrastructure, transport, etc.

      If you consider who stands to gain from this sort of control, it becomes apparent that any alleged 'war on the internet', if it exists, is likely to fail. I've been using what became the internet before it was called the internet (usenet and arpanet, from UC in 1982, arpanet at BBN in 83 and beyond). Folks have been ranting about the internet going to the dogs since the thing started. (Remember folks putting 'terrorist' keywords into their usenet posts to foil the NSA?) The sky hasn't yet fallen. I realize that the fact that the sky has not fallen isn't argument against the possibility that it will, but really? "corporate para-state"? "The threat to our digital lifestyle"? Even "Clipper Chip?". Sigh... John Boehner likes his porn (well, gay porn) as much as you do. Nobody is going to cut it off. I believe your digital lifestyle is safe.

      --
      Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company -- Mark Twain
    37. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You made the parent's point once again. While redundant, it's still on-topic. You are aware that you and your parent poster are in agreement, yes?

      Just to be sure, I'll highlight the key word of the parent's post. You know, the part you quoted. Here it is again, with they key word in bold:

      what evidence do you have that the FBI, CIA, NSA, GCHQ et al are not run by simple crooks?

      See?

    38. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're saying every alcohol drinker is an abusive wino when most people handle their choice of release from stress ably. You'd probably be surprised at the habits of those around you.

      Drug use in adults correlates to high childhood IQ, these individuals understand the risks are negligible and are easily bored by the stupid people.

      http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/drugs/children-with-high-iq-more-likely-to-use-drugs-as-adults

    39. Re:Huh, that's surprising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is an outmoded view of gender, females don't need defending on the Internet because in general they have greater written communication skills. In this case if girlintraining wanted to tear a new asshole I'm sure she/he would have made a better job of it that you.

      How many times do they have to tell you to stop dragging your knuckles ? Must protect female sounding username, must protect ...

  2. oh so now we know by etash · · Score: 3, Funny

    who watches the watchers. it iz t3h 31337 h4x0rz t34m.

    i pity the fool

  3. Doubt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Anonymous is a group of script kiddies from the 4chan. They can't "hack" anything.

    Guy Fawkes lost.

    1. Re:Doubt it by etash · · Score: 0

      yes we already know he didn't blow up the king and the parliament :p

    2. Re:Doubt it by Opportunist · · Score: 0

      Did he? How many here know his name? And then, how many know who was King when it happened?

      I betcha you could ask that question in London and you'd come up with more people knowing Guy Fawkes than James I (VI).

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Doubt it by JustOK · · Score: 1

      Elvis is the KING

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    4. Re:Doubt it by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      I wonder how history would have turned out differently had Guy Fawkes succeeded with his plot.

    5. Re:Doubt it by ebno-10db · · Score: 1

      Not well. Catholic persecution was bad enough in England.

    6. Re:Doubt it by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      but they don't know who did it, hence it was anonymous... doh.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    7. Re:Doubt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many here know his name?

      How many of those only know it from V For Vendetta? I do mean the movie, most of these kids haven't read the (vastly superior) graphic novel.

    8. Re:Doubt it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do it by themself, but anonymously.
      One hand steals the other hand on the same fucked entity.

  4. Yea.. bank information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're way more afraid of hundreds or thousands of mini-Snowden Mannings popping up. Thing is, if these guys can get in so easily, what about hostile foreign gov'ts like the Chinese and Russians? Seriously. They were probably already there. This could also be a false flag pre-emptive strike. So, how can we vote for no confidence in our own system?

    1. Re:Yea.. bank information by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      They don't have to worry about hundreds or thousands of mini-Snowden/Mannings popping up; it only takes one or two to cause a huge shitstorm, so they have to be very worried about that. However, there's not likely to be than many Snowden/Mannings either, because the risk is so insanely high. Manning was caught and is now in a military prison for a very long time, and Snowden evaded capture by the skin of his teeth, and is now stuck in crappy Russia trying to make a new life (after living in warm and beautiful Hawaii, I hope he likes snow and cold). Given the high risk of capture and imprisonment, there aren't likely to be very many people willing to try this in the future, however as I pointed out, it only takes one to cause an international incident.

    2. Re:Yea.. bank information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now stuck in crappy Russia

      I take it you haven't been to Russia recently? Not as crappy as you seem to think.

    3. Re:Yea.. bank information by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Considering how it treats homosexuals, I'd say it's a pretty crappy place.

      The weather certainly isn't anything to get excited about either.

    4. Re:Yea.. bank information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was just there, weather wasn't bad, a little Seattle-esque.
      And it seems to depend more on how flamboyant and public you are about your homosexuality... But I guess you would know more about that?

    5. Re:Yea.. bank information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And it seems to depend more on how flamboyant and public you are about your homosexuality.."

      So it's OK for the government to persecute flaming faggots as long as they don't go after the pass-for-straight gays?

      Nice victim blaming you oppression-enabling monster.

    6. Re:Yea.. bank information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to drive down the wrong side of the road and anyone that beeps me is a bigot.

  5. We wuz hacked! by oldhack · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Now double our budget so we can counter them. And yeah, pass some laws against these terrorists.

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    1. Re:We wuz hacked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      Not nice when it's done to them, is it?

  6. Reap what you sow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And the party hasn't even begun yet,
    you didn't really think that tapping 6+ billion peoples Internet would not have consequences ?

    that Mr Anderson, is the sound of inevitability

    1. Re:Reap what you sow by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Choose your quotes a bit more carefully. Smith lost.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Reap what you sow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and so will they, hopefully.

  7. 2,0000 bank accounts ? 2k or 20k by ZeroNullVoid · · Score: 1

    2,0000 bank accounts....
    Is that 2k or 20k?

    TFA needs to be reviewed before going out.
    I expect more from Reuters.

  8. "Hacked!"? by BringsApples · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Ok, I know what hacking is. But I hate how it's become a term that allows for future explanation(s). "We've been hacked!" is something that someone who knows what just happened, tells another person that hasn't got a clue, to tell the masses, while some story is created to eventually explain to the masses, or not at all.

    "An FBI Spokeswoman declined to elaborate"

    I mean to say, what the hell happened? "Being hacked" isn't a real thing. You're missing stuff, or you see that stuff was accessed, or you found some new shit that shouldn't be there... Why aren't they telling us? Could it be because they left something wide open, and cannot legally admit to that?

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    1. Re:"Hacked!"? by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering this is the FBI we're talking about, it's probably a bunch of people they managed to convince to snoop around in their wide-open honeypots. Just like the "terrorists" they arrest that were recruited, encouraged and even trained by them because one day someone happened to make a politically incorrect remark to a nearby agent. Government manufactures its own terrorists. Just like it prints its own money, causes its own social problems and creates its own wars. It's all a dog and pony show to keep you distracted while they pick your pocket.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:"Hacked!"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      seriously, being hacked in all probability means a few webservers breached. big fucking deal.

    3. Re:"Hacked!"? by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 2

      Quick look at ColdFusion vulnerabilities suggests this is probably a real hack. And they aren't saying because its not patched everywhere.
      You seem to imply that if details are not known, nothing of substance happened. Save your objections for when the details are known, and it is actually not a hack.
      Preemptive objections make you seem stupid.

    4. Re:"Hacked!"? by BringsApples · · Score: 2

      I am stupid. But your point is still moot. All I am pointing out is that there are no details, other than "HACKED!!" and not by regular "people" rather "HACKATIVISTS!!" No one is being charged with anything, and yet there is already a group of people named "Anonymous" that are being blamed. So yes, while you're correct that it does make the one who mentions it "stupid", I share this stupidity with the ones that are blaming a group of people that they do not name. AKA terrorists without a face.

      Sometimes I feel that they sell those masks just so a bunch of mad people will portray it as a reality, just so that they can then use them as a scapegoat.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    5. Re:"Hacked!"? by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      You are exactly correct. The FBI telling the public, "We were hacked" is the same thing as me telling the FBI "I was hacked". They'd want to know what I meant by "hacked". Because "Hacked" isn't a real term on any level, it just means to be Macgyver-like in an approach to problem-solving. So basically the FBI issued a statement that there was a problem, and someone came up with a clever way around the problem. I don't get it, and that they expect me to get it, makes me think that they're trying to sneak something by.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    6. Re:"Hacked!"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Article says they believe the issue began last December, and that they left back doors, so I don't know if your comment about current CF vuln's means necessarily what you suggest. I suspect ( I have not looked ) that there has been at least one publicized CF vulnerability in the last 11 months.

      On a related note, I find it fascinating that I have not seen anyone mention that the CF source code was part of what Adobe had breached recently.

    7. Re:"Hacked!"? by Vertigo+Acid · · Score: 1

      You'd be wrong.
      http://www.adobe.com/support/security/#coldfusion

      --
      Beta is bad enough to make me go edit settings like this sig that haven't been touched since I joined
    8. Re:"Hacked!"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give it up, that battle was lost long ago

  9. Proprietary software? Well that sucks... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Paul (hotel barber): Okay, I don't want to know nothing. I never saw you throw that gentleman off the balcony. All I care about is: are you happy with your haircut?

  10. The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by ulatekh · · Score: -1, Troll

    If there was ever any argument for not letting the U.S. government collect massive amounts of data on us, take over the entire healthcare system, etc., it's stories like this. They're simply not competent to do so. They're not even close.

    The U.S. government was originally envisioned as a limited government, with a short list of enumerated powers, and all other government functions were left to the states. Over the years, and in wild violation of our Constitution, the federal government has grown way past that. Not only is their size and function not legally justifiable, but it's simply too big to work.

    A wonderful reform would be to cut down the size of the U.S. government to just what the Constitution allows. Anything that requires coordination between the 50 states can be done in a "clearinghouse" manner, with the federal government providing a mechanism for coordination, but not control over it. That would be a much better way than letting the federal government assume primacy on subjects not in its Constitution.

    --
    "Once we've identified and embraced our sickness, we'll have strength...and that's when we get dangerous." - John Waters
    1. Re:The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The reason the healthcare system is broken is that private enterprise and the states completely broke it. Any problems that are in progress are due to obstruction by the Republican Party who are actively working to sabotage this bill and this President. Even before Obama took office they said they would oppose everything and anything he tried to do.

      There are several large Federal agencies like the IRS and Medicare don't have problems with collecting personal data.

    2. Re: The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its broken because its broken... it doesent need any help... but you do speak like a true libtard

    3. Re:The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by gtall · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Okay, let's zero out your expected take from SS and Medicare when you are too old to fund yourself. And while we're at it, it would be okay if Grandma moved in with you, right? Her meds only run a few thou a month, but that's a small price for you to pay to be freed of the Fed. Gov. Let's remove NiH, because you will never get cancer, contract a food born illness, or get nailed by the next pandemic. You'll let the mentally ill live with you, 'cause they'll need a place to stay. They usually need meds too.

      Let's also turn the world over to the Chinese because in 20 years, we'll be entirely self-sufficient and won't need any open trading partners. And while we're at it, lets get rid of NTSA and the FAA, you won't die in an airline accident because the airlines cut corners. Let's abolish the SEC, Wall Street and the Banks have your best interests at heart.

      And let's get rid of that awful FBI, if your father gets whacked, you won't need no stinking investigation as to whom did it. Come to think of it, we won't have to worry about young kids getting kidnapped because there will be no federal agency to track them down. They shouldn't have gotten their asses kidnapped in the first place. We also don't need the federal prison system, them guys can kip at your house right...be sure to keep your gun loaded and by your bedside, they tend to sleepwalk a bit.

    4. Re:The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And let's get rid of that awful FBI

      Actually, the FBI is an awful, corrupt organization that has violated the rights of numerous people, but to a lesser extent than the likes of organizations such as the NSA.

    5. Re:The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 2

      "Stories like this" meaning flaws in Adobe products? I don't know the purpose of the attacked systems, so I can't say whether having the leaked data was appropriate, therefore extrapolation is not supported.
      Any way you look at it, your conclusion is at bestmisplaced, which is why you are modded as troll.

    6. Re:The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of your arguments are based on the false assumption that everything else stays the same when the size of government is reduced. It's shallow and wrong.

      I'm only going to address the first one because I've got better things to do on a Saturday morning. You should be able to save for your own retirement and pay for most of your medical care directly. Currently, you can't do that because you're taxed to death, and the government has given monopoly control to a handful of healthcare giants. You therefore rely on these government program if you want to eat in your later years or get any medical attention. Most government programs are like this, as is government itself. It establishes a manufactured need for citizens to rely on it. It has grown out of control and as a result you are a slave to it.

    7. Re:The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Currently, you can't do that because you're taxed to death,

      The US has the lowest tax rate of all developed countries. So right there your argument is already wrong.

      and the government has given monopoly control to a handful of healthcare giants.

      I don't know where you get this from and it is really funny to see how hard you strive to pin a clear failure of the free market (healthcare is not a freely traded good) on your big government bugaboo.

      Clearly you've reached a conclusion first (big government is always bad) and now you are forcing the facts into it.

      I don't want big government but nor do I want small government. I want government of just the right size to provide (1) decent public education to all (equality of opportunity, not outcome), (2) decent public infrastructure, (3) enough defense that we can be secure in the world (but not so much that we can go in expeditions to Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11 or weapons of mass destruction), (4) healthcare to all since a civilized country does not let sick or hungry people die and (5) enough police that I can go to the corner store without fear of being mugged.

      If you look at the list above, government is too small for all of those except (3). Those are facts. The rest is ideology.

    8. Re:The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Okay, let's zero out your expected take from SS and Medicare when you are too old to fund yourself. And while we're at it, it would be okay if Grandma moved in with you, right? Her meds only run a few thou a month, but that's a small price for you to pay to be freed of the Fed. Gov. Let's remove NiH, because you will never get cancer, contract a food born illness, or get nailed by the next pandemic. You'll let the mentally ill live with you, 'cause they'll need a place to stay. They usually need meds too.

      Let's also turn the world over to the Chinese because in 20 years, we'll be entirely self-sufficient and won't need any open trading partners. And while we're at it, lets get rid of NTSA and the FAA, you won't die in an airline accident because the airlines cut corners.

      You're all good up to here.

      Let's abolish the SEC, Wall Street and the Banks have your best interests at heart.

      The SEC exists to legitimize financial fraud. When the banks steal billions of dollars, we can all blame the SEC for not doing its job, instead of blaming the people committing the fraud. They've done absolutely nothing to reign in banks, and don't intend to.

      And let's get rid of that awful FBI, if your father gets whacked, you won't need no stinking investigation as to whom did it.

      The much bigger threat is people dying because of bad diets, because of federal ag subsidies. Or people dying from the side effects of drugs they don't need because of a profit driven pharmaceutical industry. Or people dying in needless wars of agression. I'm much more concerned about the FBI causing deaths because they infiltrate and disrupt groups trying to advocate for reforms that would help people.

      The FBI exists only to add a thin veneer of "we're here to protect you" that covers up a massive amount of corruption that harms us far more than helps us. They exist to ensure that entrenched power remains entrenched.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    9. Re:The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never attribute to incompetence what can be attributed to malice.

      Even "not knowing what they're doing" is something they've made sure of.

    10. Re: The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is broken because half or more of the people who are supposed to be making it work are instead doing everything they can to prove it cant work, thus supporting their "government cant do anything right" motto.

    11. Re:The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be able to ... pay for most of your medical care directly. Currently, you can't do that because you're taxed to death...

      I dont know about you, but the reason I dont have $10,000 lying around to pay for the X-rays and Tylenol they gave me after I broke my wrist was because $7/hr still wouldnt be enough to pay for food and rent even if the government wasnt taking what I agree to give to pay for the things a society needs to exist by living in that society. I dont even want to think about how much of a bitch it would've been just getting to the hospital if it werent for those roads making it so damn easy.

    12. Re: The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      Healthcare in the US was broken before Obamacare. Below average outcomes, massive numbers of uninsured and world's highest costs. Thank you states and private industry.

      The fact is no country in the world has a working private healthcare system.

      Republican low-grade idiots trying to prevent reform were a large part of the reason Obamacare doesn't go nearly far enough towards fixing it. And of course massive efforts trying to sabotage the limited reform are making it even worse.

    13. Re:The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, let's zero out your expected take from SS and Medicare when you are too old to fund yourself.

      Social Security and Medicare are fully funded by a 13% and nearly 4% tax, respectively, split 50/50 between a tax on employee income and a payroll tax. In the unfortunate event you're self-employed, these taxes are paid 100% by you. If you're going to zero out the take from Social Security and Medicare, make sure to add back in the 15% of income that everyone would now get to keep and save for themselves.

    14. Re:The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US has the lowest tax rate of all developed countries. So right there your argument is already wrong.

      Add up federal income tax, social security tax, medicare tax, state income tax, city income tax, payroll taxes, sales taxes, maybe even lodging/resort taxes and property taxes -- and you'll find it's not really that much lower than countries that manage to provide functional social services, post-secondary education, and universal health care.

    15. Re: The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by tlambert · · Score: 3, Funny

      libtard

      You know that if you install it in the correct location, you can just use -ltard on the linkage line, rather than spelling it out like that, right?

    16. Re:The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right, god save America.

      Nuke the bastards.

    17. Re:The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by ToddInSF · · Score: 1

      Every example you've given has a real-world counter-example of where this extremism and remarkable faith in the absoluteness of the efficiency of these systems falls short. To put it very politely.

      But you've conveniently omitted all that.

      What I want to know is, why ?

      People don't want to be told to shut the hell up, everything's fine, when it obviously isn't. And we don't need statist apologists constantly lying to us and pretending that everything's fine and that no other options can be implemented. All you've done here is prove that you have an agenda, and it's an ugly agenda that yields a very dystopic outcome.

    18. Re: The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      libtard - A liberal retard. A liberal is progressive. Progressive are ahead of the curve, progress wise. Great oxymoron there. No, conservtard might make sense. But, then you're obviously too retarded to understand that.

    19. Re:The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by airdweller · · Score: 1

      "The US has the lowest tax rate of all developed countries."
      Did you actually try to look up the numbers?

    20. Re:The U.S. government is hideously incompetent by Alomex · · Score: 1

      Did you actually try to look up the numbers?

      Of course, it is the GOP sole characteristic to not look up facts. The rest of the political spectrum (from the middle all the way to the far left) may have many flaws, but ignoring facts and figures is not one of them.

      Here are the figures for you, straight out of Wikipedia:

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

  11. Re:2,0000 bank accounts ? 2k or 20k by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Funny

    If European with the inverted comma/decimal system it could even be a very precise 2 bank accounts...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  12. Or maybe it was the NSA... by Coditor · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... we can't tell.

  13. Re:2,0000 bank accounts ? 2k or 20k by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

    it could even be a very precise 2 bank accounts

    he must mean 'for large values of 2'

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  14. Reporting on itself ????? by HansKloss · · Score: 1

    We just learned from the press that targets and directions come from agency.
    So, typical of government
    - create a project
    - fund it
    - find a disposable hacker to perform the "attack"
    - report success
    - ask for more money and staff

  15. Blame the software by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1

    The real threat is the people who have been compromised in these organizations.

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
    1. Re:Blame the software by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

      The real threat is the people who have been compromised in these organizations.

      You mean the web admins for not securing their servers?

      --
      Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
  16. Clipper Chip... remember? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah... I do because I'm old enough to remember that fiasco.

    Is it in existence today? No.

    You talk about the internet being clamped down to approved hardward/software/etc/etc... History proves that you can't shut down the flow of information.

    Every PROHIBITION has backlash... Hell, prohibition is actually increasing the number of "Manic Psychosis" incidences in our youth today. There are tons of other examples but you should already be aware of them.

    Prohibition of internet access will never work. lol

    Keep it Clean! :D

    1. Re:Clipper Chip... remember? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

      LOL... slashdot link fail

      TheCleanGame & Net /2013/10/prohibition-causes-psychosis-in-our-youth/

      I used to hang out here a lot more. LOL

    2. Re:Clipper Chip... remember? by pieterh · · Score: 1

      You're right, history proves you can't shut down the flow of information.

      Doesn't mean people aren't trying, people with excessive amounts of money and technology, and no laws to keep them constrained.

      --
      My blog
  17. Re:2,0000 bank accounts ? 2k or 20k by s.petry · · Score: 1

    Maybe that was an attempt at binary?

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  18. Ah, Adobe by mevets · · Score: 2

    Is there anything your software canâ(TM)t do?

    1. Re:Ah, Adobe by jones_supa · · Score: 4, Funny

      If something, at least Unicode is quite well supported in their products.

    2. Re:Ah, Adobe by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's a lot more than we can say about Slashdot.

  19. Anonymos IS the Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    Guys, face some facts. The "Internet boogeyman" is created or controlled by government operatives.

    It is called full spectrum dominance or controlled opposition in psyche-war terms where YOU the government are so powerful that it is not enough to put up defenses and monitor the battlefield, you actually go out and recruit, train and supply your own attackers to justify all your toys, budgets and Start Trek set-piece http://americablog.com/2013/09/nsa-outrage-star-trek-bridge.html that give you so much personal power in society.

    Sure there are fringe guys meeting at the mall thinking they are part of some gray-hat brigade, but at so point they will infiltrated and then guided into honey-pot mischief.

    If you think that is crazy, then why is the US supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria. Haven't your families been fighting and dying in Afghanistan fighting those same guys for over a decade. Do you own research.

    1. Re:Anonymos IS the Government by pieterh · · Score: 1

      No way, it's impossible that sociopathic power-hungry politicians, bankers, military men, and intelligence officers who treat human lives as disposable would stoop to such things. That would be unAmerican. And beside, CNN and MSBNC would tell us if it happened, right? "Controlled opposition"... laughable! Next you're going to tell me the FBI infiltrated Anonymous chat channels and encouraged young guys to hack into their own systems!

      --
      My blog
  20. Re:Where's the oblig. XKCD? by steelfood · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Obligatory XKCD.

    --
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  21. Anonymous collective ??? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Since when did Anonymous == Borg ???

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Anonymous collective ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Heuristics are futile. You will be asininely humiliated.

  22. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All your base are belong to us!

  23. QPQ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quid Pro Quo? Given the NSA's "hacking" of everyone's data, why should we be surprised that Anonymous is hacking the feds?

    To quote the Bard - screw you assholes!

  24. Exactly, and was it even Anonymous? by s.petry · · Score: 2

    It's not beyond these people to lie to achieve what they want. Hopefully I didn't even need to mention that, but I did just to be sure we were on the up and up here. Reading the article, there is nothing I can see to verify that this was in fact the work of Anonymous. Some things don't line up with the normal activities. This article not only spreads FUD for internet censorship and control, but FUD about activism/hactivism.

    From TFA, they first claim that anonymous used PDF exploits. Well, just about every botnet on the planet gets infected by some type of Trojan filled file. Anonymous is more well known for MITM attacks than trojaned files. Nothing convincing yet that it was anonymous.

    Then they claim that anonymous stole 2,0000 bank accounts. That on a Rueters article should be a dead give away that this potentially propaganda. It didn't make it through normal editing.

    The article does mention someone in the UK being indited on hacking into the US DOE, but then they lump everything else to that one person at anonymous. Maybe they have much more detail on proving that all of these hacks were anonymous and didn't show it. I'm not convinced by what was released here, and have not trusted these people to tell the truth for decades (amplified in the last few years).

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  25. Can you HEAR ME NOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Paul (hotel barber): Okay, I don't want to know nothing. I never saw you throw that gentleman off the balcony. All I care about is: are you happy with your haircut?

  26. good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the feds have become the criminals imho

  27. Revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The downfall of this government will not be accomplished by 2nd amendment nuts and their horded ammo, rather by kids clicking from their parents' basements. You go guys!

    1. Re:Revolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you ever talk to one of those "2nd amendment!!!11one" nutters, you'll quickly discover that they dont care about anyone but themselves, which means they're more likely to use that firepower to establish their own little "kingdom" in the event of a societal breakdown than they are to actually take part in something that would benefit anyone but themselves.

      After all, why would they want to continue being a civilian when they could instead be a king?

  28. Well when ya force software companys by Stan92057 · · Score: -1

    Well when ya force software companys to leave holes open so ya can spy.....your enemy s use them as well.whos surprised? not me.

    --
    Jack of all trades,master of none
  29. you realize that's opposite of tea party, right? by raymorris · · Score: 1

    You keep posting that crap for every other article.
    You're being sarcastic, right? You know tea party people think government is basically incompetent, incapable of say, launching a shopping web site, right? Conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, believe the government is secretly controlling everything, that they run everything. So pretty much opposite ideas of what government is. Here's a cheat sheet for you:

    Believes government is incapable of setting up an insurance shopping web site: tea party
    Believes government can hack your phone to spy on you with the battery removed: conspiracy theorist

  30. Mommy! the stole my marbles, can you buy me more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1

    "Mommy! the stole my marbles, can you buy me more?"
    USSSSLiers on the loose.
    Now what? Anonymous have MD weapons in their keyboards?
    They are hacked by themself, nobody believes them but them.

    Bahh, Bollocks!

  31. Hehe by lapm · · Score: 1

    Hand up anyone thats suprised US goverment IT systems got hacked once again...

    1. Re:Hehe by lightknight · · Score: 1

      *facepalms*

      Ok...let's just have them burn static HTML pages on a DVD containing the operating system, and work from there. The other side can then play to win against Write Once media.

      I'll be on my island, brooding, and watching anime. ;-)

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    2. Re:Hehe by Lodlaiden · · Score: 1

      *facepalms*

      Ok...let's just have them burn static HTML pages on a DVD containing the operating system, and work from there. The other side can then play to win against Write Once media.

      That's actually a very interesting idea for a web front end where you wouldn't actually expect anything to change without an onsite admin being involved. Even dynamic webpages themselves do not change.

      --
      Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
  32. Re:you realize that's opposite of tea party, right by xevioso · · Score: 1

    Believes government is incapable of setting up an insurance shopping web site while supporting people who actively try to thwart the setting up of said website: tea party

    There, fixed that for you.

  33. Re:Sceptics turning a blind eye. by hoboroadie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Follow the money. If that won't convince you then I posit that anyone foolish enough to use Adobe Vectorware is at least uninformed, and incompetent, if not fully complicit in the security fail.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  34. coldfusion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wtf? why the fuck was this software installed on systems or networks containing this type of information?

  35. Re:Where's the oblig. XKCD? by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

    Someone tore down a poster hung up by the CIA and if caught faces 25 years in federal pound you in the ass prison!

    FTFRandall

    --
    Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
  36. Re:you realize that's opposite of tea party, right by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    while supporting people who actively try to thwart the setting up of said website

    If I may summarize what "actively try to thwart the setting up of said website" amounted to: several votes in the House of Representatives that had no effect whatsoever.

    The failing rollout of Obamacare and the many lies associated with it are 100% owned and operated by the Democratic party.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  37. Re:2,0000 bank accounts ? 2k or 20k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    everybody knows that 2 doesnt exist, its just a boogyman thats used to scare children.

  38. Re:Mommy! the stole my marbles, can you buy me mor by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

    "Mommy! the stole my marbles, can you buy me more?"
    USSSSLiers on the loose.
    Now what? Anonymous have MD weapons in their keyboards?
    They are hacked by themself, nobody believes them but them.

    Bahh, Bollocks!

    Is this a modern take on The Jabberwocky?

    --
    -- Using the preview button since 2005
  39. Re:you realize that's opposite of tea party, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Au contrair, mein freir. You had better go back and reread the news of the state of Massachusetts from GRoo-money days. Seems he put forward an old Nixon plan and the state bought it, and it worked there. That was all the fed house and senate would buy as a maximum coverage for those out of work. Then remember who is in charge of the departments, SES's, most of the liberal ones were canned by King George II as too liberal, and were replaced with GS subsidiaries. And those were not canned by the winner. So what are they again, liberals or ???.

  40. better anonymous than china by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Seriously, under W, national security was put aside. Now, we need to focus on this and make good with securing our systems.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  41. Department of Energy hack by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Department of Energy was hacked via Cold Fusion. How fitting.

  42. This is a confirmation, not new news. by DontLickJesus · · Score: 2

    Anon reported back at the beginning of Operation Last Resort that they were already much more deeply entrenched in US government networks than anyone had found. This isn't a new revelation, it's an ongoing event.

    --
    Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found
  43. Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The NSA has been 'shooting' exploits at internet targets by using MITM at the backbone.

    Stop playing the victim card, the whole world (except the US citizens inside the US) already knows the US is nothing more than front for international bankers to do their dirty work.

    One particular trick involved identifying the LinkedIn or Slashdot account of an intended target. Then when the QUANTUM system observed individuals visiting LinkedIn or Slashdot, it would examine the HTML returned to identify the user before shooting an exploit at the victim. Any page that identifies the users over HTTP would work equally well, as long as the NSA is willing to write a parser to extract user information from the contents of the page.

  44. Who to believe ? ? ? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    I read this /. post, but I also just read this:

    http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/11/this-is-how-the-internet-backbone-has-been-turned-into-a-weapon/

    Who to believe? ? ?

  45. Anonymous should just announce a name change by tlambert · · Score: 1

    I can't shake off a feeling that the law enforcement and friendly news sources are using "Anonymous" as a boogeyman. When I see "Anonymous collective has hacked their systems", I read "Their systems were hacked. FBI has no leads". The law enforcement has finally found a perfect line for every situation where they demonstrate incompetence, since "anonymous" turns into "Anonymous" so easily.

    Anonymous should just announce a name change "We who were formerly Anonymous announce that we are officially changing out name to 'The Boogeyman', and are claiming credit for X, Y, Z that we have been accused of perpetrating" kinda thing.

    Then all the news reports get corrected to "Security Company Q attacked by The Boogeyman".

    Hilarity ensues...

    1. Re:Anonymous should just announce a name change by garompeta · · Score: 2

      Anonymous is now Pseudonymous

    2. Re:Anonymous should just announce a name change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, we don't typically bring our laptops with us when we hide in closets or under the bed. The dark wouldnt be scary if it was lit up by a screen.

  46. Just scrap Justice, Defense and the NSA by runeghost · · Score: 3

    A Justice department that claims it's getting hacked (to worrisome levels) by teenagers. A National Security Agency that spends hundreds of billions spying on the citizens it claims to be protecting while accomplishing nothing. A Defense Department whose specialty is fighting foreign wars badly, while shelling out trillions to contractors.

    It's well past the time where an honest government, or a real democracy, would say "enough failure" throw in the towel, and start again from scratch.

    1. Re:Just scrap Justice, Defense and the NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up and watch football.

  47. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it clearly stated cold fusion was the problem

    and with all the 0days for that shit floating around im not surprised

  48. Your government protects you from the Terrorists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And who protects you from your government?
    The terrorists.

    You and I just sit here and eat the free bread and watch the circuses.

  49. Re:you realize that's opposite of tea party, right by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    I suggest you check the voting history of the Affordable Care Act. There is a distinct lack of Republican votes.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  50. Re:Mommy! the stole my marbles, can you buy me mor by Qzukk · · Score: 1

    No, too many real English words, not enough slithy toves.

    --
    If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  51. Re:Mommy! the stole my marbles, can you buy me mor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Twas bryllyg.

  52. The Story So Far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Krebs and Holden Security bloggers reported circulating copies of an Adobe Source Code archive. Implict is the archive contained Coldfusion source code. At the time they reported the archive encrypted and they were unable to break the encryption.

    Fast forward, code surfaces from the archive unencrypted for sale on the internet.

    Websites running Coldfusion 8 (an old version no longer supported or monitored for security fixes) is compromised on a number of websites. Re-developing and re-deploying websites developed for an older unmaintained code base is expensive, if possible at all and institutions with limited budgets rarely do it, even if prosecuted. Its easier to "notify" users.

    Krebs and Holden also notice a credible exploit and report it to Adobe, who notes it is effective but not against current products-- however they release a patch for the vulnerability later Nov 12 against CF10.. report its relevant for CF10, CF9.. and that CF8 is no longer supported and that they believe CF8 has been compromised and is the attack vector for hackers currently.

    Moral.. stop running CF8, destroy the old websites using CF8 and re-commission new websites with modern and security supported server software, stop using "notify next of kin" as a cost mitigation factor. And apply security patches for CF9 and CF10 immediately, the attack is being suggested as "Zero Day" and having been used for some time.

  53. Double Jepardy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once the "source code" for a website running on a Framework is "exposed" by the application server using read-only rights.

    Then that specific website "becomes" exploitable, even if the application server is "patched" with a security patch.

    In which case "destroying" the old website code makes sense, as it has been "mapped out" by hackers.

    This procedure of "scorched Earth" re-development should be "written in the Constitution" and "mandated" by the power of Law!

  54. Turn about fair play? by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    Sometimes when you hack the planet, the planet hacks you!

  55. Deserved by ahabswhale · · Score: 1

    If you're still using Coldfusion, you deserve to get hacked.

    --
    Are agnostics skeptical of unicorns too?
  56. Not a surprise by Shaman · · Score: 1

    Cold Fusion is one of the buggiest, most insecure of all the web code development platforms, in a world riddled with buggy, insecure web platforms.

    --
    ...Steve
  57. Yes there is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ban malpractice lawsuits like Hong Kong, and you don't need insurance.

    1. Re:Yes there is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see you have never visited or lived in Hong Kong.

  58. Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watching this whole meltdown is almost as entertaining as watching a bunch of warez kids fight it out with a bunch of pedos over control of a dump site.