Slashdot Mirror
Sony Reportedly Is Using Cyber-Attacks To Keep Leaked Files From Spreading
HughPickens.com writes Lily Hay Newman reports at Slate that Sony is counterhacking to keep its leaked files from spreading across torrent sites. According to Recode, Sony is using hundreds of computers in Asia to execute a denial of service attack on sites where its pilfered data is available, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter. Sony used a similar approach in the early 2000s working with an anti-piracy firm called MediaDefender, when illegal file sharing exploded. The firm populated file-sharing networks with decoy files labeled with the names of such popular movies as "Spider-Man," to entice users to spend hours downloading an empty file. "Using counterattacks to contain leaks and deal with malicious hackers has been gaining legitimacy," writes Newman. "Some cybersecurity experts even feel that the Second Amendment can be interpreted as applying to 'cyber arms'."
but where can I find this juicy info? What the the websites being attacked by Sony?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Then they are no better than those that hacked into their systems, and should be prosecuted like any criminal hacker
Those that have helped them in this, should be prosecuted as accessories.
Or, if what SONY is doing is acceptable, Than it was okay for those that hacked SONY to do what they did.
The law applies to all, big and small.
Sony doesn't just poke the hornets nest, they go balls deep and windmill
If this is going to be the M.O. of companies that thing the internet is their plaything and they can do whatever they want then the biggest inovation since planes is going to be dead. The internet if constantly hacked is going to be more than useless. The big players always want to criminalize hacking and file shareing etc but when they are incompetant its ok for them to disregard the DMCA and crack others sites and totally try to trash the usefullness of the internet. These companies need to die. fuck them all. fuck the US Government as well and fuck Beta.
Go to youtube and see how many fake files are there, with how many fake users of any sony (or MGM) movies.
Even if the second amendment were to cover this, the second amendment doesn't allow you to actually shoot someone (or to DDoS them).
can it continue? Denial costs Denari.
There is no real evidence of this, just a bunch of speculation and innuendo from the Torrent fans.
Could Sony do this? Of course. But there would certainly be corporate liability involved.
So would they? Probably not.
Sony knows these movies will make it to the illegal market sooner or later, so why would they open themselves to this kind of liability? They would not.
Internal emails are probably more of a concern, but anything that could be relieased would already be the subject of internal roumors amoung those concerned.
This story is probably wishful thinking and a crock.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
> Some cybersecurity experts even feel that the Second Amendment can be interpreted as applying to 'cyber arms'."
Uh huh... the 2nd amendment says I have the right to defend myself. That means I can own guns to defend myself when I'm being attacked... PHYSICALLY.
The proper analogy is that I have the right to secure my computer systems from being hacked by malcontents or governments (or both).
It does not give me the right to go over to the local printing press and blow them up if they're xeroxing my naked selfies. That's not defense, that's just vandalism.
Good lord can this world get any dumber...
Mao Zedong opined that "the only real defense is active defense", meaning defense for the purpose of counter-attacking and taking the offensive. Often success rests on destroying the enemy's ability to attack. This principle is paralleled in the writings of Machiavelli and Sun Tzu.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
"Some cybersecurity experts even feel that the Second Amendment can be interpreted as applying to 'cyber arms'." - Name names of these idiots please.
Perhaps more importantly, even if that were true how would it be relevant?
It is, in fact, the case that (aside from one or two idiot jurisdictions that tried to ban 'hacker tools', an attempt that either bans absolutely nothing or bans all security research and every security and diagnostic utility right down to 'ping') possession of some fairly potent dual-use tools is downright white-hat, and even shameless sale of ready-weaponized exploits is done without legal risk(looking at you, Vulpen).
However, the second amendment usually doesn't come into it, the fact that it's all just software (which just isn't something most people get viscerally worked up about) and so much of it is at least as useful for playing defense as for playing offense does.
Even if, in some weird fringe corner of survivalist grey hats or something, it was treated as a second amendment issue, so what? The Second Amendment protects your right to keep and bear arms, not your right to use them on anyone who pisses you off without any legal niceties. If you are dishing out the vigilante justice, it doesn't much matter what basis you found your right to possess the weapons you are using; you still have a fairly serious legal problem. Even among its most enthusiastic proponents, the 2nd only protects possession, it doesn't magically make all uses lawful.
I could see someone making a movie about this. But it probably wouldn't be Sony.
So it's strange, I have completely mixed feelings about this. If Sony is using such borderline techniques to try and prevent people from downloading torrents of PII data pilfered from their servers such as SSNs, tax returns, W2s, celebrity phone numbers, etc, then I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. This may be slightly over the line, but if it is to protect the data belonging to outside people, then I am inclined to view it more favorably.
If, on the other hand, this is about preventing the latest ZOMG HD SCREENER TORRENT of their most popular film from being shared one more time, I view such activities much less favorably.
There is probably not a legal distinction between protecting future profits and protecting the private data of one's employees, but it certainly makes me struggle with how to view this..
The rootkit was far worse than this. The only reason it wasn't a huge PR disaster is that most non-techies have no idea what it was.
That and the invidious notion that 'consumers' really don't need or deserve control over their devices is fairly alarmingly entrenched. Even when the system in question isn't one that you 'licensed and not sold' to the sucker, you can have your merry way with them in ways that you'd never get away with in the context of real property.
If infiltration and covert execution of a rootkit were treated even as seriously as, say, physical trespass, Sony would have had a problem. As it was, the response was along the lines of "Well, yes, you have a trespasser; but we can hardly make a case out of it unless you can prove that he is otherwise making a nuisance of himself or something."
the second amendment allows people to own firearms, but not to use firearms. so sony has it backwards. right now they are using firearms but don't own them. think much?
The interesting thing is that, if they are using outsourced servers strategically located in Asia to avoid the long arm of the law, that people should be able attack those same servers and do pretty much anything they want to them without fear of consequences. Being beyond the law is a double edged sword, and I personally would not bet against all the hackers on the Internet in that fight...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I hate Sony. I don't buy their products. I have a person vendetta against that company for reasons I'll not detail here because they're not relevant.
That said... I'm ok with this. Seems fair to me. Hack away Sony.
The law applies to all, big and small.
Which jurisdiction or period in time are you referring to? I can't think of a single example where this is true.
Pretending life is the same as fantasy is a sign of mental illness.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
... how the hackers penetrated Sony? OK, I walked into that one.
How did the hackers breach the wall? Was it via an exploit or unpatched server or weak firewall? Was it an inside job? Phishing?
A link would be great.
Thanks.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
From TFB:
According to Recode, Sony is using hundreds of computers in Asia to execute a denial of service attack on sites where its pilfered data is available
So it's legal when Sony does it? How, exactly?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Aparently, this is how.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
The nature of the Internet will make it impossible for this approach to succeed. Sony may shut down one site, but the files will simply appear somewhere else.
I don't like the idea of DDOS being legitimized in any way, so I'm not going to address that aspect.
But...
Why piss in the figurative lemonade by using an empty file for the mislabeled torrent?
Remember me during the old Limewire/Napster days, anyone?
File Titled: Something new and legit like "Track 01 Elton John --Rocketman-- 2014 Digitally Remastered Release.mp3".
Actual file: William Shatner spoken word version
Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
I may defend myself now against people and organizations threatening my personal freedom?
Can I have that in writing?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Why?
How will you using Sony's products without paying for them hurt them?
As far as I know it's not exactly the whole site they are targetting, but the specified files by seeding corrupt packages.. That's a completely different story then the mediahorny/clickbait story that is told here...
There is a certain irony in that yeah.
Though it does bring up some interesting legal questions regarding the limits of self defense online, something that could dovetail in interesting ways with things like castle doctrine (think of all the things commercial software and websites do to your home machine) or something like 'stand your ground' (if you have a legal right to be on a website and feel threatened by the owners or users, is that than legal justification for offensive actions?).
Given Sony's own shady history, this could open up a can of worms for them. Not legally of course since even in the cases of the above meatspace laws stats have demonstrated their successful application depends more on who the parties involved are then anything else), but from a PR and ethics perspective they could be digging themselves a hole.
Though I would be surprised if they actually care.
Sony applies such heavy handed strategy against hackers, what makes them thing hackers dont take glows off and use their own super weapons to fight back? After all nothing is as devious as someone plotting a counter strike in cyber game...
the 2nd amendment obviously applies: "arms" are not limited to the 18th century definition, and ITAR defines s/w as arms.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
the 1st amendment protects the expression of code: see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
as well as the 2nd: "keeping" arms, but to "bear" arms means using them: code must be executed on h/w, so the 2nd amendment protects the right to jailbreak (if u r not root, u don't really possess ur h/w;-) and execute anything you want.
i don't see how this could be any clearer. of course this makes the implementation of asimov's 3 laws problematic...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
apparently defending against accusations by denying them, implicitly calling the accuser a liar, isn't protected by the 1st amendment;-\
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
otoh, it's a clever ploy to drag him into court & examine alleged crimes after the statute of limitation has passed...or should we now retroactively prosecute?
Do you understand the "why" of stand your ground and castle? It is an extension of self defense justifications. Self defense justifications are for protection against crimes that result in intentional, direct, grievous harm to a specific person; things like rape and murder. Online interactions just don't bear those consequences in any normal case (maybe at some point for connected medical implants); certainly not in the case of Sony protecting itself from monetary loss. Anyone trying to extend SYG or castle that direction is undermining the entire justice system. SYG, castle, and self defense exist because the justice system is not fast enough to protect victims from irreversible damage from the most heinous of crimes. Property loss can wait on investigation, prosecution, and judgement.
I understand the 'why', but we are talking about how laws written before such cases were possible might interact in literal ways. The spirit of a law or its philosophical underpinnings and how a properly motivated judge interpret them are not always terribly in sync.
Of those types of laws that I have read, they have been very specific. Even with the precedent that corporations are people, the wording doesn't apply to corporate entities.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
The Second Amendment, as interpreted by the courts, doesn't allow me to buy a modern infantry rifle. (How are you supposed to have a well-regulated militia with obsolescent weapons?) I've given up speculating how the courts will interpret the Second.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
your talking about assault rifles. assault =! defense.
You appear to be trying to legitimise rape.
The Second Amendment says nothing about defense. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What it says is something about a militia (which is a military force) and not infringing my right to keep and bear arms. What the Supreme Court gets out of that is that I don't get to buy a real M16, for reasoning I cannot fathom.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
You can still buy a M-16, it'll be fucking expensive but they're for sale for USA citizens. Any full auto from before 1986 but that's modern enough.
Another problem is that militia. To me it looks like a bunch of guys with (semi-) automatic weapons defending their lives, homes and way of living against the government. say, pretty much like what they're doing in the tribal areas of Pakistan or Yemen. But no, your militia isn't going to get Hellfire missiles legally. The second amendment is obsolete, just as the wigs the founding fathers wore.
"I'm not much interested in interoperability. I want substitutability. I want to be able to throw your software out."
Sorry. Undo moderation.