Slashdot Mirror
19,000 French Websites Hit By DDoS, Defaced In Wake of Terror Attacks
An anonymous reader writes Since the three day terror attack that started in France on January 7 with the attack on satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, 19,000 websites of French-based companies have been targeted by cyber attackers. This unprecedented avalanche of cyber attacks targeted both government sites and that of big and small businesses. Most were low-level DDoS attacks, and some were web defacements. Several websites in a number of towns in the outskirts of Paris have been hacked and covered with an image of an ISIS flag. The front pages of the official municipality websites have been covered with the Jihadist militant group's black flag. In a report, Radware researchers noted that Islamic hacker group AnonGhost has also launched a "digital jihad" against France.
A slightly better form of protest than AK47's I guess.
Better a DDOS than murder.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Organisation should never overplay their hand, otherwise people know who is really holding the cards an what is actually in their hands. There is real value in the idea that the truth will set you free. Free from the fears of those who wish to drive your choices via the fear the attempt to create and free from the lies that others would seek to trap you in. Oh look who is having a security conference, uh huh.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Yawn.
These guys are not quite as boring as Anonymous.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Or is the layout just broken again?
"According to Admiral Arnaud Coustilliere, the French military's head of cyberdefense, most of these attacks were carried out by three Islamic hacker groups: Middle East Cyber Army, Fallaga team and Cyber Caliphate."
So we've had a lot of marketing stories about 'cyber war' and 'cyber attacks', and 'terrorists try to hide from us by making their email look like spam'. This is just another one of those. They're trying to justify their mass surveillance, oppression and removal of free speech.
Defacing a website is petty vandalism that is easily corrected. Whereas terrorists *shot* and *killed* actual people, while they were busy looking elsewhere. Perhaps they need to get their act together and spy on terrorists instead of capturing large amounts of private data and trying to datamine it.
"19,000 websites ought to be enough for anybody" - Woodrow Wilson (1889)
Why doesn't President Obama ban all these Apple and Linux botnets from the Intertubes ?
Is it OK with you if the French at least inconvenience the people trying to massacre them?
"False flag"? Don't be an ass.
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
It seems the attacks only targeted known vulnerabilities in Drupal and Joomla. Sites that did not use them, and site that were up to date, just experienced high loads.
We need to protect access to power companies, air traffic control, military, etc. We need to do so now. (I'm an American, but by "we" I mean all countries, especially countries that might be targeted by terrorists.)
I'm going to go to the web sites of President Obama and my representatives. Those web sites have "Comments" or "Send a Message" sections, in which you can send a message to those people. In the "Comments" sections of the web sites, I'm going to ask them to make electronic security a high priority.
If enough voters ask them to make security a high priority, they might do so. I sure hope so.
So basically less annoying than spam.
Pretty sure the correct solution is ban any method of communication which the government can't listen in on. That'll mean a camera with microphone in every bedroom, of course.
Those guys in Paris are failed terrorists unless they succeed in inciting acts of terror by European government against their citizens - and there is nothing more terrorising than the thought you're always being listened to by men with guns with the power to lock you up, no matter who you intend to communicate with - in which case they will have been successful terrorists.
Just as, after the first few months of 9/11, there was clearly nothing to fear except from US government finding an excuse to destroy freedom. Again, the book on those terrorists could have been closed as "killed a lot of people, but did not change the American way of life", but instead we find they were successful too, because they incited the US government to destroy freedom.
Ahem ... this clearly has nothing, NOTHING to do with Islam, which is a religion of peace, blah blah.
The only source in Islamic law that all Muslims accept indisputably is the Quran. And, conspicuously, the Quran decrees no earthly punishment for blasphemy — or for apostasy (abandonment or renunciation of the faith), a related concept. Nor, for that matter, does the Quran command stoning, female circumcision or a ban on fine arts.
Tellingly, severe punishments for blasphemy and apostasy appeared when increasingly despotic Muslim empires needed to find a religious justification to eliminate political opponents.
In addition, Muslim extremists seem selective in their outrage:
The Quran praises other prophets — such as Abraham, Moses and Jesus — and even tells Muslims to “make no distinction” between these messengers of God. Yet for some reason, Islamist extremists seem to obsess only about the Prophet Muhammad.
Even more curiously, mockery of God — what one would expect to see as the most outrageous blasphemy — seems to have escaped their attention as well.
Finally, the action *actually* recommended by the Quran is simply: Do not sit with them ...
Before all that politically motivated expansion and toughening of Shariah, though, the Quran told early Muslims, who routinely faced the mockery of their faith by pagans: “God has told you in the Book that when you hear God’s revelations disbelieved in and mocked at, do not sit with them until they enter into some other discourse; surely then you would be like them.”
Just “do not sit with them” — that is the response the Quran suggests for mockery. Not violence. Not even censorship.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
One has to wonder how many of these 19,000 were hosted by OVH, and why they couldn't stop the traffic from reaching the servers in their network... (Except that we already know that hosting providers only care about making a buck.)
Buck Feta. You know what to do.
Is it OK with you if the French at least inconvenience the people trying to massacre them?
Are you French or are you just speaking for them?
I'd say the biggest blow to civil liberties was when islamists went into a newspaper office and killed everybody. that's what I call a chilling effect.
Are your sympathies with the Islamist terrorists, or Western civilization?
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
On the other hand, french journalists are afraid because they feel they could ne the next attacked, and their reports suggest terror is widespread, but it is a fake perception for the whole french society.
Not if it also inconveniences those who are not trying to massacre them, no.
I'll take an insignificant increase in possibility that I'm made a victim of Islamic terror over definite destruction of Western way of life at the hands of government, thanks.
Are yours with actual personal freedom, or with right wing oppression?
its time to start kicking some ISIS asholes asses! Time to use everything in the arsenal up to and if necessary including nukes if the rotten bastards keep up their shit!
Tough luck for you, you don't speak for everybody, and the Western way of life will always die in your parade of horribles that never really occurs (unlike terrorist attacks).
http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/outage-several-french-news-sites-not-caused-ddos-web-host-oxalide
Right now we have a lot of poor defaults and security isn't one-click easy. It should be. The other thing is development doesn't put security as #1. Everything is determined by features. It's sad, but true. If we spent as much time on writing secure applications as we did on adding new features these issues wouldn't exist.
I think his comment was more about never letting a crisis go to waste. About the government being behind it in order to impose freedom stealing laws that the people would normally/otherwise revolt over.
that never really occurs
So, to consider the obvious case of US government response to 9/11, please confirm to me:
1) Absolutely no peaceful US civilian has been restricted in any way, contrary to the principle of freedom of the individual, as a result of laws written in light of 9/11 - a simple yes/no will do;
2) Absolutely no offensive government act (e.g. war), contrary to the enlightenment principle of trade over violence, has occurred with 9/11 used toward an excuse - a simple yes/no will do.
Or, if you're being deliberately obtuse and interpreting "destruction" as "total obliteration", are you saying that no government throughout history which previously adhered generally to Western principles has completely turned its back on those principles? - a simple yes/no will do.
Final question, slightly tangential: are you scared of Islamic terrorists? by which I mean, while we may both agree that the danger is high if the hazard is encountered, i.e. if you find yourself attacked by Islamic terrorists, do you believe that the probability of encountering that hazard is high? - a simple yes/no will do.
The crusades are returning, and every attack hardens our defenses. In the end, AK-47s and RPGs are no match for a thousand years of military advances while they neuter themselves with infighting.
That is pretty much the sentiment that I am holding. False flag atracks are not unheard of but actual terror attacks re not unheard of either, so in the end I hope that the liberties of the people survive this ordeal.
Them fucking French have been asking for being massacred for decades
They have imported the savages by the MILLIONS and they still want to import MANY MILLIONS MORE savages into France
I say let the French be massacred
Let France be an example to all --- let the whole world know the consequences of importing them Islamic savages
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Here are the terms that the original proposition was stated in: "...definite destruction of Western way of life at the hands of government..."
Are you claiming that has happened? A simple yes or no will do. If your answer is yes, you're being obtuse, and an idiot. If no, your nonsense can be ignored.
2) Absolutely no offensive government act (e.g. war), contrary to the enlightenment principle of trade over violence, has occurred with 9/11 used toward an excuse - a simple yes/no will do.
That is hilarious. Really? Really? The "enlightenment" may have bypassed you. I'm pretty sure that wars still occurred during the Enlightenment. The US won it freedom by war, and maintained it by war, as did France and the UK.
And finally, have you stopped beating your wife? A simple yes or no will do.
And another "nutter" chimes in ....
Your handle is both well chosen and surprising utilitarian.
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
For whomever is most law-abiding and least violent. It's a close call.
destruction: the act of destroying; cause or means of destroying.
Yes, I am absolutely claiming that the US government has been engaged in the act of destroying the Western way of life using 9/11 as an excuse. I have given 2 examples, labelled 1 and 2.
The US won it freedom by war, and maintained it by war, as did France and the UK.
That's nice, but what does it have to do with an "offensive government act", i.e. a government going off somewhere else to start a war? You're right that the Enlightenment didn't end all offensive wars, but that's of no relevance, for they occur(red) despite - not because of - the growth of Reason.
Now, in the previous post I have given you four questions. Although you have answered zero, as an act of good faith, I have answered your questions. But now it's your turn to answer all four. Pay careful attention what was actually said rather than answering the questions you would like to have been asked.
I'm going to make a WAG and say that this was shared hosting and some idiot let himself be tricked out of the root password?
Ahahaha, no, I didn't RTFA.
We've bombed just about every country in the Muslim world without any real justification and they're the savages?
War was beginning ...
Two wrongs make it right?
Occupation of Iraq was the seminal crime that unleashed all the hatred and terror we're suffering from
Of course. That explains things like the Lockerbie bombing of 1988. You know, right about the time when Iran and Iraq were throwing chemical weapons at each other.
Shame on you, Bush. Your warmongering knows no limits, it even defies the forward-only nature of time.
lucm, indeed.
Yeah... you fail to see this isn't a retaliatory attack against France. If it was in retaliation against French involvement in destroying Libyan targets, they would have attacked military installments, or at the very least government buildings. No, instead they killed 12 innocent people for drawing a picture of some guy they hold very sacred because their bible strictly forbids idolatry... yes, idolatry. Do Muslims all over the world secretely idolize Charlie Hebdo's caricatures?
These jerks seem to have failed history.
Here's the irony of the situation: the whole idea behind forbidding drawings/sculptures of their prophet is to prevent idolatry. The prohibition of idolatry applies only to Muslims creating/worshiping religious idols. Unless these ISIS guys greatly admired Charlie Hebdo's caricatures, they have no religious justification for what they did. These guys are simply murderers even under their very own Islamic rules.
A "close call" you say?? I'll bet it is.
ISIS Crucifies Eight Rival Rebels For Being Too 'Moderate,' Will Display Bodies For Three Days In Syrian Town Square
Isis executioners 'kill gays by hurling them off roofs' in Mosul
Nigeria: Over 2000 Feared Dead in 'Deadliest Massacre in Boko Haram's History'
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
We've done a half-assed job: there's way too many of them still alive.
A concerted effort by a strong government or occupying power is sufficient to eradicate dangerous beliefs. In the space of a few decades, the Germans went from a nation of enthusiastic Nazis to the most antagonistic to Nazi ideals and imagery. Pre-war Japanese militarism has given way to a country of pacifists.
Islamic extremism should be treated the same way. Belief systems that present real dangers to global security should be outlawed and eliminated.
19,000 is 3 times more than the numbers of websites France ever had
:-)
--
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Are you aware that the U.S. war in Iraq was responsible for the deaths of 150,000 (according to the New England Journal of Medicine) to 650,000 (according to The Lancet) Iraqis, mostly civilians?
While a massacre of 2,000, or even 12, is horrible, the massacre of 150,000 (or 650,000) Iraqis as a result of the U.S. invasion is also horrible (especially when I know that my tax money is going to pay for it, and therefore all Americans are responsible for it).
Are you OK with 150,000 deaths?
I think the problem is the way you frame your question.
Are you asking me what I think of Western civilization? As Gandi said, "I think it would be a good idea."
By definition it's 100%.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
We've bombed just about every country in the Muslim world without any real justification and they're the savages?
They were "Muslim nations" that dear life form is justification enough in most of the worlds books .
Being responsible for, and killing, are two widely different things. If A kills innocent B, and in the situation that arises, C kills innocent D, then yes -- A may be "responsible" (to what degree, God only knows). But C bears primary responsibility for their own actions.
The way you're counting, the US, _not_ Islamic State in Iraq (ISIL's predecessor) is 'responsible' for murders like bombings of Shia tombs.
I have read the text a couple of times. And it clearly states that Muslims are to DEFEND themselves against oppressors without mercy, but to live amongst them in peace if they are not being attacked.
But that doesn't play into the ideology of fanatics, so they conveniently skip those caveats when quoting their text.
Much as Pat Robertson and Westboro Baptist are very selective about their edited "quotes".
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
As is so often the case, it turns out the whole situation is an over-reaction and bad reporting by the media:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/17/french_media_blackout/
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
The AnonGhost will have to learn the bitter lesson from the history: France shall never surrender!
Do you have nothing against Islam?
Then you have nothing against stoning, amputations, flogging, female genital mutilation, suicide bombers, beheadings, "honour" killings, repression of free speech, abolition of Parliament and its replacement with Shariah, banning of music, banning of beer and wine, banning of pork, dressing women in burkhas, beating of wives, mutiple wives, killing of rape victims, persecution of Jews and Christians, child brides, repression of reason and questioning, islamic police states, burning of churches, killing anyone who leaves islam, killing anyone who questions the teachings of islam, total intolerance of other religions, inferior status of women, violent Jihad against non-muslims, arranged marriages, acid attacks, public hangings, mutilations, rewriting of history, denial of islamic atrocities...
Islam... in layman's terms
Here's how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains under 2% in any given country, they will, for the most part, be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States -- 0.6% Muslim
Australia -- 1.5% Muslim
Canada -- 1.9% Muslim
China -- 1.8% Muslim
Italy -- 1.5% Muslim
Norway -- 1.8% Muslim
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize to other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from prisons and street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark -- 2% Muslim
Germany -- 3.7% Muslim
United Kingdom -- 2.7% Muslim
Spain -- 4% Muslim
Thailand -- 4.6% Muslim
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France -- 8% Muslim
Philippines -- 5% Muslim
Sweden -- 5% Muslim
Switzerland -- 4.3% Muslim
The Netherlands -- 5.5% Muslim
Trinidad & Tobago -- 5.8% Muslim
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Shari'ah, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Shari'ah law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana -- 10% Muslim
India -- 13.4% Muslim
Israel -- 16% Muslim
Kenya -- 10% Muslim
Russia -- 15% Muslim
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, as in:
Ethiopia -- 32.8% Muslim
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, as in:
Bosnia -- 40% Muslim
Chad -- 53.1% Muslim
Lebanon -- 59.7% Muslim
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Shariah Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels (yes, there really is such a thing) as in:
Albania -- 70% Muslim
Malaysia -- 60.4% Muslim
Qatar -- 77.5% Muslim
Sudan -- 70% Muslim
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some state-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- 83% Muslim
Egypt -- 90% Muslim
Gaza -- 98.7% Muslim
Indonesia -- 86.1% Muslim
Iran -- 98%
If the CIA can't find them, how do you think ISIS will?
CIA really can't find 'em or CIA simply pretends to not able to get a hold on 'em?
And what happened in August, 1990?
Anyone? Anyone?
Iraq invaded Kuwait
Don't you ever think that your lie gets lamer and lamer the more you try to use 'em?
Kuwait was sucking up Iraqi oil
Saddam went to complain to Uncle Sam
Uncle Sam was like ... that's your personal matter with Kuwait, you do whatever you like with it
And Saddam treated that as a "greenlight" to punish those Kuwaiti fuckers who stole Iraqi oil
It wasn't that Saddam Hussein didn't go to US first to seek a way to resolve the dispute in between Iraq and Kuwait, it was the Uncle Sam who was giving all the false signals
Your lies have gotten very lame
I sympathize with freedom.
I.e., referring to your comment, with neither of your options.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
...President Obama is blaming the French cyberattacks on North Korea!
I didn't think we killed anywhere near 150,000 people. The Iraq body count during the occupation by the US was around 133,000 killed by both coalition and "insurgents." It's an ugly thing as war always is. The US didn't intentionally target civilians but in urban combat that doesn't mean much. It's impossible to conduct a war and not kill innocents which is why it's such a good thing to avoid war.
The French, like many European countries is more liberal than the United States, and as such, was very progressive about allowing Muslims into the country, letting them live and work and worship as they please. As a result of this kindness, they have been beset with increased crime, riots, bombings and now DDOS. 70% of prisoners in France are Muslims. Only 5 to 10% of the population is Muslim. It is pretty obvious that a strong correlation exists between the Muslims in France and the Blacks in the United States. The difference being that the Blacks were brought here against their will, but the Muslims were welcomed with open arms. Regardless, in both situations, the result has been the same effect. Incidentally, Blacks are not a significant crime issue in Europe. This seems to support that race does not necessarily make you more likely to commit a crime. In the U.S. race is an excuse.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Ah, yes the "Responsible for" slander. Do you have the slightest comprehension of what those 'reports' (actually anti-US propaganda pieces) are saying?
Here's a hint: The US did not kill 650,000 civilians. The US did not kill 650,000 people, period.
What these slanderers are doing is accusing the US of being responsible for every single person that died, even those killed by the people fighting the US, because "the US started it". Some of these 'studies' are even including emigration in the totals.
The US conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have had the lowest proportions of civilian casualties in the history of the world. And you're still trying to slander them?
I don't know how the US got that body count. At one time, they ordered the hospital morgues not to release any information to the press. It wasn't very open or transparent. They had a motivation to keep the numbers low. If somebody dies and doesn't get taken to a hospital morgue, is he counted? If somebody is killed in the country, and is buried in a grave in a private burial, is he counted?
The studies reported by the New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet were done by epidemiologists who had worked in war settings before, and they had a good design. They went around to actual households and asked the occupants whether anybody had died.
The NEJM came up with 150,000 deaths, and the Lancet came up with 650,000. Those are the best numbers available -- so the best estimate is somewhere between those two numbers, I think.
But the question is, who killed more, Islamic terrorists or Western terrorists? I think the Westerners are ahead.
You're coming up with too many inconvenient facts that take the steam out of his arguments.
Cold fjord is quite likely working in psy-ops and the only reason he puts in his signature is because it's supposed to rile up people, which is convenient to further his cause, while I sure that he's the type of person who would have favoured 'freedom fries' over 'french fries' not too long ago.
The mountains of madness have many little plateaus of sanity - Terry Pratchett.
Only during the embargo the estimate was the 500,000 children died in Iraq, because of it. Madeline Albright thought it was totally 'worth it' though. I presume you know how to use Google if you don't believe me, then come back to me and tell me the estimate of 150,000 people killed during a much more violent period is too high.
The mountains of madness have many little plateaus of sanity - Terry Pratchett.
Wow. Modded into dust!
Looks like *some* kind of electronic army is out in force.
In other news, the French police arrest 54 people for trying to exercise free speech. -Right after that big Charlie march.
It seems speech is only free when you're dehumanizing a group of people considered unpopular, but speech is NOT free when your comments target the untouchables.
Or as Voltaire put it:
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
These attackers fling poop from the shoulders of giants, like rabid hurdy-gurdy crankers. I don't think their goat-herding manual has a chapter on Internet protocol suites either, so if they succeed in killing the boss and breaking the hurdy gurdy, they get to starve to death while chained to the corpse of the global society they overthrew.
How many of these guys are there? Either they have a shitload of money to spend on buying other people's botnets or there's way more of these guys then we thought.
Religions are 2000 years old;
Humans are 200,000 years old;
Religion was born when the first con man met the first fool;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
Casteism
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_writings
Casteism