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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Most of Europe has meaning immigration of people from Muslim nations occurring. But China doesn't and it is suffering its own unrest and attacks (as you may have heard).
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
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?
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?
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
Talking about asshole, why do you dislike the French?
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
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...
No fucking shit. Didn't that approach work quite well for the Japanese? They also thought they were morally and religiously superior beings and were also willing to fight and die to the last man, at least at first...
Two big fat nukes kinda put the brakes on their whole chuckwagon, didn't it? After being threatened with REAL COMPLETE ANNIHILATION, they cooled their fucking jets pretty damn quick.
By definition it's 100%.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You've got to admire their tenacity. Now I'm pretty fucking tough and all that, but I think if I got nuked even once I'd probably call it a day.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
Try coming to France as a tourist. Hey, some people are wonderful, but lots of people think of & treat tourists like dirt. There's a reason why the expression "Paris would be wonderful if it weren't for the Parisians" exists...
Besides he may just be english & we cordially hate them just as much as they hate us. Where would the rugby rivalry be without it?
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
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%
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.
Hmm.... what is this "cyber" I keep hearing?
What I can puzzle together from the context is that the use of "cyber" means "I have no fucking clue what I'm talking about".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Funny. Just what I was thinking coming back from the US. "The US would be great if it wasn't for the people"...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That's right. Iraq actually had a valid complaint about Kuwait's pumping oil in a way that interfered with Iraq's oil. The U.S. told Sadam Hussain to settle it with Kuwait himself. Then when he followed U.S. advice, they went to war with him. There was no U.S. interest in getting involved. Kuwait bought influence.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/...
In a now famous interview with the Iraqi leader, U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie told Saddam, ‘[W]e have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait.’ The U.S. State Department had earlier told Saddam that Washington had ‘no special defense or security commitments to Kuwait.’ The United States may not have intended to give Iraq a green light, but that is effectively what it did."
The war was justified, as usual, with lies, like Nayirah's story about the incubators, which she later admitted was a lie, created by one of Kuwait's lobbying and PR firms, Hill & Knowlton.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/...
This is the one truth in your argument. There is no doubting that State sent false signals to Saddam repeatedly telling him they didn't give a rats ass about arab-arab affairs. That he was fool enough to believe that was what surprised me. He took Kuwait and they had him hooked and started reeling him in. Too bad he didn't get the point and just kept on kicking. If he'd gotten back in line he'd still be alive torturing people today. The US helped put him in power, then they helped take him out. He forgot who made him.
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.
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 get that a lot less than about paris. France may be the tourism Capitol of the world but immensely more people want to move to the USA.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
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.
That's certainly true. To me, the US was an awesome amusement park. Seriously, the whole country is absolutely awesome for a vacation. Provided you have money, anything goes.
But I sure wouldn't want to stay. Don't get me wrong, I had a great time and I met a lot of great people (despite my former statement, I did meet a lot of really awesome US people, born and raised there and absolutely lovable. Very outgoing, very outspoken, and I do like that), but I wouldn't really want to live and work there.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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."
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