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
Or is the layout just broken again?
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.
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. . . .
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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/...