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.

8 of 206 comments (clear)

  1. Did they deface Slashdot too? by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or is the layout just broken again?

  2. Weak attack, weak security by manu0601 · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  3. Re:Beats using bullets by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Inconveniently, there isn't enough epistemological common ground for asking for justification to work terribly well. Religions based on revelation(which includes islam, along with the other Abrahamic monotheisms, and a number of others to greater or lesser degrees) consider 'because god said so.' to be not only not a shoddy cop-out; but to be the best, most certain, category of justification.

    Exactly how it is that they came to know that god said so(since he didn't say so to them; but allegedly to some other guy, now dead, can be a little touchy; but I've rarely found it to be a productive avenue for discussion.

  4. "19,000 attacked with low level DoS" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. I'm not sure I understand why... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... there's this issue with blasphemy and/or images of the Prophet. According to this NY Times article Islam’s Problem With Blasphemy by Mustafa Akyol, there is actually *no* prohibition in the Quran and such things were only added later as part of Shariah Law, by people wanting control:

    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. . . .
    1. Re:I'm not sure I understand why... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Informative

      there is actually *no* prohibition [of blasphemy] in the Quran... the Quran decrees no earthly punishment for blasphemy — or for apostasy (abandonment or renunciation of the faith), a related concept.

      Koran (4:89) - "They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper."

      Is there some problem with the translation? Seems fairly clear to me.

      Take it up with the guy (who I presume is a Muslim) who wrote the NYT article, I was simply quoting and conceding that he probably knows more about this than I (and most /.'ers) do. However, according to this Qur’an 4:89 Commentary, the quote you listed is (commonly) taken out of context (the link has the full verse) and in context really means:

      ... this verse also only commands Muslims to fight those who practice oppression or persecution, or attack the Muslims.

      ... These verses were revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), at the time when Muslims were attacked by the non-Muslims of Makkah on a regular basis.

      I am not even remotely knowledgeable, but it seems like something open to a bit of interpretation. Wouldn't it be nice if those people doing the interpretation and passing that on to their followers, focused on interpretations that involved killing fewer people?

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  6. Terror attacks by manu0601 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Please do not use the terms "terror attacks" or "terrorism" for the murders at Charlie Hebdo. This is not terrorism, as french people are not afraid. Otherwise there would not have been millions in the streets, vulnerable to real terrorist attacks.

    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.

  7. Re: Beats using bullets by nbauman · · Score: 5, Informative

    Iraq still had engineering and medical schools after it was liberated. The Bush administration facilitated partnerships between Iraqi institutions and those in the US and Europe, ending Iraq's isolation from the international community and helped its efforts to rebuild after the long night of Saddam's rule.

    http://www.thebulletin.org/web...
    An education in occupation
    By Hugh Gusterson
    Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    2 February 2012
    Until the 1990s, Iraq had perhaps the best university system in the Middle East. Saddam Hussein's regime used oil revenues to underwrite free tuition for Iraqi university students -- churning out doctors, scientists, and engineers who joined the country's burgeoning middle class and anchored development. Although political dissent was strictly off-limits, Iraqi universities were professional, secular institutions that were open to the West, and spaces where male and female, Sunni and Shia mingled. Also the schools pushed hard to educate women, who constituted 30 percent of Iraqi university faculties by 1991. (This is, incidentally, better than Princeton was doing as late as 2009.) With a reputation for excellence, Iraqi universities attracted many students from surrounding countries -- the same countries that are now sheltering the thousands of Iraqi professors who have fled US-occupied Iraq.