Slashdot Mirror
BBC Taken Offline By 'Anti-IS' Group (bbc.co.uk)
New submitter shilly writes: The BBC is reporting that all its websites were taken offline on New Year's Eve for several hours, and the attack appears to be from a group calling itself New World Hacking. The group claims its raison d'être is to attack IS, but wanted to test out its capabilities first and chose the BBC as a target. A member of the group said, "We realize sometimes what we do is not always the right choice, but without cyber hackers... who is there to fight off online terrorists?"
so just terrorists then?
[The Universe] has gone offline.
Or maybe it should be "without cyber terrorists... who is there to fight online hackers?"
Did their mothers never tell them that two wrongs don't make a right? You need at least three lefts to make a right, or something.
On the plus side, the BBC won't cut your head off if they find you.
Who ordered that?
LOL? With friends like this who needs enemies.
BBC sux. Nothing more than a brainwash/propaganda factory.
Morons.
I can't see how a non-government backed cyber-attack can work against a group with a distributed online presence. If you take down one site, wouldn't they just pop up another and use social media, or more old fashioned communications methods like email, to spread word about the new site. So are these New World hackers planning to also take down Facebook, Twitter, Sony or even the almighty Google?
Are they the terrorist group previously known as ISIS?
If the wealthy don't get their daily fix of self loathing they'll bleed from the ears and die and we'll be able to govern ourselves rationally again.
Do they not realize... they ARE the online terrorists?
If they wanted to 'test their capabilities' they could have just hit some obscure and unimportant site that no-one would even notice being down. Or they could have picked a target that would be a plausible target for Anonymous and let the world blame it on them - hit Sony again, perhaps, or some state-owned company in Russia. Attacking one of the world's most read and respected news organisations and the claiming credit for it publicly (Or, more likely, claiming the credit after someone else takes the BBC site down) just seems like a plea for attention.
Does IS even have websites? I've been lead by various news reports to conclude that they have an extensive social media propaganda campaign, but it isn't run through their own websites. Just an ever-shifting set of youtube channels, facebook pages, twitter accounts and so forth.
I'm guessing New World Hacking is following news of their exploits, which includes reading the comments here, so: Knock it off. You want to attack Islamic State? Go have a try at following their social media presence and report as many of their accounts as you can find to the service operators. You will probably have to learn a few additional languages though - Arabic does not do well on machine translation, and even in the areas IS operates Arabic isn't always the most commonly spoken of languages. That sounds like a better idea, with the added bonus of being legal so you can operate in the open and recruit a few more people - and you'll need them. Use those people to promote a countering narrative - spread word of their atrocities, and make fun of their idiotic proclamations. Religion is always week against mockery - once it loses respect it loses authority too.
If you really are against IS, maybe you should focus on taking IS targets down rather than popular news providers. You better be quick though, because you are just as bad as IS in the eyes of the UK people.
Oh so just kids mucking about with scripts to get a DDOS going... move along nothing to see here...
but without cyber hackers... who is there to fight off online terrorists?
I understand the goal of these cyber hackers but they need to be very careful messing with the BBC...Jeremy Clarkson isnt up to much these days and i hear he's got a real mean right hook.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Just try it on the real target and if it works it works. Doing this really makes them lose any credibility.
I also fail to see how these guys are any danger to real terrorists. The most they can do is to take some small/medium sized site offline for a limited amount of time. How is that threatening/revenging/weakening of armed guys who are decapitating/blowing up civilians? If these so called cyber hackers could at least collect some intelligence about the terrorist's plans, their connections and sponsors, but that would require actually breaking into social networks/email providers/cellphone operators they use for internal communication (alongside of thousands of other users). In this case NSA's surveillance sounds like a more appropriate although still questionable tool.
Attention seekers or distraction? Inquiring minds want to know... And the entire BBC? Please... Trying to create some "news", are we?
As the BBC has been shown repeatedly to slant news favorably towards terrorists, this may not be such a bad choice.
Just because someone with an agenda makes a claim, means that they are anything more than a troll.
The agenda pushed is the "online terrorists", i.e. speech as terror. Which sounds unlikely. Very similar in fact to that "How do we censor terrorist speech" article the other day.
If it *wasn't* the BBC, would we have noticed?
Suppose they knocked out some 'terrorist' website with its 100 visitors a day, would anyone have given a flying fuck?
So their tests of a DDOS doesn't make sense, and neither does their "online terrorist" claim.
There isn't a website with hits the volume of the BBC that could be called a terrorist site. Not even close. So which site would you DDOS and where is it hosted?
It isn't like a ddos even affects online hackers. They aren't using their website as a their point of attack.
ISIS implies Islamic State in Iraq & Syria. ISIL expands it a bit to mean Iraq & the Levant, which would toss in Lebanon, Israel and the Pali authority as well. But now they claim to lead all Muslims worldwide, and you have Jihadi groups like Boko Haram, Abu Sayyaf, Islamic movement of Uzbekistan as well as splinter Jihadi groups in Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh all affiliated to ISIS. And of course, the armies of 1 or 2 popping up throughout the West, like in Paris and San Bernardino. This is the closest thing to the Abbasid Caliphate that existed in the 9th century.
Call it like it is. These scripts kiddies ain't no heroes.
Unfortunately someone always makes a better idiot.
Their hearts *might* be in the right place, but not their packets. If they wanted some real practice they would do some serious old fashion investigative work and dig up any and every detail they can on the Linode attack and then give that information to the company so that they might mount a better defense strategy and perhaps help the law enforcement side of things. After all, these gray hats are running with the right circles, no...? Then again, their "practice attack" was something script kiddies could have likely pulled off. I'll bet this is all about ego. They are playing with fire.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Okay, so now the test has been successful, they can go ahead and take down... uh... what? isis.com? For a couple of hours?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
that our {s}most brilliant minds{/s} are fighting IS online.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
1) IS is now posing as anti-IS troops and this was their attack in Europe that was announced earlier.
2) Come on, three-letter-agencies of the United States Gubernment, can't you come up with a better name than "New World Hacking" for your dubious activities? L.A.M.E.
Probably just a cover story thought up in haste to deflect attention from another group's attack or test that went off prematurely. Let's talk about ISIS to throw most people off our scent.
With friends like these, you'd be better off with just enemies.
Totally stupid and dick move.
Where before, if they attacked isis, their biggest worry would be possible retaliation from a terrorist group from another continent that has very limited reach to their current location. They could have done almost anything, and the authorities wouldn't put any real effort into investigating it.
Now they've pissed off a prestigious 'ally' that's in a country that can take action, even if through treaties & agreements. The authorities have real reasons and concerns to drive them to spank these assholes now.
Only a moron turns powerful entities that can hurt you into enemies in their attempts to tweak another enemy that is of limited threat.
see title
Sound like there was a miscommunication in their group, the boss said take out IS but they thought he said IIS
Amazing!
Web Hosting
It's just like that line the song by the Ramones "Mr Loboto" "BBC did a job on me"
rewriting history since 2109
These have to be the dumbest people on the face of the earth. It's less effort for organizations like IS to create another web presence than the effort it takes these children to shut one down. Beyond that, security services from states that actually have the power to do something are using these kinds of sites as sources of information. They can figure out things like who's setting them up, where the money's coming from, means and methods, and where the recruits are going. Somewhere at the end of that chain of information is a smart bomb with a bad guy's name on it if the script kiddies will stop messing things up.
A bunch of script kiddies attacked the BBC because they want to attack IS ?
I would be surprised the sum of their IQ is even close to reaching 3 digits.
Let's hope they left enough clues so justice can stop their mischief.
Oh, and if any of these bright boys are reading this: are you proud to have attacked such an easy target ?
Ever heard that triumph without peril brings no glory ?
Understood ? Now go to your room!
This looks like a job for... the proper authorities!
BBC are terrorist by misrepresenting people, trolling for comments to attack certain groups of people. Apparently BBC got a guy fired for using the term white flower, this is no joke. BBC should be offline forever, I do believe in freedom of speech but when people are lying out of asses to mass group of people it's going way too far. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Keep calm and carry on
how will you be sure it's waterproof?
An anti-IS group? In other words, these men are nihilists. There's nothing to be afraid of.
Or maybe it should be "without cyber terrorists... who is there to fight online hackers?"
Did their mothers never tell them that two wrongs don't make a right? You need at least three lefts to make a right, or something.
The correct quotation (from The Harvard Lampoon's Deterioata) is "Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do."
Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer, Retired
No, the correct quotation is:
"Consider that two wrongs never make a right,
But that three do."
to bring down.
Healthcare.gov immediately comes to mind.
Have you ever fallen asleep at the keybhanusdiog?