Slashdot Mirror


American 'Vigilante Hacker' Defaces Russian Ministry's Website (ksat.com)

An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes CNN Money: An American vigilante hacker -- who calls himself "The Jester" -- has defaced the website of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in retaliation for attacks on American targets... "Comrades! We interrupt regular scheduled Russian Foreign Affairs Website programming to bring you the following important message," he wrote. "Knock it off. You may be able to push around nations around you, but this is America. Nobody is impressed."
In early 2015, CNN Money profiled The Jester as "the vigilante who hacks jihadists," noting he's a former U.S. soldier who now "single-handedly taken down dozens of websites that, he deems, support jihadist propaganda and recruitment efforts. He stopped counting at 179." That article argues that "the fact that he hasn't yet been hunted down and arrested says a lot about federal prosecutors and the FBI. Several cybersecurity experts see it as tacit approval."

"In an exclusive interview with CNNMoney this weekend, Jester said he chose to attack Russia out of frustration for the massive DNS cyberattack that knocked out a portion of the internet in the United States on Friday... 'I'm not gonna sit around watching these f----rs laughing at us.'"

12 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. YEEE-HAW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I mean: Russian's federation policy *is* pretty disgusting. Nobody likes Putin. But still: how stupid is this Jester. (S)he should be taking down IoT manufacturer's websites instead, because we *know* those are involved somehow, and Russia... pfeh. Could be, could not be.

    If that's all the "free world" can muster, we're doomed. Ugh.

    1. Re:YEEE-HAW! by sudon't · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Compared to western leaders, he's pretty sane and is no bullshit. If you're crying about clandestine operations, the west is far more guilty *cough*clintonfoundation*cough*. That and the west blames Russia for all the problems when its their policy that is enslaving the poor.

      You are so right! Putin makes Obama look like a raving lunatic. Mr. Putin always looks quite dignified, especially posing bare-chested on a horse. And that crooked Clinton Foundation! How are they allowed to get away with selling access to the Clintons, then using that money for black-bag operations like buying AIDS medicine, or books, (books!), for poor people? Lock her up, I say! What if all politicians gave access to big donors, and instead of using the money to fund their campaigns, used it help people? Wouldn't that be awful? Yes it would - it's un-American. Why can't they be more like the Trump Foundation and fund nice things - like paintings, or bailing out certain deserving job-creators in need? Sad.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

  2. Re:"Tacit approval"? My nose! by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I put very little faith in the FBI nowadays. They have proven themselves to be just a political weapon of whoever is in power. Their shiny reputation is somewhat tarnished. I doubt they'll ever be trusted again to be impartial and nonpartisan.

  3. Re:"Tacit approval"? My nose! by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A disinclination to prosecute people just because they don't happen to agree with your politics *is* impartial and non-partisan. This is not a bug, but rather, a feature.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  4. Not impressed. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Defacing a website that they put up is just as impressive as painting a building with graffiti. When they start leaking documents that embarrass Russia's politicians, then and only then will you have people's attention.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  5. Re:Funny, but meh by Max_W · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Russia ... pays ... [for] ...online ... propaganda... One person from the U.S., doing this on his own without government backing...

    Do you mean the government of the United States does not allocate money to promote actively its policies online? It would be interesting to know if there is such an expense in the US budget and, if still yes, to compare it with Russia's spending in this domain.

    I looked at Wikipedia article on the US budget 2016, but I could not find detailed expenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  6. State Sponsored vs Rogue Agent? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So when a Russian, allegedly, does it to the DNC it's because Putin.

    When an American does it to Russia it's "Oh, look at that vigilante that we don't condone at all".

    1. Re:State Sponsored vs Rogue Agent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So when a Russian, allegedly, does it to the DNC it's because Putin.

      When an American does it to Russia it's "Oh, look at that vigilante that we don't condone at all".

      Exactly. Unless this "vigilante" is arrested and extradite to Russia, by the same logic that Putin was responsible for the DNC hack, it should be implied that Obama and the USA Government are responsible for this act.

      The title should read "US hacked Russian Ministry's Website".

  7. Re: "Tacit approval"? My nose! by Entrope · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Martha Stewart went to federal prison for much less than Hillary Clinton and her cronies did, and with much less firm evidence against Stewart. Clinton benefited from a grotesque double standard that you have to be mindless not to see.

  8. Re:Funny, but meh by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    one person from the U.S., doing this on his own without government backing

    Sounds like the US should arrest him and extradite him. After all we'd requested the same from foreign governments.

  9. Re:What a dumbass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    you're right. her critics usually end up committing suicide by shooting themselves in the back of the head. sometimes twice.

  10. Re: "Tacit approval"? My nose! by quax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So remind me again what she did that differs from what Powell did when he ran his private email server? Or what the RNC did when they ran a large portion of the White House email traffic on their servers and conveniently forgot to make any backups?

    22 million of emails from the Bush area are still missing.