Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous Takes Down 10,613 Dark Web Portals (bleepingcomputer.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the onion-attacks dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Anonymous hackers have breached Freedom Hosting II, a popular Dark Web hosting provider, and have taken down 10,613 .onion sites. In a message left on all Freedom Hosting II sites, the hackers claim to have found massive troves of child pornography imagery hosted on the company's servers. The hackers dumped 74GB of server files (half of which they say contained child pornography) and a database dump of 2.3GB. Security researcher Chris Monteiro has analyzed some of the dumped data. He says he discovered .onion URLs hosting botnets, fraud sites, sites peddling hacked data, weird fetish portals, more weird stuff, and child abuse websites targeting both English- and Russian-speaking buyers. Freedom Hosting II hosts about a fifth of all .onion URLs. The first Freedom Hosting service was targeted by Anonymous in 2011 and eventually shut down in 2013 after the FBI also found child pornography hosted on its sites.

3 of 120 comments (clear)

  1. Irony by lucasnate1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Anonymous are attacking a hosting service that allows people to host things anonymously? Weren't these guys touted as the anti-establishment pro-freedom guys? Why does "FOR THE CHILDREN!!!" suddently the basic freedoms of all the non child abusers in the service?

    --
    Avantgarde Hebrew science fiction
    1. Re:Irony by Notabadguy · · Score: 5, Funny

      You had me for the first two thirds of your post, but then the words both stopped being words, and stopped being assembled in a fashion resembling a sentence, so your overall thought was lost.

    2. Re:Irony by Oligonicella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Cmdln Daco gave you the biological reason, here's a moral one: What is happening to these children is equivalent to someone, say you, being taken and tortured and forced to perform sexual acts. My guess is you would very much want someone to intervene and then punish. So do the children. I would also add that it's not a panic at all but a cold decision that the law looks at those people especially dark because the children are incapable of defending themselves and many times of even speaking out.

      I believe you're laboring under the assumption that someone who supports the idea that you shouldn't be tracked needlessly across your web travels must also support people directly harming children or providing cover in digital form for those that do. This is not the case.