Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hacking Group 'OurMine' Temporarily Redirected WikiLeaks DNS Service (theguardian.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the change-of-address dept.

An anonymous reader quotes the Guardian: WikiLeaks suffered an embarrassing cyber-attack when Saudi Arabian-based hacking group OurMine took over its web address. The attack saw visitors to WikiLeaks.org redirected to a page created by OurMine which claimed that the attack was a response to a challenge from the organisation to hack them.

But while it may have been humiliating for WikiLeaks, which prides itself on technical competency, the actual âoehackâ appears to have been a low-tech affair: the digital equivalent of spray-painting graffiti on the front of a bank then claiming to have breached its security. The group appears to have carried out an attack known as "DNS poisoning" for a short while on Thursday morning. Rather than attacking WikiLeaks' servers directly, they have convinced one or more DNS servers...to alter their records. For a brief period, those DNS servers told browsers that wikileaks.org was actually located on a server controlled by OurMine.

83 comments

  1. Saudi Arabians hate WikiLeaks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Colour me surprised! /sarcasm

    1. Re: Saudi Arabians hate WikiLeaks? by stephanruby · · Score: 2

      Wikileaks actually invited hackers to hack its site. So, I do not think that the hackers were malicious. If nothing else, they did Wikileaks a favor. If a bunch of hackers can do this, the NSA (and other intelligence agencies) can do much worse.

      Plus, an intelligence service won't attack when it's invited to do so, it will only attack when Wikileaks is about to dump something that is important to them. In this age of short attention spans, timing can be crucial.

      The same goes for Wikileaks. Wikileaks chooses to release information when it thinks it will have the most impact (e.g. just before an election, just before a troop redeployment, not during a Super Bowl, not when Beyonce is having twins, etc).

    2. Re: Saudi Arabians hate WikiLeaks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hackers that aren't malicious, and did their victim, uh client a favor, thank Gor4!

  2. https really? by F.Ultra · · Score: 2

    I'm more interested in the point that the screenshot from the link shows a https link so either the screen shot is fake or they also managed to get hold of a certificate for wikileaks.org

    1. Re:https really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no. That's a normal info circle. There would be a green lock next to it if it were https.

    2. Re:https really? by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Depends on the browser I suppose but the link is clearly https://wikileaks.org/ and not http://wikileaks.org/ in the screen shot from the first link.

    3. Re:https really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "I" circle vs the green lock indicates it is not an EV cert, and is typically how an HTTPS site looks when accepting your own certificate signed by another key you made your browser trust.

      At work I run my own MS-CA for our internal LAN domain which is only trusted by our domain joined Windows clients.
      This is how all the internal SSL sites display when signed with our own CA.

      At least last I looked, all of the default configs and examples for OpenSSL work similarly, although if you know what you are doing you can also make and issue your own EV and sub-ca certificates, which if you have all the revocation infrastructure setup would then show with the normal green lock indicator.

      You could also do EV certs but it would show as trusted by the name of your CA, and at least for browsers like Chrome, Edge, and IE, they wouldn't allow you to add such a key into the local certificate store. (They all use cert pinning to prevent exactly that)

      It looks like this group just did a quick n dirty setup more as a proof of concept than to try and fool anyone.
      Since using the tricks above to make the site appear secure would only work after manually installing the CA key, doing so would certainly make their own single screenshot look better, but show insecure warnings to the rest of the internet users who haven't imported their cert.

      I think they choose correctly, in order to prove to others the DNS poisoning worked, vs the alternative which would have proven SSL "worked" by stopping the attack and only resulting in a single nicer looking screenshot that they had to provide.

      At that point I would have done exactly the same, and simply photoshopped the screenshot if it was that big of a deal. The end result is pretty much exactly the same.

    4. Re:https really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many CA roots does your browser trust? Try to find the signer of the certificate of that fake site and remove it immediately. We are talking about Saudi Arabia here, so they've probably got their own government controlled CA which has been force fed into all browsers in the kingdom.

    5. Re:https really? by LiENUS · · Score: 1

      The "I" circle vs the green lock indicates it is not an EV cert, and is typically how an HTTPS site looks when accepting your own certificate signed by another key you made your browser trust.

      Google says you're wrong.
      https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95617?hl=en/

    6. Re: https really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly certs don't match so it's not secure. HTTPS just puts it on port 443. What's the mystery?

    7. Re:https really? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      so either the screen shot is fake or they also managed to get hold of a certificate for wikileaks.org

      Or more likely you misinterpreted the screenshot.

      I see https://wikileaks.org./ I also see an exclamation mark beside it on the left. I also see the broken security icon to the right. No where do I see the characteristic green indication that most browsers will display when a certificate chain is trusted.

      I'll bet they have a self signed certificate on the site.

    8. Re:https really? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Correction the shield indicates scripts from untrusted sources. But all the tell tales of the security session are missing. They didn't obtain a valid certificate for the site.

    9. Re:https really? by Monkier · · Score: 1

      if you have control of the domain you can get a domain validated certificate. EFF's Let's Encrypt certificates use the ACME protocol to verify you have control of a domain: https://letsencrypt.org/docs/c...

  3. Double standards need to be eliminated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    If Nazi websites are being taken down and their domains are being terminated, why do other terrorist organizations like Wikileaks get a double standard? If there ever was a foreign entity trying to meddle in the US election, it was Wikileaks. And yet you people give them a free pass. Seize their domain like you did to the Nazis. And in the interests of fairness, let's point out that liberals demanded that Trump condemn white supremacy after the Charlottesville attacks. Muslims use the same tactic and have a history of driving cars into a bunch of pedestrians to attack them. Next time Muslims commit a terrorist attack, liberals need to condemn Islam. Eliminate these double standards.

    1. Re: Double standards need to be eliminated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back when DailyStormer had a .al domain, and insulted the Algerian government, thereby prompting clueless liberals to call the Algerian embassy to complain, before the Albanian registrar canceled their domain, Cisco's DNS servers were illegally refusing to resolve DailyStormer's .al.

    2. Re:Double standards need to be eliminated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the wars on joe public? And the wars in Iraq? They killed millions of innocent civilians. It's not just Muslims, but Americans too. I see little difference between America's war's and terrorism other than the terrorists manage to kill a lot fewer civilians. The social justice warriors are no better or worse than the neo Nazis. Nobody should be censored. Period. I don't agree with murdering babies, but I'm against censoring those who do.

    3. Re:Double standards need to be eliminated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "America's war's and terrorism other than the terrorists manage to kill a lot fewer "
      That's because the American's are a lot more dangerous than any Muslim terrorist group could ever hope to be. The number one thing foreign countries or terrorist groups should never do is do anything that would really piss off the US public. Pissing off regular US citizens has never really paid off very well for those that did. Japans attack on Pearl Harbor killed less than 5000 people but this singular event put the US on the path to becoming the most powerful country on the planet. Before this attack the US had a military that did not even rank in the top 10 of most powerful militaries on the planet. The vast majority US citizens were against the US entering WW2. This attack spurred the greatest build up of military might ever seen. The US was stronger after the war than before it and the military build up started by that one attack has never stopped.

      The 9/11 attack angered enough of the US public who turned around and basically gave the government a blank check with orders to go kill someone or blow something up.

      There is a sizeable population in the US who would welcome a foreign invader for the chance of showing the world what a real insurgency looks like. The US civilian population is better armed than most foreign countries. ME terrorist groups may have IED's made using unexploded ordinance and cell phones but the US "resistance" groups would be churning out small yield nuclear devices by the truck load.

      The only problem is that the US, in every conflict after WW2, has never finished the job. The whole rational going to war is to kill and destroy the enemy until they are all dead and the only thing left to bomb is rubble. You should go to war if you are willing to do what is necessary to win. There has never been a war throughout human history were civilians did not die. The key to preventing civilian deaths is for the armed fighters to surrender or die. The faster this happens the lower the civilian casualty count will be. Acting all indignant or surprised about waging war is not going to stop the carnage. Humans have been fighting and killing one another ever since there were enough of us around to pick sides and fight over the biggest caves and most women.

    4. Re:Double standards need to be eliminated by DRJlaw · · Score: 2

      If Nazi websites are being taken down and their domains are being terminated, why do other terrorist organizations like Wikileaks get a double standard?

      Because they don't actively adopt, encourage, and support a Nazi ideology? Or racist or religious hate in general? There's no double standard - one group actively goes way over any reasonable line, and the other at worst tolerates borderline postings by others -- if even that.

      Seize their domain like you did to the Nazis.

      Nobody seized a domain. DailyStormer was free to transfer their domain to registrar would take it. They simply failed to find a taker. Look up the whois record yourself.

      let's point out that liberals demanded that Trump condemn white supremacy after the Charlottesville attacks

      Damn people for expecting their political leadership to condemn domestic terrorism and groups that endorse it through bullshit like "rahowa."

      Next time Muslims commit a terrorist attack, liberals need to condemn Islam. Eliminate these double standards.

      Conservatives already do it. Liberals will not because, as they explain over, and over, and over again, you can no more blame Islam and Muslims for those attacks than you can blame Christianity and Southern Baptists. You need to be a bit more specific, like blaming Nazis and ISIS.

      Pretty sure liberals have been blaming ISIS. So suck it.

    5. Re:Double standards need to be eliminated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Neither Wikileaks nor american neo-nazis (the real ones or the "literally any conservative, Trump voter, or believer in *actual* racial equality" ones) are "terrorists". Even the dude who ran over someone was just a schizo who flipped out under stress, not the next McVeigh.

      2) The idea that absolutely no foreign entity can "meddle" in another country's elections didn't seem to apply when Obama flew to Britain to openly campaign against Brexit. Or when Ted Kennedy begged the Russians to help him defeat Reagan. Or when a single year hasn't gone by since 1949 where the US wasn't trying to overthrow some legitimate foreign government. And you talk about double standards.

    6. Re: Double standards need to be eliminated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing illegal about refusing to answer DNS queries.

    7. Re:Double standards need to be eliminated by Gavagai80 · · Score: 0

      If there ever was a foreign entity trying to meddle in the US election, it was Wikileaks. And yet you people give them a free pass. Seize their domain like you did to the Nazis

      Nazis are not a foreign entity interfering with US elections, Russia is. Nobody has proposed seizing or eliminating all Russian domain names for it.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    8. Re: Double standards need to be eliminated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So every Muslim in the world supports ISIS?
      what about all those Muslims fighting them?
      How does that work?
      Maybe your analogy is idiotic?

    9. Re:Double standards need to be eliminated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > There is a sizeable population in the US who would welcome a foreign invader for the chance of showing the world what a real insurgency looks like. The US civilian population is better armed than most foreign countries. ME terrorist groups may have IED's made using unexploded ordinance and cell phones but the US "resistance" groups would be churning out small yield nuclear devices by the truck load.

      And yet all it really took to destroy your freedoms was to carry out a few low key terrorist attacks and you did the rest yourself.

      Not to mention you handed your presidency to the Russians after a mere fake news campaign.

      Yeah, really resilient. Unfortunately all the guns and small yield nukes in the world can't save you from your own stupidity and self-defeat.

  4. DNS attack == Low Tech Affair ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is getting your DNS hacked really inconsequential? Isn't this a means of doing a man in the middle attack? Couldn't you use this as a means to intercept sensitive information or emails or trick users into downloading malicious information/software?

    Anyone experts can answer this?

    1. Re:DNS attack == Low Tech Affair ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When will you older types understand the new rules?! It's all about INTENT! If people mean well, then they're ok. Try to bully someone and you're done, we'll crowd stomp you!

    2. Re:DNS attack == Low Tech Affair ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is getting your DNS hacked really inconsequential? Isn't this a means of doing a man in the middle attack? Couldn't you use this as a means to intercept sensitive information or emails or trick users into downloading malicious information/software?

      Anyone experts can answer this?

      Yes, you could do mostly everything (often, totally everything and much more, when taking control of emails this way), and hide it completely to at least most people.

      No need to be an expert to reply to this, this should be obvious to most people with basic technical knowledge of computers and the Internet... Many news websites, including technical news websites (and this is supposed to include Slashdot), are very stupidly downplaying these types of attacks every time...

      There are technologies which should make this more difficult, but in practice, not only are they still mostly unsupported, but you can also bypass them all, once you take more and more control of everything, particularly if you can hide it for enough time...

  5. Allowing their DNS to be poisoned indicates a lack by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

    Allowing their DNS to be poisoned indicates a lack of technical proficiency regardless of whether the breach was their own. There are several easy to implement technologies to prevent this.

  6. Re:Allowing their DNS to be poisoned indicates a l by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

    They didn't poison the wikileaks DNS servers, they poisoned some ISP:s DNS servers AFAIK. The link in the screen shot also depicts a https address so I wonder if this really was accepted by any modern browser?!

  7. Re:Allowing their DNS to be poisoned indicates a l by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

    Or forget that, they did poison the wikileaks DNS: "An OurMine spokesperson confirmed to the Guardian that the attack was DNS poisoning, carried out through hacking Wikileaks’ domain provider."

  8. Re: Wikileask released information that embarrased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They support Nazis which is proven by their stand against Trump.

  9. Not a problem for hosts file users... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: DNS redirect can be overridden via APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-7 32/64-bit https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=%22APK+Hosts+File+Engine%22+and+%22start64%22&btnG=Google+Search&gbv=1/

    Ads/script/malware rob speed/security/privacy/bandwidth.

    Hosts add speed (via hardcodes/adblocks), security (vs. bad sites/malware/poisoned dns), reliability (vs. dns down), & anonymity (vs. dns requestlogs/trackers).

    Less power/cpu/ram + IO use vs. DNS/routers/addons/antivirus + less security bugs/complexity & faster vs. addons/routers/remote dns!

    Avoids DNSChangers in routers/IP settings & dns redirect (99.999% of ISP DNS != patched vs. it) + DNS requestlog tracking & lighten DNS load & resolve faster from local system RAM!

    * Via what u NATIVELY have in the FASTER kernelmode IP stack!

    APK

    P.S. - CHINA imitated the above to same GOOD effect & more http://www.theregister.co.uk/2...

  10. Re: Wikileask released information that embarrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Correct. Hillary is anti-Internet but pro truth.

  11. No DNSSEC, what did they expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wikileaks doesn't have DNSSEC enabled, so it is trivial to poison caches. Granted, most users are not behind dnssec-validating resolvers, but this is changing...

    1. Re:No DNSSEC, what did they expect? by manu0601 · · Score: 2

      I was about to post something along that lines.

      Indeed, DNSSEC validation is not widespread, but it already improve security of the one that use it. Wikileaks can be blamed for boasting about security while missing this security feature.

    2. Re:No DNSSEC, what did they expect? by marka63 · · Score: 1

      Actually DNSSEC validation is common. Somewhere between 40% and 60% of lookups
      world wide are validated as the biggest resolvers farm in the world do DNSSEC validation
      and everyone using them has the answers validated. What isn't wide spread is domains
      that are signed so despite the answers being sent to the validator they come out marked
      as 'insecure', rather than 'secure' or in the case they are forged 'bogus'.

      Every time a ISP turns on validation on their recursive servers large numbers of clients get
      the benefit of that.

  12. Re: Wikileask released information that embarrased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should ignore embarrassing info about Hillary.

  13. Re: Wikileask released information that embarrased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is worse so we should ignore her connection to Russia. Especially Podesta's.

  14. Re: Wikileask released information that embarrased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Podesta has so many connections to Russia, but we should ignore that.

  15. Re: Wikileask released information that embarrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She just recently released a book about the election and is making a lot of money on her tour. I paid $2k to get to talk to her and get her to sign my book.

  16. Re: Wikileask released information that embarrased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Her approval of uranium to the Russians was just a wtf.

  17. Re: Wikileask released information that embarrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary is on a book tour. I paid $1,800 to meet her.

  18. Re:Allowing their DNS to be poisoned indicates a l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They didn't poison the wikileaks DNS servers, they poisoned some ISP:s DNS servers AFAIK. The link in the screen shot also depicts a https address so I wonder if this really was accepted by any modern browser?!

    If I can convince DNS servers that myserver is the real host of yourdomain, then I can generate a SSL certificate for yourdomain @ myserver -that is how standard domain verified SSL certificates work. They verify that the server referenced by DNS for a given domain is the server you are connected to. Only an EV SSL certificate verifies that the organization behind the website is who they claim to be.

  19. Re: Wikileask released information that embarrased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CNN confirmed it is illegal to read that info.

  20. Why Make This Public? Way more useful to be tricki by brian.stinar · · Score: 1

    If this were me, I'd log everyone requesting WikiLeaks and redirect most of them to the actual WikiLeaks. Then for those that ordered the secret sauce, some of them would see my own custom version of WikiLeaks (which would probably look just like the actual WikiLeaks, except the "upload leak" button would go to me instead.)

    This would probably require some tricky DNS configuration, but it looks like BIND supports this. If they lost control of DNS, a bind configuration like that would make it way trickier to detect, and more useful, than a global redirect of "I captured your flag!!!"

  21. Saudis know what they're doing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They may not know how to hack WikiLeaks but they sure know how to hack US airliners and crash them into buildings. Don't count them out for being stupid or lazy... terrorists are wily and clever!

    9/11 didn't happen because of North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran. The hijackers came from and were supplied from Saudi Arabia.

    M

  22. Re:Wikileask released information that embarrased. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary refuses to release proof of election manipulation since Obama said no serious person believes this. She is standing against Obama.

  23. Re:Wikileask released information that embarrased. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She never stood against Nazis since she needed their votes.

  24. Re:Not a problem for hosts file users... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my work above

    Taking credit for functionality built into the standard UNIX stack for decades? Wow. You know that before DNS was a thing, if you wanted nice names you were required to have an up to date hosts file right?

  25. Re:Allowing their DNS to be poisoned indicates a l by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And what CA that my browser trusts are you going to use to sign a domain you don't own?

    If I visit wikileaks.org and my browser says do you trust this certificated signed by Anonymous Cowards Snake Oil CA? I'm sure has hell not clicking yes.

  26. Re:Why Make This Public? Way more useful to be tri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Probably easier to setup a reverse proxy. Wikileaks however might get wise when all of their traffic starts coming from a single IP address, or small pool depending on the size of your setup.

  27. Re: Not a problem for hosts file users... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except wikileaks doesn't actually host directly from their IP, they have a variety of redirects setup so that when ine gets shut diwn they're back up shortly on another.
    So trying to use a hosts file for them would make it hard to reach much of the time.

    What I find most amusing is that APK wants us to abandon a dynamic, decentralized method in favor of using a single trusted source... him. Guess it feeds his ego.

  28. Re: Wikileask released information that embarrased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Podesta even admitted he should accuse the other side of what his side is already doint.

  29. Re: Wikileask released information that embarrased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should ignore her book tour.

  30. Re: Wikileask released information that embarrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This. His connections to Russia mean nothing.

  31. no DNSSEC so expect MITM by johnjones · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Saudi authority have for a long time performed MITM on the nations whole population and companies such as Symantec have actively aided them.

    If they had deployed DNSSec and I would have advised DANE then this would have been harder to perform.

    https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/dnssec-qaa-2014-01-29-en

    top tip try and enable it on your own domain !

  32. Re: Wikileask released information that embarras by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's more than many people paid. She just keeps reliving the last election.

  33. Re: Wikileask released information that embarrased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Correct since Trump may have some.

  34. Re:Why Make This Public? Way more useful to be tri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why make this public? Because Assange hasn't had any attention for a few weeks and his ego wants to be stroked.

  35. Re:Wikileask released information that embarrased. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hillary supported Nazis, but we should all ignore that.

  36. I never claimed I invented hosts files by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: I only claim to have made the best tool for populating them so you can go faster, safer, more reliably (per this article & the one @ the foot of my last post you replied to in how China imitated a feature of my program you supply the data in the favorite sites where you spend most time online) & even a bit more anonymously too!

    APK

    P.S.=> I was there thru the invention of *NIX onwards & used to be a BIG fan of it but Windows is where I made my career (retired now for a decade++) though so, there you are... apk

    1. Re:I never claimed I invented hosts files by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah...I tried your tool, not what I'd call fast considering it's manipulating a plain text file.

  37. Look @ the failings of this system... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Per this article & again the link @ the bottom of my post you replied to in its 'p.s.' - says it all for me...

    APK

    P.S.=> I don't have those issues vs. DNS security issues like redirect poisoning (most ISP DNS servers & those of others as well are still not secure vs. the kaminsky flaw) OR tracking by DNS request logs either - I get t o where I spend most time online MORE reliably & faster (vs. redirect poisonings OR dns being down) & I even help lighten DNS loads (bonus) this way using hosts files... apk

  38. Re:Allowing their DNS to be poisoned indicates a l by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 1

    And what CA that my browser trusts are you going to use to sign a domain you don't own?

    To quote Brianna Keilar: "Most of them?" A lot of CAs offer instantly-issued DV certificates now. All you have to do is place a verification file on the target domain, or create a special A record in the DNS, in order to prove to the CA that you control the domain. If I can manipulate the DNS such that wikileaks.org points at my server (even temporarily), I can get the CA to issue me a valid certificate for wikileaks.org. They're likely to revoke it once the tampering is discovered, but that could be many hours later and your browser will trust it in the meantime.

    One possible mitigation is Key Pinning. This can potentially alert users to a certificate mismatch, but only if they've visited that site in the past 30-60 days and their browser knows what the keys for the valid certificate are supposed to look like.

    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  39. And this is why the USA and ISIS are the same. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They both think their version of terrorism is fine and dandy.

    See, the Russians know what they're doing is wrong so when they blow up civilians, they lie about it, because they know what they're doing and they know it's wrong and are ashamed to admit it. When the USians do it, they openly state they killed civilians, not lying about it at all, they call it euphemisms like "collateral damage" or "bad intelligence reports", because they know what they did but don't see anything wrong when they do it, and do not see why they have to lie. And ISIS feels the same.

  40. Re: Wikileask released information that embarrased by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should ignore Trump's crimes because Hillary has some embarrassing stuff...

  41. Re:Not a problem for hosts file users... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mr. unidentifiable anonymous, what have you done better?

  42. Re:Not a problem for hosts file users... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do I even want to ask just how big your HOSTS file is?

  43. I gave /.ers what THEY want, use & like... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell

    his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

    his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

    (APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

    I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

    APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat

    Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad

    I like your host file system by Karmashock

    (NEED MORE? Ask!)

    * It's recommended/hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

    APK

    P.S.=> Safe https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/e01211ca36aa02e923f20adee0a3c4f5d5187dc65bdf1c997b3da3c2b0745425/analysis/1433430542/ ... apk

  44. Better question to ask... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Better question to ask is how large will yours be w/ my program populating it for more speed, security, reliability + anonymity online & how current its data is (vs. threats online) - Yours will be roughly 150,000 lines or thereabouts & will be more efficient + ubiquitous in benefits/abilities (for far less) vs. any 1 browser addon & it will be absolutely current vs. threats as is possible from multiple reputable reliable sources in the security community.

    APK

    P.S.=> My hosts file's MUCH larger but I've been accumulating its data since 1996 or so online as an experiment on how large I can make it before any noticeable performance hits occur (hasn't to date & on a guess as to why? Hosts operate in kernelmode in a proven since 1969 TCP/IP stack (tcpip.sys in Windows device driver driven)).

    For you to get there will take, odds are, 20++ yrs. as it did me & you will be as fast as ever (& far more safe + reliably connected online using my program)... apk

  45. Quoted registered /.ers disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to continue using the Host File Engine. Your software is well written, functional. The Host File Engine performs exactly as promised by mmell

    his hosts program is actually pretty good by xenotransplant

    his hosts tool is actually useful for those cases in which one does indeed want to locally block stuff outright while consuming minimum system resources by alexgieg

    (APK's) work, I've flat out said it's good by BronsCon

    I've tried his hosts file generating software. It works by bmo

    APK your posts on this & the hosts file posts, and more, have never been in error &/or bad advice by BlueStrat

    Your premise that hostfiles are a good way to deal with advertising & malvertising is quite valid by JazzLad

    I like your host file system by Karmashock

    (NEED MORE? Ask & you're welcome to do better)

    * Hosted by Malwarebytes' hpHosts!

    APK

    P.S.=> Produces a PERFECT result under 5-7 minutes here every time on an Intel Core I7 4790k cpu & 8gb of RAM... apk

    1. Re:Quoted registered /.ers disagree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "P.S.=> Produces a PERFECT result under 5-7 minutes here every time on an Intel Core I7 4790k cpu & 8gb of RAM... apk"
      4790k + 5 minutes is what you call fast?

  46. Who's DNS was poisoned? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    Who's DNS was poisoned? How localized was this attack? This is really key. Isn't DNS poisoning done against a LAN, or a single DNS server? It seems that this probably affected a very small number of people. It isn't really even a hack on Wikileaks, it is a hack on some ISP's DNS server. It makes you wonder what other sites they might have changed during that period of time.

  47. Re: Wikileask released information that embarrase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should pretend Trump did something wrong because we don't want to admit Hillary did.

  48. âoehackâ? by sn0wflake · · Score: 0

    /. is the new covfefe.

  49. Re:I gave /.ers what THEY want, use & like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All lies! You are a spammer. If you want to advertise your product, go through regular channels. Otherwise fuck off!

    Instead, since you are one, you should tell us what it's like to be a homo. Personally, I'm fascinated by the concept. What's it like to be such a deviant? Inquiring minds want to know.

  50. You've personally created better? No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Again I'll let others speak for my work instead https://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=11068019&cid=55132037/ - now - Let's see YOU get results like that, ok? (It'll never happen from "your kind", lol - UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous "ne'er-do-well" do-nothings, like you. Hotair windbag blowhard zeros...)

    Takes less time than a system backup (for sure) & filtering off false positives for a PERFECT result guaranteed!

    * The longest part, filtering false positives, is that IF/WHEN you want a perfect result (which IS necessary).

    APK

    P.S.=> Lastly - You're welcome to do BETTER (but you can't & all YOU + "your kind" can do is talk, mere hotair, but no substance OR results that are superior)... apk

  51. No lies from me: It's truth in black & white by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: I'll be true to myself & CONTINUE to do as I please, & lmao - YOU & "your kind", UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous losers can't make me cancel even 1/2 a step... & you KNOW it.

    * IF anyone here is a liar, it's you - I'm not gay (but it appears you WISH I was, or, that you are projecting your OWN inner problems onto me).

    APK

    P.S.=> Your kind? You can't STAND there's folks like myself out there who are able to do good things others like & use - you KNOW that "your kind" (do-nothing "ne'er-do-wells") never will, lol... apk