Decent infrastructure, decent government, some coastguards but not really interested in starting wars with anyone unless it's about fish, and a legislative framework that is conducive to free speech.
BBC News are reporting however that there were intrusions in CIA and SOCA. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13859868
"Metropolitan Police's e-crimes unit had confirmed the raid was linked to the recent intrusion attacks on the websites of the CIA and Britain's Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca)."
Just slack journalism or is this now a fact? I thought they previously said it was DDOS and nothing was intruded upon or compromised.
I know, it's a scandal and a blooming liberty if you ask me, but noone did. I guess we are in a bad financial shape and America paid us to let them do it so that they could pwn all our dox or something.
Weren't we told that this was being managed by a highly secure, terribly efficient American corporation, and there was absolutely no danger of our personal data being hacked into and released on the internet?
Hmm OK they can charge him with showing his arse to the queen and high treason if they want to. Operating an IRC server for zero financial gain is not a crime and unless he conspired with anyone to do anything illegal I can't see how a conspiracy charge would stick. As for perverting the course of justice, I don't see how operating a chatroom does that. Terrorism? Laughable. Even my granny isn't scared of email anymore.
Nobody broke into anything. Noone stole anything. Noone attacked anyone. Noone let off any bombs. Some people typed some commands on their computers and some other computers briefly changed their state before returning back to normal. Some information moved from one place to another.
I can't imagine this will ever get near any judges. If he has a decent lawyer I can't imagine him even being charged with anything. Operating IRC with intent to facilitate people chatting isn't actually a crime.
The main point is to have something to announce so they don't look like dicks for being hacked. They don't care about the hack per se, just being made to look stupid, and similarly they don't care if he is guilty or ever charged with anyhting as long as they can announce an arrest.
I doubt he will ever be convicted of anything, unless he makes some kind of confession. That isn't the point. The point is to have a splash in the newspapers soon after the attack. This is an information war, not a real one, and noone wants to start filling up prisons with skiddies, even if they could prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.
The people who left critical infrastructure open to crippling attacks by cyberpunks are the companies which internet-enabled that infrastructure. The internet is designed to share information, not hide it. It is not a secure environment and isn't designed to be. Just because the companies want to pretend it is does not make it so. Email is a postcard and nothing on the internet is secure. This was the case in 1995 and still is now.
In the UK on 30th June lots of civil servants are going to go on strike. Previous governments made General Strikes illegal, so each group of civil servants is going to be protesting their own disputes but conveniently doing it on the same day. This will be a major denial of service to a wide range of people in schools, transport etc. Does it piss me off? Not nearly as much as the widespread abuses of power they are trying to draw attention to. For me, lulz ddos ranks on the same scale. The inconvenience can be annoying but I'm glad someone is demonstrating that power is more diffuse than generally acknowledged. At least they are not taping their lunch to their heads and occupying the city centres until the government is toppled, as recently happened in several countries. I'd find that much more disruptive.
Anyone would think there is some kind of serious crime being committed here. My idea of serious crime is when someone's house is broken into or someone gets punched in the face for no reason, or worse. This is just a form of protest/advertising and harms noone personally.
Centralising security creates a single weak point, as recently demonstrated when someone stole the keys from SecureID. If Facebook can recognise us from our friends' pictures now, perhaps all our systems should be doing the same through webcams. It's too creepy to contemplate but not too far fetched technically.
not especially because of the number of engineers with time on their hands, but because of the number of people who watch their wealth being given to the wealthy by those they voted for, and decide they have had enough and why not burn it all down..
It seems that what is being demonstrated is that computer systems are not secure. There is a large computer security theatre industry which is taking many millions of taxpayers' money out of economies all around the world by selling a comfortable illusion of security. It's time to put up or shut up. If we want to spend taxpayers money on security then we should be giving it to someone other than the current recipients, perhaps to people who actually understand security, such as those currently demonstrating its general lack. Or maybe we should just get over it and remember that email is a postcard and that the internet's main purpose is to spread information, not hide it.
Slashdot Mirror
Decent infrastructure, decent government, some coastguards but not really interested in starting wars with anyone unless it's about fish, and a legislative framework that is conducive to free speech.
Disavows?
I thought data mining, some kind of new information supersidewalk.
Tell that to Twitter.
BBC News are reporting however that there were intrusions in CIA and SOCA. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13859868 "Metropolitan Police's e-crimes unit had confirmed the raid was linked to the recent intrusion attacks on the websites of the CIA and Britain's Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca)." Just slack journalism or is this now a fact? I thought they previously said it was DDOS and nothing was intruded upon or compromised.
I know, it's a scandal and a blooming liberty if you ask me, but noone did. I guess we are in a bad financial shape and America paid us to let them do it so that they could pwn all our dox or something.
Weren't we told that this was being managed by a highly secure, terribly efficient American corporation, and there was absolutely no danger of our personal data being hacked into and released on the internet?
Hmm OK they can charge him with showing his arse to the queen and high treason if they want to. Operating an IRC server for zero financial gain is not a crime and unless he conspired with anyone to do anything illegal I can't see how a conspiracy charge would stick. As for perverting the course of justice, I don't see how operating a chatroom does that. Terrorism? Laughable. Even my granny isn't scared of email anymore.
Nobody broke into anything. Noone stole anything. Noone attacked anyone. Noone let off any bombs. Some people typed some commands on their computers and some other computers briefly changed their state before returning back to normal. Some information moved from one place to another.
I can't imagine this will ever get near any judges. If he has a decent lawyer I can't imagine him even being charged with anything. Operating IRC with intent to facilitate people chatting isn't actually a crime.
The main point is to have something to announce so they don't look like dicks for being hacked. They don't care about the hack per se, just being made to look stupid, and similarly they don't care if he is guilty or ever charged with anyhting as long as they can announce an arrest.
Looks like a wannabee spook telling stories
I doubt he will ever be convicted of anything, unless he makes some kind of confession. That isn't the point. The point is to have a splash in the newspapers soon after the attack. This is an information war, not a real one, and noone wants to start filling up prisons with skiddies, even if they could prove anything beyond reasonable doubt.
The people who left critical infrastructure open to crippling attacks by cyberpunks are the companies which internet-enabled that infrastructure. The internet is designed to share information, not hide it. It is not a secure environment and isn't designed to be. Just because the companies want to pretend it is does not make it so. Email is a postcard and nothing on the internet is secure. This was the case in 1995 and still is now.
Will they make it illegal to make a tool that can make a virus? What about the tools that make the tools?
5) Someone wants to spread Lulz-linked FUD
It is clearly a hoax.
In the UK on 30th June lots of civil servants are going to go on strike. Previous governments made General Strikes illegal, so each group of civil servants is going to be protesting their own disputes but conveniently doing it on the same day. This will be a major denial of service to a wide range of people in schools, transport etc. Does it piss me off? Not nearly as much as the widespread abuses of power they are trying to draw attention to. For me, lulz ddos ranks on the same scale. The inconvenience can be annoying but I'm glad someone is demonstrating that power is more diffuse than generally acknowledged. At least they are not taping their lunch to their heads and occupying the city centres until the government is toppled, as recently happened in several countries. I'd find that much more disruptive.
Anyone would think there is some kind of serious crime being committed here. My idea of serious crime is when someone's house is broken into or someone gets punched in the face for no reason, or worse. This is just a form of protest/advertising and harms noone personally.
Centralising security creates a single weak point, as recently demonstrated when someone stole the keys from SecureID. If Facebook can recognise us from our friends' pictures now, perhaps all our systems should be doing the same through webcams. It's too creepy to contemplate but not too far fetched technically.
not especially because of the number of engineers with time on their hands, but because of the number of people who watch their wealth being given to the wealthy by those they voted for, and decide they have had enough and why not burn it all down..
I guess, unless you consider vulnerability to availability challenge as part of your security.
It seems that what is being demonstrated is that computer systems are not secure. There is a large computer security theatre industry which is taking many millions of taxpayers' money out of economies all around the world by selling a comfortable illusion of security. It's time to put up or shut up. If we want to spend taxpayers money on security then we should be giving it to someone other than the current recipients, perhaps to people who actually understand security, such as those currently demonstrating its general lack. Or maybe we should just get over it and remember that email is a postcard and that the internet's main purpose is to spread information, not hide it.
It sounds like they might have made a maximise button at last!
We'll need a citation on this.