Anonymous Strikes Back, Hacks "Internet Security" Firm

[Iklwa]

Anonymous isn't an organization like I first thought; I realize that now. It's just a bunch of bored teenagers with some mild computing skills and a "screw the world complex". They're not freedom fighters or whatever and they're not super-dangerous hackers. They think they're hot shit but in my opinion, this whole thing's not going to last very long. The US government, for all its flaws, doesn't take well to getting messed with.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

I don't know who's side to take on this. On the one hand Anon has done some things to strike back against internet control, but on the other Anon has no boundaries which is a problem.
Anon needs to learn some boundaries like releasing that guy's SSN is NOT acceptable.
This fighting will eventually turn very, very ugly.

The FBI isn't a group to just let a pseudo-terrorist organization spit in their face and get away with it.

BINGO!
In the USA being a "vigilante" cyber or not is literally called domestic terrorism.
4Chan is fighting fire with fire and it's only going to end badly for all of us.

As far as I am concerned I think it is hilarious that most people here have entirely missed the point of this attack. A private corporation has been mining for American Citizens personal information... AND THEN SELLING IT TO THE GOVT. Yet all those complaining about Anon seem to have over looked this and pointed straight to Anon as 'the bad guys'.

As far as I am concerned this has been a good show. If only more Americans and private citizens from around the world would stand up for themselves and their neutrality.

This company thought it found a way to make a name and money... instead they found a fight. Something tells me they will be changing direction soon enough.

Even if Anon is fighting for us, the way they're fighting will eventually spill over into our internet lives.
Like I said above, Anon needs to find some boundaries before they keep this cyber-vigilanty work.

What crimes, pray tell? Protesting against Scientology? Defending Wikileaks? Revealing a sham of a security company that is taking peoples private information and selling it to the FBI? What?

I just found out that a friend of mine lost his business's server to a drive-by... not a targeted attack, just a random swipe with a zero-day flaw to burn anyone who could be burned. He's got a long, hard week of reconstruction ahead of him.

Today is not the day to convince me that this sort of shit is either justified or harmless fun.

-- Steve

Servers aren't cheap and when they attack and destroy them it's the same as say Arson, or breaking someone's mailbox with your friends.
Anon should be held accountable for that.

 

[Joshimodo]

Does anyone else find it ironic that you can't actually take down something that is, in all reality, a concept?

Anonymous isn't an organisation, it's people. There's no terrorist cell leader, religious demagogue or commanding officer. It's an ever-changing loosely associated group of people.


It's like trying to fight a shadow.

 

[icame]

I hate anon, but I gotta admit, I found some humor in the fact that they hacked these guys. Also that 'were going to give it to them for free' line was kind of cool.

 

[AsianMafiaSin]

That's pretty awesome, in a sense they did save the U.S. government some money.

 

[Ossian]

Holy crap, I was reading about it more on other sites. The 60,000 emails have been pulled however, HBgary negotiated for their removal.

So basically Anonymous has the firm by the balls, released everything related to anonymous online for the lulz, then played nice to show they have heart.

Message still completely clear.

 

[dmase]

I don't agree with them but damn thats funny.

 

[Vrach]

Hihihihihi, gotta say, I'm behind Anonymous on this one. Great to see them kicking ass in this case tbh, especially considering all the juicy circumstances around it

 

[Phyroxis]

Does anyone else feel a movie adaptation coming up?

In all honesty, I think the FBI should just hire Anonymous.

You can't hire an idea. Anon aren't all hackers. Anon is a collection of like-minded people tied solely around an ideology. Even then its loosely based. Some are hackers, many are not.

I know that. Doesn't mean they couldn't come to an agreement with the part of Anonymous that is hacker.

Isn't the whole point of this news story the fact that they can't find Anon? Or the Anon who are hacking? =P

Besides, this isn't an example of hacking, honestly. Aside from the entry, its mostly just social engineering.

Well let's see, they broke into their website, replaced it with their own, and infiltrated and published all of the private emails of the company.

What part of this is "not hacking"?

Most of it. Hacking was getting and spoofing the initial e-mail. The rest was social engineering and childs play. Any middle-schooler can make a web page or a torrent.

I'm not saying they didn't do a lot, I'm saying that calling it hacking is downplaying the other skills at work here.

They didn't make a webpage, they replaced GaryHB's.

Honestly, what IS hacking if this isn't it? I understand something like DDOS involves running a premade program, that's not hacking. But they got into the site, edited it, and stole over 60000 emails, what would you consider hacking? Is anything less than the Skynet takeover considered hacking by you?

Remember, before they got the password from the admin, they had to GET INTO THE EMAIL SERVER to make it look like it was from them. Also, they hacked his Twitter.

If you read my original post I prefaced it with "Other than entry to the e-mail system" and continued with "it was social engineering."

I don't think you understand the distinction technology involved. Just because someone gains access to a technological system, doesn't mean they "hacked" into it. There are many different methods for getting into technological systems. The one that they most used here was social engineering with a bit of technological know-how.

Its really not hacking to ask someone in the company to give you passwords. Yeah, they used technology to access the companies files (and change the website) after they got the passwords, but the means was by those passwords NOT hacking into the systems. If you gave the password to your website's Cpanel, I could change your frontpage in 30 seconds. Once in, its childsplay. Getting in was social engineering.

Also, hacked twitter is just another (wrongly labeled) way of saying "they got his password or e-mail account" AKA, they used the e-mail account that they had access to, to get his twitter password. To actually hack a twitter account they'd have had to compromise the security of Twitter itself, which they did not.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

they've already taken it too far by attacking the government. they need to quit now lest the risk harsher and harsher punishments... actually don't quit.

anyone willing to do these things that anonymous does obviously deserves the life imprisonment that's coming to them.

 

[JUMBO PALACE]

Damn that was ballsy. Good for them.

 

[Dastardly]

Anonymous Strikes Back, Hacks "Internet Security" Firm

All they're doing at this point is feeding the idea that the internet needs to be more heavily policed. It's just some kids showing off tricks under the guise of activism, not having the foresight to see how their antics are actually working against their alleged goals.

For every pocket of "good" hackers flying the 'Anonymous' banner, there are a dozen of this childish, bad variety undoing it. This isn't a comic book. Faceless vigilantism just allows the established power to promote a culture of fear, and thus control.

What has made true revolutionaries of the past different is that they empowered the common man. They taught them. Gave them skills, organized them, and put them to work freeing themselves. They didn't flit around playing Batman or Zorro, spitting in the eye of the government in the name of the people--and thus helping to clench the iron fist on those same people.

 

[RollingThunder]

Hmm, I'm interested to see how this ends.
Prediction right now: the internet gets turned off. Yes it's an incredibly drastic move, but I calls 'em like I sees 'em.

Nope, the Govt. won't do that, why? because only US internet will go down while other countries are still up and running, then it will come to businesses unable to do transactions and it will bring the whole economy down.

 

[Bretty]

Snip

Of course you are correct here. There does need to be that line. But you currently have no chance of neutrality as it is.

I think of this as Robin Hood. Only replace robin with unknowns who dont care about the masses and replace the Sherrif with someone who thinks they are doing right but is being played like a puppet by those above him.

I feel no sadness or outrage for this company. They are getting rich on your and other American's information. This is why they were targeted. Remember that this company is not targetting but netting entire areas of internet usage, the info they find will be sold to whoever wants to buy it.

^This is sad. This is why someone like Anon needs to be there. There is a cost to 'stealing' information and luckily there are those at there willing to take the risks, especially now that the stakes are higher and RL punishment is the cost of failure.

 

[TheTaco007]

I have no interest in this battle but I do find it hilarious. I demand more news!

This.

"Your can't take away people's right to be assholes." - John Spartan, The Demolition Man.

Anon are a bunch of jerks, but this is really awesome that they've managed to cause so much harm to the people trying to screw them over.

 

[RandallJohn]

I'm so tired of hearing about these guys :/

 

[Lancer873]

Dont this people have anything better to do? If they used all that time and energy on legal things they could make lots of money.

wow anonymous really needs to be taken out there too dangerous and too good at what they do

Agreed. 'Anonymous' are really just criminals who use ID theft to fund their crimes. Calling themselves 'heroes' is insulting to anybody who works for a living.

Another group of people not understanding what Anonymous is...

Anonymous isn't good, it isn't bad, and it certainly isn't anything that can be "taken out." In a sense, the concept of the group of Anonymous extends to everyone on the internet (though depending on who you ask, you might get varying answers about how far it does extend). It's like a crowd of people with no real connection to each other. When one person shouts out a message, some people might start following him, and then they are considered by many to be the one voice of Anonymous, despite being just a small part of Anonymous. Whether you consider Anonymous to only be the people on 4chan, or the people on all the chan-sites, or the people on all sites that have the option to remain anonymous, any site that uses a username, or the entire internet, Anonymous isn't good or bad, because humanity isn't just either good or bad.



TL;DR version: Anonymous isn't good or bad because it's not organized. It has never unified towards any single cause, good or bad, ever.

On the topic of this particular attack, I'd say they damn well showed that company not to mess around. You'd think a security company would be wiser than to just give out passwords via e-mail.

 

[Reed Spacer]

I'm just waiting for the sequel: Return of the FBI, where Anonymous rescues the five hackers from Jabba's vile clutches and we get to see Vader without his mask on.

 

[RollingThunder]

Anonymous Strikes Back, Hacks "Internet Security" Firm

All they're doing at this point is feeding the idea that the internet needs to be more heavily policed. It's just some kids showing off tricks under the guise of activism, not having the foresight to see how their antics are actually working against their alleged goals.

For every pocket of "good" hackers flying the 'Anonymous' banner, there are a dozen of this childish, bad variety undoing it. This isn't a comic book. Faceless vigilantism just allows the established power to promote a culture of fear, and thus control.

What has made true revolutionaries of the past different is that they empowered the common man. They taught them. Gave them skills, organized them, and put them to work freeing themselves. They didn't flit around playing Batman or Zorro, spitting in the eye of the government in the name of the people--and thus helping to clench the iron fist on those same people.

Heavy policing the internet won't do any good because it's only run in the country doing it, so there'll be people all around the world ready to provide services to accommodate their needs.

 

[Dastardly]

So, I have a question - if Anonymous is this amorphous blob with no organization...who decides what to put in the open letter?

Basically, all of Batman's tools, vehicles, and weapons are set out in the internet's "common era." Anyone can put on the mask, regardless of motivations, and fall under the protection of the logo. And therein lies the problem of the faceless vigilante.

Calling for more transparency while avoiding transparency does nothing for your cause. Doing so while poking the beast, and then exhibiting no sensible follow through is even worse. They're just going to make the wrong people angry, and those people will make the right people afraid, and then the rest of the population gets stuck dealing with the fallout (in the form of strict supervision and regulation).

Vigilantism like this isn't for a cause. It's for a person to get to run around and do "fun" things in a consequence-free environment. It's childish wish fulfillment, all for the rush of "sticking it to the man." It's no different from the kid that steals the teacher's grade book for kicks, and gets the entire class stuck with no recess or movies for the rest of the year--if he had a point to prove, this didn't do it, and now everyone is a little worse off for it.