I think Lulzec are funny.

[Findlebob]

They get in the way of my gamming, for that i hate them.

 

[BlueMage]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_hat

That is all.
Edit: I still do think they're blackhat though.

If anything, Lulsec are white-hat hackers (they currently espouse full disclosure, grey-hats and black-hats do not). The shade-based hacker classification system (tm) is more complicated than white=good, black=bad, grey=somewhere in between.

EDIT: In fact, among the more old-school hacking types, they're considered to be doing EXACTLY the right thing by releasing these details. Grey-hats are typically mercenaries or part-time security professionals that directly profit from their "benevolent" hacking, benefiting the public less and themselves and private corporations more (the individual company might benefit, but the exploit still exists worldwide and can be used against other companies), whereas black hat hackers would never expose discovered security flaws, except to other black hats (usually for a price).

The reason white hat hacking is considered (by many old-school hackers) to generate the most public benefit is that it provides the fastest response (companies have no choice but to fix the problem once it's been publicly exposed) as well as benefiting the most possible people (the company can't decide to hide the vulnerability rather than fixing it, and more than one company benefits from the discovery).

But tens of thousands of personal account data was compromised! How could that possibly be good for anyone?

I'm glad you asked! The logic behind white hat behavior is as follows: If you disclose the data in private, the company might ignore your warnings, delay in fixing the problem, or only make a token effort to close the loophole in their system, leaving potentially millions of users at risk. Simply telling the public about the exploit without releasing the data defeats the point as well, as it becomes very easy for the company to deny the leak while also suddenly making the public very exposed. The idea here is to go with the lesser of two evils. Yes, people's data have been exposed, but at least now they know about it, and if the data had not been released they were at a very real risk of having it taken and not knowing.

A quick recap, in case that was confusing:
Color: Ethics: Stance
---------------------
White: Idealists: Full disclosure of data
Grey: Mercenaries: Partial disclosure for profit
Black: Criminals: No disclosure

FINALLY. Someone who understands.

 

[Emergent]

What bait? The Lulsec incident is funny. Things can indeed be tragic and funny at the same time. For those who don't understand that, the world must be a bland place indeed.

captcha: Resolution shotld (no really!)

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

I think they are less harmful than we originally thought, but still a nuisance.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

No now lets stop giving them attention.

 

[Balobo]

http://lulzsecexposed.blogspot.com/search/label/Lulzsec Hey, just a heads up

 

[Balobo]

Sorry, didn't mean to make this post.

 

[intheweeds]

I doubt you would find all this malicious hacking funny if they hadn't told you to feel that way.

And when someone has to tell you to laugh, is it really that funny?

You assume anyone needed telling to find funny things funny.

To a degree he's right. You wouldn't be laughing if they weren't broadcasting. No one would be as interested if they didn't have the whole taunting back and forth thing with the community. Again, I wonder how they still have the same twitter account? Shut down the twitter, shut down lulzsec. Sure they could still post on their website, but really who the fuck cares? People are following the stupid twitter antics. How lulzy would they really be if they only posted a few downloads on the website a few times a day and a list of ddos'd sites?

Not very, but then I wouldn't find Arj Barker funny if he was just sitting on a couch smoking pot... It's the delivery that makes for the humor.

Go home, grow a funnybone and get back to me with a better point than: "They'd be less funny if they stopped being funny." You'd be less boring if you started being interesting.

Exactly. Take away the delivery is exactly what i'm saying. There is absolutely no need to be insulting each other btw.

 

[Abedecain]

What's that? they DDOSed the escapist? LOL! They're so clever and hilarious! /sarcasm

And? What real difference does 1+ hours of offline mean in the grand scheme of things? Or do you really have nothing better to do?

 

[Cheesus333]

Lulsec is like a drunk guy stumbling around walking into people, puking on them even, he stays incredibly entertaining to look at, until he knocks your beer out of your hand.

Best analogy ever. This, paired with the one about a guy breaking into your house, taking your stuff and leaving it on the street outside for anyone to take, pretty much describes them perfectly.

I don't like LulzSec. I don't find them funny and I don't know who they think they're audience is. By the inevitable end of their rampage around cyberspace, they will have made an enemy of everyone. And given that they themselves consist of anyone who wants to take the name, then sooner or later they'll have to fall apart.

What's that? they DDOSed the escapist? LOL! They're so clever and hilarious! /sarcasm

And? What real difference does 1+ hours of offline mean in the grand scheme of things? Or do you really have nothing better to do?

The fact that he has other things to do with his time is irrelevant. He wanted to access the Escapist, which he should be freely able to do, and couldn't because of the DDoS. Simple as that.

 

[commodore96]

They suck ass because even though they are "sticking it to the man" people who aren't the man will probably get in trouble/fired for their antics.

It's the CIO's job, and the CIO's job alone, to propose and implement better security measures. They are the ones that need to recognize vulnerabilities, and they are the ones to ask for more money from the CFO and CEO to fix those vulnerabilities. Then they allot that money to the proper people accordingly to purchase the better hardware or write better code.

tl;dr, the CIO is the only one who'll be getting canned.

Even then the CIO probably has a family to support, and I wouldn't doubt that he/she had a limited budget before people's site started going down and information was stolen. It stops being funny once it has real world consequences.

If a person has a job to do and they do it badly, they deserve to get fired. Constant security breaches means they are doing a bad job.

If they constantly do then yes. But if you are Sony/facebook/that douchebag security guy they hacked/CIA and all of a sudden you get hit pretty much all at once with a crap ton of hacking there is barely anything you can do. Before this I highly doubt there was very much money or resources going to these places to make sure their networks were lulz proof. There was even an article on the Escapist where one of internet security provider said that it is almost impossible to stop these guys if they really set their minds to it.

Even the best networks aren't 100% secure, but personal data can and should be. The only reason personal data should ever be compromised is when the end user doesn't change their password, uses the same password for everything, or uses a shitty password like "1234"...which is like the majority of the users.

The reason for this is because Linux is the only thing that should be run for servers, and even system administrators can't even see user passwords. Not only that, but if AES encryption is used, it would take longer than the age of the universe to crack. Lulzsec can do bullshit like this [http://lulzsecurity.com/releases/senate.gov.txt] and this [http://lulzsecurity.com/releases/nintendo.com_webserver_configuration.txt], but it doesn't mean they got anything worthwhile. Networks can be rebuilt rather easily. I should know since that is what I'm in college for. However, a breach of personal data cannot be recovered. Once it's out, it's out.

Yeah the best networks arent always secure so lulzsec isn't funny it is just

 

[FalloutJack]

btw, you may want to fix your title, its lulzsec (short for lulz security) not lulzec
and i dont mind them
just keeping an eye on what they do to make sure my stuff wasnt comped

I thought we agreed to call them Ass Clowns United.

 

[crop52]

What's that? they DDOSed the escapist? LOL! They're so clever and hilarious! /sarcasm

And? What real difference does 1+ hours of offline mean in the grand scheme of things? Or do you really have nothing better to do?

What I was trying to say is that they haven't done anything funny or lulzy.
jeez, do you find it easy to find reasons to insult people?

 

[SomethingUnrelated]

At least Anonymous have an agenda. It may, at times, be a little more difficult to identify, but it definitely exists. Lulzec seem to be abusing the abilities they have. The reason for the PSN attacks wasn't clear at all.

 

[C95J]

oh, really?

So you wouldn't mind just sending me your email account details, and your bank details?

yeah just because nothing has happened directly to you, doesn't mean it is funny. Because thousands of other people have had their personal details stolen.

Looks like someone needs a dictionary...

Quick quiz: What is the difference between stealing and publishing that which could have been stolen?

If all a burgler does is leave a note telling me to lock my windows, I giggle, lock my windows and thank the guy...

ummm no sorry, the example you gave me is wrong, would translate to Lulzsec simply looking at all the account details, then just leaving them as they were, whilst still infiltrating the site.

They actually went, got the details (as in they took the details) then they shared them with the world.

That's like a burglar taking something out of my house, then leaving it in the street for anyone to use. He still stole it, but just isn't using it.

My analogy is far more apt I fear, as the credit card companies would (hopefully, if they're worth anything) have been among the first to go thruough, check if the details were accurate, and put stops on all published accounts. Even if not, I doubt any credit card holders will end up out of pocket over this. You seem to be labouring under the delusion that what they're doing is some kind of well thought out criminal enterprise. Then again, you think arguing on the internet is a worthwhile thing to do, so that's three strikes, and as the seppo's say...

Well obviously the credit card companies didn't act fast enough, because some people did get their money stolen. And no, I'm not under a delusion, I just know that they did steal peoples information, and you seem to be arguing over that, even though the facts are clearly there for everyone to see.

Also, please don't try and pull the "arguing on the internet" card on me, because we wouldn't even be arguing if it wasn't for you.

 

[monkey_man]

They're not complete bastards. I mean, they're not 'Anonymous' for fucks sake.

EDIT: Oh, and it's just kinda funny to see what shit they do.

Since when are anonymous complete bastards? I mean, sure they can be pricks, but they also stand for freedom and equality for gamers (and others) And they grant us a large base of epic lulz and lols everyday!

Anyway, good for you for liking Lulzsec. I am mostly indifferent about them. They haven't affected me, so I'm good. I suppose.

 

[Firehound]

I would rate them as a major annoyance with their habit of DOXing everything they can.

 

[ekkaman]

I think they're hilarious.
Keep the lulz coming.

I'm sure you'll be saying that when they release your personal and financial details... Or your parent's for that matter if you don't really have any of your own. They are causing major damage and inconvenience to thousands of people, and with NO sense of moderation. They even attacked this site.

I'm sure I will be buddy, I have nothing to hide mate.

 

[ekkaman]

I think, that they are causing no real harm to any of us, and are actually quite funny. They do good deeds too: Such as hacking into the NHS (National Health Service), but then just emailing them to make them aware of the security vulnerabilities they found. Or when they entered a hacking contest, won it, and turned down the $10,000 prize.

They're not complete bastards. I mean, they're not 'Anonymous' for fucks sake.

EDIT: Oh, and it's just kinda funny to see what shit they do.

Yep. No damage to anyone.

I mean, it's not like releasing 62,000 email and password combinations (which included some of my friends' ones, sadly) wasn't "damaging". Or yeah, the Sony attacks weren't damaging at all.

Yeah, no, you're wrong. They need to be stopped.

And anyway, your point about them not being "Anonymous" is a terrible argument.

Anonymous have a goal. Freedom of speech. LulzSec have a totally different goal. "Causing Mayhem".

So why do Anonymous attack the church of scientology?

Do they not have a right to free speech???

 

[intheweeds]

I doubt you would find all this malicious hacking funny if they hadn't told you to feel that way.

And when someone has to tell you to laugh, is it really that funny?

You assume anyone needed telling to find funny things funny.

To a degree he's right. You wouldn't be laughing if they weren't broadcasting. No one would be as interested if they didn't have the whole taunting back and forth thing with the community. Again, I wonder how they still have the same twitter account? Shut down the twitter, shut down lulzsec. Sure they could still post on their website, but really who the fuck cares? People are following the stupid twitter antics. How lulzy would they really be if they only posted a few downloads on the website a few times a day and a list of ddos'd sites?

Not very, but then I wouldn't find Arj Barker funny if he was just sitting on a couch smoking pot... It's the delivery that makes for the humor.

Go home, grow a funnybone and get back to me with a better point than: "They'd be less funny if they stopped being funny." You'd be less boring if you started being interesting.

Exactly. Take away the delivery is exactly what i'm saying. There is absolutely no need to be insulting each other btw.

Sorry about that. Still, the arguement that they'd be less funny if they stopped being funny carries as much weight as the arguement that cheeseburgers would be less fattening if you didn't eat them. In that it's not an arguement, nor is it a way to convert me to your position, but merely an observation on the nature of the situation that sheds little if any light on it.

fair enough. I don't think you understand my point though. its not that i think they wouldn't be funny if they stopped being funny - its that in order deliver their funny, someone has to give them a voice. Twitter is that voice and in my opinion, twitter should stop voicing them and leave them to their own delivery methods (like their website, which is not very funny). I think though we're not going to agree anyway, since you obviously like them and i don't we probably won't see eye to eye. I'm not trying to 'convert' you by the way, i just don't want to be misunderstood is all. I am quite happy to agree to disagree which is what i think we'll have to do!