Online hacktivist collective Anonymous, operating under the banners Operation:Payback and "Operation Avenge Assange" have launched a series of DDoS attacks against organisations and people seen as being opposed to Wikileaks and its spokesman Julian Assange. Meanwhile, Operation:Payback itself has been subjected to counter-DDoS …
Always happy to hear about Zionist^HSenator Lieberman
Lieberman is "hinting that Wikileaks' mainstream-media partners, collaborating on trawling and redacting files prior to public release, have violated the law also".
Would that be the law that the gerontocratic control freak makes up as he goes along?
T'was all discussed in the 70's and thrown out back then. Well, with the current itch of fascism growing every day, changes may be afoot-
Amazing how quickly...
Laws can be changed or perverted...
Don't you mean
"changed to pervert" ?
US "patriotic" contra-hacktivistas.
nothing new here, except an escalating petty squable.. these would be the same hacktivists who attacked wikileaks leading to the DNS being dropped..
The speeling of charloten proves this is Anonymous, jumping on a bandwagon to muddy the waters. Assange could do with a bit less Anonymous 'help' and a bit more names like Naomi Wolf stepping up:
Posting anonymously because I'm a "charloten"...
The field of battle is WikiLeaks
Mastercard is Current Target
Mastercard's worldwide site is now down.
Dosing The Anonymous chatroom has little effect.
Firstly Current target IP address is posted far and wide so any numpty can put the address into LOIC manually. Secondly, The way the botnet is set up, Machines that are on the botnet will continue to hit a target until the central hub switches them off or supplies a new target. Dosing the bot hub merely locks the attack onto its existing target, currently Mastercard.
As if not getting my mastercard payment to wikileaks wasn't irritating enough then now I can't get my donation to the Ku Klux Klan, either...
(They also accept the presumably non-zionist visa though... http://www.christianconcepts.net/informat.htm - linked to from the kkk.com site when you click signup)
They could do better
They could simply poison the BGP tables and send the 126.96.36.199/24 and 188.8.131.52/24 netblocks towards whatever target they want. That would make every single misconfigured device a DDoS attacker, and oh my! Instant DDoS!
Aust says US to blame
Australian Foreign Minister and former PM says US to blame for data leaks:
This following comments by former PM Howard saying Assange is not "the bad person" in this, and John Pilger having a swipe at current PM Gillard, a former lawyer, for her lazy language and general US-puppetry.
Kevin Rudd - Not a Complete Tosser
They can now update his gravestone to say that.
Yes, KRudd was a complete tosser
His party, under him, were the ones that pushed the Great Firewall of Australia, remember? Time doesn't heal those wounds - the man was, is and always will be, a fuckwit.
@Kevin Rudd - Not a Complete Tosser
It's a fluid situation, I wouldn't update anything until it becomes static.
A matter of time?
"Some context for the online teacup "war" might be provided by the tiny size of the Anonymous volunteer botnet compared to today's heavyweight criminal bot networks. There wasn't even an attempt to actually attack PayPal, just its corporate blog."
How much does it cost to rent a botnet for a few hours?
an arm and a leg given the people you'll have to deal with.
"How much does it cost to rent a botnet for a few hours?"
"an average cost of $50 for 24 hours of use (and better deals for “regular customers”)" for the Darkness botnet, according to Shadowserver quoted in El Reg yesterday.
Perhaps it'd be free for the right kind of person.
Perhaps it'd be free for the right kind of person.
If this is the "first serious infowar", at what point are the anonymous lot actually going to do any meaningful damage to a large company?
And just how long after *that* will it be before some 'warriors' hear a knock on the door from people keen to make examples of them?
People may well try and deny involvement, but wouldn't their PCs tend to tell a different story?
Well if they have any sense
Seven proxies and a server in Pakistan etc..
That would depend on whether it was their PC
And not a neighbours wi-fi link,
or a 'friends' subverted PC,
or a few library or schools PC's which has been added to the botnet,
or even - as suggested above, a 'proper' criminal botnet hired for a day or so.
And when people say DDOS do they just mean that or one of the more interesting mis-uses of TCP/IP (SYN/ACK flooding for instance)?
no title for anon :)
Have a look at Operation Chanology, lashing out at Scientology (big company, check) and disseminating their copyrighted materials (meaningful damage, check).
From what I see that is a feud that has been going on for years and the Anonymous lot stepping up to the plate did quite some damage to the sect.
Right now i'm popping some popcorn. If the wikileaks stuff doesn't run into ground soon, there will be lots of lulz to come. I like popcorn while watching entertaining stuff.
FWIW, I'm AC because I don't need $work to read this, nothing to do with Skiddies from 4chan :)
Just a scratch
I agree - all the anonymous lot is accomplishing is just being an irritant. Nothing permanent is being accomplished, no real damage, nothing lasting.
But it's a sure bet that ISPs and governments are using these DDOS attacks as a fire drill. Attacking Senator Leiberman's website makes it a federal crime.
There may already be knocks on the door as governments make examples of these basement-dwellers. As Dave wrote, they may try to deny involvement, but their PCs and also their ISP history will give them away.
>>"Have a look at Operation Chanology, lashing out at Scientology (big company, check) and disseminating their copyrighted materials (meaningful damage, check)."
It does seem like Scientology has been on a downward trajectory for a while.
Not much in the way of new celebrity converts, the existing ones not exactly doing them many favours, etc.
For all the bits of publicity with masked protests, etc, I'd have thought that the 'They really [pretend to] believe this shit" South Park episode probably had rather more influence.
Copyrighted Scientology bollocks has been around for ages, and on the internet since the mid-90s.
4chan started in 2003 and seemed to start their anti-scientology stuff in 2008.
>>"But it's a sure bet that ISPs and governments are using these DDOS attacks as a fire drill."
And also, presumably, as a really good excuse to get more funding for one or other CyberTerrorism task force, or other pet net projects.
"That would depend on whether it was their PC
"And not a neighbours wi-fi link,"
""or a 'friends' subverted PC,"
"or a few library or schools PC's which has been added to the botnet,"
Though doing some of those things would be illegal in their own right, and/or could have other consequences
I can't imagine that many normal people would be slow to give up a 'friend' who had kindly subverted their PC and left them potentially facing legal grief
"Not me officer - maybe you want to talk to [insert ex-friend's name] - he's always going on about being a big-shot cyber-warrior, and he was playing with my PC a couple of days ago!"
Worse than you think
Mastercard was unable to process payments as a result. I would say it's a bit more than an irritant at this point. Also, the way the DDOS attack is structured makes it pretty much impossible to determine who is an attacker, and who is trying to legitimately access the site.
is that pronounced bilge? It should be.
"Attacking Senator Leiberman's website makes it a federal crime."
Not in my country it doesn't. When will you numpties realise that US law != World law ?
"Not in my country it doesn't. When will you numpties realise that US law != World law ?"
Maybe that's why he said 'federal' rather than 'international"?
I'd assume there are enough kids in America to go after, if the authorities choose, and countries elsewhere can probably find something to do people for, if they feel the desire.
"Also, the way the DDOS attack is structured makes it pretty much impossible to determine who is an attacker, and who is trying to legitimately access the site."
And that would still be the case if someone's IP address had been involved in multiple attacks?
It was morning, I and I were on our way out and firefox spellcheck didn't pick it up(??)
I and I even googled it and didn't get a correction. Morningitus.
You've got to realise with 1000+ in chat, it gets hectic, hence the occasional.. odd target, as I and I said, everyDNS and Interpol were questionable.
But I and I care about this issue and need to make some noise to show that people are not happy.
This prosecution smells rotten and the hostile attitude of PayPal et al. is unjustified and unsavoury.
I and I am not going to get into a flame war with anyone who doesn't share our views.
A but not C.
I wonder if US agencies are encouraging/sponsoring the patriot groups attacking Wikileaks et al - it would seem to be consistent with their approach over the years in many other countries, and its not as though it has ever backfired on them.
Yeah patriot organisations
Like the NSA
says it is "literatim" when quoting the written word, "verbatim" is for quoting speech, please get this right in future Reg
Re: Mr Pedantic
That's slanderous! etc.
Really, though, imagine the screams of bewilderment if we used 'literatim'. Who uses that?
Nope, not in the official Scrabble Players dictionary
so that isn't a real word.
that isn't a real world?
oh gods how will I indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as pointed out or present, mentioned before, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis?
@Mr Pedantic: "verbatim" spoken?
AIUI "verbatim" means "word for word" and "literatim" means "letter for letter". So "verbatim" can mean the spoken or the written word.
These guys are no angels
I agree with Youngs assesment of the situation: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/07/cryptome_on_wikileaks/ They completely sold out Manning and the others to further their own interests. And Assange is no angel as well. His public persona is very different from his private
Certainly not angels, but not demons, either
Mr. Young's remarks, as reported by The Register, were unhelpful to this reader. The piece showed that Mr. Young abhors WikiLeaks, but it does not posit any mechanisms by which WikiLeaks has "sold out" Mr. (Private? Specialist?) Manning or anyone else. So far as this reader can determine, Mr. Manning's difficulties arose from a U.S. government investigation into his activities, and this investigation was not aided by WikiLeaks, not even inadvertently. Also, this reader seems to recall that Mr. Manning long ago acknowledged his involvement in providing at least some of the WikiLeaks material.
If there is plausible evidence to the contrary, some small part of the world wants to hear it. But also, as Bruce Springsteen once explained: "Let the broken hearts stand as the price you've gotta pay. We'll keep pushin' till it's understood, and these badlands start treating us good."
Mr. Assange is not an angel. Neither is he a devil. No human can be either. His career strikes this reader as one of a sensible and passionate man. (Warning!: This is an actual IT angle. He apparently also has been a competent programmer.) Mr. Assange seems to have tried to do the right thing, but he may have finally succumbed to the adulatory fictions created by various media and political groups.
The Reverend Martin Luther King, the most effective leader of the Christian movement which at least temporarily destroyed the legal underpinnings of U.S. apartheid--even Martin Luther King had a problem with the ladies. He liked them; they liked him. The number of his consensual sexual encounters with women who were not his wife may exceed 100.
By King's standard, Assange is practically a eunuch.;
Manning was the idiot that bragged about his accomplishments to a fellow hacker. If he had kept his mouth shut, he wouldn't be in this mess.
Angels of death
Put it in context, Wikileaks showed the video of US Chopper pilots executing civilians. Those pilots are unpunished, probably promoted, while Assange is spending a week in prison without being charged with any crime.
"Wikileaks showed the video of US Chopper pilots executing civilians."
And lots of other media organisations also showed it.
If Assange/Wikileaks had never existed, the video could easily have been leaked to any number of willing news outlets.
Even if some US ones *might* have been wary of touching it until it was made more public domain by being shown elsewhere, there'd have been plenty of overseas news agencies happy to take it.
Wikileaks doesn't actually deserve much of the credit if they didn't take many of the risks.
If someone, at significant personal risk, gave a story to newspaper X or TV station Y, it's that person that deserves the credit much more than someone who just happened to be the first media outlet they contacted.
Assuming Bradley Manning is the source of all the current stuff, I'm assuming that no-one from Wikileaks actually *encouraged* him to give away as much as he did, making it much harder for him to claim he was being a noble whistleblower?
So, am I the only one...
...who finds the idea of a bunch of doofs going by the name "Anonymous" organizing in favor of openness and transparency just too funny for words?
"Openness for the masses (just not from us)!"
not all secrets are bad
Mike, that's retarded. These people could face prison if they were open about their identities. Anonymous isn't even just about hiding your identity, it's about not HAVING an identity, it's about being a human, a part of humanity and a part of a collective force for good... sometimes. It's about humility. People using names and looking to take credit are actively ridiculed.
Just look at this "coldblooded" guy going around telling news outlets that he represents Anonymous, he also said Twitter was a target, complete b/s, he's either a troll or an idiot.
If you think Anonymous should be more open, you could argue that Wikileaks should leak details of their sources, that sounds fucking perfectly logical doesn't it? It's not as if Anonymous is being coy about actions, intentions, repercussions or reasons. It doesn't matter that identity is hidden, this is for safety, it's not like terrorists are being released from prison for economic reasons, it's not like innocent people are being thrown in torture camps or shot or arrested on flimsy accusations from a man-hater rumoured to be linked to the CIA and another Women who has probably been coached and coerced by said feminazi.
The collateral damage of these attacks so far amount to people maybe having trouble processing transactions but Anonymous is not even trying to cover up this fact. U.S. Military kill civilians? Never happened.
No you're not the only one
... you're number 186,990 at last count. Hilarious.
>>"or arrested on flimsy accusations from a man-hater rumoured to be linked to the CIA and another Women who has probably been coached and coerced by said feminazi."
Well, we wouldn't want people going round making up flimsy accusations, would we?
Like someone prejudging a case and assuming that people they know next to nothing about are making up claims of assault just because those claims are against someone they like.
Someone smart wouldn't ignore the possibility that the accusations were incorrect, while avoiding jumping to the conclusion that they simply *must* be, just because that's the answer they most want to be true.
>>"U.S. Military kill civilians? Never happened."
The evil mainstream media never report on civilian deaths.
Except all the times when they do, of course, which go back long before Wikileaks started.
Manning could have given *carefully selected* leaks to regular news outlets and got perfectly good coverage of the information, and would maybe be in a rather better position now.
And how much has Assange actually given to help defend the heroic whistleblower out of the contributions Wikileaks solicited?
So far, the answer seems to be 'nothing'
Though obviously, since Saint Julian is infallible, that must all be someone else's fault as well.
From the abc.net link posted by AC
"The issue is whether any of this material and the publication of it will endanger people's lives or endanger individual countries."
They forgot about about endangering corrupt politicians.....
What inquiring minds really need to know from WikiLeaks is the precise brand of prophylactic that failed; sort of a "Consumer Reports" function.