back to article Snowden leak: GCHQ DDoSed Anonymous & LulzSec's chatrooms

British intelligence ran denial-of-service attacks against chatrooms used by Anonymous and LulzSec, according to an investigation by NBC News involving Snowden confidante Glenn Greenwald. Documents leaked by the NSA whistleblower record how a GCHQ unit known as the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group, or JTRIG, used a …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

"Legally, we enter a very grey area here; where members of Lulzsec were arrested and incarcerated for carrying out DDoS attacks, but it seems that JTRIG are taking the same approach with impunity.”

It isn't grey at all. It is either illegal, or it isn't.

47
6
Unhappy

As always with the elite in power don't do as i do, do as i tell you..

36
2
Anonymous Coward

It isn't grey at all. It is either illegal, or it isn't.

Yes, it's illegal, if done by you, but it's legal if done by them. And the "them" happen to be directly linked to the "them" making the rules what is and what isn't legal. And for whom :)

24
2
Anonymous Coward

>It isn't grey at all. It is either illegal, or it isn't.

Nope. Make war on the state and expect war in return; you fuck us and we fuck you back good.

HAND.

10
28
Gold badge
Meh

Nope. Make war on the state and expect war in return; you fuck us and we fuck you back good.

Says the person who cannot even put their own alias on the post.

8
1
Bronze badge

"Make war on the state and expect war in return; you fuck us and we fuck you back good."

I agree except for that you missed a necessary emphasis. "The state" means, unequivocally, US, i.e. "we", the people, das Volk, die Leute. It really is, as you say, "us".

2
0
Bronze badge

Acts are seldom ever either "legal or illegal"

Acts are seldom ever either "legal or illegal".

Shooting someone. Locking them up. Putting milk in their coffee. Holding a door open.

These are all acts that can be either legal or illegal depending on the circumstances.

Shooting someone? It could be self defense. Locking someone up?

It could be locking the door to your house and keeping you and your infant inside.

If you put milk (instead of non-dairy creamer) in the coffee of someone you know has a serious allergic reaction it would be a criminal act.

Holding a door open to knowingly facilitate a robbery is a crime.

Acts are seldom ever either "legal or illegal". Intent is a major part of the law, and necessity can be a defense.

15
1
Bronze badge

What do you expect the state to do then?

You'll find that security & police services are permitted to disrupt criminal and terrorist activity, based on intelligence, and that they also have a duty to prevent crime, not just detect it.

In any kind of state, this is what you want your security & police services to do, the world would be a very dangerous place if they didn't. One method of doing both is to letting groups know, we know where you are, who you are and what you are doing, which I'd say a denial of service attack on hackers would happily do.

You might remember that it's illegal to shoot a policeman under any circumstances, but not for a policeman to shoot back, or shoot you first if you threaten their lives.

It is not that easy to find some cyber criminals, as they may only be visible for very short periods, certainly less time than getting a warrant, on the basis of we don't know who they are or where they are but we will, so can we have a warrant please.

Another thing to bear in mind is, state SIGINT can do a lot, and has a lot of potential for misuse, but then just think what the likes Lulzsec , Anoynomous, criminals or terrorists would do, if they had the power, and were not challenged. In the west we are lucky that our governments are reasonably honest and are not repressive, and the security and police services like it that way.

7
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: What do you expect the state to do then?

Only a small subset of users on the irc network they attacked could be called criminals, yet alone terrorists. Besides all the kiddies wanting to think they are badass, the majority are just political activists with a few handful of hackers who tend to do their own thing.

Not much changes without political activism and attacks by the government on these servers show they don't want any challenges. Using highly trained intelligence officials to DoS a chat channel run by kids is questionable at least. Obviously there are no REAL terrorist threats for them to be wasting their time on.

Is anyone in doubt that the NSA or GCHQ carried out the attacks on Wikileaks? Or Telecomix around the time Syria started? Cyber attacks by governments will be used more often, as well as censorship, to slowly control the masses over time.

3
1
Anonymous Coward

DDOS

This is specifically illegal under the Police And Justice Act 2006 so GCHQ broke the law. What next, legalised assassination to prevent crime ?

Ultra Vires

38
5

Re: DDOS

'This is specifically illegal under the Police And Justice Act 2006 so GCHQ broke the law. What next, legalised assassination to prevent crime ?'

Actually, that was last week's news. It has been suggested that providing SIGINT for targeted drone strikes might amount to conspiracy to murder.

15
3
Silver badge

Re: DDOS

>legalised assassination to prevent crime

Well anonymous were opposing the government, that makes them terrorists and shooting people without trial because they are terrorists is hardly new, or news.

5
8
Silver badge
Big Brother

Re: DDOS

Legalized "preventative" wars to preventativate 15-minutes-flat-launches of nonexistent Weapons of Mass Destruction on rickety V2 lookalives by Habeeb?

10
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: DDOS

"Well anonymous were opposing the government, that makes them terrorists"

Oh, that makes Ed Milliband a terrorist too! I have to say that I'm not very terrorised by him.

10
2
Bronze badge

Re: DDOS

Not just Ed Milliband but just under half of Cameron's own party.

Politically active people often quarrel within their own party, it is a normal state of affairs.

But LulzSec and Anonymous are neither political parties nor political discussion groups.

They are groups that actively break the law and disrupt the normal functioning of governments and companies.

I see the problem as only that GCHQ or Special Branch should have had a warrant from a judge to do this.

Government workers should be made to work within the laws set by parliament, and they should be fired or sent to prison when they violate those laws. Being a government employee should be considered an aggravating circumstance that makes the punishment worse, rather than a 'get out of jail free card'.

5
1
Bronze badge

Re: DDOS

....and GCHQ are not the police and DDOS doesn't seem an appropriate response. If this was really an attack on a target proven to be criminal why not just take down the target and have their access removed? They could have also blocked access to the target from the UK if the target was outside their jurisdiction.

0
1

Re: DDOS

You're all nuts. Of course the police have to have more powers than us, or they wouldn't be able to police. You've all come from the same crowd who are rightly disgruntled that the security services were doing illegal things against innocent people, but you've failed to make the distinction that these people were law breakers.

If someone's speeding, the police can speed after him. If someone's being dangerous, the police can kill him. If someone's involved in crime, the police can surveil him. If someone's DDOSing, the police can DOS him.

5
5

Re: DDOS

@WetAWorld How did it go... Ah right: "If they do nothing wrong they have nothing to fear".

Big corps and governments shaft us at every step. The people try to show that thy don't like it and they are jailed within minutes. Fat fish fuck up the economy, they get bonuses.

3
2
Silver badge

Re: DDOS

I don't think Ed Milliband is a terrorist, but what about Bob Crow?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1

The use or treat of an action [namely strike action]

The use or threat is designed to influence the government [to not close ticket offices]

and the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause [It is a political cause in this case]

It involves serious violence against a person [no]

serious damage to property [no]

endangers a person's life other than that of the person committing the action [maybe, causes congestion which blocks ambulances]

creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public [all that overcrowding on buses and trains?]

is designed to interfere with or seriously disrupt an electronic system [The tube is an electronic system, and it has been seriously disrupted]

1
0
Silver badge

Re: DDOS

They can get a court order to shut down the chat room. They don't need to DOS it.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: DDOS @ Michael C.

And surely those said powers are never abused.

Ask Ian Tomlinson......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECMVdl-9SQ

OOps no you can't he's dead.

0
1

Re: DDOS

Re: DDOS

They can get a court order to shut down the chat room. They don't need to DOS it.

Really? What country was hosting the chatroom?

1
0
Silver badge

Re: DDOS

You clearly have no concept of how IRC works.

For starters they're channels, not chatrooms - think CB - and blocking one means people will simply create another and carry on.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: DDOS

If someone's involved in crime, the police can surveil him.

Except that's not what's happening is it?

They're surveiling all of us, every communication anyone of us makes is being intercepted and analysed, without any suggestion that most of them have anything to do with any crime, or that most of them have been communicated by anyone involved with crime.

The state went to war against the people, mainly innocent people who haven't been, aren't and have no intention to commit or be involved in crime.

The question is, do you believe the people aren't entitled to respond in kind?

5
3
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: ObnoxiousLiar Re: DDOS

"....They're surveiling all of us, every communication anyone of us makes is being intercepted and analysed...." Yeah, we get it, you are the biggest sheeple ever with his head the furtherst up Snowdope's backside. But, as has already been pointed out to you many times in numerous threads here, you are talking male bovine manure and you know it. In fact, your boring and deceitful dribblings are getting so repetitive I'd almost wish a trip to Gitmo on you, but the truth is that will never happen because tiresome little sheeple like you are simply of ZERO INTEREST to anyone, and especially not the security services. Do us all a favour and get over yourself.

1
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

Yeah, we get it, you are the biggest sheeple ever with his head the furtherst up Snowdope's backside. But, as has already been pointed out to you many times in numerous threads here, you are talking male bovine manure and you know it. In fact, your boring and deceitful dribblings are getting so repetitive I'd almost wish a trip to Gitmo on you, but the truth is that will never happen because tiresome little sheeple like you are simply of ZERO INTEREST to anyone, and especially not the security services. Do us all a favour and get over yourself.

Same old Matt Bryant. Unable to discuss the salient points he fills post after post with insult and bile.

Tell us all Matt, what is it that is factually wrong in what I posted?

Are GCHQ not captuing every packet that passes over a link in or out of the UK?

Are GCHQ not analysing those captured packets?

If you have information that disproves these facts (as revealed by Mr Snowden), and confirmed by the head of CGHQ, MI5 and MI6 in their 15 minutes of fame before the parliamentary committee, maybe you should do a Snowden yourself and release it to the public.

Now about this "sheeple" word you so like bandying around, you do realise that sheeple are people who believe and follow what their leaders say without question... like you do with your unfaltering loyalty to the governments position that they're entitled to spy on the private communications of every living being they can get near the communications of.

Tell me what's it like being a man who unquestioningly accepts the words of government, and who happily casts his (and everyone elses) freedoms aside because he's told 'it has to be done' by those in power?

Does it feel good to comply with people who make the Stasi look like complete amateurs?

OR maybe the truth is more sinister... maybe you leap to defend the overreaching spying because you have a personal stake in it... is that it Matt? Is that why you scream so loudly at those who object to being spied on?

Do me a favour and give me more downvotes, cause it's making such a difference to me.

3
1
Bronze badge
Happy

Re: ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

Now about this "sheeple" word you so like bandying around, you do realise that sheeple are people who believe and follow what their leaders say without question...

Defn:

People unable to think for themselves.

Followers.

Lemmings.

Those with no cognitive ablilities of their own.

All the teens were wearing bell-bottoms because they were sheeple.

So looks to me like a person either unthinkingly following the governments position or indeed following the paranoid herd mentality about GCHQ/NSA etc, could equally well be described as a sheeple.

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: ObnoxiousLiar Re: ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

".....Tell us all Matt, what is it that is factually wrong in what I posted?...." For starters the usual blinkered sheeple bleating about "they iz reading all our emails", to quote: "....They're surveiling all of us, every communication anyone of us makes is being intercepted and analysed...." Even Snowdope's own reports admit the GCHQ do nothing of the sort, they only ever analyse a tiny fraction of the messages, it's just you pathetic sheeple NEED to baaaah-lieve otherwise so you can keep on whining your lies.

".....sheeple are people who believe and follow what their leaders say without question...." Actually the modern definition has an update since the Anonyputzs started unquestioningly following leaders they denied they even had! And that definition fits you to a T. The rest of your hilariously paranoid and overly melodramatic whining are just the same retread your hippy parents were bleating twenty years ago, can't you idiots at least try and think of something new?

0
4
Anonymous Coward

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

For starters the usual blinkered sheeple bleating about "they iz reading all our emails", to quote: "....They're surveiling all of us, every communication anyone of us makes is being intercepted and analysed...." Even Snowdope's own reports admit the GCHQ do nothing of the sort, they only ever analyse a tiny fraction of the messages, it's just you pathetic sheeple NEED to baaaah-lieve otherwise so you can keep on whining your lies.

Which is odd because the head of GCHQ sat in front of a parliamentary committee and insisted they had to have the whole "haystack" to analyse or any analysis would be a complete waste of time. Maybe you should go tell him he isn't analysing everyones emails?

BTW, do feel free to show everyone where I said they were "reading" any emails.

The rest of your hilariously paranoid and overly melodramatic whining are just the same retread your hippy parents were bleating twenty years ago, can't you idiots at least try and think of something new?

My parents weren't/aren't hippies, far from it.

I'm not whining melodramtically or otherwise.

Now back to you, why is it that you continue to try and deny what the Snowden revelations have revealed, and what the head of GCHQ told parliament? Do you know he was lying to parliament? If so do you not think you should report that to parliament? Lying to parliament is a very serious offence you know, and you do seem to keep banging on with crap about how GCHQ isn't doing what he told parliament they are doing, so you must know something, right? Otherwise you're just out here spouting off crap, and making yourself look like a knob for nothing, aren't you?

3
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

"....why is it that you continue to try and deny what the Snowden revelations have revealed...." You really do need to try and pay some attention. I have not denied what Snowdope has "revealed", indeed I and several other posters have pointed out the majority of his "revelations" have been public knowledge or public conjecture for many years. What I object to is the sheeple massively exaggerating his "revelations" in an attempt to (a) smear the security services because the sheeple think the security services are really interested in their sad lives, warez and pr0n film stealing, and (b) insist we should not be fighting terrorism. You have done both.

0
2

Re: DDOS

"This is specifically illegal under the Police And Justice Act 2006 so GCHQ broke the law."

If the police or CPS started any investigation or proceedings against anyone at GCHQ, I suspect they would be told that it would be against the interests of national security to proceed.

"What next, legalised assassination to prevent crime ?"

Armed forces around the world kill and injure people all the time and it is all perfectly legal (well, not always).

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

You have done both

And we finally descend to the pantomime level....

Oh no I haven't!

1
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: ObnoxiousLiar Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

You ARE the pantomime level, starting with your naive World view and continuing through your spoonfed politics.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

You ARE the pantomime level, starting with your naive World view and continuing through your spoonfed politics.

Speaking up in defence of the rights guaranted to each and everyone of us by laws our forebears died for, isn't naive.

BUT, it's the second claim which is the funniest.

The man who is screaching in defence of the lies of the state aparatus, accuses me of having spoonfed political views... seriously Matt, if I made someone like you up, with the things you come out with, no one would believe me.

0
2
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

"Speaking up in defence of the rights guaranted to each and everyone of us by laws our forebears died for, isn't naive....." So please do show me where stopping terrorism is acting against your rights? I assume you are so stupid you want the right to be blown up? Indeed, whilst you're at it, please do go the whole hog and explain how your privacy has been 'invaded', show some evidence that you personally have had your rights 'violated', and how you yourself are supposedly the worse off for it? But we already know you can't, you just like bleating because you're so desperate to think you're important enough for someone to bother with you. Indeed, it is the fact that no-one has a reason to pay you any attention that scares you the most because it means facing the dull pointlessness of your existence. Here's a clue - you are of ZERO INTEREST to anyone! Get over yourself, quit trying to understand subjects you are clearly ill-equipped to consider, and go try doing something useful instead.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

So please do show me where stopping terrorism is acting against your rights?

How many more official bodies would you like to state that the overreaching spying is doing nothing to stop terrorism? Stop believing the lies Matt.

I assume you are so stupid you want the right to be blown up?

As your beloved programs can't stop me being blown up, it would appear I have to live with that risk, just as I have had to for all of my life, just as my forebears did, and their forebears, etc. etc.

Indeed, whilst you're at it, please do go the whole hog and explain how your privacy has been 'invaded', show some evidence that you personally have had your rights 'violated', and how you yourself are supposedly the worse off for it?

Packets which I have legally sent, each containing perfectly legal content, over the internet have been illegally captured by the state for analysis. No warrant was ever sought suggesting that I had any involvement in crime of any description, no oversight of what the analysis of those packets produced has ever taken place, etc. etc.

But we already know you can't, you just like bleating because you're so desperate to think you're important enough for someone to bother with you.

You must try to stop repeating yourself. We've already discussed that I know full well I'm of no interest, that's how come I am security cleared by HM Government, because I'm of no threat, or interest.

So I must be objecting for some other reason right? Can you figure out why I am objecting?

You might find some clues by reading the replies that I posted to you over the many post we've both made about this subject.

Indeed, it is the fact that no-one has a reason to pay you any attention that scares you the most because it means facing the dull pointlessness of your existence.

I actually quite like the fact that my existence is pointless and meaningless, I don't have any wish for fame or a lasting legacy. Having such a pointless and meanigless existence means I can be left the fuck alone by the scum who seem to believe they have a right to know and judge everyone.

Here's a clue - you are of ZERO INTEREST to anyone! Get over yourself, quit trying to understand subjects you are clearly ill-equipped to consider, and go try doing something useful instead.

Oh I understand the subject Matt, it's you who doesn't seem to understand it at all.

I'm guessing you're living in denial of what is going on, and I don't get that. You now know the facts.

You know how much information is being gathered, and that it is all being analysed.

I'm guessing you don't understand that the only way this amount of information is of any use at all is if it is used to build an associative index of everyone.

I'm guessing you don't believe it's possible to build such an index of everyones associations, and ignoring history which shows the DDR Stasi did it on paper for the population they spied on.

I'm guessing you don't believe the security services would do that, because they're "the good guys". Which works in your head because you dismiss the first points.

What I can't understand is why?

Why can you be so blindsided by the statements being made by people in power that you can't understand what they have done?

Why can you be so blindsided by their lies that even after multiple other people in power have stated that none of it has had any effect on stopping terrorism that you still scream in defense of it?

Why do you think that any state body has the right to fish around in the personal communications of everyone and anyone without reason and/or oversight?

At what point did you start to believe that the lives of individual people were the property of the state to record and invade at will?

At what point did you start to believe that the state could do whatever it liked without caring about laws, due process, and people?

Presuambly given your statements about all of this you admire what the Stasi did in East Germany? Presumably you admire what the NKVD did in the USSR? That is what you're defending after all, isn't it? That the state can record and do whatever the hell it likes with the lives of the people, without oversight, due process, or obiediance to law?

0
2
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

"How many more official bodies would you like to state that the overreaching spying is doing nothing to stop terrorism...." Which official bodies? No, not think-tanks, interest groups or fringe nutters, which actual and official bodies with regulatory or legal powers? In the case of the States, I presume you mean the PCLOB (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/23/us_government_watchdog_report_finds_nsa_spying_is_illegal_and_useless/), which couldn't even reach an unanimous decision and doesn't have any actual regulatory or legal powers? And that's even before you begin to examine their possible motives given their working for Gitmo detainees. You really need to read a LOT more. They have zero authority compared to the FISC (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/fisa_2007_review/) which has overseen the NSA's programs and ruled them completely legal and effective. So, once again, it has been really easy to debunk your bleating. Please note I have restricted the debunking info to El Reg given your obviously very, very limited scope of reading sources.

".....Packets which I have legally sent, each containing perfectly legal content, over the internet have been illegally captured by the state for analysis...." Wrong! Apart from the fact you failed to answer the question and show any actual harm to you, the packets were never analysed. They were never read unless you were actually already part of an investigation or used keywords to trigger an actual analysis. Either way, they WERE covered by the FISC's rolling warrant, so - once again - you are completely wrong and talking out of your egotistical rectum. You really need to do some actual RESEARCH before bleating your paranoias.

".....You know how much information is being gathered, and that it is all being analysed....." And here we really start the journey down Paranoia Avenue! Even Snowdope admits the GCHQ/NSA do not analyse everything they trawl up, that they simply do not have the resources to hold all of the data for ver long at all (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/31/nsa_and_uk_hacked_yahoo_and_google_data_center_interconnects_report/). You seem to be lacking in technical knowledge on top of all your other failings, so much so I have to ask WTF are you even doing on a technical site? I suggest you go back to Indymedia where your hippy brethren won't have the tech knowledge or inclination to point out your errors and lack of research. Your tired bleating won't be missed by anyone other than your fellow sheeple.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

They were never read unless you were actually already part of an investigation or used keywords to trigger an actual analysis.

What an absolutely outstanding reply, confirming your place as a extra special contributor to this esteemed site.

Now all we need you to explain is how you keyword check a packet without analysing its contents?

You seem to be lacking in technical knowledge

After making a fundamentally flawed argument like that, you're going to accuse me of lacking technical knowledge? Really!

1
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

"....Now all we need you to explain is how you keyword check a packet without analysing its contents?...." I know you really have no idea technically, but I suggest you go read up on TCP/IP packets. What gets dumped in the data segment by browsers, email and most social meejuh tools is usually just binary transcribe of ASCII clear text - no need for fancy analysis, just an automated scan to look for certain binary patterns that match to key words. That's why people are suggesting the use of more encryption tech to actually make it harder to read the data segment, though of course encryption will probably draw attention to your packets and make them more likely for secondary analysis. A binary match is not analysis, even in the most simplest of forms. Commercial firewalls scan packets as they pass through all the time looking for binary patterns, are you going to accuse McAfee and Symantec of 'analysing' your donkey pr0n downloading habits? Once again, you are trying to fudge definitions to suit your technically illiterate outlook.

"......you're going to accuse me of lacking technical knowledge?...." No need to, your posts illustrate your of knowledge quite succinctly.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

Hi Plump & Bleaty,

> just an automated scan to look for certain binary patterns that match to key words

AKA analysis. However simple, that's analysis. Bzzzt. Plumpo fails again.

> A binary match is not analysis, even in the most simplest of forms

yes it is. It's an equality test. Bzzzzzzt. Secundo-fail.

> Commercial firewalls scan packets as they pass through all the time looking for binary patterns, are you going to accuse McAfee and Symantec of 'analysing' your donkey pr0n downloading habits?

Interesting that you ascribe to others such unpleasant sexual interests. Any reason that this example springs to your consciousness so immediately? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection>

Back on subject, yes, if they are looking at packet payloads then they are analysing said payload.

Bzzzzt. Tertio-fail.

> your posts illustrate your of knowledge quite succinctly

Not as clearly as yours, plumps.

1
1
Silver badge
Happy

Re: BlueGreenLoser Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

What a surprise, he sees other sheeple taking an intellectual beating so the Liitle Woolly Stalin himself jumps in. This should be fun!

"....AKA analysis...." I am guessing you are a foreigner and English is not your first language, seeing as you obviously haven't a clue what the word analysis actually means. Analysis is the active breaking down of a problem into smaller parts to deduce an answer from contained information. Pattern matching is not analysis, it is merely a means to target data for actual analysis.

"......yes it is. It's an equality test....." You have failed to grasp that analysis, by definition, requires actual and complex activity upon the data. Or you simply don't want to admit that as it would go against your fervent baaah-liefs. Or it most likely is you're just stupid and want to stubbornly cling to your baaaah-liefs as you have been told they are The Truth. Either way, you're still patently wrong. But I can see why you would want to split hairs over analysis rather than admit you, Blinkered Bernie and Pstupendouslystupidonymous are just plain wrong. Do you want to try pretend there are no jihadis in the UK too?

".....Interesting that you ascribe to others such unpleasant sexual interests...." LOL, just winding them up. I can see why such humour would puzzle you seeing as you have such a poor grasp of the English language and you probably rarely get to converse with informed adults, there being none in your flock.

"....if they are looking at packet payloads then they are analysing said payload...." They are not 'looking' at anything, you are simply failing as before. Try reading some adult books for a change, over time it may help with expanding your vocabulary and limited comprehension skills. Until then you will just continue to fail and lose.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

I know you really have no idea technically

Yeah I can tell that from what you wrote immediately after that sentence.

A binary match is not analysis, even in the most simplest of forms.

Now that's debateable, but I'll accept that in certain circumstances binary matching can't really be called analysis.

BUT... it does require that EVERY packet is put through the binary matching mechanism or it's of no value at all, remind me again about all those packets which are never even looked at... the ones you've kept telling us all about.

Now if the data in the packet isn't a simple binary transcribe... which it most often isn't... then you're going to have to do more than just binary match it... aren't you Matt? You're going to have to at least work out what that data is... you know like analyse it to see if it's a encrypted packet or just some other kind of transcribing scheme, like say octal... otherwise how can you pattern match your keywords? How can you know it isn't a transcribed email address of a 'bad' guy?

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

though of course encryption will probably draw attention to your packets and make them more likely for secondary analysis

So you mean all the SSL encrypted packets which I tunnel through SSH tunnels are more likely to be analysed, meaning the packets I send over the internet are attracting special attention and analysis... but Matt, you told me that wasn't happening... I feel so let down... I thought you knew what you were talking about!

2
1
Silver badge

Re: BlueGreenLoser ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

> Analysis is the active breaking down of a problem into smaller parts to deduce an answer from contained information. Pattern matching is not analysis, it is merely a means to target data for actual analysis.

Indeed, looking at the formal definition, you are correct. I retract. However, let's read what you said more carefully:

> automated scan to look for certain binary patterns that match to key words

So, pattern matching is not analysis but is being used to match keywords. One doesn't match keywords unless one is doing something further, like using it to evaluating a threat.

Therefore pattern matching is (as you correctly indicated) not analysis but is being used as a component of analysis, else why do it?

And correct again about equality test, you were right and I was wrong. So, is binary matching being done in vacuo or is it being fed into a larger process? Yes or no, and if the answer is yes, then *that* is analysis.

> LOL, just winding them up

nah mate, you're just an unpleasant person.

> "....if they are looking at packet payloads then they are analysing said payload...." They are not 'looking' at anything,

so if they are looking at packet payloads then they are performing a component of analysis. Why else would packet payloads be analysed at all?

So analysis all round.

Over to you plumps

1
1

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge
FAIL

Re: BlueGreenLoser ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

".....nah mate, you're just an unpleasant person...." <Yawn> and you're back to your usual childish insults. Not the bit about being an 'unpleasant person', I have no doubt you consider anyone that doesn't follow your sheeple views as 'unpleasant' regardless, but the bit about how you assume I would ever consider someone with such obvious honesty issues and character flaws to be a 'mate'.

I also notice you, like your flock buddy Pstupidonymous, have failed to even pay attention to what even Snowdope's has been bleating - the NSA and GCHQ collect METADATA from the general trawl, then they do targeting based on the pattern-matching for a limited section of the general trawl, before finally actually analyzing the very limited set of targeted messages. Your failure to understand such simple basics is indicative that your whole argument is driven by wide-eyed hysteria and paranoia, not reason.

0
1
Silver badge

Re: BlueGreenLoser ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

Hiya plumplywumpy.

> Not the bit about being an 'unpleasant person', I have no doubt you consider anyone that doesn't follow your sheeple views as 'unpleasant' regardless

Well, if you think it a sheeple view of mine that downloading animal pornography is unpleasant, it says much about you. I guess as you don't follow our sheeplish conformity you endorse such viewing.

yes? no?

> have failed to even pay attention to what even Snowdope's has been bleating - the NSA and GCHQ collect METADATA from the general trawl

You're trying to duck the subject plumpo, this is about what constitutes analysis. You have failed to address my points.

Let me summarise what you clearly missed: pattern matching, while not in itself analysis as you correctly pointed out, is a component of and precursor to analysis proper. Therefore you concede that analysis is taking place.

yes? no?

1
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: BlueGreenLoser ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

Just more evasions in every thread. You really are living a life of denial. And now you're even trying to lie about what Snowdope "revealed"? Seriously, get a grip.

0
1

Why?

So what did the (D?)DOS actually achieve then? I'm not really au fait with this sort of thing but is it possible to get useful information from it? Or is this just the cyber* equivalent of roughing up a suspect?

*(sorry, couldn't think of a better word)

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Why?

Yes basically but it affected plenty of people who weren't suspects.

3
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums