Second US man admits DDoS attack on Scientology

These guys are no criminals

These guys are heroes, albeit slightly silly heroes!

Just another noob

who bought into the whole "hackers on steroids" bullshit and then forgot the seven proxies while firing up his Low Orbit Ion Cannon

you'd think.....

That after 75 bazillion years on planet earth, xenu would have figured how to prevent a DDoS attack. Hmm, i am starting to think that some of their dogma is not entirely based on fact.

Still i am sure that some of their "auditors" will soon put me straight in their own inimitable style.

Wait.... I think there's a knock at the door......

*cough*

"controlled by the anti-Scientology group known as Anonymous". Reallly truly? Isn't that a bit like saying "controlled by The Lumber Cartel (TINLC)"?

Oh well

If the brief DDoS attack spared one or two people from getting sucked into the ludicrous world of Church of Scientology*, then it was worth it.

(*Not that any other church is any less nuts and insidious)

A year in jail?

For what? Making a cult website temporarily unavailable for a few days?

A fine would suffice or maybe even community service, but jail? The punishment doesn't seem to fit the crime here.

By "12 months"

Do we mean "12 months of being feted like a hero, with an unending supply of nubile young women and beer?" No?

I'm still waiting for the film to come out, where Kevin Smith (he did so well in Die Hard 4.0 as Warlock) plays the uber-hacker taking on the cyber-might of the Co$ - and wins. Hopefully taking out John Travolta* and Tom Cruise in the process.

*John Travolta has flown a plane-load of supplies - and Scientologist "support staff" into Haiti to "help the earthquake victims". I don't know where to start with what's wrong with that scenario.

- "You can have some clean water as long as you sign this billion-year contract with us"

- "Yes, the tin-cans meter indicates that you're emotionally unstable at the moment after your house collapsing on you, leaving you buried for a week and killing your family - would you like to take a $2000 course in dianetics?"

- "See? Scientology IS proper religions - we helps out in nasty things n stuff. Can we has our tax brakes and religion status nao pls? kthxbai!"

Not unauthorised access

"Defendant used that software to, without authorization, access the COS websites at such a high rate that it impaired the integrity and availability of the COS websites and the computer system where they were hosted,"

Cant see how this is unauthorised access, the COS web site is open to all, similarly the integrity argument is flawed, unless the code launched an attack to gain unauthorised access, but straight DDoS is normally high rate distributed source gets. If this causes an integrity issue, then any access could.

Another issue would be the botnet used for the DDoS, this would be unauthorised access unless every system owner granted permission for the software to run, in which case they would also be liable. As you need a large number of bots to run an effective DDoS, it is possible that he used hundreds or thousands of compromised systems, so COS are not the only victims.

Looks like the plea bargaining came up with wording that suited the COS and a potential sentence that suited Mettenbrink. Considering that COS are a bunch of litigious round things that brown stuff comes out of, Mr Mettenbrink got off lightly, unless there are threats to him and his family that are not in this article.

DDoS is a nasty attack, very difficult to defend against and damaging to the victim, often causing loss of business. In this case, I think that COS should be in the dock for having such a feeble web site, but that’s a personal feeling and no basis for the law.

Permission to DDOS?

> Defendant used that software to, without authorization, access the COS websites

So, you're supposed to get permission from someone before you DDOS them? Who'd've thunk it?

Maybe it should be made a requirement that everyone be required to seek formal permission from COS to visit the their website. By mail or fax, do you think?

Whichever, a year in the slammer for temporarily rendering a scam site inaccessible seems a bit harsh to me. But I is not an American.

here's hoping

..that he puts a paypal page up so people can donate to his defense fund. A lot less sinister than handing your money over to the brainwashing clam-botherers in the "church" of Scientology.

Hint- never trust a prophet whose name rhymes with "cupboard"...

Something doesn't add up

""Defendant used that software to, without authorization, access the COS websites at such a high rate that it impaired the integrity and availability of the COS websites and the computer system where they were hosted," the agreement stated."

Ok, I'm not supporting a DoS attack on anyone, but I don't understand the legalities behind the claim that the defendants without authorization accessed a website.

No offense to the lawyers, but when you set up a website, you *are* inviting someone to visit your website. Am I arguing semantics? Yeah. you're right.

The point is that the claim that the defendant needed 'authorization' is a bit bogus.

A year in prison

That's punative justice

Stupid

A year in federal prison for bringing down a website. Overkill. People who murder people often get parolled in just 2 years. Stupid sentence.

Naughty boys

Xenu is going to get you! He'll make sure you never become Thetans and you are forever trapped in your pitiful man-bodies. Mwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

Something not right here

"Defendant used that software to, without authorization, access the COS websites"

could they please supply a list of software or people that *ARE AUTHORISED* to access their website.

of course they will have to provide this in written form sent by post to every member of the human race so there is no possibility that anyone wouldn't know the right software to access their public website with.

P.S. El Reg I assume Chrome is an authorised piece of software to access your website with

Silly kids...

If you want Scientology to look silly, just let them talk. I know various established critics warned Anonymous to control their zeal. Let them eat caek!