×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Iran Hacks US Spy Sites

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the because-they-can dept.

Government 149

superapecommando writes "Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps hacked into 29 websites affiliated with US espionage networks, Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency reported on Sunday. 'The hacked websites acted against Iran's national security under the cover of human rights activities,' Fars reported. It did not disclose details of the attacks. The Internet has been used by Iranian opposition groups who contested the results of last year's elections there to organize demonstrations and share information about protests and arrests. The Revolutionary Guards is a military group that was founded after Iran's 1979 revolution. The group includes conventional army, navy, air force, and intelligence units, as well as the Basij paramilitary force and various business units."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

149 comments

They also hacked goatse (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31481940)

I wouldn't call it hacking... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31482090)

...with such a gaping security hole staring you in the face like that.

article is propaganda (1, Troll)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482102)

Taco, you motherfucking tool, you are pushing your own people to yet another unwinnable war for oil onto innocent [guardian.co.uk] people!

shame on you, fuck!

Re:article is propaganda (1)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482940)

Yes, I'm sure that ComputerWorld-UK is really an extension of the American military-industrial-complex. Maybe they're even owned by the Reptilian Overlords. Definitely propaganda either way. What do you suggest, Adolf? We can't let them spread propaganda which we don't like! Shall we round 'em up and turn 'em into soap?

Damn, no troll points left (1)

bigredradio (631970) | more than 4 years ago | (#31483722)

I didn't have any moderator points, so I give you a -11 Troll. There are always better methods of persuasion than calling someone a motherfucking tool and a fuck. It doesn't help to further your point. Just makes you look immature.

you mean "ALLEGED" (5, Insightful)

wisebabo (638845) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482928)

Never have I seen an article title more in need of the word "Alleged"

As in: Iran Hacks ALLEGED US Spy Sites

Like you are going to believe that "Iran's semi-official Fars News Agency" isn't going to make unsubstantiated claims? (I know double negative, but here it ain't wrong).

Re:you mean "ALLEGED" (2, Interesting)

GuruBuckaroo (833982) | more than 4 years ago | (#31483244)

Not to mention "Claims". Proper headline, knowing where this article comes from, should be:

Iran Claims it has hacked Alleged US Spy Sites

Geez. This is like people believing the USSR's Pravda back in the Cold War.

Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports (3, Insightful)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#31481972)

I'm usually the first one to blame America when I see slanted reporting that seemingly puts our "enemies" in a very poor light, but this time I think we are looking at some pretty piss-poor Iranian folly.

Websites are passive. They respond to clients. They do not strike out on their own. So "hacking" them and shutting them down isn't really any sort of solution at all.

The Basij are a pretty rough security force compared to any typical military or paramilitary group. Despite their unprofessionalism, they are at the core of Iranian governmental security. They were instrumental in shutting down the election protests last year.

Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports (3, Informative)

nicolas.kassis (875270) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482148)

Well, I think what they were trying to prevent is those site providing information to the opposition inside the country. I don't think they meant attacking Iranian's IT infrastructure with websites. Just helping the opposition organize and give them information. In that sense I see why they would want to shut those sites down. On the other hand, I think those sites might be a good thing if they help the Iranian opposition group organize but I'm a biased westerner.

Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports (5, Insightful)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482302)

Nice headline. These idiots make it sound like the Basji took down the firewalls at Langley and laid waste to the CIA's cyberwar infrastructure. More appropriate headline: "Iranian script kiddies take down website; blame US".

Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31482832)

"Iranian script kiddies take down website; blame US".
Ah yes.
Script kiddies these days. Taking down CIA websites. What are they playing at.

Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports (1, Funny)

CharlyFoxtrot (1607527) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482954)

Nice headline. These idiots make it sound like the Basji took down the firewalls at Langley and laid waste to the CIA's cyberwar infrastructure. More appropriate headline: "Iranian script kiddies take down website; blame US".

Well it is called the "Farce News Agency."

Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports (1)

wmac (1107843) | more than 4 years ago | (#31483362)

In Iran they call it "False news agency" and that's because the staff are from Basij and Sepah and they fabricate hundreds of disgusting lies everyday. They even fabricate individuals (as if they are real people) and then talk with them and publish those talks !! Then suddenly photos of the person in Sepah and Basij clothes are discovered from somewhere and put on the internet by people.

Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31483032)

So bad we don't have Iranians here on /. Just because you don't see one here doesn't mean there can be no hacker from them. They may just don't have that sense of humor. It's disappointing to see no real funny post under this topic.

Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31483542)

I'm sure Iranians read and participate here, and I don't mean to imply that they know nothing about hacking, computers, etc. I was simply saying that the action doesn't seem to be particularly sophisticated. Smashing down a website is simple cyber vigilantism. If the Iranian govt truly believed that these were linked to the CIA, they would likely have more to gain by observing them than destroying them.

Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports (1)

c++0xFF (1758032) | more than 4 years ago | (#31483468)

The list of domains confirms what you're saying:

EN-HRANA.COM
EN-HRANA.INFO
EN-HRANA.ORG
HRAICP.COM
HRAICP.INFO
HRAICP.NET
HRAICP.ORG
HRAIRAN.INFO
HRA-IRAN.INFO
HRA-IRAN.ORG
HRA-NA.INFO
HRANEWS.INFO
HRA-NEWS.INFO
HRA-NEWS1.INFO
HRA-NEWS2.INFO
HRA-NEWS3.INFO
HRA-NEWS4.INFO
HRA-NEWS5.INFO
K-RAFIEE.INFO
LC-HRA.COM
NEWS-HRA.INFO
RADIO-HRA.INFO
hra-iran.com
hra-news.org
hrairan.org
hra-iran.net
kamangar.info
hra-news.org
bsc-iran.org

Even if we take Iran's claim to be true, these sites aren't going to have the protections a normal CIA site would have (if for no other reason than to obfuscate the connection between the site and the CIA). Conversely, I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA has "honeypot" sites set up just to find the "Iranian script kiddies."

Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports (4, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#31483650)

Nice headline. These idiots make it sound like the Basji took down the firewalls at Langley and laid waste to the CIA's cyberwar infrastructure. More appropriate headline: "Iranian script kiddies take down website; blame US".

An even more accurate headline: "Iranian government takes down human rights websites, accusing them of 'espionage'."

Re:Not that I put a lot of trust in *our* reports (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31482848)

hra-iran.org is a human rights web site located in Arizona.
The linked report is from "Computer World".
Get a clue people.

meghhhhh (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31481976)

yes lets have all our shit on the internet. god forbid we use an intranet.

Re:meghhhhh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31482306)

Duuuude, how else am I going to check the latest top secret work stuff as I sit at starbucks sucking down my mocca?

Amazing (0, Flamebait)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31481988)

Last week when I posted that we were in fact actually at cyber war, I was roundly ridiculed for not knowing what I was talking about because I am not a sysadmin. I guess being an intelligence analyst might count for something here.

Re:Amazing (1)

genghisjahn (1344927) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482084)

Shut up you analyst ninny-head!!! Just because you were right doesn't mean you don't get ridiculed. And now that you've gone all "neener - neener", get prepared for more ridicule.

Re:Amazing (4, Informative)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482132)

This still isn't a "cyberwar" this is just iran arresting human rights activists and calling them spies/traitor with a thin justification.

Anything governments try is still lost in the noise http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/ [attrition.org]

Re:Amazing (0)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482368)

The military of a foreign government, with whom we have had less than cordial relations for at least 30 years, hacked some websites our intel community uses, and that's not a cyber war? What would qualify for you, pray tell? Do you really think there is no hostile action being taken on something as strategically important and all-pervasive as the internet, and other computer networks?

Re:Amazing (3, Insightful)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482604)

FTFA:

----------

Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRAI). Information previously available on the site included a report on 400 Iranian opposition protesters that were arrested on 4 November, 2009, an Iranian holiday that marks the anniversary of the 1979 takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran, according to a cached version of the site.

It was not clear whether HRAI had ties to US intelligence organisations or whether the Fars report labeled them as such due to their apparent sympathy for opposition protesters. The Fars report did not tie any of the websites to a specific US government entity.

This is not the opening salvo of a cyber war you were looking for, move along.

----------

Its of course plausible that these were CIA fronts, but I'm going to go with "excuse to silence some critics", much like how they say every single one of the millions of protesters in Iran is a paid US operative dedicated to overthrowing the perfect religious dictatorship that no one would possibly be unhappy with.

Re:Amazing (2, Insightful)

Trails (629752) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482916)

Mod parent informative please.

Just because Fars said it was a "us spy website" doesn't make it so, and in fact should lead one to believe it probably wasn't.

Re:Amazing (1)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482640)

That would, if it were true. But just because the Iranians claim to have hacked US CIA sites doesn't mean they did. The Iranians are currently at war with themselves and the only way that the current power base will win is if they can demonize the other side by saying it is a CIA planned/supported plot.

You have "cyberwar" and "economical war" or not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31482692)

Repeat after me: There is no such thing as a "cyber-war", just piss-poor implementation of security.

Taking down sites which are meant to inform dissenters and opposition, is not a "cyber-war", just piss-poor implementation of security. It's not that much different from China blocking certain critical websites.

Call it for what it really is: Censoring, not a "war".

Or would you call Western countries economical stranglehold on poorer countries for "economical war"?

Re:You have "cyberwar" and "economical war" or not (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31483076)

Or would you call Western countries economical stranglehold on poorer countries for "economical war"?

That one really has a lot more claim to the title "war" than someone cracking a database server or two.

Re:Amazing (3, Interesting)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482728)

The military of a foreign government, with whom we have had less than cordial relations for at least 30 years, hacked some websites.
They claimed they were US spy websites.
They then proceeded to round up a bunch of people they didn't like and called them spies.

I'd call this business as usual in *insert oppressive nation*.

I'd question why the hell the Intel community would use open websites and specifically open websites which keep logs or in other way keep lists of all operatives.
The NSA has more cryptographers working for them than any other body on earth and you think they couldn't come up with a decent deniable, secure stenography scheme?

If you want to let someone communicate securely from inside hostile territory you don't give them a login to ultraspies.com and let the local government see their unusual connection to that site every week.

You hide your encrypted messages stenographically inside some lolcat pictures on some happy little facebook channel for people who love knitting.
(assuming you can find your arse with both hands and there is always the chance that the NSA and CIA can't manage that).

I'd say there's not much chance that the people arrested are any kind of real spies.

Re:Amazing (1)

Nabbler (1683858) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482756)

Unfortunately the CIA and such do often infiltrate/use (and even set up) such organizations to sneak into areas where they have trouble getting into, that's been documented and admitted on a few occasions. So in that light I cannot blame iran for being distrusting, and I tend to think they are frequently right, like in that case with those US 'hikers' in freaking iraq (what?) who 'accidentally' sneaked into iraq, that was as believable as, well, uhm, the bible or something I suppose, and I don't think any sane person did not raise an eyebrow on that story.

It's a website. Not a war. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482354)

Last week when I posted that we were in fact actually at cyber war, I was roundly ridiculed for not knowing what I was talking about because I am not a sysadmin.

And they were right to do that. A sysadmin knows the difference between a website and a war. Websites are cracked all the time by script kiddies. Websites are shut down all the time by lawyers.

Who cares? All this does is attract MORE attention to whatever content those websites were hosting.

Re:Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31482574)

By the bye, Mr. Intel Analyst, OPSEC fail.

When are they (-1, Troll)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482050)

Aren't they getting tired of this crap? First it was the North Koreans and it turned out to be some random idiots. Then it was the Chinese, and again it turned out to be some random idiots. Now it's the Iranians... three guesses as to who is REALLY responsible for THIS new "attack"?

Perhaps the real question is why are these computers so easy to crack in the first place...

Re:When are they (5, Informative)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482110)

Who is the "they" you are referring to? Just to clarify, the Iranians themselves are claiming they hacked these sites, not the US.

Re:When are they (1)

Dorduan (1411877) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482748)

I don't count Fars News as "the Iranians themselves". They are one of the least trustworthy news agencies in Iran.

Re:When are they (1)

wmac (1107843) | more than 4 years ago | (#31483430)

See my previous post. Fars news agency is called "False news agency" by people. Their staff are from Basij and Sepah (IRGC). They always fabricate disgusting (yes, disgusting) shameless lies.

Re:When are they (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#31483464)

Your original statement implies that the US has claimed it was attacked by Iran, when in fact the perpetrators are likely someone else. That is not the case. The Iranian government is claiming it attacked these websites because of alleged US espionage.

Also, let me clarify my original reply. By "the Iranians themselves", I meant "the Iranian government". Second, the government and their controlled media outlets may not be particularly trustworthy, but it's obvious that this was a release sanctioned by the Iranian government. If you don't believe Fars, see also: Link to official Iranian govt news [www.irna.ir].

To summarize: The US didn't blame them. They made this claim themselves, apparently as a PR move to justify shutting down human rights websites and arresting innocent people, and as an attempt to drum up more anti-US sentiment.

This latest blurb shouldnt be surprising to anyone who has heard the saber-rattling emanating from Tehran.

Re:When are they (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482264)

First it was the North Koreans and it turned out to be some random idiots. Then it was the Chinese, and again it turned out to be some random idiots. Now it's the Iranians... three guesses as to who is REALLY responsible for THIS new "attack"?

Well, the Iranians say it was the Iranians.

Re:When are they (1)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482468)

Well, the Iranians say it was the Iranians.

Unless you have connections over there, you'll never really know.

It would be almost infinitely funny if it was actually 4channers saying they were Iranians saying it was the Iranians.

Or even better, slashdotters saying they're 4channers saying they're Iranians saying it was the Iranians. Not that I'm admitting anything. I think we can fit "The Onion" in there somewhere too.

Re:When are they (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31482566)

no, it was the guys over at ebaumsworld. Don't you know how to blame?

Re:When are they (2, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482424)

The 29 websites were identified in a statement (in Farsi) released on a website operated by the Revolutionary Guards.

Most of these sites redirected to one site. But in all cases, they are minor sites run by random people, just like 1,000,000,000's of others on the Interwebs with negligable or non-existent "security". These are mostly "here today, gone tomorow" type web sites. This hardly qualifies as serious hacking of secure government-backed web sites.

This is what's called "propaganda".

who remembers this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31482076)

YOU HAVE BEEN HACKED BY IRANESE





but really. remember when defacing websites was almost always politically driven? some of the 2600 website hack archives from the 90s should refresh your memory... now 'hacking' is almost entirely data mining for advertisement profit... very sad.

Not 29 Web Sites (1)

MrTripps (1306469) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482098)

It was 29 domains, but some of them pointed to the same site. I wouldn't be surprised if they were CIA fronts. The way back machine has it, but it isn't in English.

Re:Not 29 Web Sites (3, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482158)

Doesn't really matter, they could have been CIA fronts of they could have been genuine human rights stuff.
Either way the activists identified(or possibly spies) are going to be shot as traitors or spies.

Re:Not 29 Web Sites (4, Interesting)

Critical Facilities (850111) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482294)

I wouldn't be surprised if they were CIA fronts

That would surprise me. What wouldn't surprise me is if the 29 domains are all linked to the Iranian government. I think this is a ruse, designed to create the illusion that the Iranian government is a) capable enough to pre-emptively strike its "cyber attackers and b) to paint the Iranian government as a victim of attack, as opposed to the attacker.

Spy Websites?!? (3, Interesting)

nullhero (2983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482144)

I thought the idea of being a spy was to stay hidden. Why would you have a site if you are a spy? Oh...I get it to prop up the idea of a cyberwar. So when you get hacked you can tell everyone , "See I told you it was true!". Of course my next question is for the Iranians: dude why would the United State operate a spy website? Do you really think that the US government would put sensitive info in a website? Of course we are talking about the United States so anything is possible.

Re:Spy Websites?!? (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482188)

Any serious spies are going to communicate through some deniable,encrypted,stenographic channel so my money is on these poor fuckers being genuine human rights activists who are just going to be called spies and shot.

Re:Spy Websites?!? (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482362)

Yup, the real spies probably post pro-government spam with embedded code on common websites if they need to use the web at all. They're more likely to avoid any channel that passes through government control - a dead drop picked up by some guy who hands off to a foreign diplomat is going to be hard to spot. Once the data is in an embassy it can leave the country in any number of ways that are just about impossible to intercept.

They're not going to do anything that makes themselves stand out, like visit some website that nobody else uses, or post all kinds of anti-government stuff.

Re:Spy Websites?!? (2, Interesting)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482866)

I'm still thinking stenography over commonly used channels is still the least conspicuous way.
I've spent the last few months working on a project that looks for manipulations in images and while it is possible to spot that some kind of stenographic message has been hidden in an image it's essentially impossible to differentiate between stenography and light manipulation(such as with photoshop or any tool which can blur/sharpen an image).
At the very least they'd need a bank of computers the size of the moon to scan every image going in and out of the country for that kind of thing and the false positive rate.... well...

Now given that the NSA has enough cryptographers to run rings around anything I can think of off the top of my head. At the very least I imagine they'd have a better system than logging on to a special website.

Re:Spy Websites?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31482722)

And the way to hack the channels would be to seduce the stenographers, of course.

Re:Spy Websites?!? (5, Informative)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#31483038)

They were only U.S. spy sites in the sense that officially no right thinking Iranian would be against the government, so it would have to be a CIA plot Q.E.D.

Re:Spy Websites?!? (2, Informative)

GuruBuckaroo (833982) | more than 4 years ago | (#31483384)

Any serious spies are going to communicate through some deniable,encrypted,stenographic channel so my money is on these poor fuckers being genuine human rights activists who are just going to be called spies and shot.

I think you meant steganographic there. Stenography is shorthand, steganography is hiding content in ways that hide the fact that there is hidden content at all.

Flimsy excuse. (2, Interesting)

nten (709128) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482284)

It is only Iran saying that they were spy websites. Seems like a improvised excuse to censor their own populace to me. Not that they need an excuse, but excuses decrease the amount of resulting discontent. Just using the word "because" in a request has been shown to dramatically boost acquiescence. As has been discussed before, the young educated Iranians that tend to be the ones protesting are quite tech aware on average, it wouldn't surprise me if they set the sites up entirely themselves with no prodding. Iran is just as embarrassed about 'amateurs' making their jobs difficult as the superpowers are I'd guess. "Oh no! The sheeple can write html! We are doomed!"

Re:Spy Websites?!? (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 4 years ago | (#31483298)

What they actually mean here is "websites that support our dissidents". Which may well be true, and it still doesn't make it wrong or criminal.

It's the exact same thing in Russia. Pretty much all human rights organizations are blamed to be "CIA fronts" with the purpose of "destabilizing the country" via criticism of the government.

Re:Spy Websites?!? (3, Informative)

hey! (33014) | more than 4 years ago | (#31483426)

What they're talking about websites that are critical of human rights in Iran. Their contention is that all the bad news about Iran is a western psy-ops ploy.

Calling such sites "spy websites" is not an oxymoron by any means. Spying isn't just about getting information; it's about planting disinformation too.

The domains they are targeting mostly belong to one "KEYVAN RAFIEE", with a contact address in a small suburban condo building in Silver Spring MD. It is also the same address used for a small media production company. Some of the domains under that name have as contract address a private home in Woodland CA.

Overall, this not inconsistent with this Mr. Rafiee being a private human rights activist, nor with him being a frontman for a US intelligence operation.

That said, the most credible explanation is this is just disinformation on Iran's part. We've all seen the riots, which were definitely not staged. We've all heard the pronouncements of Mr. Ahmadinejad, which stink of propaganda. This does not mean *we* don't have our own propaganda, but it's clear that the Iranian government would try to portray any criticism as being from the CIA, especially given the CIA's unfortunate history in that country.

Re:Spy Websites?!? (1)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 4 years ago | (#31483444)

But if part of what the CIA tries to do is support activists and destabilize the regime, they would run sites such as that.

I mean propaganda is generally part of an intelligence effort, so I wouldn't be shocked if it were a CIA site, in the sense that the CIA is trying to support opposition.

Re:Spy Websites?!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31483730)

I thought the idea of being a spy was to stay hidden.

This is fancy 21st century Jennifer Garner style spying (high kick).

Because US was using twitter as a weapon...? (2, Interesting)

ihatewinXP (638000) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482174)

Among other shady things we have been up to....

China (as well as Iran and Al-Jazeera) accused the US in state newspapers of using twitter to sow discord in Iran by creating accounts and distributing false information to get people whipped up during the protests. They even linked to a few of the particularly shady accounts that dont seem to really be people on the ground but gained thousands of followers by supplying news of people being shot in the street and leaders (falsely) being arrested.

It is no wonder that Iran and China have taken steps to limit the influence that the US can have in domestic affairs by simply creating a twitter troll account.

Information warfare on the web 2.0... Interesting stuff.

Re:Because US was using twitter as a weapon...? (2, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482242)

There is no cyberwar but there is certainly a PR war.

Good point. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482572)

Does anyone remember during our own elections where people would forward emails to all their friends quoting quoting quoting quoting some email with less-than-100%-factual claims from someone you've never heard of before?

Was that a cyberwar?
No, that was PR and the medium was email.

Just because something you don't like somehow touches the Internet does NOT make it a "cyberwar".

Re:Good point. (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#31483754)

Does anyone remember during our own elections where people would forward emails to all their friends quoting quoting quoting quoting some email with less-than-100%-factual claims from someone you've never heard of before?

I don't, but maybe that's because my friends aren't paranoid right-wing nutjobs.

Softhack (3, Interesting)

nten (709128) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482388)

So one side hacks computers because the other side is using computers to hack brains. I don't consider that just cause. Humans have built in firewalls against BS. Yes they can be overcome, but generally that is called persuasion, or deception depending on the validity of the information being uploaded. And keeping your populace sheltered from the outside might prevent the internet from hacking them, but in face to face conversations they will be even more vulnerable due to their ignorance.

On the bright side, I can't wait to watch the wars between cognitive dictatorships once we all upload.*

* Yes someone *has* been reading too much Stross.

Re:Because US was using twitter as a weapon...? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482460)

What evidence do we have that "the US" was doing the lying, and not Iranian dissidents or Iranian expatriots themselves?

Re:Because US was using twitter as a weapon...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31483054)

The last 60 years of history?

Re:Because US was using twitter as a weapon...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31483196)

You must be new here. Knee-jerk predjudice is all the evidence you need on /.

Free Speech = Shady Business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31482852)

Good one Comrade

Wordpress and/or plugin security issues? (2, Interesting)

dclozier (1002772) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482198)

Considering some (all?) were using Wordpress the hacking may have been trivial depending on what plugins were in use. (or perhaps there is an unknown issue with Wordpress it's self)
There may not have been that much expertise needed in this "hacking".

[74.125.95.132]http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:0KLjk6HUgUQJ:www.en-hrana.com/+EN-HRANA.COM&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a [74.125.95.132]

Worst summary ever (4, Interesting)

DJ Jones (997846) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482214)

  • A website is a passive entity that serves content; there's no such thing as a proactive-espionage-"attack" website. Grow up.
  • They were Iranian human rights websites. The article says (in quotes) that the Fars news network drew a tie to US intelligence with no details to back up that claim.
  • Fars news somehow linked this incident to other US funded groups that were arrested on a different occasion? with no citation.

First off, Fars news is the equivalent of Fox News in the US. They decide the news before it happens. Second off, the only thing worse than this crappy article with no references is CmdrTaco's poor summary of it that insinuates that the US was funding these sites even though the article says nothing about that being true.

Re:Worst summary ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31482408)

It doesn't matter if the summary is bad, facts are not backed up, etc. This article was posted to stir up anti-US or anti-Iran sentiment so slashdotters can have a hate-filled argument for a few hours. It reminds me of my local paper's articles which bash state workers. Most of the content in the articles is missing of facts, provides much conjecture and unfounded rumors.

Re:Worst summary ever (2, Informative)

Sollord (888521) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482422)

As much as I dislike Fox News comparing them to fars news is just not fair.

Re:Worst summary ever (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31482544)

As much as I dislike fars news comparing them to Fox News is just not fair.

Re:Worst summary ever (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31483066)

Ahmadinejad is that you! How ya doing! Killing any students with your pet police force?

Re:Worst summary ever (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31483476)

Hey Mr. Beck, how did you know it was me?! I guess our biases show. Things are going great over here. We killed another 500-1000 students today I think? I can't remember.. I usually stop counting after the first few hundred! Also we took down 12 US spy satellites, had a successful launch of a ICBM, and hacked into 142 websites run by US and Israel zionist spies. All in all I would say it was a great day.

Re:Worst summary ever (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31482434)

SEEE!!!!!!!! This is why you should never take your tinfoil hat off! You become one of them just like DJ Jones.

Oh yes we are on to you, we. are. on. to. you. You may have got Mr. Jones, but you will never get us all.

Re:Worst summary ever (3, Insightful)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482738)

Last time I checked Fars was the mouthpiece of the Iranian government, and Fox has been extremely critical of the current administration and congress. Your analogy is flawed. Also most of what is on Fox is commentary, not news. The "News" on Fox seems to be pretty much like the other news channels: sensational and fluffy with a sprinkle of pseudo-intellectualism.

Re:Worst summary ever (3, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 4 years ago | (#31483112)

Fox also decides what the news is rather than reporting it. They just happen to be attached to the Republican party rather than to the government in general.

Re:Worst summary ever (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31483520)

Negative. Their News section (and NOT the commentary sections you refer to) is honest fair and balanced news. They only REPORT news, not make it up. If you can prove me wrong on that, go ahead. If you are taking their commentary section as literal news, that's your choice, but know that they are commentaries and not reports. (There is a difference in case you didn't know, and all other news channels do it too.)

Re:Worst summary ever (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 4 years ago | (#31483522)

"Fox also decides what the news is rather than reporting it. They just happen to be attached to the Republican party rather than to the government in general."

Well, after I watch a little Fox...I try to then watch a little MSNBC to try to balance things out a bit...they're every bit as antagonistic to the right as Fox is to the left.

I mean, have you actually watched Keith Olbermann for any length of time? He spews as much vitriol as any right-winger I've ever seen on Fox...hell, he may actually get a bit more worked up than those on the right, I mean, I've seen him a few times get so riled up, I thought he was going to POP something in his brain....

Re:Worst summary ever (3, Informative)

DJ Jones (997846) | more than 4 years ago | (#31483156)

OK... and Fox News is the mouth piece of the Republican Party. The fact that Rupert Mudoch's media machine is openly against a democratic administration is not surprising to anyone. My analogy is not flawed, I merely alluded to the fact that the opinions put forth by both Fox News and Fars News are decided well before the facts are divulged. They are equivalent propaganda machines with heavy ties to one political party. Neither one can be considered a respectable "news" organization by any journalistic standards.

Re:Worst summary ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31483402)

Fars is the mouthpiece of the Iranian government and Fox News is the mouthpiece of the Republican Party. The difference is that in America we have our choice between two flavors of overbearing government, where in Iran they only have one choice. Fox New's favorite flavor of overbearing government is not in power right now so all you hear from them is an unending flood of "criticism".

Re:Worst summary ever (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31483452)

First off, Fars news is the equivalent of Fox News in the US. They decide the news before it happens.

Last time I checked Fars was the mouthpiece of the Iranian government, and Fox has been extremely critical of the current administration and congress. Your analogy is flawed.

You setup a strawman analogy to mischaracterize.
Thanks for contributing nothing to the discussion.

Not very impressive.. (2, Informative)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482228)

Government related sites are hacked continously, it's just that only few stories actually arrive in "mainstream" media about it.
Have a look at the zone-h archive of defacements and note the number of .gov.X sites in the list: http://zone-h.org/archive/special=1 [zone-h.org]

If the sites really were "hacked" . . . (1)

PeeAitchPee (712652) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482262)

. . . why would any self-respecting hacker announce it? If there was anything of any real value on there, why not continue to quietly gather as much info as you could? This stinks worse than Pelosi's jock strap.

Bad Article Title (2, Informative)

introspekt.i (1233118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482292)

The title acts as if Iran actually did hack 29 US "spy sites" (wtf). Whether or not this is actually true remains to be seen. The article has a little trouble using quotations, or at least maybe that's how people do it in the UK? I don't mean that as an offense, but rather, in US papers we seem to pepper the articles with double quote marks.

It was not clear whether HRAI had ties to US intelligence organisations or whether the Fars report labeled them as such due to their apparent sympathy for opposition protesters. The Fars report did not tie any of the websites to a specific US government entity.

This article seems shoddy to me, as these claims are as of yet unsubstantiated. Why doesn't Iran use its magic firewall to block these sites instead of hack them? Smells like a publicity stunt against to me.

Re:Bad Article Title (5, Insightful)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482488)

The Iranian Government has been desperate to tie the current protests to US involvement. Without that connection they are beating up their own people, with the connection they are stopping "the great satan" from interfering in their internal affairs. I don't know why this surprises anyone, they put people to death a few weeks ago by saying they were working for the west. They are desperate to convince their own public that these election protests have been orchestrated by the US, in fact I would go so far as to say that the more paranoid members of their government are convinced of such and will do anything including manufacturing evidence of such to convince the general public they are right.

If these protests are all internally comprised they are no better than the shah, and regardless of how they feel about things they don't want to have themselves compared to him. They greatly fear that what happened to the shah could happen to them, they must convince everyone that the US is involved so they justify their own repressive actions.

Re:Bad Article Title (1)

DeadCatX2 (950953) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482780)

The article has a little trouble using quotations, or at least maybe that's how people do it in the UK? I don't mean that as an offense, but rather, in US papers we seem to pepper the articles with double quote marks.

Peppered [salon.com] with quotes [salon.com] attributed to [salon.com] anonymous [salon.com], unnamed sources [salon.com].

I don't see the practical difference between a lack of quotation marks and a lack of sources. Both are so prone to bullshit as to be worthless.

Re:Bad Article Title (2, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482914)

A terrible story with a terrible summary on the font page of Slashdot.
So what else is new?
Really I tend to give the slashdot some slack but this is just terrible. I mean really what are they thinking. And yes I know CW posted this trash but Slashdot doesn't have to repeat it.

Tariq Aziz School of Public Relations (1)

m509272 (1286764) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482380)

Obviously these loons have attended the Tariq Aziz School of Public Relations.

I don't get these hacks (2, Interesting)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 4 years ago | (#31482444)

Why are all these government spy groups in China and Iran using traceable IP's? Why not just send their spy to any place in the EU or US with enough money to buy a laptop with a wireless connection and do their hacking by hopping on unencrypted wireless networks? It's like spy's are getting ultra lazy and sloppy. Like with the assasination in dubi a few weeks back. Why were the spys caught on camera? Didn't it dawn on them they they should have taken out the camera system to cover their tracks so that no one would know. Instead we have them playing James Bond in plain view of the camera. Espionage is about doing things that don't lead back to you and leaves doubt about who did it and why. Malicous Hacking tip 101 Don't use your own IP address to do any hacking.

Re:I don't get these hacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31482680)

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

Iranians hack Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31482452)

and start posting articles with accurate headlines, proper spelling and punctuation. Now THAT would be a feat.

The Biggest CyberSecurity Threat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31482478)

is this botnet [microsoft.com].

I hope this helps your work in securing your computers and networks.

Yours In Ufa,
Kilgore Trout

Congratulations Iran (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31483238)

You've admitted to being a bunch of script kiddies.

$400 million to destabilize Iran? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31483638)

Anyone have any more information about one of the last sentences "US$400 million allocated to the US Central Intelligence Agency to destabilise Iran"?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...