Beta
×

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!

Anonymous Now Attacking Corporate Fax Machines

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the distributed-denial-of-stationary dept.

Communications 410

An anonymous reader writes "Anonymous has claimed responsibility for distributed denial of service attacks against several anti-WikiLeaks websites this month. In a novel twist to the campaign, Mission Leakflood has started a new DDoS attack against fax numbers belonging to Amazon, MasterCard, Moneybookers, PayPal, Visa and Tableau Software. Some numbers have already stopped responding, and Twitter and PostFinance have since been added to the target list."

cancel ×

410 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Okay that's some funny shit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34540716)

I hope they're sending stick figure lulz.

Re:Okay that's some funny shit (2)

nobodylocalhost (1343981) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540840)

hahahahaha faxed goatse

Re:Okay that's some funny shit (3, Interesting)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541144)

hahahahaha faxed goatse

Actually, the best method would be to use a Black Fax [wikipedia.org] rather than something like stick figures or Goatse. Better yet, not only a simple Black Fax, but one that is looped, so that it endlessly feeds itself through the fax - assuming the originator is a fax machine itself. Otherwise if the fax is originating from a computer or IP address of some sort, then multiple pages of plain monotone black - with the emphasis on MULTIPLE :)

Re:Okay that's some funny shit (1)

mugetsu37 (1485997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541238)

Actually, the best method would be to use a Black Fax [wikipedia.org] rather than something like stick figures or Goatse. Better yet, not only a simple Black Fax, but one that is looped, so that it endlessly feeds itself through the fax

Even better, a white on black flipbook animation sent in an endless loop.

Re:Okay that's some funny shit (5, Interesting)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541250)

Actually, the best method would be to use a Black Fax rather than something like stick figures or Goatse. Better yet, not only a simple Black Fax, but one that is looped, so that it endlessly feeds itself through the fax - assuming the originator is a fax machine itself. Otherwise if the fax is originating from a computer or IP address of some sort, then multiple pages of plain monotone black - with the emphasis on MULTIPLE :)

That hurts, but is pretty juvenile and easily dealt with.

The best way to do it is if they faxed all those cables that Wikileaks has released. Black pages can be recycled easily. Sensitive data? That has to be shredded. And people who aren't supposed to be looking at these things may end up seeing them.

Imagine all the banks and Paypal and Amazon having to now deal with printouts of all the cables themselves - do they shred them? Recycle them without shredding? Also imagine people who shouldn't be looking at them looking at them accidentally (like all those trying to apply for federal jobs).

DDoS the fax? Doesn't do much. But use the fax to DDoS the company is more interesting because someone has to handle the document in the end, and they have to look at the incoming fax to determine routing. They may have to read the cables whether they want to or not to figure out if it's something to can or forward. Black pages - canned easily (and since it's all electronic these days, costs disk space). But pages and pages of readable material...

Ah, Wardialing (1)

z4ns4stu (1607909) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540718)

Someone in that group is an old-hand at this (or has access to a lot of back-issues of 2600).

Re:Ah, Wardialing (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34540814)

I get this feeling that this is mostly a prank to weed out the kids, if even to amuse (or protect) the ones that know what they're doing.

First, DDoS app used by masses of kids that don't know how to obscure who they are. Now wardialing fax machines? Not only are they more easily traced, but there are very specific laws about it (at least in the US) that have been around forever. No grey area here... people are going to find themselves in trouble. :(

Re:Ah, Wardialing (1, Troll)

publiclurker (952615) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540892)

You seem to think that the US == the entire world.

Re:Ah, Wardialing (2)

jappleng (1805148) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541166)

I think the correct term is "center of attention" or "world police". ~Anonymous your days are through, and now you'll have to answer to.. America, F-yeah!~

Re:Ah, Wardialing (3, Insightful)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540940)

I wouldn't assume this is simple wardialing. There are a great many sip servers on the internet now with PSTN access. It could just as easily be someone's list of compromised sip boxen doing this.

Bonus points due to the fact that UDP is stateless and with the right timing, its possible (but less accurate) to wardial bad faxes spoofed perfectly anonymously assuming you know the credentials are valid.

Re:Ah, Wardialing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34540942)

Not only are they more easily traced, but there are very specific laws about it (at least in the US) that have been around forever. No grey area here... people are going to find themselves in trouble. :(

Really? I regularly hear about credit card fraud and other crimes that cost people real money and aren't investigated. I find it hard to believe they're going to prosecute thousands of stupid script kiddies. Then again maybe they could just put everyone on the do-not-fly list I hear that has a much smaller burden of evidence.

Re:Ah, Wardialing (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34541064)

You obviously don't know that much then since it can easily be hidden.
Fax hacking is low-tier hackery.
This hasn't even been the first time it has been done.

Of course, those who are idiots and just obey very basic instructions will get caught since most of them are script kiddies amongst a select bunch who abuse the large numbers of anonymous people on the web with time to spare.
They develop the techniques and software, post it somewhere, direct some board to it, bham.

I love how you also fell for such an obvious troll that "anon", AKA, generic 4chan user that you are obviously blaming for this, is underage.
A good bunch of users are in their 20s-30s, well under a quarter of the people who visit it are genuinely underage. (the ones who frequent /b/ mainly)
And you wonder how i know this when "anonymous" users on an anonymous board. That is one thing you shall never know.

Re:Ah, Wardialing (1)

CyprusBlue113 (1294000) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541168)

Easily? I wouldn't go that far. That ALI is hard to get around, short of aligator clips, or someone's poorly set up PBX.

Re:Ah, Wardialing (4, Interesting)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541294)

the law states that i can't falsify who i am when faxing - and that at the receivers request i must stop sending unsolicited faxes.

problem is... if i'm always busy (dialing your fax number) you can't exactly call me to ask me to stop - nor can you fax me to ask me.. best they can do and is within the law is to call the bell and request either an operator override and block the number and have the bell send the request.

either way given the short window given for this DoS as long as people aren't trying to hide who they are when sending them then they aren't breaking the law.

Re:Ah, Wardialing (1)

nametaken (610866) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540998)

From the link, it looks like they've directed participants over to myfax.com's free service. My guess is that'll be taken down soon and they'll move on to another.

sweet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34540726)

Sweet

FTL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34540738)

for the lulz

A what? (5, Funny)

jamesl (106902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540752)

What's a Fax Machine?

Re:A what? (5, Funny)

pspahn (1175617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540888)

It's a machine that stores, retrieves, and serves Fax. Fax such as "how many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop" and "how often does Google watch me in the shower?"

Current forms of Fax Machines are Wikipedia, and Answers.com. They serve their purpose and serve it well. Previous incarnations include the Rosetta Stone, Newpaper Rock, and the Black Monolith. While comparatively primitive by modern standards, these archaic Fax Machines undoubtedly sparked the minds of those who used them.

Honorable mention goes to Baghdad Bob for keeping faithful to the true heart of Fax Machines, though ultimately his Fax were deemed inaccurate.

Re:A what? (1)

jbonomi (1839286) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541120)

Are you referring to the Cinco Facts Machine? [adultswim.com]

Re:A what? (1)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541158)

Oh, so this is what it means in those commercials saying "Show me the CarFax". It wants me to Google information about the car. It all makes sense now

Re:A what? (1)

russlar (1122455) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541172)

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry that this was modded Insightful, and not Funny.

Re:A what? (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541222)

I love the way both of these are modded Insightful rather than Funny. Just the fax.

Re:A what? (2)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540900)

i think it must have been a typo, fox machine maybe?
as in "fear and misinfo spreading, fox news machine"

btw whats a fox?

Re:A what? (2)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541008)

btw whats a fox?

I've heard that that lady in Transformers, what's her name again, is a real Fox.

Re:A what? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540914)

I don't understand businesses (and government agencies!) that insist on faxes in 2010.

Sure, you get a delivery receipt, but you get that with e-mail too -- the SMTP server that the recipient states in their MX record also "signs off".
Sure, you can get a caller ID, but that's as easily spoofed as an e-mail header..

You'd think that telefax would have died fifteen years ago, but then again, there are still people who pay with cheques and listen to mp3s.

Re:A what? (1)

Dthief (1700318) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541174)

A lot of government bureaucracy requires you to get hard copies of things....for example often times a signature must be an actual hard copy or facsimile but cannot be an emailed file, in which case having a fax is essential.

Governments are always slow to change, and thus are many years behind the current tech. Once thy catch up, faxes will go away.

Re:A what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34541330)

Which is ridiculous because most fax machines these days are just multi-function printers. All they're doing is taking an image file sent to them via an analog to digital conversion on the phone line and printing it.

Re:A what? (1)

jappleng (1805148) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541202)

Faxes are very convenient to read while you're walking and talking and going 'yep, yep'. The businesses I've been to don't have a normal fax line, instead it's online but gets printed and has a digital copy. This way if something malicious like this happens, all they have is a bunch of lemonparty e-mails instead of printouts.

Not Very Anonymous (5, Insightful)

bit trollent (824666) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540756)

I love how all these "Anonymous" noobs are basically reporting themselves to the authorities by running Denial of Service attacks from their home computer.

"Sorry, the FBI took all our computers dad. I was doing some 1337 hacking for 'Anonymous'"

Re:Not Very Anonymous (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34540780)

not unless if you claim your machine has hijacked and you were not aware of it.

are they going to fine/jail everyone?

Re:Not Very Anonymous (4, Interesting)

Coldegg (1956060) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540832)

It doesn't matter... I'm not sure how much time you've spent with the police or in front of the judge, but it's really a pain. For most people, having to go through all of those things can be life impacting. It is hard enough for alot of thee people once corporations grab onto them (see DMCA, etc). It's a whole lot worse when you've pissed off the federal government and they latch on.

It will be interesting to see how this goes down... but I have a strong feeling that there will shortly be a large numbers of household raids w/ electronics confiscations. Good luck telling them that your machine was hacked. With that defense, you might see your computer again after a few years of courthouse battle.

Re:Not Very Anonymous (1)

netsharc (195805) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541024)

But what if it really was hijacked? With all the news about unpatched Windows XP hosts lying around and botnets with millions of nodes, surely someone in "Anonymous" has access to a botnet or two?

Oh well, if it leads to educating the people to patch their computers (yes, their new one), it's one small (large?) plus.

Incidentally, I wonder how many defense contractors are -- using PowerPoint probably -- trying to convince each other and those who would listen and give them money the Gawker database breach was a case of "cyber-terrorism". Since the baddies now have a list of emails, in some case trivial passwords, and their owners probably are password recyclers. (Also to go on another tangent, they can probably run a brute-force dictionary attack in a unique way: hash a string, and see if the hash is in the database, and to which email address it is attached).

yeah. large numbers of household raids as in (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541052)

millions of homes. raided. tens of millions of people affected due to relatives, social circle, friends, colleagues.

goes WAY over the population limit of many countries, mind that.

Re:Not Very Anonymous (3, Interesting)

HBI (604924) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540844)

No, but seizing computers and holding them for a while, along with mugshots and showing up in the local police blotter is probably trouble enough for most people. The repeat offenders will get the jail time.

Re:Not Very Anonymous (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34540960)

are they going to fine/jail everyone?

No, but if teens keep doing crap like this, other teens dressed in military gear might not question orders when told to "neutralize the cyber-terrorist commie scum". When the authoritarian regime suspends democracy, I'll blame Anonymous for being a convenient local foil that the regime could use to arrest/kill anyone. If you want to change politics for the better, go arrange a sit in, suffer a little in person. Don't pass the suffering on to others while sitting at home in your footie pajamas.

What are these guys server setups? Tor? (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541006)

not unless if you claim your machine has hijacked and you were not aware of it.

are they going to fine/jail everyone?

Most likely they will just join IRC, forums and mailing lists just like everyone, see who's coordinating the actions, and go after them. I would like to know how their servers are set up, what IP address, country, proxies, etc. If there's any running inside Tor, it's a bit of test of Tor trackability.

Yeah - Why not add a Federal Perjury Charge... (5, Insightful)

bit trollent (824666) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541224)

That defense may actually work if your computer is actually part of a botnet. Otherwise, you will likely find yourself learning more about computer forensics and perjury laws. No, your not going to just be able to lie to the FBI about your computer and get away with it.

The police / FBI may have a little trouble with 'the botnet defense' when they discover that your computer is not actually controlled by a botnet. Or is your computer under botnet control?

For those naive enough to take 'the botnet defense' seriously:
If the police are talking to you, you have already lost
The kind of lawyers that can actually get you off cost alot of money
Lying to the police is easier in theory than in practice
Your best defense against the police is silence. Just shut your mouth and get a lawyer.

"They can't arrest us all"
No, but they can log all of our IP addresses and arrest whoever they want. They can't arrest every drug user, but that doesn't stop them from filling the prisons with them. If you want to stay out of trouble, you should do your best to make yourself a small target.

Re:Not Very Anonymous (1)

rainer_d (115765) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540902)

What if you only send one fax? It's the equivalent of a post-card protest, IMO. What few companies seem to realize is that everything can be now "crowd-sourced" in ways never thought to be possible in the past, given enough publicity. It's only now that this fact is getting a bit more lime-light.

Re:Not Very Anonymous (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541392)

What if you only send one fax?

If you're only going to send one fax, make it count. Fax them a box of green-bar paper.

yeah (0)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541032)

i would like to see governments worldwide try prosecuting millions of people ...

Re:Not Very Anonymous (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34541050)

if you claim that your pc has malware on it then it would be very difficult for anyone to prove otherwise. that's how botnets work.

this is really quite 'an obvious thing' - someone must have swapped your brain for some excrement they found lying around! get it sorted before you head in for work tomorrow morning - even flipping burgers can be tricky without a nervous system.

Re:Not Very Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34541162)

I love how all these "Anonymous" noobs are basically reporting themselves to the authorities by running Denial of Service attacks from their home computer.

"Sorry, the FBI took all our computers dad. I was doing some 1337 hacking for 'Anonymous'"

yeah how do you explain something like that to your parents
http://saltlakecity.backpage.com/MiscServices/are-you-wondering-how-to-get-my-ex-back/2800591

Re:Not Very (1)

mugetsu37 (1485997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541300)

I love how all these "Anonymous" noobs are basically reporting themselves to the authorities by running Denial of Service attacks from their home computer.

"Sorry, the FBI took all our computers dad. I was doing some 1337 hacking for 'Anonymous'"

"I'm so glad you came officer, you see we've had this AWFUL paper jam for the last few hours and we're frankly fed up with waiting for geek squad to get here." Or you could just send it from a business.

Re:Not Very Anonymous (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541404)

Starbucks free net FTW... ...we're not all just sitting there and trying to look trendy writing something on a Mac, you know.

Going Backwards (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34540760)

It looks like the "hacktivist" (better known to me as "vandals") are going backwards in time. Maybe they finally recruited someone older than 12?

Re:Going Backwards (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541218)

It looks like the "hacktivist" (better known to me as "vandals") are going backwards in time. Maybe they finally recruited someone older than 12?

Or maybe it is part of a bigger plan that is slowly escalating - aka: Tell me when to stop...

1) DDoS against your websites - Little damage, little inconvenience, little embarrassment.
2) Wardialing your faxmachines - More annoying, more interruption to actual business, not likely as embarrassing.
3) ...
4) ...

Sooner or later, someone calls uncle.

This is just going to get worse (4, Interesting)

secretcurse (1266724) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540768)

I'm betting this just gets worse for a while. These attacks are all being carried out for attention, and they've been generating tons of it. They even get extra credit with the several "Are the attacks over???" articles I've seen over the past two days or so. These articles are adding fuel to the fire.

Re:This is just going to get worse (1)

monkyyy (1901940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540928)

i see no problem maybe it will be the first ddos attack with a direct effect

you dumbasses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34540822)

most (if not all) faxes are now handled electronically

what they are essentially doing is spamming paypal's email address. Yeah, that accomplishes a lot.

Mommy won't be happy... (5, Funny)

RightwingNutjob (1302813) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540838)

when the feds bust down the door to her house because you've been dialing out of her basement.

The best 60s technology. (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540854)

Can Fax die now? Lets move on to something from the 90's at least. How about email?

Re:The best 60s technology. (2)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541198)

I find it amusing that companies are willing to accept blurry, low-quality, could-have-been-signed-by-Bigfoot black-and-white signatures delivered by fax, but not high-resolution color scans delivered by e-mail...

I am also amused that "Anonymous" thinks DDoS'ing a fax number will make companies listen to them.

I, for one, (1)

sdguero (1112795) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540858)

support our 12 year old 1337 h4ck3r overlords.

Re:I, for one, (3, Informative)

Stregano (1285764) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541386)

I, for one, do not support this comment. Smack that kid and send him to bed without supper. Problem solved.

Junk faxes are against the law (5, Insightful)

rminsk (831757) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540862)

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and FCC rules generally prohibit most unsolicited fax advertisements. In addition, the Junk Fax Prevention Act, passed by Congress in 2005, directs the FCC to amend its rules adopted pursuant to the TCPA regarding fax advertising.

Re:Junk faxes are against the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34540938)

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and FCC rules generally prohibit most unsolicited fax advertisements. In addition, the Junk Fax Prevention Act, passed by Congress in 2005, directs the FCC to amend its rules adopted pursuant to the TCPA regarding fax advertising.

Cue yet another round of pseudo-hemi-demi-semi-paralegal wannabes trying to come up with some bullshit rationalization to claim this is any or all of the following:

Ethical
Moral
Legal
Not stealing
Not costing anyone anything
Solving anything
Helping their cause
Objectively right

Re:Junk faxes are against the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34541214)

In after 2 idiots who think that US = the world.

Enjoy your pointless laws and pointless tech. Learn to E-mail, its past the twenty first damn century for crying out loud.

Re:Junk faxes are against the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34540964)

....but are they on the "Do Not FAX" list?

Re:Junk faxes are against the law (4, Insightful)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541056)

DDoS is against the law too. That doesn't stop them from doing it.

Only outlaws fax advertisements and junk (2)

lullabud (679893) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541100)

So is spam. ("Spam is actually illegal but many people are still receiving messages because people don't care about the laws" -- spamlaws.com)

So is phishing. (It's considered fraud.)

So is war dialing (In some places under "placing a call with no intent to communicate" and other laws).

So is robocalling.

These people don't fucking care.

After they outlawed faxing advertisements and junk, only outlaws faxed advertisements and junk.

Re:Junk faxes are against the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34541194)

Yeah. True that.

I got in trouble for it for another reason. I had a lawyers office sending me faxes on and off for 5 days. I tried to reply "nicely" with the original fax saying -- you really should not be sending your clients information to random telephone numbers, and that you should "remove" me from your contact list for this client.

No luck there. I did get a response from both the cops and telephone company when I sent the original fax 10,000 times and threatened to run their fax machine out of paper for the next decade.

That was "back in the day"......there were charges, but I skated after meeting with the prosecutor and showing some fax headers with time and date between midnight and 5am --- harassing communications is a crime all by itself where I am.

Do it intentionally with your parents phone number....yeah....good luck with that one.

Re:Junk faxes are against the law (0)

dissy (172727) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541268)

FCC rules generally prohibit most unsolicited fax advertisements

Advertisements yes, but what about a couple sheets of black construction paper taped into a loop?

Re:Junk faxes are against the law (1)

vxice (1690200) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541308)

Well if you are looking for 20 informative pages http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/secrecy/R41404.pdf [fas.org] that is a CRS report on how laws may or may not apply to wikileaks and Assange. I have not read it yet only found it a few min. ago. Important note for those who don't know Congressional research service (CRS) is a research service for Congress and their reports are not distributed to the public. They are not classified and you can receive copies by asking your Congressmen and are often available online. However there is no one source where you can get all reports. CRS is often described as Congress' thinktank.

Re:Junk faxes are against the law (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34541316)

They may not be sending actual faxes- just ringing the numbers would be enough- actually having a faxmodem start connecting and disconnect would take up more time, or even better build a bad modem in software (based on iax fax?) that draws out the tones longer and longer as it gets through the handshake, etc would really tie things up.

Re:Junk faxes are against the law (5, Interesting)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541332)

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and FCC rules generally prohibit most unsolicited fax advertisements. In addition, the Junk Fax Prevention Act, passed by Congress in 2005, directs the FCC to amend its rules adopted pursuant to the TCPA regarding fax advertising.

A Black Fax [wikipedia.org] doesn't advertise anything or solicit anything and therefore cannot be realistically prosecuted under either act. I did actually read the Junk Fax Prevention Act in quite a bit of detail. It specifically covers advertising of some sort, no matter how it is passed as "Savings, information, value to the customer etc..." it has to be an ad of some sort.

So, Junk Fax Advertising is indeed against the law, but it is NOT against the law to send a fax to someone without prior dealings, or without their permission or without an "Opt out" clause.

Re:Junk faxes are against the law (1)

Tanman (90298) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541360)

Are these advertisements? I'm not being sarcastic -- I'm just wondering. I guess the legal definition of advertisement could be different than what I'm thinking an advertisement is, but I don't believe the faxes are selling anything.

It Was A Dismal Supreme Court Ruling... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34540870)

...that let fax machines incorporate. Nothing but trouble since.

Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34540872)

I haven't favored any of Anonymous's attacks so far, but this could be a great thing. Please please please keep this up, for years if necessary, until fax is completely eradicated from the face of the planet.

Nice blunder! (0)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540908)

Someone should introduce these kids to something named "caller ID"

Also, consider:
1) USA calls need some special prefix to summon a "private" caller ID to make tracking require police force and phone company cooperation for identity disclosures rather than surgery-precision payback lawsuits.
2) Few international activists will make Europe-to-USA long-distance faxes, solely on the costliness of the attack. Too bad, since international calls tend to lack CallID data and are harder to trace due to multi-telco cooperation for your multiple attackers.
3) Desktop PCs don't have modems nowadays. Attackers must look go to some camera-ridden local travel agency equipped with a fax, and risk getting caught with highly visible black-page fax in their hands, or learn to install and use PC/fax hardware and software from home.
4) Most of these guys will use Windows Fax software (remember the Linmodem issue that ensures linux users are mostly ethernet users?)

Unless they research free web-to-phone faxing services online, they'll get taken down. And there's probably blackpage avoidance and user-location tracking built-in there to slightly control abuse. Oh, well. The idea was interesting.

Re:Nice blunder! (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540974)

easier to program them to dial 1-xxx-yyy-zzzz numbers where the area code xxx is in an expensive Caribbean nation.

remember, kidlings, most fax machines dial a 9 for an outside line and have no trunk line access code limiter, so you can just cycle thru the password combos for authentication. Best if it's a 9,1,xxx,yyy,zzz string since the , is a longer wait than the - in dial strings.

Re:Nice blunder! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34541004)

Pay cash ($.10 per page) at an office max. Done.

Re:Nice blunder! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34541020)

And that is why I use a stolen credit card on one of these mail to fax gateways located in US, and I am using a public hotspot for sending it. So VISA will pay the bill for me sending alot of faxes to them.

Re:Nice blunder! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34541370)

Yes, yes, but did you use seven proxies?

Re:Nice blunder! (4, Insightful)

HeronBlademaster (1079477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541244)

These large companies probably don't even have real fax machines. All a black-page fax would do is put a black-page PDF in some inbox or file share somewhere.

More intelligent coordinated actions? (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540926)

Is there any proposal of more advanced planned joint actions? I just dont think attacking websites and fax machines is that effective, and from your own home not terribly smart. There has to be some mass coordinated action that is both more efficient, and perhaps less legally punishable.

Re:More intelligent coordinated actions? (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541364)

Is there any proposal of more advanced planned joint actions? I just dont think attacking websites and fax machines is that effective, and from your own home not terribly smart. There has to be some mass coordinated action that is both more efficient, and perhaps less legally punishable.

It certainly does bring attention to their customers about it though. It certainly brings a lot of bad media attention to the companies. Consider it a digital spanking. The idea isn't to knock them off the face of the planet. The idea is to make them think twice about something like this again in the future.

It is the same concept as taking someone to court. You make it more expensive/difficult to do the wrong thing than it is to do the right thing.

censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34540944)

Although this is somewhat a form of terrorism, this hidden militia is all we got against a government who is against the will of the people. Granted we need government to keep things organized, what happens when the government gets so big that they dictate what you read, what you can write, and most certainly what you do in your own family. What if the government begins to tell you that you can't have more then 1 child in your family? You people need to wake up and realize that the government certainly needs to fear the people and NOT the other way around. More power to the people who must break laws to get heard. There is a time and place for government.. But not a government that censors.

Sweet (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540950)

This totally cuts down on all the junk fax from timeshare companies.

Maybe they'll do something useful with the time they just gained?

All your processor is belong to Freedom.

Seems like a step backwards technologically... (1)

nebaz (453974) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540976)

I can't quite see their logic here:
1) DDoS corporate websites
2) DDoS corporate fax machines.
3) DDoS corporate record players?
4) DDoS corporate 8-track machines?

Reminds me of this Onion [theonion.com] article.

Re:Seems like a step backwards technologically... (1)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541116)

Anonymous-kun shall not sleep untill all Post-it Notes are DDoSed.

Re:Seems like a step backwards technologically... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34541182)

It takes far fewer resources (i.e. number of incoming fax connections) to completely disable a company's fax pool than it does to try and swamp a website. As soon as you get that remote fax to pick up the line, you can disconnect and redial. The other fax will spend a while trying to negotiate a connection that isn't going to happen, before it resets and goes back to ready. A single attackers fax can tie up more than a single target fax line, of which there are a finite amount of. You'd think faxes were of limited business use these days, but some habits die hard. Purchasing department, I'm looking your way...

Animus news day? (1)

ChefInnocent (667809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34540986)

This is the 3rd article today mentioning them. Why is anyone even paying attention to them? Give them anonymity with obscurity. If these are just a bunch of rotten 12 year olds, then ignore them and maybe they'll grow up. Assuming Wikileaks is a good cause, was it even worth it to "hit" Amazon, Mastercard, and PayPal? If these kids are even remotely successful, they will come to regret it when they apply for jobs, and these companies make sure they are unemployable. It's like the old song says, don't pull on Superman's cap, spit into the wind, and don't mess with Jim. Amazon, Mastercard, and Paypal are Jim.

Would their battle with snow be equivalent to spitting into the wind?

Meaningful action without breaking laws/things (2)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541090)

If you spend six months organizing 10,000 marchers down Times Square in nyc you might get less media attention than these guys. Sad thing is, not only these kids are attracted to violence, the media and the readers are too. Not to mention the establishment. Planning meaningful action that does not involve these things is not easy.

Re:Animus news day? (1)

NFN_NLN (633283) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541164)

This is the 3rd article today mentioning them. Why is anyone even paying attention to them? Give them anonymity with obscurity. If these are just a bunch of rotten 12 year olds, then ignore them and maybe they'll grow up. Assuming Wikileaks is a good cause, was it even worth it to "hit" Amazon, Mastercard, and PayPal?

First they came for our telephone conversations,
and I didn't speak up because I *had nothing to hide*.

First they came for liquids over 100mL,
and I didn't speak up because I could purchase a new bottle inside the terminal for $3.50.

Then they came for X-Ray pictures,
and I didn't speak up because X-Ray radiation will only cause cancer in 1 of 30M cases.

Then they came for leaked transcriptions of their own wrong doings,
and I didn't speak up... because I am a:

a) Raging pussy to cowardly to stand up for injustice
b) indifferent a-hole living off the hard work of others that built the system
c) Enabler who wants to be controlled because freedom offers paralyzing choices
d) Reactionary that never really though out the comment

Re:Animus news day? (1)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541292)

Oh shut up :)

Re:Animus news day? (1)

Icegryphon (715550) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541356)

You would be suprised who makes up anonymous.
It always reminds me of the following line from fight club.

Tyler Durden: [to the police chief] Hi. You're going to call off your rigorous investigation. You're going to publicly state that there is no underground group. Or... these guys are going to take your balls. They're going to send one to the New York Times, one to the LA Times press-release style. Look, the people you are after are the people you depend on. We cook your meals, we haul your trash, we connect your calls, we drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not... fuck with us.

I for think it is funny to see "Project Mayhem" take form.

Dont worry - Sen. Joe Liebermann will pay (3, Informative)

unity100 (970058) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541002)

for all the business/revenue lost by amazon, paypal, visa, mc. After all, he was the one calling around and pressurizing them to cut a client off, totally against the concepts of free speech, journalism, and fair business. politically censoring a journalistic outlet, for publishing detrimental information.

in case some of you havent kept up, here is how we know it was sen. joe liebermann :

day 1 : amazon cuts wikileaks from their cloud. it is rumored that liebermann pressurized them personally, but amazon does not comment. cites tos violation on balooney terms.

day 2 : everydns cuts wikileaks.org domain. they are not as secretive as amazon. they directly and openly state that joe liebermann called them, and threatened them. towards the evening, they mysteriously retract their statement.

a few days later : paypal cuts wikileaks donations and holds their funds. they cite tos violation, inquiry, and so on.

in the meantime : visa, mc do the same.

a week later : anonymous constantly attacks paypal since a week, keeping api.paypal.down and causing them millions in business. paypal comes around, and admits that they have suspended wikileaks due to political pressure.

a few days more with anonymous : paypal releases wikileaks funds that were being held.

today : anonymous starts attacking corporate fax machines.

count the times how many times word 'liebermann' passes in the above chronology.

after pressurizing the PRIVATE companies to cut down a perfectly legitimate customer, while in the meantime totally violating first amendment, modern principle of freedom of speech even outside us constitution, intervening and pressurizing private companies, going against journalistic freedoms, it is only natural that he would come up and pay for the business he cost all those companies. of course, not even counting the clients that started to bail out of american providers. not only payment like paypal etc, but a lot of small to medium size businesses are bailing out of u.s. based web hosting companies, datacenters, and content delivery providers.

surely, joe liebermann has the funds to make up for that business lost. else, he wouldnt be going around violating civil liberties, constitutions, and intervening in business for censorship ....

right ?

Re:Dont worry - Sen. Joe Liebermann will pay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34541236)

count the times how many times word 'liebermann' passes in the above chronology.

liebermann
liebermann
liebermann
liebermann

Crap. There it goes another 4 times! The man is out of control!

What Next? (2)

retech (1228598) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541026)

Are they going to start using carrier pigeons to send harshly worded ankle notes to the CEOs?

Anonymous Faxes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34541028)

If done right someone can go undetected by spoofing the source #. Having your communications traverse interconnected circuit & VoIP providers who don't keep robust records, use shared trunks, or use servers outside the USA = Feds can't discover you. Feds almost exclusively catch ignorant or stupid people plus a few smart people when they slip up.

Not a new tactic (1)

SupremoMan (912191) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541082)

They used the same thing against Church of Scientology. Basically they fax you a black sheet of paper so you run out of toner printing them.

Re:Not a new tactic (2)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541142)

Can you fax me some white paper? I'm running out.

Re:Not a new tactic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34541376)

Sure, give me your fax number please.

Re:Not a new tactic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34541326)

You have to take three or four piece of paper printed black, tape them in a loop, and let it run for as long as possible.

A lot of people don't seem to understand... (3, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541188)

... how important fax numbers are to companies like Paypal and Mastercard and Amazon.

Like it or not, a faxed document with a signature is still much more legally recognized as valid than a scanned email, even if said email has been digitally signed. As such, companies like Mastercard/Paypal/Amazon *ROUTINELY* rely on fax to send and receive legal documents, both among other businesses and their own customers.

Cutting off faxes would be a BIG BIG deal to a financial company like Paypal/Mastercard, and likely Amazon as well.

Then that means (1)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541402)

It is very likely some script kiddies are going to wind up in jail. If this is provably costing them money and having an impact on their business, that makes it a much larger crime and one the feds care about more. It also makes it one they'll complain about and demand action. Next part of that is that phone calls are completely traceable. The nature of the phone system makes it so that it is always known what number is calling. It has to to be able to switch the call. While caller ID can be messed with, the actual records can't.

Now yes, if you did some planning you could find a way to obfuscate your trail and make it much harder to find you, but I'd bet that didn't happen here. We are talking angry script kiddies, not sophisticated people.

So you've got a situation that is important and traceable. Sounds to me like there may be some people in for a lesson that actions can have consequences.

the swines (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541256)

they will be after the telex machines next what will Joan at SCDP say when the Telex girls say they cant Telex that important client :-)

I wonder... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34541320)

If this has anything to do with the Google "Call A Phone" feature being used to robodial our corporate headquarters 2 nights in a row. It went to all of our on-call numbers, woke me up FIVE time before I finally turned my phone off (I'm on call, can't do that lightly). That number is now blocked.

Seems someone was using that "Call a Phone" feature without a Google Voice account attached, so it came from one of Google's California numbers. There was no one on the other end. Wonder if I had been screaming high pitched non-sense into the phone (instead of high pitched profanity) if it would have started sending a fax...

Why attack Twitter? (4, Informative)

TimFreeman (466789) | more than 3 years ago | (#34541328)

Why attack twitter? http://www.twitter.com/wikileaks [twitter.com] seems to be working fine, and the explanation at http://www.boingboing.net/2010/12/06/why-wont-wikileaks-t.html#comment-958285 [boingboing.net] for why Wikileaks didn't appear in trending topics makes sense to me. Everyone seems to agree that #cablegate did trend. The issue of why Twitter should be attacked is not mentioned at all in the original article.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>