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!

Spamhaus Under DDoS Over Wikileaks.info

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the you-got-the-wrong-idea-mister dept.

Security 295

achowe writes "Steve Linford of Spamhaus sent this to a private anti-spam list and asked that the message get out far and wide: 'For speaking out about the crime gangs located at the wikileaks.info mirror IP, Spamhaus is now under ddos by AnonOps. As our site cannot be reached now [actually sporadic], we can not continue to warn Wikileaks users not to load things from the Heihachi IP. ... AnonOps did not like our article update, here is what we said and what brought the ddos on us.'" At the conclusion of this message: "Spamhaus continues to warn Wikileaks readers to make sure they are viewing and downloading documents only from an official Wikileaks mirror site. We’re not saying 'don’t go to Wikileaks' we’re saying 'Use the wikileaks.ch server instead.'" Here is Spamhaus's full warning.

cancel ×

295 comments

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

title (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601662)

first post

i didnt no th@ when there werent ne commence slashdot would prompt u to make 1

allso niggerniggerniggerniggernigger

AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (5, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601684)

I'm beginning to wonder if AnonOps/Anonymous is a false flag operation [wikipedia.org] . They seem to be doing more harm than help to Wikileaks. Their targeting is inept (they previously targeted the wrong DNS provider), their timing is inept, and Wikileaks doesn't need them to stay on line.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601706)

Dude, if you ever visisted /b/ you would not be suprised by anything evermore.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602010)

>implying /b/ organizes the attacks

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602056)

/b/ actually knows about it before it happens, though... not this tiem.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601718)

At least some complicated multi-layered variant of it. It's disturbingly like religious theory - "how do you prove it's not a false flag"?

The level of intensity of slick ops went through the roof these last few years.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (5, Interesting)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602036)

Forget false flag ops.
What are the real wikileaks sites now???

Last time I checked wikileaks used self signed certs and at this point I'd love to simply see a interview with assange where he lists the "official" wikileaks sites and reads out some of their SSL certs.

is wikileaks.org still in the hands of the wikileaks organization or does the DHS control it now or some third party?
Or has it just been infected with malware to add a redirect?

Is their twitter account really them?

is there even any way for anyone to anonymously submit documents any more?

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (4, Interesting)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602070)

hell, is there even any verifiable way to communicate with any wikileaks staff any more?
Any PGP public keys? etc etc

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (2)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601722)

If they were operating under any suggestion of official support from Wikileaks I'd agree with you. As it stands I think they're just inept.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601900)

Either inept or under orders to keep the kiddies that get caught up with them from getting real dead. Anon is kinda like the perpetual children's crusade of the Net... Brought to you by the letter 'E' as in 'ternal' and the month of September.

I wonder if they can help with the 'Grim Sleeper' case coming out of Los Angeles. They should distribute the pics to the darkest places and see if they can correlate any suspected victims with other material that might indicate whether being in the Sleeper pics is indicative of being a victim of a lone madman, or part of an underground porn ring.

This sort of thing doesn't take any talent, just knowledge of where to post.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601760)

I'm beginning to wonder if AnonOps/Anonymous is a false flag operation [wikipedia.org] . They seem to be doing more harm than help to Wikileaks. Their targeting is inept (they previously targeted the wrong DNS provider), their timing is inept, and Wikileaks doesn't need them to stay on line.

Mob rule is just rule! Mob rule is just rule! Mob rule is just rule!

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (5, Informative)

openfrog (897716) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601762)

I'm beginning to wonder if AnonOps/Anonymous is a false flag operation [wikipedia.org] . They seem to be doing more harm than help to Wikileaks. Their targeting is inept (they previously targeted the wrong DNS provider), their timing is inept, and Wikileaks doesn't need them to stay on line.

At last, this is coming out! I've been repeating this obvious thing on every Anonymous story that Slashdot has echoed out until now: we have no idea who is behind so called "Anonymous". A naive teenager is arrested from time to time to give credence to the myth that the Web is under the threat of unruly teenagers, opening the door to repressive legislation.

Now with this, we are beginning to get to hard facts, which should help us awaken our traditional media journalist friends: press, TV, radio. Congratulation for coming up with the term AnonOps. It tells the whole story in a nutshell.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (2)

EdZ (755139) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601944)

I doubt everything, or even most things, that the various 'anonymous' (a singular unified label misses the entire point, but I digress) attributed activities have been false-flag. It does make for a neat cover, but a difficult and unruly one. To give any sort of credence that something is a 'legitmate' anonymous attack, it is almost defacto not accompanied with any sort of unified claim, but instead by nebulous consensus over numerous highly fluid websites and IRC channels. Faking that without unrelated members crying foul over obvious subversion attempts would be incredibly difficult, even even harder would be attempting to sway the actual anonymous DDOS attackers themselves. A few using LOIC might be fooled, but those who attack via self-controlled botnets (i.e. generate the majority of the required traffic) are likely to at least perform a cursory google of the proposed target.

tl;dr version: any agency attempting to spam with a target would be called out. Performing a DDOS then claiming it was anonymous without any corroboration would be equally obvious. Any attempting to sway opinion through a false majority would be promptly accused of samefaggotry and ignored.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601806)

Of COURSE it's a false flag operation. The brave freedom fighters of Anonymous couldn't POSSIBLY be mistaken or misinformed in what they do. There's no way they're all just a bunch of kids with no idea what they're doing. The plan to DDOS Amazon to its knees was truly brilliant, in that it allowed the world to see how quickly Anonymous can shift their attack to new targets.

I, for one, welcome our new basement-dwelling, scat-loving overlords.

   

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601816)

Proponents of Wikileaks are inept. Who'd a thunk it.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601876)

AnonOps seems to be a bit A.D.D. these days, and juvenile in it's decision making. This was not always the case.

Yes there's no structured heirarchy, however I get the feeling that the latest hoards who are joining in on the fun, aren't fully understanding all the sides to the game they think they're playing.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (1)

Goaway (82658) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601910)

This was not always the case.

Yes, it was.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601988)

No shit. Have you seen the references to Anon's foundation date popping up in the media? I have seen refs as recent as 2006.

Maybe my numbers are wrong, but 1988 was always the cited number throughout the Nineties. Even that was supposedly three or four years after the initial members decided to work together.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (3)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601886)

How about adding another layer to the whole conspiration theory? AnonOps isn't a false flag operation, but since you can't tell who is Anonymous by their very nature, now false flag ops are popping up attacking "good" services and claiming it's AnonOps.

We sure are living in interesting times.

I don't think so (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601896)

I think they are just angry idiots with too much time on their hands. There's a reason why vigilantism is so frowned upon and force out in a civilized society: Vigilantes suck at justice. They shoot first, ask questions later. They are all about the Great Cause(tm) whatever that cause happens to be and don't do a good job thinking about any trouble they cause.

Now this is made even worse by the /b/tards because they are not very organized, operate with what they believe to be impunity, and are often kids.

So my bet is not a false flag op, just a bunch of dumbasses causing trouble. They've decided that Wikileaks will be their Great Cause(tm), until they get bored and find something else, and lash out at any perceived enemies of it without thinking about it.

Re:I don't think so (5, Funny)

HomelessInLaJolla (1026842) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601958)

There's a reason why vigilantism is so frowned upon and force out in a civilized society: Vigilantes suck at justice

The United States of America is obviously not a civilized society. My personal experience with La Jolla, CA, indicates that vigilanteism is the general rule--and not vigilanteism to combat high profile violent crime or high cost white collar crime ... no, people like to be vigilantes just to go around playing surrogate parent against the homeless, or hoping to be the next one to call the police on street people.

Vigilanteism isn't about justice. It's about being the person with the juiciest gossip.

just a bunch of dumbasses causing trouble.

A very good description of the retired folks, the dog-walkers, the neighborhood watch, and the wealthy snobs around my area. Their entire method of life involves: provoke problem where there was none, call police.

If they happen to catch one of the actual drunks or dumpster diving troublemakers then they give themselves extra credit. Maybe harassing me is practice for them. :-(

Re:I don't think so (5, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602042)

The United States of America is obviously not a civilized society. My personal experience with La Jolla, CA

So you've drawn conclusions about an entire society based on your experiences in one city?

Re:I don't think so (-1, Troll)

mangu (126918) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602106)

people like to be vigilantes just to go around playing surrogate parent against the homeless, or hoping to be the next one to call the police on street people

If so, then they are only performing their duty as responsible citizens.

A few miles south of La Jolla there's a city called Tijuana. Have you ever been there? Have you noticed how many people from those sunny countries south of Tijuana want to come to the USA? Have you ever seen a homeless person from Honduras, Ecuador, or Guatemala?

If you are homeless in La Jolla, perhaps you should try earning a living south of the border to learn what real life is all about. Anyone in the USA who really wants to work for a living will not stay homeless very long.

Re:I don't think so (-1, Flamebait)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602114)

Vigilantes suck at justice. They shoot first, ask questions later.

That pretty much describes Spamhaus and the other vigilante black-lists.

Hanlon's Razor strikes again! (4, Insightful)

splerdu (187709) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602186)

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
+1 for you, sir.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601912)

I'm beginning to wonder if AnonOps/Anonymous is a false flag operation [wikipedia.org] . They seem to be doing more harm than help to Wikileaks. Their targeting is inept (they previously targeted the wrong DNS provider), their timing is inept, and Wikileaks doesn't need them to stay on line.

Maybe Slashdot it is AnonOps' idiot relative in this endeavor? Seriously, Spamhaus is under DDoS and we slashdot it too? Would a direct be necessary? How about some thought before acting and maybe mirroring the news? We just walked in and helped Heihachi by kicking Spamhaus as it is down. Good job submitter of the news, editor, and everyone else who just clicks on the link without thinking.

Maybe if more links to goatse or something similar appear on the front page people will start being more reserved. Is crippling a server something to be proud of? If not, we should not encourage it.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (1, Informative)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602066)

Seriously, Spamhaus is under DDoS and we slashdot it too?

Take a chill pill, bro, please: it is worth noting [spamhaus.org] this:

Spamhaus is currently under a 2.1Gbps DDOS attack which began at 05:20 CET. As we are used to DDOS attacks from cybercriminals our anti-ddos defences are holding and our web servers are still operating, a little slower than normal.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601924)

It seems to me that the US Government should be more anti-AnonOps and their anti First Amendment of the US constitution attacks, than they are with Wiki Leaks.

Seems to me if they had paid no attention to the fact that Wikilieaks was leaking something, less people would have been reading the information being leaked. And the AnonOps attack against free speech is much more an attack on the American way of life than anything WIkileakes may have leaked.

Just my opinion, I could be wrong (apologies to Dennis Miller for borrowing his signature line, in case he does not agree on this (and my guess is that he might not))

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602220)

How can Anonymous be anti First Amendment? They aren't the government. The First Amendment says that the federal government shall not make any laws restricting free speech. Independent people can do whatever they want about free speech.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (4, Insightful)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601982)

Their targeting is inept (they previously targeted the wrong DNS provider), their timing is inept, and Wikileaks doesn't need them to stay

That sounds *exactly* like the people from 4chan.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (1, Insightful)

chill (34294) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602080)

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

4chan is the very definition of stupidity.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (1)

Mr. Freeman (933986) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602108)

I'm wondering if anyone actually did any research before claiming that it's anonymous behind this. A false flag would be someone pretending to be anonymous while ddosing some website. However, it seems that everyone is simply assuming that anonymous is behind every ddos that happens to any site tangentially connected to wikileaks, even when no one claiming to be anonymous has anything to do with it.

you do realize (2)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602136)

"Anonymous" can be the CIA trying also to discredit the other Anonymous ......

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602178)

I'm beginning to wonder if AnonOps/Anonymous is a false flag operation [wikipedia.org] . They seem to be doing more harm than help to Wikileaks. Their targeting is inept (they previously targeted the wrong DNS provider), their timing is inept, and Wikileaks doesn't need them to stay on line.

The very structure of this group makes them an omniflag operation, not a false flag operation.

Perceiving the world through dichotomies (black or white, true or false, etc.) makes things easier, but it invariably leads to an understanding of the world that is biased.

I imagine that anonymous has a fractal like structure with some substructures that have mutually exclusive objectives.

Probably a trade off for anonymity.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602228)

Let's check the allegations:

The original Wikileaks domain was wikileaks.org. Wikileaks has not used that domain in a while. The .org TLD is under the control of the USA (registry and registrar are both US based companies). It is unclear if Wikileaks is still in control of the wikileaks.org domain.

Spamhaus suggests that irc.anonops-irg.net is the address of the "Anonymous" coordination IRC server. The most current reference to an Anonops IRC server I could find names it irc.anonops-irc.org, which currently does not resolve. The page lists several changes of domain in the past days. It appears someone is sweeping up the abandoned domains and using them for (more) nefarious purposes. It is unclear if Anonymous is still connected to the domains listed in the Spamhaus warning.

The Spamhaus warning is probably right insofar that the listed domains are hosted by cybercrime outfits and pose a danger to anyone visiting them. The linking of Anonymous to these cybercrime outfits is possibly incorrect (other Anonymous domains are hosted at well-known commercial hosters). It will be interesting to see how the wikileaks.org domain got to point to wikileaks.info.

Since linking Wikileaks and Anonymous to cybercrime discredits both groups, it is quite conceivable that it's not just Russian gangs jumping on the opportunity but a FUD campaign by western three letter agencies. Nevertheless, heed the Spamhaus warning and stay away from wikileaks.org, wikileaks.info (and possibly all other wikileaks domains under TLDs which are operated by US registries). If you're thinking about downloading software from Anonymous and running it on your own computer, go ahead. No warning will cure that kind of stupidity.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602248)

i bet they honestly think they are helping, but since they are mostly comprised of dumbass young kids, they screw it up.

Re:AnonOps part of the problem, not the solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602252)

I have heard that Panda Security, who has been linked directly to scientology, is involved with the "cell" thats pushing Op Payback. Firstly google "panda security Scientology" then have a look at this article on the guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/dec/11/wikileaks-backlash-cyber-war where they help the Guardian "characterise" Anonymous - they do a good job, too.

They have also made sure that nobody involved with chanology is involved in Payback. Go figure.

Reading comprehension skills (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601692)

Kids these days! Their reading comprehension skills are practically nil.

twitter account also no legit (1)

new_confused_mind (591949) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601700)

The supposedly offcial twitter account at http://twitter.com/wikileaks seems to be a scam by the same folks. The wikileaks.org link there redirects to the .info domain, which is clearly a shoddy website (different layout, bunch of shoddy "mirrors" with the same IP address, etc).

Be warned.

Re:twitter account also no legit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601804)

The .org link there hasn't been updated since they lost control of .org -- it was originally their official site, remember. The shoddy website it redirects to is what Wikileaks used to look like before Cablegate.

As if a DDoS wasn't enough... (5, Funny)

e9th (652576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601704)

now they're slashdotted, too.

Re:As if a DDoS wasn't enough... (0)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601906)

Was it really a good idea to post that link on slashdot - to a DDoS:ed site?

That would be the ultimate DDoS.

Re:As if a DDoS wasn't enough... (4, Informative)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602012)

Was it really a good idea to post that link on slashdot - to a DDoS:ed site?

In general, no. However in this case, it is worth noting [spamhaus.org] this:

Spamhaus is currently under a 2.1Gbps DDOS attack which began at 05:20 CET. As we are used to DDOS attacks from cybercriminals our anti-ddos defences are holding and our web servers are still operating, a little slower than normal.

Say wha? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601708)

I just asked anonops about it, they're not attacking spamhaus.

Re:Say wha? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601746)

I just asked them and they say they are.

Re:Say wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601768)

NO i did not.

Re:Say wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601948)

I'm anonops, and so's my wife.

Re:Say wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601784)

You both know you're not REALLY anonymous, right?

Re:Say wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601992)

That's because I am Anon!

Re:Say wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602098)

And I'm Spartacus.

Re:Say wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601868)

Not the people who organized and attacked previous targets ie the "regulars"

Probably spammers using anonops as a scapegoat who btw have just as large botnets (for spamming)

Re:Say wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602190)

I just asked anonops about it, they're not attacking spamhaus.

I just asked them and they say they are.

They just asked me whether they are and I told them to ask about it on Slashdot.

Re:Say wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602282)

They just asked me whether they are and I told them to ask about it on Slashdot.

I just asked Netcraft, and they confirmed it!

Re:Say wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602274)

I just asked them and they told me you both lie.

Re:Say wha? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602284)

Funny but insightful.

Anonymous is fond of reminding us that they are "everyone and no one" and that their membership forms and deforms as needed. This makes them hard to track, and so on.

The flip side is that you cannot sensibly go ask Anonymous if they are doing or not doing something. Even if some subset of Anonymous are not engaging in a particular activity, that doesn't mean another subset isn't doing that (with or without the knowledge of other 'members').

Obviously there is a specific person or persons with access to the twitter account and IRC login associated with Anonymous activities. So those people may have a specific opinion/plan/whatever at any given moment. But that says little about Anonymous more generally.

Re:Say wha? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602168)

Disregard that i suck cocks

To hell with anonymous (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601712)

They have done nothing, not a single thing, to help and everything to hinder.

Re:To hell with anonymous (1)

Kymermosst (33885) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601796)

Yeah it's basically cyber-rioting.

Now innocent organizations are becoming victims because people are having too much fun raging to pay attention to what their targets are.

Re:To hell with anonymous (-1, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601808)

They have done nothing, not a single thing, to help and everything to hinder.

The same can be said about Spamhaus and other similar "broad stroke / shotgun everyone" black-lists.

Re:To hell with anonymous (1)

schnikies79 (788746) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601926)

The same can be said about 100 other sites and organizations. It doesn't give them the right, or the moral duty, to do anything they have done.

Re:To hell with anonymous (0)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602094)

The same can be said about 100 other sites and organizations. It doesn't give them the right, or the moral duty, to do anything they have done.

The same can be said about Spamhaus and other similar "broad stroke / shotgun everyone" black-lists.

In other words, why should I spend time considering the plight of some self-appointed busy-body like Spamhaus? They are simple vigilantes.

Re:To hell with anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602068)

No... to hell with YOU, you worthless piece of shit.

Re:To hell with anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602100)

Witty..

Re:To hell with anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602166)

You are operating under the assumption that these "anonymous" people are supposed to be an organized, coherent group. They aren't. In fact, I'm also from anonymous just because I'm posting this anonymously. So, if you claim that the fact that I chose to post this message anonymously does "nothing, not a single thing, to help and everything to hinder" then you are demonstrating that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

kids these days (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601714)

When you have a large DDoS tool at your beck and call, who has time to bother with accuracy and trifling details like the truth? This is just further evidence that "anonymous" is some unemployed young adult.

The profile of anonymous becomes less and less one of sophistication and intelligence and more that of teenage angst and a limited understanding of technology daily.

Re:kids these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601942)

Are you moot?

Re:kids these days (4, Interesting)

openfrog (897716) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601956)

When you have a large DDoS tool at your beck and call, who has time to bother with accuracy and trifling details like the truth? This is just further evidence that "anonymous" is some unemployed young adult.

The profile of anonymous becomes less and less one of sophistication and intelligence and more that of teenage angst and a limited understanding of technology daily.

From TFA:

The Webalta 92.241.160.0/19 netblock has been listed on the Spamhaus Block List (SBL) since October 2008. Spamhaus regards the Russian Webalta host (also known as Wahome) as being "blackhat" - a known cybercrime host from whose IP space Spamhaus only sees malware/virus hosting, botnet C&Cs, phishing and other cybercriminal activities.

I sympathize with your impatience with the idiocy that is Anonymous, but what this goes on to show here is that Anonymous, or now better referred to as AnonOps, is NOT unruly teenagers as media have been dutifully reporting, but something else.

The poster above referring to Anonymous as a potential 'false flag' operation has it right. Whether it was started by real teenagers or not is inconsequential: it plays in the interests of those wanting to swerve public opinion in the direction of repressive legislation and it is all too easy to attribute any kind of stunt on "Anonymous", whomever is really behind it.

Re:kids these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601980)

Congratulations. You stated the obvious that anyone could have figured out by heading over to their community for more than 2 minutes. It's not sophisticated and never was (and never will be). It is just the sheer size of hundreds of thousands of users effectively creating over 9000 slashdot effects on a site because they are BORED. There is no cause behind anon, there is no centralization. It is just described as such by media to increase ratings. And you fell for it.

Re:kids these days (1)

Anonymous Cowar (1608865) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602016)

Wow, "Anonymous" isn't just some unemployed young adult. It's a whole army of unemployed young adults.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29

Re:kids these days (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602020)

Your confusion may have something to do with trying to assign one personality to a huge group of people.

So now after Slashdot has brought this message ... (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601754)

Will they now start a DDoS on Slashdot?

Re:So now after Slashdot has brought this message (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601830)

I just clicked the link and thought the same. :-)

Re:So now after Slashdot has brought this message (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601852)

maybe if Anonymous got /.'d that thought would be moot

Re:So now after Slashdot has brought this message (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601892)

Slashdot does not need to have someone else create a DDos... The only thing Slashdot needs to create a new front page story about slashdot...

The slashdot effect in full effect on slashdot itself.

Got it (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601780)

Use wikileaks.cn, right.

Re:Got it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601824)

Not funny! The correct URL is http://wikileaks.ch/mirrors.html

Re:Got it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601898)

***LAME Joke Attempt***

You fail...

Someone Messed Up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601782)

AnonOps is NOT attacking Spamhaus. Get your facts together before you start going on about people being stupid or "kids these days." Spamhaus appears down, but AnonOps isn't doing it. They're still focusing on distributing pamphlets and such shit.

Re:Someone Messed Up (1)

PatPending (953482) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601874)

Oh, the irony!

From the Update 18 December [spamhaus.org]

In addition to the LOIC and *OIC tools issued to dimwitted script kiddies to DDOS "enemies of Anon" with, AnonOps is now escalating its DDOS attacks using dedicated criminal botnets (botnets of illegally hijacked PCs), and now appears to be directing DDOS attacks not at "enemies of Wikileaks" but at "enemies of our criminal bosses".

There is palpable irony in a DDOS being used to prevent exposure of a probably-false Wikileaks mirror that could potentially harm Wikileaks and Wikileaks readers. We hope that AnonOps supporters appreciate the irony as much as we do.

Doesnt look like anon to me (1)

kaptink (699820) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601848)

Nothing on 4chan except one post refering to this article asking as most of we are, WTF?

I think someone is using the Anon group identity to do something unrelated to the actual group/movement or whatever.

Re:Doesnt look like anon to me (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601936)

Do you trust 4chan for anything?

Re:Doesnt look like anon to me (4, Insightful)

haderytn (1232484) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601968)

I trust them to be unable to keep a secret.

Re:Doesnt look like anon to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602062)

Nothing on IRC or anonops pages/twitters/posts/etc either.

Re:Doesnt look like anon to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602174)

Do you trust 4chan for anything?

I trust them to make reference to Rule 34, pedobear, and various ethnic slurs

Re:Doesnt look like anon to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601964)

But how do you know it's really a this or that group if they remain anonymous? If they were for real (as far as terrorists go) they should find a way to make it clear whether they are behind a certain operation or not. Best thing would probably be to grow up and stop the whole thing. It's doing more harm than anything else. And if we're now faced with copycats I'd hate to think what's up ahead next. Random sites going down because some random group (or guy whom a group listens to for whatever reason) dislikes what they think is said on that site. It was bad enough when the freedom of information on the Internet and information was challenged by governments and businesses with a mission.

Spamhaus announcement (5, Informative)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601954)

In the case of it getting /.'ed or DOS'd (like TFA link to nanozen.info)

Wikileaks Mirror Malware Warning
2010-12-14 17:00 GMT, by Quentin Jenkins

On Monday Spamhaus became aware that the main Wikileaks website, wikileaks.org, was redirecting web traffic to a 3rd party mirror site, mirror.wikileaks.info. This new web site is hosted in a very dangerous "neighborhood", Webalta's 92.241.160.0/19 IP address space, a "blackhat" network which Spamhaus believes caters primarily to, or is under the control of, Russian cybercriminals.

Important: this warning is issued only for wikileaks.INFO, NOT Wikileaks itself or any other Wikileaks site. Wikileaks.info is NOT connected with Julian Assange or the Wikileaks organization. For a list of real Wikileaks mirror sites please go to wikileaks.ch

The Webalta 92.241.160.0/19 netblock has been listed on the Spamhaus Block List (SBL) since October 2008. Spamhaus regards the Russian Webalta host (also known as Wahome) as being "blackhat" - a known cybercrime host from whose IP space Spamhaus only sees malware/virus hosting, botnet C&Cs, phishing and other cybercriminal activities. These include routing traffic for Russian cybercriminals who use malware to infect the computers of thousands of Russian citizens.

The fact that recently some unknown person or persons decided to put a Wikileaks mirror on Webalta IP address 92.241.190.202 should raise an alarm; how was it placed there and by whom. Our concern is that any Wikileaks archive posted on a site that is hosted in Webalta space might be infected with malware. Since the main wikileaks.org website now transparently redirects visitors to mirror.wikileaks.info and thus directly into Webalta's controlled IP address space, there is substantial risk that any malware infection would spread widely.

Spamhaus also notes that the DNS for wikileaks.info is controlled by Webalta's even more blackhat webhosting reseller "heihachi.net", as evidenced by the DNS records for the domain:

wikileaks.info. 14400 IN A 92.241.190.202
wikileaks.info. 14400 IN NS ns2.heihachi.net.
wikileaks.info. 14400 IN NS ns1.heihachi.net.

Spamhaus has for over a year regarded Heihachi as an outfit run 'by criminals for criminals' in the same mould as the criminal Estdomains. The Panama-registered but Russian/German-run heihachi.net is highly involved in botnet command and control and the hosting of Russian cybercrime.

We also note that the content at mirror.wikileaks.info is rather unlike what's at the real Wikileaks mirrors which suggests that the wikileaks.info site may not be under the control of Wikileaks itself, but rather some other group. You can find the real site at wikileaks.ch, wikileaks.is, wikileaks.nl, and many other mirror sites around the world.

Spamhaus takes no political stand on the Wikileaks affair. We do have an interest in preventing spam and related types of internet abuse however and hope that the Wikileaks staff will quickly address the hosting issue to remove the possibility of cybercriminals using Wikileaks traffic for illicit purposes.

More information on the SBL listing of Webalta's 92.241.160.0/19 is here:
http://www.spamhaus.org/sbl/sbl.lasso?query=SBL68370 [spamhaus.org]

Spamhaus is not alone in issuing this Wikileaks mirror malware caution. On Sunday researcher Feike Hacquebord at fellow anti-spam system Trend Micro issued a similar warning in the Trend Micro Malware Blog. (http://blog.trendmicro.com/wikileaks-in-a-dangerous-internet-neighborhood/)

Re:Spamhaus announcement (2)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602172)

Ah. I was wondering why Spamhaus would bother having an opinion. Answer: if you get your Wikileaks download from the dot-info site, it might be malware infested, because everything else from that domain is. Go download it from somewhere else.

It would be helpful if Wikileaks were to at least put up hashes of the downloads. That would make it abundantly clear if the dot-info site were including malware. But I suppose they've got other things to worry about.

my guess (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601962)

the russian criminals are using the whole wikileaks/anonymous affair as a cover to attack one of their archenemies: spamhaus, while trying to paint spamhaus as the bad guys.

Re:my guess (1)

stumblingblock (409645) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602242)

Yes, that sounds reasonable. The criminal element has taken advantage of the Wikileaks chaos to hijack the Wikileaks name and use it to sabotage their enemies. Easy to make a misjudgement in this situation and they take advantage of this. Smart guys.

Apparently only THEIR censorship is bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34601984)

Mark my words. The kinds of people who run and support Wikileaks are NOT a good replacement for the kinds of people who currently run the world.

"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss". This could be revised "Meet the new boss, same or even worse than the old boss; but claims to be better".

Please note: (5, Interesting)

guruevi (827432) | more than 3 years ago | (#34601986)

1) This DDoS attack does not seem to be originating from Anonymous but from AnonOps which is a cybergang-related IRC server and the DDoS seems to be originating from a real botnet of hijacked Windows computers, not LOIC.
2) Spamhaus warned about wikileaks.info which seems to be hosted by the same criminals and is posting false Wikileaks statements.
3) Wikileaks.org has been taken over by these criminals and is redirecting to http://mirror.wikileaks.info/ [wikileaks.info] which is NOT sourcing from wikileaks.ch (and other mirrors like http://www.wlmirror.com/ [wlmirror.com] )

It seems to me the US Gov'mint has 'fixed' their Wikileaks problem by a campaign of misinformation and probably paid these Russian criminals to host the false Wikileaks site. It wouldn't surprise me if the wikileaks.info sites started to have certain damning documents disappear or specific ones infected just to track who's reading what.

Re:Please note: (1)

M4n (1472737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602152)

Then why would WikiLeaks leave the .org URL on their Twitter profile? Surely they must be aware...

I'M CONFUSED!!

Re:Please note: (2)

jfengel (409917) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602204)

Any idea why the Russian criminals waited this long to attack Spamhaus? They've been enemies the whole time. I assume Spamhaus has always had mighty powerful anti-DDoS tools.

Perhaps they're redirecting some of their spam power to the DDoS instead, using the Wikileaks story as some kind of cover for that. (Though I don't really get it; they don't need it.) I wonder if that would show up as a drop in spam traffic, though unfortunately, you wouldn't be able to use Spamhaus to measure that.

Re:Please note: (1)

nytmare (572906) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602250)

"It seems to me" that you're another stupid conspiracy theorist whose train of thought is not grounded in reality.

Yeah Yeah Blame AnonOps (4, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602038)

Anonymous is very weird to understand. It functions similar to a terrorist bloc (note I am not calling anyone a terrorist).

If I toss a bomb in the middle of a street and kill 50 people - and I write "Terrorist Group X was here" - who's to say it wasn't them? Or if say a terrorist group decides to take credit for the BP spill - who's to say its not?

Its impossible to work out whether it was anon or not. Its impossible to actually call 'anon' a group. Its just a bunch of people who - at will - decide to partake in DDOS attacks. Its not a collective body, its a number of individuals - and its stupid to think otherwise. If I'm in a group with 100 people, and someone says "Lets DDOS Bank of America", if I agree with it, I'll take part. If someone says "Lets DDOS Spamhaus", and I disagree, I won't take part. There's no real leader. Its all chaotic.

So enough with blaming anonymous for this ddos. For a start you have no proof. To continue, anon isn't a group - its a bunch of people following 'random' leaders, and the ranks change frequently depending on who feels like 'some lulz' that day, and who agrees or not.

In fact how do you determine an action as being done by Anon? Done by the 'leader' ? No real leader. Done by a large amount of the group? Not a very good measure.

If I succeed in telling (say) 50% of anonymous that attacking this site is for their better - then will 'anonymous' be attacking the site? Does it matter?

Summary: Anonymous isn't a rigid structure with leaders, anonymous is an amount of individuals who individually follow a leader at that point in time because they agree with that leader at that point.

Kiddiots. Again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602052)

Let me first be crystal clear on this: I support wikileaks.

Let me then be equally crystal clear on this: I consider anonymous morons.

There is no conflict.

On a personal sidenote, I would personally think that the CORRECT way to handle KIDDIOTS would be to return their packets to the kiddiot in question, by air mail. Written out. On stone tablets...

Spamhaus jumping to conclusions? (3, Informative)

leromarinvit (1462031) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602130)

Spamhaus seems to be pretty quick in assuming that wikileaks.info is malicious.

Apparently the site is hosted by a Russian company known to host malware and phishing sites. But how does this prove anything? They might as well be ordinary customers of a webhoster who doesn't take sites down easily.

Somebody who won't take malware sites down probably won't bow to political pressure to take down a Wikileaks mirror - or so they hope. "Outlaws" of whatever kind have a very reasonable interest in common: to evade prosecution and punishment. Whether you're stealing credit card numbers or publishing government/corporate secrets doesn't matter in this context.

Anonymous Coward (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602140)

Excuse me for asking, maybe I'm the teenage dumbass here, but where is the proof that AnonOps is actually behind the DDoS currently aimed at Spamhaus? And why are there so many here bashing at AnonOps without asking this crucial question first?

ok well lets take a wikieak here + have a look (5, Informative)

bpsheen (957313) | more than 3 years ago | (#34602196)

Screw all this talk, lets look at the page source code and go from there. I booted Knoppix, and pulled up Iceweasel and copy and pasted the page source from wikileaks.info. My html and Javascript skills are not the sharpest. My skills are best in other areas. However, I noticed there is too much talk and not enough transparency here so I posted the page source so hopefully someone would analyze it and talk about the contents rather than jumping on sides of the arguments like some deranged trolls. Lets have a discussion that not owned by a bunch of drama queens, True geeks work with logic, not Drama. End of anti-troll rant.. Heres the pastebin link. http://pastebin.com/dyMkdZEG [pastebin.com]

Proof? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34602244)

Any proof that the DDoS is caused by Anonymous, or is that what all DDoS'es are gonna be blamed on from here on out?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>