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!

FBI Raids Texas ISP For Anonymous DDoS Info

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the now-turn-around-reeeeal-slow dept.

Crime 120

jcombel writes with this link to The Smoking Gun, which says "As part of an international criminal probe into computer attacks launched this month against perceived corporate enemies of WikiLeaks, the FBI has raided a Texas business and seized a computer server that investigators believe was used to launch a massive electronic attack on PayPal." Computerworld has a story, as well.

cancel ×

120 comments

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

Attacking financial services (2)

devxo (1963088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34720942)

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Attacking financial services (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721144)

What could possibly go wrong?

Paypal: the "bank" that somehow gets away with not having to be regulated like a bank and treated like a bank, despite looking like a bank and acting like a bank.

DDoS attacks suck but in this case, nothing of value was lost.

Re:Attacking financial services (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722788)

despite looking like a bank and acting like a bank

And despite not pretending to provide many of the services a bank provides, and not arranging to have the funds insured by the government, and despite you not having to have anything to do with them, whatsoever, if you don't feel like it.

Re:Attacking financial services (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723058)

You mean there ARE banks which were are required to do business with (that PayPal is not one of)? And all regulated banks are required to provide every possible service (that PayPal does not provide all of because they are not one of those banks)? I guess maybe more banks should having funds insured by the government. That way they can get out of actually having to do things right, and be on a better footing to provide alternatives to PayPal.

Re:Attacking financial services (3, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723098)

You mean there ARE banks which were are required to do business with

No, I don't mean that and you know it. But if you want to do business with a bank that, for example, offers you FDIC protected checking accounts, then you looking for a different sort of service provider. PayPal isn't in that line of work.

And, on your other comment ... you're confusing FDIC insurance and the accompanying regulations with being bailed out, which are completely different things.

WH says DDOS is not a crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34720960)

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/21/interview-with-cyber-security-czar-howard-schmidt.html [newsweek.com]

White House cyber-security coordinator Howard Schmidt:

"We've seen over time street protests in cities that shut down traffic, and this is not dissimilar in the online world. There may be a disruption for a short period of time, but the bottom line is we continue to work to make sure that the impact is minimal."

Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime (4, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721000)

You have to get a license to legally make a street protest which shuts down traffic, in most places.

Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime (1)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721054)

Interesting... So would we need to apply for a license in the country the server is located, and/or in each participating country?

Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime (1)

BigSlowTarget (325940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721186)

And each country that the traffic crosses over/under/through? That could be long list if you're geographically distributed. Actually maybe a network pro can tell me - could it be almost every country if it's very high traffic and load balancing starts routing things different directions to get to the end destination? I'm out of my field there.

Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime (1)

jftitan (736933) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722910)

No your actually right. Thats why networks are supposed to have redundancy and distributed network connections. If one fails a backup is in place to re-route traffic to its end point destination.

  The problem that is clear in this case is that there is in no way shape or form in creating a "DDoS protest" license for any particular situation because of the mass complexity of the internet. I've in some cases tested connection routes for businesses and discovered that in some cases packets go through routes out of state then back into state, then BACK out of state before reaching its destination. Its really messed up how routing happens. Thats why we have network protocols that are designed to handle this type of scenario.

  Its funny how DDoS has come about over the past 10 years. I almost feel like it was yesterday when I first heard of DDoS attacks, and yet today our network infrastructure hasn't improved to deal with these DDoS attacks any better than they were handled 10 years ago. One company I contracted for, our only solution was to just unplug the server until all the attack stopped. Of course employees still couldn't use the internet because the attacks were still running, but at least the server wasn't melting.

  I think that is one of the reasons why Load Balancing came about, so that Slashdot/Digg/4Chan/Reddit bombardments could be handled better. LoL

Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime (1)

SharpFang (651121) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721290)

Only where the server is located.
After all, protesters arriving from other countries to a protest don't need separate licenses.

Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721640)

This is where the metaphor breaks down. The protesters arriving from other countries can only get there so fast and generally only by engaging in economic activity. If you engage in mass mobile protest any way other than on foot you're only patronizing the problem.

Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34722382)

Interesting... So would we need to apply for a license in the country the server is located, and/or in each participating country?

If we didn't we would be invading their territory, no?

Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721174)

Pipes != street. Pipes are under the street and cannot be rerouted. Once they back up, only a plunger can start the data moving again. /me is an IT plumber.

Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721344)

Usually it's the other way around.

Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime (0)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722400)

Which is an entirely obvious overreach of legitimate government authority. If you have to ask the government for permission to speak out against the government, you are not free. Any government that implements such a policy is nothing more than a bunch of thugs and deserves as much respect.

Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime (1, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722818)

If you have to ask the government for permission to speak out against the government, you are not free

Lucky for you, then, that you don't have to ask the government for permission to speak out against the government, right? On the other hand, it seems like a good idea to make arrangements with the people who are tasked with keeping the streets working and safe when you are setting out to prevent your fellow citizens from being able to use the streets they pay for. Or are you implying that the only way to speak out against the government is to prevent your fellow citizens from being able to use public property?

Any government that implements such a policy is nothing more than a bunch of thugs and deserves as much respect.

You've got it backwards. Any protester who thinks he has to forcibly prevent other people from using the street because otherwise he doesn't think he can express himself is a thug who should be treated as such.

Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime (0)

retardpicnic (1762292) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723342)

As always, the absence of facts has certainly not stopped you from forming a strong opinion.

http://www.osce.org/publications/odihr/2007/03/23835_823_en.pdf [osce.org]

Both the State, and the individual have obligations in this matter.
Secondly, someone exercising freedom of Assembly is not always a protester, but of course, this would involve seeing someone else's point of view

Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime (1, Insightful)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723534)

Secondly, someone exercising freedom of Assembly is not always a protester, but of course, this would involve seeing someone else's point of view.

The fact that you are blocking a public street without making any prior arrangements to do so isn't a "point of view" thing - it's a simple are you, or aren't you doing it sort of thing.

As for linking to a Polish document about freedom of assembly? Who has said anything about interfering with freedom of assembly? The US has done more to protect and promote freedom of assembly than any other state in the history of humanity. That has nothing whatsoever to do with physically preventing fellow citizens from using the streets that serve their homes, businesses, and public services/venues.

Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34726046)

You're right--free speech zones really do protect my freedom of assembly.

Please line up against the wall for the firing squad when the revolution comes. We'll get to you after we're done with the lawyers.

Re:WH says DDOS is not a crime (2)

JumperCable (673155) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721384)

WH says DDOS is not a crime

I don't see that in either you quote or in the article.

People who have plead guilty to DDOS attacks have done so under this law:

Specifically 18 U.S.C. 1030 (a) (5) (A) (i), (B) (i). [cornell.edu]

I would be curious to see this challenged in the case of a single person with a single machine. The efforts of a single individual is not enough to take down a server. In fact, odds are they don't have proof that any of the packets the individual sent even reached the server in question or had any effect on it.

Idiots (5, Informative)

Mad-Mage1 (235582) | more than 3 years ago | (#34720986)

It was a bloody IRC server that's all. It was used by LOIC to get targets, etc...

I'm sure they were scraping and recording all of the chat logs from each IRC channel that was used, and THOSE logs are the ones with the money info, like who was participating, or at least their IP at the time. Snatching the IRC servers themselves is relatively useless.

Re:Idiots (5, Informative)

devxo (1963088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721018)

I haven't been to their network, but somehow I think it's one of those ircd's that hide user ip. Since they snatched the irc servers, they also got the masking keys and can now unmask all the ip's. Without getting the servers it wouldn't had been possible. Besides, there's probably more info and evidence on the servers.

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721388)

What this guy said. If theres any sort of firewall logging or anything going on, all of their ips are compromised. If you were part of the attack on any of these sites, I'd be crying to mommy about how you're just a dumb script kiddie and didn't know what you were doing.. if I were you... before the police show up and inform hetr for you.

Re:Idiots (1)

hldn (1085833) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723690)

good luck, i'm behind seven proxies.

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34724026)

good luck, i'm behind seven proxies.

Your latency must suck....

Re:Idiots (1, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721058)

Sure, it's a punishment. "If you allow this sort of thing, we're going to take your servers and hang onto them for months".

Re:Idiots (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722834)

"if you are involved in criminal activity, you may be involved in a lengthy investigation".
Sounds fair to me.

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34723602)

By all means. Why go through the bother of due process to deprive someone of their property when you can just seize at as part of an "investigation"?

Re:Idiots (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723970)

Last time I checked, investigation was a part of due process, especially when it involves a court order or warrant.

Re:Idiots (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#34724304)

> Last time I checked, investigation was a part of due process, especially when it involves a court order or warrant.

That's a little disingenuous. If you can't investigate without depriving someone of a server for months, then the investigation shouldn't be allowed, in my opinion, otherwise people will do just that - punish under the guise of an investigation. Take an image or whatever - whatever you can do in 24 hours or whatever is deemed fair.

Re:Idiots (4, Interesting)

Tynin (634655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721076)

I agree with you. As a former ISP employee, it is pretty well known that the FBI has electronic taps into most ISP companies. I assume the same would be true for datacenter operations as well. I have to imagine watching the traffic silently would have yielded more info than shutting down servers and taking them in for review. No need to worry about masking keys when you can watch the raw traffic come in and see who the major actors are.

But more than that, why raid a datacenter? Why not work with the datacenter to get what they need and minimize an outage for any other custemers. It is like the FBI treats datacenters and ISP's as bad actors and doesn't trust that they aren't in on the crime which I think is rather outrageous.

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721134)

Banks pay them well. They get even higher priority than mafiaa's.. Need I say more ?
-Deepone

Re:Idiots (4, Insightful)

Miros (734652) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721372)

To discourage others from operating infrastructure that can aid in DDoS attacks? This kind of high visibility move tends to invoke certain emotions among people who might be otherwise inclined to assist in some criminal enterprise. Whoever owned that server is probably not having a good week right now, and it's clear that simply operating some seemingly benign infrastructure that aids in a conspiracy to commit a crime is something that can get your equipment seized and your ass in hot water.

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721542)

This kind of high visibility move tends to invoke certain emotions among people who might be otherwise inclined to assist in some criminal enterprise.

And it invokes righteous anger in innocent observers. This could be an unmonitored message board or blog in the future. "Anonymous used your 'Look at my dog' website for planning. You're coming with us for questioning"

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721556)

And when I find evidence of a crime being committed on my equipment

- Report it to the FBI so they can come and steal my servers and shut down my company
- Quietly fire the employee involved and destroy the evidence

Decisions, decisions...

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34722100)

- Go to jail for obstruction of justice when the FBI does eventually find out and asks where the evidence went.

Re:Idiots (3, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722462)

All of which amounts to the government bullying legitimate businesses for doing nothing illegal. How is this even close to acceptable?

Re:Idiots (0)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722698)

Actually, in this case the servers are evidence, and the FBI has every right to confiscate it. This happens all the time in hacking cases. Think about what would happen if the FBI didn't confiscate evidence -- it would be trivially easy to conduct illegal behavior because your provider would not give up the evidence necessary to convict you.

It sucks, but that's what you get for having a society that actually investigates crimes against members of society. You can move to Somalia if you want a more laissez-faire style society.

Re:Idiots (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722846)

doing nothing illegal

Which definition of "DDoS" are you using, here?

Re:Idiots (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723474)

Read a little harder and figure out who is doing the DDOS here and who got raided by the FBI.

Re:Idiots (1)

ScentCone (795499) | more than 3 years ago | (#34724318)

When you provide the physical infrastructure that is used to perform or coordinate that DDoS attack, you really can't complain that the people tasked with investigating the crime are going to need to lay hands on the system and data in question, intact. ISPs and hosting facilities especially, because the next attack could be on something they're, themselves, trying to keep on the air as it's being attacked.

Re:Idiots (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723646)

What did that guy do a few years back? Put a link to some supposed porn or super-model site, but instead the underlying link was to the FBI HQ, which implemented an undercover DDoS attack? Sure hope nobody else copycats that!

Re:Idiots (4, Informative)

Kagato (116051) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721832)

I have to disagree about the taps.

I've worked in VERY large national ISPs and local ISPs. At the large ISPs we dealt with dozens of warrants daily. If need be engineering would work with them as a partner to get what they needed. We were also allowed to push back if the warrant wasn't in order.

At the small ISP the FBI would just show up and seize stuff. Often before hand they would call peers and dig up background information on the employees and owners. When dealing with small ISPs the FBI starts with the assumption that the company is in on it. You'll enjoy a reputation tarnished in the local community and threats of having all your equipment seized (putting you out of business).

Re:Idiots (0)

je ne sais quoi (987177) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722722)

Excuse me, but have worked at a small ISP? How do you know that the FBI didn't ask ahead time to obtain the info. and only when the ISP refused to cooperate did they didn't start confiscating things?

Re:Idiots (2)

HiThere (15173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34724032)

I really doubt that they would agree to something likely to put them out of business unless they were coerced.

I haven't been following things, but my presumptions are:
1) the business is (essentially) innocent
2) there was no warrant
3) The FBI used "main force"
4) They'll get away with it again

Will they find evidence? Maybe. Did they shut down the business? Almost certainly.

That said, these are initial presumptions. Some comments have caused me to believe that this time the FBI didn't seize servers that will actually put the company out of business. But I've heard of no evidence of a warrant, so I'm assuming that they've acted as they did in a few other cases that I've heard of.

The actions of the FBI that I've heard of do not indicate that they are very interested in protecting the rights of the accused. And also that if they doubt that they'll be able to get enough evidence to convict their target, that they are willing to use extra-legal means to cause them severe financial damage. In one case where I'm personally aware, the (eventually) accused was able to get a decent pro-bono lawyer. (He couldn't hire one, because all his assets had been seized.) Last I heard he'd been fighting the charge for years. Not many pro-bono lawyers will support you through that. He's probably going to loose. Because he has expenses that he can no longer meet. But, I'll admit, this was the DEA not the FBI, so that poor evidence, even though it does shape the lens through which I read these stories. (The charge? He was a doctor charged with prescribing too much pain medication for cancer patients on welfare.)

Perhaps I shouldn't think of the FBI the same way, but reports in the news show that they follow a similar pattern of behavior, so I think that it *IS* fair.

Re:Idiots (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723632)

Yup, ADVAPI.DLL from Microsoft and Apple, and who knows who else, Narus boxes at the nation's switching centers and IXPs, it's definitely a done deal!

Re:Idiots (1)

warrigal (780670) | more than 3 years ago | (#34726078)

How long have Apple been using .dll files? I thought they were Windows-only.

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721124)

This story shows up quite easily with a quick search. Did a similar cursory search on Google for news of FBI raids on people behind DDOS attacks on human rights groups. [http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/22/2227206/Study-Finds-DDoS-Attacks-Threaten-Human-Rights] Nothing relevant seems to show up. Strange how that works.

Not bothering to look for investigations of who's behind the DDOS attacks against Wikileaks.

One thing's for sure: If Wikileaks has also been trying to make the point that governments take orders from and act on behalf of large corporations, they've done a great job of getting everyone to demonstrate it for them.

Re:Idiots (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721166)

governments take orders from and act on behalf of large corporations

I thought everyone knew this...

Re:Idiots (1)

Telecommando (513768) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721624)

Oh, give them a break.

The FBI is just doing its job: ensuring that government of the money, by the money and for the money, shall not perish from this earth.

Re:Idiots (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723218)

Well, yeah, but so far it's been close to a conspiracy theory. What was lacking was proof.

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721500)

Or maybe the problem is that federal computer laws only apply to computers used by the federal government, financial institutions, and interstate commerce (pesky constitution and all that).

Re:Idiots (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721146)

You would expect a new fed 'friend' or person the feds caught in the past to slowly befriend the admin/best new useful friend over time. Then work out ip's over a day/weeks when offered/gifted admin pw, raids for all... or long term tracking?
I guess now its all about the wider chilling message, any IP range used gets a van. They have big trucks too ...

Re:Idiots (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721584)

You would expect a new fed 'friend' or person the feds caught in the past to slowly befriend the admin/best new useful friend over time. Then work out ip's over a day/weeks when offered/gifted admin pw, raids for all... or long term tracking?

What mildly competent sysadmin hands out root passwords as gifts? They haven't even done that in Universities since the early 90's.

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721608)

A sysadmin who hands out root passwords for VPS? ;-)

Re:Idiots (1)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721716)

Long term flattery, shared interests, an understanding of Unix ect. could charm admins into that zone of pw trust.
If caught in the past by the feds, you would have the time, cash and drive to work hard on/for your target group.

Re:Idiots (1)

Larryish (1215510) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721260)

It would be nice if anonops irc wouldn't autoban proxies/tor.

"Welcome to irc.anonops.co.uk - We are Anonymous, expect us. - Anonymous proxy servers are not permitted."

Does that scan?

Re:Idiots (2)

tagno25 (1518033) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721314)

They ban proxies so that you are not DDOSing the proxy or killing ALL of tor.

They should use th3j35t3r's tool (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34722316)

Anonymous guys should google an implementation of slowloris-over-Tor "XerXeS" like Th3j35t3r uses... (Yeah implementations are out there, do you think th3j35t3r wrote his tool by himself??? LOL)

Going over Tor hides the IP and doing this attack via multiple machines would make them a really nasty bunch of fuckers.

On the other hand maybe they should not do that. You see, one can easily prevent the "XerXeS" tool by just tarpitting multiple connections from a single IP. Or, better yet, tarpit all Tor exit node IPs. Then to hide oneself, the attacker would need multiple machines, essentially a botnet.

As for the former alternative. If you don't have TARPIT support, run: module-assistant auto-install xtables-addons-source
Then run: iptables -I INPUT -p tcp --syn --dport 80 -m connlimit --connlimit-above 5 -j TARPIT

Latter option left as an exercise for the reader. Tweaking connlimit-above left as an exercise to the reader :)

Re:Idiots and War Criminals (1)

sgt_doom (655561) | more than 3 years ago | (#34723618)

I have been reading those SAR reports Wikileaked from Afghanistan, and there appears to be atrocity after atrocity after atrocity, supported by those very rare and occasional news stories (in the international media, as America has no media).

While a court-martial is taking place in America about those US Army thrill killers of innocents, an Australian Special Forces unit is undergoing a court-martial in Sydney -- having killed innocents, instead of the Taliban, due to "faulty intel" -- a commonly occurring event.

Polish soldiers in Afghanistan get hit with an IED, so they attack the nearest village, on the assumption the innocents there are the guilty party.

Meanwhile, we've noted that the USAF has obliterated how many Afghanistani wedding parties now (each one consisting of 70 to 90 plus people)?

War Criminal Obama, as with War Criminal Bush, hasn't pursued any of these war crimes and atrocities (excepting the one obvious one now involved in a court-martial at Ft. Lewis, Washington, USA.

Likewise, we observe the outrageious and humongous efforts (if only such efforts were ever expended to hunt down this Osama bin Laden fellow??????) to extradite Julian Assange of Wikileaks back to Gothenburg, Sweden, which just happens to be the location of Jeppesen Systems AB, a subsidiary of Boeing, and affiliated with Jeppesen Dataplan, better known as Boeing's Extreme Rendition Airlines --- how very convenient.

Also pertinent to this blog post, is that Narus, those pesky Narus boxes having been installed at switching centers and IXPs throughout North America as part of that "warrantless wiretapping"/T.I.A. criminal eavesdropping activities, is also owned by Boeing.

Re:Atrocity (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#34725348)

Atrocity Atrocity Atrocity Atrocity
Atrocity Atrocity Atrocity Atrocity
Come on!!! Who's With Me?

It's not just a meme, it's the description of how media control works.

Helpful Link to Tune for Singalong
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMU0tzLwhbE [youtube.com]

Unfortunately I have no mix skillz.

TIMMAY !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721010)

Timmay
Timmay Timmay
Timmay Timmay Timmay

Timmay

Tiiimmmmaay

I wasn't around then, but.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721038)

I get the feeling we're about to see Weather Underground 2.0. FBI and friends rounding up subversives, cooking up various stories/evidence/results and both sides getting more and more serious until things go bad.

Anonymous will, I suggest, become the 21st century hippies once more and more tangential interests come aboard, and before you know it a few radical offshoot groups will take on the government in a serious way. Cyberthreats the like of government talk are bullshit, but people with technical knowhow and a bit of time can scuttle bureacracy gone bad, ala various leakings. I don't properly (beyond some scrapings of the history) know the who or what of 1969 onward and how right each side of the government-hippy fence was.. but I'm around for this fight, I'm a witnessing some disturbing trends that displease me greatly and can't say I side with the government being right.

In the cosmic irony department, the captcha for this post is "unfair".

Re:I wasn't around then, but.. (2)

dreamchaser (49529) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721142)

Doubtful. The vast majority of Anonymous does what they do for the lulz, not out of any ideology.

Re:I wasn't around then, but.. (2)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721244)

The "for the lulz" is part of the meme, just like using the word "Anonymous" as personal name. If the target was something they supported, they would not have participate. The target is picked carefuly out of a ideology and peoples supporting the cause join the DDoS. The reasoning behine is that moral equal bigotry, and if you cannot do something for an ideology, you can only do it for your own selfish entertainment (a.k.a. "for the lulz").

Re:I wasn't around then, but.. (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34724184)

I don't believe the Weather Underground was ever a serious threat, except in their own minds, and in the press. When I looked around I saw dozens of easy targets that they just ignored. They were more publicity hounds than a revolutionary movement. AFAIK they didn't even have a platform of "What we would do if we were in charge".

And if you say Anonymous will become the same kind of thing, I have no trouble accepting it. But consider what you are saying. (I.e., they're just about there already.)

Wul, Big Toot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721086)

So what?
So the donut swilling swine may've found a handful of Anonymous.
It still doesn't mean they can find their ass with both hands and a road map in a lit room.
Well that leaves only about a Legion and some left to round up. Good luck with that!
I predict heavy work for the admin nursing the FBI site. Anonymous seem to be grumpy about details like that.

Paypal provided IRC server list? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721126)

From the article:
"On December 9, PayPal investigators provided FBI agents with eight IP addresses that were hosting an “Anonymous” Internet Relay Chat (IRC) site that was being used to organize denial of service attacks."

How did paypal manage to figure this out when the FBI couldn't? It's not like the IRC servers were attacking paypal directly

In the process of lying about the REAL source of of these 8 addresses (probably an illegal wire tap), the FBI managed to make themselves look incompetent, instead of just untrustworthy

Re:Paypal provided IRC server list? (2)

jesseck (942036) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721306)

There's nothing that says PayPal couldn't have joined in with Anonymous and DDoS themselves... all it would take is a network admin to join the attack and watch the packets. All of a sudden, he becomes and "investigator"- making it sound like PayPal has their own black ops team, working hand-in-hand with the FBI. Of course, the FBI could do the same, or be wiretapping the data center without a warrant, and claim it was PayPal that gathered the info.

Well, technically... (2)

ferongr (1929434) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721156)

... the server did not actually send those TCP requests, but was hosting an IRC server. The flooding software allows the user to turn his computer in a voluntary "botnet member". The software then connects to a specific IRC server (can be changed easily in case the server goes out of commission), connects to a specific channel and then a bot in this channel responds to commands by the software and passes the IP address of the target.

This allows the masterminds behind the attacks to coordinate the computers effectively and paralyze sites with an instant flood of requests, instead of having each user configuring the software with a new target I.P. and having the load on the target increase gradually, making it easier to react.

DOS Attacks (0, Troll)

anonymous9991 (1582431) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721178)

DOS attacks can damage the economy and cost a people jobs and/or limit new job growth, these actions only hurt people. They belong behind bars.

Re:DOS Attacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721248)

Doh-ho-ho-ho, you almost had me there.

Apart from creating counter-measure and technical help jobs, when used on the large companys it forces people to use other services, spreading the wealth and creating even MORE jobs.

If only they could DDoS Walmart stores.....

Mod up common sense rebuttal NT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721316)

nice tits

Re:DOS Attacks (1)

tagno25 (1518033) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721326)

If only they could DDoS Walmart stores.....

Or China

Re:DOS Attacks (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721730)

Doh-ho-ho-ho, you almost had me there.

Apart from creating counter-measure and technical help jobs, when used on the large companys it forces people to use other services, spreading the wealth and creating even MORE jobs.

Quick, amend the broken window fallacy! Throwing bricks through the windows of more efficient businesses create may create jobs, but does it actually generate more overall wealth?

Re:DOS Attacks (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34724218)

It might not generate more wealth, but perhaps it acts to redistribute it?

It's not exactly a fallacy. (Actually, the original might be if I remembered it more fully, but this version isn't...exactly.)

Re:DOS Attacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725992)

Well, I bet the grandparent also thinks that it is good to create work by having person A move stones from pile X to pile Y and letting person B move stones from pile Y to pile X! Wow, now we can create an infinite number of jobs! So why do we have unemployment when the solution is this simple?

Re:DOS Attacks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721298)

If a DOS atack can hurt you you almost deserve to be hurt.
One the other hand if you get hit by a DDOS there is almost nothing besides a CDN that can save you.

Re:DOS Attacks (3, Interesting)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721364)

Union strike and protest can also damage the economy. Let put all these peoples behind bars. Who the fuck they think they are? Damaging sort term profit of the all powerful corporations!

Re:DOS Attacks (1)

el3mentary (1349033) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722756)

Union strike and protest can also damage the economy. Let put all these peoples behind bars. Who the fuck they think they are? Damaging sort term profit of the all powerful corporations!

Sort term?

Re:DOS Attacks (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722486)

Squelching legitimate political demonstration can damage the economy and cost people jobs. If you care about the economy, preserve our freedom. These FBI agents belong behind bars.

patriot (5, Insightful)

choko (44196) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721328)

So I'm assuming that we are going to see a probe by authorities into the "patriots" behind the wikileaks DDOS attacks next?

Re:patriot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34726544)

That's assuming there is one, and Wikileaks isn't playing the victim of government conspiracies. We know this is a tactic Wikileaks will use because it's the same tactic Assange is using now.

And that's also assuming Wikileaks have actually made an official complaint to the relevant authorities. We know the FBI won't be involved since Wikileaks have distanced themselves from any hosting, operation or legal liability in the US. In fact they've done this with pretty much every country except Sweden, and even then the exception is Assange who apparently thinks he isn't subject to Swedish law because he thinks their legal system is the greatest system in the world, or absolutely broken and invasive of human rights, depending on which laws he wants to follow.

And then, that's assuming the authorities are going to care. Most likely they are going to tell Wikileaks to go fuck themselves. That's what happens when you bite the hand that feeds you. It's natural justice. Sorry, but you don't get to scream to the world about how corrupt the government is, then beg for that government to help you when somebody else does something you don't like. It's the same as the nutcases around here who believe every police officer is corrupt, racist, and only joined the police because of a mentality to thrive on and abuse power. Well if you believe that, you shouldn't get access to the police next time your're being mugged, assaulted or raped.

"Computer Server" ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721408)

Shucks, paw, I goit meself one of dem Compooter Server wassits

"Computer Server". Sheesh - who writes this stuff?....

A few mistakes... (5, Interesting)

jornak (1377831) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721456)

First mistake: They list the IP in the affadavit OUTSIDE of the logs twice as 72.9.153.42 instead of 72.9.153.142 as it should be. One could assume that they could have now raided the wrong server in Tailor Made's farm.

Second mistake: "root" is just an IRC nickname on AnonOPs, and this person does NOT have root access on the IRC server that was raid as falsely assumed in the affadavit. They have oper with override privileges, and that was what was logged. The raid on the server at Tailor Made Servers was made under false pretenses.

Third mistake: Those logs show... [Thu Dec 9 11:14:27 2010] - OVERRIDE: root(root@72.9.153.142) TOPIC #loic '!lazor default targethost=api.paypal.comsubsite=/ speed=3 threads=15 method=tcp wait=false random=true checked=false message=Good_night_paypal_Sweet_dreams_from_AnonOPs port=443 stop' ... if anyone here has looked at LOIC's topic parsing, there's two mistakes the FBI made there. The first is that there's no space between targethost=api.paypal.com and subsite=/. The second is that this person "root" is STOPPING the attacks by adding "stop" at the end of the topic. Unless they can show logs of this "root" person throwing "start" in the topic instead of stop, this person is doing exactly the opposite of "willingly and knowingly" executing commands to start a DDoS attack.

Re:A few mistakes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721686)

hahahahaha. you're right, but man i couldn't help but laugh at the futility of trying to explain code syntax as a defense.

Re:A few mistakes... (1)

edgedmurasame (633861) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721810)

Either an honest mistake, or as many mistakes there could be, a deliberate error to identify potential participants.

Re:A few mistakes... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34721854)

That's usual government tactics mixed with incompetence, i.e. raid as many people as possible, with warrants that are based on wrong information. Most cops don't know what they are doing in regards to IT or knowingly use bad information to get warrants. Hundreds and thousands of raids look great in press releases and there are no consequences for doing a shitty/fraudulent job. They simply hide the fact that a tiny, tiny percentage of those raids actually result in convictions. The vast majority of cases are discontinued due to lack of evidence or because people get lawyers who tear the crap cops did to shreds.

A great example is operation "Himmel" in Germany. Literally 1000s of raids all across Germany were started because some server contained child pornography and logs appeared to indicate LOTS of downloads. Turns out the majority of images were neither CP nor illegal. People ended up getting their homes raided by police because they only loaded a few thumbnails; not even full images. In the end not a single case out of these 1000s ended up in court. Yet police and politicians considered the operation to be a success and used it to inflate their case numbers to prove how important new internet laws are.

It's not about convictions, it's about publicity for politicians and creating FUD for agencies.

Re:A few mistakes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34722196)

The FBI is well within their rights to at least question someone that they have reasonable belief of possessing knowledge or information about a crime.

There is obviously enough probable cause to go to a judge to ask him for permission to seize a server to find out who these people are on IRC and then compel them to testify to a grand jury about their activities and knowledge of said activities (if they didn't actively participate). Assuming of course they are in jurisdiction of a grand jury subpoena.

Re:A few mistakes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34725226)

"root" is Canadian.

Re:A few mistakes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34722884)

this person "root" is STOPPING the attacks by adding "stop" at the end of the topic. Unless they can show logs of this "root" person throwing "start" in the topic instead of stop, this person is doing exactly the opposite of "willingly and knowingly" executing commands to start a DDoS attack.

Wouldn't that mean he is executing a DoS attack on the DDoS attack?

Re:A few mistakes... (1)

HiThere (15173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34724258)

Well, it sounds like my initial presumption that they didn't bother to get a warrant was wrong.

Anything that attacks the banks... (-1)

Afell001 (961697) | more than 3 years ago | (#34721706)

The government is very sensitive about anything that could disrupt the financial sector...this includes their ability to conduct business online. Why?

Because the entire financial sector is based upon imaginary money, and just like the emperor walking down the street in his fancy "new" clothes, all it takes is for one person to figure out that there really isn't anything there other than what we choose to fantasize about. Paper money (hell, not just paper, but stuff that is nothing more than an entry in a database) is not backed up by goods, commodities or services, but rather a bunch of IOUs signed by each and every person who borrows money and promises to pay it back.

The biggest borrower is no other than all of us , the American taxpaying public. And all it takes is for someone to feel that this money is not going to be paid back, and POP goes the economy.

The underlying root is that these DDOS attacks could very well highlight the vulnerabilities in our system and bring this whole sham to a head well before any contingency plans could take effect. So to combat this, the government will turn any and every power it has to bring these attacks, and the people behind them, to a permanent end. Or as permanent as you can get within our legal system.

Except that.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34722102)

...PayPal isn't a bank.

Isn't it amazing.. (4, Insightful)

Dynamoo (527749) | more than 3 years ago | (#34722236)

Isn't it amazing that the FBI can get their arses into gear over Anonymous, while allowing thousands of other criminal operations to use US based servers without disturbance. I am constantly horrified by the number of malicious sites operating out of the mainland US that are clearly operating in plain sight.

Re:Isn't it amazing.. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34722868)

Money talks... Anon starting playing with fire when they went after the credit processing industry. Most malicious servers don't go out of their way to put a big target on their back. More importantly, they don't actively disrupt commerce, something that this government takes more seriously than just about anything else.
 
Worth noting, this is the ONLY police action in the USA related to wikileaks, and it isn't really even related. What the hell does that say about all this?

slackers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34724818)

HACK THE PLANET

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>