×

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!

HBGary Federal Hacked By Anonymous

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the are-you-anonymous dept.

Security 377

An anonymous reader writes "As the coin was tossed to kick off Superbowl XLV, Anonymous unleashed their anger at a security firm who had been investigating their membership. HBGary Federal had been working on unmasking their identities in cooperation with an FBI investigation into the attacks against companies who were cutting off WikiLeaks access and financing. Unlike the DDoS attacks for which Anonymous has made headlines in recent months, this incident involved true hacking skills."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

377 comments

hack (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125806)

And by true hacking, we mean true cracking.

Re:hack (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125830)

And by true cracking, we mean true felony raps. Enjoy life in prison idiots.

Re:hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126108)

Right, so they couldn't find a couple of the Anonymous folks they wanted - so they setup this nice honeypot in an effort to catch them. Bingo!

Re:hack (5, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125930)

And by true hacking, we mean true cracking.

Languages are fluid, and you can't prevent it from happening. You've already lost this battle.

Re:hack (4, Insightful)

Myopic (18616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126002)

Agreed. In fact, this battle was lost before it began. The world had settled on the word "hacker" before the word "cracker" was invented. Plus, "cracker" is a racial slur. There's even a damn movie called "Hackers". It's long since time to let it go.

Re:hack (2, Interesting)

Ferzerp (83619) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126042)

Well, keep in mind that it is about the least effective racial slur ever invented. I don't know of anyone who when called a cracker wouldn't just laugh.

Re:hack (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126146)

Because the truth only hurts if it sucks.
Being called a cracker (White, responsible, hard working individual who can speak). Not so bad.
Being called a nigger (Black, poping out kids for the welfare check, gang banging, lazy, given almost nothing to the world pieces of shit.).
I could see how that could hurt.
Stop calling lazy pieces of shit that happen to be black niggers.

Re:hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126298)

Agree, when most people hear the word "cracker" without much context the first defintion that comes to mind is; a processed grain product usually distributed in a box, best served with cheese. If they even know it can also be a racial slur or something technology related they don't think of it without some prompting.

Re:hack (2, Funny)

wisty (1335733) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126322)

Hacker is a shibboleth, like spelling perl in lower case (as opposed to PERL). It lets people know that you are hip to the lingo of hackers.

I'm not sure what blackhats use.

Anyway, there's a subsection on wikipedia specifically on computer related shibboleths [1], and "hacker definition controversy" gets its own bloody article [2].

I'm pretty sure everyone on Slashdot knows, and they just leave it in there to generate meaningless discussions. That's half the point of slashdot.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_shibboleths#Shibboleths_in_computer_security [wikipedia.org]
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_definition_controversy [wikipedia.org]

Re:hack (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126134)

Plus it's misleading to separate the two. It's like saying that shooting beer cans off a fence is shooting, while shooting another person is not shooting, but murdering. You can understand why the beer can plinkers don't want to be associated with the gangbangers, but coming up with a "new, stronger word" for shooting people is just intellectually dishonest.

Re:hack (1)

fahlesr1 (1910982) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126470)

Wait, what? Shooting another person is murdering*! Sure in both cases shooting a gun took place, but the term murder can definitely be applied to the human shooting and not to the beer can shooting. Calling a shooting of another person a murder is not misleading at all, if anything its more accurate than calling it a shooting as its more specific.

Methinks you need to find another example to prove your point.

*At least if the victim dies, not all shootings are fatal, thank God.

Re:hack (1)

pknoll (215959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126486)

It's like saying that shooting beer cans off a fence is shooting

Actually there happens to be an applicable word for that - it's called "plinking".

Your point is a good one, though. The fight to keep the meaning of the word "hacker" pure is lost, and has been for some time. I think, though, that given context and knowledge of who's using the word about whom, we'll still be able to use it the way we always have ("Put a 3.2 GHz Phenom into your Linksys router? What a hack!") and let the rest of humanity use it however they will.

Re:hack (2)

multisync (218450) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126160)

And by true hacking, we mean true cracking.

And by "cracking," we mean "social engineering":

According to information from krebsonsecurity.com it appears HBGary was victimized by a combination of social engineering and a shared password between systems.

The company was done in by its own lax security, which is kind of funny, considering it purports to be a "security firm."

No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125808)

So anonymous is now bumming code late night on green screens?

Well, that'll be helpful (3, Insightful)

Burb (620144) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125810)

Another mature contribution from those grown-ups at Anonymous.

Re:Well, that'll be helpful (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125848)

They are trying to protect the kiddys.

Re:Well, that'll be helpful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125852)

Helpful to whom? To you? To me? To the company which was targeted? To anons? To cops?

Better clarify, there is no single answer. One-liners are all nice and chubby... but in the end, do principles exist, whose are which, and should people stand behind theirs? How long should they stand behind their principles, and at which point should they bend over to state authority? Perhaps never?

Re:Well, that'll be helpful (4, Insightful)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125854)

Yeah, they should have been doing renditions to Egypt of those responsible, like grown-ups do.

Re:Well, that'll be helpful (3, Insightful)

Burb (620144) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126060)

The only place where two wrongs make a right is boolean algebra. Revenge/retaliation just continues a cycle of aggression and destruction. I'm hardly happy about extraordinary rendition either. Whatever Anonymous' valid claims may be, this does nothing for their cause, except to give themselves hugely negative publicity. Way to go, generate sympathy for those you are against... sheesh.

Re:Well, that'll be helpful (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126148)

Things like this might be more of a "blood knight" thing, though. E.g., whomever did this might find it primarily fun to hack a security firm, and only being secondarily motivated by some ephemeral "venegance".

Re:Well, that'll be helpful (-1, Flamebait)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126180)

The only place where rolling over and taking it in the ass in the hopes that peace will come is in the mind of a retarded liberal.

Herp derp (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126438)

*sigh* You people are clueless. Anonymous is not an organization. It's a meme. "Anonymous" only exists as a phenomenon. You don't join Anonymous; you don't participate with Anonymous. You just do something and then tell people it was Anonymous. Stop trying to ascribe intentions to a meme.

Re:Well, that'll be helpful (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126216)

With a comment like that, you're next

Re:Well, that'll be helpful (2)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126296)

"Another mature contribution from those grown-ups at Anonymous."

There is nothing mature about this world.

Sigh (5, Insightful)

hirvonen (644314) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125828)

Ought to have been better prepared if you go kicking a nest full of hornets...

Re:Sigh (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125914)

Which side are you talking about, exactly? The stuff done here was presumably a lot more traceable and punishable than a DDoS attack by thousands of angsty teenagers.

Re:Sigh (4, Funny)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126020)

Unlikely, these guys were probably behind 7 proxies.

Re:Sigh (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126248)

Not sure why you were modded as funny.You never know, they might have been pretty dumb, or careless somewhere. And even if they were behind proxies, that doesn't make it impossible to trace them either. I suppose it depends on who was running the proxies, where they were (and therefore what laws are in effect), and how cooperative the involved ISPs are.

Re:Sigh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126410)

Woosh. [knowyourmeme.com] Hear that sound? It's the sound of GP's joke going right over your head.

Re:Sigh (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126278)

In retrospect I realised this may have been a quote (perhaps from the movie Hackers, which I haven't seen), then discovered it is in fact some random meme. Gotcha.

Re:Sigh (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126096)

Better prepared? Sounds like the perfect trap whereby idiots are lured into it.

Sure, a worthless website may have been hacked - but at what cost to themselves? How many telltale signs did they leave behind for yet more prosecutions?

clever! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125836)

so... "members" of "Anonymous" get investigated by the feds, and criminal charges brought.
so they counter this with more illegal activity which is even more serious and will get them even further into the shit

great plan numbnuts

Re:clever! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125966)

So, Americans decide to peacefully toss a few sacks of tea into Boston harbor and get the entire harbor shutdown.. so they counter with even more illegal activity and a revolution that will get them even further into the shit

great plan numbnuts

Point being... if everyone on Earth was afraid to break a few laws, we'd still be under the rule of British monarchs. Thank god some people don't tuck tail and run whenever Big Brother stares in their direction.

Re:clever! (1)

TerranFury (726743) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126136)

we'd still be under the rule of British monarchs

We'd be a god-forsaken hellhole roamed by cannibal gangs! Like Canada!

Re:clever! (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126190)

British monarchs? We'd still be under the rule of the Unga tribe (or whatever the first tribe called themselves).

Re:clever! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126212)

Thank god some people don't tuck tail and run whenever Big Brother stares in their direction.

Yeah, like you they will just bluster about revolutions, etc from their parents basement while shoving cheetos and totinos pizza rolls down your cheese dusted mouth.

Re:clever! (2)

Ironhandx (1762146) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126218)

Troll? Really? What he said is a fair comparison, AND the situation is similar. The folks throwing the tea overboard were arguing against unfair taxation without representation. These guys, however potentially misguided at times, are fighting for what they believe is the protection of free speech, which is one of the CORE ideals of the same people that threw the damned tea overboard.

Some people around here need to grow a damned backbone, and a set of common sense. Regardless of that however, -1 Troll is not a replacement for -1 disagree.

Yes I realize that I'm in the minority here on /. and that the same people that modded our AC here troll are going to attempt to mod me into oblivion. But go nuts, I've got Karma to burn.

Re:clever! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126468)

We're making a comeback, but I think we were a little subtle about it.
 
We should have gone all-out and called it the Cucumber Sandwich with Afternoon Tea Party.

Re:clever! (1)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125978)

"Them" is a near infinite pool of misanthropic neckbeards ... none of which gives a shit about what happens to the other misanthropic neckbeards currently in trouble.

Re:clever! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126072)

Near infinite? No.

Should they care? Yes. Maybe they won't be caught singly, but it's that whole movement that plays right into the hands of politicians looking to regulate the internet.

They're digging their own grave.

Re:clever! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126238)

Whats funny is, there is a never ending pool of jail cells filled with people who wont care at all about "them nor their cause" when they arrive at PMITA prison.

Re:clever! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126026)

If their plan was to appear good and wholesome, then your overbearing sarcasm might actually have a place in this discussion. However, much like a thief graduating from pocketing candy bars to jacking automobiles, Anonymous knows exactly what they're doing and why. And so far, it seems that they've been pretty satisfied with the results of their actions. It really was a great plan, apparently.

Re:clever! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126076)

Anonymous knows exactly what they're doing and why.

Not really. There are as many different plans and motivations of Anonymous as there are members of Anonymous. The media, security companies, and other groups try to identify Anonymous as a single entity with a single will, but it's just not. Anonymous is a label, not an entity.

Re:clever! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126454)

If it's a label, not an entity, then how can it have "members"?

I don't know why people act as if "Anonymous" is a new thing. It's not. It's just a present-day version of something ancient - the lynch mob. The mob doesn't think, the mob doesn't consider, the mob just destroys. The mob is the barbarian horde burning down civilisation.

For a historical example of an earlier "Anonymous", think about the KKK. Just why did they wear those white hoods? The answer is easy. They did it to be "Anonymous", because if you are "Anonymous", you are released from the obligation to be a civilised human. You do what you like without consequence, so why not lynch a few negroes before they get uppity?

As XKCD says, "Anonymity + Audience = Asshole". Now, that's "Anonymous".

Re:clever! (2)

BinBoy (164798) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126112)

so they counter this with more illegal activity which is even more serious and will get them even further into the shit

great plan numbnuts

Hmmmm. Might be risky rather than stupid. Maybe by proving the incompetence of the security company, they can have evidence thrown out.

Re:clever! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126362)

So... retaliation implies incompetence, you're saying? So if anybody ever fights back against, say, the police (i.e. a shootout situation with a crazed gunman), this immediately proves they're utterly incompetent?

Re:clever! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126252)

You cannot be charged for crimes other people do.

Re:clever! (1)

DurendalMac (736637) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126466)

Tell me about it. The DDoS was one thing, but this is a completely different story. Whoever was behind this is probably going to so some serious hard time.

Security is for Other people! (5, Insightful)

Herkum01 (592704) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125846)

From the article,

HBGary was victimized by a combination of social engineering and a shared password between systems

Evidently, being a security firm means not having to following good security practices.

Re:Security is for Other people! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125956)

Was this a genuine security firm or just a front which is being used as bait?

I don't know how the previous Anonymous attacks were working, but I'm assuming it was just a flood of forged source packets. Difficult to know where they are coming from. If not, then tracking the muppets the requests are coming from is pretty simple.

If someone is making genuine connections to actively modify a website then you've got real IP addresses to start tracking.

Perhaps it's just a nice honeypot sting (excuse the pun) operation?

Re:Security is for Other people! (2)

sosume (680416) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126066)

These guys use botnets, proxies, vpn tunnels, whatever it needs to obfuscate their origins. Don't be surprised if the feds come knocking on the HBGary owner's door, claiming the IP address traces back to his home PC.

Re:Security is for Other people! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126234)

Don't be surprised if the FBI get some top whitehats on the case to make heavy phonecalls and track the origin of the hacks at each ISP stage in the chain.
Visa, Mastercard, Amazon, Paypal ... theres some deep pockets there to buy some serious security muscle to stamps on these joker's cahones.

Re:Security is for Other people! (2)

gox (1595435) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126456)

Erm, wouldn't that involve every ISP in the world having to keep record of ALL IP traffic? And you probably have to count in records of open wireless connections and internet cafe's and such. Plus, considering that end-to-end ecryption is being used, they would have to know security details of nodes involved. It's not even plausible.

Re:Security is for Other people! (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126484)

Yeah, it was as bad as 'hurr durr we're a security firm, what's the password to MS Bob again?! hurrr durr'

I'm surprised they actually know what SSH is

Too bad they never heard of auth by keypair. Next time they'll probably send the keys attached, and not use a passphrase =P

Smells like.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125874)

This reeks of an inside job.

Re:Smells like.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125922)

This reeks of an inside job.

TFA talks about how the company fell prey to a social engineering attack. At that point, it's an inside job from the outside. Your own people are only too willing to help take you down sometimes.

Re:Smells like.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126074)

I believe the OP was referring to the entire thing being an inside job. I.E. Someone within the company (or in the government) was the source of the idea in the first place. I see the thinking here (false-flag). The government gets the "information" for free, HB Gary gets tons of exposure and credit, Anonymous is painted as "getting more dangerous", etc..

Brilliant, really, if people buy into it. Many will.

We Need (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125888)

We need the death penalty for hackers.

Ambivlance (4, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125898)

It's hard to know how to feel about someone waging war against your own society.

Anonymous is fighting partially on behalf of Wikileaks. Wikileaks' recent releases put some sunlight on goverment/industry malfeasance, but also pointlessly harmed some diplomatic efforts by publishing unflattering personal opinions about people the US probably needs to get along with.

And the company Anonymous is going after probably helps stop real security threats that most of us would agree merit stopping; not just Cablegate-related stuff.

What a tangled mess of virtue and vice.

Re:Ambivlance (5, Informative)

kyz (225372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126206)

And the company Anonymous is going after probably helps stop real security threats that most of us would agree merit stopping; not just Cablegate-related stuff.

To help you out: HBGary is still running. HBGary Federal is a new spin-off company started in December 2009 to try and sell "cybersecurity" products to the Feds.

If they were cybersecurity experts, ones that were worth paying for with your tax dollars, then Anonymous would not have been able to pwn their website, twitter accounts, email, ....

According to some of those recently pwned emails, the spokesperson Aaron Barr admitted to his own staff that he was deliberately provoking Anonymous, because he knew that the press was interested in anything to do with Anonymous and they'd get good publicity and possibly sales.

The money quote from Aaron's company email: But it's not about them... it's about our audience having the right impression of our capability and the competency of our research. Anonymous will do what every they can to discredit that. and they have the mic to speak because they are on Al Jazeera, ABC, CNN, etc. I am going to keep up the debate because I think it's good business, but I will be smart about my public responses.

Does that help you swing one way or the other?

Re:Ambivlance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126490)

The takeaway here is if you make a habit of teasing dogs don't be surprised if you get bit some time.

Re:Ambivlance (2, Insightful)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126300)

I'm sorry, but where exactly is the virtue?

Wikileaks has done effectively nothing recently besides attack the US government. Where's all those high-finance leaks that were promised years ago? Where's the responsible redaction that every reputable journalist goes through? Where's the public editing and input that it began with? As far as I can tell, Wikileaks lost all attempt at virtue by the beginning of 2010. Since then, it's resorted to blackmail to maintain its interests, threatening to release unfiltered, uncensored information if anything happens to Julian Assange or the organization itself. Virtue, indeed.

Regardless of my opinions, Wikileaks may be worth fighting for. In that case, donate to it through any of the several channels that are still open. If they're all shut down today, wait until tomorrow and there'll be five more. Shrugging off law and order to throw rocks at companies isn't about a virtuous protest. It's a child's tantrum. What's more, it's a tantrum from children who don't dare consider that they're breaking laws with this farce of a protest. HBGary is now being attacked for investigating a criminal act. Last time I checked, breaking laws for any cause was still grounds to be arrested and put on trial. Often, it's even enough to be convicted.

Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald who, conspiracies aside, killed President Kennedy. Ruby was convicted of murder, because he killed someone. What his victim may or may not have done is irrelevant. In my opinion, every participant in a DDoS ought to face justice according to their jurisdictions. They broke laws, and have no basis to complain now that they're being caught.

Perhaps I'd feel differently if there were no outlet for protest other than a DDoS, but there are. Wikileaks' supporters could raise a billboard encouraging support of Wikileaks' mission. They could send letters to representatives and picket assemblies and courthouses. They could follow any of the myriad forms of protest that have been established and respected over the past thousand years, without breaking any laws. They could, but Anonymous won't. Anonymous is a legion of crying children. Virtue doesn't hold their interest. Mayhem does.

Re:Ambivlance (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126502)

No one is listening to you because you continue to make claims that are demonstratively false.

"Where's all those high-finance leaks that were promised years ago?"
I think you confused years with months.

"Where's the responsible redaction that every reputable journalist goes through?"
Um, you know. The entire Cable Gate release.

"Where's the public editing and input that it began with?"
What are you talking about? Does the Wikileaks name confuse you?

Re:Ambivlance (1, Insightful)

Inda (580031) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126302)

If these Anons are, as we are led to believe, under the age of caring, why are these actions deemed so wrong? Shouldn't they be seen as the only appropriate action?

UK and US children have known nothing but war since they day they were born. Sadam makes a threat, we bomb him. Sadam does a naughty, we bomb him. Bomb on planes and trains, we carpet bomb someone.

And we expect our own offspring to behave themselves when faced with authority?

I think we're asking too much of them. Until our own actions change, virtual bombing will continue.

Re:Ambivlance (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126304)

You really have to define "your own society" in clear terms to work this little moral conundrum out...

Wikileaks, and their anonymous friends, are definitely attacking the secrecy of certain state and corporate entities that exist on American soil and/or are paid for with US taxpayer funds. Is that enough to make them "our own society"? Or does the fact that a clandestine morass of opaque state functionaries, often quite a few levels removed from anything resembling a "representative" is dubiously in line with a democratic republic make them a sort of cancerous outgrowth of "our own society"?

I'm not playing the "Well, man, it's like, all relative; because one person's hero is another's terrorist, man." card. These are real questions that, arguably, have cogent answers(albeit ones reliant on certain axiomatic assumptions that the answerer brings to the table).

Societies constantly attack themselves in order to survive: the police spend basically all their time hunting down and hauling in for trial citizens and residents whose behavior is considered to have put them against society rather than in it. Politicians constantly attack one anothers' programmes, in a process intended to produce the best or most representative outcome. Assorted NGOs and individuals constantly bring suits against one another and the state trying to redress various perceived wrongs. As with a complex multicellular organism, where killing abberant cells before they metastasize and kill you is as important a job as killing external pathogens before they kill you, the maintenance of a complex society is a constant process of defense from external enemies and(particularly for a militarily strong and geographically lucky country like the US) culling internal enemies and dangerous trends.

Unless we define "our society" more or less tautologically as "whatever society we are participating in at the moment"; it is the case that there is an ideal "our society" and an actual "the society we are doing". When the two differ too much, "our society" becomes a dead letter, used primarily for propaganda purposes by "the society we are doing". Fighting against that trend, which frequently means attacking, sometimes in accordance with the rules of "the society we are doing"(as with constitutional challenge court cases), sometimes against those rules(leaks, hacks, etc.) "the society we are doing", is a necessary part of staying reasonably in line with "our society".

It is a matter of legitimate debate whether or not Wikileaks is attacking "our society" or "the society we are actually doing", and how different those two are; but it is not a matter of trivial debate.

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125916)

Anonymous, I neither approve nor disapprove of your actions here, but I am impress. This is the real stuff.

First rule of Anonymous... (0)

sugapablo (600023) | more than 3 years ago | (#35125928)

...is we don't talk about Anonymous. Second rule of Anonymous is we don't talk about Anonymous. Third rule of Anonymous is ..... ? Profit!

Re:First rule of Anonymous... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126100)

Fourth rule of Anonymous must be we always post as Anonymous.

they have a remarkable sense of humour. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125982)

They deleted all the content on his iPad.

that's beyond hilarious

Re:they have a remarkable sense of humour. (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126036)

They deleted all the content on his iPad.

that's beyond hilarious

He doesn't know which is worse, the loss of data or being publicly outed.

Re:they have a remarkable sense of humour. (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126106)

I'm sure he was one of the idiots who was scammed by Apple into buying a MobileMe account for peace of mind "cloud backup"..

Re:they have a remarkable sense of humour. (2)

EasyTarget (43516) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126124)

The bit where they used his own twitter feed to announce and link to the release of the 'document' that he was going to sell to the Feds was quite funny too :-D

Re:they have a remarkable sense of humour. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126260)

Sell? Eh the original article [yahoo.com] that spawned Anonymous' hate actually said the company was not selling it at all, that it did not contain information useful to police, and that they would be talking about it at some conference.

Looks like a standard marketing attempt to me. Ride the Anonymous wave of popularity (or anti-popularity depending)...

That's what a "pseudo-security firm" deserves (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35125990)

Being cracked.

Who saw this coming ? (1)

MooPi (1235436) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126044)

HBGary- Good god we didn't see this coming. We pissed off a bunch of volatile crackers and didn't prepare for this unexpected attack Hmmmmmm. But we a security experts :(

Re:Who saw this coming ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126196)

"expert" in news and corporate PR is a term closer to "some random drunkard off the street" than "person knowledgable in the field in question".

It's all fun and games until you end up in (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126056)

Federal pound you in the ass prison. Seriously... It may be a laugh riot for the mob of 15 year old script kiddies to thumb their pimply noses at the suits and squares, and hide behind a "we r legion, lutz!"... but with any criminal conspiracy, the actions of one of the members all are attributable to the rest. All it will take is a few supoenas, some jail time for a few members, and anonymous will go away. No, for reals, yo. It's real brave to participate in a ddos when they can't fathom any consequences for their acts, but once they see other members getting thrown in the hoosegow, the whole "you can't shut us down!" becomes "gee, i hope the community college down the street will admit convicted felons." petty vandals hiding behind anonymity, not a bunch of masked crusaders for great justice.

I think this is great (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126064)

And I really do hope they get away with it...kinda like LeoDi's character in "Catch Me if You Can", but these things generally end up badly for the bad guys when things start to go public like this. HBGary will probably hire someone who actually knows his shit and tack them down; eventually someone will screw up and put a decimal in the wrong place or some mundane detail like that.

Line between Civil Disobedience. . . (2, Insightful)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126104)

Civil Disobedience is, as far as I know, marked by breaking unjust laws, and then *accepting the consequences* by going to jail, or whatever, to show society the unjustness of the laws, and to win sympathy to your cause.

I believe Anonymous stepped way over the line of Civil Disobedience long ago, with retaliation upon retaliation and attempting to avoid being caught. I really just have to view Anonymous as largely a group of criminals who deserve to be in jail for engaging in openly criminal activity - I can't see that laws which make it illegal to perform DDoSes against legal businesses, or to make unauthorized access to other people's computers, are fundamentally unjust.

These guys are definitely not in the same class as the followers of Ghandi or MLK.

Re:Line between Civil Disobedience. . . (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126176)

MLK's followers DDOS'ed lots of businesses by tying up tables while getting arrested when they refused to sit in the colored section.
Ghandi's followers DDOS'ed the whole country by marching around and not doing any work whatsoever.

I'm pretty sure these both occured to legal businesses as well.

Re:Line between Civil Disobedience. . . (4, Insightful)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126182)

The myth of 'Civil Disobedience is all about getting caught' is spread by those who don't like the goals of today's civil disobedience, only those of yesterday.

Seriously, imprisonment is how you _FIGHT_ civil disobedience, and you're a moron for thinking that's somehow how you go about succeeding in changing anything.

Re:Line between Civil Disobedience. . . (1)

Atrox666 (957601) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126244)

I hope they're not in the same class! Ghandi had his country break up and on both sides are now corrupt and autocratic. MLK got shot.

Let's let the assholes suffer the consequences instead of being stupid enough to fall on our swords in a vain attempt to elicit a pity party.

Re:Line between Civil Disobedience. . . (1)

chichilalescu (1647065) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126266)

In one of the Anonymous/DDOS discussions, I saw someone compare a DDOS to picketing, which is legal in some countries. I have no idea what the laws are in the various countries involved, but the question is like this: assume I don't like a store, and I go in front of it and try to stop people from going in. If that is legal (with certain conditions), than what type of action am I allowed to take against websites?
I'm just curious if someone has an answer to that.

Re:Line between Civil Disobedience. . . (1)

Jim Hall (2985) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126436)

I saw someone compare a DDOS to picketing, which is legal in some countries. I have no idea what the laws are in the various countries involved, but the question is like this: assume I don't like a store, and I go in front of it and try to stop people from going in. If that is legal (with certain conditions), than what type of action am I allowed to take against websites?

At least in the US, picketing is legal if you do not prevent people from going about their business. As soon as you prevent people from going into the store, or keep workers from crossing the picket line to get to their job, etc. then that's illegal.

Basically, picketing is based on the concept of free speech, and protected by the First Amendment. March up and down all you like, on the public sidewalk in front of the store, or in other public areas. Carry your signs, chant your slogans, that's all protected speech. The analogue for websites is that you can feel free to discuss the relative "badness" of a website (for example, HBGary) in the comments section on their website, on your blog, whatever. But that does not mean you can take down their website and replace it with an image/message of your own.

IANAL.

Anomyous as largely a group of criminals.... WTF?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126356)

How can "anonymous" be a group?? People just say the act in the name of "anonymous" but they could say they act in the name of Holy Grail - it means nothing..

Maybe slashdot needs to change the name of the "not logged in user" because this is getting fucking ridicules. Anonymous is NOT a group. Anonymous is NOT a "movement". Anonymous is an idea that you can have privacy in today's world. Even fake privacy, like Anonymous Coward on slashdot.

People "acting in name of anonymous" or whatever is just retarded. There is no "anonymous" yet at almost all times we want to have that privacy - we all want all be anonymous. Anonymous is no one and it is everyone. How can people not understand something so simple???

Re:Line between Civil Disobedience. . . (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126446)

I suspect that neither Wikileaks nor Anonymous are interested in engaging in "Civil disobedience".

In the case of Wikileaks, they aren't "Civily disobedient"; because they don't actually tend to break laws. They do obviously have some contact with people who do; but their operations(while deeply unpopular) are not illegal.

Anonymous, on the other hand, is perfectly happy to do illegal things; but doesn't seem to see the point in getting punished in an effort to maintain the moral high ground. They are(aside from the ones who are in it purely for amusement), essentially engaging in the logic of retributive or revolutionary violence, albeit in bloodless and electronic forms. Irregular resistance fighters have no interest in being caught to "generate sympathy", they have an interest in inflicting damage on strategic targets, obtaining intelligence, discrediting their enemies, and then getting away(so do criminals, of course. The classification depends on the percieved legitimacy of their actions).

As you say, these guys are definitely not in the same class as the followers of Ghandi or MLK. This appears to be by design. Wikileaks, by all appearances, is interested in maintaining a legal operation to lower the cost of whistle-blowing in situations where that could open one to heavy retribution. Anonymous, while too nebulous to have a single agenda, consists of a sort of core that has embraced the logic of violent(but bloodless) direct action, along with a cloud of recreational me-toos who participate in some of the more trivial ops.

Whether you think that this is good, bad, or just a matter of style is a different question; but it would appear that they are not aiming at "Civil disobedience"(having judged it as either too personally costly, too ineffective, or perhaps both)...

owned? (1)

myoparo (933550) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126128)

From screenshot of defacement in TFA:

"But its not about themits about our audience having the right impression of our capability and the competency of our research. Anonymous will do what every they can to discredit that, and they have the mic so to speak because they are on Al Jazeera, ABC, CNN, etc. I am going to keep up the debate because I think it is good business but I will be smart about my public responses."

Wow, just wow. I'm sure what just happened is "good business" for this security firm, since they have been "hacked" by a group perceived to be nothing more (or sometimes even less) than "script kiddies". Embarrassing.

Re:owned? (1)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126294)

The DDoS attacks are really negligible, I have to assume why these companies really want the Anon fire put out is because these "script kiddies" keep making these companies look like morons.

Misleading summary as always (4, Informative)

SignalFreq (580297) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126328)

source article [yahoo.com]

There was no FBI involved in this. It was some random company's attempt at PR (I'm sure they regret it now). The original article even says that the information would not be useful to police and that they planned to give it away at a conference in San Fransisco next week.

Not exactly "cooperation with an FBI investigation"

Seriously Slashdot... when are you going to hire editors who actually verify submissions before letting them onto the front page. No better than the national enquirer...

Good guys and bad guys (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126348)

HBGary investigates and attempts to infiltrate Anonymous:Good guys just doin' their jobs.
Anonymous investigates and succeeds in infiltrating HBGary: Criminals... sick sick criminals.

keep it up (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35126474)

I am sure that if they dig deep enough into "HBGary Federal" they will find enough crap to make the world say well screw you HBGary Federal , All the stuff they have hidden away that they have NO rights having at all in the first place like stuff on 90+% of you lot on here most of which you would rather was not known that would make you sweat like a stuffed pig if it got out .

If anything groups like Anonymous need your support

Why bother with proxys (4, Informative)

Doodlesmcpooh (1981178) | more than 3 years ago | (#35126480)

If the hackers were UK based then they just have to buy a wireless dongle. You just lie about the information on the registration screen and away you go untraceable. Granted they will be able to triangulate the signal but its easy enough to drive somewhere quiet with a laptop and do it. Failing that they could just hack some poor old ladys wireless and use that. Both of these options are simple to do and less hassle than proxys.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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

Loading...