Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Anonymous Hack One Gigabyte of Data From NATO

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the wear-a-helmet dept.

Security 304

GeekTech.in writes "The AnonymousIRC hacking organization have claimed this afternoon that they have hacked into NATO servers. As one of their tweets says: ' Yes, #NATO was breached. And we have lots of restricted material. With some simple injection. In the next days, wait for interesting data :) '"

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

Again ? (4, Funny)

Chuby007 (1961870) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833782)

This is happening so often that better make a hack.slashdot.org and just add the site that was hacked and when... this is getting old...

Re:Again ? (3, Insightful)

Shrike82 (1471633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833910)

This is happening so often that better make a hack.slashdot.org and just add the site that was hacked and when... this is getting old...

Agreed, but what I haven't seen is follow up stories about these breaches. I though Anonymous or LulzSec were due to release loads of News of the World/News International e-mails they'd obtained? Did I miss a story or are they still holding onto it?

Re:Again ? (1, Flamebait)

SquirrelDeth (1972694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834030)

Plans? Budgets? Inter-office memos? Payroll? They are holding onto diddly squat and I think the turds are actually working for the government to scare the peoples that their data is not safe and we need for gov to step in with more laws.

Re:Again ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834198)

Anonymous working for the government; yep, that's most certainly it.

Re:Again ? (0, Troll)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834322)

Why would you doubt it? Bin Laden worked for the CIA, right up to his "death"

Re:Again ? (5, Informative)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834150)

From their Twitter account: "We think, actually we may not release emails from The Sun, simply because it may compromise the court case."

Re:Again ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834374)

Since when did they care about compromising anything? I thought they were l33t rebels?

Re:Again ? (3)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834476)

They probably, for the most part, really want the lawsuit to go forward, as they have no problems with corruption being punished.

Re:Again ? (1, Insightful)

halivar (535827) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834522)

Or they didn't find anything terribly incriminating and didn't want to pull a Geraldo. Besides, in hacking their email, it's already compromised as evidence, anyway.

Re:Again ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834504)

Since the FBI knocked on their door and their underwear turned brown.

Re:Again ? (1)

ctrimm (1955430) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834438)

Posted to LulzSec Twitter on hour ago:

"We're currently working with certain media outlets who have been granted exclusive access to some of the News of the World emails we have."

Re:Again ? (4, Informative)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834048)

Say what you want about wikileaks but they understood media/marketing. Releasing so much stuff so frequently makes it difficult for the media to absorb and create a media frenzy, which is the only way the plebes ever even hear about stuff like this.

Re:Again ? (1)

Danieljury3 (1809634) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834166)

Security through obscurity?

Re:Again ? (4, Interesting)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834460)

Say what you want about wikileaks but they understood media/marketing. Releasing so much stuff so frequently makes it difficult for the media to absorb and create a media frenzy, which is the only way the plebes ever even hear about stuff like this.

That used to be true. Its not longer true. The largest media outlets created data warehousing applications which allow them to not only comb through these large data releases, but allows them to locate and follow trails of subject matter in which they are interested. It even allows them to discover sub topics, and so on.

Literally, if these groups claim they are not releasing all of their information because media can't digest it, its a lie and is only self serving.

Anyone else notice a lot of shit which Wikileaks was suppose to release was never released in spite of the fact people are still manning the shop? Wikileaks existed solely to benefit, blackmail, extort, and steal information. The fact the information was never released seems to hint it was sold to the highest bidder. Otherwise, according to their claims, a lot of CEOs should be jail by now.

Re:Again ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834130)

This is happening so much I'm frankly worried about the supposed security on computers of other places too.

Seriously what the fuck IT. I'd like to hear about places that either prevented or blocked hacking from occurring JUST ONCE to show that the money spent on IT hasn't been completely wasted.

Or, if it's because they don't have enough money, show the goddamn numbers so we can prevent this crap from happening again. Yeah, sure, information should be free, but it is DEPRESSING to know how incompetent our security is.

Re:Again ? (1)

n1ywb (555767) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834190)

One time I set up snort on an open box thinking I'd set up a firewall to block hackers on the fly; then I realized that a veritable firehose of hacks were streaming in at all hours of the day and I'd have to block half the Internet to stop it. I gave up.

Re:Again ? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834216)

That's like applauding a pipe for not leaking every time water flows through it. Continuous success is continuous. At what point is there anything to say about that?

Re:Again ? (1)

pedestrian crossing (802349) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834266)

I'd like to hear about places that either prevented or blocked hacking from occurring JUST ONCE to show that the money spent on IT hasn't been completely wasted.

Not to feed the troll, but...

Places block/prevent hacking -constantly-, but that's not news.

If you spend some time monitoring the traffic on the outside interface of anywhere interesting, the number/variety of attempts are astounding.

Add to that the fact that the people on the inside (especially -not- the IT people) are incredibly apathetic, if not antagonistic toward security and it's really amazing that there aren't more successful attacks.

IOW, STFU, you don't know what you're talking about.

Re:Again ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834478)

maybe hack.slashdot.org should be used differently.
Open letter letter to anonymous:
"if, among the various hacking activities, you guys should decide to hack slashdot we have prepared a server just for you so that you don't disrupt the user base that it's typically very friendly to you.
Thank,
the slashdot team".

Again (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36833796)

Juste hope that whatever they leak dont kill anyone, that's the problem if you dont check what you leak, Endangering lives is not commandable.

Re:Again (5, Informative)

asto21 (1797450) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833846)

Of course it is! The US Govt commands such things all the time!

Re:Again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834206)

Except now it is a good thing.

Disagree? You're racist.

Re:Again (4, Interesting)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834096)

Makes you wonder though... what would the world be like if people were actually held responsible for their actions and were not able to do things anonymously. Wouldn't that mean that Anonymous should eventually be self exposing?

(I'm not saying it's right/wrong/etc. Just wondering.)

Re:Again (3, Insightful)

jimmerz28 (1928616) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834242)

Makes you wonder what would happen in the world if people in the armed forces were actually held responsible for their actions and were not able to do whatever they wanted.

http://www.collateralmurder.com/ [collateralmurder.com]

Re:Again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834320)

War is hell get over it.

Re:Again (2)

mmcuh (1088773) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834426)

Or just don't start any.

Re:Again (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834304)

In such a world, we would neither need nor have Anonymous.

Your brave new world is, however, undesirable. Various organizations keep trying to set the clock to 1984, however.

Re:Again (1)

nschubach (922175) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834424)

It's not my "brave new world" ... I like a bit of anonymity/privacy. I read something about someone's utopia a while back and one of their requirements was total lack of anonymity. I couldn't figure out why it was a requirement for their utopia, but their only rationality for it was crime.

Re:Again (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834354)

what would the world be like if people were actually held responsible for their actions and were not able to do things anonymously.

For one, it would make running a government agency less fun.

Re:Again (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834448)

...what would the world be like if people were actually held responsible for their actions and were not able to do things anonymously....

Yes, it does make you wonder [investletters.com]

Re:Again (4, Insightful)

kilfarsnar (561956) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834378)

I know you're AC, but seriously, the US government kills innocent people every day of the week. And yet people are concerned about whether the release of a given set of information (perhaps about said killing) will get one person killed. Can I get a re-working of priorities up in here?

I thought they arrested anonymous (3, Funny)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833808)

Like all of them, ever. Not posting as AC because I'm not currently in jail.

Re:I thought they arrested anonymous (5, Insightful)

bruce_the_moose (621423) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833928)

They arrested a few people stupid enough to use Low Orbit Ion Cannon to participate in the DDOS attack against PayPal and MasterCard/Visa sponsored by Anonymous. The mainstream media probably does think that's all of them.

Re:I thought they arrested anonymous (4, Interesting)

taiwanjohn (103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834054)

One gets the impression that this new hack is a direct response to the arrest reports. It certainly makes the feds look foolish claiming to have nabbed them.

Time Warp? (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833820)

Didn't sites that keep track of this retarded hacking shit disappear with the 90s?

This is getting sad (5, Insightful)

Gr33nJ3ll0 (1367543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833822)

Really if a bunch of vigilantes can do it, imagine what the gov't sponsored Chinese hackers can do!

Re:This is getting sad (5, Insightful)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833874)

Really if a bunch of vigilantes can do it, imagine what the gov't sponsored Chinese hackers can do!

More like, if a bunch of vigilantes can do it, imagine what the gov't sponsored Chinese hackers do!

Re:This is getting sad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834292)

more like, if a bunch of vigilantes can do it, imagine what EVERY gov't sponsord hacker does!

Re:This is getting sad (3, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834452)

I hear this sentiment a lot, but it would imply that the Chinese government is more competent than Western governments who allow for this type of fuck up in the first place.

Is there any evidence that Chinese public sector is somehow more competent than that in the West?

It's quite possible that the opposite is true, that the Chinese are managing to acquire fuck all, and that Chinese government systems themselves are equally vulnerable.

Re:This is getting sad (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834524)

And we're singling out the Chinese, why exactly? Are all the world's governments outsourcing this type of work to China? Maybe Murdoch should have..

1GB hummm (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833838)

They probably downloaded tons of non-ocrd scanned documents, stored as images

"Yes sir, it's all in the computer!"

Or maybe 100k of data has the most important info... they only have to find an EBCDIC decoder first

Re:1GB hummm (2, Funny)

cowboy76Spain (815442) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833876)

I am betting on porn... I always bet on porn.

Re:1GB hummm (3, Insightful)

rommi04 (2368482) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833902)

In a volatile market the only stable investment is porn

Re:1GB hummm (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36833996)

Wouldn't be very surprising given what NATO forces were to blame for [guardian.co.uk] in the Kosovo.

Re:1GB hummm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834208)

Most of it is probally casualty reports saying , Fuck we really have to train our troops to stand behind the Americans,

Re:1GB hummm (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834334)


dd conv=ascii <in >out

Cloud (4, Insightful)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833856)

I certainly don't want to provoke anyone, but I wonder how long it will take until they hack gmail and other cloud-based services, and put all the data into the open?
Thanks to these guys, I'm not so sure anymore whether I like this idea of the cloud.

Re:Cloud (4, Insightful)

Aladrin (926209) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833920)

You do realize that the things these guys do aren't that spectacular, right? They're little better than script-kiddies.

Real hackers are out there right now doing much, much more. And they aren't telling you about it.

So what you are essentially saying is that you feel perfectly safe, no matter the real situation, unless someone starts describing reality to you.

Anonymous/LulzSec has done a great job of showing people what the internet is really like. It's a very scary place.

Re:Cloud (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834022)

It's the ol' "Ignorance is bliss" way of thinking ;)

Re:Cloud (4, Insightful)

Scott64 (1181495) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833948)

Your information is every bit as safe as it ever was. Which, as it turns out, might not be as safe as you thought it was.

Re:Cloud (1)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833988)

Nor will it get any better.

Re:Cloud (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36833992)

GMail has a much more real threat to worry about: China.

I've enabled 2-step authentication for my account and installed the Android app on my phone. Good luck with it :P

Re:Cloud (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834100)

Your 2-step authentication does nothing when the servers themselves are compromised. Luckily I have nothing but my own personal financial information at risk which is completely worthless to a foreign government and a dime a dozen in the hacking/cracking circles.

Re:Cloud (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834036)

Quite. I'll be hosting my own email very soon. Not as secure as gmail, perhaps, but definitely less of a target.

Re:Cloud (3, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834112)

Thankfully hacking is still a fully manual enterprise and email servers aren't remotely distinctive on automated scans, or of any value if compromised, so obscurity should keep you nice and safe...

Re:That's the point (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834244)

They hack anything and everything, and essentially just demonstrate that poor security is everywhere. Whether that's what they want to prove or not, that's the point they end up making.

Don't trust anyone with your data until they are proven secure, and then always wonder if they made an update that breaks their security.

People trust the cloud, but don't think about what it actually means. Someone else has your data, and you trust them to keep it private, and not use or sell bits and pieces here and there when it suits them.

Re:Cloud (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834404)

I think that's kinda their point.
Security is easy, very easy. The fact that none of these huge companies or government agencies can do rudimentary things to secure their sites should scare you. Hackers should keep plucking away at them until they either secure their sites or take them down entirely. Hacking should be legal, it's the only thing that tells us if a site is secure from the real bad guys... the ones that don't publish their results.

Re:Cloud (1)

godless dave (844089) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834502)

If you've finally realized that data in the cloud isn't secure if you don't handle the encryption yourself, then Anonymous has been successful. You should thank them for bringing it to your attention.

Re:Cloud (1)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834526)

> I certainly don't want to provoke anyone, but I wonder how long it will take until they hack gmail and other cloud-based services, and put all the data into the open?

Well, given the fact that gmail now allows over 7.5GB of storage per account, hackers stealing a single GB of data probably wouldn't affect that many users. Of course that doesn't make it right, but it does limit the damage somewhat.

Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36833888)

Yeah just like wiki leaks was interesting...yawn

Typo in summary (0)

MrBippers (1091791) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833924)

There != their

Big hairy deal. (2)

SquirrelDeth (1972694) | more than 3 years ago | (#36833934)

Everyone is hacking into government computers and learning the secrets of the government oh noes. I have government data on my computer maybe more than some of these hackers claim to have liberated here is the catch. Gov data is very boring. For example my latest gov communique was plans for a building with a rotten roof. Yes I have to look at it and bid on repairing.
I think the government is running out of terrorist and need a new batch of international terrorists with computers. You are not safe they can get the government they can get you. I think this stuff is all a ploy to try and push stricter rules concerning your rights online. And a way to make nerds everywhere potential terrorist suspects. Soon that laptop bag will be just as bad as a turban and a dynamite vest.

Re:Big hairy deal. (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834010)

Well, eventually the feds caught on. They noticed that adding "with computers" to whatever is being done changes everything. For reference, see laws.

Re:Big hairy deal. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834050)

Five years ago, I'd have suggested that you buy another tinfoil hat for your collection thereof; now I'm not convinced you are incorrect.

Re:Big hairy deal. (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834116)

Average citizen: "It's just not normal to carry around a computer all the time! It makes me feel less secure." *proceeds to check i-phone*

Big deal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36833946)

NATO is ancient anyway and should be in a museum, maybe this will speed up the process.

In other news: After pulling levers, monkeys gained access to the State Department..........

NATO Hacking (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36833962)

I know, it's a stupid question but I have to ask it. Why are government and military servers and computers that store sensitive data connected to the internet at all. Shouldn't they be on isolated local networks only?

Re:NATO Hacking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834060)

I know, it's a stupid question but I have to ask it. Why are government and military servers and computers that store sensitive data connected to the internet at all. Shouldn't they be on isolated local networks only?

Because the gov like all large institutions is extremely lazy, if you told them that they could not access their work from home their diapers would need changing pronto. Jokes aside, government workers have to compete with private corporations now that all loan out laptops to get shit done, uncle sam has to follow suit.

Re:NATO Hacking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834188)

I know, it's a stupid question but I have to ask it. Why are government and military servers and computers that store sensitive data connected to the internet at all. Shouldn't they be on isolated local networks only?

Because the gov like all large institutions is extremely lazy, if you told them that they could not access their work from home their diapers would need changing pronto. Jokes aside, government workers have to compete with private corporations now that all loan out laptops to get shit done, uncle sam has to follow suit.

The real answer is: deny government employees access to porn and they will quit the service in masses!

Re:NATO Hacking (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834430)

Then by all means, let us do so.

Re:NATO Hacking (4, Insightful)

KarrdeSW (996917) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834200)

Can't reach TFA due to high traffic right now but from TFS it doesn't really say whether anything they stole was that expensive, just that there was "One Gigabyte" of it.

It could just be cafeteria menus.

It'll be a dark day when NATO's enemies hear about next Tuesday's Salisbury steak.

Re:NATO Hacking (4, Funny)

KarrdeSW (996917) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834210)

sensitive, not expensive, damn my lack of coffee.

Re:NATO Hacking (2)

Nidi62 (1525137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834446)

I know, it's a stupid question but I have to ask it. Why are government and military servers and computers that store sensitive data connected to the internet at all. Shouldn't they be on isolated local networks only?

Because government agencies cooperate and share information routinely over very large distances with their personnel in different states and with agencies of other states as well. NATO is a very large organization comprising of 28 states. This means the military and intelligence agencies of 28 states cooperate with at least a fair degree of regularity, often across the ocean. Each state more than likely has their own internal information and communication system, yes. But to get each member state to agree on one type and model of communication system to be put in place at every single military installation, command center, or intelligence/analysis agency/department is a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare. However, just about any computer can connect to the internet these days, even the most basic of field computers. The question isn't why are these servers attached to the internet, the question is why haven't they been secured as much as possible, if they are holding classified information.

Re:NATO Hacking (2)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834454)

It's either not that sensitive, or someone REALLY fucked up.

Actual classified data is supposed to be airgapped, or protected by NSA Type I crypto. If these guys broke an approved Type I system, that would be some of the biggest news in crypto history.

there must be some undisclosed SQL exploit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36833972)

How else do they break in to all these places so easily? Incompetent admins? No way, those administrators all have degrees from expensive colleges, of course they know what they're doing...

Re:there must be some undisclosed SQL exploit (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834104)

The rumor is that they have an unknown Apache exploit.

Sensitive data... again? (1)

geogob (569250) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834008)

By now, with all that happened in the last 6 months on this front, you would have though that any computer holding sensitive information was already moved behind an air gap. That IT security experts would have learned that they cannot protect their networks against attack as long as the network is opened to the outside world.

Either people do not learn, or they are really way to slow at making things change...

Re:Sensitive data... again? (1)

wwwrench (464274) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834090)

Well, is the data that sensitive? Here is one they released: http://pdfcast.org/pdf/nato-1 [pdfcast.org] Old and dull. And Sabu yesterday claimed they were about to release a bunch of Sun emails. Now they say they won't. There's a bit more smoke than fire.

Re:Sensitive data... again? (1, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834108)

Yah maybe if there were actually real threats that NATO was needed for... they might take security seriously. Given that they are just an excuse for nations to dump money into military contractor pockets (much like the US military who hasn't fought a real threat since the early 40s)... well why should they give a shit?

Intrusions? Data gets lost? Clearly that means they need more budget. This will be a windfall for them.

Re:Sensitive data... again? (1)

trum4n (982031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834132)

Both.

Re:Sensitive data... again? (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834156)

Meh, "sensitive" is relative. Let me know when it's proven that there's actually some meaningful scandalous data here. Otherwise it's just a "Look what I can do!" Anything the military does or buys is considered sensitive by default. It's silly really.

Re:Sensitive data... again? (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834470)

Or Anonymous thinks the data is a lot more sensitive than it really is.

Wha.... (2)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834068)

How is it that all these different sites keep getting hacked? I mean, NATO doesn't have access to experts in internet security that are able to defend against these attacks?

I'm not in the field, obviously, and I know that things are always evolving, but it seems to me that there needs to be more layers in web security. Also, why is there not more encryption on sensitive data? Is encryption more costly if it's more complex?

I can understand when a corporation gets hacked, they're going cheap on web security because of the costs. But one would think that truly sensitive information with major geopolitical players would be buttoned up pretty damn tight.

Re:Wha.... (3, Interesting)

flonker (526111) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834136)

The thing is, they are not picking targets and then hacking them, rather they are mass scanning to see what is vulnerable then picking through the list to find stuff they find interesting. With that said, you would expect a military organization not to be the "low hanging fruit".

Re:Wha.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834492)

Yep. Back in the days we appeared on the second page of a google search for "powered by XYZ software (c) 2000 v.01.23.45.67.89".

We didn't stand a chance.

Re:Wha.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834388)

How is it that all these different sites keep getting hacked? I mean, NATO doesn't have access to experts in internet security that are able to defend against these attacks?

I'm not in the field, obviously, and I know that things are always evolving, but it seems to me that there needs to be more layers in web security. Also, why is there not more encryption on sensitive data? Is encryption more costly if it's more complex?

I can understand when a corporation gets hacked, they're going cheap on web security because of the costs. But one would think that truly sensitive information with major geopolitical players would be buttoned up pretty damn tight.

The world economy is kind of hurting right now. Guess what? The same breed of idiots who decided to cut their IT security people to save some cash at the big corporations also work for world governments. Did you think we were electing intelligent people or something?

Re:Wha.... (2)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834508)

Keep in mind most of their targets are large organizations with tons of Internet-connected computers -- one of those machines is bound to have a vulnerability.

Now we know (1)

supernatendo (1523947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834102)

So THIS is the real reason for the FBI roundup, I didn't think it was simply because of "The Sun".

Glad to learn that the boys aren't discouraged by (3, Insightful)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834148)

Glad to learn that the boys aren't discouraged by the arrests!

Why so many US targets? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834152)

Why doesn't Anonymous or LulzSec target anything not directly linked to the United States? The fact that they so heavily target us, as opposed to say... the Chinese government, makes me a bit suspicious.

Re:Why so many US targets? (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834246)

How many other corrupt nations do you see with a military presence in half the other countries in the world? I'm sure if, say Germany, was transitioning to a full fledged Corporatocracy bent on nation building in the middle east and exploiting 3rd world laborers the world over you would see them get a focus, too.

Re:Why so many US targets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834332)

You should see the glorious track record of Germany, Belgium, France, and whatsoever have in in Africa. Than you're going to see that maybe the Americans aren't that bad at all.

The USA has interfered with the internal politics of my country a few times. England financed and lobbied for the last war we fought: almost half of the male population of Paraguay died.

The Chinese also sucks. See Tibet. See Taiwan. Shit, see their own citizens.

There are no innocents.

Shares (1)

StripedCow (776465) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834158)

These guys probably have shares in some security company...

Re:Shares (2)

UninformedCoward (1738488) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834308)

They probably are a security company.

I don't understand.. (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834342)

why does every piece of data have to be on the fucking Internet. Just because a computer or a network isn't connected to the Internet, it won't instantaneously burn or explosively self-destruct.

Re:I don't understand.. (1)

ctrimm (1955430) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834422)

Because it makes it accessible from places other than the physical location it's stored at. That can be really useful, you know?

I love this. (1)

_0rm_ (1638559) | more than 3 years ago | (#36834376)

"Most of which we can not publish as it would be irresponsible."

Oh anonymous.

Think of the Data! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834394)

Anon will end up helping to pass some sort of unfair law to control the internet. Whether they're a false flag or legit, they make a juicy excuse for a gov't to impose harsh restrictions. As dumb as they are seem sometimes, politicians are damned good at framing a discussion. Eventually, one will find a way to argue that such-and-such a law is necessary.

I wish people would stop abusing the internet for their selfish agendas. They're going to ruin it.

Vaporware syndrome? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36834406)

How about releasing the Sun/News of the World/News International emails they supposedly have first? You know like the announced they would.

This "just wait till you see what we have" is getting old fast. It's not a good symptom at all, it reminds me of when Julian Assange announced Wikileaks was "about" to release documents from a major American bank. Turned out it was just an empty threat - probably not what the whistle-blower who leaked the documents to Wikileaks had in mind.

I have a lot of admiration for some of the things Anonymous and Wikileaks have done, but they're both drunk on their own fame now. They need to sober up and keep their inflated sense of self importance in check. It would make them a lot more efficient.

Don't tell us you have important data/documents, either release or shut up. What ever happened to "Anonymous delivers"?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?