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!

Could the KGB Infiltrate LulzSec?

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the sure-why-not dept.

Security 162

Barence writes "Foreign powers could try to infiltrate hacktivist networks in order to manipulate their actions, according to a security expert who advises governments and businesses on internet issues. Likening the emergence of the hacktivist movement to the arrival of militant groups such as the Red Brigade during the 1970s, government advisor and chair of the International E-crime Congress, Simon Moores, said that hacker groups could eventually be swayed by outside influences. 'If you have a LulzSec or an Anonymous that is perhaps being manipulated by a foreign actor, it takes us back to the days of the Stasi and the KGB, which were manipulating [anti-nuclear campaign group] CND quite easily from Moscow,' he said."

cancel ×

162 comments

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

Not this shit again. (2, Insightful)

Alex Belits (437) | more than 3 years ago | (#36869898)

Seriously!

Re:Not this shit again. (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870452)

The headline made me lol, it reminded me of something like:

WHO IS BETTER, Chuck Norris, or Mr T?

The summary was at least slightly more intelligent, but still inevitably silly.

I'd say something about it being a slow news day, but looking at the BBC's frontpage, it's actually not.

Re:Not this shit again. (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870856)

I was thinking "where are the nuclear wessels?"

Outdated Headline (5, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36869920)

Could the KGB Infiltrate LulzSec?

No, because it was dissolved in 1991. Could the SVR [wikipedia.org] , FSB [wikipedia.org] or GRU [wikipedia.org] infiltrate LulzSec? Sure, why not? I'm sure anyone could infiltrate the group as long as you're willing to play their game.

Re:Outdated Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870040)

Yeah even the FBI, CIA, MI6, RIAA, NAACP, SPCA, NCAA, KKK, etc.. could "infiltrate" Anonymous. That's the point, isn't it?

Re:Outdated Headline (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870330)

But Anonymous could infiltrate "GNAA" thus infiltrating FBI, CIA, MI6, NASA, VALNX and MPAA by proxy

Re:Outdated Headline (5, Insightful)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870044)

He means `can we get some Cold War eta funding to go on a wild goose chase, please'.

Re:Outdated Headline (1, Insightful)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870230)

He means `can we get some Cold War eta funding to go on a wild goose chase, please'.

This.

But instead of hunting for the hackers, I'd be more comfortable if they secured some of the vital systems... Some stuff just shouldn't be connected to the internet.

Re:Outdated Headline (1)

santiagodraco (1254708) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870884)

Any good strategist knows you can't just sit in a fortress and remain safe forever. The same applies here.

That's not to say I disagree with "improving" the security of vital systems (your statement "if they would just secure" implies they aren't, which of course is absurd, our systems are secure... are they secure enough is the question".)

Of course I'd suggest it's equally absurd to think that we aren't actively working to secure our networks.

Re:Outdated Headline (1)

DividedByZer0 (2025454) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870722)

He means 'can we get crazy conspiracy theorists excited about something new, please'.

Re:Outdated Headline (1)

santiagodraco (1254708) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870850)

Wild goose chase.... do you really think it's so far fetched that foreign powers would try to manipulate groups like this? if you do then you are either very ignorant, naive or being manipulated and you don't even realize it.

Re:Outdated Headline (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870092)

Unless you live in Belarus, where the KGB is still called just that [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Outdated Headline (0)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870158)

But the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) certainly could at 60+Million members at growing. And lets face it, most of the young vibrant hackers are associated with higher education in American and European Universities. Most of which are liberal with a hint of Marxist ideology tied to the Ivory Tower culture (the strongest pronouncement was in the 1960s).

So I tell you. If anyone political organization with large sums of money to throw around can infiltrate LulzSec, it would be the CCP. The only think holding it back is the language barrier, but many CCP members already speak English out of the 60 million anyways.

Re:Outdated Headline (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870250)

With the hundreds of thousands of newly college grads without a job, what the CCP has to offer is intoxicating. A secure job, wining and dining, and the ability to look down on others. Oh, and you have power over others outside the party. In the world of look-at-me on Facebook and the fact their parents treated them like precious little snowflakes, it's almost certain to happen.

Re:Outdated Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870348)

With the hundreds of thousands of newly college grads without a job, what the CCP has to offer is intoxicating. A secure job, wining and dining, and the ability to look down on others.

For a second there, I thought you were talking about the recruitment programs in America.
Every country recruits soldiers, some countries even generously employ mercenaries -cough- Halliburton -cough-, it's not like this is a new threat or anything.
The new world demands an educated soldier; are you producing that in your country?

Re:Outdated Headline (1, Interesting)

morari (1080535) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870430)

Educated soldiers are a liability. You wants morons that will follow orders without question, otherwise they might start to reconsider just why they're committing horrendous acts. Here's a hint, to help their employer's bottom-line.

Re:Outdated Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870602)

Educated soldiers are highly sought after as well, at least in the US. Recruiters were ready to go at my college graduation and wouldn't stop bugging you (phone calls, mail, etc.) if you showed any interest at all.

I had one friend, a chemical engineer, join the navy after finishing. He loves it.

Re:Outdated Headline (2)

vajrabum (688509) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871240)

C'mon Communist infiltrators? Really? I can see sophmoric but you seem to think the Lulzsec people are stupid or something. This is cointel PR bs like we saw in the 60s. Your clue, if you decide to accept it, is that the TFA didn't refer to the current foreign intelligence organizations but rather to the great boogie man of the cold war, the KGB.

Re:Outdated Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870650)

But the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) certainly could at 60+Million members at growing. And lets face it, most of the young vibrant hackers are associated with higher education in American and European Universities. Most of which are liberal with a hint of Marxist ideology tied to the Ivory Tower culture (the strongest pronouncement was in the 1960s).

So I tell you. If anyone political organization with large sums of money to throw around can infiltrate LulzSec, it would be the CCP. The only think holding it back is the language barrier, but many CCP members already speak English out of the 60 million anyways.

why would the CCP want to attack the US in any way ? thet own 600 BILLION $ of your dette , just keep on paying the interest , consume and dig your hole further, that will keep them happy , they just need to call up your dette and boom usa is sudently equivalent to somalia

Re:Outdated Headline (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870980)

why would the CCP want to attack the US in any way

Because America is their enemy?

Here's a tip: Asians are the type who would throw themselves on your sword if it got them in range to slit your throat. The fact that they'd lose trillions of dollars would be a footnote in their history books on how their great leader brought America to its knees.

Re:Outdated Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870212)

Best. Comment. Ever.

Re:Outdated Headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870254)

FAPSI

but anonymous is magic (4, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36869932)

no one can figure out who anyone is in real life, it can never be killed, and never influenced. it is above and beyond the rules that govern any other group of people, because it has internets. right?

Re:but anonymous is magic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870138)

You could make a movie about anonymous zombies. That would be great.

Re:but anonymous is magic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870636)

How should I imagine this? Pale people with eyes in black, deep sockets shambling about in basements and moaning "lulz" instead of "brains"?

Re:but anonymous is magic (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870262)

I'm pretty sure it's the proxies.

Re:but anonymous is magic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870486)

You don't have to be a KGB-agent to influence Anonymous. The question is how much, almost insignificant, amount of influence you'll be able to exact on the whole. Will one worker-bee manipulate the whole hive? Doubtful. At best, the little KGB-worker-bee will be told "Dox or GTFO", and if he serves up the dox, then no problem, information is information regardless of pedigree.

Re:but anonymous is magic (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870696)

anonymous is the borg!

pffffffft

will you fanboys please shut up about magic anonymous? it's governed by the same simple social hacks everyone and everything is. it's not more vulnerable, it's not less vulnerable. there is no magic pixie dust. it has not reinvented the human social function or the rules by which every group of human beings has always behaved since the dawn of time

sorry to rain on your parade

Re:but anonymous is magic (1)

vegiVamp (518171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871374)

Well... to be fair, if "on teh internets" works for patents...

Is it worth it? (1)

RogueRat (1710322) | more than 3 years ago | (#36869936)

Do these hacktivist organizations really command enough respect and hold enough power for such actions to be necessary? All I could think when I read this news post was "Why?"

great fear tactic (4, Insightful)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 3 years ago | (#36869968)

Meanwhile Russia can shutdown [youtube.com] the US power grid, successfully leached Nuclear secrets in the 50's and owns most of US Steel manufacturing. Yet some shitty hacker outfit called Lulzsec is "easily manipulated. Har! Is it Pirate Day already?

Re:great fear tactic (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870032)

Meanwhile Russia can shutdown [youtube.com] the US power grid, successfully leached Nuclear secrets in the 50's and owns most of US Steel manufacturing. Yet some shitty hacker outfit called Lulzsec is "easily manipulated. Har! Is it Pirate Day already?

Whoever will take more of my money and more of my civil rights will surely save me.

Re:great fear tactic (2)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870276)

I'm willing to take both.

Re:great fear tactic (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870646)

Oh fuckin' great, the NSA has entered /.

What about? (4, Informative)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870004)

So could the CIA, NSA, FBI or any of the 20 or 30 Intelligence/enforcement agencies in the US government.

What is to say that this hasn't already happened and everything we have seen has been... "just as planned."

Oh look at me! I can speculate too!

Re:What about? (1)

multisync (218450) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870198)

On the other hand, hacktivists could probably infiltrate intelligence and enforcement agencies too. Not to mention political parties, movements like the Tea Party, news organizations and other large, influential corporations.

If I seriously wanted to bring about change to our socioeconomic system, that's how I'd go about it.

Re:What about? (2)

loftwyr (36717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870660)

Are you saying that someone could join a security or military organization, download key secret documents and give them to an organization, say, like Wikileaks? I don't believe you! America is too strong for that kind of thing!

Re:What about? (2, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870264)

So could the CIA, NSA, FBI or any of the 20 or 30 Intelligence/enforcement agencies in the US government.

Yes, LulzSec is clearly commandeered by the Amtrak Police.
Geohot, on the other hand, is likely under the influence of the Forest Rangers.

Why this hits /. front page, I have no idea. Whenever someone is doing something controversial, there will always be opponents who will speculate that they're useful idiots, or otherwise try to paint them in a worse light than they already are. I'd be interested in the real source of this one; my bet is you'll find a tinfoil hat reactionary.

Re:What about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870786)

Why this hits /. front page, I have no idea.

I think they actually do it to troll for "In Soviet Russia" jokes.

Yet Another Lack of Understanding (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870010)

Law enforcement just can't grasp the concept of Anonymous' lack of a solid hierarchy. Sure they could infiltrate Anonymous, and they'd have as much influence as any other one participant, which is very little. Now if they can flood Anonymous with enough sockpuppets to make up, say, more than 50% of the participants, then they'd have some meaningful influence.

Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding (1)

ewanm89 (1052822) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870062)

Neither can the news media. It's like me just putting flyers up to join a protest rally. It's upto individuals to decide to go or not, and if not I could be the only one who turns up.

Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding (3, Informative)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870134)

I will admit i know nothing about anonymous or lulzsec, but it wouldnt surprise if they worked like your basic internet echo chamber. If the right guy starts screaming the right way, all the other members start parroting and going along. I dont claim that this would be easy, but the lack of hierarchy doesnt preclude one person having influence over a large amount of followers.

Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870290)

If one guy starts screaming the right way and a large number of people agree, yeah they'll go along. But it isn't like, say, a bunch of Fox News viewers where a huge number of members can be mobilized by whatever Glenn Beck spews from his face-anus no matter what it happens to be. There has to be a big consensus among a diverse set of members before Anonymous will get started on anything. They don't even like to use pseudonyms most of the time so until an operation starts there's no trace of hierarchy *at all.* It's a true hive mind. Once an operation starts they do set up a temporary, transient hierarchy, but even if you could hijack an operation leader's PC at that point, it would be like trying to affect a war by impersonating a battalion commander. And if you go against the collective will of the group they're going to know something's up.

Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870494)

Wow. Talk about hive mind.

Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870340)

That's the thing. There is no "right guy". Namefags are greeted with derision and without credos to influence others, "screaming the right way" is known as "making an agreeable proposal" or appealing to the mob.

Sure, you can sock puppet your way to a bandwagon, but this takes time and effort and anonymous are just as likely to engage in civil war as they are to direct their lulz outside their anarchist commune. See: "Boxxy Love" and "My Little Pony" for examples of brutal infighting despite bandwagon appeal.

Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870706)

That doesn't mean you can steer them. They'll only parrot if you say something they want to parrot.

An example. If you go to some racist group party and start rioting about how much the $minority_group hurts the US and that they should all follow you to burn down a house of said $minority_group, you'll quickly become the leader of that gang in their quest to burn down a house belonging to a $minority_group.

Now get in there and try the same with an attempt to burn down a White Power clubhouse.

Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870192)

there's dozens and dozens of wanabe security experts wanabe reporters wanabe infiltrating already.. soo.. what the fuck. what would they influence them to do? it's not like lulzsec or anonymous guys have a magic wand to go through well done code. sure they're swayed by outside influences, it's not like they live in a box with no connections to outside world. meanwhile simon moores is a jackass, he could be hanging around on the channels himself if he were doing his job. but it's easier to push around paper diagrams of paper security.

Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870210)

Now if they can flood Anonymous with enough sockpuppets to make up, say, more than 50% of the participants, then they'd have some meaningful influence.

Hey, don't give away the FBI's strategy like that. ;)

Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding (2)

Spad (470073) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870256)

The phrase that leaps to mind is "like herding cats".

Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding (1)

Lord Grey (463613) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870444)

The phrase that leaps to mind is "like herding cats".

In the case of LulzSec, it would be more like herding LOLCats [lolcats.com] . Probably this one [lolcats.com] , specifically.

Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding (2)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870400)

Law enforcement just can't grasp the concept of Anonymous' lack of a solid hierarchy.

This sentence relies on a vast web of assumptions. Where does your knowledge of the hierarchy of "Anonymous" come from? It comes from Anonymous. Actually, no, worse-- it comes from spokespersons who claim (without proof) to be representing Anonymous. Is there any actual reason to believe anything about Anonymous, or how it is structured?

Sure they could infiltrate Anonymous, and they'd have as much influence as any other one participant, which is very little.

This sentence relies on a vast web of assumptions, the main one of which is the belief that, even in the absence of a hierarchy, all participants have equal amounts of influence. In the real world, some people are more equal than others. So, here's the question: suppose there were a secret organization with vast resources that were pretending to be "just another participant," but in fact had a practical knowledge of politics, which is to say: means and methods of how to influence decisions without overtly seeming to. Would they be able to influence a community of politically naive engineer/hacker/teenager/angry-young-men/prankster/techno-anarchists?

The answer to that question is: I don't know.

However, I don't think that you can say a-priori that they would not be able to do so.

Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870462)

Is there any actual reason to believe anything about Anonymous, or how it is structured?

Sure. You could, for instance, visit one of their IRC channels. Or something. The point is that anyone can join. Find out yourself if you don't believe them.

Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870470)

You can investigate Anonymous' hierarchy yourself if you don't want to rely on my knowledge ;-)

cyber mercenaries? (1)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870644)

Rather than infiltrating it, surely the american way is to try and buy it? Just offer enough members enough money and just like any good band of guns-for-hire they'll be persuaded to do your bidding. And if the carrot doesn't work, the other good old american tradition of the "big stick" in the shape of a photo of a Predator UAV posted to some members home addresses, can be even more effective.

No (4, Informative)

ewanm89 (1052822) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870026)

One, the KGB doesn't exist anymore, 2) neither does LulzSec (technically), but even if it doesn't work like that, every single member (I use this loosely as anonymous doesn't really have members) can decide whether to take part in a particular action or not.

(read your own pseudo-sentence) (1)

eyenot (102141) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870206)

Have you ever considered how stupid it is to assume that something like the KGB would cease to exist just because it's no longer officially sanctioned? As agents of espionage and assassination, if anything, they're potentially more powerful, more capable, and more of a threat for not being "really there". It never bores me what a great idea it is to claim your intelligencia don't actually exist, or how easily duped the average, opinionated, modern person really is.

Re:(read your own pseudo-sentence) (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870312)

WRT KGB actually existing or not.. it doesn't really make a bit of difference in the lives of the easily duped average, opinionated, modern person. It only really matters to other governments and information agencies which likely know the truth one way or the other.

Re:(read your own pseudo-sentence) (1)

Jesus_666 (702802) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870830)

The KGB doesn't exist anymore. Russian intelligence agencies do exist but the KGB doesn't. You'd think that someone who remotely knows what they're talking about wouldn't end up writing an article about whether a long-defunct intelligence agency could infiltrate a defunct hacktivist group.

Had the question been "Could the SVR infiltrate Anonymous?" or "Could the SVR infiltrate LulzRaft?" the article might not immediately look like a bad rehash of a 1980s spy novel. But I guess "LulzSec" and "KGB" are more evocative and thus more suitable for swaying people who have no knowledge of intelligence services or computer security.

Re:(read your own pseudo-sentence) (1)

c0mpliant (1516433) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871600)

"The Soviet Union? Did you guys break up?"
"Yeeees! That's what we wanted you to think!"

I'm glad to see the satirical aspect of that particular Simpsons quote still holds relevence today

My beer is hacker by the CCCP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870108)

Lulzsec is a vandalism group, with 4 or 5 teenagers ( or 40years old with teenager mentality ). How can the CCCP infiltrate that?, Is beyond me.

Re:My beer is hacker by the CCCP (1)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870344)

The real question is: why would they bother with such hacker groups? Surely there are enough hackers in Russia to set up a proper strategic hacking division?

So: yes they can infiltrate. No they probably won't use that method as an important strategic digital weapon.
Better to rely on your own strength than on some 18-year-old kid in his mother's basement who you've never met before.

Re:My beer is hacker by the CCCP (1)

c0mpliant (1516433) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871624)

The real question is why would the Combined Community Codec Pack want to infiltrate Lulzsec?

Healthy (1)

eyenot (102141) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870130)

It's good for these little conspirators to have to face reality at some point in time. They make great entertainment fodder for the rest of us, but they also represent unsustainability and social insulation. They're just as prone to injection as any of their targets, and due to human traits (including our major hallmark, error) there's no patching that vulnerability. Everything has its infancy; in the future the major cyberattacks will be undertaken and executed without grandstanding, seemingly developmentally arrested childishness, or motivations outside the accumulation of political and financial power. Given a few more years of this high-intensity cyber bullying and cowboying, large corporations will get the clue that it's no longer a futuristic dream or a super-expensive option and will have undocumented cyber attack teams by rote. Governments will fail to prosecute because the methods will be too slick and professional. So, if you enjoy a good take-down or some shit, might as well keep your eyes glued because years down the line you won't even hear about the attacks as it won't pay to mention them when repecussions can't be brought to bear.

More outdated nonsense left over from the Cold War (1)

mat catastrophe (105256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870146)

I'm currently reading The Net Delusion, which pretty much postulates that a lot of the noise in government and the media about the power of the internet for change is pretty much driven by a very outdated set of assumptions that date back to the end of the Cold War.

I imagine that this fits the kind of thinking going on here, although it does seem interesting that most of the targets of these attacks are American or corporate allies.

Stupidity and paranoia (1)

s-whs (959229) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870298)

I'm currently reading The Net Delusion, which pretty much postulates that a lot of the noise in government and the media about the power of the internet for change is pretty much driven by a very outdated set of assumptions that date back to the end of the Cold War.

What I'm thinking is this: It's not of much significance that a group can be infiltrated. It is much more significant that it happens from the government side, and especially for organisations that strive for peace. I know of a dutch peace/thinking group in the 1960s (perhaps until early 1970s) that was infiltrated. The group was suspicious of thatone guy immediately btw. and it was later confirmed. What I think is this: Why the hell are these a-holes from teh Dutch secret service bothering to infiltrate peace groups. Are these people insane? Yes, right, they must be bad because they want peace. Absolute morons. Oh they might be infiltrated by KGB or whatever. Who the hell cares! If it's about peace, if they want to change Dutch public opinion against having a hostile opinion towards the then USSR, oh, how awful!

I also want to tell you that military and secret service types are completely bonkers the higher in rank they are. Paranoid and delusional into thinking the USSR did all the wrong in the world, the USA never did anything wrong. Not an opinion of mine, experience of mine...


WTF? This was (in the 1980s!!!) hardly a new or interesting idea.

Colour me unsurprised when anyone talks about outdated set of assumptions. But this is not from a cold war, era, this is from people who are simply stupid and/or paranoid.

Stupidity and paranoia (version 2) (1)

s-whs (959229) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870362)

I'm currently reading The Net Delusion, which pretty much postulates that a lot of the noise in government and the media about the power of the internet for change is pretty much driven by a very outdated set of assumptions that date back to the end of the Cold War.

Repost because of inconsistency between review and posting...

What I'm thinking is this: It's not of much significance that a group can be infiltrated. It is much more significant that it happens from the government side, and especially for organisations that strive for peace. I know of a dutch peace/thinking group in the 1960s (perhaps until early 1970s) that was infiltrated. The group was suspicious of thatone guy immediately btw. and it was later confirmed. What I think is this: Why the hell are these a-holes from teh Dutch secret service bothering to infiltrate peace groups. Are these people insane? Yes, right, they must be bad because they want peace. Absolute morons. Oh they might be infiltrated by KGB or whatever. Who the hell cares! If it's about peace, if they want to change Dutch public opinion against having a hostile opinion towards the then USSR, oh, how awful!

I also want to tell you that military and secret service types are completely bonkers the higher in rank they are. Paranoid and delusional into thinking the USSR did all the wrong in the world, the USA never did anything wrong. Not an opinion of mine, experience of mine...

And finally about outdated opinions: My dad used to work in a department of the ministry of economics in NL, and he was quite annoyed about the stupidity of some things. For example they had as 'secret' discussions about various ways to respond in a war such as in particular this example: The policy of scorched earth.

WTF? This was (in the 1980s!!!) hardly a new or interesting idea.

Colour me unsurprised when anyone talks about outdated set of assumptions. But this is not from a cold war, era, this is from people who are simply stupid and/or paranoid.

Re:Stupidity and paranoia (version 2) (1)

black soap (2201626) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870668)

You think any advocacy/protest group during the cold war didn't have the backing of either the KGB or the CIA? That was one of the biggest methods of action for the intelligence agencies: sending money and training to protest groups, labor unions, student groups, etc., in target countries, teach them how to write newsletters (with hints as to what to write), etc.

Although I'd be surprised if the Russians had any interest in LulzSec - the intelligence agencies right here at home stand to benefit much more from the outrage over LulzSec activities, which will almost surely lead to new laws and expanded authority, more monitoring etc.

Re:Stupidity and paranoia (version 2) (1)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871400)

but they had to monitor the peace groups to make sure that they weren't infiltrated by SPECTRE, SMERSH or HYDRA.

concern about KGB infiltrating lulzsec??? (1)

lkcl (517947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870188)

why is anyone concerned about *only* the KGB "infiltrating" lulzsec? and as other people have pointed out - it's anonymous - even to each other! so you could actually end up with the hilarious situation that the only significant contributors to anonymous and lulzsec could actually be 95% foreign intelligence agents from different countries across the world, and nobody but those people who can reliably trace 100% of the world's internet traffic would know...

Why would a nation-state want to? (1)

DataDiddler (1994180) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870202)

If a country can't figure out how to (or hire someone to) run LOIC to perform DDOS's and do simple SQL injections on their own, then they've got much bigger problems than working out how to infiltrate a group of teenagers.

Re:Why would a nation-state want to? (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870412)

The goal is NOT to infiltrate LULz or Anonymous or anything of the sort. The goal is to diminish the rights of the population in favor of size of government and corporate profits.

The Title Of Barence's Post... (1)

mlauzon (818714) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870222)

Is misleading, because the KGB no longer exists!

Re:The Title Of Barence's Post... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870704)

Is misleading, because

... it takes the form of:

Can Scary-sounding group be infiltrated by even Scarier-sounding group?!!!

and what u said too, obviously

Red scare again (0)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870278)

"If you have a LulzSec or an Anonymous that is perhaps being manipulated by a foreign actor, it takes us back to the days of the Stasi and the KGB, which were manipulating [anti-nulear campaign group] CND quite easily from Moscow,"

Not true in the slightest. CND and other anti-nuclear proliferation groups were not manipulated by the Soviet Union. In fact, they were just as opposed to Soviet nuclear weapons as Western ones. Though the allegation that they were controlled by Moscow were frequently thrown out by their opponents to avoid debating the insanity of stockpiling more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world ten times over. The only ones infiltrating them were the MI5, because apparently the security services had nothing better to do than monitor harmless hippies.

Re:Red scare again (1)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870586)

Of course, our intelligence agencies could plant a rumor that LulzSec was infiltrated. It would turn whatever support they have left against them. But more significantly, it will provide these agencies with an argument to fund more cyberwar initiatives.

Beware of attempts to label plain old criminal activities as acts of war. Prosecuting a war is rarely afforded the same public scrutiny as law enforcement and judicial activities.

Mr. Moores, stuck in 1975 (1)

Manip (656104) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870310)

Sorry, but this assessment shows huge ignorance. Not only does he misunderstand how LuzSec and Anon' operate, he also entirely fails to explain either how a foreign government would benefit from infiltrating them or how they would go about doing so in such a spread out group.

I think a lot of military people are stuck in the past. They don't understand the internet age. They call things "cyber wars" with "cyber armies" and imagine these big well organised forces likely well financed via the normal means.

Fact is both LuzSec and Anon' are a threat. But that threat doesn't require another government or organised group to exist. It doesn't require millions in military aid. In fact it is just a rag-tag group of people who want to do what they want to do. It is very similar to terrorism, and the military are just as incapable dealing with online threats as they are terrorism threats.

To be honest I think people like Mr. Moores are part of the problem. Part of the reason the military cannot understand these threats. Fire his and the old guys, hire in some experts who know shit about the 21st century.

Re:Mr. Moores, stuck in 1975 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870580)

In fact it is just a rag-tag group of people who want to do what they want to do. It is very similar to terrorism.

By that definition, Robin Hood was a terrorist too.

Re:Mr. Moores, stuck in 1975 (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870924)

Do you know the difference between the terms "is" and "similar to". Hint: they aren't the same.

And yes Robin Hood would fit into the same basket as terrorism for the feature set being considered. As would many other things. But those other things (and Robin Hood) aren't as useful a comparison because the military isn't trying to fight them.

Re:Mr. Moores, stuck in 1975 (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871560)

Fact is both LuzSec and Anon' are a threat.

Threat to whom? The established power structure? Well sure, that's the point. A threat to you and me? No, I'm more concerned about the militarization of the police and the lawlessness of the banking industry than I am anything that happens on the internet.

Could the KGB be superior to all us inteligence? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870314)

Either the us don't care about lulzsec or they can't infiltrate the group themselves. I just don't see why any foreign power should be more likely to succeed

Why bother? (1)

Lance Dearnis (1184983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870404)

Could anyone infiltrate a group such as this? Absolutely; there's few criteria for membership, no real review of members, no centralized leadership to weed out trolls from governments or other sources, and basically no defenses.

The catch is, because there's no central leadership, there's not too much to gain from 'infiltrating' them. lulzsec does not operate secretly; they operate openly and blatantly. They're a rampaging elephant. And because leadership is decentralized, your careful 'people management' system that you would advertise to use in your 'infiltration' to 'control lulzsec' will be totally derailed the moment they all decide attacking X is cool and run off to do it.

They organization is too anarchic and open to really be 'infiltrated' by the sense implied here; it's like trying to 'infiltrate' your average recess in grade school. What the hell are you going to gain from it? Maybe assign an intern you pay minimum wage to hang out in an Anon IRC and get a bit more heads-up warning, but it's not gonna be worth more then that.

Obligatory Meme... (3, Funny)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870414)

In Soviet Russia, the government hacks LulzSec!

An interesting read (3, Informative)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870422)

I highly recommend "Comrade J" by Pete Earley. http://www.amazon.com/Comrade-J-Pete-Earley/dp/B002BWQ5PY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311602623&sr=8-1 [amazon.com]
This book talks about the genesis of the SVR from the KGB. It also talks about how the whole concept of "nuclear winter" was invented by those agencies and fed to gullible westerners including Carl Sagan who steadfastly refused to believe it when NASA scientists debunked the whole thing. It also talks about what a colossal disaster the UN Oil for Food program was, who was duped, who profited from it, and more importantly who was pulling the strings. Bottom line is that foreign intelligence services don't need to do anything directly. There are plenty of idealists willing to do their dirty work.

Nuclear Winter valid concept. (2)

FatSean (18753) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870480)

Seems like Pete Earley has a book to sell!

Re:Nuclear Winter valid concept. (0)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870764)

If you read the book, you'd know that it's about a SVR defector who described all of this in great detail during his extensive debriefings. Nuclear winter theory as described by Carl Sagan was debunked in 1987.

Re:Nuclear Winter valid concept. (1)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871246)

Yes, it was debunked in that NASA scientists showed that it would only result in an ice age, (-6 C global temperature cooling, the last ice age was -5) but that it would only last a decade. This totally "busted" Sagan's numbers which had it being colder and longer. Damn commie! Sagan's biggest mistake was predicting cooling in Asia as a result of the Kuwait oil fires, and this mistake there was thinking the fires were large enough to push smoke into the stratosphere. They weren't, so the -10 C cooling stayed fairly localized, and precipitated out eventually. However, studies of large scale fires do in fact confirm that large enough smoke plumes can make it that high, and persist for much longer as a result. The only actual debate over nuclear winter is whether or not nuking a city would actually result in large-scale fires, or if modern cities are too fireproof to be ignited. Call the Mythbusters, sounds right up their ally.

Re:NuclearCognitive Winter valid concept. (1)

vajrabum (688509) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871466)

So if I read your post then I'd know that the western agencies (CIA, FBI or maybe the John Birch society, hmm?) invented the whole idea of the KGB inventing the whole idea of nuclear winter that was fed to Carl Sagan because everybody knows that famous physicists with PHDs are likely dupes of communist agencies?

could the kgb (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870496)

infiltrate a well documented, structred and purposed organization comprised of heirarchially ordered members, a mission statement and a
sem-closed forum in which ideas are traded back and forth? sure.

can they infiltrate a global syndicate of decentralized professional hackers and free thinkers bent on protecting freedom and exposing the truth? no, probably not seeing as theyre one of the targets anyhow.

Can the NSA or GRU or FSB be attacked by LulzSec? (1)

kubitus (927806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870508)

as long as they connect to the Internet - why not.

Richard Feynman showed the ignorance of military blockheads towards security.

But they have heavily recruited and may get some ideas from those newby-geek-militarists

until they are fed-up and realize in what a fucking insititution they have landed.

FPSRussia (1)

DanCentury (110562) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870516)

Well, FPSRussia was able to infiltrate a recent episode of Epic Meal Time, so.. maybe?

http://youtu.be/kMyPD1VKk60

So that's the next play? (1, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870642)

"They're evil hackers!" didn't seem to stick. The public laughed off "they're terrorists!" Now the powers that be are hoping "they're communists!" will sway public sentiment? That's so... cold war. Who's afraid of the KGB these days?

I'm surprised they didn't go straight for "they sell kiddie porn". That would achieve the desired bloodlust a lot more quickly.

(obligatory) In soviet russia... (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870676)

LulzSec infiltrate KGB!

This is silly on so many levels (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36870812)

Ok, I'll try to get some order into it, starting with the most obvious one.

1. The KGB (or rather, its successor, or whatever organization you'd think) isn't interested in such petty things. They have their own guys, and they can more easily steer them in the "right" direction. Why? Because that guy is sitting right there and you can cap him if he doesn't.

2. They also have the money to simply buy such people. And then put them under the gun for a "hack that or else".

3. They also have no need to "hide" anything so they'd profit from people doing it who are not in Russia. Russia is one of the biggest perpetrators in the world when it comes to cybercrime, do you want to blame all of that on the KGB or the Russian government? Unless you assume that the organized crime actually is the government in Russia, you're probably wrong. Think they'd bother to "hide" that there's yet another Russian hacking something on the planet for fun an profit?

4. But even assuming they'd have any interest in Anonymous: Anonymous is the equivalent of an internet mob. They are not an organized system with a hierarchy and whatnot. Steering a mob is possible to some degree, you can convince them to trash something belonging to company A instead of something belonging to company B, provided they hate both companies at similar levels, but turning them around and making them a neighborhood watch or at least convincing them to trash a place they'd actually like is something you will not accomplish. You can essentially only steer a mob into attacking something they already hate. If you're that thing they hate, it's kinda hard to steer them.

Anonymous... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36870838)

... is not your personal army, KGBfag

All hacker sites will eventually be infiltrated... (1)

gestalt_n_pepper (991155) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871104)

by various governments. Many of them will fail due to excessive lameness and other obvious tell-tale signs. A few will succeed. Some will be double-agents and information will flow both ways. Some will be discovered by hacks. All of this this is pretty darned obvious.

What a country! (1)

Legion303 (97901) | more than 3 years ago | (#36871186)

Yeah, they'll fit right in.

"Let us hack together this NSA for lulz, comrade."

Well, duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871380)

The nature of the "group" is such that any time an idea gets out there that a lot of people like, there will be a certain set of people who will join in. "Infiltrating" them is no different than "infiltrating" a public forum and suggesting some ideas.

well well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871518)

lulzsec can't be infiltrated.
they have th3j35st3r on their asses and he couldn't do anything too...
not mentioning FBI, CIA and all that crap trying to stop them. As they said, "you can't arrest an idea".

Could the XYZ Infiltrate LulzSec? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36871594)

There, fixed that for you. /s/XYZ/yourfavoritespookagency

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?