×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

214 comments

oooh 1,000 infected computers (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36938816)

If a single one of those 1,000b addresses belongs to an anonymous member, then I hope anonymous is destroyed.

we gotta have standards

Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (3, Informative)

Vahokif (1292866) | more than 2 years ago | (#36938898)

Actually they probably are real, since this attack was done with LOIC, a "voluntary botnet".

Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939116)

The problem with this theory is that it's no different, conceptually, from a civil protest of any other sort. The net effect is the same as, say, a venue's ticket sales website going down because too many people are trying to buy the tickets that "just went on sale" for some crazy-popular act (say, if Gaga or *shudder* Bieber were starting a new tour).

If anything, call it a virtual sit-in. Remember the "Virtual Marches on Washington" a few years back, where people were encouraged to slam emails at their congressmen and tie up the congressional phone banks? SAME THING.

Voluntary people. Doing voluntary things as a form of protest. 1000 people, in an organized sit-in, could easily shut down business in 10 consumer banks. Those same 1000 people, "virtually", were part of an organized "virtual sit-in" that caused trouble for Paypal because Paypal had done something worth protesting.

Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939164)

Civil protests are protected free speech under the 1st Amendment to US Constitution.

Denial Of Service attacks are not protected speech and are a violation of Federal law.

What next, are you going to suggest that you can have people fire guns up into the air and call that a a civil protest?

Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (1)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939318)

Denial Of Service attacks are not protected speech and are a violation of Federal law.

Probably, but has that been litigated? If standing in front of a building in protest in a way which prevents entry is free speech, a DoS attack is theoretically free speech as well. The DoS attack here was effectively civilians protesting on behalf of an organization that released large amounts of classified data. But one can also argue that it was civilians providing material support to that an organization that attempted to release classified data (depending on the CiC structure of the botnet).

It is highly unlikely that a court will support the free speech view, of course--but it is a logically valid interpretation.

Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (5, Interesting)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939388)

By that logic, citizens who protested against Gitmo were "providing material support" to the supposed terrorists held there.

This is where the law has become completely goddamn stupid. A protest is a protest. If it becomes violent, and that means PHYSICALLY VIOLENT, then it's a problem. Shy of that, it's just a protest and protected under the Constitutional right to peaceably assemble.

Temporarily taking a website offline sucks for the affected company. So does a protest that blocks the street in front of a store being protested, or even the neighboring stores in the strip mall. But unless there is permanent damage done (the equivalent of someone not just peacefully protesting, but actively spray-painting graffiti as one conceptual example) then it's just a protest and shouldn't be considered criminal.

Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939836)

Temporarily taking a website offline sucks for the affected company. So does a protest that blocks the street in front of a store being protested, or even the neighboring stores in the strip mall. But unless there is permanent damage done (the equivalent of someone not just peacefully protesting, but actively spray-painting graffiti as one conceptual example) then it's just a protest and shouldn't be considered criminal.

It's a question of scale, though. One of the reasons sitting on the street in front of a store is a legal way of protesting is that you only have your own one body to work with. You can protest, but you can't single-handedly block access completely unless others (who're making their own decisions) work together with you.

In denial-of-service terms, this would be more akin to repeatedly hitting F5 in your browser to reload the page. If you do that by hand, you should be golden: it's pretty much the same as sitting on the street in front of a store.

Using an automated tool to use your entire available bandwidth (which may be significant these days) to bring down a website is more akin to building a wall or another sort of barrier in front of a store. If you try that in real life, you will soon find that despite not being physically violent, it is not actually a valid and/or legal way of protesting.

Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (2)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939854)

If the CiC structure allows anonymous to control the machine, then voluntarily installing their botnet means one is providing them with resources, not merely protesting. (Or at least, that is the argument.)

bullshit (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939716)

picketing someone's home or the front entrance of a corporation, or chaining yourself to a machine is a denial of service in itself.

Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (1)

JonySuede (1908576) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939864)

What next, are you going to suggest that you can have people fire guns up into the air and call that a a civil protest?

It used to be that way if you go back a couple of 50 years. It was also a form of celebration much like it is now in the ass backward part of the middle east.

Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939178)

Not the same thing at all. One is the vendor's own fault for not having enough capacity...

Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (5, Informative)

Calos (2281322) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939198)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that sit-ins and pickets cannot legally prevent or impede normal operations of the business - you cannot block customers or employees.

Picket lines and sit-ins are meant to educate people about an issue; make them think twice about it, make them realize there may be more to something that hadn't considered before. Attempt to dissuade people from working or doing business with the company or institution you don't like.

DDoS is nothing like that. It directly impedes business, it directly impedes customers. It has no message, other than an error when a customer tries to load the page; there's no persuasion there. They might read about it later - might - but then, the DDoSers no longer control the message - most people are going to read about it from a news outlet. They'll probably see it as some "hackers" preventing them from getting on with their lives. Frustrating people and not letting them handle their affairs is not a good way to get them on your side.

DDoS isn't a sit-in, isn't a protest. It's sabotage. It's revenge. It's sneaking into UPS at night and letting the air out of all the tires of all the trucks. No permanent physical damage done, but disrupts business, delays packages.

Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (1)

bwayne314 (1854406) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939338)

As much as I don't like it, I have to agree with your logic, it is sabotage. That having been said, politically correct protests and pickets are not exactly possible to do using the tubes. If you chose to picket a brick and mortar store, you would be able to physically interact with people walking in and out, you could be holding signs that they might inadvertently read in passing and maybe change their mind about doing business in the store. You could be chanting some clever slogan about the evilness and corruption that people would be forced to hear, and so on. How would you accomplish this on the internet?

Yes you could start something like www.paypalsucks.com ... That site has been around a few years, and has it made a difference?

If I was said customer, how would you get your message to me about the evil of paypal if I type paypal.com into the URL bar and go directly to their site?

Now, if there was a way to set up a legal virtual picket, I would be all for it. Something like, briefly redirecting users to a page with protest signs or whatnot. But then guess what, every single site would get "picketed" by somone or other.

Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (5, Insightful)

Oxford_Comma_Lover (1679530) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939368)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that sit-ins and pickets cannot legally prevent or impede normal operations of the business - you cannot block customers or employees.

Picket lines and sit-ins are meant to educate people about an issue; make them think twice about it, make them realize there may be more to something that hadn't considered before. Attempt to dissuade people from working or doing business with the company or institution you don't like.

DDoS is nothing like that. It directly impedes business, it directly impedes customers. It has no message, other than an error when a customer tries to load the page; there's no persuasion there. They might read about it later - might - but then, the DDoSers no longer control the message - most people are going to read about it from a news outlet. They'll probably see it as some "hackers" preventing them from getting on with their lives. Frustrating people and not letting them handle their affairs is not a good way to get them on your side.

DDoS isn't a sit-in, isn't a protest. It's sabotage. It's revenge. It's sneaking into UPS at night and letting the air out of all the tires of all the trucks. No permanent physical damage done, but disrupts business, delays packages.

I am not sure, on the sit-ins and pickets. I would not think a sit-in can disrupt operations, since it's on private property, and it's not like they're discriminating against you based on your race or gender. A picket line might be different--if someone touches you to move you out of the way, that's a tort and a crime. But it may also be a tort and/or crime for you to physically bar their entry. (And disobeying a lawfully given police order is also a crime usually, but I'm not sure how the first amendment interacts with that in orders to disperse, etc...)

A DDoS is not sabotage--sabotage implied some kind of surreptitious damage to a machine, to equipment, etc... and a DDoS attack damages the bottom line, but not equipment. The UPS metaphor is close, although again, you're not sneaking in--you come in through the front door, the way everyone else does, you just behave differently. It's kind of like a flash-mob that doesn't steal anything, but is filling the store and and nobody else can get in.

The only real difference--and it is a big one--is that for a DDoS, there is no real way to tell someone to leave.

Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (3, Insightful)

julesh (229690) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939868)

I'd say a DDOS is much more analogous to the sit-in than a picket outside, as the disruption happens within the target's property, i.e. their computers. Even if it happens at their ISP's routers, that's still private property that they are effectively leasing the right to use, which they are being prevented from doing.

That said, the obvious extrapolation should be made: a sit-in is not a criminal offence, it is trespass. Therefore a DDOS should be relegated to the status of trespass-to-chattels. Which would mean you cannot be imprisoned for taking part in one, but you could be held liable for losses incurred by the target because of it (trespass gives rise to a chose in tort, if I understand such matters correctly, which as I am not a lawyer I may not...).

Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (4, Informative)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939426)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that sit-ins and pickets cannot legally prevent or impede normal operations of the business - you cannot block customers or employees.

Depends on your location. Any such laws are local, not federal, in nature and probably won't stand up to constitutional scrutiny, especially since such laws were uniformly used to harass civil rights protesters in the 1950s and 1960s.

Picket lines and sit-ins are meant to educate people about an issue; make them think twice about it, make them realize there may be more to something that hadn't considered before. Attempt to dissuade people from working or doing business with the company or institution you don't like.

No, the purpose of any such protest is to disrupt the business conditions of the business/person you are protesting. As you said yourself: "Attempt to dissuade people from working or doing business with." If they physically can't get to the store because there are too many people present already, that's that.

Lunch counter sit-ins, for example, filled the restaurant with people that the racist restaurant owners refused to serve, leaving no seats for the "desired customers."

DDoS is nothing like that. It directly impedes business, it directly impedes customers. ... DDoS isn't a sit-in, isn't a protest. It's sabotage. It's revenge.

Given that your entire premise has just been proven false, the rest of your rant is meaningless. There were a lot of angry Southerner KKK members who were angry about the fact that a group of protesters were "directly impeding customers" at the lunch counter sit-ins, too. A lot of people who were "frustrated" and not "let handle their affairs" in other sit-ins throughout the years, including recently when the Republicans were raping the public sector and protesters staged sit-ins at several state capitals.

No permanent physical damage done, but disrupts business...

That's the exact purpose of a peaceful protest. To not do permanent physical damage, but cause enough disruption that your demands are acceded to.

Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (2)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939330)

Free speech = picketing in front of a business. Totally protected.

DoS attacks = blocking a business' entrance and preventing customers from entering. Not protected and very definitely illegal.

Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (1)

JamesP (688957) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939226)

Actually they probably are real, since this attack was done with LOIC, a "voluntary PLEASE SUE ME I don't understand the concept of ip spoofing ".

fixed that for you

Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#36938972)

Then you better hope Anonymous is destroyed. Raids are more often than not carried out by a bunch of people utilizing a particular program from their home connections.

Botnet IPs? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36938834)

Yeah, congrats Paypal, you've just handed over 1000 Grandmas' computers that are hacked into being a bot. Meh.

Re:Botnet IPs? (5, Informative)

Ziekheid (1427027) | more than 2 years ago | (#36938866)

Actually, no.
There mightve been help from botnets but a large number of people were using LOIC, a gui ddos tool for scriptkiddies which doesn't spoof packets.
It's hilarious to me that it's the main tool for Anonymous members and clearly shows how the majority doesn't really know what they're doing but just following lead.

Re:Botnet IPs? (1)

Bramlet Abercrombie (1435537) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939192)

I once stumbled on a webpage and all I would have had to do is click one button to start attacking visa.com. I hit the stumble button instead, but still, that's how easy it would have been for me to get involved.

Collateral damage too (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#36938948)

Not just grandmothers, but also people that violated some RIAA copyright and now will get burnt.

Re:Collateral damage too (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939094)

Is that you, Jammy?

Re:Botnet IPs? (0)

SpongeBob Hitler (1848328) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939020)

Yeah, congrats Paypal, you've just handed over 1000 Grandmas' computers that are hacked into being a bot. Meh.

But you don't understand! This is America! The only way to solve a problem is by kicking ass. [youtube.com]

Re:Botnet IPs? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939122)

This being Anonymous, more likely a lot of angry parents who had no idea Little Jimmy was up to no good on the internet. Anonymous members do tend to be fairly young - often under eighteen. Legal minors.

Sympathizers only (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36938836)

If I recall correctly, there was a wave of encouraging sympathetic bystanders to install LOIC. This is unlikely to get the organizers of the protest, just the idealistic or foolish people who essentially just showed up and lent their voice.

Re:Sympathizers only (5, Insightful)

Calos (2281322) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939064)

Could be, but those are also the people who may be most easily deterred from doing it again, if they see people being arrested for it.

Doesn't hit core anon members, perhaps, but weakens one of their weapons.

Re:Sympathizers only (0)

Calos (2281322) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939230)

Out of curiosity - people modding, please reply - why is this modded troll?

I'm not angry, not looking for an argument; just genuinely curious about the thought process behind the moderation. I don't think what I said was inflammatory or out of line - just speculating that though this likely won't stop anonymous, it could still have some effect. Are anon-troll members lurking or something?

Remember, someone isn't a troll simply because you disagree with them, and there's no "-1 Disagree."

Re:Sympathizers only (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939272)

Because some mods are morons...

Re:Sympathizers only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939486)

Or the neighbors (with WEP wifi) of the less-idealistic, less-foolish, and/or just tech-savvier people who showed up. Don't know how prevalent it was, but I heard several folks bragging about that route on IRC.

Strike back?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36938844)

They aren't striking back, that would involve hiring some armed mercenaries. This is providing evidence to the proper authorities.

And don't think that the IP logs are anything but the tip of an iceberg.

Just because they have the IP doesn't mean.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36938852)

Just because they have the IP address doesn't mean they know who pushed the big red button... Heck, how many of those IP's do you think have an unsecured wireless devices on them?

[Tinfoil_Hat:ON] Or have they picked the IP address of those that are politically convenient. $h!7, now the FBI has my Paypal information (granted, they likely already did).[Tinfoil_Hat:OFF]

Payback the other way round.... (4, Insightful)

mseeger (40923) | more than 2 years ago | (#36938854)

I neither like Paypal nor the credit card companies much. But participating willingly in a DDOS attack is a criminal act in my book.

On the other hands, they probably have only the ip addresses of cat's paws. So punishing them hard would not be clever. Setting an example always works both ways....

Re:Payback the other way round.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36938896)

Setting an example is a two-edged sword. When an innocent person gets crushed by the wheels of justice (just us), then the arrogant feel vindicated, and another "brick in the wall" creates more animosity.

Re:Payback the other way round.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36938974)

I tried participating in the MasterCard DDoS but it didn't help any because they were already down. Didn't last very long, though.

As for Paypal, I don't remember participating in any attack against them. I'd be royally screwed because they know my bank account.

But I don't know what legal authority the FBI has in my country, maybe they wouldn't even try for such a weak allegation? I can hope, right? OTOH if someone gets extradited for involuntarily participating in a DDoS by unknowingly running a botnet client, that might set better precedent for denying an extradition on similar cases.

Re:Payback the other way round.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939268)

But I don't know what legal authority the FBI has in my country

Quite a lot of you happen to be in the UK. The Blair government happily signed-up to expedite extraditions to the United States by allowing extradition in response to levels of evidence that would normally be insufficient to arrest someone, let alone bundle them up and fly them to a foreign country. Of course this arrangement only works one way. Cheers Tony.

Re:Payback the other way round.... (5, Insightful)

poena.dare (306891) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939078)

How many times can I push the reload button on my browser before I'm breaking the law?

Re:Payback the other way round.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939158)

You're asking this question, you've already broken the law, and lucky you, data retention programs mean you won't have to wait long to be picked up. Or ... if you're one of the misfortunate that don't get to see their tax money in action, it's OK, the data will still be there for their perusal even decades from now.

Whether they'll call you a freedom fighter or an enemy of the State, you'll find out then, since we can't really know what will happen 20 years from now. Just like we couldn't imagine 20 years ago today's corruption and lack of personal freedom. But what the heck, we'll be as optimistic about tomorrow just as we were back then.

Re:Payback the other way round.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36938914)

Setting seeming traps will in the end serve law enforcement to make 'anonymous members' paranoid at least.

Re:Payback the other way round.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36938940)

I'm waiting for Anonymous to release a list of a 1000 IP addresses PayPal has handed over to the FBI.

Really, anons uses other peoples' computers to launch DDOS (I'll assume they have that much sense) so now 1000 random people are being watched by the FBI

Re:Payback the other way round.... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939148)

Anonymous usually relies on force of numbers. Get 10,000 people attacking a site, and each individual is insignificent. Is it worth the site owners spending thousands of dollars in legal fees to get rid of some script-kiddie?

Re:Payback the other way round.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939472)

... so now 1000 more random people are being watched by the FBI

FTFY.

Re:Payback the other way round.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939010)

Probably my ip is one of those. But I dont live in the US or the in UK, and in my country I doubt that the federal police will ever bother to try to arrest anyone involved in this kind of attack, specially in a foreign country. So I willing participated in an act that I consider as criminal as someone blocking a street in protest (you know, in Egypt a protest is a crime too).

Re:Payback the other way round.... (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939784)

Probably my ip is one of those. But I dont live in the US or the in UK, and in my country I doubt that the federal police will ever bother to try to arrest anyone involved in this kind of attack, specially in a foreign country. So I willing participated in an act that I consider as criminal as someone blocking a street in protest (you know, in Egypt a protest is a crime too).

I doubt your country would care much about you personally if you were extradited by foreign super powers either, since that would improve relations with the US, Germany and UK, nice economic ties and all.

That's the impression you have given me based of your country's description in caring.

Re:Payback the other way round.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939016)

This is where there is a philisophical debate. Is a DDOS an attack or a legitimate form of protest analagous to setting up a picket line in the real world?

Re:Payback the other way round.... (1)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939132)

a picket line cannot block people from entering, a DDoS only serves to block people from entering

Re:Payback the other way round.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939170)

Bawwwwwwwwww

Re:Payback the other way round.... (1)

1u3hr (530656) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939324)

a DDoS only serves to block people from entering

But no individual PC in the DDOS prevents access either.

Consider a big street march that gets violent. You can't (in a democracy) just arrest and charge anyone who was part of the mob. They have to be individually charged and found guilty of a criminal act. You would have to proves some kind of conspiracy and intention. And all they have are IP numbers. Suspicion, but not proof of an illegal act.

Re:Payback the other way round.... (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939146)

Pickers generally obey the various laws associated with such protests. No blocking entrances, no trespassing etc.

If they don't and do things like lie down across entrances they get hauled by the police.

Re:Payback the other way round.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939644)

Stop equating laws with morality.

Re:Payback the other way round.... (1)

nimid (774403) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939086)

But participating willingly in a DDOS attack is a criminal act in my book.

I hear ya - they should have written strongly worded emails that left no doubt regarding the displeasure they felt at Paypal's actions.

Re:Payback the other way round.... (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939124)

I neither like Paypal nor the credit card companies much.

Unrelated, I suppose, but I often see comments from people claiming their dislike for Paypal. Personally, I've never had a problem with them, but the number of Paypal complaints prompts me to ask:

What alternative is there really for someone in my position. Living in the US, I accept a lot of work online from places outside the US and sometimes outside the EU, and Paypal (or Moneybookers) is really the only reliable way to receive payment without being charged huge fees as my bank would certainly do.

In fact, my Paypal debit card is probably more useful to me than my own bank's - ATM fees are less with Paypal for starters.

Just curious what the alternative would be.

Re:Payback the other way round.... (0)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939398)

One alternative is not to get those sales or do those buys. That is what I do.

I know, radical thinking.

Re:Payback the other way round.... (1)

hilather (1079603) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939130)

I neither like Paypal nor the credit card companies much. But participating willingly in a DDOS attack is a criminal act in my book.

On the other hands, they probably have only the ip addresses of cat's paws. So punishing them hard would not be clever. Setting an example always works both ways....

Its a good thing nobody reads the articles anymore, or that thing they call "slashdotted" might be a criminal act.

Re:Payback the other way round.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939256)

Well lets just hope that the 1000 IP addresses are of actual attackers and not just compromised computers and spoofed IP addresses.

If you think you're immune then you need to think again. Anyone can spoof your IP address and all net connected computers are vulnerable to being controlled by outside forces.

Re:Payback the other way round.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939466)

They're not going to catch anyone. Anonymous is always behind seven proxies.

Why did it take this long? (4, Interesting)

F69631 (2421974) | more than 2 years ago | (#36938856)

TFA doesn't have any more info than the summary. PayPal hasn't apparently done any investigation themselves so why couldn't they have handed these over 11 months ago? Did they fear that it would cause a retribution and wanted to harden their systems first? Did they actually hand these over 11 months ago and simply announce it now? Did they just spend a year thinking whether to press charges or not (couldn't they have allowed FBI to start the investigation immediately, even if that was the case?)?

If you want a crime solved, it seems very odd to wait a year before handing the relevant data over to FBI... I refuse to believe that it took them a year to determine what traffic was actually part of the DDoS and what wasn't (it can even contain false positives if it's just the starting point for FBI)!

One answer... (3, Insightful)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939038)

An answer to this might be the old rule that one should never assume malice where stupidity or ignorance are more likely to be the case. It is quite possible that PayPal doesn't have the resources (i.e. the smarts) to follow the trail themselves, so after some fruitless dithering, they have simply passed the bag on to someone else. Not that the FBI will necessarily process the information any more intelligently, but it isn't PayPal's problem any more.

Re:One answer... (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939892)

It is quite possible that PayPal doesn't have the resources (i.e. the smarts) to follow the trail themselves

This would be the same PayPal who suspend your account if you use a proxy server, and seem pretty hot at detecting them (they get me *every time* I forget and try to access their site with Opera Mini)?

No, they could have produced this list within days of the attack if they had wanted.

Re:Why did it take this long? (4, Informative)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939052)

I've very sad to say that this is typical of the FBI Computer Crime Center, and of corporate computer crime. Exposing the vulnerability or logging structures of Paypal's internal services to _anyone_ would be bad for them as a company interested in continuing to gather investor money and avoid negative assessments of their practices. Paypal does not have much interest in prosecuting this: prosecuting a few of Anonymous's members would not stop the rest of Anonymous's members from focusing their attacks against Paypal in a retaliation.

Moreover, the FBI computer crime teams are demonstrably incompetent. Review their own website, at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/cyber [fbi.gov]. Their big computer "takedowns" are all at least 2 years old and the actual investigations done by other, overseas security forces or local law enforcement. The FBI taking credit for these few cases is insulting to those agencies. When the FBI says "our global partnerships paid off", as they do at http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/october/darkmarket_102008 [fbi.gov], it actually means "someone else did all the work and we're trying to take the credit without telling anyone what we actually failed to do".

Re:Why did it take this long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939448)

PayPal hasn't apparently done any investigation themselves so why couldn't they have handed these over 11 months ago?

Because that would mean they'd be handing over IP addresses from an attack that was to occur three months in the future? If one is using pre-cogs I can understand that one would want to be very careful about using information obtained by such methods to avoid revealing that one has the ability to know the distant future.

1,000 compromised hosts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36938862)

I can believe PayPal thinks they have 1,000 enemies. Hopefully the FBI will realize that these IP are just compromised machines, 1,000 of the millions out there.

probability of my 74 yr old neighbor on the list = 75%
probability of a 1 year anonymous member = 0%

Re:1,000 compromised hosts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36938894)

And what if your neighbor is Keyser Soze?

Re:1,000 compromised hosts (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36938938)

probability those probabilities were pulled out of your ass = 100%

Linking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36938878)

If the link isn't to "a list of over 1,000 IP Addresses", then don't make that the link.

TOR (0)

uksv29 (167362) | more than 2 years ago | (#36938880)

Wonder how many operators of TOR exit nodes will be getting a visit.

Re:TOR (2)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939062)

Doubtful.

1. Most people in a voluntary botnet attack don't know tor.

2. Of those who do, some percentage both know how to use it, and understand why multiple people deciding to do thios would quickly become a DOS of the tor network, and we would hope decide not too. (as someone who keeps a lazy eye on the tor mailing lists, I never saw any threads about how LOIC attacks were bringing it to its knees, nor do I remember noticing it being slower than normal then)

3. I expect the set of people who would participate, know about tor, and would decide to use it for this is a vanishingly small group. (though, probably non-zero)

Re:TOR (2)

Calos (2281322) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939080)

DDoS over Tor would probably cripple the Tor network. Tor is for anonymizing your connection, but it's not a robust, high-speed link. It would slow the attack on the target, and more effectively DDoS Tor than anything.

Cross-Check? (1)

tekiegreg (674773) | more than 2 years ago | (#36938900)

I would like to think a company as big and at least somewhat security savvy as PayPal would think to try and cross-check against compromised networks, TOR Proxies, etc...I'd be a little worried if I were one of these people...

Re:Cross-Check? (2)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 2 years ago | (#36938984)

why shouldn't PayPal just leave that up to the FBI to check? After all, they're the ones that are supposed to have the public's interest at heart, not PayPal, the corporation that got attacked here.

Will the FBI have Jurisdiction (1)

Froeschle (943753) | more than 2 years ago | (#36938932)

I'm sure that many of the IP addresses are also not from the US. Will the FBI be confiscating computers associated with those IP addresses as well? Not that I condone their actions, but perhaps Anonymous should make it a point to only use non-US IP addresses?

Re:Will the FBI have Jurisdiction (4, Informative)

dakameleon (1126377) | more than 2 years ago | (#36938990)

The FBI might not have direct jurisdiction, but they've certainly got agreements with the major law enforcement agencies around the world, and you can bet that hacking across international lines is a sensational enough crime that they're going to assist the FBI in any way they can. See also the recent cases of "Anonymous members" getting picked up in the UK.

Re:Will the FBI have Jurisdiction (1)

Calos (2281322) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939102)

Just use Chinese computers, US won't get any help from them.

On the other hand, if it makes people think there's more hacking from China, that could cause all kinds of other international problems...

A bunch of kids (4, Insightful)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939098)

I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of those 1000 IPs belong to underaged kids, not the masterminds behind the attacks or even older individuals with the sense to cover their tracks. Should we look forward to the arrests of hundreds of 13-year-olds? Well, I guess the backlash will be fun to watch...

Re:A bunch of kids (3, Funny)

guttentag (313541) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939622)

This is probably why PayPal waited a year to turn over the addresses. Now those 13-year-olds are 14 years old. By the time the investigation is over, they will be 18-year-old subjects of warrantless wiretapping, at which point each of them will be caught doing something and charged as an adult. You need to think long-term about these things.

HR1981 Timing (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939108)

Well that's awfully well timed to coincide with the bill to retain IP addresses for 18 months.

If Anonymous were any good... (1)

tangent3 (449222) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939156)

...they would be using compromised systems or drones to attack their victims.

My guess is the FBI is sitting on 1000 IP addresses of compromised systems that need to be cleaned.

Re:If Anonymous were any good... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939332)

if they where any good they would go after some REAL targets and where the "money's mother" lives, ie microsoft maybe even apple, people and places that have no respect for open development

Re:If Anonymous were any good... (1)

mikael (484) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939884)

Going by previous discussions here, they've got 1000 IP addresses which probably are DHCP clients owned by bot-nets, which in turn are communicating via distributed command and control through proxy intermediates using encrypted channels. That's going to be fun chasing up. A simple whois will give them the ISP, but how are they going to identify the actual PC that was in use then?

After 24-hours of the event, they could have watched those IP addresses, and did some traffic analysis on the hosts they connected to. Then they could follow the communication chain upwards.

DCHP anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939174)

11 months later.... how is this going to provide any information at this point when most of the people have most likely pulled a new IP address by now...chances are that within the last 11 months the vast majority of those people have had either a power outage that knocked off there internet connection or the ISP has had a scheduled maintenance window that tossed everyone back into the pool to pull a new address.
GG on collecting useless information PayPal!

Re:DCHP anyone? (1)

hjf (703092) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939262)

Because DHCP doesn't leave any logs. Cute little anonymous coward, you probably even think you can't be traced just cause you posted anonymous from your browser's incognito mode under Linux!

Re:DCHP anyone? (1)

Slashdot Assistant (2336034) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939308)

Depends on ISP records. Having a dynamic IP doesn't mean that one can spend a day enjoying loll, power cycle the router and expect that the master criminal's tracks have been well and truly covered.

hahahaha (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939236)

just hahahaha you KNOW why i'm laughing

1000 feels wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939286)

As a programmer 1024 IP addresses sounds more plausible.

it is a waste of resources (1)

karuna (187401) | more than 2 years ago | (#36939664)

Passing the list to the FBI only increases the financial damage. Now FBI and sysadmins of different ISPs will spend countless hours tracking down these IP addresses, investigating, maybe even arresting some kids etc. without any tangible results. As if the FBI is not wasting enough of taxpayer money.

tekglobin copies and pastes into his own blog (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#36939786)

TekGlobin (Matt Jurek) copies and pastes the article including the screen shot from another blog (http://www.ubergizmo.com/2011/07/paypal-1000-anonymous-ip-addresses-fbi/) into his own blog and then submits the link to ./

Classy..

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...