×

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 Claims Responsibility For WikiLeaks Attack

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the bored-teenagers-being-idiots dept.

Security 183

mask.of.sanity writes "Anonymous members have taken responsibility for launching a denial of service attack against WikiLeaks this week using a custom-built tool that exploits an SQL server flaw. Field tests of the tool dubbed RefRef were launched against several websites including WikiLeaks, Pastebin and 4Chan. In a Twitter account linked to the Anonymous blog, the users were described as hacktivists with 'a personal vendetta against WikiLeaks,' adding that 'we are sorry we took you down. We are even.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

183 comments

They had it comming (1, Insightful)

Mensa Babe (675349) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274426)

Considering the news from just the last week:

I am not surprised at all that someone has finally attacked them. This is not just an ordinary organization destroying documents, leaking their own sources or suing others for doing what they themselves want us to believe is our duty, ie. leaking confidential documents. This is much more. This is ignoring the fact that people are literally risking their lives because they believed WikiLeaks. I am surprised that it was only a DDoS attack and not a more serious form of revenge. This is what you get for totally disrespecting the lives and risks of the people thanks to whom you are now rich and famous. This is just Karma coming back to you. Not surprising at all.

Re:They had it comming (3, Insightful)

MrNaz (730548) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274450)

False flag operations are pretty easy against anonymous, because, well, anyone can do something and claim to be them. The media can claim they're in bed with Al-Qaeda and nobody would even be able to be interviewed to confirm or deny.

Re:They had it comming (4, Insightful)

bentcd (690786) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274496)

False flag operations are pretty easy against anonymous, because, well, anyone can do something and claim to be them.

On the other hand false flag ops against Anonymous are impossible because if someone does something and claims to be them, well then they are them.

Re:They had it comming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37274848)

Anonymous is an idea, not a group, and as such is immune to 'false flag' attacks. Reports (or comments) that run counter to that idea are merely irrelevant.

Re:They had it comming (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275100)

I guess in that case a false flag attack would be someone who does not agree with the idea and is using the title anonymous to attack the idea. Not that far of a stretch to see a government entity doing such a thing.

Re:They had it comming (1)

wzzzzrd (886091) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275312)

I guess in that case a false flag attack would be someone who does not agree with the idea and is using the title anonymous to attack the idea. Not that far of a stretch to see a government entity doing such a thing.

Well, they are part of anonymous in that case. This is the beaty of such non-organizations, nobody knows who is a member of the group, because there is no such thing. There isn't even a shared agenda, apart from spreading a bit of chaos and some /b4/ lulz. And a "false flag op" would only contribute to that.

Re:They had it comming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37275070)

And Anonymous does not care about or even need a good public image to do what they do. So false flag operations are useless. I would not put it past some governments to attempt false flag ops though. Most governments are very stupid. USA government for one.

Re:They had it comming (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275534)

On the contrary, at least five people would consent to be interviewed, two of whom would confirm, two of whom would deny, and one of whom would show goatse pictures to the camera.

Meanwhile, in Democracyville (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274492)

Wikileaks is dead, Openleaks is going nowhere, and traditional media outlets like the New York Times are not willing to publish certain things...so how do people publicize evidence of corruption? What are whistleblowers supposed to do, especially if the people they are blowing the whistle on are well connected and powerful?

Re:Meanwhile, in Democracyville (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37274608)

You open a blog or whatever, dump your information there, send emails to a few websites, and it'll spread like fire. It's much harder to fight that than any organisation.

Re:Meanwhile, in Democracyville (5, Insightful)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275298)

Start with actually having evidence of corruption.

At one point, thats what Wikileaks did. That ended some time ago and hasn't been the case for the last couple of years. NYT will be happy to publish anything that gets them some readers back, but you actually have to have some sort of proof before you send it to them. They don't particularly respond well when you drop a boat load of stolen documents on their door step and say 'theres bad stuff in here, I know it because its from politicians and I don't like politicians'.

Neither does any other rational person for that matter.

Whistle blowers really don't have a hard time getting information out, when its actually something to be concerned with. The Internet makes it absolutely trivial, as proven already. The problem is as I said, learning the difference between real corruption instead of what typically is called 'whistleblowing' which is more along the lines of 'this company/politician doesn't do what I want/insulted me/won't let me have my way/insert any other childish reason you want here as it all returns to the fact that most of these people are angsty babies.

As I said, its not hard to get the word out. The problem is that 99.999999% of the people who like to think of themselves as 'whistleblowers' are just people who steal documents and break the law because they're too stupid to realize their point of view is unique to them and not the rest of the general population.

Thats the thing, one lone nut job with a irrational story about evil company/government gets overlooked and ignored quickly. Sometimes it takes a little more time, as is the case for Wikileaks who managed to build up some credibility before making it clear they never deserved any such thing.

Wow, talk about the wrong target... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37274676)

The destroyed documents were NOT WikiLeaks. The guy who did that is opening up a competitor to WL. So wrong target.
The leak at WL was the same guy. So wrong target.
Guardian suit would indicate that the Guardian readers are doing it. Yeah.

Nope, you're theory doesn't pass the sniff test.

Re:They had it comming (1)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275112)

In the first case, the person wasn't the spokesman for WikiLeaks any more and had set up OpenLeaks as an alternative because he didn't trust WikiLeaks any longer.

Re:They had it comming (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275178)

You'll get modded into oblivion here as everyone seems to think 'Anonymous' is the best thing to happen to the world in the last 4 billion years or so.

However, I could not agree more.

What you see here is a cat fight between two douche bags. Both groups are just a bunch of self serving pricks seeking as much attention as they can get.

The only good news is that anonymous will eventually fall apart, a bunch of script kiddies fucking around together never lasts, they'll fight amoungst themselves and tear themselves apart soon enough ... interestingly enough, I pretty much expect the same thing from Wikileaks.

Re:They had it comming (0)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275204)

Actually, it's complete comedy.

How hard is it for anyone to claim anonymous for anything? Aka false flag? Pretty damn easily.

I highly doubt anonymous had *anything* to do with this at all.

Re:They had it comming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37275284)

A few thoughts:
  • There's so much disinformation now surrounding Anonymous, Wikileaks, and governments. It's a tinfoil hat that folds itself.
  • Anonymous saying "sorry" is kind of meaningless in the absence of self control. It's like a schizophrenic who has one personality that likes to pop rounds into little kids. Even though the other 39.5 personalities are kind and gentle, we still perceive the collective individual as a threat which belongs in a padded cell under supervision.
  • Wikileaks getting upset over a leak is stupid. Who watches the watchers and the watchers of the watchers? They want to be ultimate eye with their own ungoverned rule being watched by no one elected by no one answering to no one.
  • I don't trust Anonymous or Wikileaks any more than the darker side of governments. All three are ungoverned rogues in society. How many citizens get a say in who Anonymous goes after? How many citizens get a say in what information should be leaked by Wikileaks? Who gets a say in an under-the-table wire tap? The answer too all these questions is a small group of individuals who think they know best and don't need the peer review of society while making decisions for it. Best intentions or no, there's danger in trusting any of them.

Re:They had it comming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37275366)

Also why does Slashdot hate <ul>? It's got to be the most braindead styling for a list ever.

They Sure did have it coming (2)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275354)

Wikileaks was down? (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274438)

I heard there was a leak, but when did Wikileaks go offline?

Re:Wikileaks was down? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37274618)

They're offline like every day because they have one of those servers that runs on diamond juice and it costs them like $100,000 per day to operate. But it's free to post a sob story asking for money.

Wow... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37274442)

Anonymous vs. 4Chan. I predict this will be more interesting than any conflict this year.

Re:Wow... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37274950)

I'm lost now. Who out there has an accurate scorecard and can give a update?

Is this like Bush Sr.'s BFF's in the Mujaheddin suddenly becoming the frenemies of Bush Jr.?

Re:Wow... (1)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275548)

Anonymous originated from 4chan, so is this their rebellious teenager stage where they try to run away from home?

War baby war. Yah! (3, Funny)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274464)

"I cast... magic cyber missile! Fear my incantations for your servers are feeble to stop them."

Anyone else just find this nerd fight entertaining? Pass the popcorn :)

Re:War baby war. Yah! (1)

chomsky68 (1719996) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274522)

Anyone else just find this nerd fight entertaining? Pass the popcorn :)

as much as z grade movies

Re:War baby war. Yah! (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275612)

Yea, I always love watching script kiddies who aren't even able to form proper sentences or know the meaning of the words they are using. Its just one step below the jackass movies, or Ow my Balls.

It's a circus now (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274476)

This is turning into Apple-Google-Samsung-HTC lawsuit circle jerk, only with suits and countersuits over information. Pass me the popcorn.

Re:It's a circus now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37275202)

Screw the popcorn, pass me a vibrater. This is getting me hot!

Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274478)

Not sure how this plays into the recent bevy of activity in the CIA's shattershot attempt to sabotage and discredit Wikileaks, but I suspect someone is getting played here. First you have Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a guy with a shady and rather thin past, come into Wikileaks and immediately start stealing documents and attempting to sabotage the operation--later participating in the discrediting campaign too by writing a book bad-mouthing Assange (and starting his own competing honeypot site to boot). Then rape allegations (the same kind that Dominique Strauss-Khan suddenly found himself facing just weeks after he began questioning [guardian.co.uk] the value of the U.s. dollar). Now all this recent uproar.

The CIA is really throwing everything at the wall here. Looks like some of it is sticking. Well played.

Some will laugh at me for saying all this. But, let's face it, this is hardly the first time they've used similar tactics [wired.com] .

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274548)

The CIA is really throwing everything at the wall here. Looks like some of it is sticking. Well played.

Some will laugh at me for saying all this. But, let's face it, this is hardly the first time they've used similar tactics.

So, someone alleges something in the past, which proves that the same thing is happening in the present?

Do consider that even "former CIA operatives" occasionally lie....

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (3)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274582)

Never said it *proved* anything. Just says that they've done something similar before. And this isn't a court of law.

Jimmy caught stealing pie from Ms. Reynold's window. Jimmy caught stealing pie from Ms. Smith's window. Pie goes missing from Ms. Wilson's window. Police baffled.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37274592)

Then rape allegations (the same kind that Dominique Strauss-Khan suddenly found himself facing just weeks after he began questioning [guardian.co.uk] the value of the U.s. dollar).

Sure it was "suddenly" as long as you ignore his past in which numerous other allegations were made. But hey, it's all gotta be some huge conspiracy instead, right? It couldn't possibly be that he did anything wrong.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274612)

No, all of those past allegations were only reported after-the-fact.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37274654)

In English newspapers, maybe. But those things were reported in France and his history of affairs and borderline sexual harassment are well-known about in France. Just because you only first heard about it this year does not mean no one else was reporting on it long before then.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (2, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274712)

Believe what you want to. I'm sure it was just a convenient coincidence that a guy who was calling for the establishment of a new international currency that would have devalued the U.S. dollar was arrested on rape charges just weeks later, with a public "perp walk" and a DA who bragged about an ironclad case. And also just a coincidence that just *days* after he lost his IMF position to a pro-American stooge, suddenly the DA admits that he really has no case and that the alleged victim is laughably uncredible. All just happy little coincidences, in a world where the U.S. would NEVER do such a nasty thing just to advance its own economic interests.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274894)

You don't really believe that utterly ridiculous conspiracy theory, do you?

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275052)

I don't know, do *YOU* believe that CIA hasn't done these sorts of operations (and much worse) before? In South America, the Middle East, Cuba, Asia...should I go on? Maybe we should do some reading [amazon.com] and then come back to my crazy ideas. I'll put on my tin-foil hat and wait while you read.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275162)

To be fair, while this particular instance seems a bit out there, the CIA does have a long and pretty unpleasant history of getting rid of officials that do not meet US economic interests. So while I doubt this particular case, there is a pretty well established history of these kinds of operations that are well accepted and documented at this point by non-crackpots. Esp when powerful corporations encounter trouble with regulations in weak countries. The things the CIA did just to get us cheap bananans is truly chilling.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275434)

Everyone should read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man [wikipedia.org] . Perkins is a little self-aggrandizing, but it's still a great insight into how our big global/corporate/military/industrial complex actually works (especially in the poorer countries we're looking to exploit).

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37274914)

Can't help but think of this quote.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered...I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs." --Thomas Jefferson

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37274936)

Wait what? Believe what? The facts which are that his past is well-known in france? I'm sorry that these facts are inconvenient to your conspiracy ramblings but that doesn't make the facts go away.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

msauve (701917) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274960)

I think you're ascribing way too much competency to a government bureaucracy.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37275152)

You're doing a great job of weakening the anti-CIA position by making leaky, specious arguments and completely dismissing facts (by the way, "believe what you want to" when confronted with easily verifiable facts that damage your arguments might be the stupidest and funniest response possible). There's really no reason that a person would commit to using such structurally unsound logic and openly ridiculous statements... ... unless they're trying to discredit the view they claim to hold. Your CIA badge is showing, elrous0.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275352)

I love it when morons say "facts" as if it's some magical word. They say it with the same reverence that many Christians say "Bible." They say it as if historians work with a large pile of clear, black-and-white "facts," which they just rearrange in a clear and concise manner--where history is just a chronicle of clear snippets (much like an elementary school history timeline, I suppose). That's so much more pleasant that the world that historians and journalists really work in-- a much-messier world of "evidence," "connections," "reasonable conclusions," "historical context," etc., a world where to establish any MEANING they must examine the messy grey goo of complex human social behavior, beyond rote dates and snippets.

Tell me, what "facts" should I assemble for you? Would a statement from a CIA agent saying "This was a setup" suffice? Perhaps if I can get the President to make a speech saying "Yep, we did it" Would that be a "fact," or just the President's...like opinion, man?

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37275260)

My guy flaws? It CAN'T be. It MUST be the government.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275482)

Assange is hardly my guy. He's an arrogant prick in many respects, and his judgement is often rash. But that doesn't make it okay to frame him for crimes he didn't commit.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37275604)

But that doesn't make it okay to frame him for crimes he didn't commit.

Or to give him a free pass just because he says so.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

jythie (914043) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275124)

Beyond that... lots of officals have questioned the value of the dollar.... I can not see the CIA bothering with such a plot for something so simple.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275600)

lots of officals have questioned the value of the dollar.

How many of them were the head of the International Monetary Fund, in a position to actually establish a real rival global currency?

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274626)

If the claims against the IMF head were a CIA operation, surely the US prosecutor would've actually done his fucking job and brought charges. He has a history of this sort of behavior. He's actually being protected by the US government, not attacked.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274674)

He has a history of this sort of behavior.

But...but...those were trumped up too! The CIA had a time machine to know to start trumping up all those charges a decade or more in advance to the fact that he was going to try to become the IMF head and make bad statements about the US dollar. It has to be a conspiracy! It just must!

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274828)

Because you would never leverage the someone's past indiscretions when doing such a thing. No far better to pick something completely out of their character and set them up for that.

If someone has a history of drug use you would never acuse them (and plant evidence if you are being serious) of drug possession/use - no that would make it too easy. Much better to make something completely new up and set them up for that.

If someone has a prior association with prostitutes you would never simply arrange for them to be caught with a prostitute. No! Much easier to arrange for guy who has never touched a drug in his life to be caught with some heroin.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

Desler (1608317) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274956)

Or, you know, it could mean he did it rather then inventing grand conspiracies.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274972)

If the claims against the IMF head were a CIA operation, surely the US prosecutor would've actually done his fucking job and brought charges

The goal was never a conviction. The goal was to discredit him long enough to get him booted as IMF head. Look at the timeline if you don't believe me. The prosecutors first admitted [nytimes.com] that their case was a joke literally TWO DAYS after a new pro-American IMF head was appointed [guardian.co.uk] .

Let me help you:

February 11, 2011: Dominque Strauss-Kahn, International Monetary Fund head, makes a speech in Washington calling for the establishment of a new global currency that would devalue the U.S. Dollar

May 14, 2011: Dominque Strauss-Kahn arrested in New York City on rape charges. Prosecutors make him take a very public "perp walk" (with press in tow), and claim an ironclad case.

May 14, 2011: Dominque Strauss-Kahn resigns as IMF chief

June 28, 2011: New pro-American Christine Lagarde appointed IMF chief, with the U.S. cheering her on [npr.org] .

June 30, 2011: Prosecutors meet with Strauss-Kahn attorneys and admit their "ironclad" case is a joke, later drop all charges.

All just coincidences of course, the rantings of a tin-foil hat enthusiast.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37275198)

booting him from the French presidentials run is far more likely

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

poity (465672) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275426)

Sounds plausible. But consider this [thebestpag...iverse.net] ...

If the CIA wanted DSK gone they could have created a watertight case and made him unquestionably guilty. They could easily have gotten to the defense lawyers as well. Why would they go to all that trouble only to have their great coup be unraveled by a simple 5-item timeline? It's like loose change all over again.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275552)

If the CIA wanted DSK gone they could have created a watertight case and made him unquestionably guilty.

Again, why bother? All they needed was the accusation, a perp walk from the prosecutor, and some press coverage. You don't need an airtight case for those, just a opportunistic maid and a cooperative district attorney.

Why would they go to all that trouble only to have their great coup be unraveled by a simple 5-item timeline?

Because the press is stupid and no one will listen to the handful of "tin-foil-hat-wearing nutters" who make the connections.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274728)

Occam's Razor: the simplest explanation is the most likely.

What's the more likely scenario: an international CIA conspiracy that doesn't leak secrets and actually works, or the fact that Anonymous is just a bunch of assholes?

Oh look, Conspiracy Corner open for business again (2)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274730)

"The CIA is really throwing everything at the wall here"

Sure. If anything the slightest bit unfortunate happens to any hacktivist sacred cow then it - duh! - has to be the CIA. Or FBI. Or NSA. Or some government black hat organisation that only the l337 know about.

Get a fucking grip. If the CIA wanted to take down wikileaks they'd go for the people, not the infrastructure. And why do it now? 6 months ago would have been a lot more useful.

But hey , why bother thinking it through when a good ole conspiracy theory will suffice eh?

Re:Oh look, Conspiracy Corner open for business ag (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275102)

The CIA learned a long time ago that discrediting was a WAY better tactic than anything as messy as assassination. Give them some credit for not being completely stupid. Think of it as a kindler, gentler CIA.

Re:Oh look, Conspiracy Corner open for business ag (1)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275370)

Assassination of people running a website? Christ , you really are off with the pixies. I meant arresting them on trumped up charges.

Re:Oh look, Conspiracy Corner open for business ag (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275396)

Why arrest all of them when they only need to discredit one?

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

dalias (1978986) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274738)

There is nothing similar about the sexual assault accusations against DSK and Assange. The former is a tragic case of character-assassination by a powerful serial offender against a victim to the point where the prosecution would not follow through with her case. The latter is a lot more questionable and is either a case of a much lesser assault or of character-assassination by governments against a man who was blowing the whistle and not being very careful about where he got his whistle blown...

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (2)

Rakshasa-sensei (533725) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275004)

I don't really see how the maid being a powerful serial offender would invalidate the OP's point, that she has a history of making up fake (and very convincing) rape stories would seem to make both cases seem even more similar.
The Assange case also involved a woman with a history of supporting the use of false rape charges for personal gain.

Re:Sabotage/Discrediting campaign (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275302)

Not sure how this plays into the recent bevy of activity in the CIA's shattershot attempt to sabotage and discredit Wikileak

Now, now... Anyone can be Anonymous, even the CIA. Stop trying to pervert how Anonymous works.

This action regardless of who is behind it, is Anonymous.

In other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37274520)

In other news, Wikileaks obtains the home address, social security numbers, and credit card information of all the Anonymous group. More news at 10.

This Doesn't Make Sense (3, Insightful)

Caraig (186934) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274550)

This doesn't make sense, though. Anon -- or at least part of Anon -- went out and slammed a bunch of credit-card companies for denying donations to WikiLeaks. And now Anon is saying they attacked WikiLeaks? I don't buy it. As recently as last week they were still expressing support for WikiLeaks, and were noting that WikiLeaks and their own servers were under attack. And 4chan? 4chan is their home turf, why would they DDoS that?

I grok that Anon is decentralized to the point of schizophrenia, but to this extent?

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense (3, Interesting)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274576)

Anonymous is a mob. Like all mobs, they lack restraint or control and will eventually turn on, well, anyone they can. Including their home soil or the people they pretend to defend.

Of course they'll also a mob on the Internet, and lack the power to do anything of real consequence, like burning down a house. The result is that the whole thing is really quite funny, instead of tragic and a horrible crime.

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275220)

UM, society runs on the internet. Wait until someone takes down a bank or credit card company in a way where data is permanently lost. This you will see real damage.

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense (1)

vijayiyer (728590) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275232)

What's terrifying is if that mob start attacking poorly secured internet connected infrastructure.

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense (1)

Lose (1901896) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274602)

>He thinks 4chan is home turf for "Anonymous."

If they were all 13 year olds firing up Low Orbit Ion Cannon to DDOS some randomly selected website (by trips get of course), then yeah, Anonymous exists there en masse.

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense (1)

Kamokazi (1080091) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275602)

It is where the 'Anonymous' identity/idea originated. It's as close to a home as there is. Anonymous is everything from 13 year-olds with LOIC to legitimate hackers with botnets at their disposal. Although reporting on 4chan getting DDoS'd is about like reporting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning. It's only news if it doesn't happen.

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37274664)

Anon isn't, and never has been, one group.
Anonymous is a blanket term to describe a huge number of sub-groups that operate under the label.

4chan isn't their home turf either. 4chan is one of the many sites where groups operate on, but for the most part, rarely do anymore.
The whole Anonymous movement (the actual one, not just the whole Anonymous Legion mentality meme from 4chan), despite rumors, never even started on 4chan in the first place.
It started on another numbered-chan that I cannot remember for the life of me. (pretty sure it was a triple digit one)
Previous to that, it was just a bunch of random groups doing their own things.

Anonymous is a group of personas constantly in-fighting for supremacy. Sometimes they work together for a great goal, sometimes they will do everything to destroy each other.

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense (1)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274758)

Also, 4chan is basically the birthplace of Anonymous... Why would they attack it?

Something is VERY fishy here - the three entities attacked are the last three entities on this planet I could imagine Anonymous attacking.

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274874)

Read the article. It was just one member, and they were just testing their tools. The article summary is written almost as poorly as the original article so it really isn't clear.

Re:This Doesn't Make Sense (1)

NotBorg (829820) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275632)

Why is it so hard to believe that an organization [sic] with no structure would behave that way? Is there a leader? A board? Do they take a vote on their next move? Or is it just anarchy. And you're trying to find some sense of order in it?

No, we did it (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37274624)

We, the hacker group known as Anonymous Coward, are responsible for the attack. Anonymous is simply trying to take credit for our actions.

Re:No, we did it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37274976)

we are pigeons

Re:No, we did it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37275528)

I always knew Anonymous were cowards. :P

Oh, and by the way, what you know as the "Anonymous group" is actually the CIA's Wikileaks Task Force [Yes, that's "W.T.F.", which is a reason to go WTF. ;], and completely unrelated to the subculture called "Anonymous". (Actually it's quite the opposite.)

BULLSHIT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37274734)

Anonymous has always been a supporter of Wikileaks, and 4Chan is an asset of Anonymous. The claim that Anonymous is behind it, is completely false. They would be attacking themselves.

This is clearly done by somebody trying to discredit Anonymous, but both the victims and Anonymous are smart enough to figure it out. The only idiots who believe otherwise are those that have been brainwashed, and are still slaves to the system. Their minds are not yet free.

Those who are truely behind it, are the same kinds of people that think it is okay for police to do whatever they like to anybody for any reason; that think it is okay for politicians to make laws to infringe upon rights, take your money and property; make up charges against you and use any trick in the book, to get their way, regardless of it being right or wrong.

If you are one of those people then you need to free your mind. Turn off your TV for at least 1 year. No cable, no satelite. 1 year, and you will be able to start seeing the world around you as it truely is.

Re:BULLSHIT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37274922)

Thanks for this, I haven't laughed that hard in some time.

Who to DDoS next? (1)

diorcc (644903) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274746)

Whats the matter, ran out of targets? Itchy trigger fingers... Ooh, I know, we'll get more drama by joining the anti-WL bandwaggon for a while!! Back to the usual "I just wanted to see if I could do it" 'hacking' styles.

RefRef (2)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274770)

RefRef is the new LOIC, interesting write-up here [thehackernews.com] , confirmed accurate [twitter.com] by @AnonCMD.

Is this what took down Wikileaks?

Re:RefRef (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37275350)

Who cares? @AnonCMD is nobody. The link to "hackernews" says...

According to Developer "RefRef is a revolutionary DoS java site. [snip]"

Fuck off.

But who is anonymous this time? (1)

tpotus (1856224) | more than 2 years ago | (#37274908)

That's the thing with anonymity, isn't it? Anyone can be anonymous on the internet. Isn't one of the main ideals behind anonymous that it cannot be false-flagged? Notice how the media and even /. is trying their hardest to portray anonymous as a single, organized group.

Re:But who is anonymous this time? (1)

infurnus (1897136) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275098)

That's the thing with anonymity, isn't it? Anyone can be anonymous on the internet. Isn't one of the main ideals behind anonymous that it cannot be false-flagged? Notice how the media and even /. is trying their hardest to portray anonymous as a single, organized group.

Gee golly I sure wish I had mod points

Anonymous is a pile of useless (1)

sirwired (27582) | more than 2 years ago | (#37275384)

"Anonymous" and "LulzSec" - launched DDoS attacks and data thefts are about as useful a form of internet activism as the ubiquitous "Post this as your status if you want to support stopping [insert random evil here]."

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...