×

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!

Cops Set Up Extortion Sting On Symantec's Source Code Thieves

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the don't-worry-now-we're-telling-the-truth dept.

Crime 168

Sparrowvsrevolution writes "Hackers linked with Anonymous leaked another 1.26 gigabytes of Symantec's data Monday night, what they say is the source code company's PCAnywhere program. More interestingly, also posted a long private email conversation that seems to show a Symantec exec offering the hackers $50,000 to not leak the company's data and to publicly state they had lied about obtaining it. Symantec has responded by revealing that in fact, the $50,000 offer had been a ruse, and the 'Symantec exec' was actually a law enforcement agent trying to trace the hackers. It adds that all the information the hackers have released, including a 2006 version of Norton Internet Security, is outdated and poses no threat to the company or its customers. Symantec says the Anonymous hackers began attempting to extort money from the company in mid-January, and it responded by contacting law enforcement, though it won't comment on the results of the fake payoff sting while the investigation is still ongoing."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

168 comments

Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (5, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38953985)

FTFY

Re:Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (2, Interesting)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954367)

Aside from the fact that they did hack in and steal the code.

It seems pretty obvious that the extortion was entrapment.

Funny. Both Symantec and the cops have egg on their face on this one. Those guys better be well and truly anonymous because they have stirred the hornets nest.

Re:Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954637)

Entrapment? I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (4, Funny)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954653)

Entrapment? I do not think it means what you think it means.

What?

Inconceivable.

Re:Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (4, Insightful)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954695)

Actually, after having read a portion of the emails, it wasn't anything close to entrapment.

Re:Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (2)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954829)

..however, what they seemingly did propose - the cops/symantec,the symantec knew of the conversation taking place it's actually irrelevant if it was cops or symantec doing the offer, combined they just had no intention of actually paying- back to what they did propose: LYING TO SHAREHOLDERS ABOUT HAVING HACKED SYMANTEC.

yes.

Re:Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954751)

I wouldn't really call it "entrapment." That's if a cop tries to get you to commit a crime you were unlikely to commit. If I hack a major security company and steal their source code blackmailing the company is going to be right there on the list next to "sell on black market." Plus, it's not extortion since the "Symantec Exec" offered the money first.

Last I checked, the police are totally allowed to lie to suspects. Anything from "last night, your momma said you always were a bad kid" to "we have the smoking gun and it points at you and is covered with every type of DNA imaginable (which would also make you a gun pervert) and it matches to you. It also says you're late on your alimony. "

Re:Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (2)

mangu (126918) | more than 2 years ago | (#38955101)

That's if a cop tries to get you to commit a crime you were unlikely to commit. If I hack a major security company and steal their source code blackmailing the company is going to be right there on the list next to "sell on black market."

Are we now being judged by the crimes someone else believes we might commit?

Having followed the alleged Anonymous hacks, the only thing they seem likely to do is to publish the data they got. A cop offering something to get them to do anything else is entrapment.

Re:Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (2)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 2 years ago | (#38955201)

It would only be entrapment if they hadn't already obtained the data. Entrapment would be convincing them to break in and get the data for money before they had already done so. Asking someone to sell you something they have already taken isn't really entrapment seeing the crime has already been committed.

Re:Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38955325)

Don't use words you don't understand.

That's not entrapment (5, Informative)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 2 years ago | (#38955033)

They had already committed the crime, the sting was to get them to give away their identity so they could be prosecuted for it. It's a legitimate tactic.

Re:That's not entrapment (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38955157)

They had already committed the crime, the sting was to get them to give away their identity so they could be prosecuted for it. It's a legitimate tactic.

Absolutely!

Re:Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954375)

Cops set up FAILED exortion sting

As a person who is involved in this case (I'm with the cyber-crime unit of the FBI), I can confidently tell you that we've narrowed down our search (based on IP addresses) to a grandmother in a seniors home in Florida.

Little does she know that joining Anonymous does not make her Anonymous. As I write this, the government is in the process of seizing her assets. She thinks she's smart, but in the end she'll end up loosing everything, including her wheel chair.

Re:Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954475)

I am Templeton Beckmarsh (aka Flampton Hoppings) and I approve of your comment.

Re:Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954701)

I can confidently tell you that we've narrowed down our search (based on IP addresses) to a grandmother in a seniors home in Florida.

Obviously someone with a disguise that clever is a serious threat to national security. Clearly her takedown warrants a kill, not capture, mission.

Re:Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954747)

As a person who is involved in this case (I'm with the cyber-crime unit of the FBI), I can confidently tell you that we've narrowed down our search...

Dude, you rock. Grannie wants out of that home in the worst way. Make sure she gets a cell with a south window.

I'll be destroying that archive of emails that proves the collusion between the FBI and Microsoft. No one needs to know about the payoffs.

P.S. Make sure Grannie gets a carton of cigarettes a week.

Re:Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (3, Funny)

Anne_Nonymous (313852) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954767)

>> a grandmother in a seniors home in Florida

On your conference call you said it was Arizona.

Re:Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (2)

tgd (2822) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954405)

Until you hear directly from the authorities that it was, in fact, a sting, its probably safer to assume it wasn't.

Of course they'll SAY it was a sting... Symantec just had the whole world learn that extortion works with them.

Re:Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (5, Interesting)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954527)

Why is Symantec acting like they fooled Anonymous? In the email it says "Say hi to FBI agents" and Symantec is like "We are not in contact with the FBI."

Symantec fail.

Title should be: Anonymous outsmarts Police, Symantec sting

Re:Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (2)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954823)

Makes me wonder if Symantec is ginning this all up to save face. I wonder if we're being "handled".

Re:Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (4, Interesting)

g0bshiTe (596213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38955017)

I was more interested in the fact that Symantec is trying to make it look like Anonymous is into extortion, which from all reports has never been their goal.

Re:Cops set up FAILED exortion sting (1)

Flyerman (1728812) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954945)

Don't they know the only way to trace anything is with a VB GUI interface?

Some things I agree with, some I don't (1)

Tyr07 (2300912) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954035)

But either way it's still fun to watch what Anonymous gets up to ;)

Re:Some things I agree with, some I don't (2)

Theophany (2519296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954059)

You say fun, I say frightening.

Re:Some things I agree with, some I don't (3, Insightful)

John Napkintosh (140126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954081)

Frightening that Anonymous bothers to do it, or that they're actually successful?

Re:Some things I agree with, some I don't (3)

Theophany (2519296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954311)

Definitely the latter. Whilst I can agree with some of their arguments, I can't help but worry that a collective risen up from the cesspool that is 4chan wields such power.

Re:Some things I agree with, some I don't (4, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954351)

I see it as the evil mirror reflection of what business & politics has risen up and wielded such power.

Oh yawn (1, Troll)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954761)

Give it a fscking rest with the moronic student "big business is eeeevil" groupthink. If you want real evil go visit somalia or join the taliban and watch some women being mutilated for not obeying some religious instruction. In the meantime stay in your playpen and let the adults have a proper discussion.

Re:Oh yawn (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954865)

Wow, what a great argument. Other places are more evil. So business buying politicians isn't bad. And don't ever talk about one without saying other things are worse.

And then you end with a 'grow up' charge.

You didn't win anything on the debate team, did you?

Re:Oh yawn (-1, Troll)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#38955413)

"Other places are more evil. So business buying politicians isn't bad"

You don't know what real evil is. The word is just used as lazy hyperbole by people like you desperate to be noticed. Business might be corrupt, but self interest is not the same as evil. If you don't know the difference you need to see a bit more of the world.

"You didn't win anything on the debate team, did you?"

You wouldn't even make it onto a team.

And yes, grow up.

Re:Some things I agree with, some I don't (2)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954961)

Anonymous is us. Business and politics is the evil reflection.

Re:Some things I agree with, some I don't (1)

Theophany (2519296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954969)

At the risk of sounding like your mother, two wrongs do not make a right.

Re:Some things I agree with, some I don't (3, Insightful)

gparent (1242548) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954423)

The cesspool is you and me. They aren't any more dumb or smart than the individuals that compose them at any given time. Nothing is surprising about this unless you haven't been on the internet for a while.

Re:Some things I agree with, some I don't (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954845)

anonymous hackers would be better to use than Anonymous.

anonymous just meaning that they don't know who they are.

Re:Some things I agree with, some I don't (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954111)

The internet has created a generation of sociopaths.

Re:Some things I agree with, some I don't (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954205)

The internet has exposed a generation of sociopaths.

FTFY. The sociopaths have always been around, it's just that now they have a venue where we can see them easily.

Re:Some things I agree with, some I don't (3, Funny)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954421)

now they have a venue where we can see them easily.

They have for decades. It's just that C-SPAN was so fucking boring, nobody bothered.

Re:Some things I agree with, some I don't (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954417)

No, banks and politicians did that.

Re:Some things I agree with, some I don't (3, Insightful)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954431)

Frightening if you're Big Brother. Seems Anonymous has been looking out for the little guy so far. I definitely wouldn't want to be a CEO of one of these evil megacorporations with Anonymous watching me.

Re:Some things I agree with, some I don't (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954687)

I hold your frightening and raise you a "duh".

If you spend at least a month in IT security you'll easily see why duh. When you decide for that path, well, at least when I decided, the goal was to make the systems of the companies I work for secure. Safe from hackers, secure against all kinds of attacks. That was the plan, that was the goal.

Now, about 10 years into the business, the dream has faded. That's not what I do. What I do is writing guidelines and processes nobody reads or bothers to heed, ticking off checklists to be compliant with some law from the ancient days (i.e. any time more than a year ago in security) and generally trying to cover my ass for the moment when (not if, when) the shit hits the fan.

Because secure, we are not. But we're compliant with about any security protocol or certificate you could name. From BS7799 to ISO27001, from NERC1300 to pretty much all of its CIP substandards. And some PCI-DSS on top. Audit us by any standard you please, free choice, we'll pass.

Compliance != Security, though. It's better than nothing, I give you that. And some kind of standard has to be found or nothing will ever improve. The problem is that managers don't give half a shit about security. What they care about is the legal matter behind it. It's commendable that our lawmakers finally realized that companies that store important and private data should be forced to uphold some kind of security standard.

If we could now get some security standards that deserve the name, we could start talking.

Re:Some things I agree with, some I don't (1)

Theophany (2519296) | more than 2 years ago | (#38955111)

Allow me to rephrase, that they can do it is not nearly as concerning to me as the fact that they do do it.

Re:Some things I agree with, some I don't (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954085)

These little tidbits are much more interesting than their large scale DDoS attacks.

If they were really extorting (4, Insightful)

guruevi (827432) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954061)

They would've taken the money. More likely they "offered" money whether it was in a sting or not in order to be able to claim extortion and put the Anonymous hackers in a bad light.

I don't think the hackers are interested in money as much as they are in the information. The fact is Symantec screwed up and they'll have to take it, if they can't protect themselves then why should we trust them?

Re:If they were really extorting (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954373)

It's actually sad. The statements by the "criminals" are more believable and more likely true than the statements by the "serious company".

Re:If they were really extorting (5, Funny)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954595)

It's actually sad. The statements by the "criminals" are more believable

You mean to tell me you believe Symantec?

Re:If they were really extorting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954557)

According to Anonymous' twitter account, they were going to donate the money to the Smile Foundation India [smilefoundationindia.org] .

Re:If they were really extorting (3, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954605)

I know that's what you want to believe, but read the emails. It's abundantly clear that they did want the money. The only reason they didn't get caught is because they refused to transfer the money in any way that might be traceable.

Anonymous are not the white knights you imagine them. Anyone can "be" them, and that causes them to attract a lot of thugs and sociopaths.

Re:If they were really extorting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954993)

Well, if they were really in it for the money, they could've sold the code to any number people who would've bid for it. It's apparent they didn't though, because they released it to the internet which would have pissed off anyone who paid for the code. And the people who would have paid thousands of dollars for the code probably aren't the kind you'd want fuck over like that.

Re:If they were really extorting (2)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#38955113)

Most people, including in Anon, don't have contacts with the sort of people who'd pay for the code. They would be fearful of contacting an undercover cop, of getting rooked, or of getting in over their heads.

Besides, I suspect they would have released the data whether they got paid or not. You know... "for the lulz."

Extortion != Anonymous (1)

Krazy Kanuck (1612777) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954065)

I do not recall, and quick search did not return any prior example of, anonymous extorting info/data for money. Why attach this now? To me it reads more like "Anonymous ignores bribes, cop sting failed". Granted there have been threats of various sorts, but I cannot recall there being a money sum attached to any of them.

Re:Extortion != Anonymous (0)

sllim (95682) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954323)

Anonymous did not ignore anything. I just read through the emails. Anon. CLEARLY wanted money. The demand was $50K immediate payment to something called Liberty Reserve.

FBI/Sym was attempting to get the payment broken into monthly payments and made into pretty much anything BUT Liberty reserve.
There was some discussion about whether FBI/Sym can trust Anon to not publish after they received the money. The response that Anon had was that 'You have to trust us. If we were bad guys we would have already published.'.

At no point in those emails are there any motivations discussed EXCEPT a payment for not disclosing the files.

You can argue the email is a fabrication.
You can argue that it isn't really Anon behind this.
You can argue the files released so far are outdated and a joke.
You can even argue that this is all a clever ruse on Symantecs part to get people to drop PCanywhere 2007 for the latest release.

But to argue that the entity Anon in that email is doing anything other then extortion is absolute bullshit.

Re:Extortion != Anonymous (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954429)

Anon wants nothing. Anon is nothing. Hell, do we really have to regurgitate the crap news casters spit out, lacking more (or any) information, especially if we should know better?

Anonymous isn't more a coherent group than the "people who like garlic bread".

Re:Extortion != Anonymous (3, Funny)

formfeed (703859) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954721)

Anonymous isn't more a coherent group than the "people who like garlic bread".

It is much easier to determine who is a member of the second group. Plus the "people who like garlic bread" can't sneak up on you.

Re:Extortion != Anonymous (1)

noh8rz2 (2538714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954879)

Plus the "people who like garlic bread" can't sneak up on you.

thank you for making me smile. I'd throw in a vampire joke, but it would be derivative.

Re:Extortion != Anonymous (1)

Tsingi (870990) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954805)

But to argue that the entity Anon in that email is doing anything other then extortion is absolute bullshit.

Is that not how you would proceed if you wanted to do exactly what they did?

Extortion? (1)

Saintwolf (1224524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954079)

The only extortion is the fact that you have to pay to not have software (That you already paid for) screwing up. On a serious note though, I didn't think Anonymous would ever be so stupid as to try and extort money from a big company. Execs would much rather see their family die than lose corporate profits.

GPL violations? (2)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954129)

Edited short version:

.... Anonymous leaked ... the source code company's PCAnywhere program... Symantec has responded ... all the information the hackers have released... poses no threat to the company....

Its like they're tempting the world to diff their source code up against GPLed prior art to find license violations. I think it would be hilarious if it turns out pcanywhere was just a wrapped version of one of the numerous GPLed VNC implementations or similar.

Re:GPL violations? (1)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954197)

Weel, it seems like Symantec isn't really telling the truth about PCAnywhere not posing a threat to its customers. A quote from this Feb 1, 2012 article [computerworlduk.com] :

Last week, the company took the highly unusual step of telling pcAnywhere users to disable the program based on a 2006 source code leak and this month's claims by members of Anonymous that they were mining the stolen code for vulnerabilities.

Symantec spokesman Brian Modena declined to declare the now-patched pcAnywhere as safe to use when asked that question multiple times, but hinted that the fixes the company has released were sufficient.

So I guess that if you patched your version of PCAnywhere then you're safe according to Symantec.

Re:GPL violations? (1)

0racle (667029) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954867)

Do you have any proof that there might be violations or are you just proposing that any large, successful software project must be infringing on GPL software?

Amusing... (3, Interesting)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954147)

Of course, anybody who's dealt with Anonymous knows they will try to get you to promise to sell out your customers or otherwise act in a way that's in your interests and detrimental to the interests of everyone you claim to 'protect'. They've done this multiple times. If I were an Anonymous target I would never agree to such a scheme because all that would happen would be that the conversation be published to make me look bad.

Of course, having it be a 'police sting operation' is a great way to make it look like you weren't really going to sell out your customers. And who knows, maybe it's even true. And maybe all that source code really is for 'old versions'.

But, the really incriminating evidence would be if there were emails showing that Symantec has been sponsoring or encouraging virus writers in some way. And I'm certain if Anonymous had that kind of evidence that it would be out in the open by now. So that means they don't. And maybe Symantec isn't as much of a sleaze bag company as I expected them to be.

Re:Amusing... (2, Interesting)

Omnifarious (11933) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954239)

As an aside, the only people who believe that Anonymous is after money are people who have already sold out their ethics. Generally a big part of their self-justification for having done so is that 'everybody does it', and so the idea that Anonymous is in it for anything but the money would induce major cognitive dissonance.

The tactic of trying to get your target to believe you want to extort them is a fantastic tactic for discovering people who deserve the kind of publicity it generates when you publish their willingness (and oftentimes eagerness) to be extorted. Unfortunately, I think sometimes Anonymous tries a bit too hard at this and there have been a couple of people they really badgered about it who truly weren't interested in the deal.

Re:Amusing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954487)

As an aside, the only people who believe that Anonymous is after money are people who have already sold out their ethics.

False. I think they are also after money, but their main goal is to destroy something that they dislike. Whether it is because Symantec makes useless, expensive software and scares people into buying it, or because Symantec makes good software that gets in Anonymous' way, I do not know. But I have no reason to think they won't take money also if they find a way to do it without the trace to themselves.

Re:Amusing... (1)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954469)

But, the really incriminating evidence would be if there were emails showing that Symantec has been sponsoring or encouraging virus writers in some way. And I'm certain if Anonymous had that kind of evidence that it would be out in the open by now. So that means they don't. And maybe Symantec isn't as much of a sleaze bag company as I expected them to be.

Do you really think that conspiracy is plausible? Just consider how much money there is to make by writing malware and, suddenly, Symantec doesn't have to get its hands dirty to have a running business.

Sure, no company threat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954179)

Considering MakeAFee AV engine still has 80% of the code matching the one which was there in more than ten years ago, sure, I believe Scamantec AV engine has been completely rewritten from 2006.

1.26 Gig? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954187)

1.26 Gigabytes is one hell of a big virus. That's what Symantec make, right?

Re:1.26 Gig? (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954497)

Let's see... grinds system to a halt, hard if not impossible to remove short of a reinstall, gives you no information what it actually does, contacts its maker and downloads code after sending god knows what...

Yep. The pattern matches.

Re:1.26 Gig? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954627)

Mostly virus signatures? Now you understand why its runtime memory footprint is about 500MB to 1GB.

Who still buys Symantec? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954189)

Surely, it must be noobs?

Re:Who still buys Symantec? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954519)

Here's the business model of companies like Symantec:

1. Pay to have a "demo" of your software on every new PC.
2. Nag people who don't know how the hell to get rid of your crap into buying it.
3. Profit!

should be public anyway (2, Interesting)

Dr. Tom (23206) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954231)

Security code should be open for review anyway, or it's probably full of bugs and worthless.

Who gets paid? (3, Insightful)

bryansj (89051) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954337)

How would they receive the $50K anyway? Split it up between all members who are supposed to be anonymous? Symantec/Police: Who do we make this check out to? Anonymous: Cash. Symantec/Police: Damn, foiled again!

Re:Who gets paid? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954789)

Let's check the source!

http://pastebin.com/GJEKf1T9 ...
there are no options but :
  Liberty Reserve (tell your people to look into their website www.libertyreserve.com and check how it works - its easy we shall give you our account number within the LR system and you send money from your LR acct to ours) To put money on ya LR account you can do by wire transfer within the USA etc. just check the website
    this option is nice for you because it leaves the FATF and Anti Terror units behind and raises no suspicions like the Lithuanian transfer would.
  Wire transfer to a bank account in Lithuania or Latvia is also an option.

Re:Who gets paid? (1)

noh8rz2 (2538714) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954937)

there's a subgroup of people who are not anonymous to each other, at the very least pseudonymous. they split it amongst themselves, like a group of thieves. "anonymous" just means black-mask.It's not like when a thief steals from you he puts the money in the thief's guild bank.

$50K is an insult (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954413)

If annonymous actually wanted to make money off of it, they could have made a hundred times that by selling the source code to a rival.
And further, annonymous doesn't extort. They free private information and attack companies that piss them off.

And considering how much credit card information they've captured over the years, if any individual wanted $50'000, they could have had it by now.

Re:$50K is an insult (1)

james_van (2241758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954567)

they could have made a hundred times that by selling the source code to a rival

who would actually buy the norton internet security source code?

Re:$50K is an insult (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954791)

who would actually buy the norton internet security source code?

Blackhats?

Re:$50K is an insult (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38955271)

Just one rival? Why not all rivals and any one else that'd buy it. They could even sell it back to symantec first :)

Re:$50K is an insult (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954631)

why not make a program that uninstall the damn thing ?

Re:$50K is an insult (1)

james_van (2241758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38955369)

there is one - the norton removal tool. removing norton was such a nightmare that symantic realized that norton had essentially become a virus, ie: affects system performance, collects user information, regularly "calls home" to upload undisclosed user details and downloads code without asking for permission, restricts programs from running or accessing system resources, and is nightmarishly hard to get rid of. with the removal tool, its actually quite easy to get rid of though. i used to run a repair shop, and the simple act of removing norton and replacing it with just about any other anti-virus would have a dramatic effect on performance. the down side is that removing norton had a negative effect on repeat business. we would remove it, and put on avast in its place, and never see those customers again for a virus problem.

Uydunet (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954451)

Uydunet | Kablonet | Kablo TV ve Teledünya için bavuru yapabileceiniz ehirler malesef snrldr. u an için Erzincan ilinde altyap çalmalar tamamlanm olup baz bölgelerinde hizmet kullanlabilir duruma gelmitir. Türkiye genelinde bavuru yapabileceiniz ehir listesi aada ki gibidir;

Adana, Ankara, Antalya, Balkesir, Bursa, Denizli, Edirne, Eskiehir, Erzincan, Erzurum, Gaziantep, stanbul, zmir, Kayseri, Kocaeli, Konya, Manisa, Mersin, Samsun, Tekirda, Yalova, Zonguldak illerinden bavuru yapabilir ve hizmetleri skntsz bir ekilde kullanabilirsiniz. Kocaeli ve stanbulun baz bölgelerinde Uydunet hizmeti kullanlamyor. Kablo TV ve Teledünya hizmetlerini ebekenin olduu bütün bölgelerde rahatlkla kullanabilirsiniz.
uydunet [kablonet.com.tr]
Teledünya [kablotv.net]
Digiturk [www.http]

Umm... lemme get this story straight... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954483)

You offered Anon 50k as a ruse and they declined. After they tried to extort that very sum out of you.

Yeah. Sure. I believe your story.

I realize I'm taking this out of context (2)

james_van (2241758) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954543)

It adds that all the information the hackers have released, including a 2006 version of Norton Internet Security, is outdated and poses no threat to the company or its customers

Let's be honest - even a 2012 version of Norton Internet Security is outdated. And yes, I realize the context of the quote is referring to customer data, but it had to be said.

Wow. Dumb. (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954689)

As been pointed out already, this is a report of a FAILED sting. Which makes those doing the sting look stupid, and the hackers at least cautious.

It also brings to light that a security company that sells software to prevent people from being hacked, got hacked, had source code stolen, and perhaps extorted for money to cover it up.

I am not sure how you could possibly ruin your reputation any further than they have already done.

Re:Wow. Dumb. (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#38954877)

I am not sure how you could possibly ruin your reputation any further than they have already done.

I'm not so sure that you're familiar with Symantecs nagware marketing method(of course they've already done that too but it's unrelated to this)

Wait, this looks bad for anonymous, not Symantec. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38954799)

1. The code was actually old and there was no threat.
2. E-mails were just a ploy.
3. Anonymous (which is anyone who wants to call themselves that) was trying to extort money and publishes evidence themselves of the extortion.

All I see is a failed plan, but people are saying they were successful? I'm not following.

$50,000 is laughable. (1)

StoutFiles (2471680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38955165)

If the money was a ruse, why not $5,000,000? No one will risk getting caught for a year's salary.

Re:$50,000 is laughable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38955289)

Yama Tough asked how much it was worth to Symantec not to release the code. Symantec - the Fed agent, actually - suggested the amount. Probably because most banks will limit wire transfers to $50K per day to international accounts.

Qaulified Administrators at Symantec (1)

nauseous (2239684) | more than 2 years ago | (#38955257)

Symantec has been hacked a few times now. Not just the source code but Verisign was hacked. They were also guilty of inserting rootkits in their programs to track their customers. I have no trust in any Symantec programs or services now. Changing my customers and reporting to others they shouldn't use these products any longer.
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...