Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Did Anonymous Take Down CIA.gov?

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the scheduled-demolition-of-the-old-bailey dept.

Government 125

jfruh writes "The CIA's website has been down intermittently since Friday, apparently the victim of a DDOS attack. One of the more interesting questions of the story is whether elements of Anonymous are behind this — a question that even prominent members of the Anonymous movement can't seem to answer with any certainty. Perhaps this is obvious, but it seems that an anarchic, leaderless grouping can be hard to keep tabs on."

cancel ×

125 comments

Truth (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033345)

Jar Jar Binks shot first! Go ahead and waste your modpoints on me in an attempt to cover up the real truth.

Re:Truth (-1, Troll)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033383)

Who cares who's doing it. Let's all just hope it's barely the beginning and never stops.

Re:Truth (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033553)

no comment, I'm way too scared of the CIA / FBI but that's because I live in the UK...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003
US / UK Extradition Act 2003

XKCD (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033379)

I think XKCD summed up this situation best: http://xkcd.com/932/ [xkcd.com]

Re:XKCD (2)

asylumx (881307) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033813)

I see you're modded funny, but I think the comic is quite insightful -- Anonymous didn't hack the CIA, they just send a shitload of requests at their webserver. Such a huge difference!

Re:XKCD (5, Funny)

lidocaineus (661282) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034501)

Did you really have to explain it? This is /.

Re:XKCD (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035351)

Ignorance breeds fear -> nothing messes with the human psyche like fear of the unknown.

Re:XKCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033983)

What's really amusing is that, yes it did get DDOS'd at first by Anon, but then the mass media reported it and the huddled masses unintentionally continued the DDOS by checking to see if it was still down. It was still down as of late Sunday night, but up mid-morning Monday.

You can't blame Anon for the media propogating a story, and the public prolonging that story as long as possible. Just a matter of unintended consequences... Or intended consequences, depending on ones motivations.

Re:XKCD (4, Funny)

N0Man74 (1620447) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034311)

Ah-ha! So you admit that Anonymous took down the CIA website using a slashdotting hack!

And from that.... (3, Insightful)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036773)

What the politicians hear: "Slashdot is a tool for pirates and child pornographers to attack the USA!"

Re:XKCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39034373)

If I could mod and there wasn't the 5 point cap, you'd definitely be getting another bump. As soon as I read the headline that exact comic came to mind.

Re:XKCD (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035137)

I agree. The CIA website most likely (definitely?) doesn't contain any classified information, and taking it down isn't something that would stop the CIA website from going down. In the same way you aren't going to overthrow your US government by taking down the whitehouse home page, attacking the CIA public website doesn't cause any problems for the CIA, except for maybe a public image problem.

Re:XKCD (4, Funny)

KhabaLox (1906148) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035217)

That comic is from 28 weeks ago!

Randall is either a precog or the leader of Anonymous.

Re:XKCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035483)

That comic is from 28 weeks ago!

Randall is either a precog or the leader of Anonymous.

Or... Both? Woah.

I got to say this very thing on the local news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035745)

At this point, couldn't they outsource to SquareSpace and have done with it?

Probably not Anonymous (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033421)

If it was a Anonymous op. plenty of people would know about it. Possibly some little group that splintered off, but Anonymous can't keep secrets.

Re:Probably not Anonymous (3, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036697)

A group that splintered off is still Anonymous. That's the whole point of the term. Anyone who claims to be, is.

Re:Probably not Anonymous (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39036987)

It was an Anon op. They released a video days ago. They compromised a few web servers that host CP, and had them DOS'ing away, full-bore, at the cia website so they'd get dealt with.

Anarchic (0)

aglider (2435074) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033423)

Means that there is no hear and possibly no rule.

The establishment needs a target to blame (5, Insightful)

Dainsanefh (2009638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033431)

Any "terrorist" attack, blame it on Al-Qaeda.

Any "hacking" on any government or multi-national coroporation website, blame it on Anonymous.

Soon people will stand united against these "fringe" groups, and keep giving up their freedom in progress.

Re:The establishment needs a target to blame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033695)

implying itworld.com is part of the establishment
implying the CIA has blamed Anonymous for its website going offline
gotta be edgy to get those +1 insightful mods, though

Re:The establishment needs a target to blame (4, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033701)

Don't forget: Any invasion of internet privacy is for child porn/piracy.

Re:The establishment needs a target to blame (3, Interesting)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034057)

Any "terrorist" attack, blame it on Al-Qaeda.

Any "hacking" on any government or multi-national coroporation website, blame it on Anonymous.

Soon people will stand united against these "fringe" groups, and keep giving up their freedom in progress.

Anonymous has quite openly made asses of themselves to the point where people suspecting them is pretty justified. They've made a MO of poking angry bears with a stick to hear them growl. I'll feel not one whit of sympathy when these clowns are sitting in a courtroom getting their federal indictments.

Re:The establishment needs a target to blame (4, Insightful)

twotacocombo (1529393) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034411)

Anonymous has quite openly made asses of themselves to the point where people suspecting them is pretty justified. They've made a MO of poking angry bears with a stick to hear them growl. I'll feel not one whit of sympathy when these clowns are sitting in a courtroom getting their federal indictments.

Anonymous. They keep using this word, but I do not think it means what they think it means. It's like assuming that every Anonymous Coward is the same person. Anonymous here is really 'anonymous', not some group with structured leadership, dues to be paid, and a secret handshake. When you refer to them, you're referring to everybody and nobody in particular, so quit throwing around 'Anonymous' as if they were Al Qaeda or the New York Mets.

Re:The establishment needs a target to blame (2)

StefanWiesendanger (687733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036065)

Anonymous here is really 'anonymous', not some group with structured leadership, dues to be paid, and a secret handshake. When you refer to them, you're referring to everybody and nobody in particular, so quit throwing around 'Anonymous' as if they were Al Qaeda or the New York Mets.

Not really. Since many people chose to stand by their action and are not anonymous, you're not referring to everybody. Since nobody cannot do anything, you're not referring to nobody. So in the end, it really is just a bunch of anonymous cowards. ;-)

In the words of Old Ben Kenobi (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39036713)

Anonymous: They use a single name to hide their numbers.

The treat about being "anonymous" is that it lacks the initiation rites. You can come and go as you please. No one will know you were here, no one will know you have left. Do you miss out on the accolades? Yes, but freedom is sweeter than accolades. Those who do not realize this, and go out to make a name for themselves rarely end up being free or anonymous at all.

Re:The establishment needs a target to blame (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036355)

Anonymous. They keep using this word, but I do not think it means what they think it means. ... When you refer to them, you're referring to everybody and nobody in particular, so quit throwing around 'Anonymous' as if they were Al Qaeda or the New York Mets.

Yeah, that sounds about right. In all three cases, we have a name, and maybe a few names that we'd never heard before that supposedly refer to their leaders. But nobody has bothered to show that there was an actual organization behind the names.

For all we know, you and I and that guy over there could all be "members" of Anonymous (and Al Qaeda and the Mets ;-). After all, if they came and arrested you, for some appropriate value of they, how would you prove in court that you weren't a member? I for one don't know how I'd prove my non-membership.

It's also sorta like back in the day of J. Edgar Hoover's campaign against the Red Menace that was threatening the US. I occasionally thought about how I would prove that I wasn't a Communist, if I were dragged before one of those Committees. I probably couldn't, and I'd read a lot about all the people whose lives had been ruined by such accusations, based on no evidence at all.

So what's your defense against being Anonymous? Or Al Qaeda? Or a Met?

Note that, if you visited cia.gov after reading this story, they have evidence that you were part of the "attack".

Re:The establishment needs a target to blame (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036645)

So what's your defense against being Anonymous? Or Al Qaeda? Or a Met?

You can always join the local Tea Party. It's not perfect alibi, but I'd imagine it would make you much less likely to be questioned.

Re:The establishment needs a target to blame (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39036621)

It's like assuming that every Anonymous Coward is the same person.

As the Anonymous Coward, I am fully qualified to say that I am, indeed, the same person.

Re:The establishment needs a target to blame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39034577)

Dude, you clearly have never seen the friggin tome that the Feds keep and distribute about various criminal and/or terrorist organizations. In fact, haven't a bunch of them mentioned in interviews and all that Al-Qaeda is a mere shadow of its former self? Besides, if I were to even ponder suspecting them of scap-goating ANYONE right now, it'd be Iran. I'd sooner blame TV anchors and news interns for not being able to keep track of all of the complicated names.

And Anonymous is kind of easy - do the left hand and right hand even know that the other exists half the time? Doesn't help that they call themselves "Anonymous" and most hackers don't attach a copy of their driver's license to their work. Besides, this is definitely the kind of thing that Anon would do.

I'm not saying they did it - I just wouldn't be floored if at least a number of them were involved.

Re:The establishment needs a target to blame (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035149)

don't mind me. just torrenting inspire magazine and loading up my loic

Re:The establishment needs a target to blame (1)

slick7 (1703596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036301)

Any "terrorist" attack, blame it on Al-Qaeda.

Any "hacking" on any government or multi-national coroporation website, blame it on Anonymous.

Soon people will stand united against these "fringe" groups, and keep giving up their freedom in progress.

A fringe group like the white hats that believe the lies have gone on long enough.

I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA (5, Insightful)

Agent Z5q (144666) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033459)

Do you think I would talk about it when I hack the CIA? Uh... I mean IF I hacked the CIA!

If these guys in Anonymous have a tenth of common sense as they have hacking skills, they'll keep their mouths shut about specifics.

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033497)

Anonymous can't keep secrets. You can be sure most of the IRC rooms where they coordinate attacks have feds and journalists (and anyone else who cares to observe or participate) in them. That's why when they want to do something that requires secrecy they split off a private group of people who know each other, like LulzSec.

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033585)

Anonymous needs publicity to achieve their goals. Keeping what they do secret kind of defeats the purpose of their goals.

Taking down someone's website without saying anything allows that entity to say, "We're experiencing technical difficulties."

Blabbing about it and saying it was done as a protest gets a lot of attention.

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034445)

That's true, but for example they wouldn't want the fact that they've penetrated HBGary's email system to be known until after they've extracted all the emails they want.

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA (2)

Phreakiture (547094) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033677)

That would have been funnier if you posted AC.

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA (2, Insightful)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033699)

what's the big secret? they downloaded a LION or HION and ran it, big whoop. master hackers? master skiddies is more like it

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA (1)

H0p313ss (811249) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033921)

I was going to point out the same thing. If I had just accomplished something like this I would immediately pack my bags and take a six month vacation off the grid.

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA (5, Insightful)

noh8rz2 (2538714) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033933)

If these guys in Anonymous have a tenth of common sense as they have hacking skills, they'll keep their mouths shut about specifics.

but they're in it for the lulz, remember? no lulz if it's a secret.

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA (5, Insightful)

DesScorp (410532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034133)

Do you think I would talk about it when I hack the CIA? Uh... I mean IF I hacked the CIA!

If these guys in Anonymous have a tenth of common sense as they have hacking skills, they'll keep their mouths shut about specifics.

There are two kinds of skilled hackers: showboats and pros. Showboats brag in various places and settings about how good they are ("Look what I did!"). Pros keep their traps shut, and stay in the shadows. They also tend to have big paychecks because they keep their traps shut, and stay in the shadows. Showboats end up getting their doors kicked in by black-clad law enforcement. Though they're "Anonymous", they're still showboats, bragging to the world (and even threatening it... "We do not forgive").

Sooner or later, the Anonymous guys are going to end very, very badly.

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA (1)

sleigher (961421) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034687)

I don't think you get it. Of course you brag when you DDOS the CIA's servers and take down cia.com.

You will never hear a word about them rooting all their servers though. Maybe one day but that's only because they have to do a release of information.

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035657)

It is cia.GOV, not .com, that is something completely different than the C.I.A.

And I think op got it and agree with them. If your hacking just to impress your friends and twitter followers, that's showboating. It is a lot like picking up a guitar, learning a few Metallica licks, then running around trying to convince everyone your a Guitar Player because you can do this, this, and that, while never bothering to learn anything else, and then you drop the guitar schtick once things get complicated, or your pushed to really play.

Anonymous maybe an Idea, but the current 'Players' learned the Intro to Enter Sandman, but will most likely go silent with someone asks for a Bb..

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA (1)

sleigher (961421) | more than 2 years ago | (#39037193)

whatever, .com is a bad habit after this many years. I don't spend much time at *.gov...
Maybe so... Most of them are downloading LOIC and joining in the fun. They are not hackers or crackers or anything. They are, if anything, protesters. The ones who are rooting and dropping the real dox aren't talking and that is the point.

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035871)

And if I were the CIA, I wouldn't have my web-servers physically on the same network as the rest of my machines.

Hence the XKCD comic.

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035191)

Why does your classification matter at all? Would your family feel better knowing you where killed by a random inner city thug with his first gun or a professional CIA hit man? Does it matter who robbed your house? Your shit is still gone and the end result is the same. People can knock script kiddies all they want but "professional" hackers and killers are not someone to look up to and admire either. Why people repeat your statements and repsect one and knock the other or write them off as losers is strange to me. Each is just as dangerous and capable of equal damage and the backend security and diligence to avoid and handle both is exactly the same. I can hear it now at your place of employment. "Yes Mr. CIO, I know we had some data stolen and our web site is down and the public knows about it but it is only a bunch of script kiddies!"

Showboats end up getting their doors kicked in by black-clad law enforcement.
And the non showboater doesnt? Please.

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA (1)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035423)

I thought the whole point of Anon is that there's limitless numbers of them since they're part of a 'mindset', rather than a specific group. Hence by definition, they can't really 'end'.

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035849)

A DDOS attack isn't hacking / cracking a server. It's the real-life equivalent of staging a flash mob (which in of themselves are not illegal).

A DDOS attack is simply sending so many requests for information to a server that it completely fills the server's queue. Since there are so many requests, the server eventually "gives up" trying to service them all. Hence its name -> Distributed Denial Of Service. The Distributed part implies that it's more than one machine doing it. You can achieve similar results with a misconfigured computer / router (hence IT's first question when something breaks -> "Is it because of something I did?").

Hacking / cracking a server requires actually compromising the server, in whole or in part. If someone had managed to log into the CIA's web server, and began serving up something tasteful on their front page, like pr0n or mp3s, then yes, that would constitute hacking / cracking.

However, I will note that DDOS attacks are annoying as hell. The must successful design / system I have heard of for dealing with them involved over-sized pipes, a set of redundancies, and blocking the IPs that the attacks were originating from. Not full-proof, but it apparently did work.

And yes, while wandering around on 4chan / IRC saying "We did it" isn't advisable, it's not terribly difficult to know who was involved (given the level of complexity here, or so I would think). Even with forged address headers, it's not like the CIA can't Jacques Cousteau their way up the pipes until they find their 'attackers.'

Re:I keep my mouth shut when I hack the CIA (1)

Maritz (1829006) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036985)

Even with forged address headers, it's not like the CIA can't Jacques Cousteau their way up the pipes until they find their 'attackers.'

Many if not most of whom will probably be unwitting owners of botnet infected machines..? ;)

DDoS is for script kiddies. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033467)

Seriously, who cares that they were able to overload a website with their botnet? It might be interesting if they were actually able to hack into it.

Re:DDoS is for script kiddies. (4, Insightful)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033539)

I don't think the point was to demonstrate their skill at hacking.

Re:DDoS is for script kiddies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39034139)

When have they ever done that?

Re:DDoS is for script kiddies. (1)

Theophany (2519296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033543)

Yeah. Real interesting hacking into the CIA website. (I am assuming they are not cretinous enough to store anything of national security on their webserver, of course).

Re:DDoS is for script kiddies. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39034297)

nobody does. Except the skiddies in their ranks, but screw them.

they made a good point in one release though. that, in the physical world, or meatspace as you geeks like to call it, a strike is the method employed by grieved workers to stop access to the infrastructure they are protesting. carry this into the digital world, and a DDoS attack serves the same purpose.

I actually agree with this statement. For sure 99% of Slashdotters see DoS and think "urgh, lame", fair enough; it is. but the above argument caused me to soften my stance a bit.

that being said, why they nuke those type of sites from 2am to 4am doesn't really make it past my bullshit receptors.

Re:DDoS is for script kiddies. (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035441)

More interestingly, do DDOS hits count towards advertising revenue? If so I've got a great idea for a website that will annoy anonymous...

Won't annoy us in the least (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035565)

Why? Because if you're going to get paid by DDoS, the one paying you will renege on the deal.

But, in fact, these advertisers already remove this sort of thing to stop you using a script to just keep banging your webpage and upping the count. They're not dumb.

Unlike you, apparently...

The short answer is: No. (3, Interesting)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033519)

No one took down the CIA.gov website. Did users "take down" Twitter when it faltered under too much load? There's a difference between unavailable and taken down. During a (D)DoS, the servers are still there, still serving content to some, not taken down at all, it's just that there is more traffic than they can handle.

Compare this "taken down" to when the MPAA has a video "taken down" from Youtube. The specific video is no longer accessible, even when plenty of bandwidth is available.

That said, I wouldn't put it past Anonymous agents, that they would send a DMCA "take down" notice complaining that the CIA.gov site is infringing on Anonymous' imaginary property rights; However, I don't think it likely that such an action would result in their site being taken down (the CIA's that is).

Re:The short answer is: No. (5, Informative)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033669)

No one took down the CIA.gov website. Did users "take down" Twitter when it faltered under too much load?

If it's intentional it's a takedown. If it's accidental it's a slashdotting. Either way it's a DDoS.

Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed (5, Insightful)

Bob9113 (14996) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033557)

Perhaps this is obvious, but it seems that an anarchic, leaderless grouping can be hard to keep tabs on.

I saw an article in the paper not too long ago that talked about the Mayor of Oakland having contacted the leadership of the Occupy movement to ask them to disavow Occupy Oakland. It made me want to smack my forehead. The hierarchy drones have a fundamental lack of comprehension of "distributed."

When evils progress beyond what is sufferable, you pass a tipping point where there need be no rabble-rousers. The rabble become self-rousing. These are the warning signs that our leadership has overstepped its bounds and we need to re-examine our dedication to the principles that hold us together as a free nation and people. When the rabble start rousing themselves, we would do well to assume that the more civilized among us are likewise displeased, but with more self-control. The longer we fail to correct our course, the lower the barrier to rabble-hood becomes. It's just the nuttiest x% that are genuinely acting out right now. Soon it will be the nuttiest 2*x%.

Re:Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed (4, Insightful)

binkless (131541) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033617)

When evils progress beyond what is sufferable, you pass a tipping point where there need be no rabble-rousers. The rabble become self-rousing.

And the rhetoric will be self-parodying.

Re:Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033831)

The Occupy movement "organically" formed a concept called "the General Committee" where they attempted direct democracy. It didn't turn out well as the worlds biggest committee decision, & one composed of homeless people. I'm sure this broke the hearts of the communist party plants who seeded the idea.

Even anarchists will organize a government given sufficient logistics problems to solve.

Re:Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed (3, Funny)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033887)

> Even anarchists will organize a government given sufficient logistics problems to solve.

And only those who couldn't get past a base dictionary definition of anarchism were surprised.

Re:Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39034229)

> Even anarchists will organize a government given sufficient logistics problems to solve.

And only those who couldn't get past a base dictionary definition of anarchism were surprised.

Hey, yeah, whadya know, right there in the dictionary.

anarchy (n): A subset of mob rule with no exact definition (yet generally agreed to be somehow better than simple "mob rule") and sounds really cool due to the large amount of movies and comic books with post-apocalyptic settings read by those who refer to it positively, allowing it to be conveniently used by any self-interested wanker who has an axe to grind with whatever government, leadership system, or other amount of power of which he or she is not presently a part and who wants a handy set of weak-willed posers to lead while flip-flopping between constantly insisting he or she is not a "leader" (more specifically, that this "movement" has no "leaders") and constantly insisting that anarchy can have "leaders" while not becoming any form of governing body. See also: The exact sort of thing that got us into this mess in the first place (1776).

Re:Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035723)

Wow Webster sure is getting opinionated these days. Guess everybody is fighting for eyeballs now.

Re:Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed (-1, Troll)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034001)

So you don't know what "communist", "anarchist", or "homeless" means. Good jerb.

Re:Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed (1)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034633)

I know. Negotiating with the "leaders" of Anonymous or the Occupy movement is like negotiating a price with the guy selling you the Brooklyn Bridge.

Re:Authoritarians Do Not Grasp Distributed (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034943)

I wonder if this has anything to do with the rejection of evolution by the hard core religious right. There are few processes more distributed than evolution, and few mindsets more authoritarian then the extremely religious. Just a thought.

Well that just it. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033575)

Activate the asset.

An Anarchic Organization is Anarchic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033583)

Yes, a group dedicated to complete annonymity in a heavily anarchic environment, while committing acts of blatant illegality, are a bit difficult to keep track of...

jordanpagemusic.com (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033595)

http://jordanpagemusic.com

please wake up slashdot.

It's a .GOV (5, Funny)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033619)

They all left early on Friday, came in late on Monday, and have been in a meeting ever since. It'll probably be back online sometime Thursday.

What about China? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033771)

When did we stop blaming China for stuff like this? Also, the only reason I could see a "real" hacker attacking a site like this would be in hopes that one of the accounts has access to a server with "privileged" information on it.

Re:What about China? (0)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034093)

No real hacker that can read in English would bother, as any valuable information to the CIA or any other Gov't org is held on the SIPRNET/NIPRNET, which is in no way connected to the internet.

Hactivists might in protest, but as XKCD pointed out, the CIA is nothing more than a digital poster, and actions to it have just as much value.

Re:What about China? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39034479)

The Unclassified but Sensitive Internet Protocol (IP) Router Network (abbreviated as "NIPRNet," but commonly written "NIPRNET"), but prevalently referred to as the "Non-classified IP Router Network," is used to exchange sensitive but unclassified information between "internal" users as well as providing users access to the Internet.

There is no classified information on NIPRNET. SIPRNET has information classified up to SECRET, which is not really all that valuable anyway. SIPRNET is not connected to the internet but is shared with our allies.

The real important data is held on JWICS, which is cleared up to TOP SECRET and is not connected to the internet or shared with allies.

The most sensitive data (TS/SCI) is held on other unnamed networks that are generally isolated by each government agency but may have a connection to JWICS.

DDoSing or even hacking the CIA.gov website will give you exactly zero classified information.

Re:What about China? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39034235)

Within 15 years the USA will "miraculousl"y and joyfully reach a state of détente, even brotherhood, as they join their massive surveillance/control systems to fight against the vague shadowy ill-defined group or concept which their secret focus groups show rouse the most fear in their populations.

The long answer: Yes? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033793)

Was CIA.gov apparently a target? Yes. Was access to it blocked for an amount of time, apparently at someone other than the CIA's will? Yes. These "attacks" credited to Anonymous are like blocking the entrance to a store or government building. Noone claimed to have "terminated" the CIA website, nor to have permanently "taken down" the website. Word in the Anon circle was that one or more servers, claimed to contain pedophilia, have been hijacked and programmed to continuously attack CIA.gov. As usual with Anonymous, its hard to confirm, pretty much need the CIA to admit what IP(s) is(are) hammering them. It's always funny seeing operations credited to Anonymous and funny to see people grumble. Realize any hacker in Russia, China, or the entire planet can claim Anonymous did it. Doesn't mean THE Anonymous did it. I would not be surprised if the Chinese Ghostnet has credited Anonymous by now. /shrug

controlled opposition? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39033875)

Has anyone ever considered that "anonymous" is a wet dream for those who wish to deny freedom and destroy the net?

It's perfectly tailored - even the name, to be a problem that those fascists who wish to legislate away our freedoms online will have the perfect solution for - and I suspect that solution is going to look like an "internet drivers license" type identification scheme. They will want to remove anonymity online completely.

Yes. Yes we have. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035809)

We have also considered that rhetoric to be merely emotional blackmail to stop what needs to be done.

try the seafood platter (4, Funny)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39033937)

Perhaps this is obvious, but it seems that an anarchic, leaderless grouping can be hard to keep tabs on

And as for Anonymous, they're even worse!

Technically speaking... (4, Insightful)

Xacid (560407) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034097)

Technically speaking - if they don't know the culprit(s) then the culprit(s) is/are, by definition, anonymous.

"Anonymous" is a fake (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39034113)

And just like bin Laden, it will be kept "active" until the major objectives of our overseers are accomplished. You can guarantee yourself that the day the governments of USA/UK/China will jointly announce that they have penetrated and destroyed "Anonymous" will be the day the people controlling those governments have already executed the part of their plans which required the existence of an online "terrorist" organization.

It is no coincidence that the highly publicized assassination of bin Laden occurred shortly before massive troop draw-downs in the middle east. He was no longer necessary as a free-floating fear stimulus to provide cover for our military adventures over there, which where themselves just covers for other objectives in the perpetual game of thrones.

Just you watch, men/groups like Anonymous and Assange and PirateBay etc. will be tolerated (or indirectly propped up) in order to beat the drums of the coming Global War on Internet Terror. It's all drama.

Re:"Anonymous" is a fake (1)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035527)

I think you've confused reality with the plot of 1984. We actually do have enemies and threats, though I do not personally categorize Anonymous that way.

ABC Government Groups (1)

poormanjoe (889634) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034257)

At its core the CIA just lays the ground work in advance for an invasion/occupation. Groups like this should be rolled into the military since that's all they are.

RON PAUL 2012

They did it, and took credit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39034421)

http://gizmodo.com/5884346/anonymous-explains-cia-takedown

it's the chinese (0)

jsepeta (412566) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034549)

if anonymous had any confidence whatsoever about the takedown, they'd be crowing about it.
chances are, it's the chinese, perhaps attempting to mask the attack as something that anonymous would do.

i'm starting to really dislike those communists.

prominent members? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39034689)

I LOL'ed.
There are no "prominent" members of anonymous, anyone who claims to be is some lying namefag who doesn't quite understand the concept of anonymity. And why does everything have to be a "movement". It's all about the lulz, it always has been, it always will be.

Re:prominent members? (1)

StefanWiesendanger (687733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036103)

Yeah... a "prominent member of anonymous" is kind of an oxymoron...

Anon accomplished nothing here (1)

orphiuchus (1146483) | more than 2 years ago | (#39034889)

The CIA only uses that site for public relations, they've got their own separate system for all of their real work.

Re:Anon accomplished nothing here (1)

QuincyDurant (943157) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035229)

But Anonymous did stymie those evil grade school kids who rely on the site for social studies reports. That counts for something, doesn't it?

Re:Anon accomplished nothing here (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39036345)

Anonymous isn't exactly a crack tactical team. More an amorphous general-purpose psy-ops.

Symbolic victory is all they really ever need. As long as public perception remains that they caused a real headache, then it was a win.

As long as they inspire someone to take up the mantle in the future, they win. Its all about hearts and minds. Every time some random person puts on the mask and stands on a street corner, they win.

Yes and no (0)

onecrane (1724046) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035103)

Yes, it was Anonymous that hit the CIA, because the person who did it used Anonymous to conceal his identity. And for the exact same reason, it was also *not* Anonymous - it was just somebody using the name.

Anonymous isn't really a group - it's a label. Among other things, it's a tool for hackers to publish their accomplishments without risking additional exposure. In an idealized sense, it's very powerful protection of our second amendment rights, if we take hacking and privacy to be the arms of the information age.

I need a VPN for SSL now? (2)

BitwiseX (300405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035275)

though it responded to port 443, a common port for VPN connections using Secure Sockets Layer encryption.

Really IT World? *faceplam*

I would have joined the attack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035469)

but I am too much the coward

Na... (1)

AlphaZeta (1356887) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035495)

I heard they just upgraded to the latest Windows 8 Servers?

Of course it was anon. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39035691)

When something gets hacked you blame anon.

When you invade privacy, take away rights or invade another country then its because of terrorists.

When you ruin internet freedom you blame it on piracy.

Personally who cares if anon just takes down their website, big deal they will have it back up in no time. If anon really wants to be taken seriously they need to step it up and start actually hacking cia, releasing files, uncovering stuff and really fucking with the works. Just taking a website is beyond my meger skills but still, its just a website and not like it actually does anything.

Who Cares? (3, Insightful)

bwall (2455524) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035697)

I'm so tired of hearing what Anonymous has DDoS'd now. I'm sick of them doing short sighted immature attacks that only end up giving legislators reasons to throw harsher laws on everyone else. Its just a bunch of low tech, high profile bullshit that's fucking everyone that uses the Internet FAR worse than their target.

Intelligence (1)

nauseous (2239684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035741)

Shows how much they know and how secure they really are now. Hire me CIA and I'll protect you! :-)

Interesting question (2)

Eloking (877834) | more than 2 years ago | (#39035811)

It's an interesting question really. In the last years, the media have been pretty fast to put the blame of multiple take down on Anonymous. Of course, some of them were planned openly by them on website like 4chan, but let's not forget that the "victims" have other enemies too.

For instance, how much thought did the Chinese (the 21th century bad guy) put about cyber-attacking the CIA "after" they heard about Anonymous plan? I'm no expert, but don't you think there's a great opportunity for them to take advantage of the situation?

And (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 2 years ago | (#39037227)

was anything of value was lost during this downtime ? I dont think such secret services have been serving their people's needs for a long time now.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...