×

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 Supporters Tricked Into Installing Trojan

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the if-you-can't-beat-'em-subsume-'em dept.

Botnet 184

dsinc sends this quote from a Symantec report: "In 2011, dozens of Anonymous members who participated in distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks in support of Anonymous hacktivism causes were arrested. In these DDoS attacks, supporters using the Low Orbit Ion Cannon denial-of-service (DoS) tool would voluntarily include their computer in a botnet for attacks in support of Anonymous. In the wake Anonymous member arrests this week, it is worth highlighting how Anonymous supporters have been deceived into installing Zeus botnet clients purportedly for the purpose of DoS attacks. The Zeus client does perform DoS attacks, but it doesn’t stop there. It also steals the users' online banking credentials, webmail credentials, and cookies. The deception of Anonymous supporters began on January 20, 2012, the day of the FBI Megaupload raid."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

184 comments

Not hackers? Shocking! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39233623)

Further proof the bulk of "anonymous" are just brainless sheep on image boards.

Re:Not hackers? Shocking! (5, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39233743)

Further proof the bulk of "anonymous" are just brainless sheep on image boards.

Sheep? Yeah, most of them are. Much like anything popular, what you're mainly going to attract are sheep.

Brainless? Some, sure. I saw one that had decorated her Guy Fawkes mask "to make it prettier". Um. Yeah, brainless. But I think you'll find some smart ones too, if you look hard.

Image boards? Nothing in TFA points to that. It's easy to think of Anonymous as a bunch of 4channers, but that's not really true anymore, if it ever was. IRC and Twitter are probably more popular than image boards for those who go beyond just sniffing at Anon. Probably Facebook too for the more careless ones. But there's very little Anonymous on image boards these days.

Re:Not hackers? Shocking! (2)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | more than 2 years ago | (#39233777)

That's exactly what they'd want us to think, arth1. Or should I say ... anon1?

Re:Not hackers? Shocking! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39233895)

Curses! You've toppled my nefarious plan!

Re:Not hackers? Shocking! (0)

WhitetailKitten (866108) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234857)

You don't get anything done on a public imageboard, unless that thing you're trying to do is posting porn/shock and gore/kittens/stupid image macros. Any serious organization is done in IRC or elsewhere. I took part in the RL protests against Scientology, but I'm not particularly interested in joining along in DDOSing large organizations with lots of lawyers.

I'd agree with you but I'm afraid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39234079)

I'd agree with you but I'm afraid that Anonymous may take my website down an cause me some grief - somewhere about a dozen places below not being able to find a matching sock.

Re:Not hackers? Shocking! (0, Flamebait)

KingBenny (1301797) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234531)

actually yea, i saw this video on youtube with a masked guy asking to download hoic and or loic for an attack on facebook (what they would want to achieve with that is a bit unclear ... blacking out facebook for a few hours has like zero consequence or political impact imo) sounded a bit like testosterone headbutting contest ... so i download it and scanned them both, avira gave nothing but housecall found malware in one of them ... so that's what i posted in a reply to the video ...
i dont know who would be so smart as to just download something from anyone with a mask thats available anywhere and install it without scanning but apparently some people did ... stupid?
yea
i can not believe the core of this movement would do something that obvious knowing how it would damage their reputation, fodder for the feds and such now, discredit, anyone can don the mask, everything gets exploited but i'm a bit like well, if you installed that without scanning, you kinda had it like coming, just a little bit
did i already say that anyone can don the mask and make any claim about anything at all ... i saw a post there at the time saying there was no mention of ddos attack on facebook on the 'official' anonymous channels, wherever that may be
i still believe in it, tho i see way more potential in a cooperation between a faceless publishing house and wikileaks than a bit of ddos attacks by some disgruntled whatevers, assange was taken down because he brought to attention what would otherwise have stayed mostly in the usual channels, he had a public face and could be attacked ... masked resistance publishing leaked documents would be way harder to trace and like i said, way more useful than just painting funny moustaches on websites or blacking them out for a few hours
we'll see :p (what struck me most was the total difference in style, the guy from the wall street video was clearly highly educated and very eloquent while the guy from the youtube facebook ddos was clearly not ... might have been a clue)
or not
we'll see :p

Did you expect *not* to find malware...? (1)

F69631 (2421974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234727)

actually yea, i saw this video on youtube with a masked guy asking to download hoic and or loic for an attack on facebook (what they would want to achieve with that is a bit unclear ... blacking out facebook for a few hours has like zero consequence or political impact imo) sounded a bit like testosterone headbutting contest ... so i download it and scanned them both, avira gave nothing but housecall found malware in one of them ... so that's what i posted in a reply to the video ...

i dont know who would be so smart as to just download something from anyone with a mask thats available anywhere and install it without scanning but apparently some people did ... stupid?

It's a piece of software intended to be used for DDOSing (even if participating is voluntary)... Did you really expect it not to register as malware if it's "legit"? I fail to see the point of scanning it in the first place.

Anyways... "Anonymous" is a banner like "Feminism". Anyone can label themselves as such if they feel like it. So different kinds of people apply the term to themselves that the term itself is essentially meaningless. Interesting thing isn't what Anon stands for but rather the fact that so many people (from gamers to script kiddies to half-competent security guys) want to be part of that social movement. Medium is the message, etc.

Re:Not hackers? Shocking! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39234723)

Yeah, nice try. I think the fact that this article exists and the arrests occurred pretty much proves how "anonymous" you people really are. Let's hope you wind up in the same jail as the rest of your pussy, well-to-do-white "legion."

Re:Not hackers? Shocking! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39235001)

ah the racist ACs, I was wondering where they'd gone.

Re:Not hackers? Shocking! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39235037)

My "AC posts goatse and nigger remarks" exposure meter for the day was disturbingly low, and I thought there was a major outage in the US. I'm glad it wasn't anything to worry about.

Re:Not hackers? Shocking! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39235045)

How did this post get rated as insightful when the guy who made it clearly doesn't know anything about what he's talking about?

The SMART Anons are the idiots. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39235051)

Think about it. If you know something and are caught, then you are punnished harder by the jewdges whereas someone whom is an idiot will get to collect trash along the freeway for a month.

Yew rike muh Gay Faux masquerade? Alone at-last, in the true Robot 9K1 of 4Chon(.net).

Jokes on them! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39233655)

Anonymous members don't have bank accounts.

They don't need them (5, Funny)

Viol8 (599362) | more than 2 years ago | (#39233769)

The pocket money they get from mummy and daddy doesn't make it worth while.

Re:They don't need them (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39234619)

Mod down, 24 living in my OWN house with full time job. Judging by your UID your just a sad old man

Re:Jokes on them! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39233953)

Actually, I think the target is more along the lines of people who want to look 1337 by riding the Anonymous bandwagon while having now skills. In turn Anonymous or other parties took advantage of these wanna-bes and now the wanna-bes are paying the price.

Fuck the wanna-bes. I hope Anonymous drains their accounts and leaves those punk ass bitches high and dry.

Re:Jokes on them! (3, Interesting)

um... Lucas (13147) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234235)

Or all the funds are transferred to a single account owned by some authority, who can then trace back who was participating in the ddos attacks by subpoenaing from banks the identities of all the accounts that had automated transfers made into the master account. Think fighting fire with fire.

Re:Jokes on them! (2)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234297)

I'm pretty sure any evidence gathered that way will be inadmissible.

That said, that would tell them who to focus their energy on. Once they did that, I'm sure piles of legitimate evidence would start appearing.

Re:Jokes on them! (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234281)

What are "now" skills?

Re:Jokes on them! (3, Funny)

soundguy (415780) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234359)

Skills that are fully buzzword-compliant as opposed to coding in Cobol, manufacturing buggy whips, or operating a VCR. If you can fully actualize the cloud paradigm, you're hired!

Re:Jokes on them! (0)

djlowe (41723) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234933)

If you can fully actualize the cloud paradigm, you're hired!

You don't have to fully actualize, all you need to do is acknowledge the realization of past technological synergies and then extrapolate them into a new vision, nebulous, but enticing, which promises to leverage both the old and the new into something revolutionary.

Or so I've been told.

Regards,

dj

what could go wrong? (5, Funny)

lostsoulz (1631651) | more than 2 years ago | (#39233671)

Installing software that allows a third party to orchestrate DDoS? Sounds legit...

Re:what could go wrong? (3, Insightful)

Sorthum (123064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39233739)

The circumstances surrounding this make it very hard to be sympathetic to people who get hit by it. "My banking information was compromised, and all I wanted to do was help take down the website of some entity that displeased me today" isn't really a rallying cry many people can get behind.

Re:what could go wrong? (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39233793)

"My banking information was compromised, and all I wanted to do was help take down the website of some entity that displeased me today" isn't really a rallying cry many people can get behind.

Well, no. It's too long.
"Tits, for great justice!" is shorter.

Who said that a battle cry has to reflect all your causes? I don't see US marines crying "to protect the dollar being usurped as de facto currency for international oil trade" either. Instead they go with a slogan they don't know what means, don't know how to pronounce, but is short and goes well with beer.

Re:what could go wrong? (2)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234303)

... er, every marine I know damn well knows what it means, even if they can't say it right.

Re:what could go wrong? (1)

rssrss (686344) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234787)

"Tits, for great justice!" is shorter.

Annonymous will never be able to use that one.

Re:what could go wrong? (5, Interesting)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39233937)

What about running it in a sandbox? It's not like a DDOS tool needs to access your files, is it?

Re:what could go wrong? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234315)

Smart idea on several levels. Make a tiny VM, and if your spidey-sense tingles, shred the disk file.

Re:what could go wrong? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39234525)

Even better...

1) Install DDOS trojan on an old pc you have laying around;
2) Packet away at $enemy_of_the_day!
3) When/if the police come knocking at your door, play dumb (i.e. plausible deniability) and show them your malware-ridden old pc (for bonus points, install Antivirus2013 and friends, just to make the malware infection seem obvious)
4) ???
5) PROFIT! (or, at least, not jail)

I'm actually surprised Anonymous hasn't come up with something like this before...

Re:what could go wrong? (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234077)

It's gratifying to see one of my dark predictions realized even if it does mean that a lot of morons got ripped off.

Re:what could go wrong? (1)

memnock (466995) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234961)

Initially I supported Anonymous. It seemed like they were actually a group that stood up to organizations that abused power.

However, it seems that some of the "members " of Anonymous have taken to abusing the power they themselves accumulated. Perhaps there are still people in that group who would rather crack FBI and intelligence company sites to upset their operations, but those divergent members who are using the Anonymous abilities and name to commit crimes against supporters are making Anonymous as a whole unlikeable.

Reminds me of prohibition (0, Troll)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39233677)

The US government was recently found guilty poisoning liquor with extra chemicals in addition to rubbing alcohol to make the boot leggers look bad.

It would not surprise me if they are doing the same to make Anonymous look like evil crackers and criminals.

Re:Reminds me of prohibition (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39233711)

Mod parent -1, way offtopic and trolling anyways.

Re:Reminds me of prohibition (2)

Sevalecan (1070490) | more than 2 years ago | (#39233715)

It would not surprise me if they are doing the same to make Anonymous look like evil crackers and criminals.

Anonymous does a pretty good job of that themselves, if you ask me.

Re:Reminds me of prohibition (1)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39233857)

But how do you knooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow?

(All tin foil based headwear products 50% off, this Sunday only!)

Re:Reminds me of prohibition (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39233867)

Yup. There is very little that "Anonymous" does that I could get behind, and even then their means (DDoS? It is to laugh) is silly as it does little damage.

If you attack the front facing site (eg www.paypal.com) you do nothing. If you attack the transaction infrastructure, then maybe you offline and inconvenience a few hundred people in one time zone.

With a lot of stuff moving "To the could" DDoS's become an easily solved problem by opening new instances and shutting down the previous ones. If you have bottomless amounts of money you just open more new instances until the DDoS is unsustained.

Now ... the way to fuck over cloud infrastructure with a DDoS is to actually use their own infrastructure against them. Hijack peoples wordpress blogs on EC2 and then crush the target site with AB. Whoever owns the instance will probably discover the compromise within 4 hours.

Re:Reminds me of prohibition (5, Funny)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 2 years ago | (#39233845)

Yeah, screw the government.

Just the other day, I learnt that the awful smell of natural gas is actually because of something they add to gas and that it wouldn't smell if they didn't have it! Now, whenever my pilot light goes off or I don't quite turn the oven off, my house absolutely stinks! The smell's so bad that last time it happened, when I wanted to smoke, I had to go outside, and get well away from the house to escape the smell!

Why can't the government accept that not everyone uses these so called 'dangerous substances' like they seem to think they should be used?

Re:Reminds me of prohibition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39234049)

That is a case of good intervention. It actually helps.

Here is a case of bad intervention.

UPS finds out it will cost them x number of dollars to fly over Europe to pay for 'carbon taxes'. "OH ok" they say. "We will just fly the longer flights over africa, russia, and the Mediterranean as it will be cheaper". Good intentions met with greed and cost optimization. Good intentions almost always loose in that case.

Usually it ends badly when money is involved and no one benefits except the gov. In your example people actually benefit and no one really argues about it.

For example the IRS they want to streamline. They want to make it easy to file and let you keep your money. They want easier laws to follow. They want full out automation (they already have all the information). Who argues against it? People who prepare taxes. They will loose their jobs. See? Good intentions meets cost optimization...

Re:Reminds me of prohibition (3, Informative)

tragedy (27079) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234861)

The difference being that adding a scent to natural gas saves lives, but adding poison to industrial alcohol definitely kills people. At least tens of thousands of people died from alcohol the government intentionally poisoned during prohibition. The government's position, of course, was that it was entirely the fault of the bootleggers who distilled that alcohol for human consumption and of the people who drank it. The reality is that it was a terror campaign run by the US government and the fact that those who died were breaking the law doesn't in any way excuse it.

Re:Reminds me of prohibition (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234135)

To be fair they poisoned industrial alcohol that had poison labels on it, and it was no secret either.
Industrial alcohol is used in quite a lot of applications, but to not be taxed for creating a alcoholic liquid the manufactures had to make it toxic. In the middle of prohibition when it was obviously not working, organized crime had hired chemists to de toxify the stuff, they increased the poisons put into the stuff to make it undrinkable again. This time apparently it was to much for the criminal chemists, not that that stopped them from selling it to everybody.

The US government did kill thousands and thousands doing this, but adding poisons to a products that is clearly labelled as poison is not a horrible crime.

Re:Reminds me of prohibition (0)

tragedy (27079) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234877)

Yeah, it kind of is a horrible crime when it wasn't poisonous (well, ok, it was, but no more than regular drinking alcohol) but they added poison specifically to kill people. When you make something dangerous specifically for the purpose of killing people, that's pretty horrible.

Folks, this is an important announcement. (0)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | more than 2 years ago | (#39233701)

Hi to all my friends on this web site.

Gentlemen and Lady: As you all know, I have consistently warned against the Italian islamocommunist conspiracy mencaing our nation's Internet.

I believe I may have made a terrible mistake.

Yesterday, I went to see a physician. Now usually I steer clear of doctors, since most of them are secret Italian agents or Italian fellow-travelers. But after careful research I found a doctor who had no taint of Italo-Islamocommunist association. After dicsussing the Italian conspiracy to beam thoughts of treason into my brain via innocent-looking household appliances, he explained to me that this was an illusion, a hallucinatory disorder, created by an Italian virus in my gallbladder.

After taking the prescribed pills, notonly have the nefarious Italian disinformation transmissions stopped coming from my espresso maker and shampoo bottles, but I also have become importent, which has sadly caused mearly half ofmy girlfriends, wives and mistresses to desert me. Good riddance,they were probably secret Italina agents anyway who left when they could no longer program my toaster-oven to hypnotically deceive me. Better fewer but better, I say.

However, the problem of impotence is still irksome. Knowing that you all are good, patriotic American scientific and technical people, I turn to you, the commentators of Slashdote, for some comradely advice. Thanks in advance.

Re:Folks, this is an important announcement. (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | more than 2 years ago | (#39233767)

After taking the prescribed pills, notonly have the nefarious Italian disinformation transmissions stopped coming from my espresso maker and shampoo bottles, but I also have become importent, which has sadly caused mearly half ofmy girlfriends, wives and mistresses to desert me. Good riddance,they were probably secret Italina agents anyway who left when they could no longer program my toaster-oven to hypnotically deceive me. Better fewer but better, I say.

"mearly half ofmy girlfriends, wives and mistresses"? Yeah, Silvio, I know you got tossed out of office; is that why you're so angry at Italy [guardian.co.uk] ?

Re:Folks, this is an important announcement. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39233979)

He's just upset for being persecuted for sleeping with minors. Damn Italians and their standards of moral decency.

Re:Folks, this is an important announcement. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234819)

Tells you something about the fucked up moral standards that he's being persecuted for sleeping with minors and not his political atrocities...

LOL @ #buttes, failures. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39233705)


 

So let me see if I understand this: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39233811)

We are supposed to feel bad for these guys that were attempting to engage in premeditated malicious behavior, and in doing so they ended up getting robbed by someone else that took advantage of their stupidity?

It sounds like your basic con: Person #1 offers something Person #2 wants at a great deal. Person #2 is really greedy, and tries to trick Person #1 into a deal where Person #1 is at a disadvantage. Person #1 agrees to this as Person #1 was never at a disadvantage and Person #2 would have lost regardless of how the deal went down, whether under the original terms, or the new terms that Person #1 manipulated Person #2 into creating.

Although sometimes the original terms of the deal are extremely beneficial to Person #2 and they only become detrimental when Person #2 decides to change the terms.

Re:So let me see if I understand this: (3, Funny)

Tommy Bologna (2431404) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234375)

No, you're supposed to sit back, condescend, and radiate a false sense of superiority. You're right on track. Keep it up.

FBI? (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 2 years ago | (#39233849)

The summary and TFA seem to hint that this is an FBI sting, but the details don't seem to support that.

Maybe more will come out about it later.

Symantec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39233897)

Correct me if I am wrong.

First, Anonymous hacked Symantec and revealed the source code for PCAnywhere. Symantec asked all users stop using PCAnywhere, because it contains backdoor (or "just" a hole? don't care).

But nearly at the same Symantec tried to hack Anonymous.

Something is wrong with that SOPA-loving company.

DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit (3, Interesting)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | more than 2 years ago | (#39233899)

Seriously, the only purpose of a DDoS is to prevent somebody from being able to speak. I'm a huge advocate of freedom of speech, I love it when everybody is able to say whatever they want to say, and that includes people I don't like. I hate the MPAA/RIAA as much as anybody, but I want them to be able to say what they say. Websites are a form of speech, regardless of whether their purpose is to sell goods or to issue propaganda.

When you shut down those websites (like anonymous tried to do with the vatican) you are no better than the mafia; just trying to shut somebody up for the sole purpose that you don't like them. To these people, freedom of speech is good but only when they agree with the person who is speaking. That is just fucked up and goes against everything our democracy stands for; so I say fuck anonymous. If they want to spread the truth about the bad things that an organization does (like they did with scientology,) that is perfectly acceptable, but shutting them up is not.

To me this is poetic justice. No, I don't like to see people getting their identity stolen, but participating in inhibiting somebody else's ability to speak is just bad form, and I hope they get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39234015)

Picket Brick'N'Mortar store or DDOS OnlineStore.com... what speech is being halted? Either can still speak out (Press releases, backup location/sites, etc). The price is business lost, customers frustrated that shop elsewhere, bad press, etc

You CAN stifle speech via DDOS, but to say it's the ONLY reason for doing it? that's a bit short sighted to say the least. Ignoring the forest for the tree you've focused on.

Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit (3, Insightful)

xyzzyman (811669) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234085)

If you picket Walmart, you aren't physically stopping others from shopping there as they normally would. If you DDOS Walmart.com, you are stopping people from shopping there.

Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit (2)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234203)

The price is business lost, customers frustrated that shop elsewhere, bad press, etc

So in other words, it is up to you to tell their customers where they are and are not allowed to shop? If not by kicking their customers out of their store, then by forcing them out of business simply because you disagree with them? That sounds a bit arrogant, and is certainly not in the spirit of freedom.

When godaddy supported SOPA, they didn't deserve to be DDoS'ed (and as far as I am aware, they weren't) however their customers are free to do business with somebody else. That is democracy; forcing them out of business is not.

Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39234029)

A DoS rarely suppresses speech. It usually draws attention to points of view given by both the DoS-er and the DoS-ee. The mainstream news reports covering DoS don't commonly ignore one side of the argument. Besides, anyone who gets DoS-ed can just get another website for $20/month a spout more nonsense. Your post sounds nice, but I think you miss the point.

Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit (3, Insightful)

nstlgc (945418) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234037)

The only purpose of a DDoS is to prevent somebody from being able to speak? Seriously? As far as I can tell they serve mostly a symbolic meaning. DDoS'ing visa.com will not silence Visa. DDoS'ing the site of Interpol will do nothing that hinders the working of Interpol in any way. Or do you actually believe that shutting down the Vatican website will mute the Vatican? No, I didn't think so either. But it makes for a great strawman argument, doesn't it?

Of course, DDoS *could* be used to silence someone who's only way of speaking out is through a narrow band on the Internet. And it probably is, too. But not in these cases.

Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit (1)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234151)

If that isn't the purpose, then what is the purpose? You just don't like them and you want them gone? You just don't want them to be able to do business? Just because you don't want them to exist, means they don't have the right to?

How is any of this in the spirit of democracy and freedom of expression?

Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39234169)

So these people install dubious software that steals their bank account details in order to DDoS websites they disagree with, for the symbolism. What a herd of idiots.

Re:DDoS'ing is comparable to a mafia hit (1)

travbrad (622986) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234915)

I think it's pretty ridiculous to think DDoSing RIAA/MPAA is going to do anything anyway. Does anyone actually visit those sites?

It simply shows... (2, Interesting)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#39233949)

That Anonymous does not have any moral ground to stand on. Sure they may fight the man, but they'll have no compunction about robbing you blind either. That's not Robin Hood its street punk gangsta with a computer.

Re:It simply shows... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39234047)

How exactly does this show 'Anonymous' has no moral high ground to stand on? There is no they. It isn't a group with a specific set of ideas or 'morals'. There is no leader. Participants come and go as they please and even contradict each other. Some may participate in attacks against the government while others participate in attacks in favour of the government. Some may reject attacks alltogether.

Re:It simply shows... (-1, Offtopic)

wbr1 (2538558) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234211)

Ohhhh. I got an 'anonymous' downmod. I am shakin' in my shoes now.

Re:It simply shows... (2)

MindPrison (864299) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234343)

There's a difference between Hackers and Crackers...

In Anonymous there's probably 4-5 hackers, and 20+ crackers, 1000+ script kiddies + 10.000 fanboys.

Re:It simply shows... (4, Insightful)

sociocapitalist (2471722) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234357)

If I understood TFA correctly, the trojan was not distributed by Anonymous but by others who basically hijacked the distro, redirecting the wannabee DDOSers to another executable which contained the trojan.

Re:It simply shows... (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234369)

That Anonymous does not have any moral ground to stand on.

They have no moral high ground? Sounds like an opinion.

In any case, considering their past actions, what makes this case special? If they have no moral high ground now, shouldn't someone have realized in the past that they didn't have it then? I think they should've realized such a thing sooner.

It's Okay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39233981)

stealing personal information was for the lulz

lmao. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39234005)

I'm sure there were people trusting enough to download an unknown "hack-in-the-box" kit. The same low hanging fruit that get swept up for DDOS'ing paypal without a proxy. Not many, but the internet is a big place, and a sucker's born every minute.
OFC, hopefully their Anon computer and their banking computer aren't the same machines to begin with.

And you get what you deserve. (1, Informative)

sirwired (27582) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234095)

I have about as much sympathy for the people victimized by this scheme as I do for people that sign up for 419 scams where the come-on letter is clearly asking the recipient to engage in money laundering, theft, and blatant violations of tax and banking laws.

If you install malicious software on your computer on purpose, I have ZERO sympathy for you when it turns out the software includes you in the list of victims.

This really sounds like (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39234103)

Disinformation to frighten off the mindless hordes who support Anon.

Anonymous...4...5..guys at best.. (1)

MindPrison (864299) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234165)

I think Anonymous basically are 4 - 5 really skilled people that really knows what they're doing, the rest is just a bunch of posers and script-kiddies that does whatever Anonymous want them to do - in fact, the worst posers probably does exactly what anonymous doesn't want them to do as well, since there are no real connection between them, no real mail, no real addresses - just random causes that some follow or not.

If there's an outrage in the world, it's very easy to make a distorted video, put on a guy fawkes mask, and post it on youtube via a tor connection. Any idiot can do that.

And of course there are crackers with malicious intent, they're pretty much like any other criminals, just using computer knowledge (borrowed from real hackers) to steal and destroy for purposes only known to them.

That's it - really...

Re:Anonymous...4...5..guys at best.. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234869)

When I look about the hacks that happened so far, I can't really agree with this. I'm not going to say that they are not skilled, but what happened so far was more a matter of rather simple, standard injection attacks, similar to the attempts I find thousands a day in our IDS/IPS logs. Attacks that would have been found in a standard security audit, I might add.

In a nutshell, what Anonymous hacked so far were companies whose disregard for security borders on stupidity. And I say stupidity because I don't know exactly what the legal requirements concerning security are in various countries and hence do not want to accuse any companies that spend a million times more money on their legal department than their IT department of criminal negligence.

So it's quite possible that they have a few or many good ITsecs in their ranks. But so far there has been little that I'd call impressive.

Breaking News: people fall for the same tricks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39234173)

Like this hasn't been going on in malware since forever?

Breaking News: your co-worker's have been tricked into installing malware by opening malicious emails!

Hell 4chan used to warn you not to open links, people that do to download executable have to be the idiot cancer they spend half their time complaining about there. Pretty sure they'd get no sympathy on /b/ either.

Nelson Muntz Alert (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39234283)

HA-Ha!

I would log in to post this, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39234313)

I am anonymous. I would log in to post this, but now I'm afraid Zeus will get my slashdot password.

To quote Qui-Gon Jinn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39234331)

"There's always a bigger fish."

Not really new (1)

Milharis (2523940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234427)

I was having a look at one annonymous IRC channel more than a month ago, and I saw a few guys asking for a link to the "LOIC without the trojan".
I assume this is the same one they are talking about in this article; so this not relly new.

Irony.... (1)

guitardood (934630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234443)

I find it quite ironic that Symantec, a company whose "antivirus" utilities allow the most virii into machines (both O/S and the antivirus software itself) and exhibits the most virus-like behavior when you try and remove it, is publishing the report.

I've had quite a few associates with virii over the last 12 months and each and every one of them had either Symantec Internet Security, McAfee or MS Security that were supposedly defending their systems. Every case of infection required a complete O/S reinstall to recover from the damage with the only exception of one client who opted to buy new machines.

FYI, there is a site called virscan.org where you could upload an infected/suspect file and they will run it through a host of antivirus software and provide results of each one. Each of the aforementioned products has been very poor on most of these, especially the EXE's masquerading as PDF's coming in via email.

I really don't have a horse in the race, but based on results from virscan.org, ESET NOD32 is the best recommendation as of late as it recognized all the samples I could throw at it. A real solution would be for MS to "sandbox" installed software to at least protect the O/S from infection, compatibility be damned, but I'm sure that won't happen.

As for the Anonymous angle, anything I would say has been said.

Re:Irony.... (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234583)

I don't see how the inability to program a properly functioning piece of software has anything to do with the ability to write an article about how downloading software from random links will get you infected.

Re:Irony.... (1)

guitardood (934630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234731)

The OP said the report was from Symantec, I found it humorous and opined. Don't like it, don't read it.

Re:Irony.... (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234795)

No, it has nothing to do with that. You're trying to say that Symantec is unable to write a report about some event or fact because their software sucks at catching a virus.

Re:Irony.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39234835)

No vendor is 100% effective. Your preachy attitude isn't a very good AV system either.

Oh and pro tip from someone in the AV industry: no one in the industry or on the blackhat end uses the word "virii".

NOD32, what a joke.

Re:Irony.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39234995)

When was the last time you read any papers on the subject? Everyone from SANS to researchers writing papers uses "virii", although personally I find other terms to more adequately describe the concepts involved, but none the less it is used. Also, I know for a fact that ESET NOD32 is deployed in multiple digital forensics labs around the world, multi-billion dollar defence companies and financial institutions.

Nothing interesting here (1)

kyrio (1091003) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234573)

Spread links to "LOIC" downloads through Twitter, Facebook and random forums. Attain control of hundreds, if not thousands of computers. This is why you verify a clean source for your downloads, so you don't get infected by viruses. It's part of the Common Sense 2012 Anti-Virus Suite.

Re:Nothing interesting here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39234681)

Anonymous is, or at least the DDoS side of it is, legions of bored teenagers who may or may not know anything about computer security downloading shady "hacking" programs from shady websites. There isn't really a "clean source", and it's just begging for this sort of thing to happen. It's hardly a new idea, "hacking tools" have always been a popular target for viruses, as the people who download them tend to be morons.

FUD... (1)

billybob_jcv (967047) | more than 2 years ago | (#39234987)

...works.

It really does amaze me that humans ever managed to crawl out of the evolutionary cesspool. We spend far too much effort attempting to protect the stupid. We should let the universe do much more pruning of the dead wood. Here's your sign...
   

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...