Beta
×

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!

Krebs Hacker Unmasked, Hit Ars and Wired's Honan

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the why-waste-life-on-useful-things dept.

Security 164

altjira writes "Brian Krebs, hot on the tail of the hacker who DDOS his site and SWATted his home, followed up on a tip, found the dox, called and then outed his hacker. Turns out it may have been the same guy who hit Wired's Mat Honan and Ars Technica." The attacker is ... a 20 year old guy who apparently has too much time on his hands, and was surprisingly careless with his personal information for someone exploiting the personal information of others.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

SWATting (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222747)

Given the propensity of the American police responding to that sort of call to shoot first and possibly get round to asking questions a bit later on, SWATting somebody should be charged as attempted murder

Re:SWATting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222797)

While I agree it should be a crime of some sort, the person pulling the trigger should be the one charged with murder.

Re:SWATting (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223473)

While I agree it should be a crime of some sort, the person pulling the trigger should be the one charged with murder.

You're right. If, say, the person being SWAT'ed pulls a gun in self defense, because all he knows is his house is being invaded, and a police officer sees it and fires, as they are trained to do when seeing a lethal threat, that is TOTALLY murder.

More accurately, I think SWATing somebody should be negligent homicide if somebody dies, reckless endangerment if (as usually happens) nobody is hurt.

Re:SWATting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223743)

As an opponent of police brutality and prosecutorial over-reach, your proposal sounds fair and level headed. You would never make it in the DoJ of 2013!

Re:SWATting (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222847)

Given the propensity of the American police responding to that sort of call to shoot first and possibly get round to asking questions a bit later on, SWATting somebody should be charged as attempted murder

No, the policemen doing the shooting before asking questions should be charged with attempted murder.

In the same way that, if I told a bully someone insulted him behind his back, and he went and punched that guy, the bully would be charged.

Re:SWATting (5, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222975)

If your intend was to get the other person punched then you should be charged AS WELL. One does not exclude the other.

Re:SWATting (2)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223375)

"Conspiracy to commit #####" - hell we already have charges for it!

Re:SWATting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224035)

That argument is like someone putting child porn on anothers computer and then getting them arrested for being child pornographers.

Completely and utterly stupid argument.

Re:SWATting (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224961)

That argument is like someone putting child porn on anothers computer and then getting them arrested for being child pornographers.

Completely and utterly stupid argument.

So you got child porn somewhere. Then you put it on another persons' computer. I think the first sentence make you guilty of trafficing in child porn.
If it is simply an arrest, then that is one thing. If the person you set-up was tried and convicted even if you were known to be the person who orginally obtained and planted the porn, then perhaps the officer should be charged with criminal conspiracy too.

Re:SWATting (2)

Motard (1553251) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222967)

It might be murder. In my state, if someone dies as a result if a crime being committed (say, arson) the perpetrator can be charged with murder.

Re:SWATting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223869)

It might be murder. In my state, if someone dies as a result if a crime being committed (say, arson) the perpetrator can be charged with murder.

It usually requires the crime being committed is a felony. In some states, SWATing may only be a misdemeanor.

Re:SWATting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223037)

That's like saying that someone willfully speeding should be charged with attempted murder. After all, we know that higher speeds lead to more fatal wrecks, thus you're willfully risking your own life and the life of others by going above the speed limit.
 
Now, had someone died in the "SWATting" I would agree that the hacker should have been hit with capital murder and likely would have.

Re:SWATting (5, Interesting)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223211)

I was on a jury that convicted a man of reckless homicide after a street race ended up in a horrible crash.

So yeah if someone had been shot then a similar charge should apply.

Re:SWATting (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223383)

Reckless homicide is not murder. Neither is manslaughter.

Re:SWATting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223491)

Going over the speed limit isn't SWATing...

Doing 120 in a 65... is definitely different than sending a truck load of armed police to someones personal residence.

Re:SWATting (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223767)

I didn't say that it was. I was simply implying that a similar charge to reckless homicide could apply if an actual shooting had taken place.

Re:SWATting (1)

Existential Wombat (1701124) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224871)

And using a car analogy too.

Well done sir!

Re:SWATting (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223069)

You are giving the reason why American police, and who trained/put them into that way, should be put right now in jail as preemptive punishment. They will kill innocent people, sooner or later, phone jokes or not, things like this [jonathanturley.org] or this [cbsnews.com] will continue to happen,

And with guns practically mandated to normal citizens, social engineering could be a lethal weapon too, but again, the one shooting would still be the real killer.

Re:SWATting (2)

tokencode (1952944) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223741)

Are you sure you really want to set a precedent of pre-emptive punishment?

Re:SWATting (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224617)

Preemptively not training for doing it would be better. If someone gives you a weapon and tells to you go outside and kill some, the option you have is to stop him before it does some damage, reeducate telling that the first person was wrong, and put in jail the first person. Or just live with the fact that a lot of people will be killed and the first person will get a medal for that, and surely will move more people to kill, that is the usual way to do things, and that it will keep happening if the other alternatives are not taken.

Re:SWATting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223789)

Jail white police officers before they grow up and Taser black babies?

Re:SWATting (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223141)

Given the propensity of the American police responding to that sort of call to shoot first and possibly get round to asking questions a bit later on, SWATting somebody should be charged as attempted murder

Well, the SWAT guys get to shoot someone and your tormentor gets you (or at least your dog) killed. It's a win-win for the bad guys. And I seriously doubt that there would be any repercussions for the shooter, except high-fives all around.

Re:SWATting (1)

belligerent0001 (966585) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223255)

SWAT....Sit Wait And Talk. As defined by 4 seperate SWAT members in 3 different departments in my area. Just saying....

Re:SWATting (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223395)

Hurry up and wait.

Sound familiar?

Re:SWATting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223751)

This is hardly new to the Criminal Justice system, people have used Police as Instrumentalities in murders before.

Re:SWATting (3, Insightful)

The Grim Reefer (1162755) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223925)

Given the propensity of the American police responding to that sort of call to shoot first and possibly get round to asking questions a bit later on, SWATting somebody should be charged as attempted murder

While I understand your sentiment, I have to disagree with you. In cases like "SWATting" these officers have been called to a scene where the assumption is that there is an armed person who has already killed a loved on and is emotionally distraught. As most law enforcement officers will tell you, domestic disturbances are some of the most unpredictable calls to go to. So a call like this would be about as scary as most police will ever get.

Granted, there are some pretty bad police officers out there. But there are a lot more really good ones. It's just that nobody seems to pay attention to them, except on rare occasions. Go check to see how much they get paid. It's pretty poorly in most cases. The average patrolman's salary is just over $50K [salary.com] An entry level application engineer makes a little over $54K [salary.com] . Barring natural disasters, a bad day at work for someone in IT is to have to work late. How much fun do you think it is to investigate a murder scene? Or a fatal car crash with children involved? For a patrolman a bad day could include coming home in a bag. In most professions a mistake will cost the company money. For an officer it could be someones life, or their own.

How would you handle call like this? Would you allow yourself to get shot prior to opening fire? Have you ever been shot at? Judging a situation after the fact from your nice comfy chair is just a little bit different than being an active participant.

It's funny that we will spend money to go see a movie and cheer on the cop who shoots the bad guy. But in 99.9% of the times you see this in movies, the "good guy" would be criminally charged for acting the way they do. But when a cop shoots someone who feigns having a gun and does not respond to commands to submit we through a fit. The asshole that called this in is the one at fault here for abusing the system that is in place to protect us.

Re:SWATting (2)

deoxyribonucleose (993319) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224555)

If you read a bit more carefully, you might discover you actually agree with the essence of the AC post. 'The guy doing the SWATting' does not refer to the police officer pulling the trigger (well, not very likely, though that'd be an interesting way of getting away with murder...).

Re:SWATting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224837)

...cough throw .....cough

Re:SWATting (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43225093)

Taxi driver is a more dangerous occupation than policeman, yet we do not excuse taxi drivers who shoot first and ask questions later. The problem people have here with police tactics is not when police have to deal with someone pointing a gun at them. In situations like that, we all understand that police can have a legitimate need to kill or at least incapacitate someone. Yet that is an exceedingly rare situation and it's not what people are referring to here. If you are SWATting someone the whole point is that the person being SWATted doesn't actually pose a threat, so something like that would never happen. So if SWATting could reasonably be expected to involve deaths, to the extent that the SWATter should be charged with murder, something is wrong.

Most Crimes Are Solved (5, Insightful)

hduff (570443) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222753)

Most crimes are solved because the criminal is careless or stupid or both.

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (3, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222859)

Most hackers especially are careless, stupid, and usually both. They think they're so invincible and cool and above security that they don't even take basic precautions. They think they have some kind of magical aura from being so tech savvy that protects them from "lesser" beings. Lol, good luck with that.

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223427)

Heh, you've seen too many movies

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (4, Insightful)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223583)

No, I've seen too many Slashdot articles and security conventions. Trust me, it's reality. In fact, what planet are you watching movies on? Because on Earth they make hacker looks cool. In reality, they're immature and have no self esteem so they can never resist bragging online about their exploits. That's actually usually half the reason they did it.

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222885)

Most crimes are solved because the criminal is careless or stupid or both.

While true, this criminal is a teenager. Most teenagers are careless or stupid or both whether they have committed a crime or not.

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222945)

Twenty is not a teenager. Notice the lack of "teen" in the number.

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223035)

I pronounce it "tweenty", you insensitive clod.

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223079)

Then you're retarded. Thanks for playing!

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (0)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223217)

The neniTY y.o. teens salute your wisdome!

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223253)

That makes sense everyone knows that the magical maturity fairy pays everyone a visit upon their twentieth birthday. A twenty year old is scientifically incapable of such carelessness.

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (2)

babywhiz (781786) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223465)

I thought teens were anyone under 30.....

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224007)

No one said anything about maturity, dipshit. Teenager means someone between thirteen and nineteen.

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224121)

Its more for the person. Some people get hit with the responsibility fairy from an early age (15 year old working part time to help their mother who had a spinal injury, while getting good grades and being active in the community), and some never get it (the 50 year old man that has been in and out of jail since he was 20 because he keeps doing things like petty theft and aggravated assault).

though teens and twenty are more likely to do stupid stuff because of lack of experience, but this is all anecdotal and should be held with a large grain of salt

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (5, Insightful)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222927)

I considered crime as a career option when I was young, and decided that it was for losers. Concealing repeated crime would require so much hard work and attention to detail, that anyone qualified to do it is also qualified for a rather high-paying job.

If you think about it, the saying "crime doesn't pay" is just another way of saying the labor market works.

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (4, Funny)

organgtool (966989) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223097)

And your decision to play it straight has obviously paid off since it has taken you all the way to knighthood! :)

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (4, Informative)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223237)

Sir Garlon is a villain from an obscure, early part of the King Arthur legend. He had the power of invisibility and used it to ambush and murder other knights, apparently just for the lulz. So really that choice of nick is a nod to my repressed impulses for mayhem and the way anonymity encourages snarkiness. :-)

Oh, BTW, crime did not pay for Sir Garlon, either. He got whacked, I believe by Sir Balan, to avenge one of Balan's kinsmen.

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223415)

I prefer your old sig, about just that.

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (3, Funny)

yurtinus (1590157) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224679)

He had the power of invisibility

Oh, you mean Sir Not Appearing In This Film?

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223247)

Either that or it's a confidence bluff. "I decided crime didn't pay, and now thanks to my hard but legal work I'm Sir Garlon. True story! Now, about that bridge you were going to buy from me..."

Keep in mind, hereditary nobility. (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223279)

Garlon was the brother of King Pellam. He killed Sir Herlews le Berbeus and later Sir Perin de Montbeliard. A life of crime is easily contemplated when one has slain two men of honor, and possesses a cloak of invisibility.

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223443)

Concealing repeated crime would require so much hard work and attention to detail, that anyone qualified to do it is also qualified for a rather high-paying job.

Beware. This kind of thinking is how the hacker character becomes employed by the evil overlord. "Just do your wizardry, I'll handle the overall operations, and pay you handsomely."

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (4, Interesting)

hduff (570443) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223535)

I considered crime as a career option when I was young, and decided that it was for losers. Concealing repeated crime would require so much hard work and attention to detail, that anyone qualified to do it is also qualified for a rather high-paying job.

If you think about it, the saying "crime doesn't pay" is just another way of saying the labor market works.

I once spoke with an FBI agent about bak robberies. Most theft from banks is from employees, is almost always caught but rarely prosecuted because banks don't want the negaive publicity. They catch the regular bank robbers because they are careless or stupid or both. But there is a small number of inelligent, skilled bank robers that will never get caught because they know the system well, don't get greedy, don't live flamboyantly and never make mistakes. Fortunately, there are very few of these people, but a succesful life of crime is possible, but as you realized, way too much work.

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223571)

Concealing repeated crime would require so much hard work and attention to detail, that anyone qualified to do it is also qualified for a rather high-paying job.

For the best criminal minds, a high paying job is just one of the tools they use to unlock ever more lucrative opportunities, and to evade prosecution.

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (1)

SirGarlon (845873) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223721)

Oh, I should add that in some parts of the world, where law enforcement is weak, white-collar crime *does* pay. This is why, in my opinion, rings of computer criminals in Eastern Europe or (famously) Nigeria are hard to eradicate: financially there's more reward there for crime than honest work.

I've come to regard law enforcement as creating a climate where crime can't flourish. Not totally preventing it, but preventing escalation.

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223905)

I came to the same conclusion. I'm a [congressman] now!

[bail bondsman]
[police officer]
[district attorney]
[judge]
[real estate agent]
[investment banker]
[stock broker]
[Chief Executive Officer]
[Chief Financial Officer]
[Tow Truck Operator]
[Congressman]

[Congressman], the only job lower than a [Tow Truck Operator]!

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (0)

HeX314 (570571) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223107)

Most crimes are "solved" because police think the evidence points to what they think it does.

Would a hacker that hit at least three high-profile targets and caused SWAT to raid the wrong guy really be that careless, or could it be another red herring?

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223439)

Would a SCRIPT KIDDIE that hit at least three high-profile targets and caused SWAT to raid the wrong guy really be that careless, or could it be another red herring?

FTFY.

Yes, no.

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223145)

What is so pathetic about Krebs is that even though he claims to be an ethical security researcher who was doxed, he hypocritically doxes a kid who may be innocent for all we know. Krebs is also employing violence through the police to intimidate this kid, similar to how Krebs himself was allegedly SWATed.

Re:Most Crimes Are Solved (4, Insightful)

Inda (580031) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223307)

Most crimes are solved because people talk. Loose lips sink ships, and all that stuff.

People in the story are more than willing to talk. It's a bit sad.

So now the Pentagon will call the guy . . . (2)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222767)

. . . and offer him a job.

Pentagon: "Do you also do SCADA stuff . . . ?"

Pentagon: "And windows? Good help is hard to find these days. And would you mind driving Miss Daisy . . . ?"

Re:So now the Pentagon will call the guy . . . (1, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223075)

More likely the DOJ will have him in Federal PoundYourAss Prison for 30 years.

Re:So now the Pentagon will call the guy . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223973)

It would be nice if the Pentagon was that determined to win on this domain, but "the eric conspiracy" is probably closer to the truth.

I think Le Femme Nikita could only be an agent after a Judge had her killed. CIA may pull people from prisons all the time for all we know. All they would have to do is have the prisoner "die" under falsifiable circumstances. IE: failed escape, then light them up with squibs.

Re:So now the Pentagon will call the guy . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223993)

Either that, or NASA will hire him to replace the Chink they caught at Dulles yesterday with a bunch of flash drives
filled with sensitive information from Langley Research that he was about to sneakernet to Beijing on a one-way ticket...

I'm still waiting... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222795)

for the US to get the balls to start taking crimes as seriously as say, Singapore. It's time the criminals were dealt with harshly and swiftly. Murder, rape, armed robbery, selling illegal drugs to minors, malicious cracking... all should be death penalty causes. B&E and other more "minor" felonies should be dealt with with labor camps.

Re:I'm still waiting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43222991)

B&E and other more "minor" felonies should be dealt with with labor camps.

I think you're behind the times a bit [google.ca] , except they've improved the formula such that those you would kill offhand are instead kept as taxpayer subsidized labour as well, to reduce costs for American corporations.

Cheese! (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222875)

It is solid dairy.

4EVER!@

Social enginering (1)

houghi (78078) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222943)

As we can see here, the most important hacking tool is social engineering. He did not get the name by technical skills. Not by running telnet and traceroute, but by following a tip.

Could have been the DDOS person himself for all we know.

So I would not say he was 'hot on the tail'.

Re:Social enginering (1)

X0563511 (793323) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223441)

Hot on the... tail?

Re:Social enginering (1)

yurtinus (1590157) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224703)

It's a economics philosophy.

Re:Social enginering (1)

Xest (935314) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224323)

Basically there was some dodgy site where you could pay for DDOSs which was believed to be behind these attacks. This site was amusingly and somewhat ironically insecure such that if you knew the right URL you could view a list of clients for this site to see who had paid for what, and on this list were attacks corresponding to Krebs and Ars with an e-mail address for the client stored alongside them (along with many other attacks/clients, some of which had previously been verified). Turns out this e-mail address was also registered to a Facebook account of a guy in the UK, and voila, Krebs gets the guy's identity.

Sure it could all be some master ploy to throw Krebs off the scent, but more realistically what we have here is a script kiddie who was careless with his details and just got himself caught.

So I'd say his tip is pretty decent grounds at least for the police to investigate the person in question if nothing else.

Young punks, too stupid in most ways that matter (5, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43222961)

This story is still in progress, but it's clear that this "Phobia" punk is intelligent enough in ways that really don't matter much and too stupid in ways that actually do matter. His father should have figured out what the son was doing a while ago, as his son is in the crime scene, stealing or helping to steal and use credit cards, SSNs, etc., breaking into private people's accounts and messing with them, paying for DDOS attacks against websites and sending SWAT teams to people's homes, so that somebody could actually get shot. This is all a punk move, what this idiot needs is about 3 years of labour camp, so that he'd at least repay some of the damage and 10 minutes of flogging on monthly basis, so that what could not be peacefully inserted into his brain would be painfully inserted into his back.

Re:Young punks, too stupid in most ways that matte (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223063)

The stupidest part might have been deleting the YouTube videos once he was caught. Now when the police see it, they will charge him with destruction of evidence and obstruction of justice.

Re:Young punks, too stupid in most ways that matte (5, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223311)

The dumbest thing was to talk but also to involve cops with the SWAT thing. If he just kept to online stealing and harassment this wouldn't be as bad as the SWAT thing, now the cops have a personal issue as well with him. The way he just blurted everything out showed how really 'smart' he is.

Re:Young punks, too stupid in most ways that matte (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224247)

Is it destruction of evidence if the company that actually manages the data doesn't actually delete it?

Re:Young punks, too stupid in most ways that matte (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223843)

I have regrets about mean stuff I did as a young man, but I'm glad I can say I never did anything like erase someone's photos of their daughter being born or get SWAT called on someone else. Not because I wasn't a spoiled, spiteful little chode would have done something like that, simply because I was too impatient and stupid to figure out how to cause much trouble online. I guess that's something.

The scary part is I don't know what my parents could have done to prevent that. I have no idea how to keep my son from doing stupid shit like this.

Re:Young punks, too stupid in most ways that matte (2)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224061)

The scary part is I don't know what my parents could have done to prevent that. I have no idea how to keep my son from doing stupid shit like this.

- but I think I know what can be done (I don't know that it will guarantee success, but I think it would limit the probability of this type of behaviour).

Something to do. Something to do that is rewarding, something to do that is useful in some way, that teaches the kid, that gives him the satisfaction of seeing the results of his work.

Something productive to do that would channel the kid's energy.

I think the society went in the wrong direction in many ways, from the way the kids are treated with 'kid gloves' (really, everybody should be allowed to take a chance and dive into the Hudson river [blogspot.de] and swim in raw sewage, or maybe something less extreme but productive, like working at an earlier age) to the way the education system seems to inspire confidence instead of knowledge [youtube.com] .

Basically I think you have to help the kid to find a productive way to occupy himself, maybe learning about tech stuff, building computers and robots from scratch, maybe it is sports, after all that's what Americans value most it seems. Maybe it is starting his or her own little business from early on and learning about the real world that way.

The "Phobia" guy could have been using his 'mad skills' for something productive, maybe building tools and websites for some small amounts of money for people who'd pay or audit security, etc., instead he does this. Of-course he was probably never really properly taught a lesson* in his life, but that's about to change.

(* - what can you tell a guy with 2 black eyes? Nothing. He's been told twice already.)

Re:Young punks, too stupid in most ways that matte (1)

Pope (17780) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224195)

I, too, take health advice from standup comics.

Re:Young punks, too stupid in most ways that matte (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224227)

I'd rather take advice from Carlin than from Bloomberg [huffingtonpost.com] even though I don't actually drink sugar water.

Re:Young punks, too stupid in most ways that matte (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224305)

I doubt this was the first thing he did wrong. I bet it escalated from somewhere.

In order to keep him from getting to this point, you employ the same simple rules of parenting employed on everyone else who isn't a constant fuck-up:

1. Scold him harshly.
2. If that doesn't work, or if the infraction is grave enough, beat the shit out of him.
3. Repeat as needed.

Worked for me. I had wooden spoons snapped over my ass and got to taste the belt buckle once or twice. There's a reason why the old-school punishments lasted so long.

Re:Young punks, too stupid in most ways that matte (2)

joh (27088) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223937)

This is all a punk move, what this idiot needs is about 3 years of labour camp, so that he'd at least repay some of the damage and 10 minutes of flogging on monthly basis, so that what could not be peacefully inserted into his brain would be painfully inserted into his back.

What he actually needs is an education and a job.

Re:Young punks, too stupid in most ways that matte (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224081)

I agree about a job, but I personallywouldn't hire him before he got his flogging and 3 years of paying back the money he stole, but maybe you would.

Re:Young punks, too stupid in most ways that matte (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224297)

This is all a punk move, what this idiot needs is about 3 years of labour camp, so that he'd at least repay some of the damage and 10 minutes of flogging on monthly basis, so that what could not be peacefully inserted into his brain would be painfully inserted into his back.

I agree, but if he gets caught a bunch of people on Slashdot will cry a stream of tears if he gets any jail time.

Re:Young punks, too stupid in most ways that matte (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43225045)

So, this is not another Shwartz? No Goverment conspiracy? No gold standard? You moved to country with free health care and started taking drugs?

Painful to Read (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223135)

Man, it's hard to read the Kerbs post. Not because of what's he's saying, but the fact that the kid is engaging with him. First rule of fight club is you don't talk about fight club. When the cops come knocking on his door that kid is going to squeal.

Re:Painful to Read (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223985)

When the cops come knocking on his door that kid is going to squeal.

Oh, I think he'll be squealing for a number of different reasons soon.

LOLWOT? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223167)

Any chance of reposting the article in English?

Throw the Book At Him (1)

organgtool (966989) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223207)

The practice of SWATting needs to stop immediately. SWAT raids are very tense for all parties involved and they can go wrong in a hurry [wnd.com] . One of these days an innocent person is going to end up dead because of this practice. The prosecutors need to go after this guy, get him the maximum sentence for all of his many crimes, and broadcast his prison rapes so that no one ever thinks of doing something like this again.

Re:Throw the Book At Him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223413)

Which is exactly why you need something that burns through body armor.

My top two choices are the Five Seven [wikipedia.org] for a sidearm and any given AR-15 variant chambered in 6.8mm [wikipedia.org]

Also, they're not nearly as trained as you think they are, at least from what I've seen of them.

What I can't wait for is one of the squads of assholes to raid the wrong house and end up with somebody who has a lot of ACTUAL experience in MOUT [wikipedia.org]

Re:Throw the Book At Him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224095)

Five Seven doesn't sell the good ammo to civilians. It's hard to say what percentage of SWAT use Class III body armor. 7.62x25 Tokarev is known for blowing holes in Class II. Rifle Cartridges generally do a pretty good job as well.

Nobody makes a face shield that can deflect a 7.62 Tokarev, but that is an asymetrical combat scenerio requiring the defender have much better placed(time consuming) shots vs the incoming hail of 9mm Luger from LEO only MP5s and such.

M14 or anything in 7.62x54R should take care of Class III, but the smart money is on lining the hallways with Claymores. Cement houses don't burn very good so Donner's undoing wouldn't apply, but this is a suicide scenario in any case. They'll start sending in Packbots with frag grenades.

Best bet is to keep a FAL next to the bed and then immediately surrender if you survive the ambush to claim self-defense.

Regarding the value of experience, a veteran of MOUT would be better off one on one, but these fuckers are happy to smoke people out by setting the house on fire. That's my input from watching the news and reading /k/ anyways.

Re:Throw the Book At Him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223851)

I wouldn't take anything from WND seriously. The site owner is either completely delusional, or making a living off of the deeply delusional. It's all wingnuts and birthers there.

Re:Throw the Book At Him (4, Informative)

FooAtWFU (699187) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224041)

"One of these days an innocent person is going to end up dead"? Clearly, sir, you have paid no attention to Libertarian media in the past decade or two. Go hop over to reason.com, ignore their tax policy proposals for a moment if they annoy you, and just do a search for all the fun articles about how a SWAT team prevented paramedics from going to work for hour and fourteen minutes after shooting a veteran as part of a drug raid on the neighbors [reason.com] .

Re:Throw the Book At Him (2)

joh (27088) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224087)

The practice of SWATting needs to stop immediately. SWAT raids are very tense for all parties involved and they can go wrong in a hurry [wnd.com] . One of these days an innocent person is going to end up dead because of this practice. The prosecutors need to go after this guy, get him the maximum sentence for all of his many crimes, and broadcast his prison rapes so that no one ever thinks of doing something like this again.

What makes you think that being raped in prison makes you a better person who will not behave like an anti-social idiot anymore? Or that seeing this happen makes others better?

This kind of response really is as part of the problem as what this guy was doing. The US is turning more and more into a failed state it seems.

Re:Throw the Book At Him (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224485)

the best way to punish ugly abuses (swatting), is not to champion ugly abuses (prison rape)

if someone violated my family in such a way, i would have violent fantasies about them getting their comeuppance too

but we're talking about governmental policy here, not private revenge fantasies

when the state itself is in the business of violent revenge, then the state itself is the worst offender

it also teaches society how to function, how to handle yourself: with brutality. the state sets the tone for how society should solve its disputes

you actually end brutality by structuring society's punishments so they are neither retributive nor punitive, but more like grey cold empty chill out sessions

there's no punishment worse than a boring, mundane, pointless existence. but inflicting pain, psychologically, focuses the mind, it gives it something to organize the meaning of life around. it turns criminals into martyrs, at least in their own mind, and it makes them and others who sympathize with them (and when you inflict pain, you always find sympathizers) organize their lives around finding meaning in being your enemy and inflicting YOU pain. you basically starting up a cycle of violence

TL, DR: your approach backfires

Re:Throw the Book At Him (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224641)

The practice of SWATting needs to stop immediately.

Why? It's not like most people are going to get busted for it. We're on the internet, man! We can do whatever we want!

SWAT raids are very tense for all parties involved and they can go wrong in a hurry.

Who cares? Those are other people. Other people don't matter. They're just names on a screen, after all.

One of these days an innocent person is going to end up dead because of this practice.

Again, other people. This doesn't sound like it affects ME at all!

The prosecutors need to go after this guy, get him the maximum sentence for all of his many crimes, and broadcast his prison rapes so that no one ever thinks of doing something like this again.

What, just for a few innocent lulz? Man, you stuck-up assholes are all the same. You're the reason the internet's falling apart, you prudes don't let anyone have a bit of innocent fun! Look, how long did it take until this guy got caught? And who had the potential of getting hurt? Exactly, other people. I rest my case, because I am so awesomer than you.

</satire>

The Mysterious Death of Shannon Larratt and Encryp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223243)

The Mysterious Death of Shannon Larratt and Encryption/Privacy/Deep-Dark-Web/

http://hpaste.org/raw/84300 [hpaste.org]
http://pastebin.com/6yR0FTfp [pastebin.com]

Haste makes waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43223387)

Right now he is the prime suspect, but you need proof he committed the crime.

Bait and switch? (1)

gmclapp (2834681) | about a year and a half ago | (#43223437)

Just a thought... If I was going to commit these crimes I would consider having a seemingly careless 20 year old fall guy around...

WTF? Is Krebs For Real? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43224083)

How is any of this possible?

How does Krebs reach, let alone convince that boot.tw operator to give him a copy of their operations database and tell him other details?

How does the boot.tw operator know any of these other details?

I'll accept the anonymous tipster.

Why would, so called, Phobia take Krebs' call? Why would he confess to this stuff? Why would his father engage in the call rather than putting an end to it? Why would his father admit and partially deny Phobia's actions?

Why would ANY of this transpire?

It makes me question Krebs' credibility.

It's all so absolutely fantastic, I feel like I'm watching a hacker movie. The implausibility of it all makes me want to vomit. Yet krebs supposedly does this all the time.

Re:WTF? Is Krebs For Real? (1)

ub3r n3u7r4l1st (1388939) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224803)

It takes a hacker to catch a hacker.

What a headline (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43224391)

Krebs Hacker Unmasked, Hit Ars and Wired's Honan

It looks almost like someone had an attack of aphasia [wikipedia.org] half way through writing that headline. Using a transitive verb (which could also be mistaken for a noun), especially a short one like "Hit", next to another short, and unusual word (Ars) makes for tricky parsing.

Not only that, but:

Turns out it may have been the same guy

So it's okay, only the headline is potentially libelous.

I'd say enough is enough (1)

whitroth (9367) | about a year and a half ago | (#43225113)

If it were me, I'd be talking to the FBI, since this probably falls under a) wire fraud, and b) interstate commerce.

                  mark "my 'social media' are email lists"

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?