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!

The Hunt For LulzSec's Missing Sixth Member

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the imaginary-hackers dept.

Security 104

DavidGilbert99 writes "LulzSec's star burnt brightly in the short period it was active, but things quickly turned sour when its core members began getting arrested. Last week three of the six core members were sentenced in the UK, but this only served to highlight the fact that one member of the group, known as Avunit, has been able to remain unidentified despite the FBI having turned the group's leader Sabu into an informant. Who is Avunit? And does he hold the purse strings of the group's Bitcoin wallet which could have up to $180,000 in it?" As usual, be warned of the horrendous autoplaying video ads surrounding good content at the primary link.

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

I'm.... (5, Funny)

maroberts (15852) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779251)

Spartacus^H^H Avunit

Tough crowd (2, Funny)

maroberts (15852) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779493)

How can the first post be redundant?
Moderation is going downhill nowadays...

Re:Tough crowd (5, Funny)

SharpFang (651121) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779663)

Apparently everyone knows maroberts is Avunit already.

Re:Tough crowd (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43780059)

+++++++

ATT: FBI/MI6/CSI (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43779255)

It's not me.

Why link to junk? (5, Informative)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779257)

If IBTimes wants to piss people off with autoplay videos, why link to them?

Here's El Reg's version of the same story:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/17/lulzsec_analysis/ [theregister.co.uk]

Re:Why link to junk? (2)

cffrost (885375) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779297)

[...] autoplay videos [...]

Your computer is broken.

Re:Why link to junk? (4, Funny)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779373)

Your computer is broken.

It's not my computer, it's a work one, but yeah, you're right, it's running Windows and IE.

Re:Why link to junk? (2)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779301)

What "autoplay videos" are you talking about? Other than that there is no left margin to the text, the page as a whole was good to read.

Re:Why link to junk? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43779523)

Typical American. Oblivious to the social engineering surrounding him at ever living second of his life.

He linked to them, *because that makes him money*! Remember: Slashdot nowadays is an *advertisement* website. There is no such thing as a real actual article. He wrote that, not to warn you, but to make you more accepting towards those ads. Seems like it worked.

Re:Why link to junk? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43779833)

"Here's El Reg's version of the same story:"

Sure, but I was hoping you were going to link to a site that wasn't junk given your post's subject line?

Re:Why link to junk? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43780949)

You go ahead, if you're aware of a better source. Links are free.

A "bitcoin wallet" (4, Funny)

Guinness Beaumont (2901413) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779269)

Captain Pedantic here,

A "bitcoin wallet" has $0 USD in it, by definition.

Excelsior!

Re:A "bitcoin wallet" (3, Interesting)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779415)

Another thing about bitcoin: they are trackable. Hard to track, but as I understand it's possible, as every single transaction is logged by the network, and that it is possible to track down the whereabouts of every single bitcoin at every moment in the past since it was mined.

They received some 3,000 bitcoins in donations back in the day, can't those bitcoins be traced to a certain wallet? And - related - can they (or the wallet itself) be anyhow confiscated?

Now I'm the first to admit I still don't really understand the intricacies of bitcoin - my understanding is mostly from reading about it here and on other sites. So I may be totally off, if anyone knows better I'd love to hear.

Re:A "bitcoin wallet" (2)

HungryHobo (1314109) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779541)

You can't confiscate them but you can track them if you know the history of some of the bitcoins in their possession. Problem is that there's nothing stopping someone from passing those bitcoins through a thousand anonymous parties connecting over Tor then trading them with others for other bitcoins before cashing them out or exchanging them for something.

Re:A "bitcoin wallet" (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779551)

In this case it's a donation - and I for one would want to make a donation directly to the cause, not via some shady individuals (now in this case the cause itself is shady as well of course). Just to have the feeling that my donation arrives where it's supposed to arrive, and that it's used for what it's supposed to be used.

Now when this avunit guy is going to spend the coins, that's again a different matter. However the suggestion is that little to no of the donations have been spent, and that he's hoarding the bitcoins.

And even if there were many anonymous intermediaries - every single bitcoin is unique (it's basically just a big number) - and the complete transaction history is stored. That ought to be enough to trace them.

Re:A "bitcoin wallet" (1)

witherstaff (713820) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779855)

It's simplier to launder coins. You move them to one of the many exchanges that keep coins in a common pool. Then you withdraw coins to a new address - chain is broken. Bounce around to a few exchanges in different countries. That's the easy way, there are even services specifically designed for laundering.

Re:A "bitcoin wallet" (5, Informative)

ledow (319597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779553)

You've obviously not used Bitcoin a lot.

You can have as many wallets as you like and a wallet can generate as many "addresses" as you want to receive money on. Outsiders have no idea that two distinct Bitcoin destinations aren't in fact the same wallet.

Additionally, only the network as a whole really knows where the transactions are coming from, an individual Bitcoin user doesn't (otherwise it would be pointless!). It's peer-to-peer so somewhere, some peer knows what IP generated that transaction. But without having control of a vast proportion of the whole network, down to the IP level, there's no way to reliably trace anything back to a "real" IP, person, wallet.

Transactions are logged. But with wallet addresses. And you can tell what wallet addresses should have how much money in each. But you can't tell which wallet addresses are the same address, nor where they come from, nor who owns them. A transaction will just appear in the blockchain and come from several thousand peers almost simultaneously who share the information across the network and even the first one on the list isn't necessarily the client who first saw the transaction.

And those clients are private peer-to-peer clients. If my client was the first to see your transaction, you'd have to raid ME to get the IP information from my systems - and what are the chances of a random Bitcoin user having full network traces of all the actions on their network, going back to the transaction you're interested in, by the time you find them?

Transactions are basically sent to random people in the swarm. They talk to more random people and eventually the network all sees the transaction. Finding out which Bitcoin address first saw the transaction is nigh-on impossible even with complete knowledge. Raiding them and finding information on their systems that links back that transaction to an originating IP is incredibly unlikely even if you could do that. And if they used Tor or a proxy to initiate the transaction? You're stuffed.

Even collection of funds? They can publish any number of Bitcoin wallet addresses that secretly correspond to a single wallet and anyone who sends them money will NEVER KNOW where it's going. The transaction goes into the swarm and after a while, all clients agreed that wallet address X has amount Y in it. The total wallet, though, might have several million addresses associated with it and even the last client on the route to informing that wallet of a received transaction won't ever know that it's talking to the wallet holder.

No matter what you think of it as a currency, Bitcoin is a fabulously-designed anonymous transaction protocol. About the only threat is one entity holding 50% of the hashing power, but that just gives them the power to control the block chain, not identify users.

Re: A "bitcoin wallet" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43779581)

tldr

Re:A "bitcoin wallet" (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779619)

As a matter of fact I never directly used Bitcoin. I don't exactly trust it as a currency and for various reasons I don't think this is the future; however I find the concept very interesting from a technical pov. As you say it's a very well designed protocol, no doubt about that.

Re:A "bitcoin wallet" (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#43780257)

As a matter of fact I never directly used Bitcoin.

Because you're not goofy.

Personally, I do all of my transactions in Darknet Credits, which is the new monetary system based on reputation and righteous deeds. I can't actually buy anything, but I'm in on the ground floor.

Wait for the Trackability law (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43779657)

Well we use to have banking privacy. Banks knew who had the account, but your transactions were secret unless there was evidence of a crime in which case the bank could be forced to hand over the details.

Then as an anti-laundering measure, the data was given to SWIFT, and recorded by them, but that was OK because SWIFT was owned by the banks and would only turn over the data if evidence of a crime existed as they were under Belgian law.

Then the USA grabbed all of SWIFT's data post 9/11 deciding they should see every transaction made in the world.

Then the EU Commission *gave* them the right to receive all EU future data, after SWIFT moved their head quarters and servers from USA to Switzerland. So now the EU obtains the data from SWIFT and sends it to the USA.

Then the USA extracted some data related to tax havens, like British Virgin Islands and handed that to the press and gave all the rest of that data to UK and Australia. At the same time using the press stories to market the 'tax evasion' angle, and override the fact that a lot of privacy laws were broken when they handed private banking data to their allies.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22599324#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

So watch Bitcoin, because they'll declare Bitcoin trackable, and require forced declaration of all transactions to the USA. If you imagine they won't, take a look at SWIFT, if I send money from Belgium to Germany, the record is taken and handed to the USA, and that's despite the privacy law in the EU, and the criminal privacy law in Belgium and the financial privacy law in Germany.

At some point we all became criminals here in Europe, and the EU Commission decided it had the right to waive privacy, and we see 'leaks' of data on 'certain' politicians, but not others, as the USA gets to pick and choose who can be a politician by leaking their banking data to their allies.

Re:Wait for the Trackability law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43779967)

At the same time using the press stories to market the 'tax evasion' angle, and override the fact that a lot of privacy laws were broken when they handed private banking data to their allies.

The 1%ers tell the rest of us that privacy is dead. The only emotion I feel here is schadenfreude.

Your data too (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43780575)

The data leaked to the press was a tiny file of a few gigs, 1%'er stuff about tax havens. The data given to the UK, Australia and USA FBI/IRS, was hundreds/thousands of times bigger and 100%'er stuff.

Your data too.

"I feel here is schadenfreude."
You wish.

Re:Wait for the Trackability law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43785621)

So watch Bitcoin, because they'll declare Bitcoin trackable, and require forced declaration of all transactions to the USA. If you imagine they won't, take a look at SWIFT, if I send money from Belgium to Germany, the record is taken and handed to the USA, and that's despite the privacy law in the EU, and the criminal privacy law in Belgium and the financial privacy law in Germany.

How? Bitcoins are already trackable to anyone (its how the system works) but to actually track the people USING bitcoins? That implies sending the jackbooted thugs around to every exchange and coin tumbling site out there, many of which are set up (in out-of-reach jurisdictions) for the express purpose of not being easy to bend over.

Re:A "bitcoin wallet" (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#43780231)

You've obviously not used Bitcoin a lot.

You could accurately say that everyone has obviously not used Bitcoin a lot.

Re:A "bitcoin wallet" (1)

ledow (319597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43780821)

Given that I'm on a geek website, I was expecting a flurry of corrections, actually. Maybe Slashdot isn't the geek hangout that I thought any more. Maybe we're all just naysayers following everyone else because "Bitcoin is stupid" or whatever.

I've barely looked into Bitcoin myself and don't mine and wouldn't come close to some of the insane setups I've seen documented for mining even if I did.

But:

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-unique-addresses [blockchain.info]

Something like 90,000 unique Bitcoin addresses seen every single day. Bear in mind, that's not "90,000 users" so much as "90,000 transactions to/from unique addresses for that day". Something like 80,000 GH/s. That's a lot of oomph being put in by clients for a long time. Go googling for mining setups, or exchange rates (there are BUCKETS of individual exchange websites for Bitcoin alone), or anything related to bitcoin and you find tons of results. And just about every single news provider in the world has run half-a-dozen stories on Bitcoin already.

Someone, somewhere, most probably geeks / overclockers /etc. is pumping away at Bitcoin for most of the day, sending or receiving money or generating coins. Just because you're not one of them, doesn't mean it's not happening.

SETI@Home / BOINC would kill to have those people running their software instead.

Re:A "bitcoin wallet" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43783963)

For the record, I think Bitcoin as a form of money is terrible, but I have tremendous respect for the protocol based on my limited knowledge of it. Not all of the Bitcoin naysayers are simply thinking "It was written by hippies, therefore it's insecure" or something like that.

Re:A "bitcoin wallet" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43783455)

I think you missed the other half of the Bitcoin story; it is the currency of choice for drug addicts and pedophiles.

Normal people don't use Bitcoin because normal people aren't potheads or sexual deviants.

Re:A "bitcoin wallet" (2)

pantaril (1624521) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779785)

They received some 3,000 bitcoins in donations back in the day, can't those bitcoins be traced to a certain wallet?

You can trace bitcoins to certain wallet easily by inspecting the blockchain (public log of all bitcoin transactions). The problem is, you usually can't find to whom does the wallet belong. If the bitcoins were send trough some kind of mixing/anonymising service which doen't keep track of real-world identities of its users, you are usually out of luck.

And - related - can they (or the wallet itself) be anyhow confiscated?

The wallet can be confiscated (or bitcoins could be transfered out of it) if you know the private keys stored in the wallet. This is very hard unless you have physical access to the wallet and the wallet is unencrypted.

Re:A "bitcoin wallet" (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779799)

Hard? Nah they are easy to "track", the problem is, the tracking pretty much relies on someone being a bit careless.

Thing is, every bitcoin address is a public key, so they are anonymous, anyone can generate a new address. So each new transaction, to a new account, is nearly impossible to "track". You just don't know if the coins changed hands or not, nor do you know which one.

Lets say there are X bitcoins in account A. A new transaction is generated sending Y bitcoins to account B and Z bitcoins to account C.

That is a standard transaction as the client sends extra coins to new addresses as "change". Which is the change, which didn't change hands? How do you know?

Don't get me wrong, it happens and has, I tracked down who stole some bitcoins once, thing is, I did it on the other side because the person in question mixed a number of coins together before another transaction, and some of those coins came from an address he had posted on a forum for "tips".

So basically you can follow them backwards to a transaction that can be attributed or watch them going forwards until one, but, you can't actually be sure that it is going to happen or that it is going to lead back to the right person...unless they make a mistake...which is also easy enough.

Though, I, for one, am hoping he doesn't screw up, I like Lulzsec more than I like the FBI. If I could take the money I am forced to give the FBI every year, and give it to Lulzsec instead...I would.

Wow (4, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779307)

Given the general leakyness of the Lulzsec "organisation", this person has done well to remain unidentified.

Re:Wow (1)

tqk (413719) | about a year and a half ago | (#43782487)

Given the general leakyness of the Lulzsec "organisation", this person has done well to remain unidentified.

This's pretty much how Anonymous in total have been characterized from the beginning; < 10 "smart cookies" surrounded by thousands of LOIC armed script kiddies, and everyone including the fibbies gets to have a fun time.

Clever guy (4, Interesting)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779311)

Clever guy, he should add this to his resume, should get him far in security firms. He obviously knows very well how the Internet works. Just don't apply to a job at the FBI.

Pity the article is so short on details. How did he do it? Using Tor all the time or so? At least he's using Twitter apparently - and Twitter logs IP addresses. So must be doing something about that.

Re:Clever guy (4, Funny)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779337)

Probably the tried and true method of 7 proxies

Re:Clever guy (5, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779353)

Yeah and not bragging about his achievements.

Re:Clever guy (2)

lightknight (213164) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779673)

But, but...criminals like to brag! And return to the scene of their crimes! And leave really cryptic riddles that give clues to where they will strike next / who they really are!

Re:Clever guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43782531)

But, but...criminals like to brag! And return to the scene of their crimes! And leave really cryptic riddles that give clues to where they will strike next / who they really are!

Not everyone's a self-aggrandizing bonehead like Mitnick.

Re:Clever guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43788497)

Maybe there's a difference between young persons trying to make names for themselves and men who gain greatest advantage in grey areas.

Re:Clever guy (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about a year and a half ago | (#43780147)

He probably did do some bragging, just securely, by proxy. "Ha! My friend is 31337 u n00b!! Ur gona get pwn3d!!"

Re:Clever guy (4, Funny)

jamesh (87723) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779489)

Probably the tried and true method of 7 proxies

The FBI has just cracked 7 proxies. You have to use 8 now.

Re:Clever guy (1)

TCQuad (537187) | about a year and a half ago | (#43785817)

It's proxies all the way down.

Re:Clever guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43785989)

proxies on the back of turtles all the way down, you mean.

Re:Clever guy (5, Insightful)

Bobakitoo (1814374) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779383)

So must be doing something about that.

Maybe he is fictive? Number three pigs '1', '2', and '4'. And laugh your ass off as the police search pig number 3 for months if not years.

Multiple aliases are better to remain anonymous. When the author is found, there is no way to know if all his aliases are discovered. Undiscovered aliases could be confused as a other person. Even if someone confess there is a sixth person it could be misinformation or plain ignorance.

Re:Clever guy (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779399)

Possible. But then, who is still using that Twitter account?

Re:Clever guy (2)

MrMickS (568778) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779407)

Someone in it for the Lulz

Re:Clever guy (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779429)

Which would imply the account is hacked. I mean, I'm assuming that the individual who set up the account is the AvunitAnon they're looking for - the LulzSec member. It is at least treated as "official" communication channel with that person in the articles. Twitter accounts require a password, in contrast to a typical IRC chatbox where anyone can log in, using any name.

Now with the skills he's shown elsewhere, I'd expect he'd secure his Twitter account as good as technically possible, and I think it being hacked very unlikely.

Re:Clever guy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43779475)

Or he could have given out the details in a chatroom to some random.... misdirection...

Re:Clever guy (0)

MrMickS (568778) | about a year and a half ago | (#43780103)

Usernames and passwords can be shared...

Re:Clever guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43779533)

its omar khayam ravenhurst, im telling you!

Re:Clever guy (1)

lightknight (213164) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779687)

What is a bot?

Re:Clever guy (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779937)

If you suggesting it's a bot, then it's a very smart one as it appears to give intelligent reactions.

Re:Clever guy (4, Funny)

Legion303 (97901) | about a year and a half ago | (#43780079)

Why do you think it appears to give intelligent reactions?

Re:Clever guy (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43780223)

The story about this in The Register talks about an IRC chat with someone claiming to be AVunitAnon, after which the Twitter user with that name reacted to that, claiming that IRC user was an imposer and not the real one. That's not something a bot can do.

Re:Clever guy (1)

lars_stefan_axelsson (236283) | about a year and a half ago | (#43780317)

Woosh [wikipedia.org]

Re:Clever guy (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43780409)

I can't imagine those bots have evolved to replying to information on external sites.

Re:Clever guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43783235)

As someone who was tricked by the most obvious chat bot joke ever, I don't think you're in any position to determine if another person is a bot or not.

Re:Clever guy (0)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783727)

shut your fucking hole.

Re:Clever guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43786211)

>shut your fucking hole.

You just passed the Turin Test!

Re:Clever guy (1)

cez (539085) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783827)

You can't? Bots have been scanning RSS feeds and "external" sites for much longer then a decade. Replying posting, running security and ops in channel...

Re:Clever guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43781191)

Possible. But then, who is still using that Twitter account?

Keyser Söze

Re:Clever guy (1)

lightknight (213164) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779683)

Nice, that would actually be kind of fun. Always make reference to some member ("Dave") of your group who is the real mastermind behind all of your acts of infamy, then take turns performing various actions in his name. When they come to arrest all of you, offer to turn King's Evidence, and help them catch "Dave," who, after they read through your logs, etc. they will really want. In the final scene, lead them to an apartment filled with weaponry, half-finished pamphlets calling for a revolution against the host government, and a recently eaten dinner on a work table. "You just missed him."

The trick is to make sure they really believe that they just missed catching him, and that Dave really is still out there, somewhere...the group walks free, thanks to the deal, and disappears into the sunset.

Re:Clever guy (1)

Raenex (947668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43788319)

Nice, that would actually be kind of fun.

Yeah, it was a pretty good movie [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Clever guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43780325)

Of course that is possible, but extremely unlikely considering their leader turned in the other members.

Re:Clever guy (1)

mjwalshe (1680392) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783115)

Well the mole hunt for the fifth and mooted sixth man didn't do the UK and US security services much good arguably helped drive Jesus Angleton (the real one not the Laudry files one) round the bend.

Re:Clever guy (1)

richardellisjr (584919) | about a year and a half ago | (#43784623)

There's a more likely reason he hasn't be identified. I'd bet Avunit was caught first and outed or helped out Sabu and the others in exchange for no jail time and not being publicly named. If you think about it Sabu doesn't appear to have gotten much of a break for helping the FBI, the best offers would go to the first turncoat... Avunit. But maybe I'm wrong, perhaps he really is that good.

Re:Clever guy (2)

ledow (319597) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779525)

There's any number of ways, it's just a matter of how careful you are.

Control a botnet, use that, make sure the botnet can't be traced back to you.

Use public wifi in random locations at random times. Pretty damn easy to do even if you're broadcasting a static MAC - those sorts of places rarely have proper logs.

Use tor, proxies, intermediaries (shell servers bought with Bitcoin etc. would be hard to trace, etc.). There are any number of ways.

But the important thing is to be careful and watch the trail that you're leaving. Anyone with half-an-IT-brain should be able to do that, if they really want to. The fact that others are caught, whenever you hear the story, is normally down to some boasting or weak link in the chain where they got sloppy.

It's not like criminal forensics at a crime scene where it's almost impossible to cover your tracks. You are in control of every packet you send from every location and what it contains and what information that can be linked to. It's just a question of knowing that and not getting cocky / sloppy.

That said, it's still quite impressive that (if they exist) this person has managed to do so for this long.

Re:Clever guy (1)

TheMathemagician (2515102) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779753)

If AVunit has any sense he should leave that alias behind for ever and probably change his ISP(s)/hardware/OS/location.

Re:Clever guy (2)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779981)

If I were to engage in such hacking activity, I'd not use my home/office ISP. Always use some open WiFi, an Internet cafe, Starbucks, whatever.

Maybe even an anonymous prepaid SIM (paid in cash, thethering through a phone bought second hand in cash). And after the SIM is empty/expires, buy a new one and trade in the phone for another one. And again do not use the phone at home, but always on the move, sitting in some random park, etc.

That should take care of the direct-connecting-it-to-a-person part. But in case of AVunit they don't even know which country he is from. Not even the continent. And that's pretty impressive. At least a layer of TOR and maybe more in between him and the outside world.

Re:Clever guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43780129)

Never use phones.

They can locate a phone very easily and you can be sure to have been picked up by cross examination of shop CCTV systems at different locations.

If you do use a phone, always physically remove the battery and when you're finished and never keep the phone powered on when near your home or work.

TOR via a proxy (paid by bit coins that were laundered through large pools several times to remain anon) from an open WiFi is the only way.

Re:Clever guy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43779775)

He most likely probably already works in some area like that.

I'm sure there was supposedly some dude in Lulzsec who was ex-military.
I'm not sure if he was one of the ones caught or not. But that is all I know sadly.
Mind you, I could be thinking of someone else, I never did pay much attention to their attention-whoring.

To have been able to evade capture this long, he is either very smart, or doesn't exist. Or both.
He could just be a ghost, a codename, something agreed upon that is lost to time used to trick "for the lulz".
One remaining laugh if they ever were caught.

Bitcoin minng platforms could be created easily by abusing generic morons on sites like Facebook, 4chan /b/, reddit and the like who don't know about computers.
Then kept small and quiet, it could have been going for ages, it might even still be going now.

Re:Clever guy (1)

tqk (413719) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783917)

... he is either very smart, or doesn't exist. Or both.

What? Doesn't exist and is very smart. Remind me to avoid your code.

Re:Clever guy (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43780087)

Just don't apply to a job at the FBI.

He's already on the team looking for himself.

Re:Clever guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43780647)

Twitter also logs your location, take a look at this app I made, if you put a break point in the javascript you can see that the data returned often times contains gps coordinates accurate down to peoples houses most of the time. http://asmithdev.com/tweetfinder/

This isn't for spam so if you think it is just ignore it.

Re:Clever guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43781141)

Clever guy, he should add this to his resume

It would be more clever to not add it to his resume, considering several government agencies are looking for him for alleged criminal activity.

should get him far in security firms.

Most security firms don't hire people who have three-letter agencies chasing them.

Pity the article is so short on details. How did he do it?

If they knew how he did it, they'd probably already have him in custody. And if it's some kind of bullet-proof method, it's not like they're going to go around telling people how to avoid getting caught.

I blame Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and (probably) IE (4, Interesting)

backslashdot (95548) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779491)

Why can't browsers tell me which tab or window (let alone frame etc) is playing sound and also offer a way to disable it? It's cause their customers are doing it. Oh well, I woulda expected better from Firefox.

Re:I blame Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and (probably) (3, Informative)

espamo (1061728) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779549)

This feature is already in the latest Canary build [google.com] of Google Chrome.

Re:I blame Firefox, Chrome, Safari, and (probably) (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#43783631)

You can disable sound in Opera.

This is a nerd site, right? (4, Informative)

Bearhouse (1034238) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779509)

As usual, be warned of the horrendous autoplaying video ads surrounding good content at the primary link.

Not a problem if you're running adblockers, noscript etc.

I opt IN for ads on the sites I wish to support, and I which I believe to be safe.

Re:This is a nerd site, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43779825)

I run Chrome and AdBlock, but was still subjected to this ad. Do you have any recommendations to block these?

Re:This is a nerd site, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43779841)

Use Firefox with AdBlock.

Re:This is a nerd site, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43779873)

ger firefox with adblock + noscript :)

Re:This is a nerd site, right? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#43780295)

Block all ad's.

What is worse is a lot of this crap is coming with spamware payloads.

Re:This is a nerd site, right? (5, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779995)

Support, agree.

Safe, not. The site does not bring the ads themselves, some external ad broker does this. And with many well known ad companies compromised, no matter how well you trust the site and it's webmaster, I doubt there is any ad network that can really be trusted.

As usual, be warned of the horrendous autoplaying. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43779589)

FFS use The Tor Browser Bundle! (TBB).

No ads, no flash, no problem!

The 6th member is... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43779751)

an FBI agent provocateur responsible for directing this false flag operation to discredit online "hacktivism" everywhere. Look at the changed opinions on slashdot of "anonymous" before and after Lulzsec.

You mean online hacktivism had any credit? (1, Informative)

Viol8 (599362) | about a year and a half ago | (#43779899)

To anyone with any level of maturity "hacktivists" come across as nothing more than immature glory hunters trying to get noticed as they attempt to stick it to The Man and who simply make life difficult for the 99.999% of normal internet users who just want go about their fscking business without some teenager going through the standard issue rebellious phase trying to DDOS some corp because in his tiny mind he's making some highly original and deeply profound protest.

Re:You mean online hacktivism had any credit? (1)

Iskender (1040286) | about a year and a half ago | (#43780015)

I have no real opinion here but heh, you just supported GP's point. :)

Re:You mean online hacktivism had any credit? (1)

Viol8 (599362) | about a year and a half ago | (#43781919)

Not really. I thought anonymous were a bunch of jackasses from the start. Its hard to take seriously a bunch of kids who wear the mask of a character from a comic - sorry , "graphic novel" - in an attempt to seem mysterious and ineffable. The irony was obvious lost on them.

and yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43782005)

they failed
for i exist
i shall always exist as long as a human draws breath
i shall exist as long as i can yell freedom

THEY failed because i spread the word to hold back
they failed because we knew....

WHat you need to know is why winston churchhill had one really awful day in world war 2 that helped him win.....

Flashblock (1)

bmo (77928) | about a year and a half ago | (#43780197)

>As usual, be warned of the horrendous autoplaying video ads surrounding good content at the primary link.

As usual, I have added img.ibtimes.co.uk to the blocklist.

What autoplaying video?

If content providers would stop the in-your-face stuff, I wouldn't need things like Flashblock or Adblock Plus. But they won't, and I won't stop using them.

well.bye.jpeg

--
BMO

I know who it is... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | about a year and a half ago | (#43780273)

But the feds will never believe me.

House speaker Bohner is actually the 6th member. He is always hanging out in hacker bars and dressing like Neo from the Matrix.

'murica (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43780831)

fake witch-hun, lmao....

He's still on the loose! OMG! (1)

Pf0tzenpfritz (1402005) | about a year and a half ago | (#43781753)

And as long as this obviously dangerous cyberterrorist is still on loose, you'll all have to agree that certain civil rights...

Re:He's still on the loose! OMG! (2)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about a year and a half ago | (#43785575)

Maybe he's the mole.

I AM SPARTACUS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43781949)

you know its true

my guess is (1)

HPHatecraft (2748003) | about a year and a half ago | (#43782529)

he's at John McAffee's place learning survival and evasion (and comparing recipes for 'bath salts')

Re:my guess is (1)

jandrese (485) | about a year and a half ago | (#43782833)

So he's been burnt to a crisp?

I'd say he's Mike (1)

cellocgw (617879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43782859)

That is, the real-world version of HOLMES IV's Mycroft. And the NSA's playing right into his hands, so to speak, by building that fantastic new processing center with direct access to all communications and data.
Watch out for falling rocks!

Steve Jobs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43783447)

Maybe Steve was the 6th?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?