Who Hacked Ashley Madison? • Hacker News Board

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#11

Post by joelrunyon » Wed, Aug 26, 2015, 5:14 PM UTC

ck2 wrote: post #7

smtddr wrote: post #2

I don't condone this hack, but morals/ethics aside for a moment: The one positive thing this hack has done is really give serious ammo to the battle for online privacy, because the demographic hit by this hack is the most politically & economically powerful demographic in the world....

You'd think the 1986 law that allows any entity in the government can read anyone's email is bigger ammo It's the ultimate hack, because it's in plain sight and somehow no-one cares. But run your own private email server in your home to prevent warrantless abuse and everyone loses their damn minds.

Why can't both be bad and unacceptable?

Playing the shades of grey game is a great wait to force dissent in an area that should incite cooperation.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#12

Post by take901 » Wed, Aug 26, 2015, 5:14 PM UTC

Doesn't it seem just a bit odd that a hacker (or a close associate) that just held ransom a massive company would post on twitter of all places evidence that they are connected to the hack?

Call me a skeptic but this seems like a distraction... obviously Krebs did a ton more research than I did, but I found this when snooping around his profile: http://186.42.193.241/FRaboudan/status/635121718202208257

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#13

Post by dublinben » Wed, Aug 26, 2015, 5:14 PM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #4

This seems awfully meta - as the AM hack revealed 30m people to have lost any real privacy in the digital age, the person seemingly / likely / possibly responsible is hunted down and much of his life laid out like a private investigators report through his digital trail. It's curious - we are all being affected by the new digital pollution

There isn't any contradiction, if you were implying there was. All of the information compiled in this article was published to the public. Any private information that has been revealed about this individual is likely misdirection or irrelevant.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#14

Post by philangist » Wed, Aug 26, 2015, 5:18 PM UTC

> They said Avid Life employees first learned about the breach on July 12 (seven days before my initial story) when they came into work, turned on their computers and saw a threatening message from the Impact Team accompanied by the anthem “Thunderstruck” by Australian rock band AC/DC playing in the background.

This reads like a scene straight out of Hackers or some other campy tech movie. Life imitates art.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#15

Post by lawl » Wed, Aug 26, 2015, 5:18 PM UTC

So Krebs has no conclusive proof for anything?

As he himself admits:

> It is possible that Zu is instead a white hat security researcher or confidential informant

Jeez, how about talking to the police and let them do their job, or at the very least censor the name.

This is just a witch hunt.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#16

Post by Scarbutt » Wed, Aug 26, 2015, 5:21 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #9

smtddr wrote: post #2

I don't condone this hack, but morals/ethics aside for a moment: The one positive thing this hack has done is really give serious ammo to the battle for online privacy, because the demographic hit by this hack is the most politically & economically powerful demographic in the world....

This is going to have some long-lasting repercussions on the industry. I fully expect there to be a push in the legislature to require PCI-like compliance from anyone who takes "sensitive data". That would have very serious effects for the startup community.

I wish the push was more of a law that let users delete their data immediately and completely from a service with the click of a button.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#17

Post by satanrepents » Wed, Aug 26, 2015, 5:21 PM UTC

Half a million in Canadian dollars? Is that like paying it out in monopoly money?

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#18

Post by vezzy-fnord » Wed, Aug 26, 2015, 5:22 PM UTC

smtddr wrote: post #2

I don't condone this hack, but morals/ethics aside for a moment: The one positive thing this hack has done is really give serious ammo to the battle for online privacy, because the demographic hit by this hack is the most politically & economically powerful demographic in the world....

I'd argue the opposite. The AM hack hasn't helped at all, since enough people view it as a just retribution due to it being about a pet moral value that is held dear, namely marital fidelity. And to others, it's all a big joke.

The cheating cheaters (who likely never got the opportunity to cheat) have been named and shamed, and because of those asserting that it's acceptable to do this if it strokes their personal moral vendetta, then this type of chilling privacy violation is on its way to being normalized.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#19

Post by watty » Wed, Aug 26, 2015, 5:22 PM UTC

lawl wrote: post #15

So Krebs has no conclusive proof for anything? As he himself admits: > It is possible that Zu is instead a white hat security researcher or confidential informant Jeez, how about talking to the police and let them do their job, or at the very least censor the name. This is just a witch hunt.

Why do they need to censor an alias account for someone connected to the hack? There is no "Zu", the photos of Zu and his locations are copied from the internet.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#20

Post by onewaystreet » Wed, Aug 26, 2015, 5:22 PM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #4

This seems awfully meta - as the AM hack revealed 30m people to have lost any real privacy in the digital age, the person seemingly / likely / possibly responsible is hunted down and much of his life laid out like a private investigators report through his digital trail. It's curious - we are all being affected by the new digital pollution

The hacker is a criminal, he's being hunted by the FBI. Brian Krebs is good at tracking down people but he's not a vigilante. In the end the hacker will be arrested and have his day in court.