Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 308 posts

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#101

Post by tptacek »

gvb wrote: post #39
ChuckMcM wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

unclear if its a witch hunt or if Krebs wants to be on record with his reasoning in order to secure some of that $500K bounty if it turns out to be this guy? I've never figured out how they actually decide who gets what if they have to split that up.

I'm pretty sure Krebs is in the game for the publicity, not the reward money. The publicity and "staying relevant" as a security researcher has a lot more value than a nebulous reward that likely will never pay out. Based on the typical wording when reward money is offered, I strongly suspect almost no reward money is ever paid out. It typically requires arrest and prosecution (often conviction) and there are plenty…

Krebs isn't a security researcher; he's a reporter.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#102

Post by aianus »

mahyarm wrote: post #56
x0x0 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I find weirdest about the whole thing is the data wasn't sold back to Ashley Madison. The hacker(s) could have leaked 10 or 20 juicy names then probably cleared $10 million dollars or better. It would have been a bargain to Ashley Madison at that price.

So, how the hell would you receive your criminal payment of $10mm? How would your life be afterwards? You don't think the FBI or whoever else will be spending $2mm to catch you, and a big money payment like that will be the way to track you?

Bitcoin and then sleeping with beautiful women in a corrupt third world country until you die :)

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#103

Post by vezzy-fnord »

solipsism wrote: post #95
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then that's a breach of contract between two private parties which is of absolutely no relevance to outside observers. It is the married couple's prerogative to undergo court procedure if they so desire. Being on AM wouldn't solely have been about breaking commitment. From what I recall, it became an inadvertent hub for gay dating due to its extraordinary gender/sex imbalance. AM's entire business practice was about…

Having morals means knowing when to stay out of things that are none of your concern That's fundamental to your moral framework. It may even be fundamental to the moral norms in US or Western culture. But it's not fundamental to everybody's. It's by no means objective. That's why we have objective laws to go by. Talking about morals means realizing everyone has different morals. Of what use is it to argue whether che…

That's why we have objective laws to go by.

Which as far as I know were violated.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#104

Post by fowkswe »

GigabyteCoin wrote: post #51

>To say that Zu tweets to others is a bit of a misstatement. I have never seen anyone tweet the way Zu does; He sends hundreds of tweets each day, and while most of them appear to be directed at nobody, it does seem that they are in response to (if not in “reply” to) tweets that others have sent him or made about his work. Consequently, his tweet stream appears to the casual observer to be nothing more than an endles…

It seems like the tweets are selectively pulled responses from a chat stream.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#105

Post by watty »

Nadya wrote: post #71
watty wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still don't see the problem. If this handle was directly connected with $x I would fully expect people to be discussing my handle in blogs/forums. Going to the cops is fine and dandy too of course. Krebs even clarifies "If Zu wasn’t involved in the hack, he almost certainly knows who was.".

So I'm 85% sure that ${User} is connected to a CP ring in some way. Should I publicly out ${User} even though I could be wrong and let them suffer the ramifications that it causes? If they lose their job, spouse, shunned by family, receive death threats, and have an internet hate mob trying to find where they live because the evidence was "leaning towards them" does that make it okay for me to call them out as being…

If you think there's an 85% chance that Zu was somehow connected to the AM hack then you didn't read the article.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#106

Post by mahouse »

differentView wrote: post #60
gyardley wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Politically and economically powerful people don't need some obviously-for-suckers website to have an affair.

How would you have an affair if you're politically and economically powerful?

Cucking has existed since forever, for both the poor and the wealthy.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#109

Post by dnautics »

Zigurd wrote: post #84
chrischen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Privacy isn't a natural right, just like lying to someone via marriage isn't universally considered unethical. Your right to privacy isn't naturally guaranteed, and is only granted by some mutually agreed upon rules in the form of privacy laws. But if I know some fact about you, what gives you any right to say I can't reveal that information? Wouldn't you be limiting my speech? If you argue that lying in marriage is…

One could argue privacy is a more natural right than, for example, property rights since strong encryption can give you absolute privacy, even against the state.

that would be a right to encrypt, not a right to privacy. the 'right to privacy', as established in the US, constitutes a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' that is - if you passively (e.g hiding behind a wall) or procatively (enclosing a letter in an envelope) take measures to hide what you are doing then you have the legal right to go after someone who tries to breach this privacy.

In the context of encryption, A right to encrypt says that no one can stop you from encrypting your work. A right to privacy says no one is allowed to try to break your encryption.

Re: Who Hacked Ashley Madison?

#110

Post by nostrebored »

serve_yay wrote: post #80
nostrebored wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would you prefer, some amorphous undefinable moral relativism where everyone is somehow a good person, and we're all the same? Public shaming is a pretty decent prosocial incentive.

I would prefer for people to mind their own business. I don't think that is so "amorphous", do you?

To what end? There's clearly a social benefit to people not always minding their business. Do you really prefer that people stick their head in the sand instead of looking at social problems and discussing them, even on an individual level?
Post reply on HN