Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does anyone? Countries outside America do have law enforcement agencies for the most part, so yes.
I meant, does anyone investigate them end-to-end, and not just in their own country? I find it hard to believe that the FBI interacts well with law enforcement in, say, Poland.
How the FBI raided Anonymous
31–40 of 168 posts
Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous
#32It's funny that Mastercard can't defend against an attack that my home router is capable of defending against. (A big limit on connections per /24 per minute should solve this problem. So will using a smart webserver or frontend proxy that doesn't care how many idle connections there are. Then all you have to worry about is bandwidth saturation rather than your servers crashing.) But the lesson here is, when you visi…
You can get people to participate in DDoS attacks with a malicious website though. Just use some JS to create image elements, script tags, iframes etc all with sources pointing at the target, should be able to do a few hundred a second at least. Even trivial to get people to participate without using javascript. Just pop in a hidden iframe with a million tags in the source. As things move on, I don't think individual…
I guarantee the FBI did further surveillance before sending the raids.
They didn't just pick a random IP and then send a team.
They picked the IP, sniffed their traffic, monitored their internet behaviour, read their forum posts, and then finally selected them to be an example.
By performing surveillance like this you can be 99% sure who is a real voluntary participant and who is just a stooge. A voluntary participant will talk about it on forums for example, brag on IRC, etc etc. These will be the ones selected by the FBI for dramatic home visits.
Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous
#33>The FBI yesterday reminded the public that "facilitating or conducting a DDoS attack is illegal, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, as well as exposing participants to significant civil liability."
What exactly is the relevant statute? As the other Ars article on the subject states, it's the digital equivalent of a sit-in.
Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous
#34Let me get this straight. All this fanfare, and all they got was a bunch of teenagers (who most likely are not even legally liable) + their moms?
Their goal is to deter the behaviour by making examples of out people.
I think they achieved this.
Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can get people to participate in DDoS attacks with a malicious website though. Just use some JS to create image elements, script tags, iframes etc all with sources pointing at the target, should be able to do a few hundred a second at least. Even trivial to get people to participate without using javascript. Just pop in a hidden iframe with a million tags in the source. As things move on, I don't think individual…
Just pop in a hidden iframe with a million tags in the source. Mostly agree, but thought it worth pointing out that no browser will respond to this by parallelizing the million requests - most browsers don't ever open more than a dozen or so concurrent connections to one site. So this wouldn't do as much as you might think, unless you could get lots of users to stay on your page for a long time.
True, although you can probably find all subdomains for the target, or if you're lucky find someone who has setup a DNS wildcard then you'll be able to have a bit more fun and run lots of the requests concurrently.
Maybe my 'few hundred a second' was a bit off, idk
There is a javascript version of the tool (LOIC), so presumably it's effective enough to be useful.
Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous
#36What's the justification for no-knock raids here?
no-knocks pretty much don't need justification anymore
The laws are so vague and the precedents are so sweeping when it comes to no-knock raids.
Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does being a teenager have to do with being liable? If they're criminally liable, they'll be tried by a juvenile court. If they're civilly liable, their parents will face civil suits.
oh, hello our friendly neighborhood cybercrime legal expert. If I have written: teenagers who most likely are not liable to the same extent as adults would it have satisfied your pedantry, or would you still argue to the contrary?
You should say what you mean. "Not legally liable" is pretty clear and does not imply "to the same extent as adults."
Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous
#38the surprise here is that one of them has a gf that lives w/ him!
Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
oh, hello our friendly neighborhood cybercrime legal expert. If I have written: teenagers who most likely are not liable to the same extent as adults would it have satisfied your pedantry, or would you still argue to the contrary?
You should say what you mean. "Not legally liable" is pretty clear and does not imply "to the same extent as adults."
unlike others I don't pretend to be a legal expert, that's why I've written "most likely not even legally liable" in the first place. I think I've made it pretty clear with that sentence that I'm not sure, but I see it as highly unlikely that persons mentioned in the article will face any serious legal liability over their alleged actions.
But let's wait for the court session (if there will be any), shall we?
Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous
#40>The FBI yesterday reminded the public that "facilitating or conducting a DDoS attack is illegal, punishable by up to 10 years in prison, as well as exposing participants to significant civil liability." What exactly is the relevant statute? As the other Ars article on the subject states, it's the digital equivalent of a sit-in.
Wikipedia suggests 18 U.S.C. § 1030, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act[0]. Here's the relevant part:
> Whoever ... knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected computer ... shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.
> As used in this section ... the term “protected computer” means a computer ... which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication...
By my (not a lawyer) reading, the only real question is whether being overwhelmed with traffic can be called "damage".