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

CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

readwriteweb.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 134 posts

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#101

Post by omouse »

hugh3 wrote: post #98
omouse wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that the upper-class is fighting a different war and being divided from others by nationalism and protecting a war-mongering police state from other middle-class folks is retarded. There's a bigger game that's being played: making the internet safe for commerce. The Jester is not playing that game, he's going to be playing the "middle-class squabbles" game that distracts people from the bigger game.

Oh fab, another conspiracy theory wacko. I really thought HN needed some of them!

uh there's no conspiracy theory, what I say is in plain sight. Who benefits from the DMCA, PATRIOT ACT, TSA patdowns, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Surely not us who are in the middle class.

I like the ad hominem though, keep it coming.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#103

Post by woodall »

I've seen a lot of the sites they have compromised before; can't disclose where. I wrote f-secure back in 2007 about it. Never a response. A few to watch for in the future Noth Korea's main site; Adam Sandler's home page. I'll have to dig trough my logs to find more. Again, no bodies listening, http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2651275.

Maybe a good start-up idea, Internet 911. Grey/White hats find vulns => report => issue gets the attention it deserves. Made me laugh, but something like cyber-police :D

From - Sat Aug 07 23:58:30

X-Mozilla-Status: 0001

X-Mozilla-Status2: 00800000

X-Mozilla-Keys: Message-ID:

Date: Sat, 07 Aug 2010 23:58:24 -0500

From: Chris

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.11) Gecko/20100713 Thunderbird/3.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0

To: sanjose@f-secure.com

Subject: fox news

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dear F-Secure:

Many Fox news opinion sites(Glen Beck, Hannity, ect) are vulnerable to multiple attacks- read LFI(getfile.php), XSS(search), ect. I would try to contact them, however, the LFI leaves their mail servers vulnerable to ease dropping. As a well established security reseach company I feel disclosure of this should be left to you(the pros); plus it would make a good blog post.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#105

Post by cantbecool »

getsat wrote: post #38
kabushikigaisha wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's just a troll/internet tough guy having verbal warfare via Twitter and IRC.

I love the fact that LulzSec actually calls him out constantly, calling him a "schizo retard" and threatening to reveal the exploit he's using to take down sites. It's immature, of course, but entertaining as an observer.

No, LulSec said that he is part of the illuminati. I'm not even sure they were even serious, but funny regardless.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#106

Post by seanp2k »

maxwell wrote: post #100
madmaze wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that is very true, but the media seems to spin it purely against the big bad hackers. Trust me, I love that these companies are finally getting a reality check! I mean the Citi hack was URL modification. please thats like figuring out if theres http://something.com/2.jpg there is probably also 1.jpg and 3.jpg

Does anyone know what stack Citi was using?

Probably something very large, very expensive, and very custom. I would think something like a custom contract-deal IBM solution.

Here is the whatweb output: ./whatweb https://online.citibank.com https://online.citibank.com [200] X-UA-Compatible[IE=EmulateIE7, IE=EmulateIE7], UncommonHeaders[jid], Cookies[JFPWebAppInfo,JSESSIONID], Title[Citibank Online], Country[UNITED STATES][US]

Looks like something Java-based. It's fun that sometimes software gets so large that they miss a gaping security hole like this.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#107

Post by maxwell »

gasull wrote: post #70
dmix wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same questions and speculation come up in every LulzSec post.

It might be that they are not a false flag operation but the Government is going to take advantage of the media attention to "civilize Internet".

I hear this concern, but I'm not quite sure what the government can even do to "civilize". What would it mean exactly? Tighter regulation of domains, criminalization of encryption, tracking down and harshly sentencing crackers, forcing an "Internet ID", registering hardware? Any of these measures seems extraordinarily expensive. Maybe doable if the CIA drums up a War on Hacking, shifting attention away from the War on Terror, post-bin Laden.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#108

Post by docgnome »

Aloisius wrote: post #66

scratches head I can load cia.gov just fine. It doesn't even appear to be slow. I opened up the CIA World Factbook then checked their press section & what's new on cia.gov and there was nothing about it going down. Also, kudos to the CIA for flipping to HTTPS by default.

Interesting to me that they don't use a wildcard cert though.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#110

Post by argarg »

Aloisius wrote: post #66

scratches head I can load cia.gov just fine. It doesn't even appear to be slow. I opened up the CIA World Factbook then checked their press section & what's new on cia.gov and there was nothing about it going down. Also, kudos to the CIA for flipping to HTTPS by default.

5 hours ago: https://twitter.com/#!/LulzSec/status/81115804636155906

2 hours ago: your comment on this post. Don't you think they had some time to take it back up?

Post reply on HN