131–134 of 134 posts
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.
I read for most of their hacks they used SQL injection. Any know how that works exactly?
Input isn't properly sanitized by the server thus allowing an attacker to run code through the database. Fairly easy to test for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 o…
> I'm not quite sure what the government can even do to "civilize" Nothing that would make anything better, and everything that would mean they have more powers.
Works for me. It puts me on edge that these idiots would pick such media-friendly targets to strafe with their clueless bandwidth wastage; not looking forward to the next round of "cyber security" laws one bit. "Hey dad, tell me just one more time about how when you were a kid you used to be able to make TCP connections freely and without the connection first being authorized by the NSA." "Go to sleep, son."
I'm wondering if LulzSec is a false flag operation very well engineered.
And lastly: Always ask the question "Cui bono?" (Latin for "who's gonna profit from it?"). In the Anon case it was clear; they were activists trying to express their support for wikileaks and their anger on organizations that ceased support for wikileaks. But who's profiting from what LulzSec does? They themselves? Think again!