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

LulzSec: Why we do what we do

pastebin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 195 posts

Re: LulzSec: Why we do what we do

#141

Post by dazmax »

dexen wrote: post #109
trotsky wrote: post #104

OK, so for the remaining 3 people out there who were pathologically not paying attention, computer hacking is easy. The state of computer security is poor. Lulzsec deserves a medal and a chest to pin it on for breaking this news to all of the people who don't have a facebook account, have never been on irc, didn't see the movie wargames, don't know anyone who plays world of warcraft, has never read the new york times…

The gunshot analogy fails hard. LulzSec pre-empted at least half of it, by stressing how harm occurs quietly all the time. Data gets stolen or destroyed and we just don't know it. Unlike gunshot wound, where a person lands in a hospital, or morgue, or goes missing, data can be, and indeed is, copied quietly. Of gunshots, people are informed most of the time; of security breaches, barely ever. Cops investigate most gu…

Except they didn't say that they are doing this to bring attention to security issues. They are doing it because they can, and because it brings them some entertainment – that's the point the gunshot analogy was addressing.

They only bring up all the silent malicious hacking that happens as an argument that we shouldn't care so much about what they're doing.

Re: LulzSec: Why we do what we do

#142

Post by gcb »

dexen wrote: post #138
gcb wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been kept out of Sony and all this by never consuming from them. this is the epitome of capitalism. your comment was spot on until the edit. last sony thing I paid was a cassette walkman. then after betamax, minidisc, memory stick, etc, etc, etc... you have to be a sucker to support them. sad but true. anyway, by not consuming from a company with low market ethic, I also avoided a company with bad network securi…

> this is the epitome of capitalism Sure in your case, of an informed technology enthusiast. The average customer, however, is not aware of shoddy security practices endangering his data. Which novadays means his personal finances, too. Also, the average decision maker at the companies in question is not aware of your protest, either; it takes press attention to make him aware. This is heavy information disparity; th…

I knew nothing of sony security practices. I knew about well know market practices.

about attention to my little protest, I assure you, they pay more attention to sales volume than media noise.

Re: LulzSec: Why we do what we do

#143

Post by bxr »

chriserin wrote: post #84
migrantgeek wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can certainly protect against this but it's not a good idea. I pay US taxes and I don't want the cia.gov site to be on the same type of hardware as say Google just to be DDoS "proof". They shouldn't be connected with a 33.6 modem but to ask all sites to upgrade everything to prevent DDoS is insane. Who could afford to start a web site if they had to lay out all of that cost?

Might that be another advantage of cloud computing? To spread the cost of DDoS defense infrastructure across many websites?

You'd still have to pay for all the computing time to remain available during the attack. Its probably not worth it to try to stay up in that kind of storm.

Re: LulzSec: Why we do what we do

#144

Post by getsat »

__rkaup__ wrote: post #132
getsat wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good for the NSA that there's no way to securely communicate over an insecure medium. It's also convenient that all Internet infrastructure exists inside the USA.

You are being ironic. It actually is possible to communicate securely over an insecure medium, and not all the internet's infrastructure is in the USA. Am I right?

Your sarcasm detector is working normally. :) Not sure why your irony detector is going off, though.

Re: LulzSec: Why we do what we do

#146

Post by natural219 »

dexen wrote: post #109
trotsky wrote: post #104

OK, so for the remaining 3 people out there who were pathologically not paying attention, computer hacking is easy. The state of computer security is poor. Lulzsec deserves a medal and a chest to pin it on for breaking this news to all of the people who don't have a facebook account, have never been on irc, didn't see the movie wargames, don't know anyone who plays world of warcraft, has never read the new york times…

The gunshot analogy fails hard. LulzSec pre-empted at least half of it, by stressing how harm occurs quietly all the time. Data gets stolen or destroyed and we just don't know it. Unlike gunshot wound, where a person lands in a hospital, or morgue, or goes missing, data can be, and indeed is, copied quietly. Of gunshots, people are informed most of the time; of security breaches, barely ever. Cops investigate most gu…

None of this addresses the DDoS attacks. I agree with you in regards to the SQL injections / URL parameters, but your post fails hard to defend Lulzsec's DDoSing of anybody.

Re: LulzSec: Why we do what we do

#148

Post by dexen »

natural219 wrote: post #146
dexen wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gunshot analogy fails hard. LulzSec pre-empted at least half of it, by stressing how harm occurs quietly all the time. Data gets stolen or destroyed and we just don't know it. Unlike gunshot wound, where a person lands in a hospital, or morgue, or goes missing, data can be, and indeed is, copied quietly. Of gunshots, people are informed most of the time; of security breaches, barely ever. Cops investigate most gu…

None of this addresses the DDoS attacks. I agree with you in regards to the SQL injections / URL parameters, but your post fails hard to defend Lulzsec's DDoSing of anybody.

On the XX century internet, that was true.

But! On today's internet, consumer needs certain services on-line 24/7, and is hit hard if they are down. One's stock quotes, bank account, credit/debit card processor, ticket booth, office suite, and last but clearly not least, the daily fix of WoW. Hell, a lot of people can't even read or write any email without the WWW interface.

Being vulnerable to DDoS is just as unexcusable for some business internet services as being vulnerable to SQL injection; only diffirence is the protection applies at different layer.

Re: LulzSec: Why we do what we do

#149

Post by JoshCole »

burgerbrain wrote: post #100
bxr wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, only one of them is the foundation of our society.

I'm not sure which one you think it is, but I sure hope it's the one that does it for fun. A society driven by preying on the weak for profit is far more distressing.

You guys do realize that the bit about preying on the weak for profit is just a bit of rhetoric? It isn't really true.

The person who is weak in this case is a customer. This customer is lacking in skills related to computer security. The person who is preying on the weak is someone who invested time into learning about the skills that the customer does not know. Let's say this customer was a farmer. He is using the money he too got from preying on the weak non-farmers to purchase protection.

In the case of preying on the weak for fun we also have some things being hidden behind the words. For example, fun in this case means stealing identities, trying to ruin relationships, and sending dildos to innocents.

It's cool though for the author because by having things written in these terms its easy for people to talk past each other. They don't realize the context in which he has placed the words in the article. When other people see the terms its easy to think that maybe "preying on the weak for profit" is referring to blackhats instead of capitalism.

Another thing worth pointing out is that the person who is volunteering to give away the information for free is actually someone who also put in a lot of time to learn all the things that the customer didn't know. So when he says "I could teach it to him quickly" he is really saying "I will provide the same service in exchange for you're weekend." The thing is that when these two "companies" compete only the one charging money is going to stay afloat. So the dildo sending altruist who wants fun to be the basis of society goes back to sending dildos while the guy who charged the money actually does the job.

Re: LulzSec: Why we do what we do

#150

Post by JoshCole »

scythe wrote: post #6

>People who can make things work better within this rectangle have power over others; the whitehats who charge $10,000 for something we could teach you how to do over the course of a weekend, providing you aren't mentally disabled. This is a common complaint among blackhats: they see whitehats as being in the game for the money and taking advantage of the unenlightened as much as they [the blackhats] themselves do. I…

My guess is rationalization. They are lieing to themselves to justify their actions. I've read that even serial-killers think they are doing good. I don't see why blackhats would be much different.
Post reply on HN