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

LulzSec: 50 Days of Lulz statement

pastebin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 97 posts

Re: LulzSec: 50 Days of Lulz statement

#51

Post by redthrowaway »

suking wrote: post #44
romland wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by large projects? The size of the files they transfer? Your machine -> TOR -> hacked home user or server -> your target. This way you only transfer the files between the target and the hacked server, and from there on to a torrent, and heck, why not let that machine seed it too. Chances are that they even used a chain of hacked machines to get to their target. It gets pretty complicated pretty quick…

Ahhh, didn't know they went onto hacked machines. So - some people should be getting some knocks on their door soon?

That's the unfortunate bit -- some innocent people are likely to get their dog shot as the FBI busts down their door with assault rifles to seize a laptop.

Re: LulzSec: 50 Days of Lulz statement

#52

Post by redthrowaway »

SwellJoe wrote: post #45
46Bit wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty simple really, at least in the UK. Just get someone to make an allegation against them (underage porn, etc), and their computers get seized. If the police just happen to discover a ton of other things they're really involved in whilst analysing them, there you go. If encrypted, under UK law you have to divulge the keys or go to jail, so you're guaranteed to get them some jail time.

Just get someone to make an allegation against them (underage porn, etc), and their computers get seized. Is that legal in the UK? Because in the US it'd be unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Re: LulzSec: 50 Days of Lulz statement

#53

Post by redthrowaway »

trotsky wrote: post #48
redthrowaway wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but then they'd be prosecuted, and the means would come out. You wouldn't be able to both put people in jail based upon evidence gained from compromising TOR, as well as keep secret the fact that TOR was compromised. Not for long, at any rate.

I'm pretty sure confidential informants are tailor made for covering up illegal or undisclosed investigation techniques. It's not like they haven't had a little practice trying to protect wiretaps. Which isn't to say that I think the feebs have compromised TOR, because I think that's pretty unlikely.

That's an interesting perspective. Still, in order for the anonymous source's testimony to carry any weight, there'd have to be some solid evidence. Either they'd have to show traffic logs, or they'd have to show the results of forensics done on the suspect's hdd. If you've properly distanced yourself from your activities, then there shouldn't be anything on your hard drive to implicate you.

Ultimately, it comes down to human fuckups. Bradley Manning is not in jail because he didn't take security precautions, he's in jail because he talked to someone he shouldn't have. The same will be true of any reasonably sophisticated hacking organization. They can take all the precautions in the world, but a vengeful ex can bring the whole thing crashing down.

Re: LulzSec: 50 Days of Lulz statement

#54

Post by kristofferR »

Damn, the AT&T-release is especially juicy. It contains a lot of highly confidential information about technology and strategy that their competitors would love to get their hands on.

I'm a quite technical guy and I barely understand a thing. No wonders AT&T are having troubles with fixing their network troubles, it looks like a massive, massive beast of technology.

I found the frequency chart fascinating. It's available publicly here: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/osmhome/allochrt.pdf

Re: LulzSec: 50 Days of Lulz statement

#55

Post by jeffreymcmanus »

redthrowaway wrote: post #20
46Bit wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd have to agree. Even now I think that with time they will all be outed - if they've not already. Some of these 'raids' have just been too daring to expect to get away with forever.

Really though, if all of your traffic is going through TOR to a vpn in eastern europe, the chances of being tracked down are slim to nil. Sure, there are theoretical weaknesses in TOR, but you'd need to control quite a few exit nodes to even begin to have a chance of pinpointing the endpoints. Combine that with a compromised wifi as a last resort (which you erase the logs of regularly), and you're pretty damned safe.…

You're assuming they're safe because their technology stack is safe, but there are about 20 ways that law enforcement could possibly track these guys down that don't require particularly l33t skillz.

Cops work like hackers in the sense that both groups attack vulnerabilities. The vulnerabilities here are clear: these guys have big mouths and they're overconfident. They'll talk to somebody someday, and when that happens, it will provide an opening for the fuzz.

Re: LulzSec: 50 Days of Lulz statement

#56

Post by redthrowaway »

jaremy wrote: post #42
redthrowaway wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And here I was, sparing you my snark. You've made me re-evaluate humanity, sir, and I'm not impressed with the results.

I appreciated your brief synopsis. I only know a little bit about LulzSec, and the added information helped. So your efforts were not entirely lost...

I appreciate your appreciation. If you want to learn more, the wikipedia article on them [1] is pretty decent.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulzsec

Re: LulzSec: 50 Days of Lulz statement

#57

Post by [deleted] »

kristofferR wrote: post #54

Damn, the AT&T-release is especially juicy. It contains a lot of highly confidential information about technology and strategy that their competitors would love to get their hands on. I'm a quite technical guy and I barely understand a thing. No wonders AT&T are having troubles with fixing their network troubles, it looks like a massive, massive beast of technology. I found the frequency chart fascinating. It's avail…

[deleted]

Re: LulzSec: 50 Days of Lulz statement

#58

Post by chao- »

lhnz wrote: post #4

Quitting or rebranding is the question I find myself asking.

Given that the LulzSec name was a clique from AnonOps rebranding itself to begin with, I would bet on the latter. Although it may be a while before we hear of them pulling such flamboyant stunts again.

Re: LulzSec: 50 Days of Lulz statement

#59

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #57
kristofferR wrote: post #54

Damn, the AT&T-release is especially juicy. It contains a lot of highly confidential information about technology and strategy that their competitors would love to get their hands on. I'm a quite technical guy and I barely understand a thing. No wonders AT&T are having troubles with fixing their network troubles, it looks like a massive, massive beast of technology. I found the frequency chart fascinating. It's avail…

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: LulzSec: 50 Days of Lulz statement

#60

Post by mkr-hn »

[deleted] wrote: post #57
kristofferR wrote: post #54

Damn, the AT&T-release is especially juicy. It contains a lot of highly confidential information about technology and strategy that their competitors would love to get their hands on. I'm a quite technical guy and I barely understand a thing. No wonders AT&T are having troubles with fixing their network troubles, it looks like a massive, massive beast of technology. I found the frequency chart fascinating. It's avail…

[deleted]

How would using a Mac prevent that?
Post reply on HN