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

LulzSec brought down by own leader

foxnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 139 posts

Re: LulzSec brought down by own leader

#111

Post by driverdan »

mkramlich wrote: post #110
driverdan wrote: post #75

As a former blackhat and ID thief who used to spend a lot of time in "underground" chatrooms and forums this doesn't surprise me at all. This is a standard pattern LE follows. Start with small arrests, work your way up, get someone at the top level to be an informant, take everyone down. Works for any type of group. This always works because people are foolish and too trusting. The best rule is to assume everyone is…

> The best rule is to assume everyone is LE trying to catch you. This sounds wise. But I'd argue that it's wiser to not be engaging in activities where you even have to worry about that. If your rule is the best rule, my rule is even better. :P

Non sequitur. If you don't do something, negative consequences won't happen. You can say that about anything. Don't have sex if you don't want STDs, don't drive a car if you don't want to get into an accident, don't walk down the street at night if you don't want to get mugged.

Re: LulzSec brought down by own leader

#112

Post by gavinlynch »

hack_edu wrote: post #100
gavinlynch wrote: post #98

One question: If the FBI knew of additional hacks that could expose things such as customer credit card numbers, should they have intervened? Did they intervene?

If they were involved an operation to export thousands of guns to Mexican drug gangs[1], surely killing hundreds in the process, then yes. If they knew, they probably wouldn't intervene. Even still, few (any?) Lulzsec attacks actually leaked unencrypted credit card data. Even then, the damage done by exposing credit cards is pretty negligible anyway. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

Forgive me if this information is not correct, but wasn't their latest attack of Stratfor exactly such a hack?

I recall that Stratfor kept a lot of customer information in plaintext, including CC's.

Re: LulzSec brought down by own leader

#113

Post by tlear »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #93
tlear wrote: post #18

We are still in the stage of these groups being very amateurish. It will take few rounds of purges until really committed+careful+smart organizations emerge.

This is mistaken. Committed/careful/smart organizations already exist. But they aren't motivated by publicity and lols. They make serious money through industrial espionage and financial fraud, and they stay as under the radar as possible. Everyone who has a credit or debit card has likely experienced having that information being stolen in one way or another. Those activities aren't just accidents or pranks by bored…

Yes they definitely do exist, but I am referring to the ideological types not the straightforward crime for money. Also need to consider the fact that resources brought against Lulsec etc were orders of magnitude more then what normal credit card fraud criminals have to deal with.

Re: LulzSec brought down by own leader

#114

Post by mistercow »

freshhawk wrote: post #104
troutwine wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Luckily for them and, in my opinion, you and me as well. Elaborate, please?

I wouldn't, troutwine is probably informing as well! Why else would one pretend to be so dense except to get you to go on the record as supporting Anonymous?

Publicly supporting anonymous isn't illegal.

Re: LulzSec brought down by own leader

#115

Post by mkramlich »

driverdan wrote: post #111
mkramlich wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The best rule is to assume everyone is LE trying to catch you. This sounds wise. But I'd argue that it's wiser to not be engaging in activities where you even have to worry about that. If your rule is the best rule, my rule is even better. :P

Non sequitur. If you don't do something, negative consequences won't happen. You can say that about anything . Don't have sex if you don't want STDs, don't drive a car if you don't want to get into an accident, don't walk down the street at night if you don't want to get mugged.

you missed the point

Re: LulzSec brought down by own leader

#116

Post by sliverstorm »

rajpaul wrote: post #69
JonnieCache wrote: post #43

I reckon a huge proportion of blackhats in the scene are working for the feds. Some kid with no record gets thrown in a van by men with guns, and the full force of police psychological manipulation is brought to bear on them. They get told they're irrevocably destined for a lifetime of being brutally raped in the showers. Is it any surprise that these young men with no experience of foul-play or maliciousness outside…

I also think that a lot of black hats are working for the feds. But I think it has more to do with their lack of integrity and morals rather than threats and intimidation. Legal advice is a big part of black hat literature, so I don't think any of them can claim ignorance.

Not to mention, they wouldn't typically have met their co-conspirators face-to-face. It is much easier to turn on an anonymous handle on the computer screen than a human face.

Re: LulzSec brought down by own leader

#117

Post by sliverstorm »

freehunter wrote: post #89
alecco wrote: post #81

From the rt story: > Monsegur pled guilty to several charges of computer hacking conspiracy, for which he could receive a maximum of 124 years behind bars. That's what a serial killer would get. US law is ridiculously tilt to corporations.

Note that he hasn't actually been sentenced to 124 years. We're talking about multiple stacking charges here. You could get multiple charges of parking too far from the curb and it could add up to thousands of dollars, but that doesn't mean the parking fine is too much. More than likely, it'll be reduced to a sane amount when the compile the charges. 5 years, maybe 10 (maybe more). The actual sentence (minimum senten…

Yup, maximum sentences are actually generally there for the protection of the defendant; they put a ceiling on sentencing. Without them sentencing would be entirely up to a judge's discretion.

Re: LulzSec brought down by own leader

#118

Post by sliverstorm »

eridius wrote: post #108
hack_edu wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In short, Anonymous targets and humiliates authoritarians and those who service them. This is at the core of my morality. Their hacks illustrate the glaring weaknesses of our technology and that the incompetence in infosec so often spawns from negligence at the highest of levels in the industry. Despite this, powers that be (nation-states, militaries, and regional law enforcement) invest nearly nothing in securing th…

> Luckily, Anonymous does all this for the sake of Teh Lulz (public humiliation), rather than corporate or state espionage. Or so they say. There seems to be an awful lot of blind trust that Anonymous (or people claiming to be Anonymous) really do have the goals that they've stated. If Anonymous, or a splinter group, goes after some random company, ostensibly to humiliate them, what's to say they're not being paid by…

I tend to agree with you. They have been going up against publicly unpopular targets, so few have questioned them thus far, but there's no reason that can't be a ruse.

Re: LulzSec brought down by own leader

#119

Post by eridius »

sliverstorm wrote: post #118
eridius wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Luckily, Anonymous does all this for the sake of Teh Lulz (public humiliation), rather than corporate or state espionage. Or so they say. There seems to be an awful lot of blind trust that Anonymous (or people claiming to be Anonymous) really do have the goals that they've stated. If Anonymous, or a splinter group, goes after some random company, ostensibly to humiliate them, what's to say they're not being paid by…

I tend to agree with you. They have been going up against publicly unpopular targets, so few have questioned them thus far, but there's no reason that can't be a ruse.

Part of the problem here is the fact that they really are anonymous, so if Anonymous goes after two different targets on two different days, there's no way to know that it's actually the same group both times. So even if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what their goals were for one particular attack, that would have zero bearing on the motivations and goals behind any subsequent attack.

Re: LulzSec brought down by own leader

#120

Post by freshhawk »

mistercow wrote: post #114
freshhawk wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't, troutwine is probably informing as well! Why else would one pretend to be so dense except to get you to go on the record as supporting Anonymous?

Publicly supporting anonymous isn't illegal.

No shit.

I honestly thought that statement was so stupid that it didn't need "" or the like.

Guess I was wrong. Not about how stupid a reference to getting someone on the record as "supporting anonymous" was, but about not needed to telegraph the joke here.

Post reply on HN