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

Hacker tries to compromise and resell an internet-facing Linux server

morris.guru

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 73 posts

Re: Hacker tries to compromise and resell an internet-facing Linux server

#41

Post by MichaelGG »

andrewballs wrote: post #35
JosephRedfern wrote: post #24

Not to say that Huthos are innocent, but I don't see any concrete proof that they are behind this attack. The fact that they are hosting a server provisioning script is hardly crazy, given that they are a hosting provider. What's to say that the ACTUAL attacker didn't just come across the provisioning script and decide to use it for themselves? The script URL is listed publicly online: http://yandicunk.blogspot.co.uk…

Hi, thanks for your comment. It wasn't really my objective to find the smoking gun and bring Huthos' operation crumbling to the ground. Like you, I don't definitively know that the operators of the website are the same people that broke into my honeypot without permission. It seems more likely than another totally-unrelated bad guy knowing where the file paths are to the Huthos provisioning scripts when directory lis…

Your article definitively implies Huthos is behind this. If you're serious about not bringing them down, you should change the title and put a disclaimer at the top explaining the uncertainty.

Re: Hacker tries to compromise and resell an internet-facing Linux server

#42

Post by reinhardt »

Somasis wrote: post #31
mhurron wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the attacker is unknown, the correct term would be they or them. Gender is unknown, a gender neutral description should be used.

Yeah, true. Most authors seem to like to assume male, though. :(

Yeah, contrary to the overwhelming evidence of evil female hackers... /s

Re: Hacker tries to compromise and resell an internet-facing Linux server

#43

Post by JosephRedfern »

andrewballs wrote: post #35
JosephRedfern wrote: post #24

Not to say that Huthos are innocent, but I don't see any concrete proof that they are behind this attack. The fact that they are hosting a server provisioning script is hardly crazy, given that they are a hosting provider. What's to say that the ACTUAL attacker didn't just come across the provisioning script and decide to use it for themselves? The script URL is listed publicly online: http://yandicunk.blogspot.co.uk…

Hi, thanks for your comment. It wasn't really my objective to find the smoking gun and bring Huthos' operation crumbling to the ground. Like you, I don't definitively know that the operators of the website are the same people that broke into my honeypot without permission. It seems more likely than another totally-unrelated bad guy knowing where the file paths are to the Huthos provisioning scripts when directory lis…

Agreed - after doing a little more digging myself, it does seem likely that they are selling access to hacked machines - however, I'm sure there are other cases of attackers using legitimate scripts to provision their servers!

Also - has anyone seen how cheaply access is being sold for!? It's pennies!

Re: Hacker tries to compromise and resell an internet-facing Linux server

#44

Post by [deleted] »

andrewballs wrote: post #35
JosephRedfern wrote: post #24

Not to say that Huthos are innocent, but I don't see any concrete proof that they are behind this attack. The fact that they are hosting a server provisioning script is hardly crazy, given that they are a hosting provider. What's to say that the ACTUAL attacker didn't just come across the provisioning script and decide to use it for themselves? The script URL is listed publicly online: http://yandicunk.blogspot.co.uk…

Hi, thanks for your comment. It wasn't really my objective to find the smoking gun and bring Huthos' operation crumbling to the ground. Like you, I don't definitively know that the operators of the website are the same people that broke into my honeypot without permission. It seems more likely than another totally-unrelated bad guy knowing where the file paths are to the Huthos provisioning scripts when directory lis…

[deleted]

Re: Hacker tries to compromise and resell an internet-facing Linux server

#45

Post by MichaelGG »

Somasis wrote: post #31
mhurron wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the attacker is unknown, the correct term would be they or them. Gender is unknown, a gender neutral description should be used.

Yeah, true. Most authors seem to like to assume male, though. :(

No, many authors just use the default pronoun, which happens to be male. I don't like it. But that's a defect in English. They/Them is less precise.

Using "her" actually apparently attracts attention away from the content. Perhaps mixing both within a longer body of text is a more subtle way.

Re: Hacker tries to compromise and resell an internet-facing Linux server

#46

Post by Somasis »

cddotdotslash wrote: post #40
mhurron wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the attacker is unknown, the correct term would be they or them. Gender is unknown, a gender neutral description should be used.

But they is plural, so wouldn't the author technically need to say "he or she" for each occurrence? Sadly, English has no singular gender neutral pronoun.

They can be used singular. Most people use it without thinking about it in conversation.

Re: Hacker tries to compromise and resell an internet-facing Linux server

#47

Post by bartbes »

Somasis wrote: post #18

On a slightly unrelated note, I like how the author referred to the attacker with she/her, a small detail I can appreciate since they normally refer to them with he/him.

The owner of HutHos does appear to be female, so that may be related?

Re: Hacker tries to compromise and resell an internet-facing Linux server

#48

Post by mhurron »

thomasvarney723 wrote: post #39
mhurron wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the attacker is unknown, the correct term would be they or them. Gender is unknown, a gender neutral description should be used.

I agree "they"/"them" sounds cleaner than "he or she"/"him or her" but isn't it officially incorrect? I do like that Facebook has started using "they"/"them".

Why would it be incorrect? Now it could be against style guides for an organization, but that is something of an arbitrary decision.
Post reply on HN