Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security

LulzSec Phone-Bombs FBI and Blizzard 404

Posted by samzenpus
from the poking-the-bear dept.
Revotron writes "Anonymous hacker group LulzSec has begun to harness the power of the crowd in their latest griefing attempts. After a day of numerous DDoS attacks on a handful of famous MMOs, LulzSec's phone lines lit up with an estimated 20 calls per second. Using a fairly simple phone redirect, they sent all of their incoming calls to various offices, among them the FBI office in Detroit, Blizzard Customer Support, online retailer Magnets.com, and most recently, the corporate offices of HBGary." Update: It looks like they also brought down the CIA website tonight, but it is up now.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LulzSec Phone-Bombs FBI and Blizzard

Comments Filter:
  • by sneakyimp (1161443) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @05:46PM (#36455734)

    Doesn't this make them griefers?

    • Re:first post (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mwvdlee (775178) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @06:05PM (#36455958) Homepage

      It was... "interresting" in the start.
      But that has worn off long ago.
      They're not doing anything intelligent or justifiable; they're just bullies out to hurt easy targets.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ALeavitt (636946)
        The fact that easy targets still exist in this day and age just goes to show that LulzSec does serve a purpose, even if you disagree with their methods.
        • Re:first post (Score:5, Interesting)

          by cavreader (1903280) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @08:33PM (#36457504)
          And exactly what purpose is that? Launching indiscriminate DDOS attacks are child's play since almost everyone is vulnerable to this type of attack. The only purpose they are serving is to give the government more reasons to start trying to take control of content and access. These guys are nothing when compared against those responsible for Stuxnet. Now that required some intelligence and also served a good purpose.
        • Re:first post (Score:5, Interesting)

          by MikeBabcock (65886) <mtb-slashdot@mikebabcock.ca> on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @08:41PM (#36457576) Homepage Journal

          Children in school yards are easy targets for rifles. That doesn't in any way imply we should shoot them for lulz.

          Neither is anything lulzsec does justified except by people with absolutely no sense of justice.

          • by SharpFang (651121)

            Are you comparing the two most powerful intelligence/investigation agencies in the USA (CIA and FBI) to children in school yards? Seriously?

        • Re:first post (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Darinbob (1142669) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @09:12PM (#36457856)

          Thus anyone who breaks into your house and vandalizes it is serving a purpose, since they're demonstrating that your security could be better.

          What is the state of the art security to prevent being phone bombed other than by disconnecting your phone service? What security weakness are they revealing here?

  • False flag (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mykos (1627575) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @05:46PM (#36455738)
    I don't want to sound like a tinfoil hatter (even if I do), but something tells me that these guys are contracted by the government because supporters of the Patriot Act are thinning in numbers.
    • by gnick (1211984)

      Probably right - I know that when I found out that magnets.com's phones were temporarily tied up, the first thing I did was write my congress critter asking him to tap every phone in the district.

    • I don't want to sound like a tinfoil hatter [...]

      "I'm not a racist, but..."

      [...] but something tells me that these guys are contracted by the government because supporters of the Patriot Act are thinning in numbers.

      That people may take advantage of a situation is not evidence that they are responsible, directly or indirectly, for that situation. Politicians are, if anything, opportunistic. Also, it's not like there's never been a group of assholes on the Internet making trouble for a bunch of people.

      Your conspiracy theory is just empty calories.

      • by mykos (1627575)
        I believe this is the first time, on the internet or otherwise, that someone implied that I was racist after taking a completely unrelated statement out of context. I implore you to read more than half of my sentence.
        • by X0563511 (793323)

          Woosh?

          Hint: he's not saying anything about racism. He's bitching about the whole "I'm not X, but..." construct.

        • I believe this is the first time, on the internet or otherwise, that someone implied that I was racist after taking a completely unrelated statement out of context.

          X0563511 got it. If you don't want to sound like X, then just don't say the thing that you think will make you sound like X. If you're going to make the statement anyway, spare us the useless preface and either 1) expend a little effort to support your claim, or 2) accept your outward appearance.

          I implore you to read more than half of my sentence.

          And here I thought that my response to that other half of your sentence would have been sufficient evidence of my having done as you suggested. Ignoring evidence? Conjuring up fantasies? Nope; not a tinfoil hatter a

    • You definitely do. Tangentially linking the two things because they're related is the nature of tinfoil-hat thinking.

      A good way to examine whether a theory is nutty or serious is to think about the end you're purporting the government is trying to achieve, and think of the best and simplest way they could achieve that. In this instance, a far better thing to do would be to tout a how authorities narrowly thwarted a major attack on a well-known, beloved landmark, and toss in a detail or two about wireta
    • Re:False flag (Score:4, Informative)

      by westlake (615356) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @07:38PM (#36457040)

      I don't want to sound like a tinfoil hatter (even if I do), but something tells me that these guys are contracted by the government because supporters of the Patriot Act are thinning in numbers.

      LulzSec has been rapidly escalating its campaigns since the legislation has been passed. It was not on anyone's radar during the debate in Congress.

      May 27, 2011:

      Overcoming objections from a bipartisan clutch of libertarian-minded lawmakers, the legislation passed the Senate, 72 to 23, and the House, 250 to 153.

      Senator Rand Paul won a small battle with his opposition to the Patriot Act by reaching a deal with Congressional leadership to add votes on two amendments, one of which would exempt some gun records from government searches.

      That was the score late Thursday afternoon following Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) announcement that after days of grueling debate over the renewal of three key Patriot Act provisions, Senate leaders had reached a deal on allowing votes on two amendments proposed by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

      Under the agreement, announced less than nine hours before the law currently extending the Patriot Act provisions was to expire, the Senate would vote on two amendments proposed by Paul: one that would limit "suspicious activity" reporting requirements under the Act to requests from law enforcement agencies, and another -- the one that had seen the greatest opposition from Reid -- that would exempt certain gun records from being searched under the counterterrorism surveillance law.

      The victory for Paul wasn't so much that either of his amendments would pass -- in fact, both fell well short of the 60-vote threshold necessary for approval, with the gun-rights amendment receiving the support of only 10 senators.

      Rather, it was that after days of vowing to block the passage of the Patriot Act extension -- even at the risk of missing Thursday's deadline -- Paul, a tea-party freshman who has served in the Senate for less than five months, was granted votes on his two amendments.

      Patriot Act extension signed into law despite bipartisan resistance in Congress [washingtonpost.com]

  • Wankers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EQ (28372) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @05:48PM (#36455772) Homepage Journal
    So screwing over WOW players trying to get customer support is now "justice"? What a bunch of wankers.
    • Re:Wankers (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gclef (96311) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @05:51PM (#36455800)

      Justice? I don't think they were ever about justice. Their name says it all: they're in it for the lulz.

    • I do not think justice has ever been a goal. They are in it for the lulz. The way to attract their attention is to complain about what they're doing. I'm amused, but have no feeling that much of what they're doing is morally justified in any way. I will be similarly amused (and a bit impressed) if they're caught.

    • Re:Wankers (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bonch (38532) * on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @05:57PM (#36455876)

      Slashdot circa 1999: "Free Kevin Mitnick!"
      Slashdot circa 2011: "These damn hackers are interfering with my WoW time."

      • by OverlordQ (264228)

        There's a big difference between what Mitnick did and mass disruption of services

        • But both actions are illegal and look at the sentence Mitnick got handed and this was back in time before the Internet was on any governments priority list. The laws and sentences have been increasing rapidly since then with little or no complaints from anyone except those who get caught.
          • by The Moof (859402)
            You're entirely missing the point with Mitnick - he was held without trial for an unreasonable amount of time: four and a half years. He was deemed a "threat" to global security (literally, a judge said he could "start a nuclear war by whistling into a pay phone"). Yea, it's absurd, we all knew it, and that's why people rallied behind Mitnick. Not because they just arrested a hacker.

            Not to mention that these are large scale attacks intended to piss people off and cripple systems. Mitnick just gained a
      • At what point did Mitnick take down any network you were trying to use for fun or profit?

        Mitnick was also a real hacker -- he could tweak code to serve him without being detected most of the time.

        From a criminal perspective:
        Lulzsec: breaking someone's house down with a rocket launcher
        Mitnick: sneaking past your security system in broad daylight and memorizing your diary then getting out without leaving fingerprints

        Watching other peoples' lives and work blow up might be fun, but both irresponsible and immatu

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by syousef (465911)

      So screwing over WOW players trying to get customer support is now "justice"? What a bunch of wankers.

      Can we stop giving these jokers the attention they crave for every little idiotic stunt they pull? Every 10th story seems to be about LulzSec. I'm not really sure it's even news anymore. These guys are like internet trolls and will continue until they either don't get the attention they want or they get their asses arrested.

    • Re:Wankers (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Znork (31774) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @06:25PM (#36456150)

      Frankly, with the latest series of indiscriminate attacks it's starting to look less like griefers run amok and more like false-flag psyops run to reduce support for hacktivism through guilt-by-association and create fertile grounds for some new draconian legislation.

  • cia.gov (Score:4, Informative)

    by Huluvu (1371705) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @05:51PM (#36455804)
    “Tango down - http://t.co/2QGXy6f [t.co] - for the lulz.” http://twitter.com/#!/LulzSec/status/81115804636155906 [twitter.com] wtf
    • LulzSec's disabling of the CIA's website [cia.gov] (CIA.gov) is currently being discussed on ZeroHedge: LulzSec Takes Down Cia.gov [zerohedge.com] One thing is certain. The crackers in LulzSec are damned good, OR they have considerable "inside" help at the CIA and FBI. Or BOTH!!
      • by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @06:46PM (#36456358) Journal

        One thing is certain. The crackers in LulzSec are damned good, OR they have considerable "inside" help at the CIA and FBI. Or BOTH!!

        Or the CIA doesn't use the public facing web server for anything important, so they didn't bother securing it very well.

        • by ginbot462 (626023)

          >> Or the CIA doesn't use the public facing web server for anything important

          A honey pot would be important :). (but one with enough challenge to obfuscate the fact)

        • Or the CIA doesn't use the public facing web server for anything important, so they didn't bother securing it very well.

          In fact, they probably set it up this way on purpose with an eye towards attracting interesting targets to their honey pot [wikimedia.org]. It's a cheap and effective method when compared to other forms of surveillance and the CIA need only spend minimal effort and resources to promote their honey pot where desirable targets are likely to find it and follow up on any promising leads.

      • by X0563511 (793323)

        It takes almost no skill to execute a DDoS attack, which is all this bullshit is.

      • Attacking people with the resources to find and make you disappear is stupid.

        You know that moment in a super hero movie where the idiot bad guy says something insulting to the hero and you know he's going to get his backside handed to him six ways from Sunday? Lulzsec just did the insult bit.

    • by hannson (1369413)
      All I have to say is "lulz". I can haz lulzworthy?
  • Wait a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @05:53PM (#36455824)

    "Anonymous hacker group"...with phone lines? Does not compute.

    • Most likely they're using a collection of hacked Asterisk servers or other such IP PBX systems. They may have a "line", but I seriously doubt it was ever theirs to begin with.

    • by TubeSteak (669689)

      "Anonymous hacker group"...with phone lines? Does not compute.

      Voice Over IP is a wonderful thing.
      They've probably got a hacked/donated VOIP PBX and are routing everything through that.

      • by X0563511 (793323)

        Indeed. You don't even need all that much horsepower to call that many people at once.

        Now, to actually -talk- to them is another story, but all it takes is a SIP Invite to ring the phone.

  • by makubesu (1910402) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @05:53PM (#36455826)
    These fiends have gone to far. Quick, someone turn on the internet bat signal!
  • Possible? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jibekn (1975348) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @06:12PM (#36456034)
    Can we use mod points to try and get an article off the first page? please? LulzSec stuff should never hit front page on principle.
  • by cjb658 (1235986) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @06:30PM (#36456198) Journal

    "Lawmakers today announced new legislation that will take away more of our civil liberties, in response to recent attacks by the groups LulzSec and Anonymous."

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by HockeyPuck (141947)

      What "civil liberties" are you worried about losing? I'm not aware of any that explicitly grant you the ability to phone-bomb some organization. Are you still pissed that you cannot send spam faxes to people?

      • What "civil liberties" are you worried about losing? I'm not aware of any that explicitly grant you the ability to phone-bomb some organization. Are you still pissed that you cannot send spam faxes to people?

        How about legislation that requires telephony providers to provide call detail and subscriber records to law enforcement on demand?

      • by hedwards (940851) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @07:09PM (#36456666)

        It's not generally the offense that's the problem, it's the investigative techniques involved. Nobody had an issue with the NSA investigating terrorism, but most of us have a problem when they claim to need warrantless wiretaps and the CIA need for black sites to do interrogations.

        • by c0lo (1497653)

          It's not generally the offense that's the problem, it's the investigative techniques involved. Nobody had an issue with the NSA investigating terrorism, but most of us have a problem when they claim to need warrantless wiretaps and the CIA need for black sites to do interrogations.

          And with these already [wikipedia.org] happening [wikipedia.org], what exactly other liberties are lost?

      • What "civil liberties" are you worried about losing? I'm not aware of any that explicitly grant you the ability to phone-bomb some organization.

        How about the liberty to build software [slashdot.org]? You must be pretty naive to not see the connection between threat and legislative response, between legislation and executive power, between power and government encroachment, and between encroachment and abuse*. Try reading a wide variety of news sources for 1 or 2 years and you'll wise up.

        *Footnote: If you're one of th

      • by atgaaa (1869296) on Thursday June 16, 2011 @01:12AM (#36459106)

        I don't know where you live, but in the United States, we believe rights are inherent to all human beings. Rights are not "ganted".

      • by Syberz (1170343) on Thursday June 16, 2011 @08:05AM (#36461176) Homepage

        I'm pretty sure that's he's not worried about losing his right to phone-bomb. Rather, he's worried about the fact that the authorities will be allowed to tap his phone, access his computer and arrest him all without a shred of evidence and because they think that he *might* be doing something illegal like.

      • by gsslay (807818) on Thursday June 16, 2011 @08:43AM (#36461450)

        What "civil liberties" are you worried about losing? I'm not aware of any that explicitly grant you the ability to phone-bomb some organization.

        The problem is not what is being legislated against, but how it is legislated. Are you unfamiliar with government thinking in cases like these?

        "This phone-bombing was performed by unidentified people with a phone line, therefore we shall make it illegal to use a phone without first routing it through a government controlled call-centre and informing it who you are, where you are, who you are going to phone, and for what reason. Problem solved. The innocent have nothing to fear. Anyone complaining their civil liberties are being removed must have something to hide."

    • by memnock (466995)

      This plays well for the conspiratorial: the government is behind LulzSec. People get their panties in a bunch about LulzSec antics and the government looks like they're doing the right thing by increasing monitoring, restricting access, etc. Although I think the government might come up with a better false flag if it really wants to tighten the screws.

    • "Back when I was young, the Internet was free and open. We had anonymity and could be anyone we wanted. Then these idiots screwed it up for everyone, and in the name of a few lulz, destroyed our future possibilities. That's why you have to use your citizen card to access the library Internet."

  • by Rivalz (1431453) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @06:40PM (#36456302)

    Isn't this along the same line as causing a traffic jam at a busy intersect just to say hay you should have a police officer watching every traffic corner?
    Maybe I'm missing the point but mostly they just seem to cause petty disturbances. Are they trying to make it so companies have to weigh every new venture they role out with the thought of risk vs reward?
    I always wanted to be a person who achieves something not someone that goes over to the next guys sand castle and kicks it down and says damn should have made that sucker hurricane proof. Better luck next time.

    I'm just surprised these guys don't naturally just turn on each other over time.

    • by nurb432 (527695)

      I'm just surprised these guys don't naturally just turn on each other over time.

      They will..

    • by c0lo (1497653)

      I'm just surprised these guys don't naturally just turn on each other over time.

      Without any principles/program/ideology but "doing it for the lulz" (i.e. nothing to argue about), where's the motivation to turn each other?

  • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @06:57PM (#36456484)
    Does anyone honestly believe that LulzSec is anything other that some government agency. They're clearly trying to piss off the general public... and to what purpose? Support for some key upcoming regulatory changes to the internet?
  • Fucked (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cosm (1072588) <thecosm3NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @07:04PM (#36456604)
    Either these guys are fucked and we are about to get rammed with legislation, or the government is pulling this off and we are about to get rammed with legislation. Either way the general public takes the red white and blue schwanze in the end.
  • by twebb72 (903169) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @07:06PM (#36456624)
    FBI... ok, so you're an anarchist
    WoW... ok, so you're anti-capitalist
    Magnets.com... uhh, so you don't like your shitty kid's art messing up your fridge...?
  • by Cogent91 (2203516) on Wednesday June 15, 2011 @08:50PM (#36457666)
    The Sony hacks illustrated just how exposed our data is; the treasure trove of personal data sitting out there for the EASY taking by real criminals is a disaster waiting to happen on an unprecedented scale. I'd rather a group like Lulz go around poignantly dispelling our notions of information security rather than have actual identity thieves take on the mantle of a wake up call themselves. I applaud their point: if you can't even stop people compromising systems for laughs, you'll never be able to stop those who are doing so for profit.
    • If they notified the victim of the security lapses before they went public it would be helpful. And if these guys get caught they will be treated as criminals.
  • by anotheryak (1823894) on Thursday June 16, 2011 @01:46AM (#36459260)
    When a guy breaks into your house and steals your belongings, "Hey, he had a lousy alarm system and was gone over Labor Day Weekend, he was asking for it!"

    A rapist: "She was wearing a provocative outfit! Anyone could see that she was asking for it".

    Now these script kiddies: "Hey, we broke in and found plaintext! Sony was asking for it."

    Same logic. "It's not my fault, you did not prevent me from committing a crime so it is your fault. I am not responsible for my criminal actions, you are. You are also responsible for the third-parties I hurt because you did not adequately prevent me from doing it".

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

Working...