Anonymous Hack One Gigabyte of Data From NATO 304
GeekTech.in writes "The AnonymousIRC hacking organization have claimed this afternoon that they have hacked into NATO servers. As one of their tweets says: ' Yes, #NATO was breached. And we have lots of restricted material. With some simple injection. In the next days, wait for interesting data :) '"
Again (Score:0, Insightful)
Juste hope that whatever they leak dont kill anyone, that's the problem if you dont check what you leak, Endangering lives is not commandable.
This is getting sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Cloud (Score:5, Insightful)
I certainly don't want to provoke anyone, but I wonder how long it will take until they hack gmail and other cloud-based services, and put all the data into the open?
Thanks to these guys, I'm not so sure anymore whether I like this idea of the cloud.
Re:This is getting sad (Score:5, Insightful)
Really if a bunch of vigilantes can do it, imagine what the gov't sponsored Chinese hackers can do!
More like, if a bunch of vigilantes can do it, imagine what the gov't sponsored Chinese hackers do!
Re:1GB hummm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Again ? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is happening so often that better make a hack.slashdot.org and just add the site that was hacked and when... this is getting old...
Agreed, but what I haven't seen is follow up stories about these breaches. I though Anonymous or LulzSec were due to release loads of News of the World/News International e-mails they'd obtained? Did I miss a story or are they still holding onto it?
Re:Cloud (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that the things these guys do aren't that spectacular, right? They're little better than script-kiddies.
Real hackers are out there right now doing much, much more. And they aren't telling you about it.
So what you are essentially saying is that you feel perfectly safe, no matter the real situation, unless someone starts describing reality to you.
Anonymous/LulzSec has done a great job of showing people what the internet is really like. It's a very scary place.
Re:I thought they arrested anonymous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cloud (Score:3, Insightful)
Your information is every bit as safe as it ever was. Which, as it turns out, might not be as safe as you thought it was.
Re:Sensitive data... again? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yah maybe if there were actually real threats that NATO was needed for... they might take security seriously. Given that they are just an excuse for nations to dump money into military contractor pockets (much like the US military who hasn't fought a real threat since the early 40s)... well why should they give a shit?
Intrusions? Data gets lost? Clearly that means they need more budget. This will be a windfall for them.
Glad to learn that the boys aren't discouraged by (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NATO Hacking (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't reach TFA due to high traffic right now but from TFS it doesn't really say whether anything they stole was that expensive, just that there was "One Gigabyte" of it.
It could just be cafeteria menus.
It'll be a dark day when NATO's enemies hear about next Tuesday's Salisbury steak.
Re:Again (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes you wonder what would happen in the world if people in the armed forces were actually held responsible for their actions and were not able to do whatever they wanted.
http://www.collateralmurder.com/ [collateralmurder.com]
Re:Again (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Again ? (Score:2, Insightful)
Or they didn't find anything terribly incriminating and didn't want to pull a Geraldo. Besides, in hacking their email, it's already compromised as evidence, anyway.
Re:NATO Hacking (Score:4, Insightful)
They *don't* have sensative data stored on networks accessable to the internet. I certainly believe its possible for a NATO web server to contain 1GB of documents... The same kind of crap that you find on publicly owned company intranets, documents and documents of rambling and meeting minutes and useless garbage stored because they're being transparent to the public. For all we know at this point Anonymous *hacked* a bunch of files that were accessible by a internal search engine to the site.
Government paranoia (Score:4, Insightful)
"Restricted", "sensitive", and "secret" material is low level. That is the level of material that everyone in the military and government bureaucracy has access to. It is the sort of stuff that is either not very sensitive (ie enemy agents could figure it out easily just from observing a base or similar) or has only a small window in which it is useful (ie by the time the enemy could react it would be too late).
These days with the adversarial government/media relationship tons of material is classified like this just to discourage the media from baking scandals, and to prevent citizens from finding out about legitimate scandals (at least in the short term).
What was accessed in this case was probably some boring inter-NATO administrative emails, with the most interesting stuff being up-coming exercises and the like.
The stuff that Wikileaks released that inspired this spate of hackings WAS from an air-gapped computer.
Re:Again (Score:5, Insightful)
Plenty of people join with nothing but the best intentions; if you think the guys actually pulling the trigger in that video don't lose sleep over it I don't think you know many soldiers. If you simply must condemn someone for that video, by all means - go after the people who attempted to cover it up. Not the poor guys who had to find out after watching the news that they killed innocent men.
War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over. - William T. Sherman
Re:Again (Score:5, Insightful)
Seeig as this data is probably along the lines of how many crates of dried parsley some air base is requisitioning doesn't strike me as a life or death matter.
You need to read up on Bletchley Park and Ultra. Mundane information about military units and individuals turned out to be amazingly useful.
Re:Again (Score:5, Insightful)
A reasonable state should provide for decreasing levels of privacy as your power increases. For example, those with significant power to sway opinion—politicians, celebrities, etc.—should have much less right to privacy than Joe Random. Indeed, this is the way our privacy laws are structured today.
Where our privacy laws break down is when it comes to corporate privacy and government privacy—the privacy of large groups acting as a single hive mind. These groups should have almost no privacy because they have much greater power than the average citizen. Unfortunately, this is seldom the case, and this is the problem that needs to be fixed—not reducing the privacy of individuals, but rather reducing the privacy of individuals in their official capacity while working together in large groups. That's not very easy to do, though, at least without decreasing their privacy as individuals, which is why things go horribly wrong (whether because you gave them too much privacy and got corruption or too little privacy and got MonicaGate absurdity).
I tend to lean on the side of targeted laws in this area—sunshine laws, open records laws, open meetings laws, etc. When these are insufficient, the flaws should be corrected. When these are ignored, the perpetrators should do jail time to serve as an example to others. If this were happening consistently, we'd have a lot fewer problems with our democracy.