Could the KGB Infiltrate LulzSec? 162
Barence writes "Foreign powers could try to infiltrate hacktivist networks in order to manipulate their actions, according to a security expert who advises governments and businesses on internet issues. Likening the emergence of the hacktivist movement to the arrival of militant groups such as the Red Brigade during the 1970s, government advisor and chair of the International E-crime Congress, Simon Moores, said that hacker groups could eventually be swayed by outside influences. 'If you have a LulzSec or an Anonymous that is perhaps being manipulated by a foreign actor, it takes us back to the days of the Stasi and the KGB, which were manipulating [anti-nuclear campaign group] CND quite easily from Moscow,' he said."
Not this shit again. (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously!
Re: (Score:2)
The headline made me lol, it reminded me of something like:
WHO IS BETTER, Chuck Norris, or Mr T?
The summary was at least slightly more intelligent, but still inevitably silly.
I'd say something about it being a slow news day, but looking at the BBC's frontpage, it's actually not.
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking "where are the nuclear wessels?"
RED BRIGADES? (Score:3, Informative)
They were subverted manipulated, alright.
By US and NATO operatives. Not godless commies.
The kidnap and murder of the Italian Prime Minister, Aldo Moro, was an orchestrated event, calculated to drive Socialist-leaning Italy to the right. This was done through direct and indirect instruction by CIA managed "terrorists", according to a design by Henry Kissinger - among others.
"In 1949, the CIA helped set up the Italian secret armed forces intelligence unit, named SIFAR, staffed in part with former members of
Re: (Score:3)
"this picture" ?
Doesn't he look like THIS MAN?
http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4d6c271ccadcbb3b132c0000/linus-torvalds.jpeg [businessinsider.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. I really poo poo conspiracy theories (ignoring the fact the KGB no longer exists) because they don't make any sense.
This actually seems like a *good* idea if I was in the intelligence community. Why not try and direct groups to behave in a manner that is conducive to your nation's goals?
1) Become a respected member of the community pulling pranks and demonstrating a talent for hacking.
2) Find an excuse for lolz to happen that just so happen to coincide with ___INSERT NATION__'s interests
3)
Re: (Score:2)
It should be noted that information about KGB backing of anti-nuke groups back in the day were discovered when we got a look at their archives after the USSR went away.
Note, though, that it was also apparently an unintended side-effect of an effort to promote anti-nuclear weapons fears in the West.
Re: (Score:3)
Note, though, that it was also apparently an unintended side-effect of an effort to promote anti-nuclear weapons fears in the West.
Which bit them in the ass when Chernobyl suffered a minor incident, and their puppets blew it up out of all proportion.
Re: (Score:2)
The nuke is a slang term for the bomb, not power plant.
English, and in particular, English slang doesn't work that way. It's not like FORTRAN77, or ALGOL68
Here, for instance, is very recent news article:
Nuke plant still on course [sentinelsource.com]
The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant will refuel as scheduled in October, despite its cloudy future.
Officials from Entergy Corp. of Louisiana, which owns the plant, released a statement today announcing that the company’s board of directors has decided to move forward with a $60 million to $65 million fuel purchase for the reactor, as it prepares to do legal battle with state officials in September over whether the state has the right to deny the company a certificate of public good, which would prevent the plant from continuing to operate past the time when its original federal license is due to expire.
Re: (Score:2)
Vermont isn't England. You're quoting a second rate hack in a tinpot local rag as an authority on correct usage? Seriously?
As a native speaker, I certainly wouldn't use "nuke" as an adjective, and if I lowered myself to use it as a noun it means a bomb.
You seem to be as confused as CND (Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament), who apparently never worked out quite what "armaments" means).
Outdated Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
Could the KGB Infiltrate LulzSec?
No, because it was dissolved in 1991. Could the SVR [wikipedia.org], FSB [wikipedia.org] or GRU [wikipedia.org] infiltrate LulzSec? Sure, why not? I'm sure anyone could infiltrate the group as long as you're willing to play their game.
Re:Outdated Headline (Score:5, Insightful)
He means `can we get some Cold War eta funding to go on a wild goose chase, please'.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He means `can we get some Cold War eta funding to go on a wild goose chase, please'.
This.
But instead of hunting for the hackers, I'd be more comfortable if they secured some of the vital systems... Some stuff just shouldn't be connected to the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
If you consider a pinky swear that you won't access the system security, things are pretty secure.
The regularity with which they have broken into the systems shows that they are not secure enough.
Re: (Score:3)
Any good strategist knows you can't just sit in a fortress and remain safe forever. The same applies here.
Not really. You can't sit in a fortress forever because:
None of these apply to a well-secured data center (except maybe some people will be annoyed their password can't be 1234..5).
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Unless you live in Belarus, where the KGB is still called just that [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Educated soldiers are a liability. You wants morons that will follow orders without question, otherwise they might start to reconsider just why they're committing horrendous acts. Here's a hint, to help their employer's bottom-line.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
But Anonymous could infiltrate "GNAA" thus infiltrating FBI, CIA, MI6, NASA, VALNX and MPAA by proxy
but anonymous is magic (Score:5, Funny)
no one can figure out who anyone is in real life, it can never be killed, and never influenced. it is above and beyond the rules that govern any other group of people, because it has internets. right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well... to be fair, if "on teh internets" works for patents...
Re: (Score:3)
anonymous is the borg!
pffffffft
will you fanboys please shut up about magic anonymous? it's governed by the same simple social hacks everyone and everything is. it's not more vulnerable, it's not less vulnerable. there is no magic pixie dust. it has not reinvented the human social function or the rules by which every group of human beings has always behaved since the dawn of time
sorry to rain on your parade
Re: (Score:2)
if there were a group of goths who were into firebombing rich people's malls, they can be infiltrated and defeated
there's lots of environmentalists, i consider myself one, but i'm not into arson to advance the cause. a handful are. they can be infiltrated and defeated
etc., etc.
these examples are the proper parallel to who we're talking about here
so if you're interesting in sounding smart, protip: you don't sound smart if you can't properly define the subject matter before issuing your opinions
great fear tactic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:great fear tactic (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile Russia can shutdown [youtube.com] the US power grid, successfully leached Nuclear secrets in the 50's and owns most of US Steel manufacturing. Yet some shitty hacker outfit called Lulzsec is "easily manipulated. Har! Is it Pirate Day already?
Whoever will take more of my money and more of my civil rights will surely save me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh fuckin' great, the NSA has entered /.
What about? (Score:5, Informative)
So could the CIA, NSA, FBI or any of the 20 or 30 Intelligence/enforcement agencies in the US government.
What is to say that this hasn't already happened and everything we have seen has been... "just as planned."
Oh look at me! I can speculate too!
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, hacktivists could probably infiltrate intelligence and enforcement agencies too. Not to mention political parties, movements like the Tea Party, news organizations and other large, influential corporations.
If I seriously wanted to bring about change to our socioeconomic system, that's how I'd go about it.
Re: (Score:3)
Are you saying that someone could join a security or military organization, download key secret documents and give them to an organization, say, like Wikileaks? I don't believe you! America is too strong for that kind of thing!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So could the CIA, NSA, FBI or any of the 20 or 30 Intelligence/enforcement agencies in the US government.
Yes, LulzSec is clearly commandeered by the Amtrak Police.
Geohot, on the other hand, is likely under the influence of the Forest Rangers.
Why this hits /. front page, I have no idea. Whenever someone is doing something controversial, there will always be opponents who will speculate that they're useful idiots, or otherwise try to paint them in a worse light than they already are. I'd be interested in the real source of this one; my bet is you'll find a tinfoil hat reactionary.
Re: (Score:2)
Kami, is that you?
Yet Another Lack of Understanding (Score:5, Insightful)
Law enforcement just can't grasp the concept of Anonymous' lack of a solid hierarchy. Sure they could infiltrate Anonymous, and they'd have as much influence as any other one participant, which is very little. Now if they can flood Anonymous with enough sockpuppets to make up, say, more than 50% of the participants, then they'd have some meaningful influence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding (Score:4, Informative)
I will admit i know nothing about anonymous or lulzsec, but it wouldnt surprise if they worked like your basic internet echo chamber. If the right guy starts screaming the right way, all the other members start parroting and going along. I dont claim that this would be easy, but the lack of hierarchy doesnt preclude one person having influence over a large amount of followers.
Re: (Score:2)
If one guy starts screaming the right way and a large number of people agree, yeah they'll go along. But it isn't like, say, a bunch of Fox News viewers where a huge number of members can be mobilized by whatever Glenn Beck spews from his face-anus no matter what it happens to be. There has to be a big consensus among a diverse set of members before Anonymous will get started on anything. They don't even like to use pseudonyms most of the time so until an operation starts there's no trace of hierarchy *at a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't mean you can steer them. They'll only parrot if you say something they want to parrot.
An example. If you go to some racist group party and start rioting about how much the $minority_group hurts the US and that they should all follow you to burn down a house of said $minority_group, you'll quickly become the leader of that gang in their quest to burn down a house belonging to a $minority_group.
Now get in there and try the same with an attempt to burn down a White Power clubhouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd really like to see a bunch of Russian KGB types try to come up with a meme that resonates with chan kids.
Re: (Score:3)
The phrase that leaps to mind is "like herding cats".
Re: (Score:2)
The phrase that leaps to mind is "like herding cats".
In the case of LulzSec, it would be more like herding LOLCats [lolcats.com]. Probably this one [lolcats.com], specifically.
Re: (Score:3)
Law enforcement just can't grasp the concept of Anonymous' lack of a solid hierarchy.
This sentence relies on a vast web of assumptions. Where does your knowledge of the hierarchy of "Anonymous" come from? It comes from Anonymous. Actually, no, worse-- it comes from spokespersons who claim (without proof) to be representing Anonymous. Is there any actual reason to believe anything about Anonymous, or how it is structured?
Sure they could infiltrate Anonymous, and they'd have as much influence as any other one participant, which is very little.
This sentence relies on a vast web of assumptions, the main one of which is the belief that, even in the absence of a hierarchy, all participants have equal amounts of i
Re: (Score:2)
You can investigate Anonymous' hierarchy yourself if you don't want to rely on my knowledge ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
It also relies on the author's dubious, probably out of his ass, statement about what law enforcement can and cannot grasp. Me thinks the author is still living in the 60's. Law enforcement these days is fairly sophisticated, it is the politicians who aren't.
cyber mercenaries? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
more than 50% of the participants, then they'd have some meaningful influence.
They might as well fund their own efforts while calling themselves Anonymous in name. There's no point in "infiltrating" Anonymous.
No (Score:5, Informative)
(read your own pseudo-sentence) (Score:1)
Have you ever considered how stupid it is to assume that something like the KGB would cease to exist just because it's no longer officially sanctioned? As agents of espionage and assassination, if anything, they're potentially more powerful, more capable, and more of a threat for not being "really there". It never bores me what a great idea it is to claim your intelligencia don't actually exist, or how easily duped the average, opinionated, modern person really is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Had the question been "Could the SVR infiltrate Anonymous?" or "Could the SVR infiltrate LulzRaft?" the article might not immediately look like a bad rehash of a 1980s spy novel. But I guess "LulzSec" and "KGB" are more
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. No one knows what the SVR or the FSB is. And the fact that both of them are made up of former chekists means that calling them the KGB is not completely off base, if technically inaccurate.
I don't like inaccuracies myself, but I also realize that I may not be the intended audience. Which probably means that the worst offense that the article is guilty of is that it was put on Slashdot. On the other hand, the readership does vote on articles so....
As for the meat of the article, well, it is a good t
Re: (Score:2)
In all fairness, it is only the slashdot summ
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeeees! That's what we wanted you to think!"
I'm glad to see the satirical aspect of that particular Simpsons quote still holds relevence today
Re: (Score:2)
One, the KGB doesn't exist anymore
KGB does exist [www.kgb.by], even though it's not quite the same thing.
Healthy (Score:1)
It's good for these little conspirators to have to face reality at some point in time. They make great entertainment fodder for the rest of us, but they also represent unsustainability and social insulation. They're just as prone to injection as any of their targets, and due to human traits (including our major hallmark, error) there's no patching that vulnerability. Everything has its infancy; in the future the major cyberattacks will be undertaken and executed without grandstanding, seemingly developmenta
More outdated nonsense left over from the Cold War (Score:2)
I'm currently reading The Net Delusion, which pretty much postulates that a lot of the noise in government and the media about the power of the internet for change is pretty much driven by a very outdated set of assumptions that date back to the end of the Cold War.
I imagine that this fits the kind of thinking going on here, although it does seem interesting that most of the targets of these attacks are American or corporate allies.
Stupidity and paranoia (Score:2)
What I'm thinking is this: It's not of much significance that a group can be infiltrated. It is much more significant that it happens from the government side, and especially for organisations that strive for peace. I know of a dutch peace/thi
Stupidity and paranoia (version 2) (Score:2)
Repost because of inconsistency between review and posting...
What I'm thinking is this: It's not of much significance that a group can be infiltrated. It is much more significant that it happens from the government side, and especially for o
Re: (Score:2)
You think any advocacy/protest group during the cold war didn't have the backing of either the KGB or the CIA? That was one of the biggest methods of action for the intelligence agencies: sending money and training to protest groups, labor unions, student groups, etc., in target countries, teach them how to write newsletters (with hints as to what to write), etc.
Although I'd be surprised if the Russians had any interest in LulzSec - the intelligence agencies right here at home stand to benefit much more fr
Re: (Score:2)
concern about KGB infiltrating lulzsec??? (Score:2)
why is anyone concerned about *only* the KGB "infiltrating" lulzsec? and as other people have pointed out - it's anonymous - even to each other! so you could actually end up with the hilarious situation that the only significant contributors to anonymous and lulzsec could actually be 95% foreign intelligence agents from different countries across the world, and nobody but those people who can reliably trace 100% of the world's internet traffic would know...
Why would a nation-state want to? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Title Of Barence's Post... (Score:1)
Red scare again (Score:1)
"If you have a LulzSec or an Anonymous that is perhaps being manipulated by a foreign actor, it takes us back to the days of the Stasi and the KGB, which were manipulating [anti-nulear campaign group] CND quite easily from Moscow,"
Not true in the slightest. CND and other anti-nuclear proliferation groups were not manipulated by the Soviet Union. In fact, they were just as opposed to Soviet nuclear weapons as Western ones. Though the allegation that they were controlled by Moscow were frequently thrown out by their opponents to avoid debating the insanity of stockpiling more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world ten times over. The only ones infiltrating them were the MI5, because apparently the security services had nothin
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, our intelligence agencies could plant a rumor that LulzSec was infiltrated. It would turn whatever support they have left against them. But more significantly, it will provide these agencies with an argument to fund more cyberwar initiatives.
Beware of attempts to label plain old criminal activities as acts of war. Prosecuting a war is rarely afforded the same public scrutiny as law enforcement and judicial activities.
Mr. Moores, stuck in 1975 (Score:2)
I think a lot of military people are stuck in the past. They don't understand the internet age. They call things "cyber wars" with "cyber armies" and imagine these big well organised forces likely well financed via the normal means.
Re: (Score:2)
Fact is both LuzSec and Anon' are a threat.
Threat to whom? The established power structure? Well sure, that's the point. A threat to you and me? No, I'm more concerned about the militarization of the police and the lawlessness of the banking industry than I am anything that happens on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know the difference between the terms "is" and "similar to". Hint: they aren't the same.
And yes Robin Hood would fit into the same basket as terrorism for the feature set being considered. As would many other things. But those other things (and Robin Hood) aren't as useful a comparison because the military isn't trying to fight them.
Why bother? (Score:1)
The catch is, because there's no central leadership, there's not too much to gain from 'infiltrating' them. lulzsec does not operate secretly; they operate openly and blatantly. They're a rampaging elephant. And because leadership is decentralized, your careful 'people management' s
Obligatory Meme... (Score:4, Funny)
In Soviet Russia, the government hacks LulzSec!
Re: (Score:2)
No no no. In Soviet Russia, the government is LulzSec.
That would explain a lot about what happened circa 1937, in fact. All those NKVD troikas handing out 10 year sentences with less than a minute spent per court hearing, and overfilled gulags and body ditches for no apparent reasons? why, it was for the lulz.
An interesting read (Score:4, Informative)
I highly recommend "Comrade J" by Pete Earley. http://www.amazon.com/Comrade-J-Pete-Earley/dp/B002BWQ5PY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311602623&sr=8-1 [amazon.com]
This book talks about the genesis of the SVR from the KGB. It also talks about how the whole concept of "nuclear winter" was invented by those agencies and fed to gullible westerners including Carl Sagan who steadfastly refused to believe it when NASA scientists debunked the whole thing. It also talks about what a colossal disaster the UN Oil for Food program was, who was duped, who profited from it, and more importantly who was pulling the strings. Bottom line is that foreign intelligence services don't need to do anything directly. There are plenty of idealists willing to do their dirty work.
Nuclear Winter valid concept. (Score:3)
Seems like Pete Earley has a book to sell!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:NuclearCognitive Winter valid concept. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At least according to a widely read survivalist author who had an axe to grind.
Re: (Score:2)
Can the NSA or GRU or FSB be attacked by LulzSec? (Score:2)
Richard Feynman showed the ignorance of military blockheads towards security.
But they have heavily recruited and may get some ideas from those newby-geek-militarists
until they are fed-up and realize in what a fucking insititution they have landed.
So that's the next play? (Score:2, Insightful)
"They're evil hackers!" didn't seem to stick. The public laughed off "they're terrorists!" Now the powers that be are hoping "they're communists!" will sway public sentiment? That's so... cold war. Who's afraid of the KGB these days?
I'm surprised they didn't go straight for "they sell kiddie porn". That would achieve the desired bloodlust a lot more quickly.
(obligatory) In soviet russia... (Score:2)
LulzSec infiltrate KGB!
This is silly on so many levels (Score:3)
Ok, I'll try to get some order into it, starting with the most obvious one.
1. The KGB (or rather, its successor, or whatever organization you'd think) isn't interested in such petty things. They have their own guys, and they can more easily steer them in the "right" direction. Why? Because that guy is sitting right there and you can cap him if he doesn't.
2. They also have the money to simply buy such people. And then put them under the gun for a "hack that or else".
3. They also have no need to "hide" anything so they'd profit from people doing it who are not in Russia. Russia is one of the biggest perpetrators in the world when it comes to cybercrime, do you want to blame all of that on the KGB or the Russian government? Unless you assume that the organized crime actually is the government in Russia, you're probably wrong. Think they'd bother to "hide" that there's yet another Russian hacking something on the planet for fun an profit?
4. But even assuming they'd have any interest in Anonymous: Anonymous is the equivalent of an internet mob. They are not an organized system with a hierarchy and whatnot. Steering a mob is possible to some degree, you can convince them to trash something belonging to company A instead of something belonging to company B, provided they hate both companies at similar levels, but turning them around and making them a neighborhood watch or at least convincing them to trash a place they'd actually like is something you will not accomplish. You can essentially only steer a mob into attacking something they already hate. If you're that thing they hate, it's kinda hard to steer them.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you assume that the organized crime actually is the government in Russia...
You bet your ass I do. You think the US government is corrupted by corporate interests? What do you think would happen if you removed most transparency measures from the US government, crippled the "checks and balances" on power, handcuffed the media, gave most of the money in the country to even bigger criminals than it already belongs to, and left things like that for about 20 years? Yeah, that's what Russia is today.
All hacker sites will eventually be infiltrated... (Score:2)
by various governments. Many of them will fail due to excessive lameness and other obvious tell-tale signs. A few will succeed. Some will be double-agents and information will flow both ways. Some will be discovered by hacks. All of this this is pretty darned obvious.
What a country! (Score:2)
Yeah, they'll fit right in.
"Let us hack together this NSA for lulz, comrade."
umm (Score:2)
What for? (Score:2)
The only reason for a sovereign power to infiltrate an organisation made mostly of script-kiddy types that is mostly shaming private companies is to stop them.
Russians (and Chinese) almost certainly have their own info-espionage groups which are bound to be just as good as the best LulzSec types only much better funded and with access to things such as Windows source code, info on government mandated backdoors on software and hardware, custom hardware (think USB sticks with custom firmware or even PLAs for
CNDers Were Fun To Watch (Score:2)
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:5, Informative)
Why not? The FBI infiltrates US peace groups:
http://www.progressive.org/mc011411.html [progressive.org]
http://www.progressive.org/mc052609.html [progressive.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is: why would they bother with such hacker groups? Surely there are enough hackers in Russia to set up a proper strategic hacking division?
So: yes they can infiltrate. No they probably won't use that method as an important strategic digital weapon.
Better to rely on your own strength than on some 18-year-old kid in his mother's basement who you've never met before.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The CCCP no longer exists, but the supply of teen vandals is perpetually replenished.
Re: (Score:2)