PayPal Hands Over 1,000 IP Addresses To the FBI 214
tekgoblin writes "PayPal was attacked by Anonymous last year when they had blocked the Wikileaks accounts transactions. Now PayPal has finally come up with enough evidence to strike back at Anonymous with the help of the FBI. PayPal has come up with a list of over 1,000 IP Addresses left behind when they were attacked by Anonymous."
Sympathizers only (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Botnet IPs? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, no.
There mightve been help from botnets but a large number of people were using LOIC, a gui ddos tool for scriptkiddies which doesn't spoof packets.
It's hilarious to me that it's the main tool for Anonymous members and clearly shows how the majority doesn't really know what they're doing but just following lead.
Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Will the FBI have Jurisdiction (Score:5, Informative)
The FBI might not have direct jurisdiction, but they've certainly got agreements with the major law enforcement agencies around the world, and you can bet that hacking across international lines is a sensational enough crime that they're going to assist the FBI in any way they can. See also the recent cases of "Anonymous members" getting picked up in the UK.
Re:Why did it take this long? (Score:5, Informative)
I've very sad to say that this is typical of the FBI Computer Crime Center, and of corporate computer crime. Exposing the vulnerability or logging structures of Paypal's internal services to _anyone_ would be bad for them as a company interested in continuing to gather investor money and avoid negative assessments of their practices. Paypal does not have much interest in prosecuting this: prosecuting a few of Anonymous's members would not stop the rest of Anonymous's members from focusing their attacks against Paypal in a retaliation.
Moreover, the FBI computer crime teams are demonstrably incompetent. Review their own website, at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/cyber [fbi.gov]. Their big computer "takedowns" are all at least 2 years old and the actual investigations done by other, overseas security forces or local law enforcement. The FBI taking credit for these few cases is insulting to those agencies. When the FBI says "our global partnerships paid off", as they do at http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/october/darkmarket_102008 [fbi.gov], it actually means "someone else did all the work and we're trying to take the credit without telling anyone what we actually failed to do".
Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (Score:5, Informative)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that sit-ins and pickets cannot legally prevent or impede normal operations of the business - you cannot block customers or employees.
Picket lines and sit-ins are meant to educate people about an issue; make them think twice about it, make them realize there may be more to something that hadn't considered before. Attempt to dissuade people from working or doing business with the company or institution you don't like.
DDoS is nothing like that. It directly impedes business, it directly impedes customers. It has no message, other than an error when a customer tries to load the page; there's no persuasion there. They might read about it later - might - but then, the DDoSers no longer control the message - most people are going to read about it from a news outlet. They'll probably see it as some "hackers" preventing them from getting on with their lives. Frustrating people and not letting them handle their affairs is not a good way to get them on your side.
DDoS isn't a sit-in, isn't a protest. It's sabotage. It's revenge. It's sneaking into UPS at night and letting the air out of all the tires of all the trucks. No permanent physical damage done, but disrupts business, delays packages.
Re:Sympathizers only (Score:2, Informative)
Because some mods are morons...
Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (Score:5, Informative)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that sit-ins and pickets cannot legally prevent or impede normal operations of the business - you cannot block customers or employees.
Depends on your location. Any such laws are local, not federal, in nature and probably won't stand up to constitutional scrutiny, especially since such laws were uniformly used to harass civil rights protesters in the 1950s and 1960s.
Picket lines and sit-ins are meant to educate people about an issue; make them think twice about it, make them realize there may be more to something that hadn't considered before. Attempt to dissuade people from working or doing business with the company or institution you don't like.
No, the purpose of any such protest is to disrupt the business conditions of the business/person you are protesting. As you said yourself: "Attempt to dissuade people from working or doing business with." If they physically can't get to the store because there are too many people present already, that's that.
Lunch counter sit-ins, for example, filled the restaurant with people that the racist restaurant owners refused to serve, leaving no seats for the "desired customers."
DDoS is nothing like that. It directly impedes business, it directly impedes customers. ... DDoS isn't a sit-in, isn't a protest. It's sabotage. It's revenge.
Given that your entire premise has just been proven false, the rest of your rant is meaningless. There were a lot of angry Southerner KKK members who were angry about the fact that a group of protesters were "directly impeding customers" at the lunch counter sit-ins, too. A lot of people who were "frustrated" and not "let handle their affairs" in other sit-ins throughout the years, including recently when the Republicans were raping the public sector and protesters staged sit-ins at several state capitals.
No permanent physical damage done, but disrupts business...
That's the exact purpose of a peaceful protest. To not do permanent physical damage, but cause enough disruption that your demands are acceded to.
Re:oooh 1,000 infected computers (Score:4, Informative)
So does a protest that blocks the street in front of a store being protested, or even the neighboring stores in the strip mall.
You can't legally block access to a store or a street with a protest. You have to let people through.