Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security

Anonymous Claims Responsibility For WikiLeaks Attack 183

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the bored-teenagers-being-idiots dept.
mask.of.sanity writes "Anonymous members have taken responsibility for launching a denial of service attack against WikiLeaks this week using a custom-built tool that exploits an SQL server flaw. Field tests of the tool dubbed RefRef were launched against several websites including WikiLeaks, Pastebin and 4Chan. In a Twitter account linked to the Anonymous blog, the users were described as hacktivists with 'a personal vendetta against WikiLeaks,' adding that 'we are sorry we took you down. We are even.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anonymous Claims Responsibility For WikiLeaks Attack

Comments Filter:
  • by Mensa Babe (675349) *
    Considering the news from just the last week:

    I am not surprised at all that someone has finally attacked them. This is not just an ordinary organization destroying documents, leaking their own sources or suing others for doing what they themselves want us to believe is our duty, ie. leaking confidential documents. This is much more. This is ignoring the fact that people are literally risk

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MrNaz (730548)

      False flag operations are pretty easy against anonymous, because, well, anyone can do something and claim to be them. The media can claim they're in bed with Al-Qaeda and nobody would even be able to be interviewed to confirm or deny.

      • by bentcd (690786) <bcd@pvv.org> on Thursday September 01, 2011 @09:43AM (#37274496) Homepage

        False flag operations are pretty easy against anonymous, because, well, anyone can do something and claim to be them.

        On the other hand false flag ops against Anonymous are impossible because if someone does something and claims to be them, well then they are them.

        • by Reilaos (1544173)

          Not entirely true; claiming to be Anonymous while not acting and behaving in a particular manner is like a pale skinny asian kid trying to call himself a jock while trying to keep his glasses from sliding down his nose.

      • On the contrary, at least five people would consent to be interviewed, two of whom would confirm, two of whom would deny, and one of whom would show goatse pictures to the camera.

    • Wikileaks is dead, Openleaks is going nowhere, and traditional media outlets like the New York Times are not willing to publish certain things...so how do people publicize evidence of corruption? What are whistleblowers supposed to do, especially if the people they are blowing the whistle on are well connected and powerful?
      • Amnesty International

      • by BitZtream (692029) on Thursday September 01, 2011 @11:11AM (#37275298)

        Start with actually having evidence of corruption.

        At one point, thats what Wikileaks did. That ended some time ago and hasn't been the case for the last couple of years. NYT will be happy to publish anything that gets them some readers back, but you actually have to have some sort of proof before you send it to them. They don't particularly respond well when you drop a boat load of stolen documents on their door step and say 'theres bad stuff in here, I know it because its from politicians and I don't like politicians'.

        Neither does any other rational person for that matter.

        Whistle blowers really don't have a hard time getting information out, when its actually something to be concerned with. The Internet makes it absolutely trivial, as proven already. The problem is as I said, learning the difference between real corruption instead of what typically is called 'whistleblowing' which is more along the lines of 'this company/politician doesn't do what I want/insulted me/won't let me have my way/insert any other childish reason you want here as it all returns to the fact that most of these people are angsty babies.

        As I said, its not hard to get the word out. The problem is that 99.999999% of the people who like to think of themselves as 'whistleblowers' are just people who steal documents and break the law because they're too stupid to realize their point of view is unique to them and not the rest of the general population.

        Thats the thing, one lone nut job with a irrational story about evil company/government gets overlooked and ignored quickly. Sometimes it takes a little more time, as is the case for Wikileaks who managed to build up some credibility before making it clear they never deserved any such thing.

        • by ScentCone (795499)
          This.
        • by he-sk (103163)

          NYT will be happy to publish anything that gets them some readers back, but you actually have to have some sort of proof before you send it to them.

          Unless anything is warrantless wiretapping by the government in the name of the war against terror -- then it will sit a year on the story, enough to make sure that the President gets reelected, just because the White House asked them to.

          NSA warrantless surveillance controversy [wikipedia.org]
          What the Times knew, and when it knew it [salon.com]

        • Sadly evidence is does not matter in today's information age. Accusations sprinkled with a little conspiracy theory and the "truth" becomes self evident to those looking to use the information to support their personal viewpoints and opinions.
    • by BitZtream (692029)

      You'll get modded into oblivion here as everyone seems to think 'Anonymous' is the best thing to happen to the world in the last 4 billion years or so.

      However, I could not agree more.

      What you see here is a cat fight between two douche bags. Both groups are just a bunch of self serving pricks seeking as much attention as they can get.

      The only good news is that anonymous will eventually fall apart, a bunch of script kiddies fucking around together never lasts, they'll fight amoungst themselves and tear thems

    • by hairyfeet (841228)

      Well lets see....For the first one we have a guy who makes a right wing leaning rival to Wikileaks who destroys anything that hurts right wing causes before he leaves. Duh he was paid off. I'd love to see his bank accounts for 6 months before and after the event, because i bet a BIG fat check got dropped in there.

      As for the other two? if it is online it CAN be broken into, it is just a matter of time and skill. Everyone thinks they have security but a good 99.995% of them DO NOT, simply because if the org

  • I heard there was a leak, but when did Wikileaks go offline?
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Anonymous vs. 4Chan. I predict this will be more interesting than any conflict this year.

    • by Pieroxy (222434)

      "We are even"

      Wake me up when they're all out of kindergarten.

      In the meantime, let me sleep.

    • by Kamokazi (1080091)
      Anonymous originated from 4chan, so is this their rebellious teenager stage where they try to run away from home?
  • by DigiShaman (671371) on Thursday September 01, 2011 @09:39AM (#37274464) Homepage

    "I cast... magic cyber missile! Fear my incantations for your servers are feeble to stop them."

    Anyone else just find this nerd fight entertaining? Pass the popcorn :)

    • Anyone else just find this nerd fight entertaining? Pass the popcorn :)

      as much as z grade movies

    • by BitZtream (692029)

      Yea, I always love watching script kiddies who aren't even able to form proper sentences or know the meaning of the words they are using. Its just one step below the jackass movies, or Ow my Balls.

  • This is turning into Apple-Google-Samsung-HTC lawsuit circle jerk, only with suits and countersuits over information. Pass me the popcorn.
  • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday September 01, 2011 @09:40AM (#37274478)

    Not sure how this plays into the recent bevy of activity in the CIA's shattershot attempt to sabotage and discredit Wikileaks, but I suspect someone is getting played here. First you have Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a guy with a shady and rather thin past, come into Wikileaks and immediately start stealing documents and attempting to sabotage the operation--later participating in the discrediting campaign too by writing a book bad-mouthing Assange (and starting his own competing honeypot site to boot). Then rape allegations (the same kind that Dominique Strauss-Khan suddenly found himself facing just weeks after he began questioning [guardian.co.uk] the value of the U.s. dollar). Now all this recent uproar.

    The CIA is really throwing everything at the wall here. Looks like some of it is sticking. Well played.

    Some will laugh at me for saying all this. But, let's face it, this is hardly the first time they've used similar tactics [wired.com].

    • The CIA is really throwing everything at the wall here. Looks like some of it is sticking. Well played.

      Some will laugh at me for saying all this. But, let's face it, this is hardly the first time they've used similar tactics.

      So, someone alleges something in the past, which proves that the same thing is happening in the present?

      Do consider that even "former CIA operatives" occasionally lie....

    • If the claims against the IMF head were a CIA operation, surely the US prosecutor would've actually done his fucking job and brought charges. He has a history of this sort of behavior. He's actually being protected by the US government, not attacked.

      • by elrous0 (869638) *

        If the claims against the IMF head were a CIA operation, surely the US prosecutor would've actually done his fucking job and brought charges

        The goal was never a conviction. The goal was to discredit him long enough to get him booted as IMF head. Look at the timeline if you don't believe me. The prosecutors first admitted [nytimes.com] that their case was a joke literally TWO DAYS after a new pro-American IMF head was appointed [guardian.co.uk].

        Let me help you:

        February 11, 2011: Dominque Strauss-Kahn, International Monetary Fund head, makes a speech in Washington calling for the establishment of a new global currency that would devalue the U.S. Dollar

        May 14, 2011: Dominque St

        • by poity (465672)

          Sounds plausible. But consider this [thebestpag...iverse.net] ...

          If the CIA wanted DSK gone they could have created a watertight case and made him unquestionably guilty. They could easily have gotten to the defense lawyers as well. Why would they go to all that trouble only to have their great coup be unraveled by a simple 5-item timeline? It's like loose change all over again.

          • by elrous0 (869638) *

            If the CIA wanted DSK gone they could have created a watertight case and made him unquestionably guilty.

            Again, why bother? All they needed was the accusation, a perp walk from the prosecutor, and some press coverage. You don't need an airtight case for those, just a opportunistic maid and a cooperative district attorney.

            Why would they go to all that trouble only to have their great coup be unraveled by a simple 5-item timeline?

            Because the press is stupid and no one will listen to the handful of "tin-foil-hat-wearing nutters" who make the connections.

        • by BitZtream (692029)

          The problem is on May 14th, he resigned.

          Resignation is an admission of guilt. You quit before you can be fired so no one can say 'he was fired' and you get all of your golden parachutes on the way out the door.

          I'm sorry you don't recognize it, but I do. He made no attempt to fight the charges, so either he was guilty of that, or something worse that they held over his head and threatened to expose him for if he didn't resign ... again, making him guilty.

          • by elrous0 (869638) *

            He made no attempt to fight the charges, so either he was guilty of that, or something worse that they held over his head and threatened to expose him for if he didn't resign

            Or he realized that giving up was the quickest, easiest way out. Not everyone can be the big hero who takes on the government.

    • "The CIA is really throwing everything at the wall here"

      Sure. If anything the slightest bit unfortunate happens to any hacktivist sacred cow then it - duh! - has to be the CIA. Or FBI. Or NSA. Or some government black hat organisation that only the l337 know about.

      Get a fucking grip. If the CIA wanted to take down wikileaks they'd go for the people, not the infrastructure. And why do it now? 6 months ago would have been a lot more useful.

      But hey , why bother thinking it through when a good ole conspiracy th

      • by elrous0 (869638) *

        The CIA learned a long time ago that discrediting was a WAY better tactic than anything as messy as assassination. Give them some credit for not being completely stupid. Think of it as a kindler, gentler CIA.

        • by Viol8 (599362)

          Assassination of people running a website? Christ , you really are off with the pixies. I meant arresting them on trumped up charges.

          • by elrous0 (869638) *

            Why arrest all of them when they only need to discredit one?

          • by jafac (1449)

            Assassination of Character.
            Method, tried and true. . . pioneered by the good Senator McCarthy, from Wisconsin.

        • by BitZtream (692029)

          The CIA has ALWAYS worked this way.

          They assassinate when the person they are going after can not be made to look any worse than they are.

          You assassinate drug cartel members, you discredit politicians.

          • by Xaedalus (1192463)
            And yet the world is still full of bad guys. Tell me oh wise one, if the CIA is so powerful and has ALWAYS worked this way with unparalleled success and competency, then why isn't our world a better place right now?
    • by Ash-Fox (726320)

      Not sure how this plays into the recent bevy of activity in the CIA's shattershot attempt to sabotage and discredit Wikileak

      Now, now... Anyone can be Anonymous, even the CIA. Stop trying to pervert how Anonymous works.

      This action regardless of who is behind it, is Anonymous.

    • by BitZtream (692029)

      shattershot

      Just for reference, scattershot is the word you're looking for. Shattershot is a Marvel comic book story arc.

      too by writing a book bad-mouthing Assange

      If you weren't such a raving fanboy you'd realize that bad mouthing Assange requires absolutely no effort what so ever, just speak about what he's done. He had a couple years early on where Wikileaks did a couple useful things. Before that, his history shows him as a complete and total douche in every aspect. He is one of the most selfish people I've ever seen. He thinks its a great idea to make

  • by Caraig (186934) * on Thursday September 01, 2011 @09:49AM (#37274550)

    This doesn't make sense, though. Anon -- or at least part of Anon -- went out and slammed a bunch of credit-card companies for denying donations to WikiLeaks. And now Anon is saying they attacked WikiLeaks? I don't buy it. As recently as last week they were still expressing support for WikiLeaks, and were noting that WikiLeaks and their own servers were under attack. And 4chan? 4chan is their home turf, why would they DDoS that?

    I grok that Anon is decentralized to the point of schizophrenia, but to this extent?

    • by Baloroth (2370816) on Thursday September 01, 2011 @09:53AM (#37274576)

      Anonymous is a mob. Like all mobs, they lack restraint or control and will eventually turn on, well, anyone they can. Including their home soil or the people they pretend to defend.

      Of course they'll also a mob on the Internet, and lack the power to do anything of real consequence, like burning down a house. The result is that the whole thing is really quite funny, instead of tragic and a horrible crime.

      • by geekoid (135745)

        UM, society runs on the internet. Wait until someone takes down a bank or credit card company in a way where data is permanently lost. This you will see real damage.

      • by vijayiyer (728590)

        What's terrifying is if that mob start attacking poorly secured internet connected infrastructure.

    • by Lose (1901896)
      >He thinks 4chan is home turf for "Anonymous."

      If they were all 13 year olds firing up Low Orbit Ion Cannon to DDOS some randomly selected website (by trips get of course), then yeah, Anonymous exists there en masse.
      • by Kamokazi (1080091)
        It is where the 'Anonymous' identity/idea originated. It's as close to a home as there is. Anonymous is everything from 13 year-olds with LOIC to legitimate hackers with botnets at their disposal. Although reporting on 4chan getting DDoS'd is about like reporting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow morning. It's only news if it doesn't happen.
    • by Andy Dodd (701)

      Also, 4chan is basically the birthplace of Anonymous... Why would they attack it?

      Something is VERY fishy here - the three entities attacked are the last three entities on this planet I could imagine Anonymous attacking.

    • by MobyDisk (75490)

      Read the article. It was just one member, and they were just testing their tools. The article summary is written almost as poorly as the original article so it really isn't clear.

    • by NotBorg (829820)
      Why is it so hard to believe that an organization [sic] with no structure would behave that way? Is there a leader? A board? Do they take a vote on their next move? Or is it just anarchy. And you're trying to find some sense of order in it?
    • by ScentCone (795499)

      This doesn't make sense

      Are you equally perplexed when peace protesters burn buildings, or when a bunch of people unhappy about how a soccer game turned out decide to destroy a bunch of their city's infrastructure? Packs of people, mostly adolescent and presuming they can act with impunity because they're wearing real or virtual scarves over their faces, do exactly the sort of stuff you think makes no sense.

    • Anonymous claim of attacking WikiLeaks originating from IP addresses owned by The Guardian...

  • 834 [xkcd.com]

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 01, 2011 @10:00AM (#37274624)
    We, the hacker group known as Anonymous Coward, are responsible for the attack. Anonymous is simply trying to take credit for our actions.
    • by jafac (1449)

      Well, that's it. Now you have made an enemy of Just Another Fucking Anonymous Coward!

  • by cultiv8 (1660093) on Thursday September 01, 2011 @10:15AM (#37274770) Homepage
    RefRef is the new LOIC, interesting write-up here [thehackernews.com], confirmed accurate [twitter.com] by @AnonCMD.

    Is this what took down Wikileaks?
  • "Anonymous" and "LulzSec" - launched DDoS attacks and data thefts are about as useful a form of internet activism as the ubiquitous "Post this as your status if you want to support stopping [insert random evil here]."

  • Step 1: Someone gets hacked

    Step 2: Take credit for it

    Step 3: ?

    Step 4: Profit!

  • I expect any day now for Anonymous to launch a DDoS attack against itself.

  • ...and the anarchist-wannabe "you're not the boss of me" teenage-brained script kiddies turn on each other. This is going to be funny.

    Today's lesson: a copy of 5-year-old rootkits written by someone far more intelligent than yourself and downloaded after a Google search, plus a black T-shirt and a Front 242 CD, do not make you Che Guevara or James Bond or Robin Hood.

  • A candid look at the inner-circle of Anonymous leadership...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLsg0EvZozI [youtube.com]

    4-Chan? Really? (1:45)

Gee, Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore.

Working...