Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anonymous Defaces Panda Security Site

Comments Filter:
  • ....two more shall take its place.
    • by bigpaperbag (1105581) on Wednesday March 07, 2012 @12:26PM (#39275681)

      And those two shall continue in pointless vandalism that no one beyond their twitter followers and the people cleaning up after them care about.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 07, 2012 @12:29PM (#39275711)

        Quite relevant. [xkcd.com]

      • by Anonymous Coward

        What's done is not important. That it's done with impunity is.

        One day someone will decide to kill someone "for the lulz",

        and it will be hilarious.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          I believe that has happened many, many times in the course of human history. It just didn't have a lame catchphrase to go with it back then.

          Well, there IS "thrill kill". I guess that counts, though it's not nearly as lame as "for the lulz".

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by causality (777677)

        And those two shall continue in pointless vandalism that no one beyond their twitter followers and the people cleaning up after them care about.

        You're excluding a significant group: those who appreciate irony. I mean, it's a security company. You'd expect them to know how to secure a Web server (or to choose a quality hosting service if they don't run it themselves).

        You don't find that amusing?

        • by idontgno (624372)

          "Irony" is defined as "poignantly contrary to expectation". If you find the hacking of any "compusec" company ironic, the problem is in your unrealistic expectations.

          • http://theoatmeal.com/comics/irony [theoatmeal.com] You should probably read this comic about Irony before you start to tell others about Irony
          • by causality (777677)

            "Irony" is defined as "poignantly contrary to expectation". If you find the hacking of any "compusec" company ironic, the problem is in your unrealistic expectations.

            If you must have a dictionary definition, perhaps you would read this link [reference.com] and see Number Five.

            And yeah, I expect a "security company" to have a basic level of security. They accomplish at least that much, or they fail in a way I find comical. This one failed. It is possible for others to be more successful. This is determined solely by a given company's performance. "Unrealistic?" Only if you assumed I was shocked or surprised that some company somewhere failed at something. But you see, I never

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Khyber (864651)

            ""Irony" is defined as "poignantly contrary to expectation""

            A security company lacks security to secure their own shit.

            That is the VERY definition of irony, you ill-educated nitwit. Go back to school.

        • by X0563511 (793323)

          Yes and no. I see it this way:

          They did the risk analysis and determined that putting all kinds of effort into making their external webserver was not worth it. This gives them more resources to secure what actually matters, the internal stuff.

          • by causality (777677)

            Yes and no. I see it this way:

            They did the risk analysis and determined that putting all kinds of effort into making their external webserver was not worth it. This gives them more resources to secure what actually matters, the internal stuff.

            In terms of cold logic, devoid of any notion of PR or politics or marketing, I agree with you. Unfortunately a business environment includes those things as well.

            The problem is that a company wanting to convince potential clients of its security expertise really wouldn't want this kind of PR. Allowing this to happen is a bad move. It would be reasonable for potential customers to ask, "if they couldn't secure their own server that they have or should have had full control over, how are they possibly g

      • >And those two shall continue in pointless vandalism that no one beyond their twitter followers and the people cleaning up after them care about.

        When the man in charge no longer fears its citizens, vandalising the man is the next best thing before taking up arms.

      • by operagost (62405)
        If these amateurs keep getting butthurt and attacking people just for calling them "childish", they won't last long.
        • by rtb61 (674572)

          Now would that be the Fucking, Bloody, Idiots crew or Homeland Insecurity, or some foreign government agency. These days it's getting really hard to tell who is doing what under the title of 'Anonymous'. Don't forget those Fucking, Bloody, Idiots involved in the Lulsec debacle also want to remain 'Anonymous'.

          I would hope that you comment does not refer to the disturbing trend amongst the right of US politics of the desirability of homosexual rape in prisons, seriously you are aware of how truly sick that

    • by ackthpt (218170)

      ....two more shall take its place.

      Eventually intelligent people realize there's something better to do than watch your leet skillz atrophy in prison and find something more constructive to do.

    • Yeah I lol'd at "surviving members of Anonymous" XD

  • But seriously, accounts for users gone 5 years? It seems the security team needs to talk to the marketing team about keeping their external server cleaned up.
    • by psergiu (67614)

      The Panda Security site now serves malware - it asks me to install an antivirus. And i'm on a mac. Same message when accesed from Linux.

      • Well, there are antivirus programs for Linux; they're useful if you're scanning a Windows partition or running an email server.

  • by g0bshiTe (596213) on Wednesday March 07, 2012 @12:27PM (#39275697)
    Don't be a sad Panda!
  • Being that Anon is a *loose* organization, I hope this is just a whiny branch of Anon and not something that most of Anon approves of.

    Defacing for defacing sake is childish.

    Losses on both sides should be expected.

    • Judean People's Front, bloody splitters!

      • by Like2Byte (542992)

        Judean People's Front, bloody splitters!

        I thought they were the "Peoples' Judean Front."

        • Judean People's Front, bloody splitters!

          I thought they were the "Peoples' Judean Front."

          No, that's us. They're the Judean Popular Peoples' Front.

          Bloody splitters.

    • by afabbro (33948)

      Defacing for defacing sake is childish.

      Defacing for defacing sake is the Anonymous motto.

    • by Ziekheid (1427027)

      I'm suprised people still don't realize what the true Anonymous collective is. Doing it for the lulz, it has nothing to do with politics. Splinter cells that spawned off the original Anonymous may have an agenda but the original Anonymous did (and does) not.

  • umm why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by G00F (241765) on Wednesday March 07, 2012 @12:36PM (#39275803) Homepage
    So why hack panda?

    If it really was anonymous, who's a loose group of hackers trying to change/make things better, what was their goal?
    • Re:umm why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Kenja (541830) on Wednesday March 07, 2012 @12:41PM (#39275871)
      Because they could and no one had paid attention to them (Anonymous) in a while.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Well... according to the SECOND PARAGRAPH of the article (which you can get to if you click the hyperlink cleverly disguised as a hyperlink) Panda Security helped the FBI infiltrate chatrooms and messageboards.

    • by Hentes (2461350)

      I think they did it for the lulz.

    • If it really was anonymous, who's a loose group of hackers trying to change/make things better, what was their goal?

      Mainly - if AnonymousRC is to be beleved - Panda's head was talking shit about their helping the FBI and all the arrests, thus the karma blowback.

      Putting politics (if their actions and the overkill reactions can be termed politics) aside, should anyone be using the antivirus products of a company that got pwned hard by hackers? At least they announced it, but it makes you wonder how many bla

    • by Inda (580031)
      Wasn't me. I didn't do it. Try Anonymous.
  • What shall be done about these Chinese bears? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANg7iPu9DAg&noredirect=1" [youtube.com]
  • Surviving members of anonymous and/or lulzsec

    You make it sound like there's only a handful of them, are you new to the internet or something?

    • by afabbro (33948)

      You make it sound like there's only a handful of them,

      People who want to feel alternative and underground and rebellious and cool by wearing Guy Fawkes masks? There's a ton.

      People who also break into computer systems and deface web sites? A handful.

      • by X0563511 (793323)

        People who also break into computer systems and deface web sites? A handful.

        Unfortunately not.

    • Yeah they're like Highlanders, keep taking 'em out and eventually there will only be one! :-P

  • "Surviving"? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday March 07, 2012 @12:44PM (#39275925)

    What, were they hit by a tornado? The FBI, got warrants on 5 people--one of whom was a traitor, and several others in countries where they haven't even been arrested yet. I'm pretty sure Anon is big enough to not be devastated by the loss of one Benedict Arnold and four foot soldiers.

    • I bet their membership fluctuates by more than 5 people per second during a popular operation.

      • This is NOTHING but one more propaganda piece, exploiting the ignorance of the average American for their own election year ends!

  • by Anonymous Coward

    They're the scientologist version of anti-virus, aren't they?

    • You've been down-modded, but I believe you are to some degree correct... the last I heard, the Church of Scientology owned a major stake in the company. The company is, however, a legit security company, and has employees/investors who do not belong to the CoS. So the observation is likely not all that pertinent to the discussion.

      Considering the historical Anonymous attacks on CoS though, there could be some sort of a tie-in.

  • Required xkcd (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Petron (1771156)
    http://xkcd.com/932/ [xkcd.com]

    "Anonymous /LulSec drew funny mustaches on a poster put up by Panda Security!!!!"
  • Owch (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Crasoose (1621969) on Wednesday March 07, 2012 @01:49PM (#39276729)
    I would hate to be a member of a company who is supposed to focused on security and got hacked by script kiddies. I would say it isn't good for business but the majority of their customers wouldn't know or care.
  • by GrBear (63712)

    The hacking of their website makes them a Sad Panda.

  • So, some bragging, posturing "hacker" wannabe, get's set up by the FBI and is terrorized into "giving up" others, (probably people who, like him wanted to show off) and the Government (like they always do) will exploit this utterly pointless exercise to impress Ma and Pa Kettle of Bug Tussle, TN in a bit of election year propaganda!

    Kinda like "Seal team six".

    Ah iz votin fer him he caught the Hayakeeruz!
    Whuts uh Hayakeeruz?

  • Panda Security says the intruders only managed to exploit the web server and did not compromise their internal networks.

    Given the products and services they sell, of course that's their spin.

You can do this in a number of ways. IBM chose to do all of them. Why do you find that funny? -- D. Taylor, Computer Science 350

Working...