Wikileaks DDoSed Again 82
twoheadedboy writes "After being hit by a '72-hour' DDoS in May, WikiLeaks is claiming to be under attack yet again. All its sites appear to be down and fingers have already been pointed at government entities. WikiLeaks, posting on Twitter, said it had its suspicions of why it was being targeted. It was either because of its ongoing releases related to Stratfor and Syria, or because of an upcoming release, Julian Assange's organization speculated. The fact that everyone is currently engrossed in the Olympics may have given attackers good reason to target the websites right now, WikiLeaks said."
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe this is a takedown precursor DDOS like what happened to Demonoid? Gov't entities (or "white hats" working for them or the MAFIAA's) DDOS the site while preparing for a takedown so that the owners/users can't log in and change anything or delete any records?
Re: (Score:2)
It does sort of hit the "paranoia" button...first the "convenien" DDOS of Demonoid, now Wikileaks....if it *is* taken down, after the DDOS, it will definitely make people wonder who has hired some group to do the dirty work that the IP Industrial Complex would like done....
Re: (Score:1)
Who cares (other than the participant of course) how much time they spend? The only advantage this provides society is perhaps better performance enhancing drugs and dietary programs.
Otherwise, what benefit is there to being able to do the pole jump a few feet higher than someone else? None. These sports don't translate into real-world usefulness. If I wanted to lift 300kg, I'd use a machine, not risk blowing out my rectum trying to lift it by hand.
At least someone who devotes their life to programming, con
Re: (Score:2)
If they win gold, that is when the pay day starts. How many non medal winning people from the Olympics are on the Wheaties box?
Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... (Score:4, Interesting)
to stay in the spotlight.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's amazing how these DDoSes conveniently happen at around the same time Julian's name starts fading from the news headlines. Do we have independent verification that there really is a DDoS and not just more of Assange media whoring?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... (Score:4, Funny)
He isn't really high flying he has been under house arrest in England for quiet a while
Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually he's currently hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, trying to dodge extradition to Sweden (and likely, to the U.S.).
Re: (Score:1)
http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html [justice4assange.com]
29 February 2012: Stratfor e-mails have revealed that a sealed indictment has been issued by a secret grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, for Julian Assange. The email is dated 26 January 2011. This means that there has likely been a sealed extradition order for over a year, which will be activated (unsealed) against Assange in Sweden, Australia and the UK when the US Government gives the order.
Re: (Score:2)
actually there seems to be intent
http://justice4assange.com/US-Extradition.html [justice4assange.com]
29 February 2012: Stratfor e-mails have revealed that a sealed indictment has been issued by a secret grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, for Julian Assange. The email is dated 26 January 2011. This means that there has likely been a sealed extradition order for over a year, which will be activated (unsealed) against Assange in Sweden, Australia and the UK when the US Government gives the order.
Under what law? I don't see how you can charge him when he's not a US citizen and wasn't in charge of classified information. I guess foreign countries can charge anyone in the USA when something leaks to a US journalist?
Re: (Score:1)
They U.S. will charge whomever they damn well please for any manner of bullshit. Look at what happened to Kim Dotcom.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't call something "likely" when there's no precident, evidence or expressed intent for it.
Don't kid yourself. There is a reason Sweden has went to such extraordinary lengths to get him back (for a crime he hasn't even been charged with) and why they've twice now refused to question him in both the UK and Ecuadorian embassy. And it isn't because they've suddenly decided to become great defenders of justice for women who've both expressed ambiguity about the whole case.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't call something "likely" when there's no precident, evidence or expressed intent for it.
Don't kid yourself. There is a reason Sweden has went to such extraordinary lengths to get him back (for a crime he hasn't even been charged with) and why they've twice now refused to question him in both the UK and Ecuadorian embassy. And it isn't because they've suddenly decided to become great defenders of justice for women who've both expressed ambiguity about the whole case.
They want to question him so they can attempt to recruit him to work for the CIA I bet.
Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, let's take your comment at face value, and assume that claiming a DDoS is happening is a good way to get back into the limelight. Is there ever a time for Wikileaks when claiming a DDoS is happening is actually not a good way to get extra publicity?
They release data and get DDoSed - they can claim they are to be silenced.
They have been quiet for a while and get DDoSed - they have something to talk about.
Those are pretty much the only relevant situations I can think about. In short, every possible DDoS situation can be spun as beneficial publicity for Wikileaks. This means that your approach is utterly useless in determining whether the DDoS is real. Now, do you have some actual proof that the DDoS is fake, outside of your personal dislike of Assange?
Re: (Score:1)
The classic tactic of trying to shif the burden of proof. I'm not the one making positive claims about some global conspiracy to DDoS my website to silence me. If they want to claim that some government is DDoSing them, they need to prove it.
Re: (Score:3)
True: Wikileaks makes a claim, and they need to back it up. However, your claim is not for proof, but to the motivation of Wikileaks under circumstances that make it impossible for them to disprove your claim.
I'd say your claim is actually worse than Wikileaks'. At least with all the shenanigans that have been going on, a DDoS attack is about the most benign thing to happen to them. Probably not a government, but most likely some Antileaks-type organization. Yours, on the other hand, is a simple attempt to
Re: (Score:2)
True: Wikileaks makes a claim, and they need to back it up.
What is this claim that they need to back up? That they've been DDoSed? You want them to release their server logs or something? Obviously they can't do that, it would be identifying everyone who reads their site. It's also stupid - Wikileaks has been unambiguously persecuted recently by webhosts and governments and payment processors and it should come as no particular surprise to anyone if some kiddie out there takes it on themselves to go a little further. There's no obligation of proof here, they've mad
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It will be a great loss if attacks on Assange lead to loss of public confidence and trust in the initiative, and no doubt that is what some opponents intend. Some of those opponents, you will grasp, are now bear-hugging Wikileaks as putative friends to be sure it it is crippled or fails.
Let me teach you how to get censored (Score:3)
It's really not very hard to draw attention from people who will censor you or otherwise block your message. Try to distribute information that is inimical to the operations of COINTELPRO spies attempting to manipulate the internet, and you can experience this for yourself. For one example of such forbidden content, read and then try to distribute The Gentleperson's Guide to Forum Spies [cryptome.org], which describes in detail the methods used by spies to manipulate internet forums. Slashdot is one forum that is so ma
Yes there IS atroturfing going on here! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You sound just as paranoid as the "9/11 was a plot to boost Bush ratings" crowd.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to say that means they AREN'T doing that, just that if this is a conspiracy on their part, it's a dumb one. And I guess the media was already doing a great job of it. "American involvement in the Syrian dictatorship? Boring. Kristen Stewart cheating? HELLO FRONT PAGE NEWS!!!"
Re: (Score:1)
I guess last week's little stunt with creating fake documents under some else's name didn't get them enough publicity. Time to move on to a good old DDOS.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess last week's little stunt with creating fake documents under some else's name didn't get them enough publicity.
Assuming that was even them and not a false flag [wikipedia.org] operation from one of their MANY enemies.
Re:Or WikiLeaks Pulled Its Own Plug... (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that they admitted [guardian.co.uk] to doing it? OMG! Wikileaks itself is a false flag operation!
Re: (Score:2)
thank you for this. My opinion of wikileaks just dropped through the floor.
Re: (Score:2)
The Guardian is just biting the hand that once fed them. Maybe they expected their exclusive access to last longer than it did? And then someone leaked the whole shebang.
Re: (Score:1)
Baseless speculation.
First of all, Bill Keller really did write an enormous ad-hominem piece on Assange. The Keller hoax was childish revenge, sure, but it was NOT just done for no reason.
Second of all, the idea that Wikileaks would DDOS itself (thus removing the ability for anyone to actually hit the "donate" buttons on the site) is completely nonsensical. Wikileaks doesn't have the resources to hire a botnet to do that (and they'd need a botnet owing to the secure host Wikileaks uses).
Third, Assange may b
Re: (Score:1)
You are either incredibly naive, stupid, or both.
By pulling an Ad Hominem, you've forever cast your reliability into doubt! You're obviously a person who does nothing but smear people! I can't trust anything you tell me!
Oh wait, that's your logic. Huh. How bout that.
Once you have been caught falsifying a single document, for any reason whatsoever, everything you claim to be true can, should, and must be called into question.
Nope, that's the slippery slope fallacy. You should analyze motives and context to figure out whether a particular action is likely to be a lie instead of perjoratively declaring that an individual's satirical counter-smear ends all possibility of future truth. It was immature, but Assange was
Re: (Score:2)
I guess last week's little stunt with creating fake documents under some else's name didn't get them enough publicity.
Apparently not, since this is the first I've heard of it, at least. Out of interest, was it posted on Slashdot?
Good example of an astroturf post (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You think an organsation dedicated to public disclosure would censor themselves by disabling their own servers.
Thats a lot of tinfoil.
Re: (Score:1)
Since it will get their name back in the news worldwide? Sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if you ask "do I think an organization dedicated to smearing and embarrassing people and organizations it doesn't like would do that", then my answer would be yes. And I would also expect them to make up documents to suit their purposes.
Strange that there are an unusually large number many negative posts made by Anonymous Cowards.
Which Olympic games? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Where can you show me the US government, right now, attempting the extermination of an entire race of people?
I have as much distrust of the federal government in me as the next guy, but the US !=Nazi Germany. That is hyperbole, and quite honestly is ridiculous.
Re:Only getting what they deserve. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that according to the US everyone and everything is an enemy combatant. Even the mighty US doesn't have the resources to be at war with everyone at once.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
While I agree with you, I do have one question:
Isn't perception of power just as useful as actual power (or maybe even the same thing)? I don't have to punch you in the face to stop you from pissing me off if you believe that I will do it if you piss me off. Same sort of thing.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The Jester had posted something about Wikileaks with his usual "#ticktock" threat on Twitter yesterday. He seems to have deleted the tweet since then, though.
That 'Th3 J3st3r' person is an internet troll who conducts minor DDOS attacks in the name of US Patriotism.
The guy is a moron who is going to end up inside one of the jails of the country he claims to be fighting for sooner or later.
Re: (Score:1)
Seriously.
- A very sincere and convinced "troll"
group takes responsibility (Score:5, Informative)
Re:group takes responsibility (Score:4, Insightful)
DDOS isn't the end of the world (Score:2)