Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Security IT

Wikileaks DDoSed Again 82

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the can't-catch-a-break dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikileaks DDoSed Again

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @11:07AM (#40918293)

    to stay in the spotlight.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Desler (1608317)

      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)

        by benjfowler (239527)

        Interesting.

        It probably wouldn't be hard for that loony to get some of his mates to DDoS the Wikileaks website whenever they need to raise a bit more money to keep Assange in his high-flying superspy lifestyle.

        • by lister king of smeg (2481612) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @11:25AM (#40918501)

          He isn't really high flying he has been under house arrest in England for quiet a while

          • by crazyjj (2598719) * on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @11:42AM (#40918693)

            Actually he's currently hiding out in the Ecuadorian embassy in London, trying to dodge extradition to Sweden (and likely, to the U.S.).

      • by NeutronCowboy (896098) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @12:33PM (#40919343)

        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?

        • by Desler (1608317)

          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.

          • 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

            • by guises (2423402)

              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

              • by nnull (1148259)
                Because wikileaks is bullshit: http://cryptome.org/0002/wikileaks-unlike.htm [cryptome.org] I don't need to say more. John Young has more credibility than Assange or his wikileak group will ever have.
                • by guises (2423402)
                  Your link does not paint Wikileaks as bullshit. Mr. Young has some criticisms, mostly he seems to think that Wikileaks could stand to be more open about its operations, but he says the world is better off for having them around:

                  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.

          • 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

      • by toriver (11308)

        You sound just as paranoid as the "9/11 was a plot to boost Bush ratings" crowd.

      • Wouldn't be a good move on their part: the news agencies now have yet another reason to make the story about wikileaks and avoid covering what has been leaked.

        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!!!"
    • by Anonymous Coward

      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.

      • by crazyjj (2598719) *

        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.

      • by Meditato (1613545)

        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

      • by kiwimate (458274)

        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?

      • The post directly above, by an AC, is a case in point. I'm morally certain that whomever posted that brief blurb is an astroturfer.
    • by bug1 (96678)

      You think an organsation dedicated to public disclosure would censor themselves by disabling their own servers.

      Thats a lot of tinfoil.

      • by Desler (1608317)

        Since it will get their name back in the news worldwide? Sure.

  • by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @11:09AM (#40918313) Journal
    The cyber attack on Iran, or the ones in London?
  • by LG740 (2703715) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @12:10PM (#40919041)
    A group calling themselves AntiLeaks has taken responsibility for the attacks. Here are a couple of stories on a german tech site about the group. You can translate it into german. http://www.gulli.com/news/19466-antileaks-ddos-angriffe-als-protest-gegen-wikileaks-2012-08-08 [gulli.com] http://www.gulli.com/news/19456-ddos-angriffe-legen-wikileaks-lahm-2012-08-07 [gulli.com]
    • by John Holmes (2619159) on Wednesday August 08, 2012 @12:41PM (#40919459)
      "The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know." President John F. Kennedy, April 27, 1961
  • How does a DDOS prevent wikileaks from spreading information? Go somewhere else, upload whatever you have to any of the bazillion file upload services then seed the address in the social networks and the rest takes care of itself. I don't think any government thinks a DDOS would prevent information that wikileaks has from being made public. My guess is it's just a publicity stunt by wikileaks themselves.

The number of arguments is unimportant unless some of them are correct. -- Ralph Hartley

Working...