Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security IT

Could the KGB Infiltrate LulzSec? 162

Posted by CmdrTaco from the sure-why-not dept.
Barence writes "Foreign powers could try to infiltrate hacktivist networks in order to manipulate their actions, according to a security expert who advises governments and businesses on internet issues. Likening the emergence of the hacktivist movement to the arrival of militant groups such as the Red Brigade during the 1970s, government advisor and chair of the International E-crime Congress, Simon Moores, said that hacker groups could eventually be swayed by outside influences. 'If you have a LulzSec or an Anonymous that is perhaps being manipulated by a foreign actor, it takes us back to the days of the Stasi and the KGB, which were manipulating [anti-nuclear campaign group] CND quite easily from Moscow,' he said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Could the KGB Infiltrate LulzSec? More

Could the KGB Infiltrate LulzSec?

Comments Filter:

  • Not this shit again. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alex Belits ( 437 ) * on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:25AM (#36869898) Homepage

    Seriously!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Xest ( 935314 )

      The headline made me lol, it reminded me of something like:

      WHO IS BETTER, Chuck Norris, or Mr T?

      The summary was at least slightly more intelligent, but still inevitably silly.

      I'd say something about it being a slow news day, but looking at the BBC's frontpage, it's actually not.

    • RED BRIGADES? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 )

      They were subverted manipulated, alright.

      By US and NATO operatives. Not godless commies.

      The kidnap and murder of the Italian Prime Minister, Aldo Moro, was an orchestrated event, calculated to drive Socialist-leaning Italy to the right. This was done through direct and indirect instruction by CIA managed "terrorists", according to a design by Henry Kissinger - among others.

      "In 1949, the CIA helped set up the Italian secret armed forces intelligence unit, named SIFAR, staffed in part with former members of

      • "this picture" ?

        Doesn't he look like THIS MAN?
        http://static7.businessinsider.com/image/4d6c271ccadcbb3b132c0000/linus-torvalds.jpeg [businessinsider.com]

      • Take it easy Francis. The CIA is either the largest collection of incompetents on the planet or the smartest depending on who you talk too. It's probably a mixture because they have to get lucky once and awhile. The KGB has always been better at infiltrating the US then the CIA efforts of infiltrating Russia. Russia's tightly controlled society was always harder to infiltrate when compared against the relatively open US society. But claiming a handful of Americans can carry out the amount of manipulation ne

    • I don't know. I really poo poo conspiracy theories (ignoring the fact the KGB no longer exists) because they don't make any sense.

      This actually seems like a *good* idea if I was in the intelligence community. Why not try and direct groups to behave in a manner that is conducive to your nation's goals?

      1) Become a respected member of the community pulling pranks and demonstrating a talent for hacking.
      2) Find an excuse for lolz to happen that just so happen to coincide with ___INSERT NATION__'s interests
      3)

  • Outdated Headline (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohn@gm a i l . com> on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:28AM (#36869920) Journal

    Could the KGB Infiltrate LulzSec?

    No, because it was dissolved in 1991. Could the SVR [wikipedia.org], FSB [wikipedia.org] or GRU [wikipedia.org] infiltrate LulzSec? Sure, why not? I'm sure anyone could infiltrate the group as long as you're willing to play their game.

    • Re:Outdated Headline (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Threni ( 635302 ) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:38AM (#36870044)

      He means `can we get some Cold War eta funding to go on a wild goose chase, please'.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by captainpanic ( 1173915 )

        He means `can we get some Cold War eta funding to go on a wild goose chase, please'.

        This.

        But instead of hunting for the hackers, I'd be more comfortable if they secured some of the vital systems... Some stuff just shouldn't be connected to the internet.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Unless you live in Belarus, where the KGB is still called just that [wikipedia.org].

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Err, when I think of "Hackers" I think anti-establishment, including higher ed. Also, if you have been around higher ed since the 60s, you'd realize it wasn't full of Marxists.

  • no one can figure out who anyone is in real life, it can never be killed, and never influenced. it is above and beyond the rules that govern any other group of people, because it has internets. right?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bberens ( 965711 )
      I'm pretty sure it's the proxies.

    • Well... to be fair, if "on teh internets" works for patents...

  • great fear tactic (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alphatel ( 1450715 ) * on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:32AM (#36869968)
    Meanwhile Russia can shutdown [youtube.com] the US power grid, successfully leached Nuclear secrets in the 50's and owns most of US Steel manufacturing. Yet some shitty hacker outfit called Lulzsec is "easily manipulated. Har! Is it Pirate Day already?

  • What about? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Broken scope ( 973885 ) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:35AM (#36870004) Homepage

    So could the CIA, NSA, FBI or any of the 20 or 30 Intelligence/enforcement agencies in the US government.

    What is to say that this hasn't already happened and everything we have seen has been... "just as planned."

    Oh look at me! I can speculate too!

    • On the other hand, hacktivists could probably infiltrate intelligence and enforcement agencies too. Not to mention political parties, movements like the Tea Party, news organizations and other large, influential corporations.

      If I seriously wanted to bring about change to our socioeconomic system, that's how I'd go about it.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by loftwyr ( 36717 )

        Are you saying that someone could join a security or military organization, download key secret documents and give them to an organization, say, like Wikileaks? I don't believe you! America is too strong for that kind of thing!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by arth1 ( 260657 )

      So could the CIA, NSA, FBI or any of the 20 or 30 Intelligence/enforcement agencies in the US government.

      Yes, LulzSec is clearly commandeered by the Amtrak Police.
      Geohot, on the other hand, is likely under the influence of the Forest Rangers.

      Why this hits /. front page, I have no idea. Whenever someone is doing something controversial, there will always be opponents who will speculate that they're useful idiots, or otherwise try to paint them in a worse light than they already are. I'd be interested in the real source of this one; my bet is you'll find a tinfoil hat reactionary.

    • Kami, is that you?

  • Yet Another Lack of Understanding (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GameboyRMH ( 1153867 ) <gameboyrmh@@@gmail...com> on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:36AM (#36870010) Journal

    Law enforcement just can't grasp the concept of Anonymous' lack of a solid hierarchy. Sure they could infiltrate Anonymous, and they'd have as much influence as any other one participant, which is very little. Now if they can flood Anonymous with enough sockpuppets to make up, say, more than 50% of the participants, then they'd have some meaningful influence.

    • Neither can the news media. It's like me just putting flyers up to join a protest rally. It's upto individuals to decide to go or not, and if not I could be the only one who turns up.

    • Re:Yet Another Lack of Understanding (Score:4, Informative)

      by Vectormatic ( 1759674 ) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:45AM (#36870134)

      I will admit i know nothing about anonymous or lulzsec, but it wouldnt surprise if they worked like your basic internet echo chamber. If the right guy starts screaming the right way, all the other members start parroting and going along. I dont claim that this would be easy, but the lack of hierarchy doesnt preclude one person having influence over a large amount of followers.

      • If one guy starts screaming the right way and a large number of people agree, yeah they'll go along. But it isn't like, say, a bunch of Fox News viewers where a huge number of members can be mobilized by whatever Glenn Beck spews from his face-anus no matter what it happens to be. There has to be a big consensus among a diverse set of members before Anonymous will get started on anything. They don't even like to use pseudonyms most of the time so until an operation starts there's no trace of hierarchy *at a

      • That doesn't mean you can steer them. They'll only parrot if you say something they want to parrot.

        An example. If you go to some racist group party and start rioting about how much the $minority_group hurts the US and that they should all follow you to burn down a house of said $minority_group, you'll quickly become the leader of that gang in their quest to burn down a house belonging to a $minority_group.

        Now get in there and try the same with an attempt to burn down a White Power clubhouse.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by smelch ( 1988698 )
          Yeah but what if you go in there and say $specific_target knowing that hitting $specific_target while appearing to be in line with the goals may also cause a huge reaction that will destroy the racist movement because there were $retarded_children inside? Why are you reducing the infiltrators to complete morons?

      • I'd really like to see a bunch of Russian KGB types try to come up with a meme that resonates with chan kids.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Spad ( 470073 )

      The phrase that leaps to mind is "like herding cats".

      • The phrase that leaps to mind is "like herding cats".

        In the case of LulzSec, it would be more like herding LOLCats [lolcats.com]. Probably this one [lolcats.com], specifically.

    • Law enforcement just can't grasp the concept of Anonymous' lack of a solid hierarchy.

      This sentence relies on a vast web of assumptions. Where does your knowledge of the hierarchy of "Anonymous" come from? It comes from Anonymous. Actually, no, worse-- it comes from spokespersons who claim (without proof) to be representing Anonymous. Is there any actual reason to believe anything about Anonymous, or how it is structured?

      Sure they could infiltrate Anonymous, and they'd have as much influence as any other one participant, which is very little.

      This sentence relies on a vast web of assumptions, the main one of which is the belief that, even in the absence of a hierarchy, all participants have equal amounts of i

      • You can investigate Anonymous' hierarchy yourself if you don't want to rely on my knowledge ;-)

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gtall ( 79522 )

        It also relies on the author's dubious, probably out of his ass, statement about what law enforcement can and cannot grasp. Me thinks the author is still living in the 60's. Law enforcement these days is fairly sophisticated, it is the politicians who aren't.

    • Rather than infiltrating it, surely the american way is to try and buy it? Just offer enough members enough money and just like any good band of guns-for-hire they'll be persuaded to do your bidding. And if the carrot doesn't work, the other good old american tradition of the "big stick" in the shape of a photo of a Predator UAV posted to some members home addresses, can be even more effective.

    • more than 50% of the participants, then they'd have some meaningful influence.

      They might as well fund their own efforts while calling themselves Anonymous in name. There's no point in "infiltrating" Anonymous.

  • No (Score:5, Informative)

    by ewanm89 ( 1052822 ) on Monday July 25, 2011 @08:37AM (#36870026) Homepage
    One, the KGB doesn't exist anymore, 2) neither does LulzSec (technically), but even if it doesn't work like that, every single member (I use this loosely as anonymous doesn't really have members) can decide whether to take part in a particular action or not.

    • Have you ever considered how stupid it is to assume that something like the KGB would cease to exist just because it's no longer officially sanctioned? As agents of espionage and assassination, if anything, they're potentially more powerful, more capable, and more of a threat for not being "really there". It never bores me what a great idea it is to claim your intelligencia don't actually exist, or how easily duped the average, opinionated, modern person really is.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bberens ( 965711 )
        WRT KGB actually existing or not.. it doesn't really make a bit of difference in the lives of the easily duped average, opinionated, modern person. It only really matters to other governments and information agencies which likely know the truth one way or the other.
      • The KGB doesn't exist anymore. Russian intelligence agencies do exist but the KGB doesn't. You'd think that someone who remotely knows what they're talking about wouldn't end up writing an article about whether a long-defunct intelligence agency could infiltrate a defunct hacktivist group.

        Had the question been "Could the SVR infiltrate Anonymous?" or "Could the SVR infiltrate LulzRaft?" the article might not immediately look like a bad rehash of a 1980s spy novel. But I guess "LulzSec" and "KGB" are more

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tnk1 ( 899206 )

          Yes. No one knows what the SVR or the FSB is. And the fact that both of them are made up of former chekists means that calling them the KGB is not completely off base, if technically inaccurate.

          I don't like inaccuracies myself, but I also realize that I may not be the intended audience. Which probably means that the worst offense that the article is guilty of is that it was put on Slashdot. On the other hand, the readership does vote on articles so....

          As for the meat of the article, well, it is a good t

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Mr 44 ( 180750 )

          The KGB doesn't exist anymore. Russian intelligence agencies do exist but the KGB doesn't. You'd think that someone who remotely knows what they're talking about wouldn't end up writing an article about whether a long-defunct intelligence agency could infiltrate a defunct hacktivist group.
          Had the question been "Could the SVR infiltrate Anonymous?" or "Could the SVR infiltrate LulzRaft?" the article might not immediately look like a bad rehash of a 1980s spy novel

          In all fairness, it is only the slashdot summ

          • Well, in that case we just substitute "article" with "summary" in my post and stop wondering about whether the author has any idea of what they're writing about...
      • "The Soviet Union? Did you guys break up?"
        "Yeeees! That's what we wanted you to think!"

        I'm glad to see the satirical aspect of that particular Simpsons quote still holds relevence today

    • One, the KGB doesn't exist anymore

      KGB does exist [www.kgb.by], even though it's not quite the same thing.

  • It's good for these little conspirators to have to face reality at some point in time. They make great entertainment fodder for the rest of us, but they also represent unsustainability and social insulation. They're just as prone to injection as any of their targets, and due to human traits (including our major hallmark, error) there's no patching that vulnerability. Everything has its infancy; in the future the major cyberattacks will be undertaken and executed without grandstanding, seemingly developmenta

  • I'm currently reading The Net Delusion, which pretty much postulates that a lot of the noise in government and the media about the power of the internet for change is pretty much driven by a very outdated set of assumptions that date back to the end of the Cold War.

    I imagine that this fits the kind of thinking going on here, although it does seem interesting that most of the targets of these attacks are American or corporate allies.

    • I'm currently reading The Net Delusion, which pretty much postulates that a lot of the noise in government and the media about the power of the internet for change is pretty much driven by a very outdated set of assumptions that date back to the end of the Cold War.

      What I'm thinking is this: It's not of much significance that a group can be infiltrated. It is much more significant that it happens from the government side, and especially for organisations that strive for peace. I know of a dutch peace/thi

    • I'm currently reading The Net Delusion, which pretty much postulates that a lot of the noise in government and the media about the power of the internet for change is pretty much driven by a very outdated set of assumptions that date back to the end of the Cold War.

      Repost because of inconsistency between review and posting...

      What I'm thinking is this: It's not of much significance that a group can be infiltrated. It is much more significant that it happens from the government side, and especially for o

      • You think any advocacy/protest group during the cold war didn't have the backing of either the KGB or the CIA? That was one of the biggest methods of action for the intelligence agencies: sending money and training to protest groups, labor unions, student groups, etc., in target countries, teach them how to write newsletters (with hints as to what to write), etc.

        Although I'd be surprised if the Russians had any interest in LulzSec - the intelligence agencies right here at home stand to benefit much more fr

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Thud457 ( 234763 )
        but they had to monitor the peace groups to make sure that they weren't infiltrated by SPECTRE, SMERSH or HYDRA.

  • why is anyone concerned about *only* the KGB "infiltrating" lulzsec? and as other people have pointed out - it's anonymous - even to each other! so you could actually end up with the hilarious situation that the only significant contributors to anonymous and lulzsec could actually be 95% foreign intelligence agents from different countries across the world, and nobody but those people who can reliably trace 100% of the world's internet traffic would know...

  • If a country can't figure out how to (or hire someone to) run LOIC to perform DDOS's and do simple SQL injections on their own, then they've got much bigger problems than working out how to infiltrate a group of teenagers.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bberens ( 965711 )
      The goal is NOT to infiltrate LULz or Anonymous or anything of the sort. The goal is to diminish the rights of the population in favor of size of government and corporate profits.
  • Is misleading, because the KGB no longer exists!

  • "If you have a LulzSec or an Anonymous that is perhaps being manipulated by a foreign actor, it takes us back to the days of the Stasi and the KGB, which were manipulating [anti-nulear campaign group] CND quite easily from Moscow,"

    Not true in the slightest. CND and other anti-nuclear proliferation groups were not manipulated by the Soviet Union. In fact, they were just as opposed to Soviet nuclear weapons as Western ones. Though the allegation that they were controlled by Moscow were frequently thrown out by their opponents to avoid debating the insanity of stockpiling more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world ten times over. The only ones infiltrating them were the MI5, because apparently the security services had nothin

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by PPH ( 736903 )

      Of course, our intelligence agencies could plant a rumor that LulzSec was infiltrated. It would turn whatever support they have left against them. But more significantly, it will provide these agencies with an argument to fund more cyberwar initiatives.

      Beware of attempts to label plain old criminal activities as acts of war. Prosecuting a war is rarely afforded the same public scrutiny as law enforcement and judicial activities.

  • Sorry, but this assessment shows huge ignorance. Not only does he misunderstand how LuzSec and Anon' operate, he also entirely fails to explain either how a foreign government would benefit from infiltrating them or how they would go about doing so in such a spread out group.

    I think a lot of military people are stuck in the past. They don't understand the internet age. They call things "cyber wars" with "cyber armies" and imagine these big well organised forces likely well financed via the normal means.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Hatta ( 162192 )

      Fact is both LuzSec and Anon' are a threat.

      Threat to whom? The established power structure? Well sure, that's the point. A threat to you and me? No, I'm more concerned about the militarization of the police and the lawlessness of the banking industry than I am anything that happens on the internet.

  • Could anyone infiltrate a group such as this? Absolutely; there's few criteria for membership, no real review of members, no centralized leadership to weed out trolls from governments or other sources, and basically no defenses.

    The catch is, because there's no central leadership, there's not too much to gain from 'infiltrating' them. lulzsec does not operate secretly; they operate openly and blatantly. They're a rampaging elephant. And because leadership is decentralized, your careful 'people management' s

  • Obligatory Meme... (Score:4, Funny)

    by cjb658 ( 1235986 ) on Monday July 25, 2011 @09:09AM (#36870414) Journal

    In Soviet Russia, the government hacks LulzSec!

    • No no no. In Soviet Russia, the government is LulzSec.

      That would explain a lot about what happened circa 1937, in fact. All those NKVD troikas handing out 10 year sentences with less than a minute spent per court hearing, and overfilled gulags and body ditches for no apparent reasons? why, it was for the lulz.

  • An interesting read (Score:4, Informative)

    by RogueWarrior65 ( 678876 ) on Monday July 25, 2011 @09:10AM (#36870422)

    I highly recommend "Comrade J" by Pete Earley. http://www.amazon.com/Comrade-J-Pete-Earley/dp/B002BWQ5PY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1311602623&sr=8-1 [amazon.com]
    This book talks about the genesis of the SVR from the KGB. It also talks about how the whole concept of "nuclear winter" was invented by those agencies and fed to gullible westerners including Carl Sagan who steadfastly refused to believe it when NASA scientists debunked the whole thing. It also talks about what a colossal disaster the UN Oil for Food program was, who was duped, who profited from it, and more importantly who was pulling the strings. Bottom line is that foreign intelligence services don't need to do anything directly. There are plenty of idealists willing to do their dirty work.

    • Seems like Pete Earley has a book to sell!

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • as long as they connect to the Internet - why not.

    Richard Feynman showed the ignorance of military blockheads towards security.

    But they have heavily recruited and may get some ideas from those newby-geek-militarists

    until they are fed-up and realize in what a fucking insititution they have landed.

  • "They're evil hackers!" didn't seem to stick. The public laughed off "they're terrorists!" Now the powers that be are hoping "they're communists!" will sway public sentiment? That's so... cold war. Who's afraid of the KGB these days?

    I'm surprised they didn't go straight for "they sell kiddie porn". That would achieve the desired bloodlust a lot more quickly.

  • LulzSec infiltrate KGB!

  • This is silly on so many levels (Score:3)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday July 25, 2011 @09:51AM (#36870812)

    Ok, I'll try to get some order into it, starting with the most obvious one.

    1. The KGB (or rather, its successor, or whatever organization you'd think) isn't interested in such petty things. They have their own guys, and they can more easily steer them in the "right" direction. Why? Because that guy is sitting right there and you can cap him if he doesn't.

    2. They also have the money to simply buy such people. And then put them under the gun for a "hack that or else".

    3. They also have no need to "hide" anything so they'd profit from people doing it who are not in Russia. Russia is one of the biggest perpetrators in the world when it comes to cybercrime, do you want to blame all of that on the KGB or the Russian government? Unless you assume that the organized crime actually is the government in Russia, you're probably wrong. Think they'd bother to "hide" that there's yet another Russian hacking something on the planet for fun an profit?

    4. But even assuming they'd have any interest in Anonymous: Anonymous is the equivalent of an internet mob. They are not an organized system with a hierarchy and whatnot. Steering a mob is possible to some degree, you can convince them to trash something belonging to company A instead of something belonging to company B, provided they hate both companies at similar levels, but turning them around and making them a neighborhood watch or at least convincing them to trash a place they'd actually like is something you will not accomplish. You can essentially only steer a mob into attacking something they already hate. If you're that thing they hate, it's kinda hard to steer them.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by martas ( 1439879 )

      Unless you assume that the organized crime actually is the government in Russia...

      You bet your ass I do. You think the US government is corrupted by corporate interests? What do you think would happen if you removed most transparency measures from the US government, crippled the "checks and balances" on power, handcuffed the media, gave most of the money in the country to even bigger criminals than it already belongs to, and left things like that for about 20 years? Yeah, that's what Russia is today.

  • by various governments. Many of them will fail due to excessive lameness and other obvious tell-tale signs. A few will succeed. Some will be double-agents and information will flow both ways. Some will be discovered by hacks. All of this this is pretty darned obvious.

  • Yeah, they'll fit right in.

    "Let us hack together this NSA for lulz, comrade."

  • KGB has not existed for about 20 years now.

  • The only reason for a sovereign power to infiltrate an organisation made mostly of script-kiddy types that is mostly shaming private companies is to stop them.

    Russians (and Chinese) almost certainly have their own info-espionage groups which are bound to be just as good as the best LulzSec types only much better funded and with access to things such as Windows source code, info on government mandated backdoors on software and hardware, custom hardware (think USB sticks with custom firmware or even PLAs for

  • They were camped outside of RAF Upper Heyford for years. We used to read their chalkboard sign that they would post the Slogan Of The Week on. Usually it was good for a laugh or two. The camp slowly dwindled down to one old guy in a ramshackle camper. The only serious incident happened when the CNDers got enough people to have a protest that would be covered by the Press (I think it was their annual march). They approached the fence surrounding the base, cut enough links to shove a baby through, and then

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close