Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Security The Internet IT

A Hacker Has Wiped a Spyware Company's Servers -- Again (vice.com) 64

Last year, a vigilante hacker broke into the servers of a company that sells spyware to everyday consumers and wiped their servers, deleting photos captured from monitored devices. A year later, the hacker has done it again. Motherboard: Thursday, the hacker said he started wiping some cloud servers that belong to Retina-X Studios, a Florida-based company that sells spyware products targeted at parents and employers, but that are also used by people to spy on their partners without their consent. Retina-X was one of two companies that were breached last year in a series of hacks that exposed the fact that many otherwise ordinary people surreptitiously install spyware on their partners' and children's phones in order to spy on them. This software has been called "stalkerware" by some.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Hacker Has Wiped a Spyware Company's Servers -- Again

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 16, 2018 @02:28PM (#56136646)

    That a company like these should even exist is not really open to debate. It's one thing for warranted police to do this; it's quite another for the average man on the street to have this capability. As a 20-year systems administrator with loads of ability to see everything on the network, I never am tempted to do so. Unless and until HR asks me to engage in such an activity, I will never do it. People have a right to their privacy. Even here at work, I never go looking through user histories, etc. Let them do what they will short of breaking the law.

    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      I'm not really sure I approve of the police doing this any more than a random citizen. At the very least it should require approval by three separate courts and a public notice (which the target, of course, anonimized). And public notice doesn't mean a posting in some inaccessible place, but listing on a web page, something like:
      2018/02/18 15:27 warrant approved until 2018/02/25 15:30 to (stalk?..need better description) (some explicit description of what is to be surveilled).
      The explicit description of t

      • -- I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

        I think this was quite the more thought-provoking part of your post. ;) mnem Thanks for that! :D

      • So a public notice that I'm being wiretapped? That doesn't sound... counterproductive.... at all. And multiple courts would arrive at difference decisions because??

        • by HiThere ( 15173 )

          Did you notice that the identification of who was being wiretapped was hash coded? You can't easily tell who the target it, but it can be easily validated that the target was the one specified.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Privacy for all, or privacy for none.

      Allowing specific exceptions for anyone opens holes that can not be closed.

      You seem to be under the mistaken impression that police don't lie to get warrants, but they do:

      And you also seem to believe that police are trustworthy, unfortunately, they're not: https [denverpost.com]

    • I disagree this can be up to debate.
      There are Black Hat Spyware companies: Which are meant to go onto anyone's PC and all the data is just used for the company. (Clicking a link in an forged email...)
      This company is in a Gray Zone. Using such tools to monitor your kids computing habits isn't necessary bad (As your children have limited rights, which are often overrides by their patients). Then the issue if you have a Work Issued computer, for Work use, while not good HR Policy, it is their equipment to be

    • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      You know I once had a problem with poor email behaviour at a company. My solution, make everyone's email accessible by everyone else, things quietened down real fast. A full absence of privacy seems to work far better than a partial absence of privacy (some keeping theirs whilst other loose theirs). When everyone looses it, things seem to stabilise real quick, overnight in fact, sometimes the simplest solution is the best.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    but we are not that lucky.
  • by XSportSeeker ( 4641865 ) on Friday February 16, 2018 @02:55PM (#56136872)

    ...so kudos to him

  • by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Friday February 16, 2018 @03:30PM (#56137214)

    Man, this took much longer than it used to...

    Anyway, Obligatory Nelson Muntz [nocookie.net].

  • Why do I keep reading it as Slackware? And is this a new and emerging opportunity to market Slackware to more people?
  • She is married and has kids of her own now. (How the hell did I get to be old enough to be a grandfather?) But if I did have younger kids I would totally lojack their phones and computers. I would tell them about it too.
    But if anyone out there is thinking about using something like this on their SO, don't. First of all it is a massive breach of trust. Secondly if you feel that you NEED to spy on your SO, then it is already over, just walk away with some dignity.
  • Who buys this stuff? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    The customers for this company sound like interesting subjects for psychological study. Don't trust their spouses and kids, do trust nameless, faceless strangers who make software to violate people's privacy. If that ever makes sense to me, I'd rather spend the money on therapy.

    (As for the hacker, I wonder if "zer0 c00l" here believes that Angelina Jolie will be his girlfriend now?)

Think of it! With VLSI we can pack 100 ENIACs in 1 sq. cm.!

Working...