Two LulzSec Members Plead Guilty To DDOS Attacks

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

DressedInRags:

This is most certianly a point worth raising.

What these people are are kids. Kids with no training or criminal background. What these guys did, most people can learn to do and execute with enough time.

Why - and I'm astonished more people aren't asking this question - aren't we furious that such organisations could be "hacked" by these people? A lot of commenters here seem to be acting under the impression that we're dealing with fucking mob bosses here.

Tell me what site is truly secure. What was that news post a while back on how many times NASA has been hacked? We SHOULD be furious that these sites can be brought down so easily, but we should be MORE furious at the people who bring them down. Who are you going to chastise? The person breaking into a house, or the home owner for not using Schlage deadbolts.

Also, 19-20, is young. Not a kid. That's old enough to know that there are consequences for actions. Old enough to know that crimes get punished, no matter how petty. It's old enough to know that if you bring down the function of something the government owns, they are going to hit back.

LastGreatBlasphemer:

DressedInRags:

This is most certianly a point worth raising.

What these people are are kids. Kids with no training or criminal background. What these guys did, most people can learn to do and execute with enough time.

Why - and I'm astonished more people aren't asking this question - aren't we furious that such organisations could be "hacked" by these people? A lot of commenters here seem to be acting under the impression that we're dealing with fucking mob bosses here.

Tell me what site is truly secure. What was that news post a while back on how many times NASA has been hacked? We SHOULD be furious that these sites can be brought down so easily, but we should be MORE furious at the people who bring them down. Who are you going to chastise? The person breaking into a house, or the home owner for not using Schlage deadbolts.

Also, 19-20, is young. Not a kid. That's old enough to know that there are consequences for actions. Old enough to know that crimes get punished, no matter how petty. It's old enough to know that if you bring down the function of something the government owns, they are going to hit back.

Depends if you're an american or not
They have a weird view of maturity and "kids" in relation to age.
I mean here in spain the goddamn laoc is 13 years old

Radelaide:
Is it just me, or is Asperger's Syndrome now becoming the new "it" disease. I'm pretty sure most people are self-diagnosed sufferers who just want an excuse to be an uncouth cunt.

Well, it's certainly become the media's new favorite disorder. I wouldn't call it a disease as it's not catching, it just means the person in question's mind functions differently than the "average" person. And with all disabilities, there is a range from high functioning to low functioning. It's also surrounded by many misdiagnoses and it's over diagnosed (much like ADD and ADHD) by professional psychiatrists for kids that don't have it, while sometimes ignoring kids that do.

What bothers me about saying he's a "sufferer" is that it seems like they're trying to say that the person in question is mentally incompetent. But that's far from the case, a person with Asperger's approaches the world differently than other people and their interactions with it are a reflection the way they see it. But most are perfectly rational and reasonable people, capable of understanding their own actions and the consequences of them.

Actually, it bothers me because it shows the inherent bias of multiple cultures towards people with "mental disabilities". I have ADD and though it's become much more common in the past decade, I'm sometimes treated like there's something wrong with me. There isn't.

I'm not trying to come down on you, it's just calling it a disease is kind of offensive. Sheldon on the Big Bang Theory is also offensive in the same way. Some people with Asperger's certainly do behave like terribly offensive, uncouth idiots regardless of whether or not they're diagnosed. But other people do too, regardless of age, gender, skin color, or culture. Saying he acted out this way because he's Asperger's doesn't excuse his actions, it may be part of the legal plea but it just makes me want to slam my head into the table.

nightwolf667:

Radelaide:
Is it just me, or is Asperger's Syndrome now becoming the new "it" disease. I'm pretty sure most people are self-diagnosed sufferers who just want an excuse to be an uncouth cunt.

Well, it's certainly become the media's new favorite disorder. I wouldn't call it a disease as it's not catching, it just means the person in question's mind functions differently than the "average" person. And with all disabilities, there is a range from high functioning to low functioning. It's also surrounded by many misdiagnoses and it's over diagnosed (much like ADD and ADHD) by professional psychiatrists for kids that don't have it, while sometimes ignoring kids that do.

What bothers me about saying he's a "sufferer" is that it seems like they're trying to say that the person in question is mentally incompetent. But that's far from the case, a person with Asperger's approaches the world differently than other people and their interactions with it are a reflection the way they see it. But most are perfectly rational and reasonable people, capable of understanding their own actions and the consequences of them.

Actually, it bothers me because it shows the inherent bias of multiple cultures towards people with "mental disabilities". I have ADD and though it's become much more common in the past decade, I'm sometimes treated like there's something wrong with me. There isn't.

I'm not trying to come down on you, it's just calling it a disease is kind of offensive. Sheldon on the Big Bang Theory is also offensive in the same way. Some people with Asperger's certainly do behave like terribly offensive, uncouth idiots regardless of whether or not they're diagnosed. But other people do too, regardless of age, gender, skin color, or culture. Saying he acted out this way because he's Asperger's doesn't excuse his actions, it may be part of the legal plea but it just makes me want to slam my head into the table.

As someone who suffers from pretty severe depression/anxiety, I know exactly where you're coming from. I'm sick of hearing that every John, Dick and Harry has it. But I know people IRL who say they have Asperger's but they're just using it as an excuse to be assholes.

I'd like to see medical records on this kid (only including his diagnosis) on how severe his "disorder" is. I think the attorney he's using it just using it as an excuse to get his sentence reduced.

Disease probably wasn't the correct term, so I apologise, but it still fits the point.

80Maxwell08:
Why does it matter if he goes to prison there or in the US if he's still going in prison anyway?

US prisons are notorious around the world for their poor treatment of prisoners and often harsh sentencing, and the fact that in the US friends and family won't be able to visit him.

LastGreatBlasphemer:

viranimus:

Much as I said, I was not aware that overloading a server with traffic was made a crime. Would you care to cite the source of the longstanding US law that makes it illegal to overwhelm a server please so as I do not make this error again?

Actually that's a very interesting topic.

A website costs money to keep up and running, especially when high traffic is involved. And these are not personal websites with a visitor counter in the double digits.
Now, like I said, that means money is spent to keep it up and running.
Which means that purposely flooding it with traffic with the express intent to make it shut down, (IE: Unlawful blocking of service) is in fact a crime.

The "hackers" do not own the site, the IP, or provide monetary aid to keep it running.
Therefore any attempt to bring it down is, currently, by law, Vandalism. If you have a problem with that being vandalism, stay off the internet. As I've said before, if you like the internet you've enjoyed in the past, there are rules that have to be obeyed. Taking someone down just because you disagree with them, is against the rules.

But there are some flaws with that. First off the likes of Sony do not pay other organizations to host their servers. They host and regulate their own servers. So it is not as if being inundated with trivial request is going to hit a overload bandwidth kickoff that many hosting services utilize to generate income. In the course of expense there is no additional money lost regardless of it they receive one request or 1 trillion per millisecond.

Secondly, in many cases these people (No I will not refer to them as hackers because no actual hacking occurred) DO in fact provide monetary aid to the company. Sony again is a perfect example. I think it goes without saying that there is likely not a single one of the ones who were supposedly behind the Sony attack that did not buy Sony products along the way.

But to claim vandalism? DDoS attacks do not destroy data or damage it. Once the protest is over that data is the exact same as it ever was. In the case of some cracks the data might be modified as in replacing a webpages background from a sunset to a bag full of donkey phali, but those are not the DDoS attacks we are looking for.

And the question I posed is what specific law was created to make it illegal. Applying and reworking an existing law that does not quite fit is what I was trying to point out. Ive yet to see a specific US law mentioned that specifically states DDoS attacks or actually properly reflects the actions involved with the supposed crime.

I would like to see the legally ratified laws of the internet if these laws do exist. That is why I ask, because I did not get the memo that the laws had yet been drafted.

Bvenged:

Grey Carter:
"Arrest us. We dare you," the (ugh) hacktivist group tweeted back in July of last year.

The authorities did exactly that. Several alleged members of the group were arrested after a joint investigation by Scotland Yard and the FBI.

Epic Fail

Game Over

Now I want cruel and unusual punishment for those 2.

Sentence to hang by ethernet cord or something.

Or something less excessive.

Ogargd:

80Maxwell08:
Why does it matter if he goes to prison there or in the US if he's still going in prison anyway?

US prisons are notorious around the world for their poor treatment of prisoners and often harsh sentencing, and the fact that in the US friends and family won't be able to visit him.

So basically the FBI wants to make him suffer for humiliating them.

Radelaide:

As someone who suffers from pretty severe depression/anxiety, I know exactly where you're coming from. I'm sick of hearing that every John, Dick and Harry has it. But I know people IRL who say they have Asperger's but they're just using it as an excuse to be assholes.

And I know two people in real life who both have it, and have heard horror stories about third. One acknowledges and addresses his behavior, the other exists in a fantasy reality of his own making and rejects anything that contradicts his own views. The third refuses any acknowledgement of reality, takes medication meant for someone with bi-polar and uses every excuse to be an asshole. He apparently takes his computer into family restaurants with porn for his background. So, I know where you're coming from too.

Assholes of any stripe are frustrating to deal with, but like any disorder it comes in many colors and many strokes. It's the same as saying that someone with Asperger's is the same as someone with autism, a person can have both but they are ultimately different. The thing about mental "disorders" is that they are part of who a person is, you can medicate it and maybe treat it so that the individual in question is better at functioning among other people. But all the drugs in the world and all the therapy sessions will never change the fact, whether it's Asperger's or ADD, that it's part of who you are. Disease implies that it is something a person will eventually get better from, recover from, move on from.

I've also been down that deep dark pit that is depression (more than once), but the difference is I can climb up out of it (if I work at it). Maybe even be free someday. I can't get rid of the ADD (and I don't want to). I'm not going to get better, I can modify my behavior to make someone else more comfortable, but it's not some segmented separate part of my personality. That, in a nutshell, is why I don't think of it as a disease.

But, yes, there are many many assholes in this world and they should all be flogged. :D

Radelaide:
I'd like to see medical records on this kid (only including his diagnosis) on how severe his "disorder" is. I think the attorney he's using it just using it as an excuse to get his sentence reduced.

Disease probably wasn't the correct term, so I apologise, but it still fits the point.

Only if you assume he can get "better". But yes, I hope his psychiatrist is a good one for that to hold up in court. And it certainly doesn't excuse him being an asshole. We're just going to have disagree on the disease point.

80Maxwell08:

Ogargd:

80Maxwell08:
Why does it matter if he goes to prison there or in the US if he's still going in prison anyway?

US prisons are notorious around the world for their poor treatment of prisoners and often harsh sentencing, and the fact that in the US friends and family won't be able to visit him.

So basically the FBI wants to make him suffer for humiliating them.

Putting it like that makes it sounds a bit more acceptable to do =P but due to his mental illness and possible mental fragility I hope they just let him stay in England, ethically speaking.

Ogargd:

80Maxwell08:

Ogargd:

US prisons are notorious around the world for their poor treatment of prisoners and often harsh sentencing, and the fact that in the US friends and family won't be able to visit him.

So basically the FBI wants to make him suffer for humiliating them.

Putting it like that makes it sounds a bit more acceptable to do =P but due to his mental illness and possible mental fragility I hope they just let him stay in England, ethically speaking.

Agreed. He's already caught and in jail. It's done let him stay there.

80Maxwell08:

Ogargd:

80Maxwell08:
Why does it matter if he goes to prison there or in the US if he's still going in prison anyway?

US prisons are notorious around the world for their poor treatment of prisoners and often harsh sentencing, and the fact that in the US friends and family won't be able to visit him.

So basically the FBI wants to make him suffer for humiliating them.

I'm totally with them if they want to do that. You can't invite them to do something then hide behind "Aspergers" when it suits. Do the crime, do the time, etc.

Monxeroth:

Depends if you're an american or not
They have a weird view of maturity and "kids" in relation to age.
I mean here in spain the goddamn laoc is 13 years old

I would say it doesn't matter where you're from.
If you've been alive for 2 decades, you should know something about the world around you. Otherwise it's just time to put you down. If you can't figure shit out in 2 decades, then two more aren't going to benefit you.
By the time I was 18 I knew about: plagiarism, vandalism, statutory rape- the list goes on. 2 decades is a long time to learn a lot about the world. And you will learn a lot more in the following years. But if you're twenty and can't be treated like an adult (usually because you can't act like one [and it's really not hard to act like an adult. It usually comes naturally]), you will never be.

viranimus:

But there are some flaws with that. First off the likes of Sony do not pay other organizations to host their servers. They host and regulate their own servers. So it is not as if being inundated with trivial request is going to hit a overload bandwidth kickoff that many hosting services utilize to generate income. In the course of expense there is no additional money lost regardless of it they receive one request or 1 trillion per millisecond.

I don't see the relevance of this statement. It's supposed to be harder to DDOS Sony? Please elaborate, you've lost me on this one.

Secondly, in many cases these people (No I will not refer to them as hackers because no actual hacking occurred) DO in fact provide monetary aid to the company. Sony again is a perfect example. I think it goes without saying that there is likely not a single one of the ones who were supposedly behind the Sony attack that did not buy Sony products along the way.

Purchasing a Sony product and paying for a Sony service are two different things that are legally held to two different standards. If anything, after I make a purchase on PSN my credit card information should be purged after the purchase is approved ( I would love if this happened). I'm not giving them money to protect my information, so I can't in good conscience demand better service in that respect.

But to claim vandalism? DDoS attacks do not destroy data or damage it. Once the protest is over that data is the exact same as it ever was. In the case of some cracks the data might be modified as in replacing a webpages background from a sunset to a bag full of donkey phali, but those are not the DDoS attacks we are looking for.

Honestly, I think it's the best legal equivalent we have. The other way of looking at it is to classify it as a non-approved picket line. Yes, in America, you have to get a permit to protest. In this case the protest has not been filed, and is actively stopping people from accessing the database, which could result in loss of money. I believe this is where suing comes in, but I'm not a legal expert. It's like my wood flamingo in my front lawn. You're not allowed to fuck with it, it's mine.

And the question I posed is what specific law was created to make it illegal. Applying and reworking an existing law that does not quite fit is what I was trying to point out. Ive yet to see a specific US law mentioned that specifically states DDoS attacks or actually properly reflects the actions involved with the supposed crime.

This is going to again have to go back to whatever law protects businesses from people actively preventing customers from entering a building. "Breaking the law" (while being a cliche thanks to Judas Priest [I love you Rob!]) is kind of a blanket term. They may not have violated a law, but they violated someone's rights. Usually the rights of the business, businesses aren't people, but that doesn't give you the right to remove signs from their building.

I would like to see the legally ratified laws of the internet if these laws do exist. That is why I ask, because I did not get the memo that the laws had yet been drafted.

I don't think we need new laws, I think we need better activists. These script kiddies do more harm than good for their cause anyway.

LastGreatBlasphemer:
.

I don't see the relevance of this statement. It's supposed to be harder to DDOS Sony? Please elaborate, you've lost me on this one.

Ok Ill elaborate this one.

A website costs money to keep up and running, especially when high traffic is involved.

Yes it costs money to keep a website up and running, but a company like sony runs their own independent servers, so they are not going to charge themselves more to run their own servers just because of failing to meet traffic spikes. Sonys servers cost them the same to own/operate if they are up and running at 100% capacity or completely offline. So being overran by LOIC zombies has no actual bearing financially.

Beyond that... Despite how people think, the internet is not a physical place. Trying to apply logic of the physical world does not always work in the digital. The issue is far more complex than protesters and picket lines, or stay off my lawn. Thats why you cant simply apply physical world charges to the realm of the digital because it is not the same thing.

If we need anything, what we need is something to put a stop to the shenanigans that prompted the formation of lulzsec. Lulzsec didnt just form literally just for the lulz. It formed as a direct consequence of Sony's actions. You treat the cause, not the effect and most of what prompted lulzsec to do what they did all circles back to what Sony tried to pull with the PS3 jailbreak and their detailed chorus line of sphincterocity that followed. Had Sony not been allowed to continue litigation and laughed out of court like the should have been given the already recently concluded jailbreaking precedent, you would have never seen lulzsec at all.

On the rest of the dissection, youve stated your opinion, ive stated mine, it would be repetitive to continue to speak on it.

And the lesson of the day is "Don't dare someone to kick you in the ass while you're shitting on their lawn", kids. Of all the sad and groan-worthy things announced as news on this site (just like the real world!), egging the police on to arrest you while you're being accused of doing something illegal is one of the most Darwin Award-worthy of late.

At least the smartass got what he asked for, so there's some good to be had here.

Eveonline100:

i agree with you on the 2nd point you make but (being a guy who isn't a computer expert) explain to me how take down the CIA website without hacking into their computers.

A DDOS is a distributed denial of service. Basically it's like visiting the escapist on some wednesdays - there are a lot more computers requesting to download zero punctuation than the server can handle, so it can only fulfill some of those requests, meaning not everyone can access the site. When a hacker group DDOSes, they generally rent a botnet of computers with malware on them, and access the same page several thousands times every second. The idea is to flood the server with requests so fast that it can't tell which ones are genuine.

Compared to something like an XSS vulnerability or an vulnerable version of apache (server software), where you would probably have to write your own code and take a lot of things into consideration before hacking a site, a DDOS is the equivalent of pressing a big red button and then going to twitter to shout about how 1337 you are. It doesn't have any long-term effects but loses revenue for sites & is annoying as hell for the people in charge of the computers.

I couldn't find the clip from V for Vendetta so i'll qoute it;

image
"Not so funny now is it, funny man?"

Hang on. One or more of these LulzSec brats are Aspies?

Suddenly this all makes so much more sense now! *has Aspergers too*

They did literally ask for it. They were just being random douchebags, fuck 'em, I say.

Grey Carter:
Asperger's Syndrome sufferer, Cleary, who is being...

As someone with PDD-NOS, I don't approve of this phrasing. No one with Autism, Asperger's, or PDD-NOS suffers from it. There are problems that arise, but they can all be worked around to an extent. Any suffering only comes from frustrations that derive from not having found a way to work around the disability, not the disability itself.

Besides, mentioning that he has Asperger's added nothing to the article. It seems more like an attempt to keep the readers interested by mentioning a strange! and bizarre! disability. It makes me think of the same mentality that led to the saying, "If it bleeds, it leads."

LastGreatBlasphemer:

DressedInRags:

This is most certianly a point worth raising.

What these people are are kids. Kids with no training or criminal background. What these guys did, most people can learn to do and execute with enough time.

Why - and I'm astonished more people aren't asking this question - aren't we furious that such organisations could be "hacked" by these people? A lot of commenters here seem to be acting under the impression that we're dealing with fucking mob bosses here.

Tell me what site is truly secure. What was that news post a while back on how many times NASA has been hacked? We SHOULD be furious that these sites can be brought down so easily, but we should be MORE furious at the people who bring them down. Who are you going to chastise? The person breaking into a house, or the home owner for not using Schlage deadbolts.

Also, 19-20, is young. Not a kid. That's old enough to know that there are consequences for actions. Old enough to know that crimes get punished, no matter how petty. It's old enough to know that if you bring down the function of something the government owns, they are going to hit back.

I'm not saying that crimes should go unpunished (although DDOS attacks should not be considered illegal), just that it's absurd that we're not demanding to know why something that should be able to take it simply isn't.

viranimus:

Yes it costs money to keep a website up and running, but a company like sony runs their own independent servers, so they are not going to charge themselves more to run their own servers just because of failing to meet traffic spikes. Sonys servers cost them the same to own/operate if they are up and running at 100% capacity or completely offline. So being overran by LOIC zombies has no actual bearing financially.

Ah, thank you for the clarification.

Beyond that... Despite how people think, the internet is not a physical place. Trying to apply logic of the physical world does not always work in the digital. The issue is far more complex than protesters and picket lines, or stay off my lawn. Thats why you cant simply apply physical world charges to the realm of the digital because it is not the same thing.

You're right, the internet is not physical, data is not physical, but when data is in the wrong hands, it causes physical harm. We need boundaries even in our imagination otherwise we lose touch with reality. The internet isn't some intangible being, it can be shut off. In the coming years I think we're going to see some major changes, whether for good or bad, to how the internet works. Saying, "It's just data" justifies the actions and patronizes the victims of identity theft. It's not something the be held so lightly.

If we need anything, what we need is something to put a stop to the shenanigans that prompted the formation of lulzsec. Lulzsec didnt just form literally just for the lulz. It formed as a direct consequence of Sony's actions. You treat the cause, not the effect and most of what prompted lulzsec to do what they did all circles back to what Sony tried to pull with the PS3 jailbreak and their detailed chorus line of sphincterocity that followed. Had Sony not been allowed to continue litigation and laughed out of court like the should have been given the already recently concluded jailbreaking precedent, you would have never seen lulzsec at all.

Agreed. One problem at a time. And lulzsec is easier for the government to smack around.

On the rest of the dissection, youve stated your opinion, ive stated mine, it would be repetitive to continue to speak on it.

Okay.

.
.
.

DressedInRags:

I'm not saying that crimes should go unpunished (although DDOS attacks should not be considered illegal), just that it's absurd that we're not demanding to know why something that should be able to take it simply isn't.

Why shouldn't DDOSing be illegal? A lot of websites rely on traffic for their revenue. Many rely on page views just to stay up and running. And what about sponsored links?
When someone DDOSes that site, well, you've just stopped their income. Why shouldn't that be illegal? Why should strong arming someone out of the money they work for be legal?

The second part is the major problem. Should be able to take it, and built for high traffic are two different things. A lot of people accessing something all at once is not the same as a lot of people coming and going. It's like a door, and only so many people can go through a door at once.

and this is why you don,t glamorize your hack attacks.

Grey Carter:

"Arrest us. We dare you," the (ugh) hacktivist group tweeted back in July of last year.

The authorities did exactly that.

I think this is the single most gratifying thing I have read on the internet in YEARS!

Penguinis Weirdus:
Its true I'm currently doing it for my degree. Hacking is a less awesome than the films make it out to be, still fun and you learn groovy things about computers but its not like the movies at all.

DiamanteGeeza:
If the latter, then his defense lawyer is probably clinging onto every last straw she can to have his sentence reduced. If I were in her shoes, I'd do the same... wouldn't you?

I'm pretty sure if you wouldn't you're professionally obligated to quit.

Dags90:

I'm pretty sure if you wouldn't you're professionally obligated to quit.

Under UK employment law and contract law, you cannot be fired for refusing to carry out illegal actions and they cant make you sign a contract that breaks the law, and if it does (this bit I'm not sure about so bear with me) those parts that are illegal you aren't obliged to carry out.

I'm presuming the US has similar laws

Penguinis Weirdus:
Under UK employment law and contract law, you cannot be fired for refusing to carry out illegal actions and they cant make you sign a contract that breaks the law, and if it does (this bit I'm not sure about so bear with me) those parts that are illegal you aren't obliged to carry out.

I'm presuming the US has similar laws

I'm not sure what that's referring to. I was specifically referring to the fact that, under U.S. law, a lawyer is obligated to put forth the best defense possible. I'm assuming the UK has similar protections.

"oh hay, if I use my great talent legally ill earn shitloads of money but I wont be special... Better ruin some other great programmers' hard work! That will show em!"

Idiots...

GiglameshSoulEater:
Well, at least America haven't actually nicked these (like that innocent guy a while back), and let us handle them.

Lethos:
Why do all the hackers I read about end up being British? Does this country have some sort of hacker-child training programme or what?

Well, I have seen a university course for 'ethical' hacking. No joke.

Ethical hacking is a completely legitimate way of hardening a system against attack. I used it at my last position to harden our systems as we were increasingly seeing anomalous contacts from China.

As for credit card details being stolen, blame the folks holding those details originally - they're the ones with a responsibility to secure those details. That means NOT storing them unencrypted.

nightwolf667:
I can't get rid of the ADD (and I don't want to). I'm not going to get better, I can modify my behavior to make someone else more comfortable, but it's not some segmented separate part of my personality.

Nor should we - it's part of what makes us excellent multi-taskers and lateral problem-solvers - we operate on multiple levels simultaneously.

BlueMage:

As for credit card details being stolen, blame the folks holding those details originally - they're the ones with a responsibility to secure those details. That means NOT storing them unencrypted.

And remember, if a thief smashes your car window and rips out your radio, it's your fault for not having stronger windows.

Buretsu:

BlueMage:

As for credit card details being stolen, blame the folks holding those details originally - they're the ones with a responsibility to secure those details. That means NOT storing them unencrypted.

And remember, if a thief smashes your car window and rips out your radio, it's your fault for not having stronger windows.

Especially if I'm stupid enough to also leave the car unlocked or not have other anti-theft measures in place.

SuperNova221:

Kahunaburger:
The real story is that governments and major corporations somehow managed to get embarrassed by these kids. No, FBI, the fact that your people used the same passwords for their .gov accounts and their favorite porn sites doesn't make the people who exploited this "skilled hackers."

Reminds me a bit of this (http://xkcd.com/932/) xkcd strip.

As for the common passwords thing, I don't understand why that's embarrassing for them. I could've told you that a bunch of them are computer inept enough to do that well before it was comfirmed. It just goes without saying really.

I mean, it wont be until today's twenty somethings get into the higher echelons of the FBI. Then the passwords will be "better". Lets face it though, How many of us are guilty of using the same password for everything and then putting sticky notes up for the ones that force us to use sophisticated passwords.

Humans will always be the weakest link in network security.

Grey Carter:
"Cleary is a skilled hacker. He controlled his own botnet, employed sophisticated methods and his broad geographic scope affected a large number of businesses and individuals," an FBI spokesperson told Reuters back in June.

And he'll be working for them within the year. Cyber warfare is the new front lines, having a skilled soldier is more important than an arrest statistic.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here