ie8 fix
Click Here

Between the Lines

Larry Dignan, Andrew Nusca and Rachel King

LulzSec: Is it too cocky for its own good?

By | June 21, 2011, 6:04am PDT

With a 19-year-old behind bars following network intrusions and denial of service attacks against “a number of international business and intelligence agencies,” the fate of LulzSec remains an open question.

If the group is strong, the arrest of LulzSec’s alleged ringleader is a short-term win for law enforcement agencies, but nothing else. If LulzSec isn’t exactly ready for prime-time, the flameout is spectacular. For its part, LulzSec said it’s more than a one man band on its Twitter account.

London’s e-crime unit said in a statement:

Officers from the Metropolitan Police Central e-Crime Unit (PCeU) have arrested a 19-year-old man in a pre-planned intelligence-led operation.

The arrest follows an investigation into network intrusions and Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks against a number of international business and intelligence agencies by what is believed to be the same hacking group.

The teenager was arrested on suspicion of Computer Misuse Act, and Fraud Act offences and was taken to a central London police station, where he currently remains in custody for questioning.

Searches at a residential address in Wickford, Essex, following the arrest last night have led to the examination of a significant amount of material. These forensic examinations remain ongoing.

Note that this man in custody may not be the LulzSec leader, notes ZDNet UK. Nevertheless, it took all of a few minutes for a Pastebin post to give this 19-year-old a name. Take that link for what it’s worth. There is no confirmation just yet. Scotland Yard’s release hints at a LulzSec connection, but that’s it.

As Sophos noted, all eyes will now be on the LulzSec Twitter account. If LulzSec was a one-man band then that Twitter feed will be stopped in its tracks. Obviously that’s not the case. LulzSec continues.

When you ponder LulzSec’s attacks and the showmanship of the site (Love Boat theme) and Twitter feed, which was entertaining at times, it’s not a stretch to see a 19-year-old running the operation. In fact, the cockiness of the whole LulzSec operation seems a bit juvenile. Why would a group broadcast “Operation Antisecurity?” That effort was designed to be more like Wikileaks and expose hacks. If that was the aim, why would you broadcast such an operation?

If Anonymous is the serious hactivism group, LulzSec is the court jester. Think the Joker in the Batman series. LulzSec is organizing attacks against governments and corporate entities largely for the glory. LulzSec seems to be in the game for fame—not money.

However, LulzSec may be overstepping. It’s one thing to hack Sony, the CIA, FBI and the Serious Organized Crime Agency (SOCA). It’s quite another to thump your chest wildly about those attacks. If LulzSec is beheaded with this arrest it’s clear that the group’s cockiness only wound up law enforcement. Even veteran hacker Kevin Mitnick said that LulzSec was way bold.

Mitnick starts talking about LulzSec at about the 4 minute mark in the following video via CBS News’ What’s Trending.

On the other hand, LulzSec may inspire other hackers. Future groups may leave the cockiness at home and quietly do a lot more damage. It’s not like LulzSec’s potential demise will do much to shore up security efforts in various companies.

Related:

Around the network:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic.

Disclosure

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan has nothing to disclose. He doesn’t hold investments in the technology companies he covers.

Biography

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic. He was most recently Executive Editor of News and Blogs at ZDNet. Prior to that he was executive news editor at eWeek and news editor at Baseline. He also served as the East Coast news editor and finance editor at CNET News.com. Larry has covered the technology and financial services industry since 1995, publishing articles in WallStreetWeek.com, Inter@ctive Week, The New York Times, and Financial Planning magazine. He's a graduate of the Columbia School of Journalism and the University of Delaware.

For daily updates, follow Larry on Twitter.

114
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: LulzSec: Is it too cocky for its own good?
talih Updated - 8th Aug
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
sesli chat sesli sohbet
0 Votes
+ -
ummmm, yes
facebook@... 21st Jun
Lulzsec is an atavistic throwback to hackers who hacked for glory and fun. Their arrest is a foregone conclusion.

The bulk of todays modern hackers tend to do so for profit, not fun. They quietly create large apache botnets or sit on 13 year old password security bug fixes to monetize the exploit.
@facebook@... I know what exploit you're talking about, and that only applies if you ahve access to a copy of the hash, the person is using Blowfish (which most people use either SHA or MD5) and is using the # sign and a short password...
@facebook@...

The eventual dangers of LulzSec and Anonymous' unchecked spread, increasing audacity, and ever-improving tools and hiding methods are vastly underestimated by business IT (except those in security), and by mass media who bought the criminals' self-portrayal as "merry pranksters."

In a worst-case scenario, hackers break down a few more critical security doors, then sell the access to a hostile foreign government.

That country's demented leadership disrupts U.S. government functions and commerce lanes by stopping email communications, wholesale DDOS-ing government and business sites, and demanding ransoms to allow traffic to resume. Or just letting us fester in calamity.

That foreign government could commandeer all the Web access out of its country, then focus a hefty bank of servers on selected U.S. companies, federal, state and municipal sites. They could DDOS us into submission in a few hours. Now suppose their success emboldened other countries hostile to the U.S. to do likewise.

Since we've shown we can't stop foreign countries--even our own hackers'--digital attacks, our non-clever government would "be forced to" carelessly use armed force.

And where would that end?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec: Is it too cocky for its own good?
ibsteve2u Updated - 21st Jun
@archetuthus: Not something we're concerned about in the U.S.

They hack our business IT, they'll miss by 12,000 miles. It's in India.
@archetuthus

You assume that all of this is not government sponsored (directly ir indirectly). Why would government sponsor something like this that would result in its exposing its own dirty laundry?

For one the persons who would do this are not part of the public facade of government we see every day but are the real behind the scenes power brokers, the persons put in place by the elite and not the elected stooges or front men. These power men would most certainly do something like this as a way to justify to the public a heavy handed crackdown on internet use/access under the guise it?s to protect everyone from groups like lulzsec. Can you say ?Internet Kill Switch? ? I knew you could.

And just in case some duped zombie tries to reply with ?That?s Just conspiracy theory? just keep in mind that more of the populace are wake today than ever and that we are on to the long running con game that the rich and powerful (the real rich and powerful and not the front men listed in Lifestyles of The Rich and Famous? have been playing with their hacks inside of government . In fact, the only people left who still believe the government is not willing to do this kind of corrupt action to grant it more power over the populace (and are willing to comment about that on the web) are the brain dead zombies plastered every night at prime time to Dancing With the Idiots and the pro-government hacks/operatives on the payroll of these elite who are working to down play comments from posters like this.
Why don't these people put their knowledge to good use and find something constructive instead of destructive to do with it. Help people instead of hurting them. The recognition will be the same...perhaps even more because they will be remembered over time instead of forgotten in time.
0 Votes
+ -
@dcritter

They are helping. They're exposing stupid network flaws and how lousy the IT security is. Unfortunately too many companies are buying some hollywood portrayal of hackers and thinking these are die-hard skilled criminals when in fact they're just really, really motivated trolls. These hackers aren't good, the companies' IT security is just plain BAD, and they need to stop THEIR cockiness and actually bother to fix it!
@facebook@...

Apache botnets? Apache is a webserver... Not botnet software. Maybe an exploit that can get you root on a machine to make it a part of a botnet is done through apache, or you use an apache exploit for XSS to get clients as drones... But without the qualifications I just added your statement makes no sense.
0 Votes
+ -
An easy way to bury bad news
James Williams2008 21st Jun
Yeah, the UK government has caught the ringleader just hours after news breaks of Lulzsec hacking and grabbing the 2011 UK census. Turning the top story from "UK gov bunch of useless sh**-sticks" into "Amazing UK government break hacking ring."

Clearly just some poor devil who's been offered to the media as a distracting scapegoat.
@James Williams2008 According to their twitter feed, they weren't the ones who hacked the census. And given how they appear to be in this mostly for the publicity, I imagine they'd lay claim to it if it was them.
@Bucky24

I think the point of scapegoating is that the accused tends to not be responsible.
0 Votes
+ -
@James Williams2008
Yep, the first question to ask is: where is the benefit? What on earth could a "hacker" benefit from the 2011 UK census data? Just as what on earth could a "burglar" benefit from the accounting books of a union, that got conveniently "stolen" just before an audit? Same fake intrusion story.
0 Votes
+ -
yo Dade...it's time to call upon Razor and Blade...Hack the Planet! :P
0 Votes
+ -
@dvointeractive
Funny thing is I just watched that last night happy
0 Votes
+ -
Haha nice!
DevJonny 21st Jun
happy
0 Votes
+ -
Criminals like this need to all be taken out and executed for the good of society.
@DaveMorris I agree. So should criminals who text while driving, because you know, that actually costs people's lives.
So hackers never cost people their lives? Did you read about the hackers who change dosages at hospitals? And if hackers cost enough companies enough money, they lay people off and lack of money can also cost lives.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec: Is it too cocky for its own good?
snoop0x7b Updated - 21st Jun
@OldPoet: How about some accountability for companies who leave their software vulnerable to obvious exploits like SQL injection? Furthermore your argument is false for the most part because most businesses have business insurance.

By your argument any crime can cost a life, what you're doing is called a shell game. Robbing a house could cause someone who owns a company not to have enough money, and then lay off an employee to cover his losses, ergo that could cost a life. It's just asinine and a logical fallacy.

Obviously if a hacker changes someone's dose that's murder... But it's a lot different from stealing a list of email addresses and passwords and accordingly it's a murder charge. That's why we have separate crimes for separate actions regardless of the means. The means can determine one of the charges, such as unauthorized use of a computer system, but the other charge would be first degree murder.
0 Votes
+ -
@snoop0x7b +1!
0 Votes
+ -
@snoop0x7b

Yes texting is clearly dangerous, as is using a moby and holding it at your ear whilst driving.

But you wont be so cocky when someone finds one of your passwords online; works out how it might be used on other sites, and grabs either your identity or some of your dosh. It aint that far away if you ak me... and at this rate the internet will become a locked down VPN cloud. I reckon we'll all be using security tokens and VPN tunnels for our financial transactions within a year at this rate.

Who in their right mind would trust their passwords to all they own to an internet site these days? There are plenty who do in blissful ignorance of the risks... plent folk who consider themselves 'clever and astute' are in for a shock !
@GetReal-mac.com If someone gets one of my passwords from an online website, it won't do them much good because the passwords to everything important are not duplicated, even amongst themselves....

I'm of the opinion that the punishment should fit the crime... And the punishment that fits this crime isn't summary execution.
@DaveMorris - Executed huh ? I'm sure glad you are a nobody. Double up those meds and see if that helps.
I don't agree with him BUT if governments did start executing these cyber vandals I wouldn't complain - hackers have killed people by hacking into hospital records and changing dosages - and would kill more if they could do so from their computers.
0 Votes
+ -
@dev/null the hackers are the nobodies. Shoot them, it will teach them a lesson.
What an honor, God, for you to take time out of your busy day to post your educated comments here!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec: Is it too cocky for its own good?
Joel Hedge Updated - 21st Jun
I agree. Once proven the SOBs should be sumarially executed as well as all people that write trojans and viruses. I would suggest public hangings or firing squads. I will pay for the bullets.
0 Votes
+ -
unbelievable...
LilBambi_z Updated - 21st Jun
@Joel Hedge ...who died and left you king?

There are murderers that get off the hook due to having very expensive unethical lawyers and you are talking about killing these guys?

There are countries that cut off people's hands for stealing, but killing them?
@Joel Hedge
I can't believe what I'm reading!
No due process, no trial, no chance to defend one's self, not even a chance at redemption. Just shoot'em all and let the good lord sort them out?
How very archaic. Savage even.
Yes, damage is done, but it hardly calls for that kind of stuff.
And as for paying for bullets, doesn't that then make you an accomplice to horrific acts? Ironically enough, in your way of thinking, punishable by a hail of bullets.

Terrible.
0 Votes
+ -
@Joel Hedge Hear, hear! I'd pay to see that too!
0 Votes
+ -
@Joel Hedge - And if your machine is used to launch an attack via a sizable botnet, with a purposefully amateurish attempt to obfuscate your ip, then who pays for your bullets when They come to take you down? But you would be ok with not having your day in court? According to your logic, if you appear to be a hacker, then we will gun you down with the rest, right?
@DaveMorris
I agree 100%. Public execution would be an effective deterrent to any other ******** thinking of following in their footsteps.
Hackers are costing untold billions and contribute nothing to society, KILL THEM ALL AND LET GOD SORT THEM OUT.
0 Votes
+ -
@Cobranut - Aren't we also paying an insane amount of money for imprisoned murderers who contribute nothing to society?
0 Votes
+ -
@Cobranut
"Hackers are costing untold billions and contribute nothing to society, KILL THEM ALL AND LET GOD SORT THEM OUT. "

Silly you Cobanut....You meant BANKERS...right?
0 Votes
+ -
@DaveMorris +1!
0 Votes
+ -
@DaveMorris - Just like the 'war on copying', the 'war on drugs' & 'the war on terror', huh? Never mind that the actions of enforcement dictate the mindset of the innocent, never mind that it's not the individuals who create the problem, but rather the way of thinking that influences those to choose to act in a criminal manner? You can't stop a way of thinking, by taking out individual people. The only effective solution to implement your idea, is to identify anyone who even understands what a hacker is, isolate those from creating any further influence on the handful left, then carefully monitor every minute moment of everyone left behind for any sign of independent thought that could lead to the same condition starting up again.
@Shadetree Engineer Are you kidding me?
The mindset of the innocent? What happened to personal responsibility? While I do not agree with dropping them all in a "hail of bullets", I certainly do not agree with your statement either. It is the individual that creates the problem.
That individual chooses to do what they do, for whatever reason. They should be held accountable for their actions. People copy people, this is a fact of life. While it may not erase the total actions in the future, hold those who commit these crimes will help to eliminate much of them.
0 Votes
+ -
@DaveMorris

Would be to sentence them to eight hours a day for one year playing Daikatana. Oh the agony!!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec: Is it too cocky for its own good?
LoverockDavidson Updated - 21st Jun
Yes they got a bit cocky. Never understood why these groups want to take responsibility for the hacks. I'd keep it very low key if I was them, it'd make it a lot harder to be caught.
@LoverockDavidson - I hope you meant to say "a bit cocky"
0 Votes
+ -
@dev/null
oops I did, edited.
@LoverockDavidson I think LulzSec aim was to publically embarassed and expose companies who have bad security in place to protect data.
0 Votes
+ -
These ill-kempt punks have no moral compass, plain and simple.
Dietrich T. Schmitz, *~* Your Linux Advocate 21st Jun
And, I might add, their activities are criminal.
Treat them as such.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec: Is it too cocky for its own good?
snoop0x7b Updated - 21st Jun
@Dietrich T. Schmitz, *~* Your Linux Advocate

The people who have no moral compass are Sony and the like who compromise on security for the sake of money and thus leave their consumers vulnerable to this stuff...And then when it happens throw their hands in the air and say I DIDN'T KNOW even though you can follow lists like bugtraq that tell you what software has known exploits. Honestly I'm sick of companies like Sony getting away with being able to blatantly ignore the PCI compliance rule of updating your software.

What lulzsec did wasn't right. But what's really wrong is the fact that Sony has yet to be charged with criminal gross negligence for mishandling credit card information. When are you going to quit shrugging your shoulders at the lack of accountability that large companies who they've attacked are facing for their own negligence. Most of what Lulzsec does, based on what they publish, exploits known exploits and out of date software.

We really need to take a stand against the fact that the way these companies determine how well they'll pay attention based on how much that will cost relative to the lawsuit. It points to a huge disconnect between Sony's ethics (which are totally $ based) and what everyone else says about ethics. This is why it needs to cost a lot more when someone like Sony loses thousands of credit card numbers.
@snoop0x7b

If Lulzsec actually cared about the security at these companies rather than just "doing it for fun" then they would contact the company and let them know about the vulnerabilities and suggest ways to correct.

Or...if they are so good at computer security maybe they should either get a job or get in school.
0 Votes
+ -
Product Liability and Software
Dietrich T. Schmitz, *~* Your Linux Advocate 21st Jun
@snoop0x7b
In the US, there's no product liability law that applies to software.

If you are upset about security insofar as software is concerned, then lobby for change to the current law.

It would dramatically alter the landscape but when people are hurt, literally, by defective software (bank accounts cleaned out, identity theft) then the law must change.

If the steering wheel fell off of your car while driving or the brakes failed, if you survived the experience you would have a good cause of action.

Why not the same with software?
@snoop0x7b: I hate to say it, but maybe the government needs to regulate network security, requiring that any public network set up and keep up certain minimum safeguards against viruses, hacking, spyware, etc. It's like setting up a public swimming pool and having no lifeguards.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec: Is it too cocky for its own good?
snoop0x7b Updated - 21st Jun
@Dietrich:

I in fact do lobby for that. I've written several letters to my senators and congressmen about the subject. Really, what I need to do is to convince others to believe what you and I believe about liability for faulty software.

If you think that way, I'd encourage you to write a letter to your congress-people. When I have a strong opinion about something, that's what I do... Although, because I'm not a highly moneyed interest I can't really bribe them to do what I ask, which means that the key is volume here.


mcp123:

Security researchers who do that are frequently prosecuted... What's the point in helping these companies if you'll be prosecuted for making them look like fools?

I don't argue that what Lulzsec is doing is the right way to do it, however, the state of our laws are such that it makes it very difficult to do what you suggest without going to jail. It creates an almost perverse anti-motivation.

Furthermore, if you're one of these large companies, and you know that the FBI will just go after anyone who screws with you and you won't be held accountable for something as basic as a SQL injection vulnerability or failure to update your software, why would you bother? This demonstrates that you wouldn't.
0 Votes
+ -
This I completely agree on.
Zorched Updated - 21st Jun
@snoop0x7b:
What LulzSec does is undeniably wrong.

But, in an odd way they are helping us by telling the world of these blatant vulnerabilities. The hard core criminals would exploit this and never tell anyone, making millions in the process at the expense of our time and money to correct the mess.

Honestly though, I'm sort of surprised that the guy caught, if he is LulzSec, was that old. I have been thinking that the showboating going on was more indicative of the middle teen years...
@snoop0x7b We still do not know if this person did not contact them before.

It clear they cant have been listening to there own security experts either, look at the citibank hank, I fine it impossible to believe there own security people did not fine that one. An many of these exploits are already known exploit in the public domain so companies should know them already.
0 Votes
+ -
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
sesli chat sesli sohbet

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix