ie8 fix
madison

Zero Day

Ryan Naraine, Emil Protalinski and Dancho Danchev

LulzSec: "We might be brought to justice, but we just don't care."

By | June 17, 2011, 8:47am PDT

Summary: LulzSec has just released a press announcement concerning their motives up to this point, and it’s official: They’re doing it all for the lulz and nothing more.

A new press release has hit the Web today from Lulz Security in celebration of their 1000th tweet which states their motives and intentions up to this point, as well as how they feel about their actions and how others are responding. With plenty of guesswork happening on behalf of media outlets everywhere (not excluding yours truly), LulzSec truly is just doing it all “for the lulz.” To quote:

For the past month and a bit, we’ve been causing mayhem and chaos throughout the Internet, attacking several targets including PBS, Sony, Fox, porn websites, FBI, CIA, the U.S. government, Sony some more, online gaming servers (by request of callers, not by our own choice), Sony again, and of course our good friend Sony.

While we’ve gained many, many supporters, we do have a mass of enemies, albeit mainly gamers. The main anti-LulzSec argument suggests that we’re going to bring down more Internet laws by continuing our public shenanigans, and that our actions are causing clowns with pens to write new rules for you. But what if we just hadn’t released anything? What if we were silent? That would mean we would be secretly inside FBI affiliates right now, inside PBS, inside Sony… watching… abusing…

Do you think every hacker announces everything they’ve hacked? We certainly haven’t, and we’re damn sure others are playing the silent game. Do you feel safe with your Facebook accounts, your Google Mail accounts, your Skype accounts? What makes you think a hacker isn’t silently sitting inside all of these right now, sniping out individual people, or perhaps selling them off? You are a peon to these people. A toy. A string of characters with a value.

This is what you should be fearful of, not us releasing things publicly, but the fact that someone hasn’t released something publicly. We’re sitting on 200,000 Brink users right now that we never gave out. It might make you feel safe knowing we told you, so that Brink users may change their passwords. What if we hadn’t told you? No one would be aware of this theft, and we’d have a fresh 200,000 peons to abuse, completely unaware of a breach.

In the passage above, it seems as though they feel their stance is a noble one for exposing what is possible through example. There’s no doubt that what they’ve done has caused people to pay attention and consider just how safe their data is or isn’t not just by their own control, but by the control of entities they are supposed to be able to trust. One can’t help but wonder what else they have pillaged from the countless multitude of servers containing private information.

While sane, rational eyes not disconnected from caring about the livelihood of other human beings allows one to easily to see the flaw of their logic, the insult added to injury is the fact that they don’t care what happens with the data once its released. In fact, they rather enjoy watching the havoc being created by anonymous evil-personified individuals.

LulzSec’s Twitter stream has been filled with retweets from people who have used the previously-leaked 62,000 email addresses and passwords to do everything from prank 80 year-old women by sending them adult novelty items, to supposedly ruining relationships on Facebook. But that’s just the start of it.

LulzSec sums up quite well how they feel about their “shenanigans” in the following passage of their press release:

Yes, yes, there’s always the argument that releasing everything in full is just as evil, what with accounts being stolen and abused, but welcome to 2011. This is the lulz lizard era, where we do things just because we find it entertaining. Watching someone’s Facebook picture turn into a penis and seeing their sister’s shocked response is priceless. Receiving angry emails from the man you just sent 10 dildos to because he can’t secure his Amazon password is priceless. You find it funny to watch havoc unfold, and we find it funny to cause it. We release personal data so that equally evil people can entertain us with what they do with it.

If you’ve been holding out hope that their intentions have been anything but frivolous, you can stop wondering. LulzSec does everything they’re doing simply because they can. It’s only by pure accident that they can say they’re proving a point in the process. It’s no secret that infrastructures around the globe aren’t secure as they should be, but now we all know to what extent. Regardless, this is fun and games the Lulz way in the Internet age, at the expense of the helpless and uninformed everywhere. The following essentially wraps up just how they feel:

We’ve been entertaining you 1000 times with 140 characters or less, and we’ll continue creating things that are exciting and new until we’re brought to justice, which we might well be. But you know, we just don’t give a living f#*k at this point - you’ll forget about us in 3 months’ time when there’s a new scandal to gawk at, or a new shiny thing to click on via your 2D light-filled rectangle. People who can make things work better within this rectangle have power over others; the whitehats who charge $10,000 for something we could teach you how to do over the course of a weekend, providing you aren’t mentally disabled.

How do you feel about LulzSec’s intentions at this point? Obviously, they’re just doing it for fun and not much else. Share your thoughts in the comments below!

-Stephen Chapman
SEO Whistleblower

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

Topics

Stephen primarily authors the SEO Whistleblower blog here on ZDNet. His works can be found here on the Zero Day blog, as well as on Between the Lines.

Disclosure

Stephen Chapman

Stephen Chapman is a freelance writer and Internet consultant. All work that Stephen does for ZDNet is on a contractual basis.

It is left to Stephen's discretion whether or not to accept assignments from prospective clientele who discover him through ZDNet. Such endeavors have no association with ZDNet and -- unless otherwise agreed upon -- are kept separate and private in the interest of all parties involved. You may freely contact him for consulting, training, and/or public speaking inquiries.

While Stephen may accept complimentary passes, waived fees, payment, and/or covered travel costs to industry-related events (conferences, expos, etc.) as an attendee or a speaker, acceptance of such offers is not considered payment for -- or exclusive guarantee of -- any particular blog coverage of the event attended.

Biography

Stephen Chapman

Stephen Chapman has cut his teeth on blogging and various aspects of Internet marketing for a number of years now through freelance, consulting, and agency work. A proponent for -- and implementer of -- white hat SEO, Stephen has grown tired of not personally combating the negative stigmas often associated with SEO. Through ZDNet, Stephen aims to dispel the myths, educate the masses, and become one more positive voice for real SEO. When not focusing on SEO, Stephen happily spreads himself thin between blogging about Microsoft, writing music, dabbling in photography, investigative researching, educating companies and schools about the perils of being careless with sensitive information, and much more.
41
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: LulzSec:
cabale 9th Aug
@DiggityDoug

Problem is, the law cause the insecurity. I am french, so i don't know for the U.S., but we have a law (The LCEN), which force website to stock password in clear....

Government at their best...

and i don't speak of th problem with the U.S wanting to keep U.E. bank information for 15 years...

And in case you don't know, some security expert discovers security fails, comunicate them anonymously, and what happen?

Laws suits. Take the case of Guillermito or Fernando Gont or Serge Humpich...

I don't agree by princips with them, but i think their action is a good wake-up call.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
zlgtr 17th Jun
"It?s only by pure accident that they can say they?re proving a point in the process. It?s no secret that infrastructures around the globe aren?t secure as they should be, but now we all know to what extent."

Hardly news. The NSA beat them to the punch last December and many thought that admission was long overdue.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/16/us-cyber-usa-nsa-idUSTRE6BF6BZ20101216
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
TechExpert21 17th Jun
@zlgtr

Its the time for the Cyber War!
why the Government is not taking a step ahead !!!!!!!!!
http://thenewscourier.blogspot.com/2011/06/officials-comfirmed-that-cia-website.html
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
DiggityDoug 19th Jun
@zlgtr If a person stood over you with a gun and called you a peon it would have the same expression as what this group of tards has done. We need to find them and prosecute them to the extent of the law, perhaps even create some new and clever ways of prosecuting them.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
cabale 9th Aug
@DiggityDoug

Problem is, the law cause the insecurity. I am french, so i don't know for the U.S., but we have a law (The LCEN), which force website to stock password in clear....

Government at their best...

and i don't speak of th problem with the U.S wanting to keep U.E. bank information for 15 years...

And in case you don't know, some security expert discovers security fails, comunicate them anonymously, and what happen?

Laws suits. Take the case of Guillermito or Fernando Gont or Serge Humpich...

I don't agree by princips with them, but i think their action is a good wake-up call.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
arndt_matt 17th Jun
I don't agree or disagree with what they are doing. At least they are letting it be known what they are doing and what their intentions are.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
Rama.NET 17th Jun
@arndt_matt
I don't agree with them. If there is a fault at infrastructure, they should contact that organization "privately", not by exposing everything "publicly". This distabilizes trust on internet in the public eyes, which is already at the edge of downfall. I don't agree with them in anyway.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
5FingerDiscount 17th Jun
@Rama.NET

in all fairness, you shouldnt really trust the internet with anything
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
TechExpert21 Updated - 17th Jun
@Rama.NET

if they contact privatly , why would they be called as hackers

Its the time for the Cyber War!
why the Government is not taking a step ahead !!!!!!!!!
http://thenewscourier.blogspot.com/2011/06/officials-comfirmed-that-cia-website.html
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
burntd0g 17th Jun
Some of your arguments here have merit, but what about the obvious one you're missing? Take this statement and turn it on its head:

"... the insult added to injury is the fact that they don?t care what happens with the data once its released."

How about, "the insult added to injury is the fact that for-profit custodians of your sensitive information don?t care what happens with the data once they possess it."

What is the argument that Sony, Facebook, Skype, Google, and others raise in defense of their penny-pinching and/or laziness while in possession of your data? Is there any excuse these days for failing to deploy well-documented, well-tried security practices? Facebook didn't even deploy ssl until just a few months ago. Why not? Did it cost too much? Was it too hard? What?

Worse, we have no way of knowing what any of these companies' internal security standards are. Every system administrator, a whole lot of executives, and even a few clerks at every one of those companies has access to sensitive data, and some have no compunctions about exploiting that access. You can quibble about the Lulz' philosophy and methods, but the fact is, they are chipping away at the smallest part of the information security problem. Disgruntled employees do not need to hack into anything to gain access to, then sell or in some other way exploit your sensitive data - or even just your email address.

Kiosks staffed by teenagers, college students, or dropouts selling cell phones at shopping malls are mini-caches of social security numbers, credit cards, and cellular phone numbers. What are the controls around those kiosks, anyway?

Well, I have to go. This is a pretty fascinating debate, thanks for having it!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
josh92 17th Jun
Burntd0g is correct. And let me add, this whole situation is the strongest possible argument for not putting all your data in the cloud. Loss of control is suffering. It is suffering when someone has power over you. Losing control over something and having that control of your data go to someone else (a big corporation like Dropbox for example) means they now have power over you. If someone cannot see that this is an acute form of suffering and a real and present danger as the push toward cloud computing becomes stronger then that person is very ignorant.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
SpankyFrost 17th Jun
Interesting comments from them. But do I believe there is really such a group called Lutz? I think it is a couple of nerdy chinese/russian goofs sitting in the computer room basement in Hong Kong... lol.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
StopthePrivacyTerrorists 17th Jun
LulzSec logic is the same as other terrorists like AlQaeda. We attack innocent people to force your government to change policies we disagree with. If someone gets hurt well, we will celebrate it and hope more new followers will go out and target innocent people too. Time we declare this group a terrorsit organization and send them to Guantanamo, The definition of terrorism is using attacks to force changes in policies you don't like. Please tell me how they are any different? And just like Al Qaeda's first attack on the WTC, it will only escalate. Not hyperbole. Not exaggeration. Just fact. If we had cracked down on Osama Bin Laden back then we could have avoided 911. Let's act now to avoid the online equivalent.
@StopthePrivacyTerrorists: ... do not make actual victims. Receiving dildos is nothing like being killed.

And, they retain most of information they got; only releasing portion of it to create enough attention.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
Mr.Mister 20th Jun
@DeRSSS

Veerrrrry good. Receiving dildos is not like being killed. But is it like having your life hacked. It is exactly like someone holding a virtual gun to your life and being able to do what they want, when they want, and how they want.

Where you not able to read? Lives have been impacted negatively becuase of their actions. They enjoy causing grief, embarassment, and panic in people.

You sir/madame are what is called a useful idiot.

They should be locked up, pure and simple.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
dch48 18th Jun
@StopthePrivacyTerrorists I totally agree with you. These guys need to be sitting in 5X8 cells with no access to anything that runs on electricity.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
TechGuyChris 17th Jun
"the whitehats who charge $10,000 for something we could teach you how to do over the course of a weekend"

I guess that means that what they do isnt worth ****... It must be as easy as 1, 2, 3.

Yea. Not!. configuring the stuff is the easy part. Telling Windows Server 2008 to use IPsec is easy.

Discovering new flaws and writing software to encrypt and creating new security standards to stop the black hats (Lulzsec) is where the money is at.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
mgaul 17th Jun
@TechGuyChris
I just hope you know that there are 2 types of black hats . . .
1. Hackers: Are people that hack just because they can.
2. Crackers: Cyber criminals that have a monetary gain from hacking.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
TechExpert21 17th Jun
@TechGuyChris
.......
Its the time for the Cyber War!
why the Government is not taking a step ahead !!!!!!!!!
http://thenewscourier.blogspot.com/2011/06/officials-comfirmed-that-cia-website.html
0 Votes
+ -
My original message which some coward reported as spam just like terrorists who hide in caves was:
LulzSec logic is the same as other terrorists like AlQaeda. We attack innocent people to force your government to change policies we disagree with. If someone gets hurt well, we will celebrate it and hope more new followers will go out and target innocent people too. Time we declare this group a terrorsit organization and send them to Guantanamo, The definition of terrorism is using attacks to force changes in policies you don't like. Please tell me how they are any different? And just like Al Qaeda's first attack on the WTC, it will only escalate. Not hyperbole. Not exaggeration. Just fact. If we had cracked down on Osama Bin Laden back then we could have avoided 911. Let's act now to avoid the online equivalent.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
bokin411@... 17th Jun
@StopthePrivacyTerrorists The definition of "Terrorism" is, in fact, "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." From Princeton.edu, the definition is, "the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear"

Explain to any of us, I implore of you, how these two definitions, taken from reputable sources that are academic and moral apply to what you have said.

Now to take apart what you have said.
1. "My original message which some coward reported as spam just like terrorists who hide in caves was:"
To report spam is the duty of someone who uses the internet, and to each person, spam is something else. Because you are calling for someone to be detained in Guantanamo, you are therefore expressing, implied or otherwise, a desire to see humans tortured and possibly executed without due process of the law.

2. "LulzSec logic is the same as other terrorists like AlQaeda. We attack innocent people to force your government to change policies we disagree with. If someone gets hurt well, we will celebrate it and hope more new followers will go out and target innocent people too."
Now when I read this, I almost marked your comment as spam as well, but I decided to try to reason with you like an intelligent human being. How is any of this an "attack" that is meant to target and hurt innocent people? If you are saying that in regards to the man who received dildos, yes, it could have been a traumatic experience for him because of some religious belief, but that is like me saying that I want a Mormon thrown in jail because he tried to convert me. There has been no physical attacks done by any party of lulzsec, as far as I know, which makes it, in essence, less violent than the Australians who pioneered the major use of the internet in the 80's, if I remember correctly. For those who don't know, they tried to electrocute and kill many technicians of the electric and phone company who were trying to stop these people from using the newly created "net".

3. "Time we declare this group a terrorsit organization and send them to Guantanamo, "
This goes back to what I said before, that this in itself is an offensive post as you request that people be detained illegally, stripped of their rights as a human being, and possibly have their right to life taken away.

4. "The definition of terrorism is using attacks to force changes in policies you don't like."
As I showed before, this is not the definition of terrorism.

5. "Please tell me how they are any different? And just like Al Qaeda's first attack on the WTC, it will only escalate. Not hyperbole. Not exaggeration. Just fact. If we had cracked down on Osama Bin Laden back then we could have avoided 911. Let's act now to avoid the online equivalent."
Now I will tackle this last part together. Back in the early 90's, America was waging a war in the middle east and Osama Bin Laden was on our side. However, when the war ended, America pulled out and left the country. Because of that, many people who were militaristic in nature wondered why America was not staying to help, and then turned against America. I assume that when you say "If we had cracked down on Osama Bin Laden back then we could have avoided 911", you mean that before the event itself, back in the 90's. There are many people who would agree with you, but the past is the past and we can not change it.

Now to continue on with more intelligent discussion, what would have to be done to prevent acts like this would be costly for companies. The reasons that this happens is either laziness, ignorance, or flaws in the system previously. For example, to protect Windows properly, it would need to be rebuilt from the ground up, something that has not been done is about 40 years, I believe. Three years ago, I met the lawyer who was in charge of defending their case to extend their patent for the original Windows operating system, arguing that their source code has never been re-written and needed to be kept secret so people couldn't steal it. Then it would have to be rebuilt with competent programmers who did it out of a love for the project and a desire to write the best code.

Attacks will continue, and the only way for the government to act would be to impose rules and regulations against the people, most of the time who are doing nothing wrong. The ones who are breaking the law will usually protect themselves from harm and the ones that don't know they are doing something wrong will not and end up being the ones punished.

Also, please stop trying to impress us with your intelligence by using "hyperbole", and then "exaggeration" right after. They mean the same thing. One of the definitions is "exaggeration."
0 Votes
+ -
Well said (nt)
Economister 18th Jun
@bokin411@...
NT
0 Votes
+ -
cute
sportmac Updated - 17th Jun
and so courageous. my my. i wonder how long one of them could stand toe to toe in some jail with someone else who doesn't give a f#*k before they wet themselves.
now THAT would be priceless.
0 Votes
+ -
I find myself torn...
wolf_z 17th Jun
...between the obvious harm LulzSec is doing and the honest-to-God truth of what they're saying.

I've been saying similar things for years and nobody listens. People still write down their passwords and stick them under the keyboard, people still use the same password for everything from their banking account to facebook (shudder).

Companies are still making the same dumb mistakes with their software, still trying to hoard as much personal data as they can on the off chance they can squeeze another penny-per-unit out of it...

LulzSec is doing a bad thing, yes. But by hitting the entire world upside the head with a two-by-four at least they're bringing attention to a real problem that hasn't seen serious concerted effort in 30 years.

The message is absolute truth. Too bad their medium sucks...
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
supabof93 17th Jun
Followed LulzSec on twitter today to see what they're up to. They posted a couple of phone numbers so people could call and suggest targets to be DDoSed. TribalWars was suggested and promptly DDoSed along with other websites, and they say if they get to 1500 people in their IRC they'll take down the CIA again "for the lulz". I can't see any kind of good sentiments in what they stand for, regardless of the message to get people to take care of their online security.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
notme403@... 17th Jun
Many folks have a slight feeling of uneasiness when it comes to putting personal info on the web. Too many are clueless. The fact that a committed thief CAN break in to a place that is not theirs does not excuse their unlawful, unethical conduct. In this case, where they cause harm to others for their own amusement, they are soundly in the category of terrorists. One person remarked that they really aren't terrorists because they haven't killed anyone. Perhaps he is ignorant of the bevvy of news stories covering the suicides of embarrassed teens over the last year or so. Yeah, nobody pulled the trigger, but for some, getting a package of dildos in the mail could be quite the shock, and could become a medical emergency.

These people are scum. They have NO REDEEMING QUALITIES. Their arguments are specious crap. Their value is significantly less than that of the the German cockroaches that probably inhabit their homes...
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
audidiablo 17th Jun
@notme403@...

You speak part truth... If you commit a crime you must pay the price... On the other hand being prejudice and racist is also against the law. I am a German, am I a cockroach?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
Phoenix Woman 20th Jun
@audidiablo He means actual cockroaches, in this case Blattella germanica: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_cockroach

There is also an American cockroach: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periplaneta_americana
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
snoop0x7b 20th Jun
@audidiablo No, but it does mean you don't understand that there is a species of cockroach called the German Cockroach. And on the other hand, the US doesn't have the thought police who tell you that you can't say racist things.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
audidiablo 17th Jun
@notme403@...

Oh and they tweeted recently...

"Our foreign names are Pierre Dubois and Francois Deluxe, oui oui baguette-crunching shellcode-spouting cyberwizards".

Are you French and supporting LulzSec?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
HarryGalbraith 17th Jun
Some people's need to feel "powerful" is greater than their ability to do something worthwhile.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
audidiablo 17th Jun
Quite frankly I think I know what they are aiming at. People are rushing to the "Cloud" which is just a glorified term for "Internet" like a bunch of fools feeling all honky dory assuming big corporations like Google will protect you and your data. They are pointing out just how weak the security is on the web. They are also pointing out how society is a bunch of tools glued to their smart phones and in reality their head is in the clouds. Wolves among the sheep as I put it. People go to the "Cloud" giving up all their rights and usability of electronics. Also gathering information and profiling people as Google does falls into the same bracket. They are offering Chromebooks with minimal functionality and everything to the "Cloud". What if China comes over and actually breaks in taking all and worming Google? Who loses? Society once was social where coffee shops had people conversing... Now they are nearly empty and the few there are on their computers. They want you to know that technology is controlling you and not you controlling technology. As more people look for smart devices and get ones that aren't so smart as the iPad or Android with the dumbed down interfaces and abilities more people follow like lemmings and only the few out there with any brains will not fall for this crap. I take into consideration I may be wrong but I have a bad gut feeling I will be right. I keep my personal data and information offline and secure. Anything else I don't care if it is public information I will put online. I've warned for years this kind of behavior would be coming but no one listens... Now everyone is pouting like babies that this is absurd... Understand people have brought it upon themselves not caring about there personal information in exchange for "free services" when in reality they are not free nor is their personal information any longer personal. This is why I don't promote nor condone the use of things like Google.

Lastly, who is to say that they hadn't taken the approach to warn people of security issues? Maybe their pleas had gone unanswered so they are making it a point by example. People need to remember there are two sides to a coin... Don't be so narrow minded focusing on the side of emotion and anger, take all things into account. As my Father said many times... Those who cannot hear must feel. One way or another the message will be understood.
0 Votes
+ -
If you're shocked about Lulz language and actions, just consider it a modern form of marketing, maybe the best suited (if not the only one possible) to effectively shake the public opinion.
Remember that data security is a serious problem that big enterprises don't really want to talk about. Big enterprises want us all in the cloud, where everything and everyone can be monitored, tracked and effectively monetized over.
0 Votes
+ -
They may not care now...
onslaughtoner 17th Jun
But once they are caught, and brought to justice, oh they better care. For doing the stuff that they did; they are going to serve time; not in a state prison, but in a federal prison.

I've known people that have served time before (growing up in the rough streets of America; doesn't matter what major city or town you grew up in; for me, Richmond, CA, and trust me, that town is no cakewalk either) and they told me the same exact thing; on the inside, it's not pretty; you could be in there for a petty crime or a major crime, it doesn't matter; your rights and privacy are GONE once you step inside that cold steel cell. Corrections Officers can talk to you of how they see fit, and Corrections Officers don't ask for respect; they demand it. It's a 12 x 8 cell, and you have all the time in the world to think about your mistakes.

Immediately, you are a target once inside, and you better prove yourself quick that you can handle yourself. There are guys in there that are serving life or on the death penalty; those guys have nothing to lose; one wrong look, stare, or gesture...they better hope that (their choice of deity) is on their side.

They think that they are tough now, but once they are there, there is NO turning back. They serve out their sentence, and they better hope that nothing happens to them in there. Once they go in, they never come out the same.

All I have to say is this: they will be caught; it is just a matter of time. When the judge strikes down his/her ruling, they have all the time in the world to think about what they did in a federal prison. Hacking a federal government website is a federal offense that can range from 5 to 30 years (sometimes more and depending on the crime) in federal prison. There they will have all the time in the world to think about what they did, and I am pretty sure that they will make some new friends in there too...
0 Votes
+ -
No pain, no gain
TechoRanger 17th Jun
I do not agree with the LulzSec actions but as many others have mentioned here, the real outcome should be a renewed focus on the security of data. Too many organizations see their IT structure as a black box that just does what it does. They don't understand the box so no attention is paid to it. These hacking episodes make it quite embarrassing for the corporate types which in the end have the real power to stop it by devoting the proper resources, even if they are not within their own IT group. Longer term I am hopeful for a good outcome but nothing is assured, obviously.
0 Votes
+ -
Grow Up
Naumadd 17th Jun
The fact they don't give a damn pretty much tells you their mental age if not their physical age. These aren't noble anarchists - they're immature animals. It's the mischief of children without any real understanding of the mature world. Yes, they'll be brought to "justice", but mostly they'll be corraled and leashed like all naughty animals usually are.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
Nate_K 18th Jun
@Naumadd
There are too many factors involved when tracking an attack. Hackers will go to lengths to hide themselves. Be it behind a proxy or behind a chain of proxy's the world is still full of other ways to hide yourself. Disposable wifi adapters used while joyriding on someone's open wifi because they are to lazy to secure their routers for a 1 time password to be supplied. I cannot defend what they do but think about it this way, If a goup of kids can penetrate organizations such as the FBI, CIA etc... then so can other country's cyber military where you wont really hear about it. I'd rather know about it (damage or not) and take the appropriate steps after to make sure it doesn't happen again then not know about it and stand a much greater risk thinking I'm still secure.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
Hallowed are the Ori Updated - 18th Jun
They aren't heroes.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
djdirectdrive 18th Jun
So if LulzSec is so noble about their intentions and trying to protect us from the big bad corporations that treat us as a number, why are they then turning around and giving that information over to amateur hackers to run pranks on innocent consumers? By doing so, LulzSec is just as bad as the companies they are attacking. What they are doing is still cybercrime and needs to stop. If they want to be productive, why don't they sell their expert services to these corporations as a consultation service? They are obviously extremely enterprising and successful at what they do, why can they not find a way that is more socially acceptable? Even if the corporations wouldn't bite at first for the necessary upgrades, a quick demonstration for Congress or the FBI/SEC would prompt a need for change. I thank them for showing these companies and the public that if one wants to stay safe in today's electronic society everyone has to be more vigilant, but if they want to be regarded as heroic and not lowly criminals, I feel that they need to find a new way to conduct their business.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
cubsmithva52@... 19th Jun
"Who we are is, all we know." this has been relegated to a new reality construct. Language, culture and experience create us as individuals; therefore given the so called 'cyber-reality' we as individuals need to rethink our role. (BTW 'Kurt Cobain') I think that is the point, not letting others whose interests are not ours shape our experience. Waking up; is not always a good thing, but it is what is needed and what is.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
sward24@... 20th Jun
Very good discussion. I agree, there is no need to release any private information to the general public to proove the point, and force improvements in the system. They could either send the cracked listings to the custodian, or send e-mail notifications to all the cracked accounts, (copied to the custodian, just to make sure they pay attention), telling the users their information was cracked, and where it came from. Releasing private account info to the public? Guaranteed, the 'harmless' cases of the information being misused can be ignored, and may even be fun to read about - but if you intentionally provide the means for more criminal misuse by unscrupulous parties, you are an accomplice to the crime, not matter what your intentions.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: LulzSec:
r-sherry@... 20th Jun
I don't think formal prosecution is appropriate. Dante's Inferno has a pretty fair notion of punishment: let it fit the crime. Dante understands that taking someone's property is like taking away a part of their body, so thieves who are punished can't even call their bodies their own. They are slowly dismembered in Hell. So don't put the Lulz folks in jail; execute them. Painfully.

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
Click Here
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
ie8 fix