Discussion on Lulzsec - Page 4
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 63

Thread: Discussion on Lulzsec

  1. #31
    Super Moderator: GMT Zone nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,192
    If you cannot do someone any good: don't do them any harm....
    As long as you did this to one of these, the least of my little ones............you did it unto Me.
    What profiteth a man if he gains the entire World at the expense of his immortal soul?

  2. #32
    0_o Mastermind keezel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    1,024
    There was an interesting article in PCMag basically reiterating the point I made when I started this thread. I feel one iota vindicated. Perhaps it is tinfoil hat time after all!

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2387203,00.asp

  3. #33
    Super Moderator: GMT Zone nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,192
    Hmmm, it is a point of view but I see one major problem. If you look the Register mainpage I linked you will see several reports of these hackers being arrested?

    If this is true, then they don't seen much like subversives or government stoolies. They just seem bloody incompetent to me for getting caught so easily.

    I don't know what the general feeling would be in your part of the World, but over here the public might well be expected to take the view that the authorities are catching them easily enough so just increase the penalties to deter them more?

    If I were running this project on behalf of a government, I can assure you my people wouldn't get caught and I wouldn't pick on silly targets. It would be public utilities, transport, healthcare, education, welfare benefits. Now that would really piss off a lot of voters and get support for new legislation (as opposed to just beefing up penalties).

    Whilst the targets to date have been high profile, they are more likely to be looked on as mildly amusing pranks rather than anything insidious or subversive.
    If you cannot do someone any good: don't do them any harm....
    As long as you did this to one of these, the least of my little ones............you did it unto Me.
    What profiteth a man if he gains the entire World at the expense of his immortal soul?

  4. #34
    HYBR|D
    Guest
    In a way it does sort of put the pieces of the puzzle together, for some time now i have read different News about how different Government's over the globe have had talks about "Censoring" certain parts of the interwebz.

    But on the other hand, all major news vendors seem to go from one hot topic, run with it for a month or 2, then the next big thing will popup and they will non-stop talk about that.

    For as long as the Internet is "Online" there will always be Virus/ Malware / Crackers etc The Government can throw lot's of money into trying to "Cull" this issue, but it's defiantly a battle they cannot win.

    Just look at this "Deep Net" the Government has been trying for years to clean/sanitize but they have only made a small ripple in the ocean.

  5. #35
    Super Moderator: GMT Zone nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,192
    OK HYBR¦D, I know that I am being a bit pedantic here, but strictly speaking this isn't "censorship"

    Censorship isn't what governments really want, as people see where stuff has been removed and start looking elsewhere for what their government doesn't want them to see.

    What we have seen have been countries such as China and some Islamic states trying to "filter" the internet content available to their citizens for religious or political reasons. I believe that other nations have looked at things like pornography, gaming, pharmaceuticals, file sharing, and the like?

    I think that the issue here is more one of monitoring or surveillance (such as "predator") which have more of an impact on your personal privacy.The argument against this is usually that if the government need a court order to open your mail or intercept your telephone calls, then they should need the same for your internet communications.

    Governments are trying to work around this by attempting to separate internet connectivity from other forms of communication......"50,000 pings a minute will take out your internet but 5 tons of spam mail would cost too much and you could sell the paper for recycling"

    It's a bit like DRM in my opinion...........sounds like a good idea but no-one has found a way to make it work. Right now all the proposals I have seen look more like surveillance without supervision.

    Just look at this "Deep Net" the Government has been trying for years to clean/sanitize but they have only made a small ripple in the ocean.
    What exactly is that? as I understand the term it is the part of the internet not accessed by search engine spiders? If that is the case then I don't see how government could hope to clean or sanitise it.........how would they even know it needed doing or where to start? also, it is far too big.

    EDIT:

    Almost forgot: Happy birthday keezel
    Last edited by nihil; July 9th, 2011 at 08:05 AM.
    If you cannot do someone any good: don't do them any harm....
    As long as you did this to one of these, the least of my little ones............you did it unto Me.
    What profiteth a man if he gains the entire World at the expense of his immortal soul?

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by nihil View Post

    Censorship isn't what governments really want, as people see where stuff has been removed and start looking elsewhere for what their government doesn't want them to see.

    What we have seen have been countries such as China and some Islamic states trying to "filter" the internet content available to their citizens for religious or political reasons.
    What they want and what they effect are completely different.

    Quote Originally Posted by nihil View Post
    What exactly is that? as I understand the term it is the part of the internet not accessed by search engine spiders? If that is the case then I don't see how government could hope to clean or sanitise it.........how would they even know it needed doing or where to start? also, it is far too big.
    It's using "darknets", and it's not so much that spiders don't find them, but that they consider them unimportant. Lookup "network telescopy", it's interesting...
    Every now and then, one of you won't annoy me.

  7. #37
    HYBR|D
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by nihil View Post
    What exactly is that? as I understand the term it is the part of the internet not accessed by search engine spiders? If that is the case then I don't see how government could hope to clean or sanitise it.........how would they even know it needed doing or where to start? also, it is far too big.
    Probably easier to quote wikipedia regarding DeepNet

    The Deep Web (also called Deepnet, the invisible Web, DarkNet, Undernet, or the hidden Web) refers to World Wide Web content that is not part of the Surface Web, which is indexed by standard search engines.
    Mike Bergman, credited with coining the phrase,[1] has said that searching on the Internet today can be compared to dragging a net across the surface of the ocean: a great deal may be caught in the net, but there is a wealth of information that is deep and therefore missed. Most of the Web's information is buried far down on dynamically generated sites, and standard search engines do not find it. Traditional search engines cannot "see" or retrieve content in the deep Web those pages do not exist until they are created dynamically as the result of a specific search. The deep Web is several orders of magnitude larger than the surface Web
    Size

    In 2000, it was estimated that the deep Web contained approximately 7,500 terabytes of data and 550 billion individual documents.[2] Estimates based on extrapolations from a study done at University of California, Berkeley in the year 2000, speculate that the deep Web consists of about 91,000 terabytes. By contrast, the surface Web (which is easily reached by search engines) is about 167 terabytes[dubious discuss]; the Library of Congress, in 1997, was estimated to have 3,000 terabytes.[3]
    Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Web

    Personally i would use a Sandboxed OS while digging around the darknet. Firefox & Tor addon are easier ways to access.

  8. #38
    Gonzo District BOFH westin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    SW MO
    Posts
    1,188
    Looks like the lulz are still flowing... sun.co.uk is still redirecting to oracle, last I checked... [classic] -- Which is a switch from the previous redirect to lulzsec's twitter feed. I guess the hiatus is over.

    http://www.technewsworld.com/story/N...t-72901.html-- If you can trust the news...
    \"Those of us that had been up all night were in no mood for coffee and donuts, we wanted strong drink.\"

    -HST

  9. #39
    Super Moderator: GMT Zone nihil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    United Kingdom: Bridlington
    Posts
    17,192
    Hmmmm, hadn't heard about "Oracle", what we had was a redirect to a fake news article:

    http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/secto...028519.article

    en Espanol:

    http://www.etcetera.com.mx/articulo.php?articulo=8482

    @HYBR|D

    You seem to think that the Dark/Deep net is a dangerous place......why should this be so?

    If most of it results from dynamic queries, how would you go about infecting it?

    Just curious as to the mechanisms.
    If you cannot do someone any good: don't do them any harm....
    As long as you did this to one of these, the least of my little ones............you did it unto Me.
    What profiteth a man if he gains the entire World at the expense of his immortal soul?

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    744
    darknet is not evils? It's just seen that much, cause people use google?
    Every now and then, one of you won't annoy me.

Similar Threads

  1. Roundtable discussion on Comms Industry
    By genXer in forum General Computer Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 18th, 2006, 03:07 PM
  2. Replies: 50
    Last Post: August 2nd, 2004, 10:13 AM
  3. 2600 meeting / discussion group in NJ
    By saint_42 in forum Miscellaneous Security Discussions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: October 7th, 2002, 09:22 PM
  4. Probability of "God's" Existence...
    By Mahakaal in forum Cosmos
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: June 23rd, 2002, 06:45 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 Security News

     Patches

       Security Trends

         How-To

           Buying Guides