Showing posts sorted by relevance for query HBGary. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query HBGary. Sort by date Show all posts

Prolific "spokesman" for Anonymous leaves the hacker group




In one year, Barrett Brown made himself into one of the best-known public faces of the hacker collective Anonymous—and now he's stepping away from the group.
"There's little quality control in a movement like that, which was not a huge problem when the emphasis was on assisting with North African revolutions and those who came on board thus tended to be of a certain sort," he told Ars this week.
"But as things like OpSony arise, you attract a lot of people whose interest is in fucking with video game companies—which is not to say that there aren't legitimate reasons for OpSony or that the majority involved aren't quality people, but to the extent that someone sits things out when we're working to promote liberty and fight dictatorships but then hops on board when we start going after an electronics firm that's perpetrated far lesser villainy, one has to question those peoples' priorities."

Public face

Brown has been an unofficial "spokesman" of sorts for Anonymous, a go-to guy whenever a news outlet needed a real name or a face to put on TV. He and another Anon, Gregg Housh, have become public symbols of a movement that largely cloaks itself in anonymity, hiding behind Guy Fawkes masks and Internet Relay Chat handles.
How many other Anons would sit for a lengthy profile of the sort featured in the March issue of Dallas' D magazine that talks about Brown's heroin use, his sexual escapades, and the reason he wears cowboy boots—while running a photo of him slumped in a chair beneath a stuffed bobcat? And that featured descriptions like this?
The 378-square-foot efficiency was dimly lit and ill-kept. Dirty dishes were piled high in the sink. A taxidermied bobcat lay on the kitchen counter. Brown is an inveterate smoker—Marlboro 100’s, weed, whatever is at hand—and the place smelled like it. An overflowing ashtray sat on his work table, which stood just a few feet from his bed in the apartment’s “living room.” Two green plastic patio chairs faced the desk. I left with the feeling that I needed a bath.
Brown got publicly involved in Anonymous in early 2010, when the group launched Operation Titstorm and targeted the Australian government's Web censorship proposals (which included a plan to ban depictions of nude small-breasted women who might resemble underage girls—hence the name of the operation). Brown wrote a piece for the Huffington Post at the time in which he saw the Anonymous attack as a new kind of "revolutionary engine" that might one day remake the world and even threaten the concept of the nation-state.
"Having taken a long interest in the subculture from which Anonymous is derived and the new communicative structures that make it possible, I am now certain that this phenomenon is among the most important and under-reported social developments to have occurred in decades, and that the development in question promises to threaten the institution of the nation-state and perhaps even someday replace it as the world's most fundamental and relevant method of human organization," he wrote.
To help create this world of spontaneous communities linked only by shared goals and not by geography or ethnicity, Brown decided to help Anonymous in a public fashion after being contacted by Housh. He had a front-row seat for the late 2010 Anonymous ops targeting Middle Eastern regimes. "What I saw and did during the next few weeks convinced me that these sorts of efforts can and should be used to channel dissatisfaction with injustice into concrete action in opposition to such things," he told me.
But it wasn't the Anonymous Middle East ops that captured the world's attention; it was the group's pro-WikiLeaks attacks on financial firms that had cut off the site's access to donations which led to international headlines. Anonymous staged denial of service attacks on MasterCard, Visa, and others—and the FBI got involved, eventually executing 40 search warrants against the group.
Meanwhile, HBGary Federal CEO Aaron Barr decided to "unmask" the supposed leadership of Anonymous, only to see the group break into his company's computers, make off with his private e-mails, and expose some terribly shady goings-on to the light of day. Barr eventually resigned his job—but Anonymous gained even more press. Brown even took the lead role in a national NBC News segment on Anonymous earlier this year, one that called him "an underground commander in a new kind of war." (The stuffed bobcat is visible in the background.)

The HBGary operation showed Brown that he had been right. "The HBGary operation demonstrated that small teams of individuals with relevant skills can do a great deal of damage to institutions that are otherwise effectively invincible by virtue of their position within the system," he told me.
"The fact that the FBI had just raided 40 alleged participants in DDoS attacks in conjunction with a sweeping international investigation into Anonymous even as Team Themis' various criminal conspiracies were facilitated by the Justice Department and have thus far been ignored by 'law enforcement,' meanwhile, has reaffirmed my belief that the rule of law is void."

Creating "pursuants"

What's going to replace the rule of law? Private bands of citizens engaged in a "massive campaign of investigation and exposure." While Anonymous could do some of the work, the group seems unable to shake its juvenile rhetoric, its thirst for "lulz," and its reputation for drama. These traits were certainly on display in the last few weeks when an Anon known as "Ryan" took over the main AnonOps IRC servers and posted chat logs and IP addresses of users—temporarily depriving Anonymous of its main gathering point. Ryan said his actions were taken to overthrow the dictators off in invite-only chat rooms, making plans and acting like the group's leaders. Was this true? And does the truth even matter?
For Brown, Anonymous has become a distraction to the work he really wants to accomplish. "To the extent one works out of AnonOps or some other venue of that sort, one has to deal with those people, as well as with a lot of frankly disturbed hacker types like Ryan—who continues to fuck with my projects," he said. So Brown and some like-minded associates will do some of the same work, but under a different banner—Brown's existing "Project PM."
What is Project PM? According Brown's description of the project, it's "a pursuant—an autonomous online entity composed of individuals who have come together to conduct activism in pursuit of a particular end and who wish to do so by the most efficient means available." The first big project is OpMetalGear, which has set up a wiki to collate information on defense and intelligence contracting, especially as it related to the "persona management" software sought by the US government and discussed in some of the HBGary Federal e-mails.
To some, Brown looks like a spotlight-hogging "namefag"; a Radio Free Europe blogger recently suggested that Brown could be the next Julian Assange. "There are clear parallels with Assange," wrote Luke Allnutt on May 18. "A broken home, interrupted education, a fierce independent streak, a conspiratorial mind, and a clear desire to be in the limelight. They both like to see themselves (in Assange's case, with some justification) as plucky digital outlaws taking on the Internet’s evil corporate and state overlords."
Critics of Anonymous routinely single out Brown for criticism due to his public identity. "Barrett Brown, you are one dumb son of a bitch. Ballsy, but dumb," said one critic on Twitter, who complained that Brown was little more than an apologist for a gang of crooks. Conservative blogger Robert Stacy McCain wants to know if the FBI is watching Brown, "and if they’re not already, shouldn’t they?"
Others suggest that Anons don't like him much, or perhaps worry about what he knows. Earlier this week, security firm Kaspersky Labs noted Brown's departure, saying, "Anonymous observers, who asked to remain anonymous themselves, said there's reason to believe that Brown is being cut off by core Anonymous members worried about having their identities exposed, or wary of Brown's focus on government wrongdoing."
As for Brown, he plans to keep working "with people who are themselves still very much associated with Anonymous and AnonOps in particular," but he won't be operating under the "Anonymous" banner any longer.
Funding this kind of work can be a challenge. When he announced Project PM last year, Brown asked readers for donations.
"You’ll also get a lot of bang for your buck in terms of the marginal utility of your patronage, as I am extraordinarily frugal, even Spartan insomuch as that I spend a lot of time sitting around without a shirt on, or pants, or more than one sock," he wrote. "I smoke Top rolling tobacco, which goes for around $3 a package and is sold in many prison commissaries. I eat oatmeal for breakfast rather than endangered condor eggs dipped in wasabi-infused veal compote like Christopher Hitchens does. Anyway, the tobacco is necessary for my work."
Thanks to his heightened profile, Brown did secure a writing gig with The Guardian newspaper in the UK, which brings in a bit of cash. He also writes for magazines like our sister publication Vanity Fair here in the US. (Update: Brown clarifies that both the Guardian and Vanity Fair gigs began before he got involved with Anonymous.)
He's now working on pieces for Al-Jazeera that discuss what he has learned from OpMetalGear. Brown also has hopes for a film script. "It's a sort of dark political comedy about a guy who secretly ends up as a speechwriter for both candidates in the same campaign," he said.

SHARE OUR NEWS DIRECTLY ON SOCIAL NETWORKS:-

LulzSec Hacker Ryan Cleary & Jake Davis Plead Guilty at London Court For Hacking CIA & Pentagon

LulzSec Hacker Ryan Cleary & Jake Davis Plead Guilty at London Court For Hacking CIA & Pentagon

Two British LulzSec hacker Ryan Cleary, 20, and Jake Davis, 19 today admitted hacking into the websites of the CIA and the Pentagon as well as the Serious Organised Crime Squad in the UK. Accoridng to an exclusive report of The Guardian both Jake Davies, also known as "Topiary" and Ryan Cleary, known under the names "Anakin," "hershcel.mcdooenstein", "George hampsterman" and "ni"  have confessed attacks on the Serious Organised Crime Agency (SOCA), National Health Service, News International, Sony, Nintendo, Arizona State police, and other sites in distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks designed to cause the sites to cash. Cleary also confessed to four separate charges including hacking into US Air Force Agency computers at the Pentagon.
Cleary and Davis plotted to carry out the attacks with other unknown members of internet groups Anonymous, Internet Feds, and LulzSec. Other websites targeted by the pair were Westboro Baptist Church, Bethesda, Eve Online, HBGary, HBGary Federal, PBS Inc, and Infragard. Cleary also confessed today to four separate charges, including hacking into US Air Force Agency computers, based at the Pentagon.
Both men appeared in the dock at Southwark Crown Court to enter guilty pleas to a series of charges brought against them.
But both Cleary and Davis denied allegations they posted 'unlawfully obtained confidential computer data' to public websites including LulzSec.com, Pirate Bay, and PasteBin, in order to encourage offences contrary to the Serious Crime Act.
Alleged co-hackers Ryan Ackroyd, 25, and a 17-year-old A-level student, from south-London, deny their involvement in the DDoS attacks and will stand trial on April 8, 2013.








SHARE OUR NEWS DIRECTLY ON SOCIAL NETWORKS:-

Cracking Bin Laden's Hard Drives

















According to the New York Times, "the team found a trove of information and had the time to remove much of it: about 100 thumb drives, DVDs and computer disks, along with 10 computer hard drives and five computers. There were also piles of paper documents in the house."
An unnamed U.S. official told Politico that the Navy Seals had recovered "the mother lode of intelligence," and that hundreds of people were already at work analyzing it at a secret base in Afghanistan.
"They're very likely to get a lot of really good, actionable intel off of these devices," since Osama bin Laden apparently had no direct connection to the Internet, said Greg Hoglund, CEO of security software and consulting firm HBGary, Inc., in a telephone interview. "So all of his work was done with outside couriers … and information that's coming and going is probably on thumb drives and DVDs, media like that," meaning that they likely stored important operational information.
According to Hoglund, the effort to recover Osama bin Laden's data likely started with--and was part of--the raid, in a process that's known as battlefield exploitation, which seeks to extract as much data as possible while in the field. That's because it's much easier to extract information from a computer that's still running. Even if a hard drive employs encryption, if the drive is still mounted, then it's vulnerable. Furthermore, if the team can take physical memory RAM snapshots of a live device, this can help crack any encryption.
Here's how the process works, said Rob Lee, a director at information security company Mandiant and a fellow at The SANS Institute, in a telephone interview: A military team will secure a location but not touch the computers. Next, computer experts--typically, contractors--traveling with the team come in and do a "clean takedown" of any machines. Little if any "deep dive" data analysis will be performed in the field, except perhaps some quick analysis in search of "low-hanging fruit," for example to note on a captured cell phone any phone numbers that the target recently called, or any recently sent emails. But the true payoff comes when intelligence analysts compare the captured data with "the hundreds of terabytes of data that they've already gathered over many years," for example to see how names, email addresses, and phone numbers match up.
The goal isn't just to recover data, but to rapidly understand its intelligence context. "Instead of standard forensics, the terminology is called media exploitation, and in the intel community, that word has a high value to it," said Lee. He said the practice dates from the start of the Iraq War.
Interestingly, both the data on the recovered devices as well as the devices themselves may provide valuable clues. That's because every USB storage device has its own serial number, which can be retrieved from any computer to which it's been connected. "You're able to track that USB device in every system it's touched," said Lee. That may help analysts better understand how the courier network operated, especially if the storage devices match up with previous PCs that they've encountered.
The raid on Osama bin Laden's compound reportedly lasted 38 minutes, and recent accounts suggest that the facility may have been secured relatively quickly. That would have left time for computer specialists to go to work.
"To process a computer that's in a running state, you're probably talking about 15 to 30 minutes," said HBGary's Hoglund. "A guy has a toolkit--a hardened briefcase, he sits down, plugs it in," and it provides him with a full view of what's on the RAM chips, and also allows him to image the hard drive. In addition, a subset of the information can be transmitted via VSAT--a very small, two-way satellite communications system--to intelligence analysts in for immediate study.
What happens, however, if computers are powered off, as well as encrypted?
"If you're doing encryption on the drive properly, meaning you've done your research, looked at the solutions, you follow best practices, have a strong key, and don't have a weak passphrase, then it will probably never be decrypted. Because drive encryption done properly is extremely difficult, it ends up being a brute-force problem," said Hoglund.
To try and recover data in such situations, he said one standard practice is to remove the drives to an analysis facility that has crackers built using large arrays of field-programmable gate array chips. If a strong passphrase can be broken, that approach will do it within a week, or not at all. "It's like the event horizon--it's the threshold of tolerance," he said.
But given Osama bin Laden's use of couriers--who might not be computer-savvy, and who may have needed to operate from places like Internet cafes--"I wouldn't be surprised to find out that they weren't using any type of encryption," said Hoglund.

SHARE OUR NEWS DIRECTLY ON SOCIAL NETWORKS:-

Lulzsec may be Officially Disbanded, But FBI is In Search of Lulzsec


SHARE OUR NEWS DIRECTLY ON SOCIAL NETWORKS:-

Four LulzSec Hackers Appeared In Court Together For The First Time


Four LulzSec Hackers Appeared In Court Together For The First Time

For the first time the four men, Ryan Ackroyd, 25, Ryan Cleary, 20, Jake Davis, 19 and a 17-year-old male who could not be named appeared in Court together. They are charged with taking part in cyber attacks under hacking group LulzSec, an offshoot of Anonymous, appeared in court Friday afternoon, appearing side-by-side for first time before a judge.  British prosecutors allege that the quartet last engaged with one another under the guises of online pseudonyms to wreak havoc on the web. These LulzSec key members are accused of accessing computers operated by News Corp. (NWSA) (NWSA)’s Twentieth Century Fox, Sony Corp. (6758), the U.K.’s National Health Service, the Arizona State Police, and technology-security company HBGary Inc.
Four of the eight counts listed in the updated British indictment today, were levelled solely on 20-year-old Cleary. He is accused of supplying a botnet — or a network of thousands of infected computers that can be used to paralyze websites — to others, and operating one himself to attack the website of DreamHost, a web hosting company. He is also accused of “installing and/or altering computer programs” on computers at the Pentagon controlled by the U.S. Air Force, between May 1 and June 22, 2011.
Cleary was the only one of the four defendants who was still in police custody. He was arrested on March 6 of this year — the same day Hector “Sabu” Monsegur was unveiled as an informant — for breaching his bail conditions. 
According to the new indictment, the four men also targeted denial of service attacks against: Westboro Baptist Church, which has staged anti-homosexual demonstrations at military funerals; the online role-playing game Eve Online; the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency; and Britain’s Serious Organised Crime Agency.





-Source (Forbes) 






SHARE OUR NEWS DIRECTLY ON SOCIAL NETWORKS:-

Full Story of Hacking Anonymous IRC Server





War rages between competing factions within the hacker collective Anonymous after this weekend's drama-filled takeover of the main Anonymous IRC server network. That network, used by Anons to plan and conduct attacks, was taken over by one of its own, an IRC moderator known as "Ryan."
His attack has sparked a debate over the "leadership" of Anonymous.

Hacking the hackers:-

The main Internet chat servers used by Anonymous have been run by a group called "AnonOps," which provides communications platforms for the group. Pointing IRC clients at anonops.ru or anonops.net would connect anyone to the servers, where they could then join channels like "#OpSony" and participate in various Anon activities.
Though Anonymous is often described as leaderless, factions like AnonOps by necessity have a loose structure; servers must be paid for, domain names must be registered, chat channels must have at least some moderation. Ryan was one of those IRC mods, and this weekend he proceeded with an attack that seized control of the AnonOps servers away from the small cabal of leaders who ran it.
Those leaders include people with handles like "shitstorm," "Nerdo," "blergh," "Power2All," and "Owen"—and if you're paying attention, you'll remember that HBGary Federal's Aaron Barr had fingered Owen as one of three "leaders" of all Anons.
The most popular channel on the old IRC servers now says simply, "anonops dead go home." Ryan also put up a set of chat logs showing Owen and others reacting to the weekend's massive denial of service attacks against AnonOps that culminated in the server takeover. (In the transcript below, "doom" is one of the AnonOps servers.)

Owen -> SmilingDevil: we lost a numbe rof servers last night
SmilingDevil -> owen: :P we need some more security.
t forcved level3 to stop anno
Owen -> SmilingDevil: dude Owen -> SmilingDevil: iuning a /24 Owen -> SmilingDevil: it was in the gbps range
vil -> owen: gigabit or gigabyte? Owen -> Smili
Owen -> SmilingDevil: doom alone got hit with 1 gb SmilingD engDevil: all leafs went down Owen -> SmilingDevil: add it all up Owen -> SmilingDevil: yeah huge
ly they know about Owen -> SmilingDevil: um thats called the hub Owe
SmilingDevil -> owen: :P we need a hidden irc server for the admins. SmilingDevil -> owen: that o nn -> SmilingDevil: :) SmilingDevil -> owen: did they take that too? Owen -> SmilingDevil: but anyhow
Owen -> SmilingDevil: we suffered alot of damage
The "old" leaders released a statement this morning explaining what happened over the weekend and why IRC remained down:
We regret to inform you today that our network has been compromised by a former IRC-operator and fellow helper named "Ryan". He decided that he didn't like the leaderless command structure that AnonOps Network Admins use. So he organized a coup d'etat, with his "friends" at skidsr.us . Using the networks service bot "Zalgo" he scavenged the IP's and passwords of all the network servers (including the hub) and then systematically aimed denial of service attacks at them (which is why the network has been unstable for the past week). Unfortunately he has control of the domain names AnonOps.ru (and possibly AnonOps.net, we don't know at this stage) so we are unable to continue using them.
Not everyone buys the explanation. One Anon pointed out that the Zalgo bot in question is controlled by a user named "E," not by Ryan.
Second, Zalgo can only see chan msgs and msgs to zalgo. The net staff is saying (pretty much) Ryan used Zalgo to steal server passwords (false, I know server protocol) which were tranfered in channels in plain text for the to see (true).
Third: Take everything AnonOps says with a grain of salt. They're putting out lies and not telling the whole story.
Others pointed out that E and Ryan are friends and that E was actually recommended as an op by Ryan.
However it happened, the end result was that Ryan redirected some of the AnonOps domain names he had control over, he led an attack on the IRC servers with denial of service data floods, and he grabbed (and then published) the non-obfuscated IP addresses of everyone connected to the IRC servers. Ryan apparently also gained root access to the Zalgo network services bot, which is presumably how he harvested the non-obfuscated IP addresses, though it's not clear exactly what Zalgo did or how much access it provided Ryan.

Clashing factions

Ryan is associated with 808chan, a 4chan splinter site and apparent home of the recent denial of service attacks on AnonOps. Ryan is "DDoSing everything that he doesn't own with his band of raiders from 808chan," says one Anon.
The 808 brigade apparently valued big botnets, and made users prove their abilities before letting them participate. AnonOps had a more democratic ethos; anyone could show up, configure the Low Orbit Ion Cannon attack tool, and start firing at Sony or others.
"It's an open network where everyone, mostly newfags can join and not have to prove they're able to wield a botnet and can just join a channel of their choosing, fire up LOIC and hit some organization for reasons they believe are right," said one Anon.
Ryan's control of AnonOps extends to some of the actual domain names, including AnonOps.ru. This wasn't a hack; he was actually given administrative control over the domains some time ago by AnonOps leaders.
One Anon explained the reason for this, saying: "As for the domains, they were transferred to Ryan after some of us got vanned so he can keep the network up. What he did certainly wasn't the plan." (Getting "vanned" refers to getting picked up by the police.)
According to another Anon, the current fight was precipitated when Ryan's IRC credential were revoked. "You morons don't realize Ryan IS LEGALLY THE OWNER OF DOMAINS," he wrote. "Nerdo and Owen removed Ryan's oper, Ryan took domains."

Smoky back rooms?

Among Anons arguing over what happened this weekend, the key debate involves the issue of leaders. Anonymous also said it was leaderless and memberless, but is it? The AnonOps statement above claims that Ryan was angry at the "leaderless" structure of the group and wanted to set himself up as king; again, though, not everyone is so sure.
Owen, for instance, helps to shape the conversation and planning in IRC. One Anon complained privately to me that Owen has booted him from the IRC servers—and thus from the place where all the real work against Sony was taking place several weeks ago. "Owen has not only told me that he doesn't really give a shit about freedom of speech, he's also moderately against the action that's being taken on Sony," this Anon said.
Owen and others conduct some of their work in private, invite-only channels, which leads some Anons to suspect that the really important operations and hack attempts are only discussed in a virtual back room. As one Anon put it yesterday:
"Have you ever been in one of their invite-only chats? This is no bullshit. EVERYTHING is decided on them, the eventual course of the operation, the hivemind's target, the channel's topic, everything. Why all this secrecy? These invite-only chats have NO reason to exist. You want to keep out trolls? Turn on mute, and give voice to a few. At least we can see what is being written."
Others were even angrier. A former AnonOps member wrote:
From the fucking beginning (during the hack at Aiplex which started Operation Payback) there has been an secret club, an aristocracy in AnonOps, deciding how operations will play out in invite-only channels.
It's obvious, for they control the topic, the hivemind, the guides, every single thing behind the scenes.
I don't know if the Owen's current bureaucracy is to be trusted, or Ryan's new delegation (from 808chan!) is.
What I do know is that AnonOps no longer has a good reason to exist. The insane amount of power the channel operators wield, and the reputations gained by their NAMES, causes them to become dictator-like, as "power corrupts".
Why did we leave the comforts of the womb of anonymous imageboards, and end up in name-fagging circlejerks controlled only by a few? Why?
Anonymous, this is bullshit. Neither side, neither Ryan's coalition of hackers nor Owen's bureaucracy can be trusted.
Others argued against this equivalence. "Ryan was the dictator, not the one who decided to solve the dictator problem," said one. Another responded, "Lol, how do you know? For all you know, Owen and Ryan are just the classic generals duking out to take over."
For his part, Ryan told the UK's Thinq today that he shared the concerns over private decision making. Owen and the other leaders "crossed the barrier, involving themselves in a leadership role," Ryan said. "There is a hierarchy. All the power, all the DDoS—it's in that [private] channel."
But among those who backed AnonOps, one thing was clear: Ryan needs to get got. Anons quickly embarked on a mission to find Ryan "dox," and quickly unearthed what they said was his full name, his home address (in Wickford, Essex, UK), his phone number, his Skype handle, and his age (17).
On Twitter, some Anons began spreading the word that Ryan had "betrayed" Anonymous, and that he had done so "to mess up all after having stolen PSN credit cards." No evidence for this last assertion was provided.
As the old AnonOps team attempted to get a handle on what had happened—and after they switched to an Indian domain name—they expressed irritation with early media mentions ("fail reporting") of the attack.
"Some 'mainstream' media is calling this the 'insider threat,'" they wrote, "which isn't really a fair representation, AnonOps doesn't have any corporate secrets, its run by the people for the people on a basis of mutual trust. Drama happens almost 24/7, occasionally drama overspills the network.
"Also we must remind the press AnonOps DOES NOT EQUAL Anonymous, saying they are one and/or the same thing in a blog/article just makes you look stupid. AnonOps is just a IRC network and a few other services that ANYONE can use, its not the only place Anonymous gather, and unlikely to be the *last* (see Streisand effect)."
But will the AnonOps leaders ever gather on a forum they don't control? Ryan took great delight in posting the following alleged comment from Owen to another AnonOps leader: "yo odnt honestly think we're goign to some other irc where we have no control do you?"
Of course, Anonymous has always been about drama and "the lulz," so the current confusion may not even bother them that much; this is just par for the course. But it's certainly amusing to others.
"Lmao. You fucking twits can't even keep your shit safe," wrote someone watching the debacle. "This literally made me laugh out loud. Not lol, but laugh. You all are so stupid."
Click here To see the Dump of Anon Ops Chat 

SHARE OUR NEWS DIRECTLY ON SOCIAL NETWORKS:-

NATO Said:- Anonymous will be "infiltrated" and "persecuted"


The North Atlantic Treaty Organization contains the combined military might of 28 member countries, including Germany, the United Kingdom, and France. All three of those nations, and the United States, possess huge armies, nuclear weapons, and are committed to Article Five of NATO's charter:
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked."
Yet reading NATO's new draft general report on cyber security, one gets the impression that what the alliance worries about most these days is not an "armed attack," but a cyberattack on its network servers, or the infrastructure of any of its member countries.
"In this Information Age, the North Atlantic Alliance faces a dilemma of how to maintain cohesion in the environment where sharing information with Allies increases information security risks," NATO's Information and National Security survey observes, "but where withholding it undermines the relevance and capabilities of the Alliance."
And WikLeaks and Anonymous get top billing as visible threats to NATO's efforts to control its information perimeters.
"The time it takes to cross the Atlantic has shrunk to 30 milliseconds, compared with 30 minutes for ICBMs and several months going by boat," the report warns. "Meanwhile, a whole new family of actors are emerging on the international stage, such as virtual 'hactivist' groups. These could potentially lead to a new class of international conflicts between these groups and nation states, or even to conflicts between exclusively virtual entities."

The irony of 9/11:-

Authored by Lord Michael Jopling, Rapporteur for NATO, the study begins with an irony. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001 on New York City and Washington, DC, the United States government concluded that one of the reasons that the plot succeeded was because information about its perpetrators wasn't widely shared among US intelligence agencies, especially the Department of Defense, CIA, State Department, and Federal Bureau of Investigation.
And so the US opened up its data sharing practices. This made matter worse, Jopling appears to suggest. It "resulted in an exponential number of people obtaining access to classified information." Over 850,000 functionaries now enjoy some kind of "top-secret" security status, he claims. Many have access to the DoD's Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNet), dispenser of embassy cables.
The study cites critics of SIPRNet who say that it lacks the ability to detect unauthorized access. "Thus, those in charge of the network design relied on those who had access to this sensitive data to protect it from abuse. These users were never scrutinized by any state agency responsible for the data-sharing system."
Jopling doesn't explicitly blame this openness policy for WikiLeaks phenomenon, but his narrative leads right into Private Bradley Manning, accused of providing documents for the outfit, prompting the group's famous publication of a continuous stream of State Department cables.
Not surprisingly, he thinks that this is bad:
The Rapporteur believes that even if one is in favour of transparency, military and intelligence operations simply cannot be planned and consulted with the public. Transparency cannot exist without control. The government, and especially its security agencies, must have the right to limit access to information in order to govern and to protect. This is based on the premise that states and corporations have the right to privacy as much as individuals do and that secrecy is required for efficient management of the state institutions and organizations.

Hacktivity:-

A big chunk of the assessment is devoted to the activities of Anonymous, most notably its denial-of-service attacks against PayPal, MasterCard, Visa, and Amazon.com for shutting down financial and server space services to WikiLeaks. Next comes the Anonymous assault on HBGary Federal, which had been planning some methods to take down WikiLeaks and expose Anonymous. It didn't turn out that way, of course. Instead, Anonymous penetrated the security company, erasing data, publishing e-mails, and wrecking its website.
The author seems confident, however, that the notorious group's days are numbered. "It remains to be seen how much time Anonymous has for pursuing such paths," Jopling writes. "The longer these attacks persist the more likely countermeasures will be developed, implemented, the groups will be infiltrated and perpetrators persecuted."
But the larger question hovering over this document is what NATO should do if one of its over two-dozen member nations is cyberattacked. The US has lately been pondering this dilemma as well.
"Certain hostile acts conducted through cyberspace could compel actions under the commitments we have with our military treaty partners," says a White House strategy report published in mid-May. "When warranted, the United States will respond to hostile acts in cyberspace as we would any other threat to our country."
This NATO draft seems to want to go in a similar direction—especially if something on the scale of a Stuxnet malware attack is deployed against a member nation. Designed to penetrate software for industrial equipment, researchers believe that it was originally intended for Iran's nuclear program.
"Some argue that Article 5 should not be applied with respect to cyberattacks because their effect so far has been limited to creating inconvenience rather than causing the loss of human lives and because it is hard to determine the attacker," Jopling notes. "However, The Rapporteur believes that the application of Article 5 should not be ruled out, given that new developments in cyber weapons such as Stuxnet might eventually cause damage comparable to that of a conventional military attack."

SHARE OUR NEWS DIRECTLY ON SOCIAL NETWORKS:-

Anonymous to target Iran with DoS attack


Anonymous says its next target is Iran.
The hacker group Anonymous has its next denial-of-service (DoS) target in sight: Iran, CNET has learned.
Members of the loosely organized group are planning "Operation Iran," an attack designed to shut down Iranian Web sites beginning Sunday, according to their latest online proclamation. May 1 is International Worker's Day.
"The people of Iran have the admiration of Anonymous, and the entire world," the statement says. "We can see that Iran still suffers at the hands of those in power. Your former government has seized control, and tries to silence you. People of Iran--your rights belong to you."
The operation seemed to already have begun late today with Web page defacements ostensibly targeted at Iranian hackers. Anonymous left messages on several Web sites that had allegedly been previously attacked by the Iranian Cyber Army, including the site of a Canadian information systems firm and the site of a Ukrainian dancing group, according to an observer on an Anonymous Internet Relay Chat channel that members use to coordinate their operations.
Anonymous is known for its renegade cyberattacks in defense of perceived underdogs or to support freedom of expression or other anti-establishment causes. In defense of whistle-blowing site WikiLeaks, the group targeted PayPal, Visa, MasterCard, and other companies late last year that had stopped enabling WikiLeaks to receive contributions.
Earlier this month, Anonymous targeted Sony in protest of the company's treatment of Sony PlayStation hacker George Hotz. Hotz and Sony have since settled the lawsuit Sony filed, and Anonymous has denied any involvement in a recent serious breach that exposed information of millions of Sony PlayStation Network customers.
Other Anonymous targets have been: Broadcast Music Inc., the Church of Scientology; the governments of Egypt, Iran, and Sweden; the Westboro Baptist Church; conservative activist billionaires Charles and David Koch and their companies; as well as security firm HBGary Federal, which had reportedly been working with the FBI to identify the leaders of Anonymous.

SHARE OUR NEWS DIRECTLY ON SOCIAL NETWORKS:-

The Stratfor Hack Was Not The Work Of Anonymous


Yesterday we have covered a story which was saying that U.S. Security Think Tank Stratfor was hacked by Anonymous. Later Anon authority completely denied this hack. In the official press release anon clearly said that Stratfor is an open source intelligence agency, publishing daily reports on data collected from the open internet. Hackers claiming to be Anonymous have distorted this truth in order to further their hidden agenda, and some Anons have taken the bait. They have also confirmed that the hackers - who may be linked to Sabu of LulzSec fame - managed to steal Stratfor's confidential client list and mined over 4,000 credit card numbers, passwords and home addresses.

Press Release of Anonymous:- 
"Emergency Christmas Anonymous Press Release
-------------------------------------------
12/25/2011


THE STRATFOR HACK IS NOT THE WORK OF ANONYMOUS


Stratfor is an open source intelligence agency, publishing daily reports on data collected from the open internet. Hackers claiming to be Anonymous have distorted this truth in order to further their hidden agenda, and some Anons have taken the bait.


The leaked client list represents subscribers to a daily publication which is the primary service of Stratfor. Stratfor analysts are widely considered to be extremely unbiased. Anonymous does not attack media sources. In this excerpt from Time, there is a brief description of how Stratfor analysts uncovered a possible US backed coup in Iraq preceding the US invasion.


"In the past month Stratfor has drawn attention to a carefully assembled open-source report that asserted that last month's attack on Iraq wasn't intended just to punish Saddam Hussein for blowing off U.N. weapons inspectors. By sorting through thousands of pieces of publicly available data--from Middle East newspapers to Iraqi-dissident news--Stratfor analysts developed a theory that the attacks were actually designed to mask a failed U.S.-backed coup. In two striking, contrarian intelligence briefs released on the Internet on Jan. 5 and Jan. 6, Stratfor argued that Saddam's lightning restructuring of the Iraqi military, followed by executions of the army's Third Corps commanders, was evidence that the coup had been suppressed. Predictably, U.S. officials said the report was wrong."


Stratfor has been purposefully misrepresented by these so-called Anons and portrayed in false light as a company which engages in activity similar to HBGary. Sabu and his crew are nothing more than opportunistic attention whores who are possibly agent provocateurs. As a media source, Stratfor's work is protected by the freedom of press, a principle which Anonymous values greatly.


This hack is most definitely not the work of Anonymous.


We are Anonymous
We do not forgive
We do not forget
Expect us..."





SHARE OUR NEWS DIRECTLY ON SOCIAL NETWORKS:-

FBI Raided Anonymous Spokesman Barrett Brown's Apartment

FBI Raided Anonymous Spokesman Barrett Brown's Apartment 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation raided the apartment of Barrett Brown, the unofficial “spokesperson” for the hacker collective Anonymous. The warrants allowed the Feds to search for records relating to Anonymous, LulzSec, HBGary, Infragard, Endgame Systems, IRC chats, Twitter, Brown’s website Echelon2.org and and Pastebin records, amongst other things. Basically, anything on any data-storing device owned by Brown. In a pastebin note Brown himself posted this thing. 
Brown, of course, is not a hacker, but as a visible proponent of Anonymous, he’s an easy target for the Feds. In his Pastebin statement, however, Brown hit back at the federal government, independent security firms and big business in very interesting way—he brought up the corporate-government anti-hacking axis Team Themis. For anyone well-versed in the Greek pantheon of gods, you will remember Themis is the female goddess of law, justice and social control. It’s not for nothing that Team Themis would choose the goddess’s name for their vigilante form of justice, by which private entities—security firms and businesses—have launched an extra-judicial campaign against their enemies.
According to Brown's note - "With the assistance of the law firm Hunton & Williams, [Team Themis] went about collecting potential clients, including two institutions which desired to go on the offensive against certain activist groups. One of these institutions, the Chamber of Commerce, provided them with the names of various individuals believed to be involved with groups that opposed their policies, and asked them to come up with a plan by which to discredit them." Full statement of Brown can be found here.
We would also like to give you reminder that the last operation of FBI was the arrest of Higinio O. Ochoa III, a member of Anon affiliated 'CabinCr3w'.




SHARE OUR NEWS DIRECTLY ON SOCIAL NETWORKS:-

NATO Vs. Anonymous Hackers


The Anonymous hacking group has joined Al Qaeda, the Taliban and North Korea on the list of threats the world’s most powerful military alliance, NATO. 
According to a report written by NATO Parliamentary Assembly General Rapporteur Lord Jopling, the Anonymous hacking group now poses a hazard that needs to be taken seriously. The views are his own, but will strike a chord with the anxieties of others within and around European governments. “Observers note that Anonymous is becoming more and more sophisticated and could potentially hack into sensitive government, military, and corporate files,” Jopling said in the draft general report’s section on ‘hacktivism’. “Today, the ad hoc international group of hackers and activists is said to have thousands of operatives and has no set rules or membership. It remains to be seen how much time Anonymous has for pursuing such paths.” The report notes the various targets Anonymous has hit at will in the last year, and its vague political aspirations, including support for the US pursuit of Wikileaks’ founder, Julian Assange. Part of Jopling’s concern was simply the difficulty of defining cybersecurity for an organisation that takes in 28 countries with various cyberdefence capacities. The organisation was also struggling to define what its founding principle - that of mutual self-defence - might mean when applied to cyberspace, a realm where the origin and purpose of attacks is not always easy to decipher. Lacking a central leadership and organisation, Anonymous encapsulates the vague nature of many such cyber-threats. It has become notorious for self-styled campaigning attacks on ‘enemies’ as diverse as MasterCard, PayPal, Amazon, security company HBGary, various music companies including Sony, and even rock musician, Gene Simmons and the Church of Scientology. Its targets, then, are as diverse as its supporter’s interests. “The longer these attacks persist the more likely countermeasures will be developed, implemented, the groups will be infiltrated and perpetrators persecuted,” predicted Jopling.

SHARE OUR NEWS DIRECTLY ON SOCIAL NETWORKS:-

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...