Posts tagged Anonymous
Anonymous Hacks Official North Korean Social Media Accounts
Apr 4th
As the world waits in bated breath and watches Pyongyang to make good on its nuclear threats, the hacker collective Anonymous has made its own move in the increasingly cyber conflict between North Korea and the world.
On Tuesday, the group claimed to have stolen 15,000 passwords from the communist nation as part of what it calls Operation North Korea. Late Wednesday, as tensions rose in Kaesong over the North’s closure and seizure of a industrial park it shares with the South, along with repeated declarations of nuclear launch, Anonymous advanced its own chess pieces. The hackers allegedly seized control of North Korea’s official Twitter and Flickr accounts, in the process defacing several related websites, and making the autocratic nation look extremely unprepared for cyber attack.
Tango Down flickr.com/photos/uriminz…
— uriminzokkiri (@uriminzok) April 4, 2013
The Uriminzokkiri accounts on both the social media networks, which translates to “our nation,” looked like anything but North Korea’s after the strike. The Twitter account’s avatar changed to a couple in Guy Fawkes masks tangoing, while the Flickr account filled up with less-than-flattering images of the supreme leader, Kim Jong Un.
In addition, several sites hocking propaganda material have been hit by digital graffiti (visit Aindf.com to see a wanted poster of Kim Jong Un). North Korean state-run news site Uriminzokkiri.com has been knocked offline, possibly by related DDoS attack. The Next Web is reporting that a Pastebin note, allegedly from the hacktivists, claims that they have agents on the ground fighting off the North’s “cyber army.” Below is an excerpt from the latest Pastebin message, supposedly penned by Anonymous members, explaining the group’s reasoning and m.o. for the attack:
-
ecause of North Korea’s new threats today we are forced to
-
contact you again.
-
Within this release we also take the chance to set some things
-
straight about our goals, because it seems some web citizens
-
didn’t really get it right. Here we go:
-
-
@ Kim Jong-un
-
You just went full retarded! Never go full retarded.
-
We feel really sorry for your suffering of TDS
-
(aka “tiny dick syndrome”) but be assured, threatening the
-
world with your nukes won’t make it any better at all.
-
If you had finally opened up your country for the
-
real internet, you would have already seen over 9000 ads for
-
products devoted to solve your problem.
If Kim Jong Un really does have thousands of soldiets in his cyber army, it’s likely that this attack will soon be thwarted and things will go back to normal. Normal, of course, being very relative as the bluffing situation escalates between the peninsula and the rest of the world.
Will Anonymous’ actions (in February they hacked the U.S. State Department) push the conflict over the edge and give the 30-year-old despot reason to hit the launch button and plunge the world into hot war? Who knows what this digital assault will do to the man’s ego, since he is already eager to prove himself in the wake of his father’s passing.
When ex-NBA oddball Dennis “the Worm” Rodman seems to have more on-the-ground knowledge of the leader than every major intelligence agency combined, you know we’re in a pickle, no matter how you cut it. Anonymous is pulling on the tail of a tiger – if this is the prelude to the end of the world, let’s hope they have a viable plan for when the beast turns around and bears its fangs.
Image courtesy of Uriminzokkiri
View full post on ReadWrite
Reuters Social Editor Indicted Over Anonymous Hack; Internet’s Jaw Drops
Mar 14th
Disbelief and shock. That’s what’s sweeping across the Web following news that one of its best and brightest social journalists, Reuter’s Matthew Keys, has been indicted by the Department of Justice for allegedly helping Anonymous deface the Los Angeles Times website in 2011. (See the full indictment below.)
The 26-year-old deputy social media editor has been charged with providing hackers with server login credentials to access the Tribune Company’s site. Keys had previously worked as a web producer for the Tribune-owned KTXL FOX 40, in Sacramento, Calif. The charges are serious, but what he allegedly did… wasn’t, really. The site break-in described in the indictment led to a hack that defaced a story.
Keys has been charged with one count each of conspiracy to transmit information to damage a protected computer, transmitting information to damage a protected computer and attempted transmission of information to damage a protected computer. If convicted, he faces up to 10 years in prison, 3 years of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000 for each count. In addition, he also must forfeit property related to the crime.
Journalists and members of the media are still having trouble wrapping their heads around the news.
wow – this story about Matthew Keys and Anonymous is bizarre: politico.com/blogs/media/20…
— Mathew Ingram (@mathewi) March 14, 2013
“Speechless,” NPR’s Andy Carvin wrote on Twitter. “Woah,” said the Wall Street Journal’s Liz Heron.
Even others in the hacker community are shaking their head, like ‘Weev,’ nee Andrew Auernheimer, who himself faces jail time over his role in exposing the email addresses of thousands of AT&T customers.
Let us pray for @thematthewkeys in his struggle against the beast.
— Andrew Auernheimer (@rabite) March 14, 2013
Say It Ain’t So!
Key’s alleged involvement with Anonymous, should it prove true, has been under our noses for some time. Keys wrote about Anonymous on multiple occasions, including his first post for Reuters back in Feb. 2012:
My first blog entry at @reuters: “Details in leaked FBI call could prove uncomfortable for Anonymous” – blogs.reuters.com/matthew-keys/2…
— Matthew Keys (@TheMatthewKeys) February 3, 2012
That same year, he wrote about suspicions that hacker turned government informant Sabu had trusted him and revealed personal details when the two spoke in an online chat room. In 2011, someone claiming to be Sabu may have ratted out Keys on Twitter with details that appear in the indictment:
http://tinyurl.com/mattkeysexposed AESCracked/Matt Keys was former producer for Tribune sites. Gave full control of LATimes.com to hackers.
— The Real Sabu (@anonymouSabu) March 22, 2011
Why And What Now?
It’s not entirely clear why the Justice Department choose to indict Keys now, in 2013, two years after the hacking/defacing incident. It’s possible it took the government that long to gather evidence. Or maybe the feds tried, but failed, to turn Keys — pardon the pun — to nab bigger figures within Anonymous.
Either way, it certainly looks like the Justice Department wants to make an example of Keys, which would make him the latest of several high-profile Web figures so treated (think Aaron Swartz, Bradley Manning and even Kim Dotcom for starters).
According to The Atlantic Wire, Benjamin Wagner, the same federal prosecutor in the Keys case, took down Sabu. So did Sabu rat out Keys for a shorter sentence? At the moment, there’s no way to know.
Personally, I’m saddened by this. I know Keys. Although we’ve never met in real life, our paths have crossed many times online. We follow each other on Twitter and are Facebook friends, and we direct message and Facebook message each other regularly. When I heard about the charges, I called Keys’ phone. It rang and rang and went to voicemail. I left a message. I still haven’t heard back.
His arraignment is April 14 in Sacramento, and according to some reports, it looks like he may be fired at Reuters. So was Keys a covert agent for Anonymous? A guy supportive of some deviant hijinks? Or actually an innocent bystander? We can’t really say. If there’s any truth to the indictment, my money is on him being a reporter who got too close to the fire and got burned.
Which could, of course, still ruin his career. But what I really hope is that Keys doesn’t end up wasting his talents behind bars.
Here’s the federal indictment:
Lede image via Matthew Keys’ Facebook page
View full post on ReadWrite
Anonymous Hacks U.S. State Department
Feb 20th
While you were sleeping last night, Anonymous hacked into the U.S. State Department’s website, reportedly in the name of fallen comrades Aaron Swartz and recently arrested members of LulzSec. Personal data – including names, email addresses and phone numbers of hundreds of State Department staffers – were leaked online to the ZeroBin website.
Anonymous hacks US State Dept, investment firm in homage to Aaron Swartz, #Lulzsec rt.com/usa/news/anony… #OpLastResort
— Anonymous (@YourAnonNews) February 20, 2013
The group also allegedly hit the investment firm George K. Baum and Company, which has ties to Stratfor, the private intelligence service that worked with the CIA (another former target of the group).
Did you know this: dazzlepod.com/stratfor/?emai…That Investment Bank is linked to Stratfor
— OpLastResort (@OpLastResort) February 19, 2013
In that attack, Anonymous also published the account data and transaction information of the bank’s users. The OpLastResort Twitter account says the death of Aaron Swartz is the reason behind the group’s focus to target the government with such ferocity. “This tragedy is basis for reform of computer crime laws and the overzealous prosecutors,” they write on the group’s Twitter bio.
But in an ironic twist, “Operation Last Resort” may have very unintended consequences.
Domino Effect
Will this attack finally wake up the sleeping giant that is the United States government?
The threat of online security is very real, and the result of this newest action could truly galvanize lawmakers and previously unsure Congressmen to support the dangerous CISPA bill and introduce even harsher Internet laws. This kind of overreaction could cause more damage than the attacks themselves.
With this attack following on the heels of Anonymous defacing sites owned by MIT, the United States Sentencing Commission, the Federal Reserve and a failed hit on broadcasts of the State of the Union speech last week, the wheels for enacting Draconian laws may already be in motion. Anonymous, which champions Internet freedom, may have just pushed the Web down a dark shaft.
Making matters worse, is what’s still in the arsenal of the online activist group. Anonymous claims to possess “warheads,” codes to unlock encrypted files said to contain sensitive government data, allegedly obtained during the January 25th hack of the U.S. Sentencing Commission site.
Under Obama’s new cyberlaw mandate, these actions are all cyber threats and punishable by severe action. How far is the government willing to go to stop these attacks, and what will the ultimate effect on all our civil liberties be?
Image courtesy of Shutterstock.
View full post on ReadWrite
Feds Indict Reporter For ‘Anonymous’ Hyperlinking
Dec 11th
You now can get hauled into federal court in the United States for sharing a link in a chat room, apparently.
Barrett Brown, the journalist covering Anonymous-related activities for news outlets like The Guardian, was charged late Friday with 12 charges including linking, identity theft and fraud related to the Stratfor Global Intelligence hack.
The indictment reads, “in that Brown transferred the hyperlink ‘http://wikisend.com/download/597646/stratfor_full_b.txt.gz’ from the Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channel called ‘#AnonOps’ to an IRC channel under Brown’s control called ‘#ProjectPM,’ said hyperlink provided access to data stolen from the company Stratfor Global Intelligence, to include in excess of 5,000 credit card account numbers.”
Brown, who’s also writing a book about Anonymous, shared a link that thousands of people have shared before him. Brown is not charged with hacking into Stratfor, mind you, just linking. In fact, Brown’s involvement with Stratfor was more as a press laison than anything else.
As someone who has been in and around Anonymous since 2008 as either as an activist or journalist, Brown’s indictment is downright terrifying. I’m not the only one that thinks so either.
Gawker’s Adrian Chen called this indictment “frightening because it seems to criminalize linking,” and he’s right. There is nothing in the language of the indictment that clarifies when it is okay to link to documents Anonymous puts publicly online.
I’ve linked to “stolen information” countless times in articles I have written about Anonymous activities, and I know of other journalists and bloggers who have done the same. Besides articles, I’ve also retweeted Anonymous posts, posts that contained information that could be classified as stolen. There is nothing in Brown’s indictment that clarifies whether sharing links in this manner is illegal either.
“Worryingly, there is no specific information to indicate what, if anything, differentiates Brown’s behavior from that of any Twitter user simply retweeting the link to those files,” wrote Lorraine Murphy at The Daily Dot.
Who else retweeting dodgy information will be arrested?
Immediately following news of Brown’s indictment, Internet activists, journalists and bloggers protested by tweeting the link that got Brown arrested, under #RightToLink.
Asher Wolf, an online privacy advocate and creator of CryptoParty, led the charge with:
This is the link the U.S. has charged @barrettbrownlol for posting on Twitter: cryptome.org/0005/stratfor-… Protect your #RightToLink. RETWEET IT!
— Asher Wolf (@Asher_Wolf) December 8, 2012
It has been tweeted more than 230 times. Many #RightTo Link tweets argued that criminalizing hyperlinking and sharing hyperlinks infringes on free speech, but the hashtag failed to draw many First Amendment activists. As of Monday evening, #RightToLink had collected just under 1,600 individual mentions according to Topsy. One of my favorites tweets, as it encapsulates the fear, comes from VinceintheBay:
“It’s a slippery slope. What’s next? No copy + pasting? No control + F? No right clicking? WTF?! #RightToLink #WarOnLinks”
VinceintheBay’s tweet may seem hyperbolic, but there is the Richard O’Dwyer case to consider. The feds tried for two years to extradite O’Dwyer, a British citizen, for creating a site that linked to copyright-infringing material (a.k.a. Hollywood movies). Unlike Kim DotCom’s Megaupload, O’Dwyer’s TVShack never hosted actual content — it was a link aggregator like Reddit.
O’Dwyer managed to avoid extradition last week by signing an agreement to pay $32,000 to “victims whose copyrights were infringed by TVShack,” a sum which represents the profit O’Dwyer made from ad sales on his site.
Will Brown be as “lucky”?
Image courtesy of Barrett Brown’s YouTube channel
View full post on ReadWrite
Feds Find An Anonymous Fish To Fry
Dec 11th
You now can get hauled into federal court in the United States for sharing a link in a chat room, apparently.
Barrett Brown, the journalist covering Anonymous-related activities for news outlets like The Guardian, was charged late Friday with 12 charges including linking, identity theft and fraud related to the Stratfor Global Intelligence hack.
The indictment reads, “in that Brown transferred the hyperlink ‘http://wikisend.com/download/597646/stratfor_full_b.txt.gz’ from the Internet Relay Chat (IRC) channel called ‘#AnonOps’ to an IRC channel under Brown’s control called ‘#ProjectPM,’ said hyperlink provided access to data stolen from the company Stratfor Global Intelligence, to include in excess of 5,000 credit card account numbers.”
Brown, who’s also writing a book about Anonymous, shared a link that thousands of people have shared before him. Brown is not charged with hacking into Stratfor, mind you, just linking. In fact, Brown’s involvement with Stratfor was more as a press laison than anything else.
As someone who has been in and around Anonymous since 2008 as either as an activist or journalist, Brown’s indictment is downright terrifying. I’m not the only one that thinks so either.
Gawker’s Adrian Chen called this indictment “frightening because it seems to criminalize linking,” and he’s right. There is nothing in the language of the indictment that clarifies when it is okay to link to documents Anonymous puts publicly online.
I’ve linked to “stolen information” countless times in articles I have written about Anonymous activities, and I know of other journalists and bloggers who have done the same. Besides articles, I’ve also retweeted Anonymous posts, posts that contained information that could be classified as stolen. There is nothing in Brown’s indictment that clarifies whether sharing links in this manner is illegal either.
“Worryingly, there is no specific information to indicate what, if anything, differentiates Brown’s behavior from that of any Twitter user simply retweeting the link to those files,” wrote Lorraine Murphy at The Daily Dot.
Who else retweeting dodgy information will be arrested?
Immediately following news of Brown’s indictment, Internet activists, journalists and bloggers protested by tweeting the link that got Brown arrested, under #RightToLink.
Asher Wolf, an online privacy advocate and creator of CryptoParty, led the charge with:
This is the link the U.S. has charged @barrettbrownlol for posting on Twitter: cryptome.org/0005/stratfor-… Protect your #RightToLink. RETWEET IT!
— Asher Wolf (@Asher_Wolf) December 8, 2012
It has been tweeted more than 230 times. Many #RightTo Link tweets argued that criminalizing hyperlinking and sharing hyperlinks infringes on free speech, but the hashtag failed to draw many First Amendment activists. As of Monday evening, #RightToLink had collected just under 1,600 individual mentions according to Topsy. One of my favorites tweets, as it encapsulates the fear, comes from VinceintheBay:
“It’s a slippery slope. What’s next? No copy + pasting? No control + F? No right clicking? WTF?! #RightToLink #WarOnLinks”
VinceintheBay’s tweet may seem hyperbolic, but there is the Richard O’Dwyer case to consider. The feds tried for two years to extradite O’Dwyer, a British citizen, for creating a site that linked to copyright-infringing material (a.k.a. Hollywood movies). Unlike Kim DotCom’s Megaupload, O’Dwyer’s TVShack never hosted actual content — it was a link aggregator like Reddit.
O’Dwyer managed to avoid extradition last week by signing an agreement to pay $32,000 to “victims whose copyrights were infringed by TVShack,” a sum which represents the profit O’Dwyer made from ad sales on his site.
Will Brown be as “lucky”?
Image courtesy of Barrett Brown’s YouTube channel
View full post on ReadWrite
The Case for Anonymous Writing
Oct 4th
On September 25, Todd Mintz wrote an article titled “The Stench of Anonymous Blogging” on Marketing Pilgrim. It’s a well-written post, and Todd makes a ton of good points. Transparency, accountability, and authenticity are all important in the world of search marketing. There are plenty of professionals with good advice that write under their real [...]
View full post on Search Engine Journal
Use This App to Create Anonymous, Disposable Email Addresses
Aug 14th
Email addresses are the keys to the kingdom of all our personal data. It’s too bad we had to relearn this lesson last week when Wired’s Mat Honan had the crap hacked out of him. A foolproof way to limit your exposure to such attacks is to sign up to different services using as many different un-guessable email addresses as possible. On Tuesday, an app I’ve been using called Gliph made that really easy to do. Here’s how to set it up.
What Is Gliph?
Gliph is like a Guy Fawkes mask for your online identity. It’s a free app for iPhone, Android and the mobile Web. You can use it to send encrypted text messages to other Gliph users with as much or as little personal information exposed as you want. And starting today, you can also use it to send and receive email to anyone through your regular email client without ever exposing your identity or information.
Not only can you use Gliph email to sign up for other services without exposing yourself to a hacking, you can use it for Craigslist transactions or any other kind of temporary encounter where you want to exchange contact info.
You could accomplish a similar thing by setting up a bunch of new email addresses on free Web-based email services. But with Gliph, email addresses are easy to create and delete, your emails sent via your addresses all come to one location, and you don’t have to log into multiple services to access different email accounts.
Step 1: Claim A Gliph
Instead of picking a user name when you sign up for Gliph, you get to create a string of three to five icons that represents you. Have fun with it!
Step 2: Create A Cloak
You get one free randomly generated email address when you sign up for Gliph. The addresses don’t have anything to do with your Gliph name; they’re something like watermelon29@cloak.gli.ph. In Gliph, you can add a note, like “signup for Dumb.ly app,” so you can remember what that email is used for.
Step 3: Email To Your Heart’s Content
You can now send cloaked email to any address. None of your information is exposed to the recipient, not even your Gliph symbols. They only see the randomly generated Gliph email address.
When the recipient replies to that address, Gliph forwards the message to the email address you used to sign up for Gliph. So if you gave Gliph a Gmail address, that’s where you’ll get the responses. If you reply from there, the message will be routed through Gliph, so it will appear to come from your cloaked address.
Make sure people on both sides check their spam filters if messages don’t appear. In our tests, Gmail allowed the messages through, but Outlook.com mail filtered them out.
Remember: Unlike Gliph-to-Gliph messages, which are encrypted and remain inside the service, the content of these emails is not secure. Not only is it exposed to the recipient, the replies are sent directly to the email address you provided to Gliph, which may not be secure, either.
Your email address, and thus your identity, will never be exposed when using cloaked email from Gliph. But you can’t assume that the words in the message will be kept private, too.
How To Get More Cloaks And Enable Attachments
Your cloaked email address will stick around, but if you want another one, all you have to do is successfully invite someone to join Gliph. That’s not just a gimmick; it’s great to have trusted friends and contacts on Gliph because that lets you communicate with them using the totally secure, encrypted messaging it offers. It’s also great for journalists and sources to protect anonymity, for example.
Once you’ve gotten five people to sign up for Gliph through your invitations, your account gains the ability to add attachments to cloaked emails sent from Gliph, even for cloaks you already had.
View full post on ReadWriteWeb
Can Anonymous Fix Online Music?
Apr 23rd
The digital music space is flourishing, yet at the same time, it remains fractured by a multitude of separate services and apps.
It’s a problem that hacktivist collective Anonymous blames on the dominance that major labels still exert over the industry. The solution, the group says, is what it calls a “fault-tolerant and open platform for social music.”
In a white paper with that very title, the group outlines its vision for how music could be consumed in the future. While they have historically come to the defense of piracy-related sites and organizations, Anonymous isn’t advocating copyright infringement. Instead, they want to disrupt the music industry by providing universal access to legal music from a single interface.
It’s an endeavor not unlike the open source desktop music app Tomahawk, which scans one’s local library and then augments with tracks from sources like SoundCloud, YouTube, Spotify and Ex.fm.
Anonymous’ solution is a Web-based app called AnonTune. The concept is quite similar to Tomahawk, albeit with a much more crude user interface. The project is nowhere near completion, Anonymous concedes, but once it’s finished the creators envision it upending the digital music space by breaking down the walls between legitimate sources of music from across the Internet.
An Olive Branch to Copyright Holders?
Even though Anonymous isn’t taking an overtly pro-piracy position, and even comes close to sympathizing with the industry’s desire to eliminate illegal downloading, it’s hard to imagine the RIAA and major record labels embracing what the hacktivist is trying to do.
Even so, AnonTune is designed to avoid legal liability by not hosting any content but rather pulling it from third-party sources. If an unauthorized song from YouTube shows up in AnonTunes, that’s Google’s problem, the group reasons.
One of the things that makes Tomahawk so comprehensive is its ability to plug into Spotify’s massive library of music, assuming one has a paid account with Spotify. Given the stake that the major labels have in Spotify, it wouldn’t be shocking to see the service deny the AnonTune Web client access to its library, if it can help it.
Right now, the project’s biggest handicap, other than limited content, is the design of its UI. To be frank, it’s hideous. This presumably will be addressed as development moves forward, especially if they want this to be something the average person is willing to use.
There are also some security concerns due to the app’s reliance on Java to run, but the developers have denied that their approach presents any security issues.
If things work out and the platform turns out to be viable, the people behind it believe it could “facilitate open research and innovation into the music listening experience.” It could take concepts such as Pandora’s Music Genome Project to the next level using things like biometric feedback and sentiment analysis of music.
Sound ambitious? These are some high-minded goals. But perhaps they’re not too far off if Anonymous is indeed onto something with this.
View full post on ReadWriteWeb










