British Spies Wage DDoS War On Anonymous, LulzSec

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

British Spies Wage DDoS War On Anonymous, LulzSec

image

Government Communications Headquarters' Rolling Thunder may have hit unintended targets.

According to documents uncovered as part of the ongoing Snowden reveals, the UK's Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) has been waging war against the likes of Anonymous and LulzSec, and using DDoS attacks to shut down group communications. Its specialist task force Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG) ran an operation called Rolling Thunder against the groups, and claims it frightened off 80% of the users of Anonymous' chat rooms.

JTRIG also targeted individuals, and gathered data on hacktivists who went after government websites. Its HUMINT gathering resulted in arrests and convictions, including that of Edward Pearson, who was sentenced to 26 months in prison for stealing 8 million identities as well as information from 200,000 PayPal accounts.

It's likely that JTRIG had access to VPN information. In one instance, when gathering intel on a user called p0ke, a JTRIG agent sent p0ke a link to a BBC news article. When p0ke clicked on the link his personal data was accessed, allowing JTRIG to find out who he was and where he lived. But the VPN p0ke was using ought to have kept his identity safe; either JTRIG hacked the VPN, or somehow got the VPN to hand over the data.

While JTRIG can claim some level of success, its tactics targeted many teenagers, and interfered with citizen's right to free speech. Many of those involved were never charged with any crime - including p0ke - but were swept up in Rolling Thunder regardless. It's thought that the JTRIG attacks caused collateral damage in its efforts to disrupt Anonymous and LulzSec. Any DDoS aimed at chat rooms would have taken down all other servers operated by the same ISP, whether or not there was any connection to Anonymous or LulzSec.

Source: NBC

Permalink

It's thought that the JTRIG attacks caused collateral damage in its efforts to disrupt Anonymous and LulzSec

Small price to pay. I hope they've been as succesful as they claim.

And this is all legal how?

I think its high time we changed how our systems of government, as this is an outrageous breach of freedoms we expect in the western world. I'm no real revolutionary but damn its begining to piss me off that people can get away this shit like this this, it's unexceptable and I hope people begin to become aware of this and we as a greater whole(rather than a few hacktivists) move to make a change in the way the world is run.

Always nice to hear more tales of how law enforcement and government behave like lawless thugs.

It is shameful that anyone can expect to uphold the law when they aren't exemplars of the word and spirit of it.

Nimcha:

Small price to pay. I hope they've been as succesful as they claim.

I wouldn't consider committing the same crime as Anonymous usually commits (DDoS attacks) against possibly 10x more than those that actually committed any crimes as being a small price. Not to mention the whole hypocrisy and legality of their actions.

Jumwa:
Always nice to hear more tales of how law enforcement and government behave like lawless thugs.

It is shameful that anyone can expect to uphold the law when they aren't exemplars of the word and spirit of it.

You've said it better than I could, too true.

Valderis:
And this is all legal how?

It's not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack#Legality

They probably use the "Police Justification" that allows policemen/firemen/ambulances to speed to the scene of a crime/fire/injury.

Nimcha:

It's thought that the JTRIG attacks caused collateral damage in its efforts to disrupt Anonymous and LulzSec

Small price to pay. I hope they've been as succesful as they claim.

Until all of your private information is accessed because your ISP is the same that is used by their targets.

What about then?

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

OT: Wait a god damned second.

I could of fucking sworn that DDoS was illegal in both the UK and the US.

So I guess it's only illegal if non government sanctioned peoples do it then, right?

if so then they had better be tried in the same way others had been for the same things.

Good, this Anonymous and Lulzsec are just plain annoying.

I'm willing to put up with these DDos' by JTRIG if its stops those other groups from doing it in the future.

Good grief

If a government law-enforcement agency knows that an ISP somewhere is hosting a chatroom where neer-do-wells are hanging out... then get a court order to get the IP addresses that frequent the place and raid & arrest them.

Don't just DDoS them - that's not much better than... I dunno, a country's military being sent to pummel an opposition party's gathering

In the end its the government going "I don't want you doing this, even though you're not really doing anything illegal at the moment"

Oh sure, it might have been an effective at getting people to stop showing up at those chatrooms... but shutting down everything at that ISPs server to achieve that?

That's like carpet bombing a village to take out a shed

TL:DR - if some anons were doing something illegal, and they had their IP addresses and whatnot, why not just arrest them and shut the chatroom down normally?

Kalezian:

Nimcha:

It's thought that the JTRIG attacks caused collateral damage in its efforts to disrupt Anonymous and LulzSec

Small price to pay. I hope they've been as succesful as they claim.

Until all of your private information is accessed because your ISP is the same that is used by their targets.

What about then?

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

I kind of want to respond to this but I'd be getting a short post warning.

These sort of posts probably sound nice in your head, but what are you actually saying that has any relevance to the topic at hand? With things like those annoying anonymous kids it apparently works best to fight fire with fire. So why not?

Fight fire with fire. Makes sense seeing as all these people seem to understand is DDoS attacks and personal information breaches. I hope some of them think twice before doing this shit again.

I'm surprised to see so many people against the side of Anon and Sec. For the most part they've tried to justify most of their attacks, and, as far as I know, have gone little further than just protest - the electronic version of protesting and blocking the entrance to some place. Think of them what you will, I find it hard to feel much for either party.
Two wrongs, and all that jazz.

Nimcha:

Kalezian:

Nimcha:

Small price to pay. I hope they've been as succesful as they claim.

Until all of your private information is accessed because your ISP is the same that is used by their targets.

What about then?

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

I kind of want to respond to this but I'd be getting a short post warning.

These sort of posts probably sound nice in your head, but what are you actually saying that has any relevance to the topic at hand? With things like those annoying anonymous kids it apparently works best to fight fire with fire. So why not?

Ignorance at its finest. Try reading 1984 sometime, you'll learn something.

This is ridiculous, this isn't a government arresting people for a crime, this is a Government body attacking privately owned property in countries they don't control or have the right to interfere in. This is (as previously stated) firebombing villages to kill a escaped convict. This is flooding a forest to put out a camp fire, AND AGAIN, it's not their country to do it in and even if it was, that's just terrible logic progression. Lets slippery slope it and suggest Canada nuke the entire US to prevent the possibility of killer bees reaching them.

Chaosian:
I'm surprised to see so many people against the side of Anon and Sec. For the most part they've tried to justify most of their attacks, and, as far as I know, have gone little further than just protest - the electronic version of protesting and blocking the entrance to some place. Think of them what you will, I find it hard to feel much for either party.
Two wrongs, and all that jazz.

"the electronic version of protesting and blocking the entrance to some place" along with stealing and robbing a few hundred thousand innocent people in the process

No, I highly doubt they scared anyone. Most likely any of the anonymous hackers that were worth their salt simply moved to somewhere harder to reach, leaving the weakest links, that 20% that they apparently caught behind. But really, the saddest part about this is the collateral damage caused to unrelated parties.

Kalezian:

Until all of your private information is accessed because your ISP is the same that is used by their targets.

What about then?

What my address, national insurance number, date of birth and such like? The stuff that they already fucking know?

All the useful information that could be accessed by the tactics described is pretty much known to the government anyway. If the government wanted to steal my ID why in the fuck would they go further than their own legally obtained records of me?

Wow, the might of my country has been reduced to kiddie scripts. I blame the Conservative government.

Valderis:
And this is all legal how?

Because it's the government doing it, everything they do is completely legal and anyone who complains is a terrorist or a criminal. And naturally if an individual did this they would get locked up because it's totally illegal and can't be justified in any way. Business as usual really, one set of rules for us and another for the government.

there's something to be said here about what happens when the """""""Protectors"""""""" become the attackers themselves........

snekadid:

Nimcha:

Kalezian:

Until all of your private information is accessed because your ISP is the same that is used by their targets.

What about then?

They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

I kind of want to respond to this but I'd be getting a short post warning.

These sort of posts probably sound nice in your head, but what are you actually saying that has any relevance to the topic at hand? With things like those annoying anonymous kids it apparently works best to fight fire with fire. So why not?

Ignorance at its finest. Try reading 1984 sometime, you'll learn something.

I have, and unlike a lot of other people I still know where the line is between fiction and fact.

Nimcha:

It's thought that the JTRIG attacks caused collateral damage in its efforts to disrupt Anonymous and LulzSec

Small price to pay. I hope they've been as succesful as they claim.

Yeah, and it's totally a price worth paying to allow police to come into an eatery, start flipping over tables, look in back rooms and generally make the place dysfunctional for the customers, whenever they like and how ever often, just to potentially catch a random person who might be there and only in theory has committed a crime.

I hope the afflicted chat rooms sues the government for hundreds of millions.

But the scared sheep of society will get what they ask for.

EDIT- And 1984 is right around the corner. Edward Snowden described it as a "turn key tyranny" because we have all the laws and infrastructure in place to enable a tyrant, all we need is for the wrong person to get into power. We have computer monitors that look back at us, we have web browsers that listen to us, government entities can access a dossier of our entire online/cellphone history to incriminate us and in the US we got the 2012 NDAA bill which allows the government to detain whoever they wish forever without anyone ever being the wiser. If 1984 isn't here, then it's certainly on the horizon.

If people took all the anger and hate that they feel toward the governments for doing this and turned it on the people who were actually breaking the law in the first place--stealing identities and personal information and then selling it to the highest bidder, or just ruining innocents peoples' lives for 'lulz'--one has to wonder if we would even have a problem Anonymous or other groups like it.

Hammartroll:
BB, you say?

Point of order: Wasn't 1984 a real shit-hole of a world where you can't say "Fuck my government" without getting carted away and there was real fear in the same manner as you see in Farenheit 451, say? I know this is an aside from the main topic, but it is interesting still. I don't feel that that's as close as one might suspect, and I'm a cynic talking here.

OT: I personally find this amusing, but have to cut the merriment short because umm...these groups are hardly relevent anymore. They became background noise for us already.

I think Jake Davis said it best...

Or maybe the more important question: how can they even be permitted to launch these attacks at all? There's no justification for how nonchalant a democratic government can be when they breach the very computer misuse rules they strongly pushed to set in place.

When we look at what Western governments are doing - snooping on our emails, infecting our computers, intercepting our phone communications, following our avatars around in online games, backdooring our public encryption, discrediting our Internet viewing habits, encouraging illicit activity and even engaging in their own illicit activity - we have to ask ourselves: who are the real criminals here?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jake-davis-following-latest-gchq-revelations-who-are-real-criminals-1435193

Sniper Team 4:
If people took all the anger and hate that they feel toward the governments for doing this and turned it on the people who were actually breaking the law in the first place--stealing identities and personal information and then selling it to the highest bidder, or just ruining innocents peoples' lives for 'lulz'--one has to wonder if we would even have a problem Anonymous or other groups like it.

You mean like Big Business? Cause if everyone took a stand against businesses selling our data and information freely to third parties we might not need people like Anonymous to DDoS websites for "Activism".

so in order to possibly disrupt criminals you decide to become a criminal yourself. i really want someone to take Drooling Thunder to court for this. wont happen of course because governemnt is above the law of course. What they did is essentially bombing the headquarters of opposite party because they dont agree with their policies.

CardinalPiggles:
Fight fire with fire. Makes sense seeing as all these people seem to understand is DDoS attacks and personal information breaches. I hope some of them think twice before doing this shit again.

figting fire with fire only increase the amount of damage. there is a reason firemen carries water and not napalm.

Nimcha:

It's thought that the JTRIG attacks caused collateral damage in its efforts to disrupt Anonymous and LulzSec

Small price to pay. I hope they've been as successful as they claim.

Yes, your freedom is a small price to pay for.... shooting people who dont agree with government? its as if you want to live in slavery or something.

dumbseizure:
Good, this Anonymous and Lulzsec are just plain annoying.

I'm willing to put up with these DDos' by JTRIG if its stops those other groups from doing it in the future.

Good, these Jews are just plain annoying. Im willing to put up with those house searches if it means we can get rid of them in the future!
(and yes, this was sarcasm, because your basically saying we should kill people we find annoying).

I remember reading an interesting article about how the GCHQ was essentially under the employ of the NSA, and that the NSA occassionally outsourced work to the GCHQ because they could spy on Americans (aka foreigners) with less legal restriction than the NSA could.

On topic, it's a little sad that there are people out there who would say "I'm willing to put up with the government breaking the law, infringing on my civil liberties, and harming innocents to stop people who are annoying me." That's not even exchanging liberty for security...it's just giving away liberty for free!

Strazdas:

dumbseizure:
Good, this Anonymous and Lulzsec are just plain annoying.

I'm willing to put up with these DDos' by JTRIG if its stops those other groups from doing it in the future.

Good, these Jews are just plain annoying. Im willing to put up with those house searches if it means we can get rid of them in the future!
(and yes, this was sarcasm, because your basically saying we should kill people we find annoying).

I don't even know how to describe the various kinds of stupid that is.

DDoS is not the same as killing someone, and how you could even think I basically said that is so fucking strange I don't even know where to begin.

So how about you refrain from replying to me again unless you have something more substantial, and not pushing what I said to in illogical extreme.

Or just don't respond at all, that would be so much better.

In war, when you bomb a factory, the shrapnel flies and fires spread. It is a tragic reality of war.

Like war there will be unintended collateral damage. But unlike war, lives will not be lost.

I say the "Hacktivists" are doing more monetary damage, and must be stopped.

PS: I do not feel like debating this today, I am just putting my thoughts out there.

Strazdas:
so in order to possibly disrupt criminals you decide to become a criminal yourself. i really want someone to take Drooling Thunder to court for this. wont happen of course because governemnt is above the law of course. What they did is essentially bombing the headquarters of opposite party because they dont agree with their policies.

CardinalPiggles:
Fight fire with fire. Makes sense seeing as all these people seem to understand is DDoS attacks and personal information breaches. I hope some of them think twice before doing this shit again.

figting fire with fire only increase the amount of damage. there is a reason firemen carries water and not napalm.

First of all, yes the law is above the law derpy, otherwise how could ambulances speed towards a dying person to try to save his life, how could police officers shoot dangerous criminals, and how could fire fighters speed towards a burning building to try to save lives/buildings.

Secondly, fighting fire with fire is a metaphor. Being attacked is all these hackers understand. Creating more defenses is just like extending the obstacle course for these people. They see it as a challenge to be overcome. And besides, Thunder's tactic was DDoSing crappy chat rooms, whereas these hackers were DDoSing government websites. Slight difference there, not exactly the napalm attack you were getting at now is it.

There is a line that could quite easily be crossed here, but I don't believe Thunder has crossed it yet.

Ech. What a mess. Well, sometimes when you're going after filthy little bugs that have infested the house, you just have to start tearing the wall down and build it back up later.

How is it legal for the UK government to use DDOS attacks in that manner?

Valderis:
And this is all legal how?

Government is another way to say better than you ...

On topic. I am kind of against government, I don't think one group can possibly have the best interests of an entire country. I am not about to start rioting or hacking but implementing one set of rules for so many different people doesn't really work in my eyes.

I think everybody should play by the same rules, if anon and lulzsec are targeted for doing DDOS attacks, how come the government can do them Scott free? I also believe that the government should be totally transparent and any corruption dealt with in a very serious way ... also a fan of sortition.

Going off topic into political ideology now though.

It all seems a little "playing dirty" for the government, a bit like the shield ... it will get results but very sloppy and not really legal.

Nimcha:

snekadid:

Nimcha:

I kind of want to respond to this but I'd be getting a short post warning.

These sort of posts probably sound nice in your head, but what are you actually saying that has any relevance to the topic at hand? With things like those annoying anonymous kids it apparently works best to fight fire with fire. So why not?

Ignorance at its finest. Try reading 1984 sometime, you'll learn something.

I have, and unlike a lot of other people I still know where the line is between fiction and fact.

If you can't see the correlation between 1984-esque governance and the way things have been heading in the west for the last couple of decades then you haven't been paying attention.

I'm not saying it's there yet but the whole idea that "it's OK because it's the government/governmental authorities" just doesn't hold water in any kind of society you want to call democratic.

Bottom line - if this was a private individual/private company that was open to prosecution by the relevant country they WOULD be prosecuted. I understand the fact that they can't because of reasons that I'm sure you're aware of - but that does not mean that it should be a free-for-all or a law free zone.

The whole point (the ideal at least) is that the law is the same for all - and those in authority are supposed to be the ones that hold the law in the highest regard.

Shit like this shows that they aren't even trying to make that happen and that makes 1984 comparisons easy. No we aren't there yet. But this kind of thinking and disregard for the legal process makes it very easy to think that's where we are heading.

At least if the same kind of thinking continues to prevail in the highest places of authority and power in the world it will happen - the only question is when it will become a fully formed adult as opposed to a screaming infant.

dumbseizure:
Good, this Anonymous and Lulzsec are just plain annoying.

I'm willing to put up with these DDos' by JTRIG if its stops those other groups from doing it in the future.

I'm willing to be stripped search in an airport just in case it stops a terrorist group.

I'm willing to be monitored online 24/7 by intelligence agencies just in case I do something illegal.

I'm willing to be attacked by my own government in DDoS attacks in the off chance they stop people I find annoying.

I'm willing to trust the government to do the right thing because the government has never done wrong and are well known for stepping back if the population feels they've gone too far.

Do you see how scary you sound? I don't even have to bring up stuff like shutting down groups I disagree with because I find them annoying or corruption and misuse of this kind of power.

At what point is it not okay for you?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here