Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

It's Official - Anonymous are Terrorists

(1/3) > >>

Renegade:
Well, it's official. Anonymous are "terrorists". Here's the proof:

https://www.slatt.org/SLATT/Terrorism_in_the_News

Look at the bottom of the screenshot:

It's Official - Anonymous are Terrorists

JFC... They raid a few servers... They expose corruption... This is hardly "terrorism". If anything, they're bloody heroes!


Seriously... I'm putting "terrorists" in the same class as leprechauns, elves, and fairies, except that I actually have more faith that they actually exist.  :-\

Stoic Joker:
I spotted this one and just had to read more:Hackers take over Boston Police Department website; message cites handling of Occupy Boston protest
Boston police issued a statement this morning that said the department’s “skillful technical staff” was “focused on rectifying this issue.” -The Article
--- End quote ---

Seriously?!? ...Who exactly are they trying to fool with that line of shit?? If the "Staff" was indeed all that "Skillful"...they wouldn't be getting spanked every five minutes, now would they? Oh Yeah, and like nicking a few files off a backup is a Herculean effort that requires great focus.

I'd laugh my ass off if I wasn't so preoccupied being disgusted.

db90h:
I spotted this one and just had to read more:Hackers take over Boston Police Department website; message cites handling of Occupy Boston protest
Boston police issued a statement this morning that said the department’s “skillful technical staff” was “focused on rectifying this issue.” -The Article
--- End quote ---

Seriously?!? ...Who exactly are they trying to fool with that line of shit?? If the "Staff" was indeed all that "Skillful"...they wouldn't be getting spanked every five minutes, now would they? Oh Yeah, and like nicking a few files off a backup is a Herculean effort that requires great focus.

I'd laugh my ass off if I wasn't so preoccupied being disgusted.
-Stoic Joker (February 08, 2012, 11:52 AM)
--- End quote ---

While what you say is true to some degree, the problem with security is that the weakest link in the chain is all it takes to break it. Time and time again, that's been shown. So, imagine you are running security for a major corporation or government and trying to secure a vast array of systems and less than security conscious users. Imagine management mandating less security because more security is so cumbersome. So, I'd give the security experts a break, as they have a hard job ensuring every link in their chain is secure -- especially when the weakest link is often the user.

That said, the #1 ways most sites are infiltrated is 0-day exploits on common software, like SMF here... SQL injection attacks are less common (though still around for sure), as developers became more aware of them. For instance, a 0-day exploit gets discovered on SMF --- if someone wanted to hack DonationCoder, they'd have until the fix was applied to breach the site. A race against time. This is a scenario that has happened many times, to many sites.

Stoic Joker:
There are plenty of ways to transparently seperate publicly facing systems from the rest of the herd. And if the brass won't listen to why something should be secured properly...hit them in the head with it.

Mgmt: So how did we get hacked?
IT: well as it turns out, your dogs name (sparky)... isn't really that hard to guess as a password.
Mgmt: I see... what should it be?
IT: Something that is not easy to guess, like: Apple Horse Food x5, or CvJ=Shft+Wle

Then set a password lockout policy high enough that it wont get noticed quickly (while the users get used to it), and then slowly tighten it until they do ... Explain why... Done.


Hint: I know this works, I've already done it. ;)

db90h:
Sure, but as the size grows, so does the complexity. Also, you may not have been the target of an exhaustive attack. To claim absolute security, well --- Come on man, that's jynxing yourself.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page