- From: Colin Gallagher <colingallagher.rpcv@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2014 15:59:24 -0800
- To: Zijyfe Duufop <zdoofop@gmail.com>
- Cc: Hadi Nahari <hnahari@nvidia.com>, "public-web-sec." <public-web-security@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CABghAMh_4ndX0SVboiunj7Qj0dQ=hOUWW1+-QEp3bV6ZHE1CYw@mail.gmail.com>
"if chumps like these could use mcdonalds, who else could use mcdonalds?" the horror. Happy New Year On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Zijyfe Duufop <zdoofop@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, admittedly I was a little late on this, but ask yourself: If chumps > like those could use > that site, who else is using it? Aerith? whoever hacked sony? maybe even > the attacks on North Korea? > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Hadi Nahari <hnahari@nvidia.com> wrote: > >> Apparently one of them is already apprehended in the U.K. per Krebs: >> >> http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/12/lizard-kids-a-long-trail-of-fail/ >> >> -Hadi >> >> On Dec 31, 2014, at 12:32 PM, Zijyfe Duufop <zdoofop@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> probably should be clearer: >> *Michael Nieves* @*virus* <https://twitter.com/virus> >> >> These @*LizardMafia* <https://twitter.com/LizardMafia> chumps ripped >> their "stresser" code from http://titaniumstresser.net >> <http://t.co/BlL1YZSzXz> #*LizardSquad* >> <https://twitter.com/hashtag/LizardSquad?src=hash> #*LizardMafia* >> <https://twitter.com/hashtag/LizardMafia?src=hash> >> >> On Wed, Dec 31, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Zijyfe Duufop <zdoofop@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> update: It appears I was mostly correct: titaniumstresser.net >>> >>> On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Zijyfe Duufop <zdoofop@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Oh, my mistake. In my first message I didn't mean new tech as in >>>> gadgets, more like an app or program with the specs I gave. If I am >>>> correct, all we would have to do would be to find this new >>>> website/program/app and destroy it. I know it's a lot easier said than >>>> done, but I thought I'd put it out there. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Zijyfe Duufop <zdoofop@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm not sure I understand. You started off with saying they are easy >>>>> enough already and then went off on a tangent. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Colin Gallagher < >>>>> colingallagher.rpcv@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You're not missing much. I bet you have already seen the Norse >>>>>> visualizations. What's bothersome is these attacks are so easy to pull off >>>>>> that it's not even a "man-children" or "internet of things" attribution. So >>>>>> the cost of association of a person or a group with a non-event becomes so >>>>>> low that the fruit is lower hanging for most Tor devs to let players keep >>>>>> playing them for attention that comes to Tor, rather that focusing on >>>>>> silently addressing node and certificate authority issue problems. Which >>>>>> they are, but with a sort of exaggerated sense of denial about the ongoing >>>>>> attacks. >>>>>> >>>>>> Watch and get free entertainment as some dude from Mega throws >>>>>> bazillions of credits around to "MAKE IT STOP" and then the hacks resume >>>>>> again after money is received. Sad. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I've pointed out before the reason I wouldn't agree to participate >>>>>> in Web Payments group or its conf calls was the ludicrous CLA which in many >>>>>> ways literally said, "If you call in, all your ideas are belong to us >>>>>> forever." Kind of like .... SONY >>>>>> >>>>>> so obv I never called in. >>>>>> >>>>>> Basically: >>>>>> These firms / nonprofits (often tainted by too much exposure to the >>>>>> infobleedment industry, eg Sony, Mega, Tor, etc) release funds to keep the >>>>>> hacks going a bit longer. To get attention in a market that is getting >>>>>> tougher (hell, look at slur.io's model - and they'll be gone soon >>>>>> because they don't publish keys for gpg etc). The cybercybercyber attacks >>>>>> (past few days mostly between US, China, with Russians watching and eating >>>>>> popcorn according to NORSE) made ppl run around in circles in low places, >>>>>> like Hollywood, White House, and a local garbage incinerator. >>>>>> >>>>>> I love my privacy (even tho I am contacting you today via gmail) but >>>>>> for serious comnunications I use open source and serious crypto, not this >>>>>> stuff. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ok ciao... happy new year >>>>>> On Dec 27, 2014 4:35 PM, "Zijyfe Duufop" <zdoofop@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Something occured to me recently: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As you know, there has been a rash of DDoS attacks on pretty much >>>>>>> everything from XBox to North Korea. From what I understand, different >>>>>>> hacker groups are claiming responsibility for nearly every single attack. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now, it occurs to me that the possibility that a bunch of hackers >>>>>>> starting to form groups at around the same time is highly unlikely. >>>>>>> However, there is another interesting, and more likely explanation: new >>>>>>> tech. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This tech would have to make DDoS so easy, your grandmother could >>>>>>> do it. It would have to be affordable, reliable, adaptable, and known >>>>>>> throughout the hacker community, but not necessarily to the general >>>>>>> public. It would have to be run through a server in such a way that not >>>>>>> one of the attacks used can be linked. And, most importantly, it would >>>>>>> have to be intelligent enough to find a weak link in the destination and >>>>>>> exploit it. If I am correct, then man-children in basements everywhere are >>>>>>> trying to glorify themselves by taking down high profile targets and then >>>>>>> boasting about it in a way that makes them seem bigger than they are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am I completely wrong? Am I missing something? Is this not even >>>>>>> news? Why do I feel like this is too obvious? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> ------------------------------ >> This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and >> may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, >> disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended >> recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies >> of the original message. >> ------------------------------ >> > >
Received on Thursday, 1 January 2015 00:01:33 UTC