homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.226.80.55
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL & lawman

Foo Forum

This 90 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 90 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
Mastercard Site Hit By 'Hacktivists' Over Wikileaks
engine




msg:4240040
 11:01 am on Dec 8, 2010 (gmt 0)

Mastercard Site Hit By 'Hacktivists' Over Wikileaks [bbc.co.uk]
Internet hacktivists are claiming to have brought down the Mastercard website as revenge for the firm withdrawing services to Wikileaks.

The Anonymous group of hackers have also brought down the website of the Swedish prosecutors office which is pursuing founder Julian Assange.

It has pledged to launch denial-of-service attacks on websites it sees as anti-Wikileaks.

Earlier it hit the Swiss bank that froze Mr Assange's assets.

PayPal, which has stopped processing donations to Wikileaks, has also been targetted.


 

frontpage




msg:4240381
 1:26 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

what's it called when governments pressure private businesses into not doing business with an organization that the government does not like?


Care to back up your assertion with facts?

The US government to date has not forced any business to disassociate itself from Wikileaks. If you actually read the press releases from Amazon, Visa, Paypal, Mastercard, etc; you will see the private companies took the matter into their own hands for falsification of data and violating terms of service.

It is funny that those defending Wikileaks have no qualms about innocent people's lives and commerce being affected by supporters trying to take down websites.

Remind me again who the bad guy is again?

For all the delusional paranoia about 'censorship' of Wikileaks by the big bad 'government'; no effort has been made by the US to take down the domain nor webhosting. It could be easily be done via Homeland Security ICE's new powers like they recently did with the copyright violator sites 1 1/2 week ago. Yet, the US Justice Department has not done anything to stop the website.

Hackers group Anonymous, which has been working diligently in support of WikiLeaks, claims to have acquired information for numerous MasterCard credit cards following its attack on MasterCard's website.

"To people of the industrial world, dismiss your #Mastercard now!" the group's Twitter account posted, with a link to alleged leaked credit card numbers, before the account was shut down by Twitter.


Classy folks. Protesting 'censorship' by stealing credit card information from innocent bystanders.

[mybanktracker.com...]

Talk about censorship? Wikileaks supporters try to stifle free speech on Facebook and Twitter by attacking those websites. Hypocrisy.

"WikiLeaks cyberattacks now involve Visa, Facebook, Twitter, MasterCard"

[csmonitor.com...]

BillyS




msg:4240385
 2:11 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

Now everyone loses...

ppc_newbie




msg:4240387
 2:32 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

PayPal admitted Wednessday that they dropped WikiLeaks due to political pressure.
[huffingtonpost.com...]

PayPal is now releasing the WikiLeaks funds
[thenextweb.com...]

ppc_newbie




msg:4240389
 2:47 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

@frontpage

Your link to mybanktracker now says that the credit card thing was fake.
[mybanktracker.com...]

Any if you read more closely than just the headline at your link to the CS Monitor it was the "hackers" Facebook & Twitter pages that were taken down.
[csmonitor.com...]

Already there are groups of people coming out wearing masks much like in the movie V for Vendetta. Even a large group in Sweden wanting to be arrested for not using a condom.

moTi




msg:4240392
 3:11 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

internet vs governments - let the battle begin..

Remind me again who the bad guy is again?

certainly not wikileaks, as they didn't divulge the original information. the publishing platform for "secrets" that were out there for estimated 2.5 million people beforehand.

usa shutting down domains and urging companies to abandon business with oppositional website operators. china will be laughing their a$$ off next time some western regime criticizes their handling with dissidents.

[edited by: moTi at 4:00 am (utc) on Dec 9, 2010]

koan




msg:4240393
 3:21 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

Thanks for the research ppc_newbie. The misinformation out there is incredible... and not just from the usual "fair and balanced" network either. I personally have no opinion if the information leaked is a good thing or not. However, I see that the efforts to suppress that information, misinform the public with various unethical strategies and attack Assange's character is more revealing than anything on those leaks.

directwheels




msg:4240400
 4:07 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

Paypal is down and it's the only payment option on my site...

Been slow all day and I did see it affect business.

SEOPTI




msg:4240403
 5:00 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

I always had the feeling Julian is sponored and backed by the CIA, but maybe I'm wrong? So in the case I am not wrong the CIA would be responsible for the MC downtime.

viggen




msg:4240411
 5:39 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

The Truth is out there...

...currently re-watching all seasons of the Xfiles and it somewhat all feels like this is an episode of it...

JAB Creations




msg:4240415
 5:42 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

Anonymous and Wikileaks have my full support. When the government, media and or banks (all of which have been taken over by communists) say someone or something is bad then it's highly likely it's within our best interests to support.

- John

Jonathan




msg:4240422
 6:09 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

Last night WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson said: "Anonymous ... is not affiliated with WikiLeaks. There has been no contact between any WikiLeaks staffer and anyone at Anonymous. We neither condemn nor applaud these attacks. We believe they are a reflection of public opinion on the actions of the targets."

[guardian.co.uk...]


For all the delusional paranoia about 'censorship' of Wikileaks by the big bad 'government'; no effort has been made by the US to take down the domain nor webhosting.


Agreed (technically), or, at least, no firm proof of such yet exists. Have you seen the leaked US counterintelligence investigation into Wikileaks [scribd.com]?

Sgt_Kickaxe




msg:4240423
 6:15 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

Such is what happens when you step outside a business sense and issue change for political reasons.

Quite frankly Mastercard should eat their lumps, they come along with using the moment to gain publicity. Of course people see through their motive, it's just odd to see hackers standing up for freedom of speech.

I'm not pro-hacker, I'm anti soap box for profit(political, social, monetary or other).

Whitey




msg:4240432
 6:50 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

The US government to date has not forced any business to disassociate itself from Wikileaks. If you actually read the press releases from Amazon, Visa, Paypal, Mastercard, etc; you will see the private companies took the matter into their own hands for falsification of data and violating terms of service.

Not so according to Paypal [webmasterworld.com...]

Jonathan




msg:4240435
 6:59 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

Paypal is claiming media "confusion" over that report.

PayPal was not contacted by any government organization in the U.S. or abroad. We restricted the account based on our Acceptable Use Policy review. Ultimately, our difficult decision was based on a belief that the WikiLeaks website was encouraging sources to release classified material, which is likely a violation of law by the source.


[thepaypalblog.com ]

bird




msg:4240445
 8:35 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

Classy folks. Protesting 'censorship' by stealing credit card information from innocent bystanders.


For those who may still be confused: Those are *not* the actions of Wikileaks. Those "hacktivists", whoever they may be, are actually doing more damage to the Wikileaks project than they do to MasterCard et al. With "friends" like that, who needs enemies?

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the people attacking MasterCard et al were the same people who previously attacked the Wikileaks sites directly. When you can't put them offline physically, just destroy their reputation instead, by connecting them with criminal activities in the public opinion. But of course that is plain speculation from my side, your mileage may vary...

np2003




msg:4240451
 9:14 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

Releasing of corruption, illegal killings, etc. YES! releasing of private diplomatic cables, NO.

Would Wikileaks be happy if someone on their team leaked all their private conversion logs to the outside world? My guess is no. Noone would be happy about this, this is private and should remain so.

Whilst I don't agree to what Amazon, Paypal, MC did, I am not surprised. The government didn't do anything when they were leaking previous documents, but they certainly passed the line when they released these diplomatic cables.

Seems like the pirate party is assisting Wikileaks. Why are these individuals against movie/record/software companies making a profit? They seem to think 100+ million dollar movies will still continue to be made if noone bothers paying for it?

MrFewkes




msg:4240463
 10:07 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

I think the only site down about this at the moment is wikileaks - not available.

LOL

wildbest




msg:4240464
 10:13 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

... this is private and should remain so.

Private government... You've certainly hit the point.

When exposing the lies and revealing the truth becomes treason, that might just be the beginning of the end of the much vaunted 'free era'.

jecasc




msg:4240465
 10:14 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

I think the only site down about this at the moment is wikileaks - not available.

Which of the 1334 wikileaks sites do you mean?
[213.251.145.96...]

Samizdata




msg:4240487
 11:05 am on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

Which of the 1334 wikileaks sites do you mean?

The elephants in the room being Google, Yahoo and Bing.

And, of course, the New York Times.

...

lgn1




msg:4240514
 12:07 pm on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

The first rule of business, is to not take sides on topics that can impact your bottom line. Wikileaks was not breaking the law, and there was no court order to tell MC, Visa and Paypal to shutdown Wikileaks payment services.

I am really surprized that these companies got involved. This shows some real lack of strategic vision on the board of directors of these corporations.

I would love to put a banner ad on my site to support Wikileaks; but I would lose about 20% of my sales to the uninformed uneducated people that support secrecy and hidden agendas.

grelmar




msg:4240515
 12:16 pm on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

it's just odd to see hackers standing up for freedom of speech


Ummm... Say what? As someone who came out of the 80's hacker culture, I just can't let that stand.

Hacking, at it's core, is about openness. It's about taking something apart to find out how it works, learning, freeing the information inside.

What the word has become associated with since then is an abomination - breaking things for the sake of breaking them is vandalism, not hacking. Stealing corporate/private data for profit is theft, not hacking.

Grabbing information that would otherwise be hidden and releasing it to the wider world so that others may learn... That is the very core of true hacking.

I can't say I agree with what Assange has done - he has put lives at risk through his arrogance, carelessness, and blunt tactics. At the same time, I'm glad that even though I long ago was absorbed into the system (Wife, children, a mortgage and all the responsibility that goes along with it can do that to a fellow), I'm deeply moved by the fact that there are still people willing to take up the torch.

Assange is a sociopathic turd with an agenda. Anonymous are childish pranksters with a penchant for vandalism. And in spite of themselves, they have reminded us of things we should quietly fight for daily:

The freedom to speak. The freedom to know. The right to stand up against the wealthy and powerful and be viewed as equals in a society we like to believe is governed by the Rule of Law.

kaled




msg:4240517
 12:22 pm on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

To those people who believe Wikileaks are being irresponsible by putting lives at risk...

1) If someone in the US wants to publish instructions on bomb-making, the constitution lets them, irrespective of the fact it does endanger lives.
3) If the security consequences are really so dire, why has no one resigned?

The genii is out of the bottle. All the major governments and all the terrorist groups that want the complete list either have it or will have it soon. What we have now is a concerted attempt to keep the population in the dark not keep the population safe.

Kaled.

[edited by: lawman at 3:15 pm (utc) on Dec 9, 2010]

frontpage




msg:4240525
 1:02 pm on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

Thanks for the research ppc_newbie. The misinformation out there is incredible...


Yes, the intentional distortion of facts is incredible.

Paypal political pressure? Not.

"PayPal was not contacted by any government organization in the U.S. or abroad. We restricted the account based on our Acceptable Use Policy review."


Wiki’s latest release of highly sensitive cables sent by American envoys has breached its “acceptable use policy”, the US-based company said yesterday.


A PayPal spokesman said his company cannot be used for any activities “that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity”.

A spokeswoman for Paypal said: "We can confirm that there was an attempted DDoS attack on PayPal.com. The attack slowed some payments down for a short while but we remained fully operational throughout."



A State Department official also said the government department had not contacted Paypal.

US Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs Philip Crowley tweeted: "The US government did not write to PayPal requesting any action regarding #WikiLeaks. Not true."



Who has made the assertion that websites have bowed to political pressure? The gang of hackers currently engaged in criminal activities targeting websites.

The much-quoted Anonymous, spokesperson, who goes by the moniker Coldblood, is vowing to take down anyone having an “anti-WikiLeaks agenda,” according to the BBC. “Websites that are bowing down to government pressure have become targets,” he said.


Anonymous and Wikileaks have my full support.


Surprised that some folks here support criminal hacking of legitimate ecommerce and government sites and the disruption of innocent peoples lives. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Anonymous members launched their first distributed denial of service, or DDoS, attack on Saturday, taking down PayPal's blog, ThePayPalBlog.com, for at least eight hours.

Since then, they have taken down the websites of Visa, Mastercard and the Swiss Post Office bank for severing ties to WikiLeaks and the website of the Swedish prosecutor's office for pursuing Assange on allegations of sex crimes.


Aftonbladet said the official government website, [regeringen.se...] was offline for a few hours overnight to Thursday, publishing a screen shot which showed the server could not be reached.


Twitter itself could be the next target, according to a statement circulating online attributed to Anonymous and published by the Guardian UK. "We will fire at anything or anyone that tries to censor WikiLeaks, including multibillion-dollar companies such as PayPal," the statement said. "Twitter, you're next for censoring #WikiLeaks discussion. The major sh$%storm has begun."


The group known as 4Chan had taken responsibility on Tuesday for using a denial-of-service attack to shut down the sites for Swiss bank PostFinance and lawyers in Sweden prosecuting sex allegations against WikiLeaks front man Julian Assange.

[edited by: frontpage at 1:19 pm (utc) on Dec 9, 2010]

frontpage




msg:4240531
 1:13 pm on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

Wikileaks supporters are now using Twitter via hastags to spread methods of how to perform DDOS attacks against various websites.

frontpage




msg:4240534
 1:21 pm on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

Who is Anonymous?

Anonymous was born out of the influential internet messageboard 4chan, a forum popular with hackers and gamers, in 2003. The group's name is a tribute to 4chan's early days, when any posting to its forums where no name was given was ascribed to "Anonymous". But the ephemeral group, which picks up causes "whenever it feels like it", has now "gone beyond 4Chan into something bigger", its spokesman said.


Political pressure of Facebook to remove Wikileaks? Again no.


In an interview Wednesday morning, Joe Sullivan, Facebook’s chief security officer, addressed WikiLeaks’s own presence on the site. He said the company had not received any official requests to disable pages or accounts associated with the WikiLeaks organization.


By going so high profile, I wonder how long 4chan will last once law enforcement world wide starts investigating the damage caused by these attacks?

enigma1




msg:4240539
 1:51 pm on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

frontpage, I am using one of your quotes for the various DDOS you claim.
Care to back up your assertion with facts?


What are your facts exactly aside of the published quotes by biased media?

We have private corporations, of whom services went down. The way I see it is that these companies were totally unprepared and I can start posting additional info if you want to challenge it.

I see hundreds of hack attempts and DDOS daily against my sites. Whether you like it or not cyberwars are happening and they're here to stay because of the way internet functions. And I don't see anyone to complain when that happens on my site. So why should I care about it now?

And unlike what you read on various sites there is nothing that I would call illegal about it. If my site goes down I will blame the host, plain and simple and get my money back. If they cannot provide service, I go somewhere else and let them rant about DDOS issues.

So if companies like MC they want to whine about their little problems, won't change my perspective about it, that is due to their incompetent IT. Or they may well be after some publicity, or they heard DOS they thought Disk Operating System they thought time to upgrade, who knows.

woop01




msg:4240540
 1:55 pm on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

This whole freedom of information thing is a great cause to get behind.

Digging deeper into it, I’d LOVE to see some of the idealists give the moral justification of releasing lists of foreign locations diplomats feel are the most important to public health and economic security.

ChanandlerBong




msg:4240542
 2:02 pm on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

targetting twitter now? How on earth will they ever bring twitter to a standstill, you know, considering the iron-clad servers and mega capacity they have?

frontpage




msg:4240545
 2:04 pm on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

What are your facts exactly aside of the published quotes by biased media?


I get it now. Now everyone is against Wikileaks and no companies official statement is to be trusted. It's that darn 'biased' media covering for the US government.

P.S. Despite what some believe. A conspiracy by a group to take down websites is a criminal act.

US law for example: "Denial of service attacks are illegal in the US under 12 different statutes, including the Economic Espionage Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act."

UK law for example: "Police And Justice Act 2006 makes it an offence to launch a denial of service attack in the UK, punishable by up to ten years in prison."

Swedish law for example: "These new laws are intended to make hackers think twice before committing a DoS attack. They now know that their act is a criminal one and will be pursued according to criminal laws. Any DoS attacker can face up to 10 years in prison, so it is hoped that the number of attacks will decrease as a result of these new laws against cyber crime."

enigma1




msg:4240550
 2:36 pm on Dec 9, 2010 (gmt 0)

I get it now. Now everyone is against Wikileaks and no companies official statement is to be trusted. It's that darn 'biased' media covering for the US government.

I'm not after the wikileaks debate so much, because I don't find much interest in this kind of politics.

But I am after the so called DDOS, despite their resources, MC is incompetent to handle a website. You have to admit it.

And when they have a technical problem, "mayday, we're under cyber attack ... we need help". The government must help now ... Like a nursery school. Seriously are they really a private institute?

Denial of service attacks are illegal...

I would suggest, to check your server logs more often, because this is happening pretty much every second. And so a law, as you want to put it, that cannot be applied, is useless.

If it was real, I would be a millionaire by filing lawsuits to every major host that exists across the globe. Or maybe these laws, you mention, are applicable to "some cases" is that right?
Like when they say "we are all equal" but "some are more equal than others"?

This 90 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 90 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Local / Foo
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved