The first global cyber war has begun

[AlicetheKurious]

One thing I don't get.

From this thread:

The United Nations is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonise global efforts by policy makers to regulate the internet.

Establishment of such a group has the backing of several countries, spearheaded by Brazil.

At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet - specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks.

The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for an "takeover" of the internet.

Am I missing something, or is there a contradiction with this?

Brazil's president Lula da Silva, who earned Washington's displeasure last May when he tried to help defuse the confrontation with Iran, gets it. That's why he defended and declared his "solidarity" with embattled WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, even though the leaked cables were not pleasant reading for his own government.

[Plutonia]

Another outpost of crowdjournalism emerging - from Slashdot: Politics for Nerds etc:

An anonymous reader writes"Cablegate: The Game is a game where players can read, tag and summarize the recently released US Embassy Cables. Points are awarded for finding the most tags in a cable." I wish this game were extended to more news sources generally — automated scans are nice, but can't (yet) make all the connections humans can.

Link

[winston smith]

Operation 'Avenge Assange': How anonymous is 'Anonymous'?

By Zack Whittaker | December 16, 2010, 1:00am PST

A new study by the University of Twente (UT) discovered that those conducting distributed denial-of-service attacks against major organisations, including Mastercard, Visa, and PayPal, though describe themselves as ’Anonymous’, they are not in fact anonymous.

The ‘Low Orbit Ion Cannon’ (LOIC) application used to conduct the distributed denial-of-service attack makes no attempt to block the originating IP address and can unveil the identity of individual attackers, the report says.

One of the attacks originated from a Twitter account, @Anon_Operation which tweeted the link to take out Visa.com. In the short space of time, over 38,000 people accessed the site with the setup utility and instructions, causing the massive attack to cripple the site.

The report summarises its finding by stating that, “It became clear, already with the first analysis, that [LOIC]
does not take any precautions to obfuscate the origin of the attack.”

Perhaps more worryingly for attackers, the report states quite clearly that the attackers behind the DDoS attacks are vulnerable to detection not only for the duration of the attack, but even longer.

“In this report we present an analysis of the two versions of the tool named LOIC (Low Orbit Ion Cannon, which is used by the hacktivists to perform their attacks. The main conclusion is that the attacks generated by the tool are relatively simple and unveil the identity of the attacker. Therefore, the name of this hacktivists group, “Anonymous”, is misleading: the hacktivists’ original IP address is shown in clear.”

Describing the data that can be retrievedfrom ISP’s servers:

“The European directive on “the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks” (Directive 2006/24/EC) reports that, taking into account privacy legislation, telecommunication data must be “retained for periods of not less than six months and not more than two years from the date of the communication”.

Such data should be made available ‘for the purpose of the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime’. This means that data are technically available, but only to public forces in case that they need to undertake an investigation.”

One of the snippets from the research shows a Wireshark trace of a LOIC operation, and how simple it is to retrace the steps back to the attacker:

4chan and Anonymous are not mutually exclusive, as Christopher Poole (’moot’) explained to me last year:

“‘Anonymous’ imageboard culture started with 4chan. ‘Anonymous’ the group traces its roots to 4chan, but splintered off after the whole Scientology thing. 4chan’s ‘/b/’ board in relation to ‘Anonymous’ the group; they aren’t the same thing. I can’t speak for the ‘Anonymous’ group.”

As Violet Blue describes it:

“It’s important to note that Operation Payback and Anonymous are not the same thing, and they are also not the same as 4chan, nor do they act as Wikileaks or Pirate Bay. This confuses mainstream media, who is used to simple, take-me-to-your-leader answers - but distributed and decentralized are not simple concepts.”

So how anonymous are ‘Anonymous’? Not very, it seems.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/operation-avenge-assange-how-anonymous-is-anonymous/7190?tag=content;search-results-rivers

[b]Footnote - "The whole scientology thing" explained here: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/perlow/the-global-cyber-war-hacks-and-attacks-scorecard/15192?tag=mantle_skin;content

[anothershamus]

Who better to defeat the cyber criminals than Tron Lebowski!

[AlicetheKurious]

Operation 'Avenge Assange': How anonymous is 'Anonymous'?

By Zack Whittaker | December 16, 2010, 1:00am PST

A new study by the University of Twente (UT) discovered that those conducting distributed denial-of-service attacks against major organisations, including Mastercard, Visa, and PayPal, though describe themselves as ’Anonymous’, they are not in fact anonymous.
...
The report summarises its finding by stating that, “It became clear, already with the first analysis, that [LOIC]
does not take any precautions to obfuscate the origin of the attack.”

Perhaps more worryingly for attackers, the report states quite clearly that the attackers behind the DDoS attacks are vulnerable to detection not only for the duration of the attack, but even longer.

“In this report we present an analysis of the two versions of the tool named LOIC (Low Orbit Ion Cannon, which is used by the hacktivists to perform their attacks. The main conclusion is that the attacks generated by the tool are relatively simple and unveil the identity of the attacker. Therefore, the name of this hacktivists group, “Anonymous”, is misleading: the hacktivists’ original IP address is shown in clear.”

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if it can be shown that LOIC has been deliberately misrepresented as anonymous, does this raise the possibility, even probability, that in fact "Anonymous" could be a honey-pot?

If so, it would be yet another clue that Assange, Wikileaks and the Cyber-War are not what they seem.

[82_28]

It would seem to me that "Anonymous" is exactly what it says it is only in reverse properties of the word "anonymous's" definition. There are multiple levels to this mind fuck. They've staked out a claim, in other words, on the word "anonymous". I challenge any doubter to just inhale the amount of bunk ass stories of late about the importance of being anonymous and the importance that some things be known for safety's sake. I also hazard to bring up that this is the point of what's his face from facebook becoming "person of the year". An entire generation has been bred to not only know what anonymousness is, but that it's also stupid to be anonymous.

War is peace
Freedom is Slavery
Anonymousness is celebrity

It would make a lot of sense that should the MC motherfuckers get played out there were always plans B,C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K etc always in the works.

All of us would be stupid to think that there are not contingency plans in order to overcome any kind of threat to the intelligence apparatus that haven't been well in the works for forever. This is easily how "terrorism" works. It's obvious. This "Anonymous" bullshit is doing more damage to the word and meaning of it than it's supposed organization. Which is the point. They now get to own another important word.

"Are you anonymous?"

"No? Of course not! But if you wanna know what I am you can check me out on facebook."

"Oh, you meant that kind of anonymous?"

"Which anonymous are we talking about?"

"Forget about it."

[wintler2]

One thing I don't get.

From this thread:

The United Nations is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonise global efforts by policy makers to regulate the internet.

Establishment of such a group has the backing of several countries, spearheaded by Brazil.

At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet - specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks.

The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for an "takeover" of the internet.

Am I missing something, or is there a contradiction with this?

Brazil's president Lula da Silva, who earned Washington's displeasure last May when he tried to help defuse the confrontation with Iran, gets it. That's why he defended and declared his "solidarity" with embattled WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, even though the leaked cables were not pleasant reading for his own government.

Up to a point, it is better to be inside the big tent haggling than standing outside complaining.

[hanshan]

Operation 'Avenge Assange': How anonymous is 'Anonymous'?

By Zack Whittaker | December 16, 2010, 1:00am PST

A new study by the University of Twente (UT) discovered that those conducting distributed denial-of-service attacks against major organisations, including Mastercard, Visa, and PayPal, though describe themselves as ’Anonymous’, they are not in fact anonymous.

The ‘Low Orbit Ion Cannon’ (LOIC) application used to conduct the distributed denial-of-service attack makes no attempt to block the originating IP address and can unveil the identity of individual attackers, the report says.

One of the attacks originated from a Twitter account, @Anon_Operation which tweeted the link to take out Visa.com. In the short space of time, over 38,000 people accessed the site with the setup utility and instructions, causing the massive attack to cripple the site.

The report summarises its finding by stating that, “It became clear, already with the first analysis, that [LOIC]
does not take any precautions to obfuscate the origin of the attack.”

Perhaps more worryingly for attackers, the report states quite clearly that the attackers behind the DDoS attacks are vulnerable to detection not only for the duration of the attack, but even longer.

“In this report we present an analysis of the two versions of the tool named LOIC (Low Orbit Ion Cannon, which is used by the hacktivists to perform their attacks. The main conclusion is that the attacks generated by the tool are relatively simple and unveil the identity of the attacker. Therefore, the name of this hacktivists group, “Anonymous”, is misleading: the hacktivists’ original IP address is shown in clear.”

Describing the data that can be retrievedfrom ISP’s servers:

“The European directive on “the retention of data generated or processed in connection with the provision of publicly available electronic communications services or of public communications networks” (Directive 2006/24/EC) reports that, taking into account privacy legislation, telecommunication data must be “retained for periods of not less than six months and not more than two years from the date of the communication”.

Such data should be made available ‘for the purpose of the investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime’. This means that data are technically available, but only to public forces in case that they need to undertake an investigation.”

One of the snippets from the research shows a Wireshark trace of a LOIC operation, and how simple it is to retrace the steps back to the attacker:

4chan and Anonymous are not mutually exclusive, as Christopher Poole (’moot’) explained to me last year:

“‘Anonymous’ imageboard culture started with 4chan. ‘Anonymous’ the group traces its roots to 4chan, but splintered off after the whole Scientology thing. 4chan’s ‘/b/’ board in relation to ‘Anonymous’ the group; they aren’t the same thing. I can’t speak for the ‘Anonymous’ group.”

As Violet Blue describes it:

“It’s important to note that Operation Payback and Anonymous are not the same thing, and they are also not the same as 4chan, nor do they act as Wikileaks or Pirate Bay. This confuses mainstream media, who is used to simple, take-me-to-your-leader answers - but distributed and decentralized are not simple concepts.”

So how anonymous are ‘Anonymous’? Not very, it seems.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/igeneration/operation-avenge-assange-how-anonymous-is-anonymous/7190?tag=content;search-results-rivers

[b]Footnote - "The whole scientology thing" explained here: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/perlow/the-global-cyber-war-hacks-and-attacks-scorecard/15192?tag=mantle_skin;content

This is the (d)uh in the
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/us/01nsa.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy

On January 19, 2006 the Department of Justice published a memorandum that stated in part:
For the foregoing reasons, the President—in light of the broad authority to use military force in response to the attacks of September 11 and to prevent further catastrophic attack expressly conferred on the President by the Constitution and confirmed and supplemented by Congress in the AUMF—has legal authority to authorize the NSA to conduct the signals intelligence activities he has described. Those activities are authorized by the Constitution and by statute, and they violate neither FISA nor the

Fourth Amendment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_warrantless_surveillance_controversy#FISA_exclusivity_controversy

some legal analysis:
http://ospolicycenter.org/pub/doc_91/mhh%20fisa%206%20Jan.pdf

It would seem to me that "Anonymous" is exactly what it says it is only in reverse properties of the word "anonymous's" definition. There are multiple levels to this mind fuck. They've staked out a claim, in other words, on the word "anonymous". I challenge any doubter to just inhale the amount of bunk ass stories of late about the importance of being anonymous and the importance that some things be known for safety's sake. I also hazard to bring up that this is the point of what's his face from facebook becoming "person of the year". An entire generation has been bred to not only know what anonymousness is, but that it's also stupid to be anonymous.

War is peace
Freedom is Slavery
Anonymousness is celebrity

It would make a lot of sense that should the MC motherfuckers get played out there were always plans B,C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K etc always in the works.

All of us would be stupid to think that there are not contingency plans in order to overcome any kind of threat to the intelligence apparatus that haven't been well in the works for forever. This is easily how "terrorism" works. It's obvious. This "Anonymous" bullshit is doing more damage to the word and meaning of it than it's supposed organization. Which is the point. They now get to own another important word.
...

yeah...&

Semiotics, also called semiotic studies or semiology, is the study of cultural sign processes (semiosis), analogy, metaphor, signification and communication, signs and symbols. Semiotics is closely related to the field of linguistics, which in its part, studies the structure and meaning of language more specifically. Semiotics is usually divided into three branches, which include:

Semiotics is frequently seen as having important anthropological dimensions; for example, Umberto Eco proposes that every cultural phenomenon can be studied as communication. However, some semioticians focus on the logical dimensions of the science. They examine areas belonging also to the natural sciences – such as how organisms make predictions about, and adapt to, their semiotic niche in the world (see semiosis). In general, semiotic theories take signs or sign systems as their object of study: the communication of information in living organisms is covered in biosemiotics or zoosemiosis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics#References

Can't find the def am lookin' for; maybe later

winston: better to be inside pissin' out than outside pissin' in...

...

[elfismiles]

Will ANONYMOUS Attack the APPLE iPHONE Network? NSA/ATT/APPLE vs ANONYMOUS

Do Androids's Dream of Electric Leaks...

Apple attacks WikiLeaks, yanks iPhone app from app store
By David Edwards
Tuesday, December 21st, 2010 -- 10:51 am

Update: Raw Story confirms that the WikiLeaks app is still available on the Android Marketplace

Only a few days after its release, the unofficial WikiLeaks iPhone application has been removed from Apple's App Store.

For $1.99, the app offered access to documents on the WikiLeaks website and the @wikileaks twitter feed.

When clicking on the app's link, the app store returns with the message, "Your request could not be completed. The item you requested is not available in the US store."

Details for the WikiLeaks app can still be seen in Google's cache.

Tech Crunch noted that while the secrets website and founder Julian Assange are controversial, the app didn't seem to violate Apple's terms of service (TOS).

Developer Igor Barinov confirmed that the app had been removed from the store.

"The status of the following app has been changed to Removed From Sale," a message from Apple told Barinov.

Apple has not yet responded to a request for comment from Cnet.

In recent days, Amazon, PayPal, Mastercard, Visa, Bank of America and others have stopped doing business with WikiLeaks.

"It's a new type of business McCarthyism in the US to deprive this organisation of the funds that it needs to survive, to deprive me personally of the funds that my lawyers need to protect me against extradition to the US or to Sweden," Assange told AFP Saturday.

The WikiLeaks founder was arrested in London earlier this month on accusations that he sexually assaulted two women. He was freed on bail pending a legal fight over extradition to Sweden.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/appl ... app-store/

[elfismiles]

The Global Cyber War Hacks and Attacks Scorecard
By Violet Blue | December 13, 2010, 6:28am PST



Summary
Here’s a list of the big-league damage — from original Operation Payback and first Anonymous campaigns to the current pro-Wikileaks DDoS attacks.

The global cyber war is on.

Visa, MasterCard, YouTube, the Church of Scientology, the MPAA, PayPal, the RIAA, Gawker Media, Warner Brothers, PostFinance… the list is overwhelming to look at.

You might immediately think of Anonymous, of Operation Payback - but there are others, such as #Gnosis, of this past weekend’s massive hacking of Gawker Media.

Contrary to current conventional thought that this is all one “group” associated with Wikileaks, even Wikileaks was taken out for over a day, right before Amazon kicked them out of the cloud, and the Anonymous site had a heavy DDoS attack resulting in 2 hours offline.

Since September of this year, major attacks have taken out (hacked, exposed, exploited or service-disrupted and largely taken offline) a lineup of companies and entities that many previously thought of as untouchable.

A significant number of those attacked openly mocked online community “hacktivists,” resting on an assumed “untouchable” status. In fact, that assumption is kind of what they all have in common.

Well, that and a certain arrogance - at least that is what was cited in the Gawker attack, which was (is) an example of serious attack that is not actual downtime. #Gnosis stormed Gawker’s shores and pillaged their villages, publishing commenter passwords, obtaining emails and BaseCamp access, and promising a full database dump. The damage is severe.

#Gnosis is new, and they are not 4Chan, or Anonymous.

For me, Anonymous is associated with the individuals wearing V for Vendatta Guy Fawkes masks who went up against the Church of Scientology back in 2008. This meme started when Tom Cruise went all creepy-crazy about Scientology in a video that the church then had removed from YouTube in a censorious flex of muscle.

Attacks began on the Scientology church, and a video was made by “Anonymous” wearing the iconic masks. Anonymous/Project Chanolgy launched DDoS attacks on the church along with various pranks such as black faxes sent to Scientology centers.

Most remarkable were the physical protests staged by people in cities and at Scientology centers all over the world. They all showed up wearing the Fawkes mask, ostensibly to protect identities from the Church of Scientology.

In close association is Operation Payback, who reminds us of their origins with their logo of a black pirate ship with its mainsail emblazoned with a cassette tape and crossbones. Avast ye scurvy copyright dogs; they’ll reduce you to analog.

The ship is a nod to Pirate Bay’s logo: the ship. The tape, likely a freely exchanged mixtape of music from a variety of RIAA artists, is important. Operation Payback (”…is a bitch”) went after entities that used strong-arm tactics to try and stop file sharing.

The first documented shot with Payback, if you will, was actually not from OP hackers. It was fired from “music industry good guys” - when a company hired Aipex Software to launch a DDoS attack on the servers of torrent sites - namely Pirate Bay - that were not responding to the industry’s takedown notices.

Operation Confuse The Media

Not all of the big-league hits have been from Operation Payback, but that hasn’t stopped media outlets from crediting them for many of the recent attacks. In fact, most major media outlets are in a state of utter confusion about what is happening, how it is happening, and why it is happening.

It’s important to note that Operation Payback and Anonymous are not the same thing, and they are also not the same as 4chan, nor do they act as Wikileaks or Pirate Bay. This confuses mainstream media, who is used to simple, take-me-to-your-leader answers - but distributed and decentralized are not simple concepts.

For instance, many articles slingshot off the Wikipedia page for Wikileaks, not bothering to notice that Wikipedia’s own citations for Wikileaks are not primary references, and in many cases are unsatisfactory and even misleading.

It is not unlike watching your peepaw unsuccessfully try to distinguish his emails from his “FacePage.”

Well, the rest is poorly documented history. But we do know that the scorecard is riveting. Whether it’s Operation Payback, Anonymous, or any number of other activists - the targets comprise a list with names so big it almost looks like a farcical Hollywood creation.

The Cyber War Hacks and Attacks Scorecard

I wanted to see the big-league damage - from original Operation Payback and first Anonymous campaigns to current pro-Wikileaks DDoS attacks.

This is not a complete list, just highlights:

ACS: Law (represents Warner, MGM, Universal and Sony) Big data breach; downtime: 179 hours

AFACT (Australian copyright enforcement) Downtime: 21 hours

Aiplex Software (DDoS attack on Pirate Bay) Downtime: Over 123 hours

Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft Downtime: over 4 hours

British Phonographic Industry Downtime: .06 hours

The Church of Scientology Downtime: over 24 hours, 12 days of attacks

Davenport Lyons (known for mass “pay up” notices to individuals) Downtime: 8 hours

EveryDNS (dropped Wikileaks site) Downtime: unknown

Gawker Media (see above, #Gnosis, damge undetermined)

Gene Simmons (advocated suing filesharing individuals into poverty) Downtime: 1 day, 14 hours

Hustler (suing unprecedented amounts of individuals, threat to name individuals) Downtime: 2 hours

International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (response to Pirate Bay verdict) Downtime 14 hours

Joseph Lieberman (told Amazon to drop Wikileaks) Downtime: 12 minutes

MasterCard (pulled plug on Wikileaks payments) Downtime: 1 day, 13 hours

Ministerio de Cultura Downtime: over 20 hours

Ministry of Sound (demanded identities of file sharers to force payment) Downtime: 3 hours

Motion Picture Association of America (pro-DRM, pro- “pay up” filesharing schemes) Downtime: 23 hours

PayPal (closed Wikileaks account) Downtime: 8 hours, 15 minutes

PostFinance (closed Wikileaks’ Assange’s bank account) Downtime: over 10 hours

RIAA (pro-DRM, pro- “pay up” filesharing schemes) Offline: Over 7 days

Sociedad General de Autores y Editores (Spain copyright group) Downtime: over 41 hours

United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Downtime: est. 24 hours

United States Copyright Office Downtime: 31 minutes

Visa (pulled plug on Wikileaks payments) Downtime: 14 hours

Warner Bros. Industry (response to Pirate Bay verdict) Downtime: over 2 hours

At this writing Amazon Europe is stated as hardware failure (despite Fox News reports) - December 12, 2010, see below:




What’s The Score?

It would be ideal to have financials - I’d like to see how much, if any, these entities lost. The pain and suffering award goes to Gawker (#Gnosis) - truly the most humiliating of the lot. The RIAA, with 7 days down, is quite astonishing - followed by ACS: Law (both Operation Payback).

Yet who ever thought Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal (Anonymous) could be publicly smacked around - all in a day?

Or, just another day online.

What do you think: whose side are you on - if any? We’re watching for your comments.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/perlow/the-gl ... card/15192

[Plutonia]

Also see Anonymous' Raid/Lulz page at Encyclopedia Dramatica

Caution: Getting close to not work-safe. If you are a moralfag, you'll find lots of stuff to offend. Proceed accordingly.

[Twyla LaSarc]

As someone who's been observing the Anonymous anti-scientology campaign from the vantage point of WWP for the last (almost) 3 years, I feel that I should post this:

PLEASE READ - Anonymous, WhyWeProtest, and Wikileaks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There has been an unusual amount of traffic and new users in the last few days. This is undoubtedly due to media coverage of "Operation Payback" in support of WikiLeaks.

Whyweprotest.net is the number three Google result for "Anonymous" with the first two being Wikipedia articles. A number of news sources have connected the "Anonymous" that works against the Church of Scientology with the "Anonymous" that is attacking the websites of companies that have worked against WikiLeaks. There was even a link here from a New York Times article in connection with "Operation Payback," so it is only natural that some people end up here in response to what is an ongoing international news story. We welcome new users and wish you the best.

I'm making this post to clarify things to our new users, to passers-by and some established users who seem to be a bit misinformed.

What Anonymous is
Anonymous is simply a group of people who communicate using disposable identities, or not using any identity at all. "Anonymous" can refer to the millions of people who post on various websites without using their real identities, it can refer to any given subset of those people, or it can even refer to a single person.

What Anonymous is not
Anonymous is not a single cohesive group of people. No single person or group of people is representative of "Anonymous" as a whole. Anonymous has no official membership, and has no official guidelines and no officials. There is no controlling entity and no unifying principles. Not everyone who considers himself to be Anonymous is involved with everything "Anonymous" is said to be responsible for, and things that "Anonymous" is said to be responsible for do not represent the opinions or actions of every single person or any given person who considers himself to be a part of Anonymous.

...much more at link

http://forums.whyweprotest.net/332-wiki ... aks-74386/

The anonymous connected to the fight with scientology are part of a particular project Chanology whose relationship to anonymous as a whole is best illustrated thusly:


About half are chnners/anons and half are interested parties with no real connection to anon other than WWP. Anonmynity is a necessary vehicle given Scientology's penchant for 'fair game' and vengeance. They also have a good sense of humor:

Anonymous declares war on snow
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/7-chit-c ... now-74792/

The fact remains that it is very easy to turn public opinion against Anonymous simply by claiming responsibility for any adverse internet event in their name. 'Anonymous' may be a cover for a honeypot at times, but it also can be easily damaged by 'false flag'. I frankly find their philosophy of supporting free speech and internet neutrality to be relevant to my interests. I also am interested in observing how consensus is reached without formal leaders and how this is expressed in mainly legal venues. The example of a decentralized, leaderless politcal movement might serve others well considering how many recent movements (especially positive ones) have been stopped dead in their tracks by the assasination, 'suicide' or sudden death of a leader or figurehead.

[Plutonia]

Twyla's on it!

[hanshan]

...

From elfismiles:

Quote:

The Global Cyber War Hacks and Attacks Scorecard
By Violet Blue | December 13, 2010, 6:28am PST

What’s The Score?

It would be ideal to have financials - I’d like to see how much, if any, these entities lost. The pain and suffering award goes to Gawker (#Gnosis) - truly the most humiliating of the lot. The RIAA, with 7 days down, is quite astonishing - followed by ACS: Law (both Operation Payback).

Yet who ever thought Visa, MasterCard, and PayPal (Anonymous) could be publicly smacked around - all in a day?

Or, just another day online.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/perlow/the-gl%20...%20card/15192

Yeah- would love to see the financials myself

interesting


...

[undead]