FoxNews commentator Bill OReilly's website hacked

wonder if he calls wikileaks a slimey scummy dispicable website now ...


www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by noobfun
wonder if he calls wikileaks a slimey scummy dispicable website now ...

www.youtube.com...

Wikileaks... that's where the hackers post the child pron right?! TERRORISTS!!



I hope they keep it up, it's about time.

If they managed to shut down the entire fox networ, tv stations, websites, even the little stores where they sell crappy t-shirts

It wouldn't change the world in anyway shape or form to have fox gone

most people wouldn't notice those that did wouldn't even remember a few days later

Originally posted by mybigunit
http://__._/wiki/Bill_O%27Reilly_hacked_2008

Here you go for all who wants to see. Maybe Oreilly will tread lightly when smearing people. I mean those are passwords that is posted on there and Im sure people use those same passwords for other personal stuff. I feel for the people whos info was drug out there but this is why they need to be aware of whos clubs they are joining. Especially a guy who makes a living off of smear.

Yea. And how about this 'Anonymous' fellow hack into the Constitution and delete the whole First Amendment thing. How dare Bill O'reilly speak his mind! Lets commit a crime to shut him up!

I lol'd.

Seriously? I'm saddened that there is an overwhelming number of people on this site defending these criminals. But I know its simply for the fact that you haven't been hacked yet, and this really doesn't affect you.

Yes, it doesn't help O'reilly's case that most people here seem to hate the guy, I'm not much of a fan either, but c'mon...E-terrorism? If you're talking about first steps, letting this fly is one of them...This and the Palin thing. Just because you're not important enough to get your computer hacked, doesn't mean you should wish it on other people.

Shame, shame. Does the golden rule not apply anymore?

On a hypocritical note...Can't these people quit with their agenda pushing? Thats all these hacking are. How about we find out if aliens and such exist? Or get into some Builderberg information, (which Obama and Clinton are in on, but so is everyone else. )

Honestly I dont care about O'Reillys fanbase. I don't care,much, about what Palin does in her personal time. Mundane details don't make me tight in the pants...Is that just me?

[edit on 20-9-2008 by Mad Binxx]

reply to post by Mad Binxx


You make a good point, If the tables were reversed and it was a GOP type group hacking an Obama site, I think there would be more outrage.

I personally think Ole Papa Bear is one of the most hypocritical jackasses on the air. But what precedence does this set is the question at hand.

Do your self a favor, do not think who the person was, and the reason behind it. This is a very slippery slope..

Though I can see the Bully getting beat up entertainment value in all this lol

[edit on 20-9-2008 by ShiftTrio]

Originally posted by d11_m_na_c05
WTF is up with NON HASHED PASSWORDS?

Do they not realize that O'reily and there WHOLE STAFF had ALL their info . Access to ALL their emails .

Holy hell . NO site . And i mean NO SITE store passwords unhashed.

This is crazy . Not the hack but the fact that this is REALLY fishy. Why would they store these passwords like this . If not to use them ?

If you had an account there . You may want to request logs of logins. See if any fox employee's have been accessing your stuff!

They are hashed in MD5, but easily cracked with rainbow tables. Big hacking "clans" usually have their own massive database of MD5 cracking

Originally posted by Tom_Proctor
They are hashed in MD5, but easily cracked with rainbow tables. Big hacking "clans" usually have their own massive database of MD5 cracking

No offense meant, TP - but did you see the screenshot of the ACP?
The PW's were stored in plaintext in that particular DB.
I don't condone the action, but at the same time I think it is pretty darn funny! Funny, because the "Faux Security" isn't much security at all....

If anything, these people who had their info revealed should sue the people behind the site.. They obviously had no security protecting this information. I think I read an article where it said this stuff (the ACP) wasn't even password protected!

I administer a cluster of servers with sites that aren't as high profile, and i would never EVER EVER dream of storing pw's in plaintext like this. It boggles the mind.

"Confucius says do not use stick to poke hornets nest whilst naked".

Originally posted by brill
I still think Palin is an idiot in using public e-mail systems for correspondence given her capacity. Public figures need to be a bit more diligent in ensuring their web presence has some security. I want to see Paulsons email now.

brill

There are e mail servers set up for official government e mail. It will archive all mail and there are several levels of people to delete messages. It is expressly used so someone can't create a paper trail outside normal channels and hide information. What she has done is use a service outside the normal channels and if a court order came through to save all electronic messages, she could erase the evidence as she was the only person with access.

This is a big no no and it is frowned upon because it can create an enormous legal problem.

As for the hackers and O'rielly's site; I'd put it on par with getting past web security for porn. No one cares except the clown looking for headlines and the computer people who are going after this idiot now. He will be caught in a few daze at most.

Originally posted by hinky

Originally posted by brill
I still think Palin is an idiot in using public e-mail systems for correspondence given her capacity. Public figures need to be a bit more diligent in ensuring their web presence has some security. I want to see Paulsons email now.

brill

There are e mail servers set up for official government e mail. It will archive all mail and there are several levels of people to delete messages. It is expressly used so someone can't create a paper trail outside normal channels and hide information. What she has done is use a service outside the normal channels and if a court order came through to save all electronic messages, she could erase the evidence as she was the only person with access.

This is a big no no and it is frowned upon because it can create an enormous legal problem.

I'm well aware of this as I alluded to in my original post. Not sure where your going but your overstating the obvious Of course there are proper channels and protocols to adhere to.

brill

Maybe it is not true, but a publicity stunt due to low ratings! Think that is too far fetched? I mean he is that "power hungry." It would not surprise this gal!

What's wrong with you? This thread is about Bill O'Reily's website being hacked, not your personal O'Reilly Slander Soapbox. Can we stop rooting for people who damage private property because you don't share that person's political beliefs?

What are you people, twelve?

I think this has government propaganda all over it.If billo ever wished for an opportunity to push his fan base toward accepting internet censorship and tracking any more than he all ready has,then this is it all wrapped up nice and pretty for him.I hope some of those people are smart enough to see through this.this is billo----->

reply to post by Johnmike


I second.

reply to post by Mad Binxx


E-Terrorism? Let's not give these kids delusions of grandeur. Yes /b/ are juvenile vandals, but when they can get Oprah to say a meme on her show my heart secretly lifts. How very Dada-esque.

reply to post by Mad Binxx


yes hackers stop pushing your agenda to make the poeple that lie and atatck you look foolish and weak, and stop doing random stuff becasue your bored and want some fun


look we know its illegal but so are a lot of things that are happening in the world

if we support them or not they are gonna go do stuff its thier way, so enjoy the funny side of it Oprah talking about the evil terrorists with 9000 penises how is that not funny

some big mouth clown with out a clue gets taken down a peg for talking junk hows that not funny, its the E-version of someone popping a bully and laying him flat out infront of all the school

Originally posted by Johnmike
Can we stop rooting for people who damage private property because you don't share that person's political beliefs?

Anonymous did not hack it because B'Oreilly does not share their political beieifs. Anonymous does not have political intrests, anyone could be/is part of Anonymous, that's the whole point: Non affiliation.

Bill O'reilly wants you to believe that Anonymous are "Democrats", "Pedophiles", "Slimey" etc which is digging him a deeper hole, by spreading BS about them but more importantly to you people, who lap it up. His true colours were shown, and yes he's a bad reporter and full of BS. This is why he was attacked. .End Of

[edit on 21-9-2008 by Xeros]

First of all why do all Americans assume Anonymous members are based in America?
Second, O'Reilly was attacked for slandering Anonymous and also attacking 4chan.org, essentially he described 4chan as a pedophile hangout. If Bill had bothered to do any checking he would see that this is entirely untrue.
Third, Anonymous has no Political affiliation.
Fourth, it was a lone idividual who hacked Sarah Palins account. He acted alone without any support from Anonymous.
People need to check facts before they make accusations. blog.wired.com...

reply to post by Xeros


What an ignorant thing to say. Just because you are anonymous doesn't mean you're not pushing an agenda. They're anonymous because they don't want to have to live up to what they're saying or be held accountable, and in the face of crime, well, would you comit a crime knowingly and plaster your name all over it? Someone who likes Bill isn't going to hack into his stuff and expose personal information, and playing into this whole 'its a mysterious organization with no affiliation' bull is rediculous and shows very little insight on your part.

As for him being a bully, well, its his show. He can say whatever he wants. Or do you not believe in the first amendment? Not saying something because you're fearful some computer savvy jerk is going to try to teach you a lesson,(any like metaphor could fit here, but this is the case in point), goes against the whole premise. This is funny because you're probably one of those people crying that your right to free speach is being slowly taken away. Meanwhile, you don't want people saying things you disagree with.

I disagree with what you've said, and will defend to the death your right to say it.

You obviously don't feel the same way.


[edit on 22-9-2008 by Mad Binxx]

[edit on 22-9-2008 by Mad Binxx]