It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Anti-sec group hacking image warehouses affecting ATSers' posts and threads

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 07:01 AM

Originally posted by zazzafrazz
reply to post by badmedia

Their actions certainly will move companies into more stringent security, perhaps they have a product they want to release, and this is their way of getting demand for it.. WHo knows perhaps their hidden agenda is money also

With the recent attacks and such and the "cyber bill" going on, I have a feeling this group is after "bigger things" and isn't worried about the money, or the security industry. The security industry stuff I think is just a red herring.

Imageshack gives them plenty of "exposure", that much we can say is true. But it's not the kind of exposure they would want if they were looking for support or trying to put out a message. Because in effect, they have screwed with everyone who uses that site, and forums like these. It's just incredibly stupid for a group who is supposed to be making a political type statement and such to do that.

As I mentioned before, they are doing everything they say they are against. That's a red flag. Along with overtly negative message of keeping things a secret etc. They are meant to be seen in a bad light.

Meanwhile, there are things like these internet bills being discussed and debated, and they hit a high profile site, with very high powerful and influential people publicly stating they want to shut the internet down.

What better way of gaining support for those bills than to have highly profiled sites being attacked by cyber terrorists? And they are terrorists by the definition of the word here. Attacking innocent parties to try and strike fear in favor of a political/economic agenda.

As well, "Cybersecurity Act of 2009", and this group just happens to be attacking internet security? When by their own account, they are actually specifically doing the things they claim these people profit from?

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 08:06 AM
reply to post by Deaf Alien

That kind of happened to me on google earth imaging this year.Last year i copied a lot of strange images on google earth imaging.Strange lakes and buildings.Strange poles in the middle of nowhere and what looks like ancient reins in the amazon rain forest.Iranian underground missle sites.This years i went back to check on the images again.For some strange reasons a lot of them were gone,covered by fake cloud or replaced with normal forest images.One lake i found was actually a six sided lake with a white dot in the centre.This year that dot was replaced with a large rock.How can a six sided lake form in the first place.The strange poles were gone too.I think the goverment monitors peoples google images.If they find a area that needs to be covered up they will place fake clouds or forest over the original images.I know they can do that.Sometimes i can spot fake forest images.Theres one north east of the town of dulce in new mexico and the forest area at camp hero,muntalk point does not look right either.Has anyone got any early google earth images of camp hero they would like to post on ATS.i could compare them with my recent photos to see whats been changed.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by GORGANTHIUM]

[edit on 11-7-2009 by GORGANTHIUM]

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 09:29 AM
To me this seems to be a new wave of cyberterrorism. Now, looking back at the effect and results of 911 and other real world false flag terrorism in our troubled history it's not hard to think of this in a problem reaction solution mindset.

New cyberterrorist hacking group gets very high profile. They attack security companies on the already unsecure windows platform affecting the surfing habits of millions of people and corporations. People cry out, the government comes in, solves the problem by clamping down on internet freedom.

Sound familiar? If these clowns are technically advanced the first place we should look is the governments cybersecurity organizations, such as the air force cybercommand and the NSA. The antisecurity group is probably composed by security professionals in the public sector.

Hegelian dialetic, problem reaction solution, ordo ab chaos. Ponerology. Psychopathocracy and pathological liars. Same old same old.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 09:57 AM
reply to post by Deaf Alien

my take on this is that they want people to stop posting exploits so that common citizens can have a leg up over TPTB. If they stop posting exploits TPTB won't be able to fix the "holes" or whatnot, otherwise we are helping TPTB to keep us enslaved.

At least that's how I read it.

So in a nutshell, stop helping the man make his system perfect before it's too late to do anything about it.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by warrenb]

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:07 AM
I'm almost positive that whoever is behind this is not Anonymous. For one thing, Anonymous always takes blatant credit for the "lulz" they inflict on the internet community. They would also probably replace normal images with shock images such as goatse rather than only leaving a rant about their reasons behind the hack. Though the Imageshack hacking may resemble something that Anon. would do, it doesn't hold the venom that Anon. usually puts into their work. Just my two cents.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:14 AM
There is the definite possibility of a false flag op. Convince the sheeple that there is an attack, then pass a patriot bill to defend them from further attacks. Is it a coincidence that in the US cyber security legislation is developing?

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:22 AM
Whoever they are, they need a spokesperson. I can't understand their
mission. It reads like Lewis Carrol...

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Uhh, umm, okay...Would you like some orange juice and
Lorna Doone's, lol.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:30 AM
If true that group has violated FCC laws.Thats a federal offense.They maybe be legally lible as well if these hacked companies want to sue them.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:46 AM

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by Duzey

Yep, it seems a simple 'anti-sec' google search reveals that lots of folks are under attack.

I'm still trying to gleam what these folks' purpose is though ...

Any ideas?

As a guy who works in Infosec I'll tell you.

Way back in the 90's if we found a vulnerability in a product, the big guys like MicroSoft would say "So what?" and keep stepping. Well this didn't help out security in the least.

So "we" started something called Bugtraq, based on full disclosure of vulnerabilities in a timely manner. We call up someone like IBM and tell them the issue, we tell them that we want them to fix the issue. We also tell them that we will give them about 30-60 days to fix it, at which point we are going to tell the world about the vuln, so that if IBM or whoever hasn't released a patch, at least people will know what the problem is and how to prevent it.

Over time, I too became a bit jaded by this, because even though it worked, there came a point where there were still companies not fixing stuff, and post-disclosure, the vulnerability was still rampant through the community. People were not protecting their stuff, and it LOOKED like full disclosure was perpetrating this.

Well... It's not. This is a philosophical rite of passage that any hacker goes through. What these anti-sec people fail to realize right now is that "they are the kiddies". Over time, they will come to realize that full transparency is much better than no transparency.

Anyway... that is my .02 cents from a guy who's been in Infosec since 89.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by HunkaHunka]

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 10:48 AM
I just had a thought,

You know, it could be a set up.

Just think of it this way. If it was portrayed as anonymous doing the attacks, I would assume it's the Scientology goons trying to set them up sense they haven't been able to shut them up or stop them.

Would actually be the perfect revenge. Although if that is/was the case then Scientology just bit off more than they can chew. If this was the case which it pry isn't but just some food for thought.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:14 AM

Originally posted by maria_stardust
It wouldn't surprise me if this group is loosely associated with Cult of the Dead Cow. From what I recall, this was at one time the ultimate hackers group.

Wow, have not heard that name in awhile.

I remember when back orifice first got popular. It seemed amazing that you could gain remote access to someones computer, see what they were doing, turn on there webcam, make windows error boxes pop up saying stuff like 'stop looking at porn you'll go blind'. Great stuff!

Whether this is a false flag or not it is more fuel for the fire to get the Cyber Security Act of 2009 passed.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 11:22 AM

The issue they are targeting seems to be a double edged sword if the security folks don't disclose the security holes in software then we don't know if they are patching them all. If they do disclose the security holes then people can use them against unpatched systems.

So, you analyse network security exploits yourself? You only know about patches you get told about otherwise.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by lucentenigma

Back orfice! Wow, i haven't heard that name since the 56k days, you know when everyone had and broadband wasn't even thought off.

Now that i think about, Anons at least claim their raids. This message sounds like a cyberterrorist group for sure.

The l33t hackers wouldn't slap up an ultimatum like, they wouldn't give you any message..just one day the net wouldn't work or something like that.

Because honestly, the best hackers in the world you never know about.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:50 PM
They're completely against disclosing security holes and other exploits. So they're going around hitting different sites to show those sites where they have security issues (ironic isn't it?
) and to use that as bragging rights/get their name out there.

If you look at their site, especially their FAQ's you can see how egotistical and immature they really are. They go on and on about hackers getting jobs and how wrong that is and little script kiddies who use the exploits disclosed by security experts to do their hacking. If you look at how they hacked Imageshack, you would see the irony in them calling others script kiddies.

They are mad that people are patching security holes. Making it harder for them to hack into anything. In other words, they're a bunch of immature whiners who are too lazy to look for other exploits.

I don't think they're connected to Anonymous. Anonymous has more sense and goes after bigger targets like Scientology. If you look at their site, they try to sound like Anonymous a little bit.

Anonymous would step all over Anti-Sec. Anti-Sec is made up of mostly the script kiddies they apparently hate soo much. Anonymous is a lot more than that.

[edit on 11-7-2009 by nightmare_david]

[edit on 11-7-2009 by nightmare_david]

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:54 PM
reply to post by nightmare_david

You know what you call a script kiddie that hacks you?

A hacker.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Duzey
reply to post by schrodingers dog

I have no idea what imageshack has done to upset these folks. For all I know, this could be their way of introducing themselves to the rest of us.

They did nothing what there doing is replacing there images when a site links to a picture there image shows advertising there cause.
As for there purpose looks like they believe the act of informing the public of viruses is nothing more than a scheme to make money. Sounds like they believe the people that write anti virus programs also create them. To some extent they are right there is people out there that do this. But for the most part there naive in believing that anti virus software is not needed.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 01:03 PM
I'm exited by the whole hacking community, I hope that they will someday be militant hackers for our freedom.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 01:04 PM
Anybody smart enough to be able to hack much of anything... would know that this will have the opposite effect.

Bring on more and more ' security ' seems to be the message.

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 01:07 PM
You know, I have to tell you guys that I'm a little surprised by some of the responses here.

First of all I should disclose that although some of us happened to be on last night when this was going down, I in fact could not be more ignorant to intricacies of such matters.

Having said that, so many folks here on ATS are always showing frustration at what they consider 'just talk' and lack of action. Members feel like stuff should be done about other stuff and even throw out words like 'revolution.'

Well, it seems that that's what these anti-sec folk are actually doing. They have a specific philosophy, seemingly based on a righteous cause, and they're putting their butts out there, following through and trying to fight the good fight. That's old school activism, and it is quite rare these days, and if honest, deserves some recognition and a little respect imo.

Again, perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about, it wouldn't be the first time. And perhaps this is a false flag, bad idea, counterproductive, bla bla bla ...

But these folks (giving them the benefit of the doubt for now) are DOING something and RISKING something based on a principle they believe in, and when was the last time any of us did that?

Like I said above, and not that it should matter, but I'm honestly surprised by some of you.

[edit on 11 Jul 2009 by schrodingers dog]

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 01:36 PM
Well, here's my tuppence...

All we have so far is speculation, so let's add some.

* AVG/Maccafee/etc/etc/etc - do they perpetrate viruses to make their products more desirable/"needed"?

* Do you really trust your anti-spyware etc? If we're to believe the CIA are on ATS/Farcebunk/Myspazz/Twatter etc - what better way to get into somebody's private/personals than by allowing them? Farcebunk is the ultimate Trojan Horse - so much personal stuff on there, I know the company I work for monitors staff farcebunk accounts, I'm up for a disciplinary because of it (more on that later if anyone wants to know?).

* With recent events in Iran/China/UK/US that have been all over the internet, it's very likely TPTB are getting antsy... really look at the MSM, when do you see cops tazering kids on the TV - but we know it goes on, because it gets uploaded to youtube etc.

* We're beginning to live in an age where we can access pretty much what we like and bypass mainstream outlets, look at the way the music industry/TV is dying on it's ass due to lack of funding, people turning off, advertising revenue going down.

* We also seem to have an increasingly unsettled world populace/public, who are getting tired of taking crap and I think everyone on here would agree things seem to be approaching some kind of tipping point. Are we just waiting for that spark?

* One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

* The language of the Imageshack-hack is ambiguous, so we can't be sure of purpose of intent. The way I'm reading it is that references to "white-hats" are just that " " " ", I think there's a degree of irony there, the so-called white hats purporting to be helpers aren't, the full-disclosure people are of full of poop, it's a front to perpetuate users like us buying into their scams. (Not that I'm suggesting the average ATSer does - just Joe Public)...

* The language (to me) seems couched in that of the revolutionary/idealist, making a plea to the "souls/hearts" of J.P. We all know that governments are trying to clamp down on how we use the web and what for, this is well documented and we all know various examples - Germany, Australia, US... so we're faced with a choice, do we allow our governments to censor what we see? Are we able to make our own decisions about what we read/view etc? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think they're trying to reclaim the web. "Full disclosure" seems to me to be a false-flag term.

* Agreed with Schrodinger... this has the "makings"of a full-on conforntation, we can only wait and watch - because that's what we do here, we comment! Not that it's a bad thing, there's a lot of stuff I wouldn't know about if I had no web (ATS etc) and I repost some things - pass them on to friends etc, try and get some news and information out there.

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in