BREAKING NEWS: Syrian Electronic Army takes down New York Times website

The paper — which NSA leaker Edward Snowden deliberately avoided over his fear that it would cooperate with the United States government — is now working with the Guardian on a series of stories based on documents that detail National Security Agency cooperation with its British counterpart, the Government Communications Headquarters, known as GCHQ.

Source]

Check the timestamp on the linked article...and then consider who 'the syrianarmy' is....

Two cents...

reply to post by MemoryShock



Exactly - I was just posting this on a related thread:


NSA was my first thought!

A pro-Syrian government group appeared to attack more than 10 websites, including Twitter, the New York Times and HuffingtonPost

Especially in light of this:

New York Times partners with The Guardian on NSA surveillance

New York Times Partnering With Guardian On Snowden Reporting


and this:

More Details On PRISM Revealed; Twitter Deserves Kudos For Refusing To Give In

This is not, by the way, the first time that we've seen Twitter stand up and fight for a user's rights against a government request for data. Over two years ago, we pointed out that Twitter, alone among tech companies, fought back when a court ordered it to hand over user info. Twitter sought, and eventually got, permission to tell the user, and allow that user to try to fight back.

If not the NSA (National Socialists of America?) maybe one of those shady private SS (security/spying) companies like Booz Allen, Endgame, Palantir, HBGary, etc.

dont you know, the NSA just found out the syrian army is killing little kittens and puppies too........(they have a taped secret phone call from Assad to the animal ministry)

Originally posted by deviant300

BREAKING NEWS: Syrian Electronic Army takes down New York Times website

rt.com

The New York Times’ website has been disabled for the second time in under a month, with the newspaper attributing the outage to a “malicious external attack” widely thought to have come from hackers affiliated with the Syrian Electronic Army.

“Many users are having difficulty accessing the New York Times online,” the paper wrote on its Facebook page. “We are working to fix the problem. Our initial assessment is the outage is most likely the result of a malicious external attack.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Now anything bad that happens in the world will be blamed on Assad and the Syrian Regime!

Originally posted by scoobyrob
wonder how they knew it was the Syrian army... seems a bit quick to be jumping to conclusions unless I'm missing something here, do they have something to tie them to this incident? or are they just guessing and pointing fingers to further their agenda against the Syrian government....??

I was thinking the same thing.

Honestly, I thought I heard that the first attack might have been retribution from the Clintons for the NY Times write up on the Clinton Foundation.

reply to post by deviant300


last time it went down was maintenance after they slammed the clintons...

HOLY @%#&*($^!!!!!

They keep running the same dam play !!!!! What a bunch of BS. WHEN WILL THIS STOP !
BTW - did you hear that a dirty syrian punched a blonde haired, blue-eyed, flag waving american baby in the face and then called all of us a bunch of dorks !

Its about time, finally some news agency gives credit to someone other than Anonymous (the group of retarded script kiddies).

Hi all - longtime listener (since 2004), first time poster.

As an IT tech, I feel obligated to point out that *the New York Times is causing their own outage* today. Yesterday, the registrar was hacked to repoint the authoritative DNS nameservers to sea.sy, the Syrian Electronic Army's domain.

However - as of today, the authoritative nameservers (that tell the world the correct IP address for nytimes.com) are pointing to the NYTimes' nameservers. Here is the proof that the Times is causing their own outage today:

(1) The website itself is up, via its correct IP address 170.149.168.130... .

(2) Checking the WHOIS database at whois.domaintools.com... shows where the world looks for the nytimes.com IP address, which are the nameservers DNS.EWR1.NYTIMES.COM and DNS.SEA1.NYTIMES.COM. (Granted, it's strange that 'sea' is referenced in the Times' actual nameservers.)

(3) The Times' nameservers are not reachable by their fully-qualified domain name, but they are reachable by IP; they are working fine, not down or overloaded. This can be proved by running the command "nslookup nytimes.com 170.149.168.134" - or in Linux, "dig nytimes.com @170.149.168.134" . This proves that the Times' nameservers are not undergoing a Denial of Service attack.

The only thing causing the nytimes.com outage right now, is that the NYTimes' own nameservers are not resolving correctly *within their own network that they have full control over*.

The Times is now causing their own outage. It seems reasonable to assume that their Admin was ordered to keep the site down, so the media can play up the outage on the newschannels as the US prepares to strike Syria.

reply to post by GaryJameson


As a former IT guy as well, its also quite possible,,that the only guy that was anygood,, was let go long ago,,,,after all everything ran hunky-dorey,,so,, u know,,cutbacks,,,,

its true, ive seen it happen.more than once.

I've seen that happen as well. Here's what bugs me, though:

The "SEA" hacked the Times yesterday by brute-forcing their registrar (Melbourne IT) and redirecting the DNS. This, and the Twitter hack, are easy because they can be done with no access to the Times' network. However, today's "outage" could only be caused by removing an existing records from the Times' nameservers from the inside.

I would agree that IT incompetency could be blamed, if the nameservers were under a Denial of Service attack and the IT department couldn't stop it in time. However, an NSLOOKUP proves that the nameservers are working just fine. This was truly an inside job.

i don't really believe the syrian army has the capability to hack US servers weather its the new york times or not. why would thay? what would thay gain from it? a load a piss if you ask me.

reply to post by deviant300

BREAKING NEWS: Syrian Electronic Army takes down New York Times website,

Oh no I don't think so,the syrians where playing some online cybersex games and accidentally they have confused New York Times with a cyber girl.

Originally posted by theman1111
i don't really believe the syrian army has the capability to hack US servers weather its the new york times or not. why would thay? what would thay gain from it? a load a piss if you ask me.

Let me educate you...
en.wikipedia.org...
not the "Syrian army"

reply to post by Superhans


Yeah, Probably some fabricated electronic army. And before you mention that the group was created back in 2011, I will remind you that these propaganda rooted tactics are planned years and years beforehand. Basically, get the Sheople all worried about their privacy being compromised in order to drum up a little more support where there is virtually none. Americans are sick and tired of War.

I don't know for sure, but I don't see what Syria, or some Syrians, would hope to gain from such a move. Do you actually believe that these people want a War with us? Come on, let's use a little logic here. I don't believe anything that The NEW York times has to report anyway. They are just one of many in the mass media of liars. ~$heopleNation

reply to post by SheopleNation


The SEA was around before 2011, they have been known about within the hacking community for some time now. You don't see the irony in calling people sheeple and then saying most people are tired of war? Most people that are concerned about privacy don't even really know what privacy is or what their expectation of privacy should be.

Originally posted by Superhans
The SEA was around before 2011, they have been known about within the hacking community for some time now.

Well your Wiki link says that they were formed in 2011. Maybe they just meant that is when they launched their website, whatever.

You don't see the irony in calling people sheeple and then saying most people are tired of war?

No, I do not. What you have to understand though is that we have been at War over in the Middle East for so long now that even the biggest imbeciles are sick and tired of it. People who I know who before would never discuss war or politics are now doing just that.

Most people that are concerned about privacy don't even really know what privacy is or what their expectation of privacy should be.

Yeah well privacy is overrated. I think one should expect it inside their own home, or even a temporary one (like a hotel or what have you), but when you walk outside your door I don't believe that anyone has a right to full privacy. Cameras can help prevent and solve violent crime, and I am far from an advocate for big brother.

Now, there are exceptions to the rule here, like driving down the road in your vehicle if you're not drawing any probable cause, but you get what I am trying to explain. Anyway, it's just a discussion where opinions vary. ~$heopleNation

reply to post by SheopleNation

Well your Wiki link says that they were formed in 2011. Maybe they just meant that is when they launched their website, whatever.

Not "my" wiki, its Wikipedia and it says they launched a website in 2011...

No, I do not. What you have to understand though is that we have been at War over in the Middle East for so long now that even the biggest imbeciles are sick and tired of it. People who I know who before would never discuss war or politics are now doing just that.

So sheeple?

Now, there are exceptions to the rule here, like driving down the road in your vehicle if you're not drawing any probable cause, but you get what I am trying to explain. Anyway, it's just a discussion where opinions vary. ~$heopleNation

See, just what iwas talking about. You have no right to privacy when you are driving on a public road, you are in public.

Originally posted by Superhans
Not "my" wiki, its Wikipedia and it says they launched a website in 2011.

Well you linked it, did you not? Yeah, That's what I said.

So sheeple?

Depends on the individual. There are many kinds of Sheople. You seem to be obsessed with the label. Oh and it's sheople, not "sheeple". I will tell you why that is if you want to know?

See, just what iwas talking about. You have no right to privacy when you are driving on a public road, you are in public.

Umm yeah, that's what I just said as well. Is you know I am, but what are you, next now? ~$heopleNation

reply to post by SheopleNation

Well you linked it, did you not? Yeah, That's what I said.

Nope, i quoted you. You specifically said it was my wiki which it is not.

Depends on the individual. There are many kinds of Sheople. You seem to be obsessed with the label. Oh and it's sheople, not "sheeple". I will tell you why that is if you want to know?

Im obsessed? You have said it more than I and i really don't care the reason why you spell it that way or whatever deep meaning you think it has. Truth is that it probably just means people who disagree with you on some topics.