Internet Hacking; The End Justifying the Means

P

Paul Revere

New member
I can hear it already..."another conspiracy theory". Well, put this one in your pipe and smoke it.

We all know that this nation’s media machine is for the most part monitored, licensed, and regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). That is; television, radio, newspapers, magazines, telecommunications, etc. But the internet isn’t. Shall we believe that the federal government will leave this enterprise alone? Self-regulated? Yeah right.

The internet represents true "FREE SPEECH", it is uncensored, real, and most importantly UNREGULATED. It is one of the many examples of free enterprise and capitalism that works, without federal intervention. It has streamlined businesses, communication, information, and markets for the good of all who dare to log on. In a matter of seconds, a user of the internet can access everything from Encyclopedia Brittanica to hard core pornography, from the latest life saving medical advances to the most deadly weaponry. People on opposite sides of the globe can communicate at the cost of a local telephone call. There are no user taxes, licenses, or federal permission slips needed to enter and surf. Freedom in its purest raw form.

Internet companies and dot com providers have experienced unprecedented growth and profits. Everyday we find new and easier ways in which to access information and make our free lives even freer. The internet works, so why fix it?

If you (the federal government) wanted to get your dirty stinkin political hands into the internet, how would you do it, considering the system as we know it runs like a Swiss watch, giving no justification for intervention? Well you’d get those techno-weenies over at NSA or FCC or one of the other alphabet soup agencies to HACK the internet. Create havoc. Justify a reason to intervene, to regulate, to control. The end justifies the means.

Our government is famous for this. So why should we not believe that a plan to create havoc on the internet, to disrupt business, to cost users millions of dollars, could be perpetrated by our own federal government in order to ultimately justify a reason to control this media which is currently beyond their control? Just as we experience the second wave of hacking, Janet Reno steps to the press room podium and announces how her enforcers are going to get involved to stop this hacking, and find the perpetrators. Yeah Janet, go on. You go girl.

What she is really saying is, "Big Brother needs to watch over your internet, be its protector." Justifying the means to an end.

Your thoughts?
 
It's possible.

It's also possible somebody's trying to short-sell specific .COM companies and masking the activity by blitzing a bunch of others. Or they're shorting all of NASDAQ.

Or a really BIG player is messing with the international currency markets. Better pray that ain't it, 'cuz they'll need to semi-crash the entire US economy to have any real effect. Bad news is, so much of what makes up the economy today is .COMs that it's actually possible to do that.

Jim
 
I have long been a conspiracy theorist and I agree 100%. The argument will bw that it must be done for the children and once they get into control you will need a background check to apply for an internet connection. Do you think I exaggerate? There is evil in the world and it runs rampant on the internet. Why just yesterday I saw a red headed woman on a camel trying to bite an elephant. And I found this while searching for... I better not say or Madamoselle Reno whill put on her red wig and hump on over here.
I have rare moments of lucidity, I really do.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
"... considering the system as we know it runs like a Swiss watch". Man, you don't work with the net for a living, do you? :) The whole system was designed by the military to work no matter what and a damn good thing too. The 'net hangs together because of a lot of good people working hard everyday to solve the problems that continuously crop up.

I also think your analysis of the perpetrators is faulty. There are many, many, teenage kids who would pull this prank just for the fun of it. They don't have to be NSA weenies because the information on how to do it is available widely on the net. This is *not* rocket science... well, maybe for a select few, but most "hackers" are pimply-faced kids trying to prove somehow that they are worth something. This was a denial-of-service attack and that just amounts to doing the same thing over and over again, fast enough, to make a site so busy it can't do what its supposed to do. There is no merit badge to be earned in doing this. Its kindergarden stuff.

Hiding your tracks *is* much more sophisticated. Again, though, the information on how to do that is widely available. You don't have to be an evil rocket scientist to read about it and exploit it.

The real issue here is that the *media* has taken the opportunity to explode this into a much worse issue than it is. The government may try to take advantage of that. Given the track record, should that really surprise anyone?
 
Ever heard of the DEFCON convention? It is attended each year by hackers, Internet security experts, the military, etc. Like pbash said many "attacks" can be accomplished by any "script puppy" and it ain't rocket science. Heck, for a short time me or any one else could modify Web sites that were served using the older IIS software by using FrontPage. By the way, the most recent attack has been tracked to a college in California that had their network compromised and the location of the culprits is being narrowed down now.

As for the Internet being unregulated, not true. The Child Protection Act governs the porno industry, copyright laws are initiated the minute material resides on a server, etc. I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theory at all.
 
I don't agree that the Feds themselves did it...but I am sure they are glad it happened because they do want to control and snoop and the fear being whipped up about it on the news is the means they will use to get control. When you also consider that the Feds want phone and cell phone companies to put in technology to make it easier for the Feds to wiretap, etc....this is a gimme

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
Take away Amazons ability to market books on the web for a few days and the magic of float capital vaporizes. Stock value tumbles, and someone could buy alot of cheap stock. Take away the problem and the stock value goes right back up. Cash out and retire.

I imagine the SEC is watching for large stock buys of the affected companies.

Who knows maybe the Bulgarians are back at hacking again...

I imaging a benign Virus could be written that leaves no trace but auto spams sellected web addys whenever the web socket is connected

i doubt this weeks event was kids

Maybe some of those Brick & Morter companies are doing some urbane renewal

dZ
 
Perhaps the Feds didn't actually do it, but I think they encouraged, suggested or aided in what is going on. If they discovered it was going to happen, I'm sure they did nothing to stop it.
 
Personally I think it's rather funny to see the reaction of the public in general over these types of things. When a *crisis* happens, such as a hack or Y2K, everyone assosiated with the computer industry becomes an immediate saviour/demon.
Truth is that if you shuffle across a carpeted floor and start pounding the keys on the keyboard, that spark of static will do more to kill your system than any hacker or software bug out there. While everything stated so far is entirely possible, and the media plays this stuff to the max, 78% of the people in the world have never used a telephone. Kinda puts the importance of PC's in perspective. 99% of the people in the industry can't even begin to define the buzz words they use everyday for cryin out loud!

"Swiss watch??????"-More like a Swiss avalanche. Each tiny part is nothing, but collect them all and put them in motion, and watch out. The internet, as a whole, is a collection of non-working parts, that is made to function by circumventing those non-working parts. The ultimate band-aid. Anyone that treats it differently kinda gets what they deserve.

Hackers don't really exist. Really, they don't. What does exist, is a dirt bag with a keyboard, and a little bit of knowledge, as well as the means to do mayhem. Think about it, who does more to frustrate you and seperate you from your hard earned money: Some clown that takes down an internet site, or the guy that makes a bundle selling you the latest and greatest micro processor and crash proof operating system?

The computer industry, and the fringe element are pretty much the same thing folks.

[This message has been edited by RAE (edited February 12, 2000).]
 
Paul you sound a little like IVAN 8884? Havent seen him in some time. Agree it is very possible, but will no longer worry as Clinton has called a "Internet Summit", I feel safe already. He just cant sit back and let someone else solve the problem. Talk about mircro managing.
 
Well, here's my conspiracy theory anyway. The latest series of DDoS attacks are a protest to Mitnick's harsh treatment, and here's why I think that....

The computer is the life blood of the hacker (let's just say 'computer geek' to avoid any misunderstanding). Mitnick's intentions are to go back to college to get a degree in Computer Science. I don't know if Mitnick has destructive, ulterior motives in mind, but the pursuit itself is certainly harmless. And it makes sense doesn't it?

But to deny a geek his computer is to deny a Musician his instrument, a carpenter his hammer and saw, or a gun enthusiast his guns.

As we all know, the government is having a difficult time coping with this new thing called cyber crime (assuming big brother's not directly involved). It stands to reason why Mitnick would be treated so harshly: To use him as an example. The harsh treatment would serve as deterrant to other would-be hackers.

If so, I think it back-fired. I think the radical hacker community, upon realizing this, immediately staged a counter-attack. To many of these people, Mitnick is a martyr, a legend in his own times, who has suffered at the hands of an oppressive government bent on imposing itself on the freedom of cyberspace.

I think these radical hackers wanted to send a message that the government can not terrorize them, that they are stronger than they (big brother) can imagine, and is willing to fight back. They wanted to prove that big brother's scare tactics did not work on them. Instead, it did just the opposite.

Why do I think that? Because of all the sites that are hit, the are all very public and are very difficult to defeat. They chose popular public sites so everyone would know that they can't be stopped. That list ranges from Yahoo to eBay to the Pentagon.

Look at the nature of the attack also. Notice that the purpose of DDoS is simply to crash a site, not steal credit card numbers or other personal information. So as far as I know, no innocent surfers were harmed. Also, of all the elaborate methods they could have used, they chose something that is well-documented and so simple as to be laughable. I think part of the reason is so that it would serve as a slap in the face. And because DDoS succeeds through brute strength, I think it serves to show how others have underestimated their capabilites.

I know some people think it may be the work of script-kiddies; immature teenagers with a few tricks up their sleeves and nothing better to do. I disagree, because of the way the distribution was carefully planted and coordinated to attack, and how carefully they were able to hide their tracks. I really think Yahoo's 5 gig/sec hit capabilities are beyond what most amateurs are capable of. The nature of the DDoS attack are such that, at the designated moment, the attack would be sudden, extremely intense, and short. At 5 gig/sec, they had better know what they're doing if they were to pull it off. So you see, in terms of scale, it was really stealthy, well-coordinated, and they obviously had some working knowledge on the limits of these well-fortified sites. None of the traits above seems to be the MO of an amateur.

One last thing about DDoS attack. Now that people are aware of this attack, appropriate defenses will be in place to prevent future attacks through this method. Once the smoke clears, net traffic would be back to normal, and the DDoS method is not a significant loss to hackers. Message sent. Objective complete. No civilian casualties (except perhaps some lost bids in auction sites).

Add all this up, and this is why I think it's the work of radical hackers, and why I think it had to do with Kevin Mitnick. I can't stress enough, however, that these are only my speculations.

[This message has been edited by SB (edited February 12, 2000).]
 
Considering some of the sites that were hacked could it be some of the "good guys". We all know EBAY is anti-gun and I for one know that every time I turn on my computer Yahoo news comes up with a picture and story of Clinton. I even Emailed them my displeasure about that. I don't know about Amazon.com.
 
If star bucks web site gets hacked , you can bet on gov. intervention .

------------------
If it can't shoot jacketed rat turds powered by mouse farts, I ain't gonna shoot it!
 
Amazon.com claims to be not anti-gun, but they refuse to let guns or gun related items to be auctioned on their site. I was not given a real reason as to why. They claimed that the potentional liability was to great and that guns could be sold there without background checks etc. Which we all know is a bunch of bull.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
I don't think it matters if these attacks were government sponsered or not. The end result will be the same: Reno and Clinton are now "justified" in regulating internet access to protect the children and commerce.

Of course they will have to tax access and sales to pay for this protection.

Gosh, didn't some groups break windows in stores to encourage payment of "protection" money? Makes you wonder.
 
What does the "Father of the Internet" have to say of all the supposed hacker attacks? Uh...gee, I haven't heard Gore say a darn thing about it. Big shocker there!


Hueco

(added)
I couldn't take it...I had to say something. True hackers -- they are the ones out for knowledge. Hacking has zero to do with "doing." Go into any reputable BBS and post saying you are a hacker. What do you get? FLAMES galore! Hackers have ability, knowledge -- cyber punks are pimple-faced teens that think they are cool because the have an AIM punter. The true hackers are the ones you never hear about because they rarely do anything that revelas their presence. They are not stupid enough to be high-profile. the guys you hear about are either burn-outs are fall-guys. Hacking is most certainly about knowledge foremost. Knowledge does not imply action. And if one has true "hacking" knowledge, then he has studied long and hard, he will not waste the effort on blowing some lame site to get noticed. The ones that are "dangerous" are the ones we have never heard a peep from! But the government ignores this fact.



[This message has been edited by Hueco (edited February 12, 2000).]
 
What a silly idea. Why if people believed the end justified the means, the anti-gun people or the government might set up mass killings to justify gun control laws. And that is a silly idea, isn't it? Well, isn't it?

Jim
 
This recent attacks on Amazon etc weren't hacks - they were just denialof service attacks - just flooding tyhe sites with a ton of data to slow them to a crawl.
Conspiracy here is just crap - it's just a bunch of teenagers trying to show off.

If a conspiracy theory was to exist they'd do some real hacking - like getting government data or financial information. This internet "hacking" beat up is a joke.
 
SB:
You give these thugs way too much credit. Simple diagnostic tools can and do produce the same results, and are available just about everywhere. It doesn't take a lot of effort to put together an attack like this. Don't buy into the media hype about it. The only thing different about this latest attack is the timing and the publicity given to it. Instead of using a simgle point of entry, these thugs used several distributed points to launch the attacks, all at the same time. The equipment needed to do this is already in place.

Without getting into detail, mainly because I don't fully understand the details of how to do it, but I do understand the concept as a means to safeguard against it:
Anyone with the knowledge to do so, can use equipment already in place to generate this type of attack. Say a company like IBM or Microsoft, with several high end mail servers, and several wide pipe connections, were targeted to act as the host for the attack. Now set in motion, a forewarding scheme, which is based on the basics of the system itself, to generate traffic from these sites to a specific target. Voila, instant swamp of the target.

These people aren't Hackers, Phreaks or any other catchy buzz word term. What they are, are thugs. The media, mainly out of ignorance, publishes shock lines to get attention. People cry and moan, worry and fret, and demand protection from someone to safeguard their systems. It doesn't take a super system to do it. They just use someone elses system, remotely, to work the attack. They can gain access to these systems, mainly because someone was lax in the original configuration of the system. Why they were lax is due to either poor design, poor implementation or an unwillingness of the customer to pay for the needed time in the first place.

The best analogy I can give is someone leaves the keys in the car, and some dirt bag jumps in for a ride. What the dirt bag does during this ride is the question. Is it a simple joy ride for thrills, or do they use the car in a drive by?

A scum bag is a scum bag, only the tools they use change. To use the above analogy, think of "The Cl*b" and how effective it is in deterring auto theft. There is always another scum bag out there ready to cash in on the action. Since they are painted as being on the *right side*, they escape the label. Deep down though, they know that what they offer as protection really isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top