3 ms·

Hacktivist attacks dropped by 95% since 2015

21 points by LinuxBender 8y ago

duxup 8y ago
I'm not sure how exactly they can accurately measure it. An appropriately completed "hacktivist" hack might not even be an obvious case of hacking? Maybe just a "leak" provided to someone in the media? I'd argue that a hacking entity pushing it's identity is both an extra security risk / risk for going off track. The focus is a lot on Anonymous, and bit like Wikileaks, I'm not sure Anonymous ever "was" what some technology enthusiasts and news folks really wanted it to be. There's plenty of fiction out there that folks enjoy about the super cool hacker who is out to fight the powers that be and change the world, but like most things reality does not cooperate. The article does seem to touch on what happened in terms of public opinion: >But nothing has led to the group's demise more than the inefficiency of most of its attacks. Defacing websites and launching DDoS attacks rarely gets anything done. >Neither does stealing data from websites that are completely unrelated to a specific topic. In many cases, Anonymous hackers ended up dumping personal user information into the public domain and hurting innocent people for ridiculous causes, attracting both scorn and ridicule. >This, in turn, has led to increased attention from law enforcement agencies, which cracked down on both members of the bigger Anonymous and LulzSec groups, but also the smaller ones.
ASalazarMX 7y ago
Back in 2011, when the wild ride that was Anonymous was at its apogee, it looked like an incoming Western Digital Spring. It's not wonder that fizzled down. Even if disadvantaged in the digital front, some of the affected can intimidate very effectively in real life: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/nov/02/anonymous-zetas-hacking-climbdown https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/nov/02/anonymous... Both organized crime and law enforcement can use violence, even if their objectives are opposed.

21 points by LinuxBender 8y ago

I'm not sure how exactly they can accurately measure it. An appropriately completed "hacktivist" hack might not even be an obvious case of hacking? Maybe just a "leak" provided to someone in the media? I'd argue that a hacking entity pushing it's identity is both an extra security risk / risk for going off track. The focus is a lot on Anonymous, and bit like Wikileaks, I'm not sure Anonymous ever "was" what some technology enthusiasts and news folks really wanted it to be. There's plenty of fiction out there that folks enjoy about the super cool hacker who is out to fight the powers that be and change the world, but like most things reality does not cooperate. The article does seem to touch on what happened in terms of public opinion: >But nothing has led to the group's demise more than the inefficiency of most of its attacks. Defacing websites and launching DDoS attacks rarely gets anything done. >Neither does stealing data from websites that are completely unrelated to a specific topic. In many cases, Anonymous hackers ended up dumping personal user information into the public domain and hurting innocent people for ridiculous causes, attracting both scorn and ridicule. >This, in turn, has led to increased attention from law enforcement agencies, which cracked down on both members of the bigger Anonymous and LulzSec groups, but also the smaller ones.

ASalazarMX 7y ago

Back in 2011, when the wild ride that was Anonymous was at its apogee, it looked like an incoming Western Digital Spring. It's not wonder that fizzled down. Even if disadvantaged in the digital front, some of the affected can intimidate very effectively in real life: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/nov/02/anonymous-zetas-hacking-climbdown https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2011/nov/02/anonymous... Both organized crime and law enforcement can use violence, even if their objectives are opposed.