5 ms·

It's kind of gross the admiration people are expressing here. I work for a security firm that does work with all kinds of organizations. At the heart of the mat

It's kind of gross the admiration people are expressing here. I work for a security firm that does work with all kinds of organizations. At the heart of the matter, we are scientists investigating the truth. If a break-in occurred, who was responsible, and what was compromised? If someone is being charged with distribution of child pornography, did they willfully download and distribute it, or was it part of a wide net that was cast to download a whole bunch of porn at once? This DDoS occurred: who was responsible? You have security in place: is it sufficient to protect the data in an appropriate manner? We are a small firm. Our yearly revenue is probably nearly $1-1.5 million. Including the founder, we have eight people employed: a mother of two, three people who have poured over ten years of their lives into building the company to its current level, a cancer survivor still undergoing treatment, and three others who are doing good work while making ends meet and paying down school loans. Something like this happening to our company, an event that led to $1MM+ in losses, would wipe us out. It would end a company that provides a valuable service to dozens of law firms and other organizations (colleges, hospitals, local political entities, etc.) each year. It would immediately put eight people out of work and negate 50+ man-years of effort. Call me crazy, but I am not patting these guys on the back. It's all fun and games until you're ruining lives.

JonnieCache 16y ago
Destroying a company that both takes government security contracts, and also drops the firewall and gives out the root password after an email request is a public service. Such a company is a danger to the safety of every citizen in america and beyond. A lot more than eight lives could be ruined if they had been investigating organised crime or terrorism instead of anon. Harsh but I think true.
- yters 16y ago
  You people are so socially retarded. How can such speculation justify ruining actual lives in anyway? There is no way you can concretely justify anything you claim there.
  - pkulak 16y ago
    In capitalism inept companies go out of business. If you're a security company that just got hacked 6 ways to Sunday, you're inept. Maybe it's time for some other startup company to "make" the lives of i's employees by stepping in to the void and doing the work properly.
    - yters 16y ago
      Are they a security company or a forensics company? Different skillsets.
      - vacri 16y ago
        Different, but related. A forensics company does not have the ability to claim ignorance of security issues - /especially/ if their role is digging up dirt on others. They should be fully aware of privacy and security issues. Now if they were a company that baked and distributed cheesecakes, I'd give them a pass on criticism for having security issues.
        yters 16y ago
        But that's not the service they're providing, thus incompetence in that arena does not endanger multitudes of American lives and anon ruining their company is unjustified.
    - yters 16y ago
      If you constantly kill everything that is weak you destroy your ecosystem. Much better is to build up the weak, which is why the West prospers and other cultures do not. Social and economic Darwinism do not work.
      - ramchip 16y ago
        > which is why the West prospers and other cultures do not I think you're forgetting Korea, Japan, Taiwan and several middle East countries. Even China isn't doing too bad, recently. And isn't western-style democracy much closer to economic Darwinism than eg. socialism?
vaksel 16y ago
don't bait Anon and they'll leave you alone...in this case the firm has noone to blame but the founder.
- timmaah 16y ago
  Or.. if you are a security company, make sure as hell you know how to secure your company.
ciscoriordan 16y ago
You aren't taking into account the problems caused by this company doing shoddy work.
michaelchisari 16y ago
It's all fun and games until you're ruining lives. This was never fun and games for the causes Anonymous has championed: Wikileaks, Egyptian and Tunisian protestors, etc. Anonymous, despite it's origins, is a political movement centered around the cause of internet freedom. That's not a matter of fun and games, and I support Anonymous because of that. In other words, if given the choice between a political movement fighting for an ideal I support, and the ability of a corporation to maintain it's revenue stream, I'm going to fall in support of the political movement most of the time.
- yters 16y ago
  That is all fun and games under the rationalization of easy, naive moralizing. Now, if they take down censorship in China or targeted a similar actual oppressive regime instead of going after easy targets, then they'd have my respect. For example, their attack on Scientology is something I respect, but that was only shortlived since Scientology is actually bad and will cause Anon significant damage. So, as we can see, it is actually just for the lulz and not a higher ideal.
  - pjscott 16y ago
    One can have high ideals without necessarily being brave or persistent in the pursuit of those ideals.
    - yters 16y ago
      But then they aren't worth praising, especially if their "pursuit" of said ideals harms people's lives needlessly.
- tzs 16y ago
  > Anonymous, despite it's origins, is a political movement centered around the cause of internet freedom. That's not a matter of fun and games, and I support Anonymous because of that. What about Anonymous' attack on Gene Simmons, for expressing an opinion they did not agree with? Or is your notion of internet freedom that only people who have the right opinions get to speak?
hippich 16y ago
this is company. legal entity. if something like this will happen - bankrupt it and create new one with same people and same contacts.
- hippich 16y ago
  Ok. For downvoters will try to clarify: it's not lifes ruined but company ruined in this case. It's just fail, but not life fail. Nobody will die, get in prison for 300+ years, get sick, etc. Your company failed - start it over and do it right next time.
  - BrandonM 16y ago
    Security and forensic companies are built on individual reputations. The opinions put forth by expert witnesses have to be defensible in court. Your suggestion is unrealistic in its original context: once an expert witness's reputation is ruined, it's time to find a new field of work.
catnip 16y ago
What firm are we talking about here exactly?
nzmsv 16y ago
Of course, waking up some kids and their parents and holding them at gunpoint is a commendable thing to do. As is bragging about it at a conference, while passing it off as a great achievement for national security. What this particular security firm was doing is despicable, and they deserve whatever they get, IMO.
icedpulleys 16y ago
I have nothing against security firms or their work, but > At the heart of the matter, we are scientists investigating the truth. No, you're not. You're consultants doing analytical work. I'm not arguing that one is intrinsically more worthwhile or valuable than the other, but post-hoc security analysis is not science. In this particular case, anonymous is implicitly raising the question that if a security firm can't even secure their own web presence, their internal emails, and the data that they've gathered on an FBI contract, then how could their data and conclusions be trusted? Regardless of whether the employees of any particular security firm are sympathetic individuals, and whether being hacked would incur significant financial loss, you'd hope that a security firm would be, you know, secure.
tibbon 16y ago
However, going after anon is also ruining lives.
- leon_ 16y ago
  Yep, I ask myself what HGBary thought would happen after they would give a list of "anonymous key members" to the FBI.
  - tibbon 16y ago
    Surely, they view it as 'going after the bad guys', and no different than reporting data on any other 'bad' group. Is what Anon did illegal, or at least in the ambiguous grey zone? Sure, but I feel personally that they are more like the Robin Hoods keeping others in check for the deeds of corporations which may be legal, but significantly less moral.
leon_ 16y ago
> At the heart of the matter, we are scientists investigating the truth. yeah, tell that to yourself metasploit-cowboy :]

JonnieCache 16y ago

Destroying a company that both takes government security contracts, and also drops the firewall and gives out the root password after an email request is a public service. Such a company is a danger to the safety of every citizen in america and beyond. A lot more than eight lives could be ruined if they had been investigating organised crime or terrorism instead of anon. Harsh but I think true.

yters 16y ago
You people are so socially retarded. How can such speculation justify ruining actual lives in anyway? There is no way you can concretely justify anything you claim there.
- pkulak 16y ago
  In capitalism inept companies go out of business. If you're a security company that just got hacked 6 ways to Sunday, you're inept. Maybe it's time for some other startup company to "make" the lives of i's employees by stepping in to the void and doing the work properly.
  - yters 16y ago
    Are they a security company or a forensics company? Different skillsets.
    - vacri 16y ago
      Different, but related. A forensics company does not have the ability to claim ignorance of security issues - /especially/ if their role is digging up dirt on others. They should be fully aware of privacy and security issues. Now if they were a company that baked and distributed cheesecakes, I'd give them a pass on criticism for having security issues.
      - yters 16y ago
        But that's not the service they're providing, thus incompetence in that arena does not endanger multitudes of American lives and anon ruining their company is unjustified.
  - yters 16y ago
    If you constantly kill everything that is weak you destroy your ecosystem. Much better is to build up the weak, which is why the West prospers and other cultures do not. Social and economic Darwinism do not work.
    - ramchip 16y ago
      > which is why the West prospers and other cultures do not I think you're forgetting Korea, Japan, Taiwan and several middle East countries. Even China isn't doing too bad, recently. And isn't western-style democracy much closer to economic Darwinism than eg. socialism?

vaksel 16y ago

don't bait Anon and they'll leave you alone...in this case the firm has noone to blame but the founder.

timmaah 16y ago
Or.. if you are a security company, make sure as hell you know how to secure your company.

ciscoriordan 16y ago

You aren't taking into account the problems caused by this company doing shoddy work.

michaelchisari 16y ago

It's all fun and games until you're ruining lives. This was never fun and games for the causes Anonymous has championed: Wikileaks, Egyptian and Tunisian protestors, etc. Anonymous, despite it's origins, is a political movement centered around the cause of internet freedom. That's not a matter of fun and games, and I support Anonymous because of that. In other words, if given the choice between a political movement fighting for an ideal I support, and the ability of a corporation to maintain it's revenue stream, I'm going to fall in support of the political movement most of the time.

yters 16y ago
That is all fun and games under the rationalization of easy, naive moralizing. Now, if they take down censorship in China or targeted a similar actual oppressive regime instead of going after easy targets, then they'd have my respect. For example, their attack on Scientology is something I respect, but that was only shortlived since Scientology is actually bad and will cause Anon significant damage. So, as we can see, it is actually just for the lulz and not a higher ideal.
- pjscott 16y ago
  One can have high ideals without necessarily being brave or persistent in the pursuit of those ideals.
  - yters 16y ago
    But then they aren't worth praising, especially if their "pursuit" of said ideals harms people's lives needlessly.
tzs 16y ago
> Anonymous, despite it's origins, is a political movement centered around the cause of internet freedom. That's not a matter of fun and games, and I support Anonymous because of that. What about Anonymous' attack on Gene Simmons, for expressing an opinion they did not agree with? Or is your notion of internet freedom that only people who have the right opinions get to speak?

hippich 16y ago

this is company. legal entity. if something like this will happen - bankrupt it and create new one with same people and same contacts.

hippich 16y ago
Ok. For downvoters will try to clarify: it's not lifes ruined but company ruined in this case. It's just fail, but not life fail. Nobody will die, get in prison for 300+ years, get sick, etc. Your company failed - start it over and do it right next time.
- BrandonM 16y ago
  Security and forensic companies are built on individual reputations. The opinions put forth by expert witnesses have to be defensible in court. Your suggestion is unrealistic in its original context: once an expert witness's reputation is ruined, it's time to find a new field of work.

catnip 16y ago

What firm are we talking about here exactly?

nzmsv 16y ago

Of course, waking up some kids and their parents and holding them at gunpoint is a commendable thing to do. As is bragging about it at a conference, while passing it off as a great achievement for national security. What this particular security firm was doing is despicable, and they deserve whatever they get, IMO.

icedpulleys 16y ago

I have nothing against security firms or their work, but > At the heart of the matter, we are scientists investigating the truth. No, you're not. You're consultants doing analytical work. I'm not arguing that one is intrinsically more worthwhile or valuable than the other, but post-hoc security analysis is not science. In this particular case, anonymous is implicitly raising the question that if a security firm can't even secure their own web presence, their internal emails, and the data that they've gathered on an FBI contract, then how could their data and conclusions be trusted? Regardless of whether the employees of any particular security firm are sympathetic individuals, and whether being hacked would incur significant financial loss, you'd hope that a security firm would be, you know, secure.

tibbon 16y ago

However, going after anon is also ruining lives.

leon_ 16y ago
Yep, I ask myself what HGBary thought would happen after they would give a list of "anonymous key members" to the FBI.
- tibbon 16y ago
  Surely, they view it as 'going after the bad guys', and no different than reporting data on any other 'bad' group. Is what Anon did illegal, or at least in the ambiguous grey zone? Sure, but I feel personally that they are more like the Robin Hoods keeping others in check for the deeds of corporations which may be legal, but significantly less moral.

leon_ 16y ago

> At the heart of the matter, we are scientists investigating the truth. yeah, tell that to yourself metasploit-cowboy :]