11 ms·
LulzSec: Why we do what we do
- saulrh 15y agoMight want to change the title to something like "LulzSec actually had a point after all." They do, too, an even better one than I expected. Not only are they making a point about how terrible security is ("Do you think every hacker announces everything they've hacked?"), but they've also called out the internet on its generally abysmal attention span. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd had this written on day zero.
- patrickod 15y agoPart of me feels that the publicity side of their argument is a little overblown. Many people do publicly disclose exploits, it's just that LulzSec has made a huge deal in the media about each one. Another part of me is happy to see them call people out on their abysmal security practices. Sony would not have upgraded/redone their security practices had there not been attacks. The only thing worse than poor security is having a false assurance that it's good.
- hollerith 15y agoThat's not the most important thing I took away from the submitted link. To me, the important thing is that LulzSec says that it derives pleasure from causing harm to people -- like the people who used to add poison to bottles of Tylenol, package the Tylenol back up again and place it back on the supermarket shelf. Although they could be saying that to cover up their real agenda, most writers (and especially most writers who have the tech skills needed to do what LulzSec has done) could not fake an admission of this sort as well as this text would have to have been faked. Since it is natural human behavior to rationalize an antisocial motivation with a more socially-acceptable cover story, you would expect LulzSec to say things like, "We are doing this to bring public attention to how terrible security is." But if it is a rationalization, and it sure seems that way to me, surely it would be a mistake to focus on it and not the true motivations. >they've also called out the internet on its generally abysmal attention span. What an surprizing interpretation! I interpreted the parts about boredom as a continuation of the author's honestly disclosing his own motivations, not anything about internet users in general.
- thomasz 15y agoLets not overblow things. They don't kill random people, they carry out pranks which can cause emotional and maybe financial distress, that's all.
- achompas 15y agoNot only are they making a point about how terrible security is ("Do you think every hacker announces everything they've hacked?"), but they've also called out the internet on its generally abysmal attention span. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd had this written on day zero. Neither of these are novel concepts: we've heard about abysmal internet security (FireSheep) and low attention spans (Nicholas Carr[0, 1] and Jonah Lehrer[2]) repeatedly over the last couple of years. This release may seem profound to you, but LulzSec proposes no solutions to the problems they're creating. They're too nihilistic to put on white hats, and they deserve none of your praise as a result. [0] http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-googl... [1] http://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp/0393339750/ http://www.amazon.com/Shallows-What-Internet-Doing-Brains/dp... [2] http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/04/attention_and_intelligence.php http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2010/04/attention_and_intelli...
- saulrh 15y agoThe difference is that LulzSec managed to get their word on every tech blog in the world. They also managed to get their basic message - nothing is safe, and here's proof - onto nearly every single major news site in existence, and they made their message immediately and personally important to millions of people. That's why I'm praising them. They don't need to propose a solution; that's already been done. They don't need to have a new message; extant messages are good enough. What they bring to the party is visibility.
- achompas 15y agoWhat they bring to the party is visibility. Do published books and articles in The Atlantic, Wired, and NYT not work for you? Those are a few of the news sites that have covered declining attention spans. As for internet security--anyone who can do something about it already knew there was a problem. On the consumer end, what are users supposed to do? Add symbols to their passwords? That would delay GPU- or SSD-based brute force techniques by, what, 10 seconds?
- 15y ago
- madmaze 15y agoI think we have found the LulzSec hacker manifesto.
- shareme 15y agoThey seem somewhat clueless.. If the NSA can partner with ISPs to scan internet traffic for phishing, viruses, etc ...the obvious next step is Lulzsec mentions or member mentions...in IRC, email, etc.. There is no such thing as hiding when attacking the internet, sooner or later you become the bitch
- BasDirks 15y agowhat makes you think Lulzsec mention the name "Lulzsec" a lot more often than the average HN reader?
- getsat 15y agoIt's good for the NSA that there's no way to securely communicate over an insecure medium. It's also convenient that all Internet infrastructure exists inside the USA.
- __rkaup__ 15y agoYou are being ironic. It actually is possible to communicate securely over an insecure medium, and not all the internet's infrastructure is in the USA. Am I right?
- getsat 15y agoYour sarcasm detector is working normally. :) Not sure why your irony detector is going off, though.
- kenjackson 15y agoGiven the NSA's charter, I wouldn't be surprised if most of their data interception mechanism are focused on non-US internet traffic.
- glassx 15y agoCall me crazy, but I'd rather have LulzSec stealing passwords on crappy secured services than a NSA agent scanning my whole life. That would be the single worst outcome.
- migrantgeek 15y agoI agree with showing how poorly secured websites are and how easily our information is distributed even when we think it's private. What I don't agree with is their use of DDoS attacks against sites like cia.gov. DDoS attacks are pointless. All they point out is how a site has limited resources for dealing with so many concurrent connections. Sites should deploy onto an infrastructure they feel is adequate to deal with the expected load plus some additional room for growth and spikes. I'm sure the cia.gov doesn't get hit very hard on a normal day so they didn't go crazy on infrastructure which is understandable. A DDoS proves nothing and prevents people from accessing data. If you're going to hack, please wear a white or grey hat.
- cryptoz 15y agoWhen Anonymous attacked Visa and Mastercard via DDoS (in retaliation to them cutting off Wikileaks donations), Anonymous did actually succeed in stopping the online verification systems for both companies (SecureCode, or something, and Verified by Visa). In that case, the DDoS attacks did more than just take the site down; they financially hurt their target, which was probably the aim to begin with. I'm not justifying the attacks and I agree that they are the wrong way to go about this business, but it would be naive to suggest that the DDoS attacks are a minor inconvenience.
- ojilles 15y agoDDoS's have a monetary impact, yes. However, what the parent is saying is that all infrastructure has limits in terms of bandwidth, etc. The point is that it's not the same class of "attack" vs. finding an exploit. The latter is more in line with the "strive for more secure sites". The former, not so much.
- mentat 15y agoThen we need to fix the infrastructure so that the current generation of attacks don't work. To just say, "oh, well bandwidth is limited so there's always going to be an attack" is not useful. Think of ways you can structure the infrastructure so that it can do filtering further out, or detected spoofed connections, or detect anomalous request patterns. There are solutions, we need to find them and implement them, not just tell people not to do it or claim it's a "weak" attack. It's a strong attack if it takes minimal effort to cause maximal damage. In the real world, that's what matters. There's the idea that we're playing a game and that there are behaviors that are good form or bad form. However, when it comes down to it, what works is what works.
- scythe 15y ago>People who can make things work better within this rectangle have power over others; the whitehats who charge $10,000 for something we could teach you how to do over the course of a weekend, providing you aren't mentally disabled. This is a common complaint among blackhats: they see whitehats as being in the game for the money and taking advantage of the unenlightened as much as they [the blackhats] themselves do. I don't really know what to make of it.
- huckfinnaafb 15y agoBlackhats can cost organizations way more than whitehats would charge in operating costs, personal identity theft, and reputation. Whitehats are only taking advantage of the unenlightened as much as a mechanic is taking advantage of someone who doesn't know anything about cars - they provide experience and expertise and offer a service for a high price - at least, a higher price than if the client knew how to fix it themselves.
- webXL 15y agoI love it when the economically illiterate attack others for "price gouging" as if the third party doesn't have a choice in the matter or they aren't "unenlightened" enough to properly appraise the value of what they are buying. How do I know that my jeweler isn't gouging me on my fiancee's 2 caret diamond ring? Because I know that there's a fixed quantity of available diamonds, and almost everyone would buy them at a given price. And if I need to verify that, I can go to the jeweler down the street. Everyone would buy security consulting at a given price, but that quantity is even more limited than 2 caret diamonds. Why is my house worth a third less than what it was 3 years ago? Because there's at least a third fewer potential buyers than there was when I bought it. I wasn't "price gouged" or fooled in either instance. Whitehats specialize in security and it frees up our time to specialize and produce excess value for others. It's not a conspiracy. If Steve Jobs and LeBron James aren't tricking people into giving them money, neither are whitehats. It's the free market and, believe it or not, it produces wealth.
- seabee 15y ago
- MatthewPhillips 15y agoJust a question: if all they were doing was manipulating URLs (and I know they've moved beyond that) would they be doing anything illegal?
- tomp 15y agoYes. If I leave the door to my house unlocked, it doesn't mean that it is ok for you to come in without my permission.
- MatthewPhillips 15y agoCan I look in the windows?
- Deestan 15y agoPasser-by catching a glimpse of my big TV through my street-facing uncovered window? Sure. Standing outside and watching my TV for 10 minutes? Please leave before I call the police. Creepy guy with zoom-lensed camera in a van trying to peek through my bathroom curtains? I have already called the police. While it isn't intuitive to us programmers and hacker types, when it comes to law and courts, intent matters more than action.
- seabee 15y agoI think a reasonable comparison to the Citibank security flaw is leaving bank statements on a table in front of the window.
- Deestan 15y agoMorally, it's also not just how you break in, but what you do afterwards. I.e. if you prevent more harm than you do. If you enter the unlocked door and write "HI YOU FORGOT TO LOCK YOUR DOOR" with lipstick on the bathroom window, you're alerting the owner to a bad security practice by giving them a good scare. It is A Good Thing, because you likely prevented them losing their stuff. If you enter the unlocked door and start smashing and stealing stuff, you are technically still alerting the owner to a bad security pracice, but it is now A Bad Thing. By "being" the worst case, you only guaranteed something that was only likely to happen.
- edw 15y agoRaise your hand if you're hesitant to write what's on your mind for fear of receiving some special attention from Anonymous, LulzSec, and friends.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- BasDirks 15y agoYour question is more inviting than anybody speaking their mind. The one thing I thought when I read their statement was that it reminded me of A Clockwork Orange.
- edw 15y agoYes, the parents in A Clockwork Orange! Or pretty much everyone in the "It's a Good Life" episode of Twilight Zone: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Its_a_Good_Life_(The_Twilight_Zone) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Its_a_Good_Life_(The_Twilight_Z... That episode also made it into the Twilight Zone movie directed by John Landis. See you next Wednesday!
- diminoten 15y agoPlease don't fear them, their power comes from feeling righteous in what they do. No one's figured out how to manipulate them that easily. At least not yet, anyway.
- mentat 15y agoThe impact of their attacks has more been a strong motivation to "get my house in order". I'd been using LastPass for some time but decided that I should get the YubiKey for two factor auth. I also started becoming quite a bit more vocal at work about the sorts of things it might be a good idea to take a closer look at. This is a wake up call for what's already happening. They just decided to do it and tell the public instead of sitting, waiting, and letting people continue to feel safe. If there's danger and it's at your doorstep, it's good to feel not safe.
- 15y ago
- diminoten 15y agoThis smells to me like a hastily conjured rationalization for a series of attention-seeking acts wrought by a small group of disenfranchised industry workers who have something to say, but they're just not articulate enough to voice it so they blow shit up instead.
- saulrh 15y agoThey can voice it perfectly well. The problem is that they can't be heard in the mass media without some large event to draw attention. The last month has been their big event, and now they have the attention they needed. They had a good plan and it was executed perfectly. [Edit: by "good plan" I mean that their plan had a good chance of success, not that it was beneficial. That part is still up for debate.]
- diminoten 15y agoNo, they cannot voice it perfectly well, if they have to resort to stealing user information to get their message across. Their plan was not good, insofar as it caused pain for a great many people. What they did was not okay, and should not be lauded as a positive thing for the Internet at large. The problem is that their antics are even being considered as anything other than the terroristic (in the real sense of the word, not the post 9/11 hyped up nonmeaning it tends to carry today) acts that they are. If someone broke into a hospital and flung all of the patient records out onto the street, we wouldn't be having this discussion; they'd absolutely be considered criminals. So what if the glass they broke to get into the hospital wasn't shatter-proof? Sure, the hospital security would be improved, but there are a great many ways to go about fixing the problem without compromising the privacy if hundreds of thousands of people.
- saulrh 15y agoPeople have been trying for years to get the point across that we need to have better security. None of them have managed it. If anything, security is getting worse because cracking tools are becoming more sophisticated. Someone had to get word out, what people were doing to raise publicity wasn't working, there was a way to get attention, and LulzSec did it. Bad as what they did is, they successfully raised media awareness of the fact that those patient records were in a clearly-labeled manila folder taped to the front door.
- jjm 15y agoHow do we enforce that these companies (such as banks) utilize proper security protocol (within reason of course)? Some would say, "With your wallet!". But what happens when it's your wallet that gets stolen (electronically)? What do you think?
- TeMPOraL 15y agoUnfortunately, I've never seen "vote with your wallet" concept work[1], neither in the Internet, nor in real life. When a company misbehaves, there's usually a big group of their customers which doesn't know about it, and another (maybe little smaller) group, that doesn't care at all (or enough[2]). It's an interesting issue I have no idea how to fix... [1] - if you know any examples, I'd be glad to hear them. [2] - "Maybe this company is bad, but hell, the competition is 10 minutes further walking from me...", etc.
- Djehngo 15y agoInitially I thought the disclosure argument they made was weak (we hack stuff because when we announce it similar companies will be more careful) because unless they cause enough trouble to make security an immediate priority for a given non-targeted company, then it's unlikely that they will overcome that company's inertia. However I realised that I have become significantly more careful with password reuse now because there are no companies I absolutely trust to keep my information from leaking out.
- dgabriel 15y agoAdorable. They're bullies and proud of it. It's one thing to call out security exploits, and quite another to take great joy in causing others pain.
- getsat 15y ago> to take great joy in causing others pain This happens far more often than people realise.
- ZeSmith 15y agoStill does not make it okay.
- DannoHung 15y agoWhat if you're a second-generation schaudenfreudist? I take pleasure in the pain of those that take pleasure in the pain of others.
- wadetandy 15y agoI think that's called Schadenfreudefreude, or perhaps Schadenfreude^2
- darklajid 15y agoReading ~german~ words in an en conversation always strikes me as interesting. That we brought you this fine word is kind of telling..
- neilk 15y agoI think you just described my new life philosophy.
- noglorp 15y agoThey're mostly taking publicity, the joy is mostly for show.
- Wickk 15y agoThis just reeks of arrogance
- noonespecial 15y agoWhy we do what we do: We're 15, unsupervised, and behaving badly. Do they really need a manifesto?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- redherring 15y agoYeah they're just like you.
- snorkel 15y agoThis missive strongly reeks of teen spirit. Guess we'll find out when the FBI perp walks them in front of the cameras.
- puredemo 15y agoNo one that young would have the capacity to understand some of the contextual references required to write this piece. If you pay attention to the way LulzSec writes and words things, they aren't at all immature in their thinking or worldview. Ceasing to give a fuck about perceived trivialities is something that comes with age and seeing how the world really works. The confidence they have came with age as well. Neither is not a sign of youth whatsoever. I'd guess mid-thirties for these guys, at least for whomever is putting out their twitter updates. This is someone who is basically immune to white-knighting and is a truly hard-core realist. It takes quite a while for someone reasonably intelligent to become that cynical, and then a while longer for them to act on it. Anyway, I'm a fan of these guys. While I wouldn't do what they are doing myself, I certainly understand the mindset. I'm not quite sure I understand the arguments against what they're doing. The knee-jerk reactions of wanting to call them wrong frequently seem more immature to me than their recent campaigns. The real world is messy, and LulzSec's work is a valid reflection of that. As far as the comparisons to sociopathic thinking, that's just ignorant. Sociopaths generally don't care about anyone but themselves and that's obviously not the case here. A sociopath would never release any of this data, and would simply use it for their own advantage, regardless of who was harmed. LulzSec is gleaning entertainment here from the unwashed masses to be sure, but they aren't out there enslaving people with debt, indoctrinating them with religion, shooting them for protesting, putting them in cages for drug offenses, etc. All of which is completely legal, and in my opinion, far more sociopathic than releasing some bit personal data or playing a few practical jokes on people.
- sdewerwe 15y ago--------- http://www.soozone.com http://www.soozone.com http://www.soozone.com http://www.soozone.com We accept pyapal payment. You do not miss it. We need your support and trust!!! free shipping （Jordan wholesale） Dear customers, thank you for your support of our company. Here, there's good news to tell you: The company recently launched a number of new fashion items! ! Fashionableand welcome everyone to come buy. （Jordan wholesale） http://www.soozone.com http://www.soozone.com
- sdewerwe 15y agoDear customers, thank you for your support of our company. Here, there’s good news to tell you: The company recently launched a number of new fashion items! ! Fashionable and welcome everyone to come buy. If necessary, please plut: www.soozone.com
- sdewerwe 15y agoDear customers, thank you for your support of our company. Here, there’s good news to tell you: The company recently launched a number of new fashion items! ! Fashionable and welcome everyone to come buy. If necessary, please plut: www.soozone.com dfeee
- sdewerwe 15y agohttp://www.soozone.com http://www.soozone.com We accept pyapal payment. You do not miss it. We need your support and trust!!! free shipping （Jordan wholesale） Dear customers, thank you for your support of our company. Here, there's good news to tell you: The company recently launched a number of new fashion items! ! Fashionableand welcome everyone to come buy. （Jordan wholesale） http://www.soozone.com http://www.soozone.com
- bh42222 15y agoAnd I just realized what it is about LuLzSec that's bothered me. I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but now I realize deep down they are nihilists. That's a damn shame. What seemed most admirable about Anonymous is that as much as they were also in it for lulz and pure chaos, underneath there seemed to be a kind of idealism. Idealism is seductive, nihilism is off-putting.
- chriserin 15y agoOr maybe that Anonymous idealism was a fraud and lulz, as peers, could see the hypocrisy much clearer, as everybody in their community likely do what they do because of the thrills and ignoring the pain caused. Lulz admitting it is likely taking the high road? or is that too tortured as twist.
- bh42222 15y agoPerhaps anon was also pure lulz with absolutely nothing else behind it. But I vaguely recall their writing to be strongly pro freedom. And their most prominent vandalisms seemed to be an attempt to make a point about basic rights and freedoms. When LuLzSec state that they don't care, and don't even care if they get arrested, that's definitely nihilistic and kind of sad. Certainly they too in their juvenile ways were close to making a good point. A point about shocking incompetence when handling and storing sensitive customer data. A point about unethical behavior in government. And I believe them when they say they have stuff that they've chosen not to release. So they are not in fact true sociopaths or true nihilists. I guess that makes it even sadder when they say they don't care about anything but lulz.
- saraid216 15y agoinvokes Ayn Rand!
- cmurdock 15y agoThese men are nihilists, nothing to be afraid of.
- noglorp 15y agoNote LulzSec claims to 'not be Anon' (lol). It seemed like there was idealism lurking because there was!
- ilkhd2 15y agothey are much more complex than this
- chmike 15y agoThis seems so fishy. Perfect timing considering the last 24 months events. I think it was unavoidable and we'll have to face it and get ready for the consequences.
- adamdecaf 15y ago> "suggests...our actions are causing clowns with pens to write new rules for you. But what if we just hadn't released anything? What if we were silent? That would mean we would be secretly inside FBI affiliates right now, inside PBS, inside Sony... watching... abusing..." Isn't that happening right now and by the people with pens?
- hnsmurf 15y agoThis is classic psychopathic behavior. Instead of torturing people physically to see them squirm they're doing it digitally, but the same lack of empathy is there.
- _emice 15y agoFrom what I've been reading the attacks were not sophisticated, mainly using SQL injection. Many here on HN understand that kind of threat but it seems lots of companies and important services don't. Is it possible that the attention shone on these simple/trivial hacks will cause those less security conscious admins to get rid of that low hanging fruit? If so, it should help reduce the impact of a broad, simultaneous attack across many sites from much more dangerous foes. I am not saying it is right, but it may be more effective than the legislation our congress comes up with to protect us, with fewer nasty side effects.
- trotsky 15y agoOK, so for the remaining 3 people out there who were pathologically not paying attention, computer hacking is easy. The state of computer security is poor. Lulzsec deserves a medal and a chest to pin it on for breaking this news to all of the people who don't have a facebook account, have never been on irc, didn't see the movie wargames, don't know anyone who plays world of warcraft, has never read the new york times, has never heard of china and has never heard anyone utter the word "stuxnet". For the rest of us, it's pretty tedious. There's another situation that fits the general parameters of what they describe. Almost no one is protected against it. Being a gunshot victim. At least in the US, pretty much anyone can get their hands on a handgun either legally or illegally. Almost anyone can use one with a bare minimum of instruction. And almost no one is protected - if you pick a name out of a hat of all america, pretty much any possible outcome will be dead easy to track down, stalk, find the right opportunity and shoot dead. And a vanishingly small numbers of shooters make an announcement about the whole incident on the Internet. But, all that said, if you go around shooting people for no real reason and bragging about it you're assuredly a psycopathic asshole.
- daeken 15y agoBeing a victim of a random person with a gun with no particular affinity for shooting you isn't easily avoidable; being a victim of a random person with Burp Proxy and a couple hours of work is. That's the key difference here. Security is hard, but we have great processes to make things secure and keep them secure against all but the most dedicated attackers. Mind you, these processes aren't perfect. Things fall through the cracks, and effectively nothing will keep out a significantly determined attacker, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't follow well-established security methodologies. In the vast majority of cases, they hold up well. Edit: I want to note that, in all likelihood, no amount of secure development and review would've kept people out of Sony -- there were just too many people that wanted to attack them, and too large an attack surface. It could've diminished the number of successful attacks, and it could have reduced the amount of data stolen, but in all likelihood attackers would've still made it in to some extent. However, things like the Brink attack might have been stopped entirely, since they didn't seem to be terribly determined to get in.
- scilro 15y agoThey need to bring in someone who can write without seeming like a 12 year old who grew up on 4chan.
- yters 15y agoHey, if people really want a secure internet I believe the government would be more than willing to lock it down for us. That's all that's going to happen as kids like Assange and Lulzsec keep up with their criminal shenanigans. Governments are going to say, "Enough is enough!" and lock it down like in China.
- oliveoil 15y agoThis thing must be fake. I thought they were doing it for the lulz.
- doyoulikeworms 15y agoTheir campaign is about reaching out, eliciting a response, and then reveling in the emotional connection they've created with another anonymous soul across this tangled mass of copper and silicon. In other words, for the lulz.
- tobylane 15y ago"This is the lulz lizard era" Yes it is. What the fuck is it? Nightowl would be more believable, and true.
- Bertil 15y agoWhy is this text the first one from Anonymous et al. that doesn't move me, at all? They sound odd, using a “we” to include all ‘digital natives’ while I never heard anyone under 25 use “we” before; they mention (two girlfriend's) faces on MSN, but I never heard of a webcam on MSN; I never heard of anyone actually enjoying a show call it “we want our shot of entertainment”.
- crux 15y agoWhen are the internet tough guys of the world going to tighten up their prose? This third-rate Patrick Bateman routine is so fucking old at this point. There is no easier way to mark yourself as a barely socialized child barely capable of any critical thought than to try out that ridiculous, outdated, unconvincing pose at being this cynical, wise, best-informed übermensch above all morals. It's not a good look.
- SSHisForWienies 15y agoAny wall can be broken, but it doesnt mean that anyone who breaks a wall is a hero. What wonders me more why did China infiltrate the group ?
- bwaaa 15y agoLulzSec seems to be just a group of teenagers that have actually nothing special to say. As they want to be like the grown-ups, they try to add a message behind their acts, but there is no message, no morality. If they were real hackers and not only prepubescent teens, they would not justify their action by any manifest, they would just act, no matter what people say or think. Their vocabulary is also proper teen vocabulary : "bitches" "mentally disabled" "evil bastards" "we nom nom nom, we move onto something else that's yummier" "unimpressed zombie""Watching someone's Facebook picture turn into a penis and seeing their sister's shocked response is priceless" "Receiving angry emails from the man you just sent 10 dildos to because he can't secure his Amazon password is priceless.". They don't know how to write, their sentences are full of repetitiveness, the vocabulary is poor. LulzSec is just a group of teenagers (or someone alone). And they are really really funny. (This is not a compliment..)
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- floppydisk 15y agoWhen it comes to security, you run into IT departments being the red headed step children of the corporation and NIMBY (not in my backyard). It's a lot easier and cheaper to stick your head in the sand and pretend nothing is happening or you have some mitigating factor that discourages people from going after you be it size (miniscule for instance), participating in a niche market, etc. It's a lot easier and cheaper to do an ostrich than actually spend the money on decent security.
- nsomaru 15y agoThe last line got me a giggle
- foysavas 15y agoWho else has a hunch they don't yet have access to Brink accounts, but instead have access to log files that would reveal password when users now change them?
- majmun 15y agothis kids should be punished by pulling their ear. or beating them with branch. they're too young for prison
- quark92 15y agowhatever is their excuse to hack companies it is illegal , it is a crime and should be punished . if they want to pay attention for security, then they can establish organization and give away free courses about security and privacy in legal way instead of breaking laws and stealing people information . black hat methods would never be agreed to improve security and privacy ..
- sigzero 15y agoWe don't care. Just stop please.