5 ms·

Anonymous need to read some books on strategy, because this just doesn't make any sense: what are they trying to accomplish? With their previous targets like H

Anonymous need to read some books on strategy, because this just doesn't make any sense: what are they trying to accomplish? With their previous targets like HBGary, at least you could say that they were taking down corrupt and/or incompetent contractors, but this is different. Booz Allen is a much bigger organization, not some fly-by-night that can easily be folded up. Furthermore, while this does demonstrate that their security had serious problems, it does not demonstrate the kind of gross malfeasance that could actually take a company down. As for the U.S. military, this is certainly going to cause the U.S. military some inconvenience, but not any serious long-term harm. What will happen as a result of this is that federal law enforcement will now start going after Anonymous in a way that they have not previously done: federal felonies have been committed, and further such crimes are highly likely. Serious resources are going to be devoted to tracking down the responsible parties. Anonymous have developed a false sense of security because nobody has yet gone after them with the full resources of the federal government, and because their interactions have largely been limited to exceptionally inept contractors. While there are plenty of incompetents working for the government, there are also lots of people who are very talented and capable, and Anonymous is now going to find themselves dealing with the latter category. In summary, they have not done any lasting damage to the government, but they have turned themselves into priority targets. I don't see the upside for them.

pavel_lishin 15y ago
> what are they trying to accomplish? They are Anonymous. They're doing it for the lulz, of course. But seriously, what makes you think they aren't just the modern Loki, doing this simply because it amuses them and creates chaos?
- lucasjung 15y ago
  Even if that's their goal, most of my points still apply: this didn't cause very much chaos, but they put themselves in a very dangerous situation. If their goal is to create as much chaos as possible, their strategy should incorporate considerations about their ability to continue sowing chaos in the long-term. Instead, they have exposed themselves to a dramatically increased chance of being caught and stopped. If their goal is to amuse themselves to the greatest degree possible, the above applies just as much, plus they should factor in the "non-amusing" nature of residence in a federal penitentiary.
  - pavel_lishin 15y ago
    That's a very good point - it also reminds me of this article about how true guerilla warfare works (or ought to work): http://exiledonline.com/wn-38-ira-vs-al-qaeda-i-was-wrong/ http://exiledonline.com/wn-38-ira-vs-al-qaeda-i-was-wrong/
tibbon 15y ago
Trying to understand the goals and motivations of Anonymous is about as useful as trying to understand the goals and motivations of any inanimate object- it just isn't something that can be done, because anything is speculation, and any person who claims to be in anonymous can't answer for everyone. Its really best to just think of them as a black box that works without motivation. The only thing that I applaud here is people (hopefully?) becoming aware that it is severe negligence to store passwords in the plain or with a simple MD5. Any programmer not doing something more secure (bcrypt) needs to learn, or get a new job. It just isn't acceptable practice in 2011 and it hasn't been in some time. Also, if you have serious data, you have to take security seriously. Rarely have the Anonymous attacks been anything particularly clever from what I've heard, but have been more akin to walking in an unlocked door and pulling a folder out of an unlocked file cabinet.
killerswan 15y ago
You assume this wasn't done by the USA's military, like the anthrax attacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks
- sorbus 15y ago
  There doesn't seem to be anything in that article that suggests that the military perpetrated the attacks. Would you care to explain further? EDIT: While a researcher with the US army was accused, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he was actually responsible, and there is doubt over whether the anthrax he had access to was the parent of the spores used in the attack. Besides, even if he did it, saying that the US army is responsible for something implies high-level planning to do it. It's like saying, if someone in Anonymous works at McDonalds, and used a computer in one of their stores, that McDonalds is responsible for Anonymous's attacks.
  - killerswan 15y ago
    That is true, but you know that if a McDonalds employee used his fryer at work to do that, the headline and litigation would be about them, too. :P Regarding Anonymous, most of these cases will probably never be solved: there is probably far less evidence than the fragments the FBI had on Ivins or Hatfill. All I'm saying is that Anonymous could really be _anyone_.

pavel_lishin 15y ago

> what are they trying to accomplish? They are Anonymous. They're doing it for the lulz, of course. But seriously, what makes you think they aren't just the modern Loki, doing this simply because it amuses them and creates chaos?

lucasjung 15y ago
Even if that's their goal, most of my points still apply: this didn't cause very much chaos, but they put themselves in a very dangerous situation. If their goal is to create as much chaos as possible, their strategy should incorporate considerations about their ability to continue sowing chaos in the long-term. Instead, they have exposed themselves to a dramatically increased chance of being caught and stopped. If their goal is to amuse themselves to the greatest degree possible, the above applies just as much, plus they should factor in the "non-amusing" nature of residence in a federal penitentiary.
- pavel_lishin 15y ago
  That's a very good point - it also reminds me of this article about how true guerilla warfare works (or ought to work): http://exiledonline.com/wn-38-ira-vs-al-qaeda-i-was-wrong/ http://exiledonline.com/wn-38-ira-vs-al-qaeda-i-was-wrong/

tibbon 15y ago

Trying to understand the goals and motivations of Anonymous is about as useful as trying to understand the goals and motivations of any inanimate object- it just isn't something that can be done, because anything is speculation, and any person who claims to be in anonymous can't answer for everyone. Its really best to just think of them as a black box that works without motivation. The only thing that I applaud here is people (hopefully?) becoming aware that it is severe negligence to store passwords in the plain or with a simple MD5. Any programmer not doing something more secure (bcrypt) needs to learn, or get a new job. It just isn't acceptable practice in 2011 and it hasn't been in some time. Also, if you have serious data, you have to take security seriously. Rarely have the Anonymous attacks been anything particularly clever from what I've heard, but have been more akin to walking in an unlocked door and pulling a folder out of an unlocked file cabinet.

killerswan 15y ago

You assume this wasn't done by the USA's military, like the anthrax attacks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

sorbus 15y ago
There doesn't seem to be anything in that article that suggests that the military perpetrated the attacks. Would you care to explain further? EDIT: While a researcher with the US army was accused, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he was actually responsible, and there is doubt over whether the anthrax he had access to was the parent of the spores used in the attack. Besides, even if he did it, saying that the US army is responsible for something implies high-level planning to do it. It's like saying, if someone in Anonymous works at McDonalds, and used a computer in one of their stores, that McDonalds is responsible for Anonymous's attacks.
- killerswan 15y ago
  That is true, but you know that if a McDonalds employee used his fryer at work to do that, the headline and litigation would be about them, too. :P Regarding Anonymous, most of these cases will probably never be solved: there is probably far less evidence than the fragments the FBI had on Ivins or Hatfill. All I'm saying is that Anonymous could really be _anyone_.