5 ms·

They probably won't arrest him. I'm a bit surprised that this was enough to even get a search warrant...

by andreyf 15y ago

melvinng 15y ago
Considering that most DDOS attacks come from zombie bots installed on programs when people Torrent, I'm suprised that there were arrest made based on IPs
- geekam 15y ago
  I know. I was thinking the same thing. How does an IP address translate to a human being?
  - fleitz 15y ago
    The issue is not how to translate it but whether an IP address identifies a person beyond reasonable doubt, especially given Anonymous's ability to defeat FBI/CIA and other military grade networks including those the FBI/CIA employ to protect them. It really raises question as to whether you can trust something as flimsy as an IP header given the technical sophistication of Anonymous. These people could well be innocent and in fact victims of anonymous directing attention away from itself and towards these innocent victims. When Anonymous can gain control of HB Gary and FBI/CIA assets imagine what they could do to an off the shelf system that hasn't been through the rigorous security protocols that HB Gary, the FBI and CIA follow. Given the mutability of data on a USB stick I'd also be very interested to see the chain of custody on that data and how it might have been modified. Also, the defense should request access to the source code for the IDS system in question so that it can be examined for bugs and problems that may affect its ability to generate reliable evidence.
    - GHFigs 15y ago
      These people could well be innocent and in fact victims of anonymous directing attention away from itself and towards these innocent victims. This is wishful thinking, but there is a sense in which it is true. People running LOIC are typically if not exclusively clueless mooks duped into doing so by people who know better. For all the mythos around Anonymous "having no leaders", I doubt very strongly that you'll find many examples of people who spontaneously downloaded LOIC and started flinging packets at PayPal. Instead what you'll find is people who say they got the idea from an image posted on 4chan (or elsewhere) or from "some guy" on IRC. All you have to do is convince someone to willingly join a botnet (or anything else) is that 1) this is a way to relieve their angst and 2) other people are doing it. The affidavit even includes examples of the kind of image instructions that accomplish exactly this. The "orders" spread as would memes, and the originators of those orders put themselves at almost no risk to distribute them, while "innocent" members of the herd get caught.
    - robtoo 15y ago
      When Anonymous can gain control of HB Gary and FBI/CIA assets Indeed: "When..." But AFAICR, Anonymous didn't gain control of either FBI or CIA assets. Hacking a self-described FBI "affiliate" and DDOSing cia.gov are hardly the same thing. Also, holding up HB Gary Federal as an example of an organisation with "rigorous security protocols" is an amusing claim with no real evidence.
- wmf 15y ago
  Did you read the article? Paypal provided evidence that the DDoS was coming from LOIC, a manually-operated non-botnet tool. Also, it sounds like Paypal's evidence was only used to get search warrants, and evidence found in those searches (like LIOC) would then be used to justify arrests.
  - astrec 15y ago
    Not necessarily manually-operated. See also: LOIC Hivemind.
InclinedPlane 15y ago
Maybe, I'm not so sure though. If you participate in a mob that went down to some local business to throw rocks through their window, should you expect to be let off easy because you just threw a pebble? On balance I think the idea that DDoS is "ok" and should be tolerated is not a good road to travel down.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  The equivalent of a DDoS is a sit in, not stoning people in the streets. Do they serve search warrants for people who participate in those?
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    Sit ins are not legal either, you can be arrested for trespassing on someone's property if you've been told to leave. The purpose of a sit in is to draw attention to an issue through non-violent means, and it's accepted that there may be consequences to that (including jail time) but the cause justifies the risk. Regardless, it's questionable whether a DDoS and a sit-in are comparable. For one, DDoS does not require the presence of the individual, this makes it more difficult to form a connection with their cause and the activity. For another, a sit-in doesn't typically totally shut down a business, let alone at a national scale. With a DDoS a very tiny minority of people are able to disrupt the business activities of millions. This is not the sort of thing that we want to become accepted a legitimate form of protest. You may think it's all well and good when people who are "fighting" for causes you believe in are "sticking it to the man" but if it becomes the norm then everyone with a grudge will use it. And then it won't be the "good guys" wielding the power it'll be the people most fanatical in its use who will get what they want. If you want to find a form of protest that mimics a sit-in, fine, go ahead, by find something other than DDoS, because that isn't it.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      Reading compression. I am not suggesting that sit ins are legal. I am asking if participating in one is enough for the police to get a warrant to thrash your house. Furthermore, sit ins are by definition denial of service attacks. Assertions about differences of scale are 1) irrelevant, 2) questionable (most DDoS fail miserably). This has nothing at all to do with my approval or disapproval of the politics.

They probably won't arrest him. I'm a bit surprised that this was enough to even get a search warrant...

by andreyf 15y ago

They probably won't arrest him. I'm a bit surprised that this was enough to even get a search warrant...

Considering that most DDOS attacks come from zombie bots installed on programs when people Torrent, I'm suprised that there were arrest made based on IPs

geekam 15y ago
I know. I was thinking the same thing. How does an IP address translate to a human being?
- fleitz 15y ago
  The issue is not how to translate it but whether an IP address identifies a person beyond reasonable doubt, especially given Anonymous's ability to defeat FBI/CIA and other military grade networks including those the FBI/CIA employ to protect them. It really raises question as to whether you can trust something as flimsy as an IP header given the technical sophistication of Anonymous. These people could well be innocent and in fact victims of anonymous directing attention away from itself and towards these innocent victims. When Anonymous can gain control of HB Gary and FBI/CIA assets imagine what they could do to an off the shelf system that hasn't been through the rigorous security protocols that HB Gary, the FBI and CIA follow. Given the mutability of data on a USB stick I'd also be very interested to see the chain of custody on that data and how it might have been modified. Also, the defense should request access to the source code for the IDS system in question so that it can be examined for bugs and problems that may affect its ability to generate reliable evidence.
  - GHFigs 15y ago
    These people could well be innocent and in fact victims of anonymous directing attention away from itself and towards these innocent victims. This is wishful thinking, but there is a sense in which it is true. People running LOIC are typically if not exclusively clueless mooks duped into doing so by people who know better. For all the mythos around Anonymous "having no leaders", I doubt very strongly that you'll find many examples of people who spontaneously downloaded LOIC and started flinging packets at PayPal. Instead what you'll find is people who say they got the idea from an image posted on 4chan (or elsewhere) or from "some guy" on IRC. All you have to do is convince someone to willingly join a botnet (or anything else) is that 1) this is a way to relieve their angst and 2) other people are doing it. The affidavit even includes examples of the kind of image instructions that accomplish exactly this. The "orders" spread as would memes, and the originators of those orders put themselves at almost no risk to distribute them, while "innocent" members of the herd get caught.
  - robtoo 15y ago
    When Anonymous can gain control of HB Gary and FBI/CIA assets Indeed: "When..." But AFAICR, Anonymous didn't gain control of either FBI or CIA assets. Hacking a self-described FBI "affiliate" and DDOSing cia.gov are hardly the same thing. Also, holding up HB Gary Federal as an example of an organisation with "rigorous security protocols" is an amusing claim with no real evidence.
wmf 15y ago
Did you read the article? Paypal provided evidence that the DDoS was coming from LOIC, a manually-operated non-botnet tool. Also, it sounds like Paypal's evidence was only used to get search warrants, and evidence found in those searches (like LIOC) would then be used to justify arrests.
- astrec 15y ago
  Not necessarily manually-operated. See also: LOIC Hivemind.

InclinedPlane 15y ago

Maybe, I'm not so sure though. If you participate in a mob that went down to some local business to throw rocks through their window, should you expect to be let off easy because you just threw a pebble? On balance I think the idea that DDoS is "ok" and should be tolerated is not a good road to travel down.

burgerbrain 15y ago
The equivalent of a DDoS is a sit in, not stoning people in the streets. Do they serve search warrants for people who participate in those?
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  Sit ins are not legal either, you can be arrested for trespassing on someone's property if you've been told to leave. The purpose of a sit in is to draw attention to an issue through non-violent means, and it's accepted that there may be consequences to that (including jail time) but the cause justifies the risk. Regardless, it's questionable whether a DDoS and a sit-in are comparable. For one, DDoS does not require the presence of the individual, this makes it more difficult to form a connection with their cause and the activity. For another, a sit-in doesn't typically totally shut down a business, let alone at a national scale. With a DDoS a very tiny minority of people are able to disrupt the business activities of millions. This is not the sort of thing that we want to become accepted a legitimate form of protest. You may think it's all well and good when people who are "fighting" for causes you believe in are "sticking it to the man" but if it becomes the norm then everyone with a grudge will use it. And then it won't be the "good guys" wielding the power it'll be the people most fanatical in its use who will get what they want. If you want to find a form of protest that mimics a sit-in, fine, go ahead, by find something other than DDoS, because that isn't it.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    Reading compression. I am not suggesting that sit ins are legal. I am asking if participating in one is enough for the police to get a warrant to thrash your house. Furthermore, sit ins are by definition denial of service attacks. Assertions about differences of scale are 1) irrelevant, 2) questionable (most DDoS fail miserably). This has nothing at all to do with my approval or disapproval of the politics.