5 ms·

This doesn't necessarily rule out the FBI as the Anonymous's source, but it does cast a lot of doubt on their story.

by drcube 14y ago

epo 14y ago
Do you have a point to make? What is it?
jen_h 14y ago
I don't see where it does either - until Blue Toad publishes information about the breach. But even then, as part of the breach investigation, that data may well have been provided to the FBI. That's one purpose of the NCFTA, AFAIK, to serve as a conduit during breach. I think it's irresponsible for journalists to say conclusively that one organization or other never touched the file when they don't have proof either way. My original theory was that some ad service provider, analytics company, or app developer was working with the FBI on an investigation/attack and overzealously shared their customer's details (bad, bad--also horrific the amount of personal data collected, if Antisec's description of the original data set is true); but it could also follow that they were breached, hackers were circulating their database dump, and it was part of evidence in their investigation.
tptacek 14y ago
It also doesn't rule out the aliens from Zarvox who may secretly control our government from the highest levels.
- noahc 14y ago
  I'm glad someone brought this up! I've been concerned about this for years!
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I may have said too much already.
- mjwalshe 14y ago
  No NO how many times do I have to say this it is the Alien Spacebats who controll the polaticians. Certianly explains some of romeys gaffes.
drcube 14y ago
My point is to clarify the main thrust of the article. TLDR, if you will. It sure looks like Anonymous lied. But they could still be telling the truth, if an FBI agent just happened to have Blue Toad's UDID list on his laptop. Which frankly doesn't sound as far fetched as alien overlords.
andrewcooke 14y ago
[copied from dupe thread] much of the argument against anonymous seems to rest on the march date. from the article: The discovery of the theft casts serious doubt on Anonymous’ claims that the data came from the FBI, and was pilfered in March. "Timing-wise, (their) story doesn't make sense," he [the CIO] said. but when you read the blog of the guy who tracked things down, he says: While searching, I stumbled on a partial password dump for the company! And it was dated March 14, the same week that the hackers claimed they’d hacked into the FBI computer. Suddenly, I felt a lot more confident again, and I mentioned this connection in the email. He [the CIO] didn’t think the March leak (which they’d already been aware of) was related, but that the rest of my findings were concerning. so the only evidence against it not being march is that blue toad are saying otherwise. against that, there's the original claim plus the known password leak. and blue toad are going to look bad if this was from march and they didn't notice (not that they look so great right now in any case). again from the blog: I’m still not completely clear on all the technical details. something doesn't seem right. the fact that the password dump comes from march seems like a huge coincidence, with no evidence against it, except the word of someone who may be motivated to deny that.

This doesn't necessarily rule out the FBI as the Anonymous's source, but it does cast a lot of doubt on their story.

by drcube 14y ago

This doesn't necessarily rule out the FBI as the Anonymous's source, but it does cast a lot of doubt on their story.

epo 14y ago

Do you have a point to make? What is it?

jen_h 14y ago

I don't see where it does either - until Blue Toad publishes information about the breach. But even then, as part of the breach investigation, that data may well have been provided to the FBI. That's one purpose of the NCFTA, AFAIK, to serve as a conduit during breach. I think it's irresponsible for journalists to say conclusively that one organization or other never touched the file when they don't have proof either way. My original theory was that some ad service provider, analytics company, or app developer was working with the FBI on an investigation/attack and overzealously shared their customer's details (bad, bad--also horrific the amount of personal data collected, if Antisec's description of the original data set is true); but it could also follow that they were breached, hackers were circulating their database dump, and it was part of evidence in their investigation.

tptacek 14y ago

It also doesn't rule out the aliens from Zarvox who may secretly control our government from the highest levels.

noahc 14y ago
I'm glad someone brought this up! I've been concerned about this for years!
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- tptacek 14y ago
  I may have said too much already.
mjwalshe 14y ago
No NO how many times do I have to say this it is the Alien Spacebats who controll the polaticians. Certianly explains some of romeys gaffes.

drcube 14y ago

My point is to clarify the main thrust of the article. TLDR, if you will. It sure looks like Anonymous lied. But they could still be telling the truth, if an FBI agent just happened to have Blue Toad's UDID list on his laptop. Which frankly doesn't sound as far fetched as alien overlords.

andrewcooke 14y ago

[copied from dupe thread] much of the argument against anonymous seems to rest on the march date. from the article: The discovery of the theft casts serious doubt on Anonymous’ claims that the data came from the FBI, and was pilfered in March. "Timing-wise, (their) story doesn't make sense," he [the CIO] said. but when you read the blog of the guy who tracked things down, he says: While searching, I stumbled on a partial password dump for the company! And it was dated March 14, the same week that the hackers claimed they’d hacked into the FBI computer. Suddenly, I felt a lot more confident again, and I mentioned this connection in the email. He [the CIO] didn’t think the March leak (which they’d already been aware of) was related, but that the rest of my findings were concerning. so the only evidence against it not being march is that blue toad are saying otherwise. against that, there's the original claim plus the known password leak. and blue toad are going to look bad if this was from march and they didn't notice (not that they look so great right now in any case). again from the blog: I’m still not completely clear on all the technical details. something doesn't seem right. the fact that the password dump comes from march seems like a huge coincidence, with no evidence against it, except the word of someone who may be motivated to deny that.