9 ms·

MIT website hacked by Lulzsec

112 points by Skywing 14y ago

Skywing 14y ago
The defacing message is pretty deep, too. This is copied from the website, and is not my own. I'm just pasting it so that it's readable here, too: I used to think I was a pretty good person. I certainly didn’t kill people, for example. But then Peter Singer pointed out that animals were conscious and that eating them led them to be killed and that wasn’t all that morally different from killing people after all. So I became a vegetarian. Again I thought I was a pretty good person. But then Arianna Huffington told me that by driving in a car I was pouring toxic fumes into the air and sending money to foreign dictatorships. So I got a bike instead. But then I realized that my bike seat was sewn by children in foreign sweatshops while its tubing was made by mining metals through ripping up the earth. Indeed, any money I spent was likely to go to oppressing people or destroying the planet in one way or another. And if I happen to make money some of it goes to the government which spends it blowing people up in Afghanistan or Iraq. I thought about just living off of stuff I found in dumpsters, like some friends. That way I wouldn’t be responsible for encouraging its production. But then I realized that some people buy the things they can’t find in dumpsters; if I got to the dumpster and took something before they did, they might buy it instead. The solution seemed clear: I’d have to go off-the-grid and live in a cave, gathering nuts and berries. I’d still probably be exhaling CO2 and using some of the products in the Earth, but probably only in levels that were sustainable. Perhaps you disagree with me that it’s morally wrong to kill animals or blow up people in Afghanistan. But surely you can imagine that it might be, or at least that someone could think it is. And I think it’s similarly clear that eating a hamburger or paying taxes contributes — in a very small way; perhaps only has the possibility of contributing — to those things. Even if you don’t, everyday life has a million ways that are more direct. Personally, I think it’s wrong that I get to sit at a table and gaily devour while someone else delivers more food to my table and a third person slaves over a stove. Every time I order food, I make them do more carrying and slaving. (Perhaps they get some money in return, but surely they’d prefer it if I just gave them the money.) Again, you may not think this wrong but I hope you can admit the possibility. And it’s obviously my fault. Off in the cave, I thought I was safe. But then I read Peter Singer’s latest book. He points out that for as little as a quarter, you can save a child’s life. (E.g. for 27 cents you can buy the oral rehydration salts that will save a child from fatal diarrhea.) Perhaps I was killing people after all. I couldn’t morally make money, for the reasons described above. (Although maybe it’s worth helping fund the bombing of children in Afghanistan in order to help save children in Mozambique.) But instead of living in a cave, I could go to Africa and volunteer my time. Of course, if I do that there are a thousand other things I’m not doing. How can I decide which action I take will save the most lives? Even if I take the time to figuring out, that’s time I’m spending on myself instead of saving lives. It seems impossible to be moral. Not only does everything I do cause great harm, but so does everything I don’t do. Standard accounts of morality assume that it’s difficult, but attainable: don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t steal. But it seems like living a moral life isn’t even possible. But if morality is unattainable, surely I should simply do the best I can. (Ought implies can, after all.) Peter Singer is a good utilitarian, so perhaps I should try to maximize the good I do for the world. But even this seems like an incredibly onerous standard. I should not just stop eating meat, but animal products altogether. I shouldn’t just stop buying factory-farmed food, I should stop buying altogether. I should take things out of dumpsters other people are unlikely to be searching. I should live someplace where others won’t be disturbed. Of course all this worrying and stress is preventing me from doing any good in the world. I can hardly take a step without thinking about who it hurts. So I decide not to worry about the bad I might be doing and just focus on doing good — screw the rules. But this doesn’t just apply to the rules inspired by Peter Singer. Waiting in line at the checkout counter is keeping me from my life-saving work (and paying will cost me life-saving money) — better just to shoplift. Lying, cheating, any crime can be similarly justified. It seems paradoxical: in my quest to do good I’ve justified doing all sorts of bad. Nobody questioned me when I went out and ordered a juicy steak, but when I shoplift soda everyone recoils. Is there sense in following their rules or are they just another example of the world’s pervasive immorality? Have any philosophers considered this question? R.I.P Aaron Swartz Hacked by grand wizard of Lulzsec, Sabu GOD BLESS AMERICA DOWN WITH ANONYMOUS reddit sucks, k hacked by aush0k and tibitximer Screenshot, too: http://i.imgur.com/TCRteRw.png http://i.imgur.com/TCRteRw.png
- cjbprime 14y ago
  It's a text copy of http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/immoral http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/immoral.
- bonzoesc 14y ago
  fixed formatting, broke into paragraphs I used to think I was a pretty good person. I certainly didn’t kill people, for example. But then Peter Singer pointed out that animals were conscious and that eating them led them to be killed and that wasn’t all that morally different from killing people after all. So I became a vegetarian. Again I thought I was a pretty good person. But then Arianna Huffington told me that by driving in a car I was pouring toxic fumes into the air and sending money to foreign dictatorships. So I got a bike instead. But then I realized that my bike seat was sewn by children in foreign sweatshops while its tubing was made by mining metals through ripping up the earth. Indeed, any money I spent was likely to go to oppressing people or destroying the planet in one way or another. And if I happen to make money some of it goes to the government which spends it blowing people up in Afghanistan or Iraq. I thought about just living off of stuff I found in dumpsters, like some friends. That way I wouldn’t be responsible for encouraging its production. But then I realized that some people buy the things they can’t find in dumpsters; if I got to the dumpster and took something before they did, they might buy it instead. The solution seemed clear: I’d have to go off-the-grid and live in a cave, gathering nuts and berries. I’d still probably be exhaling CO2 and using some of the products in the Earth, but probably only in levels that were sustainable. Perhaps you disagree with me that it’s morally wrong to kill animals or blow up people in Afghanistan. But surely you can imagine that it might be, or at least that someone could think it is. And I think it’s similarly clear that eating a hamburger or paying taxes contributes — in a very small way; perhaps only has the possibility of contributing — to those things. Even if you don’t, everyday life has a million ways that are more direct. Personally, I think it’s wrong that I get to sit at a table and gaily devour while someone else delivers more food to my table and a third person slaves over a stove. Every time I order food, I make them do more carrying and slaving. (Perhaps they get some money in return, but surely they’d prefer it if I just gave them the money.) Again, you may not think this wrong but I hope you can admit the possibility. And it’s obviously my fault. Off in the cave, I thought I was safe. But then I read Peter Singer’s latest book. He points out that for as little as a quarter, you can save a child’s life. (E.g. for 27 cents you can buy the oral rehydration salts that will save a child from fatal diarrhea.) Perhaps I was killing people after all. I couldn’t morally make money, for the reasons described above. (Although maybe it’s worth helping fund the bombing of children in Afghanistan in order to help save children in Mozambique.) But instead of living in a cave, I could go to Africa and volunteer my time. Of course, if I do that there are a thousand other things I’m not doing. How can I decide which action I take will save the most lives? Even if I take the time to figuring out, that’s time I’m spending on myself instead of saving lives. It seems impossible to be moral. Not only does everything I do cause great harm, but so does everything I don’t do. Standard accounts of morality assume that it’s difficult, but attainable: don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t steal. But it seems like living a moral life isn’t even possible. But if morality is unattainable, surely I should simply do the best I can. (Ought implies can, after all.) Peter Singer is a good utilitarian, so perhaps I should try to maximize the good I do for the world. But even this seems like an incredibly onerous standard. I should not just stop eating meat, but animal products altogether. I shouldn’t just stop buying factory-farmed food, I should stop buying altogether. I should take things out of dumpsters other people are unlikely to be searching. I should live someplace where others won’t be disturbed. Of course all this worrying and stress is preventing me from doing any good in the world. I can hardly take a step without thinking about who it hurts. So I decide not to worry about the bad I might be doing and just focus on doing good — screw the rules. But this doesn’t just apply to the rules inspired by Peter Singer. Waiting in line at the checkout counter is keeping me from my life-saving work (and paying will cost me life-saving money) — better just to shoplift. Lying, cheating, any crime can be similarly justified. It seems paradoxical: in my quest to do good I’ve justified doing all sorts of bad. Nobody questioned me when I went out and ordered a juicy steak, but when I shoplift soda everyone recoils. Is there sense in following their rules or are they just another example of the world’s pervasive immorality? Have any philosophers considered this question? R.I.P Aaron Swartz Hacked by grand wizard of Lulzsec, Sabu GOD BLESS AMERICA DOWN WITH ANONYMOUS reddit sucks, k hacked by aush0k and tibitximer
mikhael 14y ago
The site that usually shows which MIT services are down/unavailable has evidently been hacked, too: http://3down.mit.edu/ http://3down.mit.edu/
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
ryancl 14y ago
Seems like someone hijacked the domain.
semenko 14y ago
It's worse than that: $ whois mit.edu Domain Name: MIT.EDU Registrant: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 02139 UNITED STATES Administrative Contact: I got owned Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT Room W92-167, 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 UNITED STATES (617) 324-1337 cunt@mit.edu Technical Contact: OWNED NETWORK OPERATIONS ROOT US DESTROYED, MA 02139-4307 UNITED STATES (617) 253-1337 owned@mit.edu Name Servers: FRED.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM KATE.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM Domain record activated: 23-May-1985 Domain record last updated: 22-Jan-2013 Domain expires: 31-Jul-2013 http://whois.educause.net/ http://whois.educause.net/
- CrankyBear 14y ago
  I just checked, 1:05 Eastern, Jan. 22, 2013 and I'm getting the correct registry info from Network Solutions.
  - hack_edu 14y ago
    Pretty quick, eh?
  - semenko 14y ago
    That may've been TTL-dependent -- though the record was only restored a minute or two ago. Educause is the EDU authoritative host.
rlu 14y ago
This must get pretty frustrating for MIT students...
- josh_blum 14y ago
  As a student I don't think its very frustrating. I only visit the main MIT site when I see posts like this really or news articles. I am surprised by how ready people are to exploit given a reason though.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    http://xkcd.com/932/ http://xkcd.com/932/
- danielweber 14y ago
  Yeah, they can't see the MIT website they never use.
- delinka 14y ago
  As a university student, how many times did you find yourself visiting the school's public-facing web site? In my case, I can count my visits on one hand. Now, all the other crap-- course scheduling, grades, classwork --is likely not living on the same server. Many of these things aren't even hosted inside the school's network but provided by some outside company.
  - rlu 14y ago
    I don't know much about this stuff but different server or not - if the domain is hijacked then everything is broken, no? E.G. if they had blackboard (course docs, homework, etc.) on blackboard.mit.edu then that would be hosed right now, wouldn't it?
    - delinka 14y ago
      If you're on the internal network, you're most likely using an internal DNS server which would not care that the registrar claims some other DNS server is now authoritative. I suppose it could be a problem if you're not on campus; or if any third-party services are not using their own domains (e.g. mit.blackboard.com)
devonbarrett 14y ago
From http://3down.mit.edu/3down/ http://3down.mit.edu/3down/ Tuesday January 22 2013 12:19: The MIT.EDU domain has been compromised and sites external to MIT are currently being redirected elsewhere. We are working with the domain registrar to get this fixed.
- danielweber 14y ago
  Lots of MIT stuff is reachable by IP. They have a /8 so they don't really worry very much about virtual webservers. http://18.7.28.68/3down/ http://18.7.28.68/3down/ EDIT: If you need to reach an MIT service, contact their native DNS servers: bitsy.mit.edu 18.72.0.3 strawb.mit.edu 18.71.0.151 w20ns.mit.edu 18.70.0.160
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
vinhboy 14y ago
I would love to hear how this could have happened. Social engineering at the DNS provider? Unpatched server? If someone knows, please do tell. I love hearing about how people pull off these things. Maybe even an inside job? a lot of people are sympathetic to the cause, maybe one of those people just left the window open or something?
- danielweber 14y ago
  Almost all of MIT's network administration happens within MIT, so you can't hack it by social engineering an outsider.
  - lawnchair_larry 14y ago
    You can if the target is the registrar, which this was.
    - jad73994 14y ago
      I doubt it was a social of educause (the edu registrar); more likely some credentials specific to MIT were compromised.
- ewillbefull 14y ago
  Their registrar was probably vulnerable (or socialed), because the nameservers were changed. This is not uncommon.
burningion 14y ago
Wow, what an incredible hack. Pwnd page well designed and thought out. What a way to make a tribute to Aaron. EDIT: Imgur link in case it gets taken down http://imgur.com/3AADDRT http://imgur.com/3AADDRT
wgrover 14y ago
Also plays "The Star Spangled Banner"...
- mkuhn 14y ago
  And the page title has a "Hackers" reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21lUsGr6YMQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21lUsGr6YMQ
negativity 14y ago
I'd just like to take the time to point out, that this is a direct link to a compromised page. Sure, the message is championing a tragic victim, but do you see how this isn't exactly the wisest move? Do I need to call attention to the recent Java zero-day exploit? http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/01/10/new-java-vulnerability-is-being-exploited-in-the-wild-disabling-java-is-currently-your-only-option/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/01/10/new-java-vulnerabil...
- ryancl 14y ago
  Who runs java?
  - zokier 14y ago
    As if no other software has 0days.
    - negativity 14y ago
      Well, it's just an example. When a page is still compromised, and under the control of someone unexpected, you can't really anticipate the state of the page, and what it might deliver to your computer. I pointed that one out because it's a pretty recent drive-by exploit. You dig?
  - dthunt 14y ago
    Everyone at MIT (required to do a bunch of kerberos related shit)
zokier 14y ago
Yet another example how misguided modern day internet-cowboys with their tar-and-feather vigilante justice are.
- grecy 14y ago
  Best to just do nothing when your government oversteps the mark. That's a good citizen. Back to work with you.
  - zokier 14y ago
    While I don't really approve defacement, that was not the point in my comment. If the defacement would have been done to DOJ (or whatever front the prosecutors have) website, I might have disapproved but still at least I would have found the target appropriate. As you self say, it is the government that was "overstepping the mark". Attack them instead of MIT which was pretty much the least evil party in the whole case best to my knowledge.
    - throwit1979 14y ago
      You're thinking of JSTOR. MIT wanted Aaron to rot in prison.
      - jad73994 14y ago
        Not really. You should read what information is available on the case, and the MIT report when it comes out in the near future.
- mpyne 14y ago
  What I really love is how they point to Aaron's wonderful piece on morality (and I mean this sincerely). Aaron points out that you can logically justify almost any evil if you think only of the overall good. Had I read the piece when it was posted I would have thought it was a call to figure out how philsophers (especially utilitarian philosophers) solve the dilemma of "the ends justify the means" in such a way that you wouldn't optimize for committing minor sins to effect major benefits. But based on hacktivism since, now I'm not so sure. Aaron seemed to fall into his own philosophical quandry, but if we assume that Aaron was justified in what he did then we could use the same logic to say that this defacement is justified as long it achieves some greater good. I personally don't agree with that logic, and I think it's because it tends to justify things like this defacement. Whenever you're lead by logic to a false conclusion it means either your logic wrong or your axioms were wrong. Now I'm almost confusing myself though; I'm not even sure what axioms we'd be using for this...
hnriot 14y ago
how completely childish.
- kordless 14y ago
  I have a 10 year old daughter who is quite childish at times and other times she's brilliant. Still, the immaturity is expected. She's a kid! This was expected as well. MIT had their part to play in it.
  - hnriot 14y ago
    I'm sure she is, to you. But this wasn't done by a 10 year old, and using your daughter as a metaphor is completely inaccurate and irrelevant. It was a stupid, childish stunt designed to show off. This does nothing to change anything. MIT's involvement is unchallenged, all this does is inconvenience MIT students and makes the person/people responsible for the hack look childish and callous for using Aaron's tragedy to garner publicity and stroke their ego. If the hacking community really wants to get behind this MIT bashing, how about we all boycott any software under MIT license for a while?? It's easy defacing a website, but I bet nobody is willing to give up their MIT software. It also further tarnishes the "hacker" image as a bunch of pimply teenage boys trying to wave their disco sticks around in the only way they know how. It's just plain embarrassing.
donpdonp 14y ago
How can a domain name with incredible value like MIT.EDU expire in July of this year? Is an ivy-leage school with a $9 billion endowment renewing their domain name year by year? It looks like the domain registration is not managed well. My guess is the exploit was guessing a weak password at the registrar.
- nessus42 14y ago
  Please don't lump us in with the Ivy League!
mkuhn 14y ago
And the page is down. I currently only get a Cloudflare error page.
viseztrance 14y ago
Google fonts, html5 doctype, oh my, times have changed.
paulhauggis 14y ago
This is how children react (which is what I think of lulzsec).
- neumann_alfred 14y ago
  To me this is just graffiti. Yeah it's vandalism, that's the point, and I'm not sure if I wanted to live in a world completely devoid of it. "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." - H. L. Mencken Men slit throats, door posts do nothing, children paint and sing. Count me in with the children.
  - sigzero 14y ago
    There is no correlation between this and graffiti. Graffiti does not prevent you from using service. This is criminal vandalism.
    - mpyne 14y ago
      You'll find that people will justify even that, as long as the target of vandalism is hateful enough.
    - neumann_alfred 14y ago
      Graffiti prevents you from looking at the bleak, clean surface. And this has already been cleared up, while graffiti often requires more then a few keystrokes. Graffiti can really destroy surfaces, and they will never be as before. Then there's tagging, which is just the equivalent of dogs peeing everywhere; as opposed to people actually trying to make a statement... to the law that distinction doesn't even exist, to me it does, and it does make a difference. This is criminal vandalism Graffiti isn't exactly lawful, so that's quite redundant? Unless of course you wanted to stress that your outrage is completely guided by "is it lawful", as opposed to, say, "is it good". Oh, and unless you're a student of MIT, or anyone who was actually inconvenienced by this, or at least know someone who was, I really wonder where this is coming from, and where it's supposed to go. I mean sure, by all means criminally persecute a bunch of "children", that surely must be the ticket, that's the lesson here. Lock them away!
rellik 14y ago
it's back up
frdgr 14y ago
Website is back up (for how long?). Registrar information is still erroneous tho.
- ryancl 14y ago
  Registrar shows nameservers as the compromised ones still, so I guess that's just on your end.
ultimoo 14y ago
It's back now.
zaidf 14y ago
So the cops are going to bust whoever did this. And MIT will scream "NO, let them go!" hoping to make up for what they didn't do with Swartz. Except they'll just be showing to the world that they still don't get it.
ultimoo 14y ago
Wow, this link was the top one on the frontpage for me about 2 minutes back. Now it has completely disappeared off it. How does this happen?
- Skywing 14y ago
  Looks like a moderator nuked it. Great justice.
- grecy 14y ago
  Free speech is not so important, it seems.
- charonn0 14y ago
  It was on the front page for me.
mattlong 14y ago
Was this story just removed from the frontpage of HN?
- burningion 14y ago
  Yep, I think so. Interesting enough, there's almost no mention of it by anyone else. Instead, the top article is something about a hacker news radio. Hmmm.
manish_gill 14y ago
This post has 78 points at the time of me writing this, and yet, it suddenly disappeared from the front page. Older posts with fewer votes are still on it. Was this post flagged? Any particular reason?
- mattlong 14y ago
  Perhaps the mods didn't want readers clicking through to a page that is still possibly compromised? Or maybe enough people flagged it for said reason...
gxs 14y ago
I don't even care about the cause behind this. But the fact that this was yanked off the front page is fucking despicable.
- ernestipark 14y ago
  It was likely yanked off the front page because going to a compromised website is dangerous and a security risk.
  - thaumaturgy 14y ago
    > ...going to a compromised website is dangerous and a security risk. ...Well, that depends on your system, really. I think it's more likely that it was ganked because linking to compromised websites is against etiquette: they don't want to encourage that sort of thing by drawing attention to it.
frdgr 14y ago
This post disappeared from the HackerNews front page. What's going on? Flagged by admins?
ancat 14y ago
It's pretty obvious Sabu isn't responsible for this, considering the FBI is pretty much breathing down his neck these days. From his Wikipedia article: "Employer: U.S. government" Screenshots for posterity: http://imgur.com/a/DMAE2/ http://imgur.com/a/DMAE2/
malu99 14y ago
wasn't Sabu working for the government? and the most affected pages were the MIT opensourceware, libraries and iniciatives, concidence?
malu99 14y ago
wasn't Sabu working for the government? and the most affected pages were the MIT opensourceware, libraries and iniciatives, concidence?
jessaustin 14y ago
Gizmodo sez they stole educause creds from an MIT admin with a "browser exploit": http://gizmodo.com/5978039/hackers-incoherently-deface-entire-mit-website http://gizmodo.com/5978039/hackers-incoherently-deface-entir...
rrredr09 14y ago
aush0k is back??

112 points by Skywing 14y ago

The defacing message is pretty deep, too. This is copied from the website, and is not my own. I'm just pasting it so that it's readable here, too: I used to think I was a pretty good person. I certainly didn’t kill people, for example. But then Peter Singer pointed out that animals were conscious and that eating them led them to be killed and that wasn’t all that morally different from killing people after all. So I became a vegetarian. Again I thought I was a pretty good person. But then Arianna Huffington told me that by driving in a car I was pouring toxic fumes into the air and sending money to foreign dictatorships. So I got a bike instead. But then I realized that my bike seat was sewn by children in foreign sweatshops while its tubing was made by mining metals through ripping up the earth. Indeed, any money I spent was likely to go to oppressing people or destroying the planet in one way or another. And if I happen to make money some of it goes to the government which spends it blowing people up in Afghanistan or Iraq. I thought about just living off of stuff I found in dumpsters, like some friends. That way I wouldn’t be responsible for encouraging its production. But then I realized that some people buy the things they can’t find in dumpsters; if I got to the dumpster and took something before they did, they might buy it instead. The solution seemed clear: I’d have to go off-the-grid and live in a cave, gathering nuts and berries. I’d still probably be exhaling CO2 and using some of the products in the Earth, but probably only in levels that were sustainable. Perhaps you disagree with me that it’s morally wrong to kill animals or blow up people in Afghanistan. But surely you can imagine that it might be, or at least that someone could think it is. And I think it’s similarly clear that eating a hamburger or paying taxes contributes — in a very small way; perhaps only has the possibility of contributing — to those things. Even if you don’t, everyday life has a million ways that are more direct. Personally, I think it’s wrong that I get to sit at a table and gaily devour while someone else delivers more food to my table and a third person slaves over a stove. Every time I order food, I make them do more carrying and slaving. (Perhaps they get some money in return, but surely they’d prefer it if I just gave them the money.) Again, you may not think this wrong but I hope you can admit the possibility. And it’s obviously my fault. Off in the cave, I thought I was safe. But then I read Peter Singer’s latest book. He points out that for as little as a quarter, you can save a child’s life. (E.g. for 27 cents you can buy the oral rehydration salts that will save a child from fatal diarrhea.) Perhaps I was killing people after all. I couldn’t morally make money, for the reasons described above. (Although maybe it’s worth helping fund the bombing of children in Afghanistan in order to help save children in Mozambique.) But instead of living in a cave, I could go to Africa and volunteer my time. Of course, if I do that there are a thousand other things I’m not doing. How can I decide which action I take will save the most lives? Even if I take the time to figuring out, that’s time I’m spending on myself instead of saving lives. It seems impossible to be moral. Not only does everything I do cause great harm, but so does everything I don’t do. Standard accounts of morality assume that it’s difficult, but attainable: don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t steal. But it seems like living a moral life isn’t even possible. But if morality is unattainable, surely I should simply do the best I can. (Ought implies can, after all.) Peter Singer is a good utilitarian, so perhaps I should try to maximize the good I do for the world. But even this seems like an incredibly onerous standard. I should not just stop eating meat, but animal products altogether. I shouldn’t just stop buying factory-farmed food, I should stop buying altogether. I should take things out of dumpsters other people are unlikely to be searching. I should live someplace where others won’t be disturbed. Of course all this worrying and stress is preventing me from doing any good in the world. I can hardly take a step without thinking about who it hurts. So I decide not to worry about the bad I might be doing and just focus on doing good — screw the rules. But this doesn’t just apply to the rules inspired by Peter Singer. Waiting in line at the checkout counter is keeping me from my life-saving work (and paying will cost me life-saving money) — better just to shoplift. Lying, cheating, any crime can be similarly justified. It seems paradoxical: in my quest to do good I’ve justified doing all sorts of bad. Nobody questioned me when I went out and ordered a juicy steak, but when I shoplift soda everyone recoils. Is there sense in following their rules or are they just another example of the world’s pervasive immorality? Have any philosophers considered this question? R.I.P Aaron Swartz Hacked by grand wizard of Lulzsec, Sabu GOD BLESS AMERICA DOWN WITH ANONYMOUS reddit sucks, k hacked by aush0k and tibitximer Screenshot, too: http://i.imgur.com/TCRteRw.png http://i.imgur.com/TCRteRw.png

cjbprime 14y ago
It's a text copy of http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/immoral http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/immoral.
bonzoesc 14y ago
fixed formatting, broke into paragraphs I used to think I was a pretty good person. I certainly didn’t kill people, for example. But then Peter Singer pointed out that animals were conscious and that eating them led them to be killed and that wasn’t all that morally different from killing people after all. So I became a vegetarian. Again I thought I was a pretty good person. But then Arianna Huffington told me that by driving in a car I was pouring toxic fumes into the air and sending money to foreign dictatorships. So I got a bike instead. But then I realized that my bike seat was sewn by children in foreign sweatshops while its tubing was made by mining metals through ripping up the earth. Indeed, any money I spent was likely to go to oppressing people or destroying the planet in one way or another. And if I happen to make money some of it goes to the government which spends it blowing people up in Afghanistan or Iraq. I thought about just living off of stuff I found in dumpsters, like some friends. That way I wouldn’t be responsible for encouraging its production. But then I realized that some people buy the things they can’t find in dumpsters; if I got to the dumpster and took something before they did, they might buy it instead. The solution seemed clear: I’d have to go off-the-grid and live in a cave, gathering nuts and berries. I’d still probably be exhaling CO2 and using some of the products in the Earth, but probably only in levels that were sustainable. Perhaps you disagree with me that it’s morally wrong to kill animals or blow up people in Afghanistan. But surely you can imagine that it might be, or at least that someone could think it is. And I think it’s similarly clear that eating a hamburger or paying taxes contributes — in a very small way; perhaps only has the possibility of contributing — to those things. Even if you don’t, everyday life has a million ways that are more direct. Personally, I think it’s wrong that I get to sit at a table and gaily devour while someone else delivers more food to my table and a third person slaves over a stove. Every time I order food, I make them do more carrying and slaving. (Perhaps they get some money in return, but surely they’d prefer it if I just gave them the money.) Again, you may not think this wrong but I hope you can admit the possibility. And it’s obviously my fault. Off in the cave, I thought I was safe. But then I read Peter Singer’s latest book. He points out that for as little as a quarter, you can save a child’s life. (E.g. for 27 cents you can buy the oral rehydration salts that will save a child from fatal diarrhea.) Perhaps I was killing people after all. I couldn’t morally make money, for the reasons described above. (Although maybe it’s worth helping fund the bombing of children in Afghanistan in order to help save children in Mozambique.) But instead of living in a cave, I could go to Africa and volunteer my time. Of course, if I do that there are a thousand other things I’m not doing. How can I decide which action I take will save the most lives? Even if I take the time to figuring out, that’s time I’m spending on myself instead of saving lives. It seems impossible to be moral. Not only does everything I do cause great harm, but so does everything I don’t do. Standard accounts of morality assume that it’s difficult, but attainable: don’t lie, don’t cheat, don’t steal. But it seems like living a moral life isn’t even possible. But if morality is unattainable, surely I should simply do the best I can. (Ought implies can, after all.) Peter Singer is a good utilitarian, so perhaps I should try to maximize the good I do for the world. But even this seems like an incredibly onerous standard. I should not just stop eating meat, but animal products altogether. I shouldn’t just stop buying factory-farmed food, I should stop buying altogether. I should take things out of dumpsters other people are unlikely to be searching. I should live someplace where others won’t be disturbed. Of course all this worrying and stress is preventing me from doing any good in the world. I can hardly take a step without thinking about who it hurts. So I decide not to worry about the bad I might be doing and just focus on doing good — screw the rules. But this doesn’t just apply to the rules inspired by Peter Singer. Waiting in line at the checkout counter is keeping me from my life-saving work (and paying will cost me life-saving money) — better just to shoplift. Lying, cheating, any crime can be similarly justified. It seems paradoxical: in my quest to do good I’ve justified doing all sorts of bad. Nobody questioned me when I went out and ordered a juicy steak, but when I shoplift soda everyone recoils. Is there sense in following their rules or are they just another example of the world’s pervasive immorality? Have any philosophers considered this question? R.I.P Aaron Swartz Hacked by grand wizard of Lulzsec, Sabu GOD BLESS AMERICA DOWN WITH ANONYMOUS reddit sucks, k hacked by aush0k and tibitximer

mikhael 14y ago

The site that usually shows which MIT services are down/unavailable has evidently been hacked, too: http://3down.mit.edu/ http://3down.mit.edu/

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

ryancl 14y ago

Seems like someone hijacked the domain.

semenko 14y ago

It's worse than that: $ whois mit.edu Domain Name: MIT.EDU Registrant: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 02139 UNITED STATES Administrative Contact: I got owned Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT Room W92-167, 77 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 UNITED STATES (617) 324-1337 cunt@mit.edu Technical Contact: OWNED NETWORK OPERATIONS ROOT US DESTROYED, MA 02139-4307 UNITED STATES (617) 253-1337 owned@mit.edu Name Servers: FRED.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM KATE.NS.CLOUDFLARE.COM Domain record activated: 23-May-1985 Domain record last updated: 22-Jan-2013 Domain expires: 31-Jul-2013 http://whois.educause.net/ http://whois.educause.net/

CrankyBear 14y ago
I just checked, 1:05 Eastern, Jan. 22, 2013 and I'm getting the correct registry info from Network Solutions.
- hack_edu 14y ago
  Pretty quick, eh?
- semenko 14y ago
  That may've been TTL-dependent -- though the record was only restored a minute or two ago. Educause is the EDU authoritative host.

rlu 14y ago

This must get pretty frustrating for MIT students...

josh_blum 14y ago
As a student I don't think its very frustrating. I only visit the main MIT site when I see posts like this really or news articles. I am surprised by how ready people are to exploit given a reason though.
- danielweber 14y ago
  http://xkcd.com/932/ http://xkcd.com/932/
danielweber 14y ago
Yeah, they can't see the MIT website they never use.
delinka 14y ago
As a university student, how many times did you find yourself visiting the school's public-facing web site? In my case, I can count my visits on one hand. Now, all the other crap-- course scheduling, grades, classwork --is likely not living on the same server. Many of these things aren't even hosted inside the school's network but provided by some outside company.
- rlu 14y ago
  I don't know much about this stuff but different server or not - if the domain is hijacked then everything is broken, no? E.G. if they had blackboard (course docs, homework, etc.) on blackboard.mit.edu then that would be hosed right now, wouldn't it?
  - delinka 14y ago
    If you're on the internal network, you're most likely using an internal DNS server which would not care that the registrar claims some other DNS server is now authoritative. I suppose it could be a problem if you're not on campus; or if any third-party services are not using their own domains (e.g. mit.blackboard.com)

devonbarrett 14y ago

From http://3down.mit.edu/3down/ http://3down.mit.edu/3down/ Tuesday January 22 2013 12:19: The MIT.EDU domain has been compromised and sites external to MIT are currently being redirected elsewhere. We are working with the domain registrar to get this fixed.

danielweber 14y ago
Lots of MIT stuff is reachable by IP. They have a /8 so they don't really worry very much about virtual webservers. http://18.7.28.68/3down/ http://18.7.28.68/3down/ EDIT: If you need to reach an MIT service, contact their native DNS servers: bitsy.mit.edu 18.72.0.3 strawb.mit.edu 18.71.0.151 w20ns.mit.edu 18.70.0.160

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

vinhboy 14y ago

I would love to hear how this could have happened. Social engineering at the DNS provider? Unpatched server? If someone knows, please do tell. I love hearing about how people pull off these things. Maybe even an inside job? a lot of people are sympathetic to the cause, maybe one of those people just left the window open or something?

danielweber 14y ago
Almost all of MIT's network administration happens within MIT, so you can't hack it by social engineering an outsider.
- lawnchair_larry 14y ago
  You can if the target is the registrar, which this was.
  - jad73994 14y ago
    I doubt it was a social of educause (the edu registrar); more likely some credentials specific to MIT were compromised.
ewillbefull 14y ago
Their registrar was probably vulnerable (or socialed), because the nameservers were changed. This is not uncommon.

burningion 14y ago

Wow, what an incredible hack. Pwnd page well designed and thought out. What a way to make a tribute to Aaron. EDIT: Imgur link in case it gets taken down http://imgur.com/3AADDRT http://imgur.com/3AADDRT

wgrover 14y ago

Also plays "The Star Spangled Banner"...

mkuhn 14y ago
And the page title has a "Hackers" reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21lUsGr6YMQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21lUsGr6YMQ

negativity 14y ago

I'd just like to take the time to point out, that this is a direct link to a compromised page. Sure, the message is championing a tragic victim, but do you see how this isn't exactly the wisest move? Do I need to call attention to the recent Java zero-day exploit? http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/01/10/new-java-vulnerability-is-being-exploited-in-the-wild-disabling-java-is-currently-your-only-option/ http://thenextweb.com/insider/2013/01/10/new-java-vulnerabil...

ryancl 14y ago
Who runs java?
- zokier 14y ago
  As if no other software has 0days.
  - negativity 14y ago
    Well, it's just an example. When a page is still compromised, and under the control of someone unexpected, you can't really anticipate the state of the page, and what it might deliver to your computer. I pointed that one out because it's a pretty recent drive-by exploit. You dig?
- dthunt 14y ago
  Everyone at MIT (required to do a bunch of kerberos related shit)

zokier 14y ago

Yet another example how misguided modern day internet-cowboys with their tar-and-feather vigilante justice are.

grecy 14y ago
Best to just do nothing when your government oversteps the mark. That's a good citizen. Back to work with you.
- zokier 14y ago
  While I don't really approve defacement, that was not the point in my comment. If the defacement would have been done to DOJ (or whatever front the prosecutors have) website, I might have disapproved but still at least I would have found the target appropriate. As you self say, it is the government that was "overstepping the mark". Attack them instead of MIT which was pretty much the least evil party in the whole case best to my knowledge.
  - throwit1979 14y ago
    You're thinking of JSTOR. MIT wanted Aaron to rot in prison.
    - jad73994 14y ago
      Not really. You should read what information is available on the case, and the MIT report when it comes out in the near future.
mpyne 14y ago
What I really love is how they point to Aaron's wonderful piece on morality (and I mean this sincerely). Aaron points out that you can logically justify almost any evil if you think only of the overall good. Had I read the piece when it was posted I would have thought it was a call to figure out how philsophers (especially utilitarian philosophers) solve the dilemma of "the ends justify the means" in such a way that you wouldn't optimize for committing minor sins to effect major benefits. But based on hacktivism since, now I'm not so sure. Aaron seemed to fall into his own philosophical quandry, but if we assume that Aaron was justified in what he did then we could use the same logic to say that this defacement is justified as long it achieves some greater good. I personally don't agree with that logic, and I think it's because it tends to justify things like this defacement. Whenever you're lead by logic to a false conclusion it means either your logic wrong or your axioms were wrong. Now I'm almost confusing myself though; I'm not even sure what axioms we'd be using for this...

hnriot 14y ago

how completely childish.

kordless 14y ago
I have a 10 year old daughter who is quite childish at times and other times she's brilliant. Still, the immaturity is expected. She's a kid! This was expected as well. MIT had their part to play in it.
- hnriot 14y ago
  I'm sure she is, to you. But this wasn't done by a 10 year old, and using your daughter as a metaphor is completely inaccurate and irrelevant. It was a stupid, childish stunt designed to show off. This does nothing to change anything. MIT's involvement is unchallenged, all this does is inconvenience MIT students and makes the person/people responsible for the hack look childish and callous for using Aaron's tragedy to garner publicity and stroke their ego. If the hacking community really wants to get behind this MIT bashing, how about we all boycott any software under MIT license for a while?? It's easy defacing a website, but I bet nobody is willing to give up their MIT software. It also further tarnishes the "hacker" image as a bunch of pimply teenage boys trying to wave their disco sticks around in the only way they know how. It's just plain embarrassing.

donpdonp 14y ago

How can a domain name with incredible value like MIT.EDU expire in July of this year? Is an ivy-leage school with a $9 billion endowment renewing their domain name year by year? It looks like the domain registration is not managed well. My guess is the exploit was guessing a weak password at the registrar.

nessus42 14y ago
Please don't lump us in with the Ivy League!

mkuhn 14y ago

And the page is down. I currently only get a Cloudflare error page.

viseztrance 14y ago

Google fonts, html5 doctype, oh my, times have changed.

paulhauggis 14y ago

This is how children react (which is what I think of lulzsec).

neumann_alfred 14y ago
To me this is just graffiti. Yeah it's vandalism, that's the point, and I'm not sure if I wanted to live in a world completely devoid of it. "Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." - H. L. Mencken Men slit throats, door posts do nothing, children paint and sing. Count me in with the children.
- sigzero 14y ago
  There is no correlation between this and graffiti. Graffiti does not prevent you from using service. This is criminal vandalism.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    You'll find that people will justify even that, as long as the target of vandalism is hateful enough.
  - neumann_alfred 14y ago
    Graffiti prevents you from looking at the bleak, clean surface. And this has already been cleared up, while graffiti often requires more then a few keystrokes. Graffiti can really destroy surfaces, and they will never be as before. Then there's tagging, which is just the equivalent of dogs peeing everywhere; as opposed to people actually trying to make a statement... to the law that distinction doesn't even exist, to me it does, and it does make a difference. This is criminal vandalism Graffiti isn't exactly lawful, so that's quite redundant? Unless of course you wanted to stress that your outrage is completely guided by "is it lawful", as opposed to, say, "is it good". Oh, and unless you're a student of MIT, or anyone who was actually inconvenienced by this, or at least know someone who was, I really wonder where this is coming from, and where it's supposed to go. I mean sure, by all means criminally persecute a bunch of "children", that surely must be the ticket, that's the lesson here. Lock them away!

rellik 14y ago

it's back up

frdgr 14y ago

Website is back up (for how long?). Registrar information is still erroneous tho.

ryancl 14y ago
Registrar shows nameservers as the compromised ones still, so I guess that's just on your end.

ultimoo 14y ago

It's back now.

zaidf 14y ago

So the cops are going to bust whoever did this. And MIT will scream "NO, let them go!" hoping to make up for what they didn't do with Swartz. Except they'll just be showing to the world that they still don't get it.

ultimoo 14y ago

Wow, this link was the top one on the frontpage for me about 2 minutes back. Now it has completely disappeared off it. How does this happen?

Skywing 14y ago
Looks like a moderator nuked it. Great justice.
grecy 14y ago
Free speech is not so important, it seems.
charonn0 14y ago
It was on the front page for me.

mattlong 14y ago

Was this story just removed from the frontpage of HN?

burningion 14y ago
Yep, I think so. Interesting enough, there's almost no mention of it by anyone else. Instead, the top article is something about a hacker news radio. Hmmm.

manish_gill 14y ago

This post has 78 points at the time of me writing this, and yet, it suddenly disappeared from the front page. Older posts with fewer votes are still on it. Was this post flagged? Any particular reason?

mattlong 14y ago
Perhaps the mods didn't want readers clicking through to a page that is still possibly compromised? Or maybe enough people flagged it for said reason...

gxs 14y ago

I don't even care about the cause behind this. But the fact that this was yanked off the front page is fucking despicable.

ernestipark 14y ago
It was likely yanked off the front page because going to a compromised website is dangerous and a security risk.
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  > ...going to a compromised website is dangerous and a security risk. ...Well, that depends on your system, really. I think it's more likely that it was ganked because linking to compromised websites is against etiquette: they don't want to encourage that sort of thing by drawing attention to it.

frdgr 14y ago

This post disappeared from the HackerNews front page. What's going on? Flagged by admins?

ancat 14y ago

It's pretty obvious Sabu isn't responsible for this, considering the FBI is pretty much breathing down his neck these days. From his Wikipedia article: "Employer: U.S. government" Screenshots for posterity: http://imgur.com/a/DMAE2/ http://imgur.com/a/DMAE2/

malu99 14y ago

wasn't Sabu working for the government? and the most affected pages were the MIT opensourceware, libraries and iniciatives, concidence?

malu99 14y ago

wasn't Sabu working for the government? and the most affected pages were the MIT opensourceware, libraries and iniciatives, concidence?

jessaustin 14y ago

Gizmodo sez they stole educause creds from an MIT admin with a "browser exploit": http://gizmodo.com/5978039/hackers-incoherently-deface-entire-mit-website http://gizmodo.com/5978039/hackers-incoherently-deface-entir...

rrredr09 14y ago

aush0k is back??