6 ms·

The reason the FBI and Anonymous seemed to join forces is because the FBI turned Anonymous's leader, Sabu. http://gawker.com/5890847/revered-anonymous-leader-r

The reason the FBI and Anonymous seemed to join forces is because the FBI turned Anonymous's leader, Sabu. http://gawker.com/5890847/revered-anonymous-leader-rats-out-his-pals-to-the-fbi http://gawker.com/5890847/revered-anonymous-leader-rats-out-...

tokenadult 13y ago
Please tell me more background about that. (I recall mention of this before on HN, but I'm not recalling many details.) What's our best information on how leadership of Anonymous has changed over time? AFTER EDIT: Thanks for your link, which I think came as an edit to your comment. Here is a link to follow-up news: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/feb/22/lulzsec-sabu-sentencing-monsegur-postponed http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/feb/22/lulzsec-sa...
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  Someone else should step up and give a comprehensive overview, because I can only recount the timeline from memory, not provide sources. But iirc, Anonymous was a loose coalition of random people on the internet, some of which turned out to have some basic hacking skills. They weren't really taken seriously until they embarrassed HBGary. At that point, the FBI began investigating them. Anonymous changed their name to LulzSec (or possibly AntiSec). The FBI used standard police techniques to infiltrate and eventually dismantle the those groups. The technique was simply to 1) figure out who was a member of Anonymous, 2) threaten them with prosecution unless they cooperate, 3) repeat. This eventually led them to turn Sabu, Anonymous's leader. I'm going to dig for an interesting HN comment I remember reading about the relationship between FBI, Anonymous, and the takedown of Freedom Hosting. EDIT: Here it is: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6154642 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6154642 In order to be friendly to mobile users, I'll copy-paste the comment here (although the link is worth reading because of the informative replies): --- redthrowaway 40 days ago | link | parent | flag Interesting. Freedom Hosting had been a target of Anonymous' Operation Darknet from the beginning--they're well-known for refusing to take down exploitative sites. Operation Darknet is, itself, a pretty interesting phenomenon: Anonymous hacks onion sites, then hands over user information to the FBI for investigation. Anonymous does what the FBI legally can't, and in exchange they're not prosecuted for it. I can't find the article now, but I recall reading an interview with an FBI agent in Wired or Ars or some such where he described the anons as "Internet Superheroes". (sic) That, in and of itself, is kind of curious. Curiouser? One of the original Op Darknet principals was Sabu. You may remember him as the hacker the FBI rolled and got to bust up LulzSec. Sabu was turned by the FBI on June 7th, 2011.[1] Operation Darknet began several months later, in October, 2011.[2] The obvious question, then, is this: Did the FBI use Sabu to entice Anons into attacking child porn networks, thereby evading the laws against them doing it themselves? Did they use the fact they turned a well-known hacktivist to help them deal with criminals they lacked the legal tools to go after? Is this arrest the culmination of those efforts? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabu_(hacktivist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabu_(hacktivist) [2] http://www.informationweek.com/security/attacks/anonymous-at.. http://www.informationweek.com/security/attacks/anonymous-at....
  - kens 13y ago
    > The FBI used standard police techniques to infiltrate and eventually dismantle the those groups. Seriously, how do we know the FBI's story isn't "parallel construction"? It always seemed to me that tracking down Anonymous would be easy if you had NSA-scale monitoring. I don't want to sound like paranoid guy, but maybe the FBI's stories about tracking down clues from chat logs are all made up.
    - sillysaurus2 13y ago
      I don't think it sounds paranoid. I think it's at least plausible. I only recently learned about parallel construction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction Basically, the NSA is suspected to cooperate with other arms of the government, such as the DEA. The NSA supposedly provides information about who is involved in what illegal activity. Apparently this information is provided illegally, without a warrant. So if the DEA gets info from the NSA, the DEA needs to make up a story about how they came to possess that info, since that info was collected illegally without a warrant. That's parallel construction. I don't know whether NSA would bother with a target like Anonymous, but it's not outside the realm of realistic possibility. The biggest question is, how did the FBI identify Sabu? He supposedly revealed himself by visiting the website 2600.com, and selling stolen credit cards on Facebook. But how did visiting that website reveal Sabu? Actually, now that I think about it, the best explanation is probably the simplest: 2600.com probably runs forums, and Sabu probably posted to those forums from his home IP address like an idiot. So the FBI simply demanded his IP address from 2600.com.
      - VladRussian2 13y ago
        > 2600.com probably runs forums, and Sabu probably posted to those forums from his home IP address like an idiot. sounds very plausible :)
      - phaus 13y ago
        I'll look for the article, but as I mentioned above, the way I understand it is that he logged into IRC without using TOR or a VPN one time and they got him.
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  From your link: But his FBI handlers said he was "brilliant, but lazy": they discovered him selling stolen credit card details on Facebook, and traced him to his home when he used an unguarded internet connection to go on the 2600.com site, which is popular with young and old hackers. Is 2600.com a honeypot for the FBI? How'd Sabu expose himself by merely visiting that site?
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    >Is 2600.com a honeypot for the FBI? How'd Sabu expose himself by merely visiting that site? i guess they just ran the query in the NSA's internet traffic meta-info database.
    - nitrogen 13y ago
      Speaking of which, there's publicly available security software that can (try to) identify original sources of phrases, identify links between websites and who said what first, etc. One example: http://www.paterva.com/web6/products/maltego.php http://www.paterva.com/web6/products/maltego.php
mhurron 13y ago
Anonymous has no leaders and lulzsec isn't Anonymous. Notice how it has a identifiable name and members who are not anonymous.
- FuzzyDunlop 13y ago
  Notice how the usage of 'Anonymous' as a proper noun means it has an identifiable name.
  - mhurron 13y ago
    Really? Point out Anonymous. Ya, you were being cute, but Lulzsec was Sabu and his group. Anonymous is whatever a random group of people decided to that day and call themselves Anonymous. Tomorrow it will be a different group of people with a different and potentially conflicting cause.
    - vacri 13y ago
      Point out God. It's still a proper noun relating to a specific group of people. It's like a team name - just because the roster of the Steelers change over the years doesn't mean that 'Steelers' is not a name. Edit: 'Anonymous' is a team name, I mean, not 'God' :)
      - mhurron 13y ago
        > Point out God God is an idea that makes people feel better about themselves and to put themselves on a moral high ground over others. What makes the Steelers the Steelers is not the roster, it is the paid position of the Coach and the owner of a legal entity and a defined goal and purpose. Anonymous is none of that. Anonymous is anyone. It could be a bunch of people protesting Wall Street today. Tomorrow a group could call themselves Anonymous and protest Westboro Baptist. The day after a group calling itself Anonymous might break into Sony's systems. They might be all the same people, some of the same people or none of the same people. Each group might be made of people that agree with the others or vehemently disagree. It is not a specific group of people, it is not eve a coherent group of people.
canvia 13y ago
Anonymous doesn't have leaders. Good documentary on Anonymous: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZUHOELgif0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZUHOELgif0
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

tokenadult 13y ago

Please tell me more background about that. (I recall mention of this before on HN, but I'm not recalling many details.) What's our best information on how leadership of Anonymous has changed over time? AFTER EDIT: Thanks for your link, which I think came as an edit to your comment. Here is a link to follow-up news: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/feb/22/lulzsec-sabu-sentencing-monsegur-postponed http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/feb/22/lulzsec-sa...

sillysaurus2 13y ago
Someone else should step up and give a comprehensive overview, because I can only recount the timeline from memory, not provide sources. But iirc, Anonymous was a loose coalition of random people on the internet, some of which turned out to have some basic hacking skills. They weren't really taken seriously until they embarrassed HBGary. At that point, the FBI began investigating them. Anonymous changed their name to LulzSec (or possibly AntiSec). The FBI used standard police techniques to infiltrate and eventually dismantle the those groups. The technique was simply to 1) figure out who was a member of Anonymous, 2) threaten them with prosecution unless they cooperate, 3) repeat. This eventually led them to turn Sabu, Anonymous's leader. I'm going to dig for an interesting HN comment I remember reading about the relationship between FBI, Anonymous, and the takedown of Freedom Hosting. EDIT: Here it is: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6154642 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6154642 In order to be friendly to mobile users, I'll copy-paste the comment here (although the link is worth reading because of the informative replies): --- redthrowaway 40 days ago | link | parent | flag Interesting. Freedom Hosting had been a target of Anonymous' Operation Darknet from the beginning--they're well-known for refusing to take down exploitative sites. Operation Darknet is, itself, a pretty interesting phenomenon: Anonymous hacks onion sites, then hands over user information to the FBI for investigation. Anonymous does what the FBI legally can't, and in exchange they're not prosecuted for it. I can't find the article now, but I recall reading an interview with an FBI agent in Wired or Ars or some such where he described the anons as "Internet Superheroes". (sic) That, in and of itself, is kind of curious. Curiouser? One of the original Op Darknet principals was Sabu. You may remember him as the hacker the FBI rolled and got to bust up LulzSec. Sabu was turned by the FBI on June 7th, 2011.[1] Operation Darknet began several months later, in October, 2011.[2] The obvious question, then, is this: Did the FBI use Sabu to entice Anons into attacking child porn networks, thereby evading the laws against them doing it themselves? Did they use the fact they turned a well-known hacktivist to help them deal with criminals they lacked the legal tools to go after? Is this arrest the culmination of those efforts? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabu_(hacktivist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabu_(hacktivist) [2] http://www.informationweek.com/security/attacks/anonymous-at.. http://www.informationweek.com/security/attacks/anonymous-at....
- kens 13y ago
  > The FBI used standard police techniques to infiltrate and eventually dismantle the those groups. Seriously, how do we know the FBI's story isn't "parallel construction"? It always seemed to me that tracking down Anonymous would be easy if you had NSA-scale monitoring. I don't want to sound like paranoid guy, but maybe the FBI's stories about tracking down clues from chat logs are all made up.
  - sillysaurus2 13y ago
    I don't think it sounds paranoid. I think it's at least plausible. I only recently learned about parallel construction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction Basically, the NSA is suspected to cooperate with other arms of the government, such as the DEA. The NSA supposedly provides information about who is involved in what illegal activity. Apparently this information is provided illegally, without a warrant. So if the DEA gets info from the NSA, the DEA needs to make up a story about how they came to possess that info, since that info was collected illegally without a warrant. That's parallel construction. I don't know whether NSA would bother with a target like Anonymous, but it's not outside the realm of realistic possibility. The biggest question is, how did the FBI identify Sabu? He supposedly revealed himself by visiting the website 2600.com, and selling stolen credit cards on Facebook. But how did visiting that website reveal Sabu? Actually, now that I think about it, the best explanation is probably the simplest: 2600.com probably runs forums, and Sabu probably posted to those forums from his home IP address like an idiot. So the FBI simply demanded his IP address from 2600.com.
    - VladRussian2 13y ago
      > 2600.com probably runs forums, and Sabu probably posted to those forums from his home IP address like an idiot. sounds very plausible :)
    - phaus 13y ago
      I'll look for the article, but as I mentioned above, the way I understand it is that he logged into IRC without using TOR or a VPN one time and they got him.
sillysaurus2 13y ago
From your link: But his FBI handlers said he was "brilliant, but lazy": they discovered him selling stolen credit card details on Facebook, and traced him to his home when he used an unguarded internet connection to go on the 2600.com site, which is popular with young and old hackers. Is 2600.com a honeypot for the FBI? How'd Sabu expose himself by merely visiting that site?
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >Is 2600.com a honeypot for the FBI? How'd Sabu expose himself by merely visiting that site? i guess they just ran the query in the NSA's internet traffic meta-info database.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    Speaking of which, there's publicly available security software that can (try to) identify original sources of phrases, identify links between websites and who said what first, etc. One example: http://www.paterva.com/web6/products/maltego.php http://www.paterva.com/web6/products/maltego.php

mhurron 13y ago

Anonymous has no leaders and lulzsec isn't Anonymous. Notice how it has a identifiable name and members who are not anonymous.

FuzzyDunlop 13y ago
Notice how the usage of 'Anonymous' as a proper noun means it has an identifiable name.
- mhurron 13y ago
  Really? Point out Anonymous. Ya, you were being cute, but Lulzsec was Sabu and his group. Anonymous is whatever a random group of people decided to that day and call themselves Anonymous. Tomorrow it will be a different group of people with a different and potentially conflicting cause.
  - vacri 13y ago
    Point out God. It's still a proper noun relating to a specific group of people. It's like a team name - just because the roster of the Steelers change over the years doesn't mean that 'Steelers' is not a name. Edit: 'Anonymous' is a team name, I mean, not 'God' :)
    - mhurron 13y ago
      > Point out God God is an idea that makes people feel better about themselves and to put themselves on a moral high ground over others. What makes the Steelers the Steelers is not the roster, it is the paid position of the Coach and the owner of a legal entity and a defined goal and purpose. Anonymous is none of that. Anonymous is anyone. It could be a bunch of people protesting Wall Street today. Tomorrow a group could call themselves Anonymous and protest Westboro Baptist. The day after a group calling itself Anonymous might break into Sony's systems. They might be all the same people, some of the same people or none of the same people. Each group might be made of people that agree with the others or vehemently disagree. It is not a specific group of people, it is not eve a coherent group of people.

canvia 13y ago

Anonymous doesn't have leaders. Good documentary on Anonymous: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZUHOELgif0 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZUHOELgif0

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]