5 ms·

I've read the article twice and still don't understand what the story is or what is being implied. Are they saying that whoever hacked into their database had t

I've read the article twice and still don't understand what the story is or what is being implied. Are they saying that whoever hacked into their database had the office SWAT'ted as part of the attack? Can anyone with more knowledge of this describe why having the office vacated would benefit the attacker? For being a blog post that is supposed to illustrate their new transparency regarding security issues, it sure seems cryptic.

Lazare 13y ago
"Not so coincidentally, an old personal server had a database accessed using old forum credentials obtained from the incident last year." That either means that the attacker used the data on the compromised server to SWAT them, OR that the SWAT team used their physical access to access the server. Anything else would make the SWAT visit and the server compromise a coincidence, and they make it clear that it is not. ....I'm very confused. Edit: Or the attacker used the SWAT visit to prevent Linode from stopping the server compromise? I guess that makes some sense, although it seems like an awfully large precaution to take for a phpbb forum. I know of attacks on financial networks and banks where one attack (ie, DDoS on public website) was used to distract from the "real" attack on the money wire system or whatever. But to SWAT someone to distract from compromising a FORUM? Doesn't add up to me; the forum hack is basically just a prank, but the SWAT team visit is hugely more serious.
- brandon272 13y ago
  I'm just confused at how having the Linode staff out of the office would have allowed the attack to go forward whereas having them in the office would have prevented the attack? Is there a Linode staff member who would have been watching in real-time for database connections to the server in question? Perhaps the SWAT had nothing to do with making the attack easier, but was rather just something the attack did coincidentally as some kind of message or prank and has since taken credit for.
- Brian-Puccio 13y ago
  > "Not so coincidentally, an old personal server had a database accessed using old forum credentials obtained from the incident last year." > That either means that the attacker used the data on the compromised server to SWAT them, OR that the SWAT team used their physical access to access the server. Anything else would make the SWAT visit and the server compromise a coincidence, and they make it clear that it is not. Or that whomever just recently found the old data decided to post it at the same time as SWAT'ing Linode, to make it harder for them to do damage control, hoping everyone would be up in arms, complaining about how Linode doesn't communicate, they have no transparency, etc.
  - lnanek2 13y ago
    Sometimes the means of remote access do require visibly moving the mouse and opening windows and the like on a target, though. SWATing is easy to do and keeps pesky staff from noticing.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

Lazare 13y ago

"Not so coincidentally, an old personal server had a database accessed using old forum credentials obtained from the incident last year." That either means that the attacker used the data on the compromised server to SWAT them, OR that the SWAT team used their physical access to access the server. Anything else would make the SWAT visit and the server compromise a coincidence, and they make it clear that it is not. ....I'm very confused. Edit: Or the attacker used the SWAT visit to prevent Linode from stopping the server compromise? I guess that makes some sense, although it seems like an awfully large precaution to take for a phpbb forum. I know of attacks on financial networks and banks where one attack (ie, DDoS on public website) was used to distract from the "real" attack on the money wire system or whatever. But to SWAT someone to distract from compromising a FORUM? Doesn't add up to me; the forum hack is basically just a prank, but the SWAT team visit is hugely more serious.

brandon272 13y ago
I'm just confused at how having the Linode staff out of the office would have allowed the attack to go forward whereas having them in the office would have prevented the attack? Is there a Linode staff member who would have been watching in real-time for database connections to the server in question? Perhaps the SWAT had nothing to do with making the attack easier, but was rather just something the attack did coincidentally as some kind of message or prank and has since taken credit for.
Brian-Puccio 13y ago
> "Not so coincidentally, an old personal server had a database accessed using old forum credentials obtained from the incident last year." > That either means that the attacker used the data on the compromised server to SWAT them, OR that the SWAT team used their physical access to access the server. Anything else would make the SWAT visit and the server compromise a coincidence, and they make it clear that it is not. Or that whomever just recently found the old data decided to post it at the same time as SWAT'ing Linode, to make it harder for them to do damage control, hoping everyone would be up in arms, complaining about how Linode doesn't communicate, they have no transparency, etc.
- lnanek2 13y ago
  Sometimes the means of remote access do require visibly moving the mouse and opening windows and the like on a target, though. SWATing is easy to do and keeps pesky staff from noticing.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]