5 ms·

Do people seriously think the USG is behind a ddos when Anonymous has already stated they are going to go after the DRPK? http://www.inquisitr.com/1691688/anon

• tedunangst 12y ago
  Maybe the USG is Anonymous!
  • happyscrappy 12y ago
    Nah, it's a double false flag by the hacker 4chan.
    • classicsnoot 12y ago
      I disagree; this bears the markings of... THE COUNTESS.
  • autokad 12y ago
    he's down voted but not too far off base. The US has already used hacker organizations to inadvertently act in the interests of the US government. Considering that the US almost certainly has moles in Anonymous, it wouldn't be hard to influence them to target Korea
    • patronagezero 12y ago
      You're over-complicating the issue, I think. Why not just do it themselves, then claim it was 'Anonymous'? No convincing required and no one to argue with. The whole thing smells like just another move to convince the non-believers into thinking NK was responsible for the Sony hack.
      • autokad 12y ago
        i agree, I'm just saying that its possible.
      • AlyssaRowan 12y ago
        Both the US FBI (via, for example, their mole sabu) and the UK (via GCHQ's JTRIG) have previously conducted offensive operations under the cover of Anons. (Of course that doesn't make a lot of sense as an attribution, as Anonymous isn't really a group of any conventional kind.) This looks like a small DoS against one router, as any random could do (and perhaps has done), but of course, .kp doesn't have much connection to the public internet, so that's about all it takes. And it isn't exactly a big impact on them as a country - yet it's still knocking a country off the internet. I believe the attribution to DPRK is very probably false. I think the Sony hack was quite probably conducted by non-state actors, but there is far too little information to be sure. The US have unfortunately impeded honest forensic investigations. And I believe that attacks on the internet, any part of it, are destructive and not constructive. The US would be extremely displeased if the same - cutting it off the internet - happened to it, so I dearly hope they are not stupid and short-sighted enough to be responsible! Whomever is behind this deserves condemnation. Perhaps we need a treaty. Yet when a few determined individuals can do offensively essentially what a nation can, I'm not sure how that's possible. But focusing on offense will only make everything worse - the US probably has more to lose from so-called "cyber war" than any other nation on earth. It should be leading the charge against it. It isn't. And that's a huge mistake.
        • ptosis 12y ago
          when NK wants some hacking done, they send them to North Korean-owned Chinese hotels to do it USG asked Beijing to shut down servers and routers used by North Korea that run through Chinese networks.
• davidw 12y ago
  Of course some people do: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8766609 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8766609 - someone always does.
• jusben1369 12y ago
  i don't know if they have the capabilities to wage a war on two fronts. They're getting ready to crush Iggy Azalea as best as I can tell.
  • woah 12y ago
    Iggy Azalea has hired a crack team of cybermercenaries to take down NK. As communication between different groups calling themselves Anonymous can be quite poor, she hopes to create enough disarray and confusion among the script kiddies to divert and ultimately sublimate the energy and attention currently focused on her.
• rdlecler1 12y ago
  I read that Anonymous rejected the North Korea hypothesis: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/20/sony-hackers-guardians-of-peace-troll-fbi-fbi-is-the-best-in-the-world.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/20/sony-hacker...
  • palmer_eldritch 12y ago
    Just because some people posing as anonymous rejected the hypothesis it doesn't mean no other people posing as anonymous still accept it. Also, you seem to ignore the fact that many people posing as anonymous would take part in an action like that regardless of what they believe. Anonymous has always been more about "doing it for the lulz" than politics, even if the ones posing as "doing it for the politics" are overrepresented in the medias.
• darkstar999 12y ago
  That twitter account is banned. What's to stop me from creating an "Anonymous" account and acting like "them"?
  • n09n 12y ago
    What is it with old people and their complete inability to understand Anonymous? If you did that, you wouldn't be acting like "them", you would be part of Anonymous.
    • BHSPitMonkey 12y ago
      That's the entire point. Anyone attributing an action to "them" inherently wrong in doing so. "Because Anonymous has no leadership, no action can be attributed to the membership as a whole. Parmy Olson and others have criticized media coverage that presents the group as well-organized or homogeneous." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28group%29)
      • n09n 12y ago
        That quote and the wikipedia article it comes from are both misguided because they still describe Anonymous as a group.
        • darkstar999 12y ago
          That's partially my point. However, when you do something under the name "Anonymous" like the twitter account did, you are doing it as Anonymous, the "loosely defined group". Otherwise why would you call yourself Anonymous? I am Anonymous right now. I am legion.
          • n09n 12y ago
            It's a loosely defined group only in the sense that some people incorrectly define it as a group.
        • 12y ago