14 replies to this topic

[sk3l1t0r]

http://www.foxnews.c...test=latestnews

http://www.scmagazin...article/209379/

BEST ONE!!-----> http://gizmodo.com/5...on-november-5th


Here is the news article on the new post by Anonymous. They want to take out Facebook on November 5th.. This would be very difficult due to the massive server size that they have.. Remember when anonymous attempted to take out Amazon.com? ya, that didn't work out so well because they have massive server space. In order for this to happen it would take many people working in conjunction. It is very good that they set a date this early in advance so that all members know and just take initiative and do it. My question is: what are the negatives and positives of Facebook.. I see it good for communication with family and friends and for the spread of world news..but i believe that all the advertisements and little zynga games have taken over that positive note. In case you don't know.. Electronic Arts is contracting Facebook to put a web based version of their big titles on Facebook with in the next year or so.. HTML5 has made this possible. I see everyday that people plan their lives around Facebook and just checking crap on it and posting every little aspect of their lives on Facebook.. i also am noticing a sick disorder with a lot of my friends who have Facebook accounts. They create this alternate personality through Facebook. It starts out with just some little posts here and their to get attention then they themselves start changing.. and not for the better. They seem to feel that they have to be someone that they aren't. Point in case.. i have one friend who (over the past year) went from a nice quiet guy, then to a bit of a party animal, then into drugs and lying about money he makes (saying he is rich to people and trying to prove it by blowing all his money on expensive crap). and all these little things that he thinks are to "rock star" he posts on Facebook. He literally spends all of his free time on Facebook filling his friends and families heads with lies. I am calling this "The Facebook Disorder". I don't know.. i guess Facebook can be good in small aspects but for the most part.. Its killing society and who we are.. not privacy.. we might as well all be on the show "the Big Brother"(you know that show where there are 12 people that all live in a house filled with night vision cameras, HD cameras, and microphones). I want rid of this cancer called Facebook personally. mark zuckerberg made his billions so he should be happy..why more? If you have any insight or thoughts of your own then please tell me. i would like other aspects than my own and i am also just curious on what it would take to bring down a website like facebook..Hypothetically of course

[serrath]

Inconvenient.

[tweeks]

I have read quite a few articles about this and i guess what is epected is a ddos attack. I also read that not all so called members , which supposedly there are none, will participate or condone this action. I dont know whether i would consider an attack the appropriate action, but i can understand that normal protest methods can just be passed off as "oh how cute, theres a protest" so more drastic approaches are sought. The big question is will this change anything for the time it is down? Doing it just to do it as opposed to trying to make a statement and having the statement heard and understood.

[dinscurge]

probably not good news, wont help repeal H.R.1981.. most likely the opposite.

Edited by dinscurge, 11 August 2011 - 01:48 AM.

[Afterm4th]

Anonymous Is Not Backing 'Operation Facebook'
http://www.itproportal.com/2011/08/11/anonymous-not-backing-operation-facebook/

"We absolutely disown #OpFacebook ... We're supposed to fight for the users, not against them. Don't violate private citizen privacy please," one tweet from Anonymous read, according to the Inquirer.

"The old hats of Anonymous have decided to take stronger hold of the reins. We're taking Anon back. Time for sensible, focused discussion," read another.

However, the group also made it clear that it has no soft spot for Facebook either, but unlike its other targets, the social networking site is “not ripe for attack.”

Read more: http://www.itproport.../#ixzz1UpBcAMv4

[serrath]

Hahahah, but if everyone who refuses a username is Anonymous then a single loser from 4chan turning LOIC on facebook counts as an attack by Anonymous.

[tekio]

Idk no much about the attackers, and not enough time to research them. I only see two problems:

1) when I type www.Facebook.com... It probably goes to a different server than when even my neighbor down the street does. Most high volume web sites use distributed servers for load balancing and to fend off pesky ddos attacks.

2) they've lost the element of surprise. If I know about this and it is a serious threat, so does Facebook.

Like II said, I know nothing of the attackers skill set, but would love to see Facebook get universly dos'd for a few hours...

[Tracker]

Couple things we need to keep in mind Anon did NOT TRY to take out amazon.com it was recalled and therefore never attempted. Secondly, yes taking out facebook would be a hard take by simply trying a massive DDOS since the amount of traffic comming in and out of the servers is crazy high anyway. I think its a horrible idea and will get many of their followers to turn against them because its sort of the last stand for free expression and speech other than IRC servers and anon forums. It would be dumb to try to censor their own people by blocking them from connecting with each other. Isnt the whole reason behind Anti-Sec ( or not the entire reason but a priority) to STOP censorship?

[serrath]

Couple things we need to keep in mind Anon did NOT TRY to take out amazon.com it was recalled and therefore never attempted. Secondly, yes taking out facebook would be a hard take by simply trying a massive DDOS since the amount of traffic comming in and out of the servers is crazy high anyway. I think its a horrible idea and will get many of their followers to turn against them because its sort of the last stand for free expression and speech other than IRC servers and anon forums. It would be dumb to try to censor their own people by blocking them from connecting with each other. Isnt the whole reason behind Anti-Sec ( or not the entire reason but a priority) to STOP censorship?

Hacktivism is the wrong way to get that done regardless. If Anonymous has any bright bulbs in the bunch they're blocked by all the duds:
http://packetstormsecurity.org/news/19689

The group (if it could be called that) should be disbanded. Any serious hacktivists should start a less childish sect for their illegal activities so that they don't have a bunch of skiddies or idiots with know-how powertripping on attacks on perceived enemies. They cause more damage than they do good.

[Afterm4th]

Couple things we need to keep in mind Anon did NOT TRY to take out amazon.com it was recalled and therefore never attempted. Secondly, yes taking out facebook would be a hard take by simply trying a massive DDOS since the amount of traffic comming in and out of the servers is crazy high anyway. I think its a horrible idea and will get many of their followers to turn against them because its sort of the last stand for free expression and speech other than IRC servers and anon forums. It would be dumb to try to censor their own people by blocking them from connecting with each other. Isnt the whole reason behind Anti-Sec ( or not the entire reason but a priority) to STOP censorship?

Hacktivism is the wrong way to get that done regardless. If Anonymous has any bright bulbs in the bunch they're blocked by all the duds:
http://packetstormsecurity.org/news/19689

The group (if it could be called that) should be disbanded. Any serious hacktivists should start a less childish sect for their illegal activities so that they don't have a bunch of skiddies or idiots with know-how powertripping on attacks on perceived enemies. They cause more damage than they do good.

Again, anon has said they have nothing to do with the attacks on facebook.

Also; their justification is that this is not hacking, but rather a protest (similar to a sit-in, blocking you from buying starbucks or whatever).



This is just what they say. This is not necessarily my personal view.

[mSparks]

Couple things we need to keep in mind Anon did NOT TRY to take out amazon.com it was recalled and therefore never attempted. Secondly, yes taking out facebook would be a hard take by simply trying a massive DDOS since the amount of traffic comming in and out of the servers is crazy high anyway. I think its a horrible idea and will get many of their followers to turn against them because its sort of the last stand for free expression and speech other than IRC servers and anon forums. It would be dumb to try to censor their own people by blocking them from connecting with each other. Isnt the whole reason behind Anti-Sec ( or not the entire reason but a priority) to STOP censorship?

Hacktivism is the wrong way to get that done regardless. If Anonymous has any bright bulbs in the bunch they're blocked by all the duds:
http://packetstormsecurity.org/news/19689

The group (if it could be called that) should be disbanded. Any serious hacktivists should start a less childish sect for their illegal activities so that they don't have a bunch of skiddies or idiots with know-how powertripping on attacks on perceived enemies. They cause more damage than they do good.

Again, anon has said they have nothing to do with the attacks on facebook.

Also; their justification is that this is not hacking, but rather a protest (similar to a sit-in, blocking you from buying starbucks or whatever).



This is just what they say. This is not necessarily my personal view.

I see how the MSM can get confused.

[5imp7y]

Not that i condone Malicious attacks on social networks, but i hate Facebook and yes i have one. I use it ONLY to connect with friewnds and family while on the go or after a "Long time no see" thing.
I looked at them all and they all have those pesky groups and apps and all that stuff that in your face even it you dont play with any of them. Hopefully google plus will be a little better at not force feeding its used groups and apps that make them money with thousands of stop adds and popups(although facebook did do away with all popups about 2 years ago). I dont think that facebook will be gone for good, but i wont miss it if it does go away.
ps. i have google+ invites if anyone needs one if they wanna try it.

[serrath]

@Aftermath: This is not a sit-in. http://packetstormse....org/news/19689 It's the sort of misguided hacktivism/skiddy collective crap that I was childishly whining about. Anyone trying to make a serious point should make a point to disassociate themselves from Anonymous. (Excuse me for editorializing.)

[phaedrus]

Not that i condone Malicious attacks on social networks, but i hate Facebook and yes i have one. I use it ONLY to connect with friewnds and family while on the go or after a "Long time no see" thing.
I looked at them all and they all have those pesky groups and apps and all that stuff that in your face even it you dont play with any of them. Hopefully google plus will be a little better at not force feeding its used groups and apps that make them money with thousands of stop adds and popups(although facebook did do away with all popups about 2 years ago). I dont think that facebook will be gone for good, but i wont miss it if it does go away.
ps. i have google+ invites if anyone needs one if they wanna try it.

I dislike facebook because they are scum we all expect them to be. However, we know the leopard and it's spots well.

G+ is shaping up to be just as bad but pretending to be good. I am very disappointed with their whole attitude towards naming conventions, and while I do potentially have a number of "real sounding" google+ accounts for research purposes, I feel for others who by use of their online pseudonym have felt the ban hammer descend, even though their real name would be meaningless to everyone but their parents. And that is the point. If you have darker intentions, you may well have a false g+ account but one which sounds real therefore the people being caught in the crossfire of these idiotic policies is the people who are honest enough to paint a target on themselves by use of a obviously fake name, for privacy reasons. Then the matter of if they permit the new games to access the API of a player, does that grant the API access to private content I have shared only with the player? If I have chosen to keep my relationship to the player a private matter, does this permission of the games api to access their friends and circle list breach my privacy I have set? Google are not responding to various people's calls for this clarification I have seen, which always is a bad sign.

To the original poster, I believe you are seeing the result of a 3rd party actor attempting to steer anon, but it is being resisted.

If you have a working exploit, all a load balancer with 80 machines behind it achieves is the attacker must repeat the exploit and defacement 80 times. Of course they must be confident of their payload to not dismiss it as not working after a few attempts. But then, they may compromise some of the hosts so when the reports start to flood in of a compromise, the "monitoring" staff fire up the page and get a clean server so dismiss the report. That way a compromised machine which has been defaced may serve its payload randomly for weeks unnoticed. Defacement roulette. Much more lulz, especially if it is a corporation's high profile public internet presence and pink and brown shots are involved. Since you are all obviously good intentioned people here, I present the scenario so you may remember to check ALL your farm in future.

[Afterm4th]

linked http://pastebin.com/Gy5fTBAJ


edit: its not like they (anon) cares about peoples personal information. look at the Sony leak.

Edited by Afterm4th, 19 August 2011 - 11:52 PM.