F-ing hackers..

[draggar]

Stemming from this thread over on CS, I will bring this part over here.

What the hell do these assholes think they're accomplishing by posting people's login and passwords on sites? Seriously.

I had NOTHING to do with the Wikileaks snafu (and I'll leave the pros and cons out of this thread). So all your doing is attempting to make MY LIFE A LIVING HELL.

It is clear you are NOT doing this to protest Amazon or other sites, you really don't give a shit who you affect in your little vendetta quest, all you care about it looking like you have a cause.

You guys are terrorists in my mind. You don't go after those who you feel wronged by, you go after everyone else.

I just feel bad for all the online merchants, especially the smaller ones, who will suffer and lose business from this. If this continues it could severely hurt the ecommerce industry.

[powerboy]

They do not care. I don't se the need for logging in as someone else. I know my wives and one of my best friends passwords and login for facebook. I never go on there unless they want me to.

[HYHYBT]

Does anybody really and fully follow the, to me, contradictory advice to 1) Make all your passwords complex; 2) Use a different password for every site; 3) Change them all often; and 4) Don't write any of it down?

[Dreamstalker]

generally, no (I'm still trying to get mom to use a password manager rather than writing everything down). Our bank basically forces a password reset every few months, and one of my banks goes so far as to disallow passwords with any character strings similar to what's been used in the past year. Some well-intentioned policies defeat the purpose (forcing people to write stuff down).

The Twit once revealed to me that she used the exact same password for every site she uses. Forgetting that she had told me that, she then told me "one" of her passwords (I already knew which bank she used and the username based on the browser history after she was over at my room one night--she told Firefox to save her login).

I wasn't dumb enough to actually do anything with the information, but I did mention to her "you really should be more careful with your passwords, here's what you just did that you should never do". That lesson was ignored...and she never changed her password.

[Jack]

Does anybody really and fully follow the, to me, contradictory advice to 1) Make all your passwords complex; 2) Use a different password for every site; 3) Change them all often; and 4) Don't write any of it down?

Not quite. I:
1) Make all my passwords complex (upper/lower/numbers/special, and fairly long)
2) Use a different password for every account
3) Change them all more often than most people do but probably not as often as I should
4) Encrypt and store it using a password manager, with a passphrase at least as strong, if not stronger than, the passwords it's protecting.

How do we know this has anything to do with Wikileaks? There's always some popular website or company having sensitive databases compromised.

[Greenday]

You guys are terrorists in my mind. You don't go after those who you feel wronged by, you go after everyone else.

Anyone associated with Wikileaks are terrorists and should be treated as such.

[Jack]

Terrorists? Where's the terror? Please explain.

[Greenday]

Terrorists? Where's the terror? Please explain.

Hm, our leader got arrested. Let's mess with innocent people until they are scared enough to pressure the government to let him go!

Hm, let's release information meant to start complete anarchy!

Come on, can you ask an easier question? Assange deserves a bullet between the eyes.

[Jack]

I wasn't aware that anyone actually a part of Wikileaks was leading or performing the DDoS attacks on Amazon, Visa, etc. Is that not simply the usual unoccupied internet dwellers who like to take on other people's problems?

How do you mean the information is meant to start anarchy? Surely there are easier ways to bring down governments and societies. Besides:

Publishing improves transparency, and this transparency creates a better society for all people. Better scrutiny leads to reduced corruption and stronger democracies in all society’s institutions, including government, corporations and other organisations. A healthy, vibrant and inquisitive journalistic media plays a vital role in achieving these goals. We are part of that media.

This sounds as if the objective is the complete opposite of anyone's idea of anarchy.

[draggar]

Terrorists? Where's the terror? Please explain.

According to Dictionary.com's the meaning of "terrorist" is:

–noun
1.
a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2.
a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3.
(formerly) a member of a political group in russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4.
an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.
–adjective
5.
of, pertaining to, or characteristic of terrorism or terrorists: terrorist tactics.

By publishing logins and passwords not only are they risking the integrity of people's accounts as well as opening them up to massive theft, they are using this tactic to scare (insight terror) into the populace (as by the first two definitions).

Imagine - how many logins and passwords have been compromised because of this? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands? I don't think they would do this on a small scale and every one person they affect is one more person who may become apprehensive to use the online services again. Because of this, I've been telling people that they should change their login and password to Amazon.com - who knows how many others haven't been compromised and are just siting somewhere waiting to be "released".

[Greenday]

Terrorizing people to get what you want = terrorism.

[Jack]

By publishing logins and passwords not only are they risking the integrity of people's accounts as well as opening them up to massive theft, they are using this tactic to scare (insight terror) into the populace (as by the first two definitions).

Sounds good. Now, to the next question:

Anyone associated with Wikileaks are terrorists and should be treated as such.

How do we know this has anything to do with Wikileaks? Did Wikileaks publish a leak containing a bunch of Amazon credentials? All I have seen alluding to Wikileaks is a post on CS saying "I guess this is in response to the Wikileaks fiasco", followed by people here running with it and assuming that Wikileaks is doing this because their "leader" got arrested.

[Greenday]

Their leader gets arrested and as a result, they posted people's private information to scare people into pressuring the government to get him off the hook. It's not assumed this is why it happened. It IS why it happened.

They use fear tactics to get what they want. They want to bring down governments.

There is nothing to call this besides espionage and terrorism. These spies and terrorists need to be shut down permanently.

[Jack]

You're repeating yourself. How do we know Wikileaks did this? How do we know that, if it wasn't anyone directly affiliated with Wikileaks, it was done because of Wikileaks? As I said, websites have their databases compromised all the time. What indication do we have that this has anything to do with Wikileaks? Can you cite anything besides your own indignation?

[Andara Bledin]

Since this thread is heavy on speculation and accusation and light on anything resembling facts, I did a little research. (you guys should try it)

While there was login information posted (along with a ton of other information pulled from the Gawker databases) there are some important details people should be aware of.

The data was encrypted, and not in plain text. People with weak passwords are the ones to be worried, as the encrypted data makes it easier for those attempting to do so to brute force their way in to those accounts. Those with strong passwords are unlikely to be affected.

CNet has an excellent article that includes information on how to determine if your email address was included in the leaked data.
What You Need to Know About the Gawker Breach (FAQ)

And finally, and most important, this act has been claimed. Any connection to the Wikileaks drama is tenuous at best, and completely irrelevant to why the group in question did it.

According to an article over at PCMag.com (FBI Investigating Gawker Hack), the hacker group Gnosis (not related to 4chan or Anonymous) had already broken into Gawker and when an internal message indicated that editor Denton had apparently challenged 4chan to "bring it on," they decided to take the media group down a peg. Another article (on Mediaite) includes what is essentially a media disclosure from a representative of Gnosis that includes an explanation that the only reason they included the login data was for the frenzy of attention it would generate.

^-.-^