Lulzsec seems to be a bunch of idiots doing random shit for fun. At least Anonymous pretends to have some goal.
My other question is, this shit seems to be picking up even more than it has in the past. Is it that the people with the sites hire people less equipt than the hackers? Or is it just the reality that the internet is not a mature technology and no matter what you do, you'll be hacked if you piss off the wrong set of people?
And as an aside, recall that we were hacked by the Turks earlier this year and the site was down for a day (and Yoda missed sleep during exams). Given the stated goals of the group that hacked us, we were collateral damage and not the targets. No point really, just a reminder that even our little site has been victim of this shit.
This year has been the worst by a mile, its becoming almost like a sport for them. Its gotten way too bad way too fast which is going to lead to really drastic solutions which will suck.
I don't think any of this shit is cool and all hackers should be castrated. Plain and simple. Perhaps that's harsh, but my company's websites got hacked over the weekend. I spent the better part of the last two days going page by page on 3 websites erasing strings of malcode. It was a waste of my time, and my business lost money because of it. I don't give a damn what their motives are, they're just creating a nusience at best and huge problems at worst.
Dvader said:This year has been the worst by a mile, its becoming almost like a sport for them. Its gotten way too bad way too fast which is going to lead to really drastic solutions which will suck.
Weren't you calling for drastic solutions during the PSN outage? 
I know why anonymous is going after game companies, but why Lulzsec? Is it because they are mostly gamers?
LA Times just reported this, "A group calling itself LulzSec hacks the CIA's public website, disabling it for about an hour on Wednesday. No sensitive or classified material is compromised, officials say."
Uh oh. Say goodnight, Lulz. Unlike minecraft the CIA has it's own drones, and armies.
I think its pretty stupid. In some cases I can see why some hacktivism would be justified. They just seem to be pissing about at this point and hacking everyone for the hell of it. I wish someone would hack and brick their PCs.
If Lulzsec are helping to improve the CIA then they're no better than Anonymous.
Foolz said:If Lulzsec are helping to improve the CIA then they're no better than Anonymous.
It's like a shoplifter saying they are "helping to improve" security by driving a truck through the front window. "Should have had some barriers there - losers!"
aspro said:
It's like a shoplifter saying they are "helping to improve" security by driving a truck through the front window. "Should have had some barriers there - losers!"
Good on them then for breaking the CIA's windows.
aspro said:
It's like a shoplifter saying they are "helping to improve" security by driving a truck through the front window. "Should have had some barriers there - losers!"
Not really. I don't know anything about LulzSec, but the entire premise described is the foundation of security research. Security researches look for flaws in software, tell the vendor so they can fix it, then once fixed, release the information to the public domain. It's not comparable to physical locations. I've done the exact same things multiple times.
---
Tell me to get back to rewriting this site so it's not horrible on mobileI'd agree if they notify the site before taking it down, these guys take the site down and publicize the user information. I have not seen them claim anywhere that they let the site know and give them time to fix the problem.
Destruction of property is the same whether it is physical or digital (where for these companies user data and consumer goodwill is an asset just as important as any physical inventory).
So if you notify a shop before you drive a truck through the front window it's okay?
So what do you guys think of these "hacktivists"?
I'm of two minds on it. So far Lulzsec seems to mostly be providing a service. They hack or DDOS a site and then tell them where they failed. At the same time they seem to be acting with discrimination -- that is they pick who they want to hack, and usually give a reason for why that party was picked (so it's not like they are altruistic).
Anonymous are ... well just stupid from what I can tell. They pick government targets, which is never going to end well.
I heard someone a few months ago say something like, "there is a difference between a consumer boycott and a blockade, and the difference is the latter is criminal", which pretty much clicked with me in terms of my perspective of tactics used by such groups.