-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Eidos hacked by rogue Anonymous
- Thread starter Luckyman
- Start date
fabricated backlash
Member
True, I forgot to mention that these resumes might be not up to date. But they potentially are up to date.Steve Youngblood said:
Financial information being stolen can cause you immediate harm, but with so much personal information you can do a lot more damage over time. For one, the amount of data on a resume is more than enough to track people on the net, and potentially get their financial information in the end. Sure there is no immediate reason to be paranoid about it, I'll give you that, but the potential danger is there. You don't know if that kid stil has the data or didn't sell those resumes to others. He might not be a professional hacker or data thief, but he sure might have sold the information allready to people who are more than able to use this data to cause some serious harm.
When trying to get a job you are relying on good faith that companies or the ones handling your information and resumes are trustworthy. It's really their responsability to not let someone get that information without your consent.
Steve Youngblood
Member
Well, one other thing worth noting in regards to résumés is that they are not generally parsed in some universal format where a computer can read them all so that all 9000 of these individuals' data is at the ready. Meaning, you can't easily programmatically cull data from all of them to get at what you want. Sure, I guess a human being could pull one out and target that person, armed with greater knowledge. But the data doesn't come ready on a silver plate in the form of a database or easily parsed, delimited text files. "I want to spam all of these individuals with solicitation emails!" Well, yes, you can. But someone's going to have to do some good, old fashioned manual data entry first.boris feinbrand said:
fabricated backlash
Member
Londa said:
And even more do blame anonymous for AIDS by now.
Honestly, i bet a lot of anonymous "members" are laughing their ass off, by the sheer fact that so many (pro or contra) do not understand what Anonymous is.
If you want to blame someone, blame the people who did it, because blaming anonymous is as usefull as blaming some superstitious concept of evil like the devil for all the shit that is happening in the world.
People need to realize that these are unrelated events that are carried out by individuals, not some organized structure or mastermind. Anonymous has become a narrative element at this point.
Jack Random
Member
i'm not blaming the victim here, but they really should be securing their shit better. The company I work for performs IT services for some companies with very high security requirements on their data. If one of them gets hacked, its not the hackers fault for invading, its our fault for not protecting.
fabricated backlash
Member
Good point. And to many the trouble to get at all the information in those resumes might be too much of a hassle to care about. So it is potentially 9000 peoples information that is at risk, with a reasonable doubt that most of them are indeed at risk, due to a lot of factors that you have mentioned. It is possible that someone is going over these files manually (doing searches for emails isn't that big of a deal, but it is unlikely as there are a lot better and faster ways of getting email adresses and profile data online, thanks to so many people not caring, and corporations not giving a fuck either.Steve Youngblood said:
Modus operandi for most corporations is that there is no need for sophisticated IT security unless you have a breach. Then make some public apology, do a bow and give people some free goodies.
With the lack of awareness by the average consumer, it is viable for corporations to give a shit about their legal obligations about privacy and then blame everything on some random script kiddies.
Jack Random said:
Well it is actually not that one sided. A breach is your fault yes, but the malign intent is on the hackers side, so it doesn't make him innocent.
Steve Youngblood
Member
His point is that, for the most part, saying "Anonymous sucks" is pretty much equivalent to just stating "malicious hackers suck." Unless you've narrowed it down to one of the slightly more cohesive and organized groups operating under the Anonymous banner, just knowing that "the hacker identified him/herself as a member of the Anonymous group" really only serves to obfuscate the real point that it's just a random hacker.Londa said:
Although, I guess one could make the point that the proliferation of the movement via the more politically motivated and dubiously altruistic groups (i.e. Chanology, AnonOps) has emboldened douche bags to operate with impunity and think that they are actually doing something good in this world. However, that still doesn't really accomplish much. You still need real figureheads in the movement, of which there are currently none.
indigo-cyclops
Member
This is both frightening and despicable. If this is the future of the Internet count me the FUCK out.
fabricated backlash
Member
Londa said:
Am I? I think you find that I'm not defending the hacks that individuals hiding behind the anonymous cloud perform. Quite the contrary.
If you think that being a white knight for anonymous amounts to putting the events into a context that makes it harder for people to put their general uninformed distain for hackers onto an acronym that defies traditional group mentality then yes, I guess I do play white knight for anonymous.
Let me put it this way: Playing white knight for anonymous would be a waste of time as there literally is no group to defend. Everyone is anonymous. Hell I've written quite a few articles for various publications and blogs under the label anonymous. Does that make me a hacker?
It is hilarious to see so many people not grasping the concept of anonymous, yet framing them as some sort of collective with a unified mindset and goals. No not hilarious, scary. Because it actually moves the discussion away from the actual deeds. It creates a narrative about a malign hive mind instead of focusing on the real culprits.
Hackers might use anonymous as an excuse for their deeds, but in the end they performed and executed their actions. Blaming anonymous is as usefull as blaming religion for the acts of some bigots.
Anon are a collective with a unified mindset. Why did they say Anon didn't do the PSN hack? If anyone can be Anon, then they can't say Anon aren't responsible for the hack, but they did. They said Anon don't support personal detail theft, that means no one who does steal personal data can possibly be a member of Anon etc.boris feinbrand said:
The whole 'no one is a member' thing is bullshit.
Steve Youngblood
Member
Wasn't the initial denial from AnonOps?StuBurns said:
Jack Random
Member
certainly not, but the issue is that there are people out there who exploit lapses in security, and if you consider your data to be important, there's no excuse for not locking it down and keeping on top of that shit.boris feinbrand said:
fabricated backlash
Member
StuBurns said:
Is it? The whole concept of anonymous (even outside of it's application for hackers, like in journalism for example) is that it could be everyone and no one. What people are framing as anonymous is basically nothing more than a bunch of individuals and smaller groups that operate on their own agendas, but using the umbrella of anonymity to stay undetected.
I could release a statement about anonymous's intentions, and it wouldn't be any less official than from someone actually operating under that acronym.
Steve Youngblood
Member
The crux of the matter is that if you concede that point, then what's the point of trying to refer to them as some sort of cohesive group or movement when they clearly aren't? The argument is that it obfuscates the situation when the goal is to try and pin down a nebulous, undefined group as the archvillains simply because blaming a group that has a capitalized first letter that makes it sound official makes for a sexier story than "Eidos attacked by random internet miscreants."Londa said:
That's incorrect, though - this is the act of a random script kiddie and his skiddie chums, and has not been claimed or attributed to Anon by anyone involved (except the article, which is clearly doing it for theLonda said:
Besides, this "chippy1337" guy doesn't seem very anonymous at all. A simple Google search leads you through his trail of sins. And a
fabricated backlash
Member
Jack Random said:
Absolutely. Securing data in networks is a constant battle as there is no perfect shield. And even if there was, the perfect shield would allways lose against the perfect sword in the end.
I don't even want to dismiss all the effort, hours and manpower that goes into serious IT security. I know that it is one heck of a stressfull job, but those recent hacks showed how little some corporations are actually willing to invest in security, and how little they value their legal obligations to secure the data on their networks.
Breaches can and will happen, but I do argue that it is excusable if you can prove that you were doing everything in your power to prevent such breaches.
True I guess. Still, it leaves enough ground to make educated guesses about the hackers mindset and to an extend his skills.-Amon- said:
But that's just a guess and nothing more.
TheRagnCajun
Member
This attack seems pretty random.
Princess Skittles
Prince's's 'Skittle's
Steve Youngblood said:
where is it that its proven that these hackers are not anonymous? Is it really my fault to think its anonymous because I read a article saying the individual identifies as anonymous? I don't know the internet politics of anonymous and I frankly don't care to know.
infinityBCRT
Member
First thing that jumped out at me was Gerstmann gate. Yes it's old but it's the only thing that I can think of.
legacyzero
Banned
But WHY?!
Why Deus Ex of all things? And what message is this shit supposed to send?
Fucking frustrating.
Why Deus Ex of all things? And what message is this shit supposed to send?
Fucking frustrating.
fabricated backlash
Member
User33 said:
Responsible and correct response to the incident while minimizing damage by contacting those affected by data theft.
Hats off to Square Enix by acting swift and professional. Public comunication about your security is just as important as the actual security measures themselves.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I don't really know how I can clarify the situation. You admit to understanding that any random schmuck can state "I'm part of Anonymous" and, due to the nebulous nature of the "group," it's fair to say they're part of Anonymous. Given that, what's the point of pinning the crime to them and acting like you have any idea as to who did it? "I hate those Anonymous bastards!" Again, we keep taking about taking down Anonymous, but that seems to obfuscate that the Anonymous label doesn't inform us at all as to whether or not it was carried out by an organized, talented group. We're essentially back to square one: "Hackers sure do suck, am I right?"Londa said:
Tried to put as succinctly as possible, there's no point in going after Anonymous, other than the fact that it makes for a sexier story. There is a point in trying to ascertain who did it, though.
The simple facts are these: nobody has implicated Anonymous in this affair, neither the perpetrators, who called themselves by their handles, nor the victim, who made no mention of Anon anywhere in their press releases on the matter. In fact, the only implication that this was an act perpetrated by Anonymous as a group comes from the article writer themselves, probably in an effort to increase page views on the website it originates from.Londa said:
All that pops to my mind right now is the "send money for Geohot" stuff. Tottally unrelated of course, but it is still hilarious.
I am all up for enforced internet securty. Who the hell do these guys think they are? Internet stopped being your personal playground at the exact moment when it became a huge money investment to keep up servers and pay for professionals to update your company site with stuff. They pay for that website to work, and anyone who did this cause damage worth in REAL LIFE money. Therefore there needs to be a method to track down these people and bring them to court.
I am all up for enforced internet securty. Who the hell do these guys think they are? Internet stopped being your personal playground at the exact moment when it became a huge money investment to keep up servers and pay for professionals to update your company site with stuff. They pay for that website to work, and anyone who did this cause damage worth in REAL LIFE money. Therefore there needs to be a method to track down these people and bring them to court.
fabricated backlash
Member
Which kinda makes your argument carrying little weight. If you don't grasp the concept of anonymous (which exists in more places than just the internet) why not read up on it and then think about why people have a problem with putting the blame on a construct that does not entail an actual agreed upon structure or mindset.Londa said:
If you want proof that anonymous isn't a unified collective, just look up what happened with a hacker under the anonymous label hacking anon.ru. because he disagreed with the leaderless principle.
It is disheartening to see that journalists would get the concept of anonymous confused and actually create a narrative in which anonymous is a unified group. I guess some are simply too lazy to actually do the research, while most are simply putting up bullet points to get hits by demonizing some virtual menace.
Joseph Merrick
Member
don't think too hard on itlegacyzero said:
if you don't know their identity they are anonymous hackers yesLonda said:
fabricated backlash
Member
Dambrosi said:
At this point, the term anonymous has been disembodied from its original meaning, and has become a convenient scapegoat, that explains everything and nothing.
It's a narrative to divert attention away from the actual event, and is comparable in argumentation to the blank statement that equate the crimes of some bigot muslim extremists with the whole muslim faith.
Note that I'm not equating the severity of the commited actions, but the way in which those actions carried out by few are extrapolated upon a collective.
VisanidethDM
Banned
boris feinbrand said:
That's apologistic BS, sorry. If someone enters my house and robs me because I didn't lock the door, I can be labeled stupid, but I can't be lumped with the criminals.
Now, Sony/etc could be accused of having the responsability of the data they were holding, but before throwing blanket statements like "their fault for not having enough security" (which is something that only an accurate investigation will discover) you should understand that requiring something to be safe or else the holder is responsible means reducing your freedom.
If that was the correct approach, what Sony should do is requiring you to input your details and your card data at each operation on the store, and pay for home billing. And banks should be allowed to deploy tanks and snipers, because who knows what people could think of!
No, the people making us unsafe is the criminals. And neither us nor the people who provide us with services should alter their lifestyle to accomodate the needs of the criminals. It's much fairer to just eradicate the criminals and let the honest people life an ordinary, not-paranoid life. This demented idea that hacking is a primary right and should be defended is wrong at the roots. We outlaw plenty of activities that people could partake in safely because someone could abuse them to do wrong. Hackers have proved time and again their inability (as a collective, not individuals, who are often without fault and a positive contribution to the scientific community) to respect the basic rights of their fellow internauts.
Seeing people claim it's time to strike back at them and limit their activities isn't exactly shocking. Hackers had freedom and a largely unique approach from the public in terms of countering or punishing their illegal acts; they abused this special treatment, and if something now changes, they will only have themselves to blame.
And of course, we will also have them to blame for having to face a future of the web that isn't as user friendly as it could be if every website didn't need to be Fort Knox because if some scum wants to steal your data, he's justified if your security isn't tight enough.
VisanidethDM
Banned
I don't see how it's even interesting to discover if these people are Anonymous or not. If you consider aggressive hackers criminals, than Anonymous already crossed that line several times. Being able to attribute this act to them won't change their pedigree for better or worse.
It's basically asking if these guys are hackers or Hackers, and there's no bloody point in the difference.
It's basically asking if these guys are hackers or Hackers, and there's no bloody point in the difference.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I know you kind of address this, but I really, really wish people would stop making the disingenuous comparison between companies with tons of user data/money/possessions and the expectations therein to protect that, and random citizens' with their personal belongings and the expectations therein to protect those.VisanidethDM said:
fabricated backlash
Member
VisanidethDM said:
So you are perfectly ok with corporations violating their legal obligations to keep your private information secure? Unless you threaten corporations with bigger fines, they won't pick up the obligation to secure user data at all.
I am not talking about putting the blame entirely on corporations, the malign intent and the punishment for the actual breach lies squarely on the hacker(s) that carried out the attack, but the idea that corporations can simply get away with clear violations of securing private user data is proposterous.
The idea that the web has been secure and free of the need of IT security so far is as naive as it gets, and that only now the web has become a dangerous place for peoples information is just downright false.
If anything the era in which people were oblivious to the danger of data theft is coming to a slow end.
RPGCrazied
Member
Well, the Dues Ex site is fixed now. That didn't take long, wish Sony could be that fast.
boris feinbrand said:
While I agree to a point, I don't think you'll see me ever thanking these hackers for championing the cause when they're still stealing data in the process. If they left a note of "chippy1337 was here, fix your shit bro" then alright, whatever. But not if it also has a "ps, thx 4 teh inf0z," to go with it.
fabricated backlash
Member
stuminus3 said:
Yet people lump every hacker together, using anonymous as a convenient scapegoat to put every stereotype about the no-life, basement dwelling, obese, pale nerd together, and then call that an informed oppinion.
scy said:
Absolutely agreed. Don't think that my statement means anything else. I'm actually quite cynical about this, as I am convinced that a lot of corporations won't actually gear up on their IT security unless they are facing legal consequences due to their lack of security.
GavinGT said:
It's a convenient scapegoat, that generates a lot of traffic as the term anonymous is a synonym for "evil" to a lot of forum dwellers now. Blame something on anonymous and watch your site traffic go up considerably.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked