Support NeoGAF

[Phife Dawg]

2500 data sets from a 2001 database.
Nothing related to PSN directly, despite the FUD news that is now passing around on some sites.

Better source:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42937749/ns/technology_and_science-games/

Eh, according to the CNET rumour:

The people involved plan to publicize all or some of the information they are able to copy from Sony's servers, which could include customer names, credit card numbers, and addresses, according to the source. The hackers claim they currently have access to some of Sony's servers.

They did not threaten to publicize PSN related data, this could very well be linked to the CNET rumour after all (which is what this thread is about). I doubt it personally but we'll see.

 

[duk]

welps, here is to a better psn for ps4 im sure

i wonder how many ppl will get fired over this

 

[DrXym]

Plenty of companies are hackable. No one who develops enterprise web sites, or works in security would ever think any different.

In fact the best security works on the principle that hackers WILL break in which is why most sites practice defence in depth. e.g. DMZs, firewalls, database triggers, logging, code scanning tools (e.g. Fortify), security "tiger teams" and so on. The idea is to make it as difficult to break in as possible, to detect intrusions as quickly as possible and to minimize the damage that hackers can do if they do bust in.

Even with all that if you asked a security admin if they thought their network was unhackable they'd say no. They probably even know of vulns which are potentially exploitable assuming they became public knowledge.

Obviously in Sony's case they didn't do things right in some regards but to pretend they're the only vulnerable company out there is being woefully naive.

 

[Dreamgazer]

Eh, according to the CNET rumour:


They did not threaten to publicize PSN related data, this could very well be linked to the CNET rumour after all (which is what this thread is about). I doubt it personally but we'll see.

When I say FUD news, I wasn't referring to the CNET rumors or your post.
A few news site out there are reporting that these are PSN personal data. Even though PSN wasn't even around in 2001.

 

[Dreamgazer]

Another example of very little logic being put forth.

It seems to me, with just minor consideration, that Sony will be just about the safest company to do business with once they're back up.

There isn't much logic in your statement either.

There is no reason for users to trust ANY systems unless we are provided with the exact information as to what was and what will be implemented.

Quite frankly I don't know why anyone bother to argue about "Sony's security implementations" since we're all just basing things off of assumptions.

 

[Phife Dawg]

When I say FUD news, I wasn't referring to the CNET rumors or your post.
A few news site out there are reporting that these are PSN personal data. Even though PSN wasn't even around in 2001.

Oh I see. Haven't seen those reports. But yeah should be obvious that this is not related to PSN.

 

[MaddenNFL64]

Yes they should. These groups like Annonymous say they don't want hurt the consumers but it sure seems that they do. Things like this really don't help their cause either. Granted it's a different group but still it makes all hackers look bad. Sadly I'll admit it has changed my perception of all hackers now and not for the better.

Hackers are anyone with any goal.

Do you get it? There is no centralized manifesto. Good intentions, bad intentions, they're not connected by the hip.

It's all illegal in the end, so if you take that stance, you can be against all hacking, good intentions or not.

 

[RustyNails]

I think it's all but confirmed at this point that Anon and more specifically OpSony are behind the attack. Not sure if the gamespot article has been posted, but it paints a pretty damning picture.

Now, two individuals claiming to be "veteran" members of Anonymous are singing a different tune. Speaking to the Financial Times, the pair say that the people behind the information theft were almost certainly elements of the collective engaged in an anti-Sony crusade dubbed "OpSony."

"The hacker that did this was supporting OpSony's movements," one unnamed Anonymous member told the Times.

"Kayla," another member, went even further, saying, "If you say you are Anonymous, and do something as Anonymous, then Anonymous did it. Just because the rest of Anonymous might not agree with it, doesn't mean Anonymous didn't do it."

OpSony began in early April as a response to Sony's legal action against PlayStation 3 hacker George "GeoHot" Hotz. Anonymous then engaged in a series of denial-of-service attacks on a variety of Sony sites, leading to some instability.

 

[railGUN]

I think it's all but confirmed at this point that Anon and more specifically OpSony are behind the attack. Not sure if the gamespot article has been posted, but it paints a pretty damning picture.

zomg that confirms nothing.

 

[davepoobond]

theres no point in confirming or denying any anonymous inclusion in these hacker attacks. the responsibility lays on the actual people who did it and whether or not they're in anonymous, it doesnt matter, since anonymous has more splinters than plywood.

 

[SapientWolf]

I think it's all but confirmed at this point that Anon and more specifically OpSony are behind the attack. Not sure if the gamespot article has been posted, but it paints a pretty damning picture.

The problem here is that you can't be completely anonymous and still be treated as an identifiable group. Anyone that says they're Anonymous is Anonymous.

 

[Sianos]

It's hard to confirm that "Anonymous" is hacking Sony because "Anonymous" is anonymous. You can't tell "Anonymous anonymous" from regular anonymous because both are anonymous.

It could be a coordinated effort from "Anonymous", a few people from "Anonymous", some anonymous person who agreed with "anonymous" and decided to hack Sony, or even someone trying to frame "Anonymous".

However, I think it's most likely that the OpSony people are behind (it seems obvious that the group against Sony would launch the attack against Sony). However however, we can't be sure about it.

 

[corporate cheerleader]

It's hard to confirm that "Anonymous" is hacking Sony because "Anonymous" is anonymous. You can't tell "Anonymous anonymous" from regular anonymous because both are anonymous.

It could be a coordinated effort from "Anonymous", a few people from "Anonymous", some anonymous person who agreed with "anonymous" and decided to hack Sony, or even someone trying to frame "Anonymous".

 

[MechaX]

It's hard to confirm that "Anonymous" is hacking Sony because "Anonymous" is anonymous. You can't tell "Anonymous anonymous" from regular anonymous because both are anonymous.

It could be a coordinated effort from "Anonymous", a few people from "Anonymous", some anonymous person who agreed with "anonymous" and decided to hack Sony, or even someone trying to frame "Anonymous".

Well... I guess that is just the natural consequence of the main point of Anonymous being a "group" that is designed to be over-inclusive and decentralized.

 

[GavinGT]

"Kayla," another member, went even further, saying, "If you say you are Anonymous, and do something as Anonymous, then Anonymous did it. Just because the rest of Anonymous might not agree with it, doesn't mean Anonymous didn't do it."

That's a pretty silly way to look at it. First, Sony is the one claiming they found this "We are Legion" file. They might as well have made that up to deflect the blame from themselves and onto Anonymous, a group that many people find easy to villainize. Second, the attack easily could have been carried out by an individual or small group that placed the file there as a red herring for investigators. Posing as a "member" of Anonymous when you really aren't associated with them doesn't make you part of Anonymous, except in the loose sense that you're doing something anonymously.

 

[Dai101]

It's hard to confirm that "Anonymous" is hacking Sony because "Anonymous" is anonymous. You can't tell "Anonymous anonymous" from regular anonymous because both are anonymous.

It could be a coordinated effort from "Anonymous", a few people from "Anonymous", some anonymous person who agreed with "anonymous" and decided to hack Sony, or even someone trying to frame "Anonymous".

However, I think it's most likely that the OpSony people are behind (it seems obvious that the group against Sony would launch the attack against Sony). However however, we can't be sure about it.

I'm reading that in Xzibit's voice for an unknown reason

 

[RustyNails]

Well... I guess that is just the natural consequence of the main point of Anonymous being a "group" that is designed to be over-inclusive and decentralized.

It actually sounds like a well defined exit strategy for Anonymous if they get caught in any unpopular or legally damning activities.

"We are Legion. We will never forget. We are Anonymous. EXCEPT WE ARE NOT! HAHA"

Total horseshit.

 

[Sianos]

It actually sounds like a well defined exit strategy for Anonymous if they get caught in any unpopular or legally damning activities.

"We are Legion. We will never forget. We are Anonymous. EXCEPT WE ARE NOT! HAHA"

Total horseshit.

"You guys got it all wrong. It was the other anonymous people on the internet!"

 

[staticneuron]

That's a pretty silly way to look at it. First, Sony is the one claiming they found this "We are Legion" file. They might as well have made that up to deflect the blame from themselves and onto Anonymous, a group that many people find easy to villainize. Second, the attack easily could have been carried out by an individual or small group that placed the file there as a red herring for investigators. Posing as a "member" of Anonymous when you really aren't associated with them doesn't make you part of Anonymous, except in the loose sense that you're doing something anonymously.

They claiming that but they also have three independent contractors AND the FBI looking at these servers and you are still implying that they made it up?

 

[Barry Lightning]

disrupting psn member's online experience is what makes a campaign like OpSony successful. the gamers are collateral damage. perhaps this wasnt well thought out by anon which is why they seemingly took a step back after it initially happened.

regardless of who did it, it's been a successful campaign if indeed it was a part of OpSony. sony has suffered as a corporation as a result which was the origibal plan. unfortunately, so did gamers. but we'll all forget about this in 2 months anyway once we have our call of duty map packs back, wont we.

 

[Curufinwe]

They claiming that but they also have three independent contractors AND the FBI looking at these servers and you are still implying that they made it up?

They also put it in their letter to Congress.

 

[RustyNails]

That's a pretty silly way to look at it. First, Sony is the one claiming they found this "We are Legion" file. They might as well have made that up to deflect the blame from themselves and onto Anonymous, a group that many people find easy to villainize. Second, the attack easily could have been carried out by an individual or small group that placed the file there as a red herring for investigators. Posing as a "member" of Anonymous when you really aren't associated with them doesn't make you part of Anonymous, except in the loose sense that you're doing something anonymously.

The lengths to which some people go. Do you know how much trouble Sony can get into by lying to everyone, including US Congress? I mean, anyone semi-following the story can pick up the breadcrumbs and see the trail themselves. All evidence points towards Anonymous, but for some reason we should look the other way because Sony wants to villainize this misunderstood group? These events really shaped up my understanding of Anonymous as a whole.

 

[Amir0x]

The lengths to which some people go. Do you know how much trouble Sony can get into by lying to everyone, including US Congress? I mean, anyone semi-following the story can pick up the breadcrumbs and see the trail themselves. All evidence points towards Anonymous, but for some reason we should look the other way because Sony wants to villainize this misunderstood group? These events really shaped up my understanding of Anonymous as a whole.

If they are lying, they'll be found out.

But more likely Anonymous is a bunch of douchebags like they have been confirmed to be over and over, these hackers are a bunch of douchebags like they've always been, and Sony is just dumb for not upgrading their security like they should have when they were warned about it over a year ago.

Everyone shares blame, but we know who gets the lion's share and it ain't Sony.

 

[onken]

The lengths to which some people go. Do you know how much trouble Sony can get into by lying to everyone, including US Congress? I mean, anyone semi-following the story can pick up the breadcrumbs and see the trail themselves. All evidence points towards Anonymous, but for some reason we should look the other way because Sony wants to villainize this misunderstood group? These events really shaped up my understanding of Anonymous as a whole.

It's also very possible that the attack was by a different hacking group and they simply planted that file to incriminate Anonymous.

milhouse-through-the-looking-glass.gif

 

[RustyNails]

It's also very possible that the attack was by a different hacking group and they simply planted that file to incriminate Anonymous.

milhouse-through-the-looking-glass.gif

But what about the Financial Times story posted on this very page? The evidence keeps mounting.

 

[Averon]

With congress and the FBI involved, Sony would be suicidal to plant evidence now.

 

[RustyNails]

If they are lying, they'll be found out.

But more likely Anonymous is a bunch of douchebags like they have been confirmed to be over and over, these hackers are a bunch of douchebags like they've always been, and Sony is just dumb for not upgrading their security like they should have when they were warned about it over a year ago.

Everyone shares blame, but we know who gets the lion's share and it ain't Sony.

Yeah agreed. Sony definitely gets a fair share of the blame and deserves whatever stock devaluation they're hit with. Can't believe the nincompoops were asleep and didn't fix security holes despite being hit by DDoS attacks.

 

[Venfayth]

At this point it's just kind of upsetting to see that somehow politics is coming into this. People are being hurt (read: annoyed, frustrated, denied a service) simply over the principles being fought over. If they're truly attacking Sony to teach them a lesson, they should think about what they're fighting for and how they're affecting consumers.

 

[fernoca]

Though, didn't someone said that technically anyone can be "Anonymous"?
All they need to do is call themselves that, since there's no actual organization, with a leader and a list of members, or anything??

Just wondering, since it was mentioned earlier. And if that was the case, anyone could've just put the "we are legion" message and that's it. Is not like they were going to demand proof that the one that did it is a member from "Anonymous" and is not like Sony can say "well, we know those "Anonymous guys" and this wasn't from them".