Idiot kids ...
I'm no CO$ fan, not by a long stretch ... but PLEASE keep it legal, children. We are better than they are.
A Nebraska man has admitted he participated in a mass attack last year that briefly brought the Church of Scientology's website to its knees. In a plea agreement signed Friday, Brian Thomas Mettenbrink, 20, said he downloaded custom software from a message board controlled by the anti-Scientology group known as Anonymous with …
That after 75 bazillion years on planet earth, xenu would have figured how to prevent a DDoS attack. Hmm, i am starting to think that some of their dogma is not entirely based on fact.
Still i am sure that some of their "auditors" will soon put me straight in their own inimitable style.
Wait.... I think there's a knock at the door......
Do we mean "12 months of being feted like a hero, with an unending supply of nubile young women and beer?" No?
I'm still waiting for the film to come out, where Kevin Smith (he did so well in Die Hard 4.0 as Warlock) plays the uber-hacker taking on the cyber-might of the Co$ - and wins. Hopefully taking out John Travolta* and Tom Cruise in the process.
*John Travolta has flown a plane-load of supplies - and Scientologist "support staff" into Haiti to "help the earthquake victims". I don't know where to start with what's wrong with that scenario.
- "You can have some clean water as long as you sign this billion-year contract with us"
- "Yes, the tin-cans meter indicates that you're emotionally unstable at the moment after your house collapsing on you, leaving you buried for a week and killing your family - would you like to take a $2000 course in dianetics?"
- "See? Scientology IS proper religions - we helps out in nasty things n stuff. Can we has our tax brakes and religion status nao pls? kthxbai!"
"Defendant used that software to, without authorization, access the COS websites at such a high rate that it impaired the integrity and availability of the COS websites and the computer system where they were hosted,"
Cant see how this is unauthorised access, the COS web site is open to all, similarly the integrity argument is flawed, unless the code launched an attack to gain unauthorised access, but straight DDoS is normally high rate distributed source gets. If this causes an integrity issue, then any access could.
Another issue would be the botnet used for the DDoS, this would be unauthorised access unless every system owner granted permission for the software to run, in which case they would also be liable. As you need a large number of bots to run an effective DDoS, it is possible that he used hundreds or thousands of compromised systems, so COS are not the only victims.
Looks like the plea bargaining came up with wording that suited the COS and a potential sentence that suited Mettenbrink. Considering that COS are a bunch of litigious round things that brown stuff comes out of, Mr Mettenbrink got off lightly, unless there are threats to him and his family that are not in this article.
DDoS is a nasty attack, very difficult to defend against and damaging to the victim, often causing loss of business. In this case, I think that COS should be in the dock for having such a feeble web site, but that’s a personal feeling and no basis for the law.
> Defendant used that software to, without authorization, access the COS websites
So, you're supposed to get permission from someone before you DDOS them? Who'd've thunk it?
Maybe it should be made a requirement that everyone be required to seek formal permission from COS to visit the their website. By mail or fax, do you think?
Whichever, a year in the slammer for temporarily rendering a scam site inaccessible seems a bit harsh to me. But I is not an American.
""Defendant used that software to, without authorization, access the COS websites at such a high rate that it impaired the integrity and availability of the COS websites and the computer system where they were hosted," the agreement stated."
Ok, I'm not supporting a DoS attack on anyone, but I don't understand the legalities behind the claim that the defendants without authorization accessed a website.
No offense to the lawyers, but when you set up a website, you *are* inviting someone to visit your website. Am I arguing semantics? Yeah. you're right.
The point is that the claim that the defendant needed 'authorization' is a bit bogus.
From what I hears (I haven't got confirmation) is that on 9/11 all teh scientologist helpers did was point at people. If that is true and they try that at Haiti, they'll get themselves slaughtered. Anyway, the UK national news on John T. covered that he shipped in supplies, but not other sci support.
I hope that the sci people did get flown in ... I hope that they do just stand there and point at people ... 'cause that'll embarass the US government in to taking action against CoS.
The Haitians need all the help they can get.
On the other hand, if the scis are there and are actually helping out then, much as I can't believe I'm saying this, then good on 'em. Let's face it, with one of their OT VII ministers being arrested for first degree murder and a botched suicude attempt, they need all the positive publicity they can get right now. Just search for "rex fowler scientology"
Here's the link to the BBC article:
The line "The team also included Scientology ministers." is (currently) in the article, and the ITN news on TV yesterday indicated that the doctors & other medical staff are also Scientologists.
If I had any confidence whatsoever that they might do some good, then as much as I disagree with their "theology", I'd support the fact that they were trying to help. However, based on incidents that have occurred previously, I doubt that to the nth degree. I don't agree with Xtian theology, but a bunch of medically-trained Xtians, or even enthusiastic amateurs who can assist with simpler tasks under supervision, going over to help can only be a good thing. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, Sci-fi's are known for shenanigans akin to the pointing you refer to, which means that the most productive thing they will be doing is getting in the way of the people who can actually do any good. You can guarantee, however, that they will spin this in the same way as they spin their drug rehab clinics etc, and be one step closer to being recognised as a "good organisation" despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
And I really had to struggle not to say something about them doing stupid things and getting slaughtered being A Good Thing. Oops?
"Defendant used that software to, without authorization, access the COS websites"
could they please supply a list of software or people that *ARE AUTHORISED* to access their website.
of course they will have to provide this in written form sent by post to every member of the human race so there is no possibility that anyone wouldn't know the right software to access their public website with.
P.S. El Reg I assume Chrome is an authorised piece of software to access your website with
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021