Snowden leak: GCHQ DDoSed Anonymous & LulzSec's chatrooms

British intelligence ran denial-of-service attacks against chatrooms used by Anonymous and LulzSec, according to an investigation by NBC News involving Snowden confidante Glenn Greenwald. Documents leaked by the NSA whistleblower record how a GCHQ unit known as the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group, or JTRIG, used a …

[Anonymous Coward]

"Legally, we enter a very grey area here; where members of Lulzsec were arrested and incarcerated for carrying out DDoS attacks, but it seems that JTRIG are taking the same approach with impunity.”

It isn't grey at all. It is either illegal, or it isn't.

[Rono666]

As always with the elite in power don't do as i do, do as i tell you..

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't grey at all. It is either illegal, or it isn't.

Yes, it's illegal, if done by you, but it's legal if done by them. And the "them" happen to be directly linked to the "them" making the rules what is and what isn't legal. And for whom :)

[Anonymous Coward]

>It isn't grey at all. It is either illegal, or it isn't.

Nope. Make war on the state and expect war in return; you fuck us and we fuck you back good.

HAND.

[John Smith 19]

Nope. Make war on the state and expect war in return; you fuck us and we fuck you back good.

Says the person who cannot even put their own alias on the post.

[Otto is a bear.]

What do you expect the state to do then?

You'll find that security & police services are permitted to disrupt criminal and terrorist activity, based on intelligence, and that they also have a duty to prevent crime, not just detect it.

In any kind of state, this is what you want your security & police services to do, the world would be a very dangerous place if they didn't. One method of doing both is to letting groups know, we know where you are, who you are and what you are doing, which I'd say a denial of service attack on hackers would happily do.

You might remember that it's illegal to shoot a policeman under any circumstances, but not for a policeman to shoot back, or shoot you first if you threaten their lives.

It is not that easy to find some cyber criminals, as they may only be visible for very short periods, certainly less time than getting a warrant, on the basis of we don't know who they are or where they are but we will, so can we have a warrant please.

Another thing to bear in mind is, state SIGINT can do a lot, and has a lot of potential for misuse, but then just think what the likes Lulzsec , Anoynomous, criminals or terrorists would do, if they had the power, and were not challenged. In the west we are lucky that our governments are reasonably honest and are not repressive, and the security and police services like it that way.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What do you expect the state to do then?

Only a small subset of users on the irc network they attacked could be called criminals, yet alone terrorists. Besides all the kiddies wanting to think they are badass, the majority are just political activists with a few handful of hackers who tend to do their own thing.

Not much changes without political activism and attacks by the government on these servers show they don't want any challenges. Using highly trained intelligence officials to DoS a chat channel run by kids is questionable at least. Obviously there are no REAL terrorist threats for them to be wasting their time on.

Is anyone in doubt that the NSA or GCHQ carried out the attacks on Wikileaks? Or Telecomix around the time Syria started? Cyber attacks by governments will be used more often, as well as censorship, to slowly control the masses over time.

[Tapeador]

"Make war on the state and expect war in return; you fuck us and we fuck you back good."

I agree except for that you missed a necessary emphasis. "The state" means, unequivocally, US, i.e. "we", the people, das Volk, die Leute. It really is, as you say, "us".

[WatAWorld]

Acts are seldom ever either "legal or illegal"

Acts are seldom ever either "legal or illegal".

Shooting someone. Locking them up. Putting milk in their coffee. Holding a door open.

These are all acts that can be either legal or illegal depending on the circumstances.

Shooting someone? It could be self defense. Locking someone up?

It could be locking the door to your house and keeping you and your infant inside.

If you put milk (instead of non-dairy creamer) in the coffee of someone you know has a serious allergic reaction it would be a criminal act.

Holding a door open to knowingly facilitate a robbery is a crime.

Acts are seldom ever either "legal or illegal". Intent is a major part of the law, and necessity can be a defense.

[Anonymous Coward]

DDOS

This is specifically illegal under the Police And Justice Act 2006 so GCHQ broke the law. What next, legalised assassination to prevent crime ?

Ultra Vires

[Richard 26]

Re: DDOS

'This is specifically illegal under the Police And Justice Act 2006 so GCHQ broke the law. What next, legalised assassination to prevent crime ?'

Actually, that was last week's news. It has been suggested that providing SIGINT for targeted drone strikes might amount to conspiracy to murder.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: DDOS

>legalised assassination to prevent crime

Well anonymous were opposing the government, that makes them terrorists and shooting people without trial because they are terrorists is hardly new, or news.

[Destroy All Monsters]

Re: DDOS

Legalized "preventative" wars to preventativate 15-minutes-flat-launches of nonexistent Weapons of Mass Destruction on rickety V2 lookalives by Habeeb?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: DDOS

"Well anonymous were opposing the government, that makes them terrorists"

Oh, that makes Ed Milliband a terrorist too! I have to say that I'm not very terrorised by him.

[WatAWorld]

Re: DDOS

Not just Ed Milliband but just under half of Cameron's own party.

Politically active people often quarrel within their own party, it is a normal state of affairs.

But LulzSec and Anonymous are neither political parties nor political discussion groups.

They are groups that actively break the law and disrupt the normal functioning of governments and companies.

I see the problem as only that GCHQ or Special Branch should have had a warrant from a judge to do this.

Government workers should be made to work within the laws set by parliament, and they should be fired or sent to prison when they violate those laws. Being a government employee should be considered an aggravating circumstance that makes the punishment worse, rather than a 'get out of jail free card'.

[Matt 21]

Re: DDOS

....and GCHQ are not the police and DDOS doesn't seem an appropriate response. If this was really an attack on a target proven to be criminal why not just take down the target and have their access removed? They could have also blocked access to the target from the UK if the target was outside their jurisdiction.

[Tomato42]

Re: DDOS

@WetAWorld How did it go... Ah right: "If they do nothing wrong they have nothing to fear".

Big corps and governments shaft us at every step. The people try to show that thy don't like it and they are jailed within minutes. Fat fish fuck up the economy, they get bonuses.

[jonathanb]

Re: DDOS

I don't think Ed Milliband is a terrorist, but what about Bob Crow?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1

The use or treat of an action [namely strike action]

The use or threat is designed to influence the government [to not close ticket offices]

and the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause [It is a political cause in this case]

It involves serious violence against a person [no]

serious damage to property [no]

endangers a person's life other than that of the person committing the action [maybe, causes congestion which blocks ambulances]

creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public [all that overcrowding on buses and trains?]

is designed to interfere with or seriously disrupt an electronic system [The tube is an electronic system, and it has been seriously disrupted]

[Michael C.]

Re: DDOS

You're all nuts. Of course the police have to have more powers than us, or they wouldn't be able to police. You've all come from the same crowd who are rightly disgruntled that the security services were doing illegal things against innocent people, but you've failed to make the distinction that these people were law breakers.

If someone's speeding, the police can speed after him. If someone's being dangerous, the police can kill him. If someone's involved in crime, the police can surveil him. If someone's DDOSing, the police can DOS him.

[jonathanb]

Re: DDOS

They can get a court order to shut down the chat room. They don't need to DOS it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: DDOS

Re: DDOS

They can get a court order to shut down the chat room. They don't need to DOS it.

Really? What country was hosting the chatroom?

[Alan Brown]

Re: DDOS

You clearly have no concept of how IRC works.

For starters they're channels, not chatrooms - think CB - and blocking one means people will simply create another and carry on.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: DDOS @ Michael C.

And surely those said powers are never abused.

Ask Ian Tomlinson......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECMVdl-9SQ

OOps no you can't he's dead.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: DDOS

If someone's involved in crime, the police can surveil him.

Except that's not what's happening is it?

They're surveiling all of us, every communication anyone of us makes is being intercepted and analysed, without any suggestion that most of them have anything to do with any crime, or that most of them have been communicated by anyone involved with crime.

The state went to war against the people, mainly innocent people who haven't been, aren't and have no intention to commit or be involved in crime.

The question is, do you believe the people aren't entitled to respond in kind?

[Matt Bryant]

Re: ObnoxiousLiar Re: DDOS

"....They're surveiling all of us, every communication anyone of us makes is being intercepted and analysed...." Yeah, we get it, you are the biggest sheeple ever with his head the furtherst up Snowdope's backside. But, as has already been pointed out to you many times in numerous threads here, you are talking male bovine manure and you know it. In fact, your boring and deceitful dribblings are getting so repetitive I'd almost wish a trip to Gitmo on you, but the truth is that will never happen because tiresome little sheeple like you are simply of ZERO INTEREST to anyone, and especially not the security services. Do us all a favour and get over yourself.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

Yeah, we get it, you are the biggest sheeple ever with his head the furtherst up Snowdope's backside. But, as has already been pointed out to you many times in numerous threads here, you are talking male bovine manure and you know it. In fact, your boring and deceitful dribblings are getting so repetitive I'd almost wish a trip to Gitmo on you, but the truth is that will never happen because tiresome little sheeple like you are simply of ZERO INTEREST to anyone, and especially not the security services. Do us all a favour and get over yourself.

Same old Matt Bryant. Unable to discuss the salient points he fills post after post with insult and bile.

Tell us all Matt, what is it that is factually wrong in what I posted?

Are GCHQ not captuing every packet that passes over a link in or out of the UK?

Are GCHQ not analysing those captured packets?

If you have information that disproves these facts (as revealed by Mr Snowden), and confirmed by the head of CGHQ, MI5 and MI6 in their 15 minutes of fame before the parliamentary committee, maybe you should do a Snowden yourself and release it to the public.

Now about this "sheeple" word you so like bandying around, you do realise that sheeple are people who believe and follow what their leaders say without question... like you do with your unfaltering loyalty to the governments position that they're entitled to spy on the private communications of every living being they can get near the communications of.

Tell me what's it like being a man who unquestioningly accepts the words of government, and who happily casts his (and everyone elses) freedoms aside because he's told 'it has to be done' by those in power?

Does it feel good to comply with people who make the Stasi look like complete amateurs?

OR maybe the truth is more sinister... maybe you leap to defend the overreaching spying because you have a personal stake in it... is that it Matt? Is that why you scream so loudly at those who object to being spied on?

Do me a favour and give me more downvotes, cause it's making such a difference to me.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

Now about this "sheeple" word you so like bandying around, you do realise that sheeple are people who believe and follow what their leaders say without question...

Defn:

People unable to think for themselves.

Followers.

Lemmings.

Those with no cognitive ablilities of their own.

All the teens were wearing bell-bottoms because they were sheeple.

So looks to me like a person either unthinkingly following the governments position or indeed following the paranoid herd mentality about GCHQ/NSA etc, could equally well be described as a sheeple.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: ObnoxiousLiar Re: ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

".....Tell us all Matt, what is it that is factually wrong in what I posted?...." For starters the usual blinkered sheeple bleating about "they iz reading all our emails", to quote: "....They're surveiling all of us, every communication anyone of us makes is being intercepted and analysed...." Even Snowdope's own reports admit the GCHQ do nothing of the sort, they only ever analyse a tiny fraction of the messages, it's just you pathetic sheeple NEED to baaaah-lieve otherwise so you can keep on whining your lies.

".....sheeple are people who believe and follow what their leaders say without question...." Actually the modern definition has an update since the Anonyputzs started unquestioningly following leaders they denied they even had! And that definition fits you to a T. The rest of your hilariously paranoid and overly melodramatic whining are just the same retread your hippy parents were bleating twenty years ago, can't you idiots at least try and think of something new?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

For starters the usual blinkered sheeple bleating about "they iz reading all our emails", to quote: "....They're surveiling all of us, every communication anyone of us makes is being intercepted and analysed...." Even Snowdope's own reports admit the GCHQ do nothing of the sort, they only ever analyse a tiny fraction of the messages, it's just you pathetic sheeple NEED to baaaah-lieve otherwise so you can keep on whining your lies.

Which is odd because the head of GCHQ sat in front of a parliamentary committee and insisted they had to have the whole "haystack" to analyse or any analysis would be a complete waste of time. Maybe you should go tell him he isn't analysing everyones emails?

BTW, do feel free to show everyone where I said they were "reading" any emails.

The rest of your hilariously paranoid and overly melodramatic whining are just the same retread your hippy parents were bleating twenty years ago, can't you idiots at least try and think of something new?

My parents weren't/aren't hippies, far from it.

I'm not whining melodramtically or otherwise.

Now back to you, why is it that you continue to try and deny what the Snowden revelations have revealed, and what the head of GCHQ told parliament? Do you know he was lying to parliament? If so do you not think you should report that to parliament? Lying to parliament is a very serious offence you know, and you do seem to keep banging on with crap about how GCHQ isn't doing what he told parliament they are doing, so you must know something, right? Otherwise you're just out here spouting off crap, and making yourself look like a knob for nothing, aren't you?

[Matt Bryant]

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

"....why is it that you continue to try and deny what the Snowden revelations have revealed...." You really do need to try and pay some attention. I have not denied what Snowdope has "revealed", indeed I and several other posters have pointed out the majority of his "revelations" have been public knowledge or public conjecture for many years. What I object to is the sheeple massively exaggerating his "revelations" in an attempt to (a) smear the security services because the sheeple think the security services are really interested in their sad lives, warez and pr0n film stealing, and (b) insist we should not be fighting terrorism. You have done both.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

You have done both

And we finally descend to the pantomime level....

Oh no I haven't!

[Matt Bryant]

Re: ObnoxiousLiar Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

You ARE the pantomime level, starting with your naive World view and continuing through your spoonfed politics.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

You ARE the pantomime level, starting with your naive World view and continuing through your spoonfed politics.

Speaking up in defence of the rights guaranted to each and everyone of us by laws our forebears died for, isn't naive.

BUT, it's the second claim which is the funniest.

The man who is screaching in defence of the lies of the state aparatus, accuses me of having spoonfed political views... seriously Matt, if I made someone like you up, with the things you come out with, no one would believe me.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

"Speaking up in defence of the rights guaranted to each and everyone of us by laws our forebears died for, isn't naive....." So please do show me where stopping terrorism is acting against your rights? I assume you are so stupid you want the right to be blown up? Indeed, whilst you're at it, please do go the whole hog and explain how your privacy has been 'invaded', show some evidence that you personally have had your rights 'violated', and how you yourself are supposedly the worse off for it? But we already know you can't, you just like bleating because you're so desperate to think you're important enough for someone to bother with you. Indeed, it is the fact that no-one has a reason to pay you any attention that scares you the most because it means facing the dull pointlessness of your existence. Here's a clue - you are of ZERO INTEREST to anyone! Get over yourself, quit trying to understand subjects you are clearly ill-equipped to consider, and go try doing something useful instead.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

So please do show me where stopping terrorism is acting against your rights?

How many more official bodies would you like to state that the overreaching spying is doing nothing to stop terrorism? Stop believing the lies Matt.

I assume you are so stupid you want the right to be blown up?

As your beloved programs can't stop me being blown up, it would appear I have to live with that risk, just as I have had to for all of my life, just as my forebears did, and their forebears, etc. etc.

Indeed, whilst you're at it, please do go the whole hog and explain how your privacy has been 'invaded', show some evidence that you personally have had your rights 'violated', and how you yourself are supposedly the worse off for it?

Packets which I have legally sent, each containing perfectly legal content, over the internet have been illegally captured by the state for analysis. No warrant was ever sought suggesting that I had any involvement in crime of any description, no oversight of what the analysis of those packets produced has ever taken place, etc. etc.

But we already know you can't, you just like bleating because you're so desperate to think you're important enough for someone to bother with you.

You must try to stop repeating yourself. We've already discussed that I know full well I'm of no interest, that's how come I am security cleared by HM Government, because I'm of no threat, or interest.

So I must be objecting for some other reason right? Can you figure out why I am objecting?

You might find some clues by reading the replies that I posted to you over the many post we've both made about this subject.

Indeed, it is the fact that no-one has a reason to pay you any attention that scares you the most because it means facing the dull pointlessness of your existence.

I actually quite like the fact that my existence is pointless and meaningless, I don't have any wish for fame or a lasting legacy. Having such a pointless and meanigless existence means I can be left the fuck alone by the scum who seem to believe they have a right to know and judge everyone.

Here's a clue - you are of ZERO INTEREST to anyone! Get over yourself, quit trying to understand subjects you are clearly ill-equipped to consider, and go try doing something useful instead.

Oh I understand the subject Matt, it's you who doesn't seem to understand it at all.

I'm guessing you're living in denial of what is going on, and I don't get that. You now know the facts.

You know how much information is being gathered, and that it is all being analysed.

I'm guessing you don't understand that the only way this amount of information is of any use at all is if it is used to build an associative index of everyone.

I'm guessing you don't believe it's possible to build such an index of everyones associations, and ignoring history which shows the DDR Stasi did it on paper for the population they spied on.

I'm guessing you don't believe the security services would do that, because they're "the good guys". Which works in your head because you dismiss the first points.

What I can't understand is why?

Why can you be so blindsided by the statements being made by people in power that you can't understand what they have done?

Why can you be so blindsided by their lies that even after multiple other people in power have stated that none of it has had any effect on stopping terrorism that you still scream in defense of it?

Why do you think that any state body has the right to fish around in the personal communications of everyone and anyone without reason and/or oversight?

At what point did you start to believe that the lives of individual people were the property of the state to record and invade at will?

At what point did you start to believe that the state could do whatever it liked without caring about laws, due process, and people?

Presuambly given your statements about all of this you admire what the Stasi did in East Germany? Presumably you admire what the NKVD did in the USSR? That is what you're defending after all, isn't it? That the state can record and do whatever the hell it likes with the lives of the people, without oversight, due process, or obiediance to law?

[Matt Bryant]

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

"How many more official bodies would you like to state that the overreaching spying is doing nothing to stop terrorism...." Which official bodies? No, not think-tanks, interest groups or fringe nutters, which actual and official bodies with regulatory or legal powers? In the case of the States, I presume you mean the PCLOB (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/23/us_government_watchdog_report_finds_nsa_spying_is_illegal_and_useless/), which couldn't even reach an unanimous decision and doesn't have any actual regulatory or legal powers? And that's even before you begin to examine their possible motives given their working for Gitmo detainees. You really need to read a LOT more. They have zero authority compared to the FISC (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/fisa_2007_review/) which has overseen the NSA's programs and ruled them completely legal and effective. So, once again, it has been really easy to debunk your bleating. Please note I have restricted the debunking info to El Reg given your obviously very, very limited scope of reading sources.

".....Packets which I have legally sent, each containing perfectly legal content, over the internet have been illegally captured by the state for analysis...." Wrong! Apart from the fact you failed to answer the question and show any actual harm to you, the packets were never analysed. They were never read unless you were actually already part of an investigation or used keywords to trigger an actual analysis. Either way, they WERE covered by the FISC's rolling warrant, so - once again - you are completely wrong and talking out of your egotistical rectum. You really need to do some actual RESEARCH before bleating your paranoias.

".....You know how much information is being gathered, and that it is all being analysed....." And here we really start the journey down Paranoia Avenue! Even Snowdope admits the GCHQ/NSA do not analyse everything they trawl up, that they simply do not have the resources to hold all of the data for ver long at all (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/10/31/nsa_and_uk_hacked_yahoo_and_google_data_center_interconnects_report/). You seem to be lacking in technical knowledge on top of all your other failings, so much so I have to ask WTF are you even doing on a technical site? I suggest you go back to Indymedia where your hippy brethren won't have the tech knowledge or inclination to point out your errors and lack of research. Your tired bleating won't be missed by anyone other than your fellow sheeple.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

They were never read unless you were actually already part of an investigation or used keywords to trigger an actual analysis.

What an absolutely outstanding reply, confirming your place as a extra special contributor to this esteemed site.

Now all we need you to explain is how you keyword check a packet without analysing its contents?

You seem to be lacking in technical knowledge

After making a fundamentally flawed argument like that, you're going to accuse me of lacking technical knowledge? Really!

[Matt Bryant]

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

"....Now all we need you to explain is how you keyword check a packet without analysing its contents?...." I know you really have no idea technically, but I suggest you go read up on TCP/IP packets. What gets dumped in the data segment by browsers, email and most social meejuh tools is usually just binary transcribe of ASCII clear text - no need for fancy analysis, just an automated scan to look for certain binary patterns that match to key words. That's why people are suggesting the use of more encryption tech to actually make it harder to read the data segment, though of course encryption will probably draw attention to your packets and make them more likely for secondary analysis. A binary match is not analysis, even in the most simplest of forms. Commercial firewalls scan packets as they pass through all the time looking for binary patterns, are you going to accuse McAfee and Symantec of 'analysing' your donkey pr0n downloading habits? Once again, you are trying to fudge definitions to suit your technically illiterate outlook.

"......you're going to accuse me of lacking technical knowledge?...." No need to, your posts illustrate your of knowledge quite succinctly.

[BlueGreen]

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

Hi Plump & Bleaty,

> just an automated scan to look for certain binary patterns that match to key words

AKA analysis. However simple, that's analysis. Bzzzt. Plumpo fails again.

> A binary match is not analysis, even in the most simplest of forms

yes it is. It's an equality test. Bzzzzzzt. Secundo-fail.

> Commercial firewalls scan packets as they pass through all the time looking for binary patterns, are you going to accuse McAfee and Symantec of 'analysing' your donkey pr0n downloading habits?

Interesting that you ascribe to others such unpleasant sexual interests. Any reason that this example springs to your consciousness so immediately? <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection>

Back on subject, yes, if they are looking at packet payloads then they are analysing said payload.

Bzzzzt. Tertio-fail.

> your posts illustrate your of knowledge quite succinctly

Not as clearly as yours, plumps.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: BlueGreenLoser Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

What a surprise, he sees other sheeple taking an intellectual beating so the Liitle Woolly Stalin himself jumps in. This should be fun!

"....AKA analysis...." I am guessing you are a foreigner and English is not your first language, seeing as you obviously haven't a clue what the word analysis actually means. Analysis is the active breaking down of a problem into smaller parts to deduce an answer from contained information. Pattern matching is not analysis, it is merely a means to target data for actual analysis.

"......yes it is. It's an equality test....." You have failed to grasp that analysis, by definition, requires actual and complex activity upon the data. Or you simply don't want to admit that as it would go against your fervent baaah-liefs. Or it most likely is you're just stupid and want to stubbornly cling to your baaaah-liefs as you have been told they are The Truth. Either way, you're still patently wrong. But I can see why you would want to split hairs over analysis rather than admit you, Blinkered Bernie and Pstupendouslystupidonymous are just plain wrong. Do you want to try pretend there are no jihadis in the UK too?

".....Interesting that you ascribe to others such unpleasant sexual interests...." LOL, just winding them up. I can see why such humour would puzzle you seeing as you have such a poor grasp of the English language and you probably rarely get to converse with informed adults, there being none in your flock.

"....if they are looking at packet payloads then they are analysing said payload...." They are not 'looking' at anything, you are simply failing as before. Try reading some adult books for a change, over time it may help with expanding your vocabulary and limited comprehension skills. Until then you will just continue to fail and lose.

[BlueGreen]

Re: BlueGreenLoser ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

> Analysis is the active breaking down of a problem into smaller parts to deduce an answer from contained information. Pattern matching is not analysis, it is merely a means to target data for actual analysis.

Indeed, looking at the formal definition, you are correct. I retract. However, let's read what you said more carefully:

> automated scan to look for certain binary patterns that match to key words

So, pattern matching is not analysis but is being used to match keywords. One doesn't match keywords unless one is doing something further, like using it to evaluating a threat.

Therefore pattern matching is (as you correctly indicated) not analysis but is being used as a component of analysis, else why do it?

And correct again about equality test, you were right and I was wrong. So, is binary matching being done in vacuo or is it being fed into a larger process? Yes or no, and if the answer is yes, then *that* is analysis.

> LOL, just winding them up

nah mate, you're just an unpleasant person.

> "....if they are looking at packet payloads then they are analysing said payload...." They are not 'looking' at anything,

so if they are looking at packet payloads then they are performing a component of analysis. Why else would packet payloads be analysed at all?

So analysis all round.

Over to you plumps

[Matt Bryant]

Re: BlueGreenLoser ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

".....nah mate, you're just an unpleasant person...." <Yawn> and you're back to your usual childish insults. Not the bit about being an 'unpleasant person', I have no doubt you consider anyone that doesn't follow your sheeple views as 'unpleasant' regardless, but the bit about how you assume I would ever consider someone with such obvious honesty issues and character flaws to be a 'mate'.

I also notice you, like your flock buddy Pstupidonymous, have failed to even pay attention to what even Snowdope's has been bleating - the NSA and GCHQ collect METADATA from the general trawl, then they do targeting based on the pattern-matching for a limited section of the general trawl, before finally actually analyzing the very limited set of targeted messages. Your failure to understand such simple basics is indicative that your whole argument is driven by wide-eyed hysteria and paranoia, not reason.

[BlueGreen]

Re: BlueGreenLoser ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

Hiya plumplywumpy.

> Not the bit about being an 'unpleasant person', I have no doubt you consider anyone that doesn't follow your sheeple views as 'unpleasant' regardless

Well, if you think it a sheeple view of mine that downloading animal pornography is unpleasant, it says much about you. I guess as you don't follow our sheeplish conformity you endorse such viewing.

yes? no?

> have failed to even pay attention to what even Snowdope's has been bleating - the NSA and GCHQ collect METADATA from the general trawl

You're trying to duck the subject plumpo, this is about what constitutes analysis. You have failed to address my points.

Let me summarise what you clearly missed: pattern matching, while not in itself analysis as you correctly pointed out, is a component of and precursor to analysis proper. Therefore you concede that analysis is taking place.

yes? no?

[Matt Bryant]

Re: BlueGreenLoser ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

Just more evasions in every thread. You really are living a life of denial. And now you're even trying to lie about what Snowdope "revealed"? Seriously, get a grip.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

I know you really have no idea technically

Yeah I can tell that from what you wrote immediately after that sentence.

A binary match is not analysis, even in the most simplest of forms.

Now that's debateable, but I'll accept that in certain circumstances binary matching can't really be called analysis.

BUT... it does require that EVERY packet is put through the binary matching mechanism or it's of no value at all, remind me again about all those packets which are never even looked at... the ones you've kept telling us all about.

Now if the data in the packet isn't a simple binary transcribe... which it most often isn't... then you're going to have to do more than just binary match it... aren't you Matt? You're going to have to at least work out what that data is... you know like analyse it to see if it's a encrypted packet or just some other kind of transcribing scheme, like say octal... otherwise how can you pattern match your keywords? How can you know it isn't a transcribed email address of a 'bad' guy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar ObnoxiousLiar DDOS

though of course encryption will probably draw attention to your packets and make them more likely for secondary analysis

So you mean all the SSL encrypted packets which I tunnel through SSH tunnels are more likely to be analysed, meaning the packets I send over the internet are attracting special attention and analysis... but Matt, you told me that wasn't happening... I feel so let down... I thought you knew what you were talking about!

[JohnG]

Re: DDOS

"This is specifically illegal under the Police And Justice Act 2006 so GCHQ broke the law."

If the police or CPS started any investigation or proceedings against anyone at GCHQ, I suspect they would be told that it would be against the interests of national security to proceed.

"What next, legalised assassination to prevent crime ?"

Armed forces around the world kill and injure people all the time and it is all perfectly legal (well, not always).

[JonP]

Why?

So what did the (D?)DOS actually achieve then? I'm not really au fait with this sort of thing but is it possible to get useful information from it? Or is this just the cyber* equivalent of roughing up a suspect?

*(sorry, couldn't think of a better word)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Why?

Yes basically but it affected plenty of people who weren't suspects.

[monkeyfish]

Re: Why?

Affected yes, but only by stopping an internet connection for a bit. Personally I welcome all this cyber warfare in preference to actual warfare with guns and such.

[Suricou Raven]

Re: Why?

Anonymous uses DDoS as a form of protest. There's no lasting damage, it's just disruptive. A common comparison is the sit-in protest in the real world: Get in the way and refuse to move. At worst, it can disrupt business operations and cause serious lost profits, which is why it's rather illegal just about everywhere. Just like DDoSing.

GCHQ's actions could be compared to figuring out where the protestors are going to rally before the event and arranging a 'coincidential' road closure.

[WatAWorld]

Re: Why?

"There's no lasting damage, it's just disruptive. A common comparison is the sit-in protest in the real world:"

If we accepted that reasoning we'd have to accept that government employees could do it too without needing a court order or warrant.

They would not even need the agreement of senior managers, they could just do it on their own.

I reject that reasoning.

1. DoS attacks do cause lasting damage. They cause great expense in preventing them happening again.

2. Sit-ins done for *some* reasons are not peaceful political protests, but rather are a form of extortion. As with most criminality, it comes down to intent. Is the intent legal.

Is the intent to force someone change how they do business -- illegal?

Is the intent to force someone to spend money -- illegal?

Or is the intent to make someone consider something -- legal, provided it doesn't cause harm. Harm includes paying service providers for protection against future attacks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Why?

"Or is this just the cyber* equivalent of roughing up a suspect?"

QFT. I can just imagine the conversation now:

"No, Sarge. I never touched that channel. It fell down the stairs, that's all."

Also, the more I see of our glorious state in action, the more I feel like throwing up. Disgusting.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Why?

... our glorious state in action, the more I feel like throwing up. Disgusting.

I just can't understand your nausea as in this instance the state took action to disrupt the activities of a group known for it's illegal activities.

Or are you really saying that you want to live in a place where any group is allowed to steal your credit card details, suppress the right to free speech, and so on?

[Anonymous Coward]

DDoS attacks scared away 80%?

I doubt that. Every time I was floating around those chat rooms and things were going up and down like a yo yo, the response from the people in there seemed to be a resounding yawn, like this sort of thing happens all of the time.

Why anonymous? Well, duh.

[Velv]

There are lots of things that are "illegal".

Driving a motor vehicle above the posted speed limit in the UK has been one of them for many years, yet our emergency services (until the recent addition of explicit exemptions) have "broken the law" many time a day.

It is for a court to decide if the illegal activity is justified, and it is for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide if prosecution is in the public interest.

So to say that GCHQ are "acting with impunity" is wrong. It's about whether someone can find sufficient evidence to prove guilt, and whether a prosecution is in the public interest.

Somehow I suspect the vast majority of the public will consider it "just" for hackers to be targeted by the authorities.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Except this is more like allowing the police to go around crashing the cars of people they don't like, and anyone else who happens to be on the same road

[Anonymous Coward]

how about comparing it to the police blocking off a road so that party-minded people can't attend a rave?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong analogy

Quote: "Except this is more like allowing the police to go around crashing the cars"

And your point is? This used to be standard practice in ex-USSR. Not just that, taxi drivers used to cooperate with Милиция and ram cars upon request. I have seen it done right in front of me on at least one occasion.

So let's look into at this from the appropriate perspective. We have a government which officially moans that the European Convention of Human Rights is a load of tripe. Almost like Suslov used to do. We have the security services striving to achieve total, unconditional and pervasive surveilance over everybody and everything. Exactly like КГБ. We have 99% of the country towns and cities covered by CCTV and everyone movement recorded and classified. Same as the Czech and Eastern Germans we used to laugh at (actually less). We have the momevement of every car on a major road in the country tracked and recorded - something none of these has even contemplated.

We used to laugh at "them". We have becomed them.

So the laughter you here now is the giggles from under Suslov, Brezhnev, Cheushesko, Kadar, Zhivkov and other gerontocrats' tumbstones. That is them giggling madly in whatever circle of hell they have been sent to.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Wrong analogy

But they were doing it to crush counter-revolutionaries we only use the surveillance laws against terrorists

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Wrong analogy

we only use the surveillance laws against terrorists

"And to be certain we stay legal, we have classified everyone on the planet as a potential terrorist."

[I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects]

Re: Wrong analogy

Ah well at least we don't have to wory about all the civilian drones prolifigating these days. What we think we have to lose is already gorn.

[WatAWorld]

Re: Wrong analogy

Quote: "Except this is more like allowing the police to go around crashing the cars"

Standard practice in the USA and Canada too.

It is taught in most state's and province's police schools.

But you can't just do it whenever you want. There are certain criterion (low levels of criterion in many states, high levels of criterion almost never met in Canada).

The criterion for permitting attacks, military, cyber or otherwise, by government workers and troops need to be high, the supervision needs to be close, and the laws of parliament should be followed.

[tom dial]

Re: Wrong analogy

I am fairly libertarian by inclination, but the paranoid strain gets a bit tiresome after a while. Please provide the locations of your UK gulags as evidence of parity between the old USSR and the UK. As far as I am aware you are under far more surveillance in the UK than we in the US, but have not heard where you store your zeks.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Wrong analogy @tom dial

Quote: "I am fairly libertarian by inclination" - Good for you. It would be good if you knew history as well.

Quote: "Please provide the locations of your UK gulags".

Re-read the GP. Suslov, Brezhnev, Kadar - that is the gerontocracy of the 70-es and 80-es. _THAT_ was the one that moaned about the Helsinki declaration of Human Rights (which is the founding basis of the European convention) being a load of tripe. Same as Cameron and co are doing now. The one that installed a CCTV camera on every Prague and Berlin corner. Same as you know what. That was tjhe one that rebuilt KGB from an enforcement apparatus (as under Stalin) into a pervasive surveilance apparatus. They did not GULAG "dissidents". Instead of that they were kept under house surveilance and curfew (Saharov) or disowned them from cittizenship instead while they were abroad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Galich_%28writer%29). Galich is just one example of someone who was made stateless by revoking his cittizenship while abroad, same as our dear home secretary wants to do now.

The historical period you are referring to when Главное Управление Лагерей aka GULAG existed is 1937-1956 - Stalin and friends. It was closed by Hrushov with the other Soviet states closing theirs shortly thereafter. They did not moan about human rights, they did not give a f*** about them. So putting things into perspective, we should probably ignore the fact that we have become a late USSR look-alike and celebrate the fact that we are not an early USSR look alike. After all, being a Brezhenv state look-alike down to the actual phrases used by the ones in power is so lovely, right?

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Wrong analogy

If you are a really successful state then you don't need the gulags to keep the people doing what you want - advertising and a "free press" keeps most of them thinking along the right lines, so you only need army/special branch/MI5/SAS to shoot an occasional civil rigths march that doesn't subscribe

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Wrong analogy

As far as I am aware you are under far more surveillance in the UK than we in the US, but have not heard where you store your zeks.

Oh we've outsourced that to your fellow countrymen, they fly over here in private unmarked jets, land at our military air bases snatch our 'zeks' off of the streets, and fly them out to your 'zek storage facility' in Cuba. I believe you call it extraordinary-rendition.

[dssf]

Re: Wrong analogy... Additionally,

Agents of a government have remit/authority to monitor, deceive, seduce, and otherwise confound or thwart or attack attackers of the State -- especially since the USA and UK are at war on terrorists, even if the Allies/Coalition forces don't rah-rah so actively.

OTOH, hackers, crackers, activists, hactivist, or the like do not generally have remit to reverse-assault or thwart Law Enforcement unless there is a VERY good, clear, and necessary reason. And, how often will a court accept that u nless it is clear the Police are abusing the public. Even then, just to use LAPD as an example (the head-against-hood slamming of a mentally-retarted/slow individual because he refused (was unable to process and comply with) following commands being barked at him. Even though (the gas station's security camera) FILMED (them) in violation of civil rights of the victim, sometimes, the police will prevail for any number of Bullwinkle pulling a rabbit out of his hat with "PRESTO". I cannot recall what - -if anything -- happened to those police involved.

But, imagine a civilian refusing to submit his/her vehicle to being commandeered. It could be that the person is on the last "no-more-lates/tardies-to-work, or has been carjacked before and has seen too many movies involving perps wearing fake uniforms, or it could be someone who holds police in contempt, or whatever. Such as person would likely face charges of obstructing justice, failure to follow legally issued commands, contributing to mayhem/imperilment of the public, or whatever some crafty, never-loses-cases DA can list on a charge sheet.

So, whether or not the PUBLIC can actively or passively attack, hinder, or confuse bodies of law and get away with it will, well, DEPEND... Depends on the context, political climate, character of the top authority, and so many other things.

[Scorchio!!]

>hackers

Correction; script kiddiez.

[Anonymous Coward]

Driving a motor vehicle above the posted speed limit in the UK has been one of them for many years, yet our emergency services (until the recent addition of explicit exemptions) have "broken the law" many time a day.

Except there are strict rules in force about when an emergency vehicle is allowed to drive above the stated speed limit, and all such vehicle drivers pass an advanced driving test. It's quite tightly regulated. Despite the common joke, a police officer is not allowed to just burn through red lights because the doughnut shop is about to close.

What's the betting that the attacks on the Anon IRC servers were performed with nowhere near the same level of oversight? Even if there was, exactly what was the point? As I mentioned, I call bullshit on "scaring 80% of people away". The people on those chat networks are quite used to netsplits, hack attacks, and yo-yoing servers by now.

[Anonymous Coward]

DDoS?

There's also the question of how the DDoS attack was launched (if it really was distributed). Normally such things require commandeering (i.e. hacking into) the systems of many innocent third parties and stealing their resources. That's not legal either.

[dssf]

Burning through red lights...

That could also apply to the police tearing down an expressway at high speed with no lights or sirens and no cues to the public to move aside.

I happened to be at a read light, oh, back around 1990 or so, and behind 3 or 4 in-line/abreast police vehicles one night. Their windows were down, and they waved at each other, and it seemed to be a signal to go into a race. Two peeled out, hauling ass. The third joined in. IIRC, a 4th, appearing from my left rear, was already boring in on them, not to be left out.

Not to be left out of a party to which I was not invited, I, too, joined in. Tho, my puny little 4-cyl, 108max or so 89 Integra could not hope to keep up. I wonder whether they even notice the "fifth-wheel" of headlights joining in on their race. It was exhilirating, and, as fast as they were going, they would not be able to find me if they realized I wasn't one of them. If you do it right, an automatic, 4-cyl can peel rubber quite nicely. I once did it, and the police tailed a souped-up Ford Mustang because they must have -- like others who did not belive I could make my front-wheeler, auto-trans peel out -- felt it could not possibly nor likely have been my diminuitively-engine car....

Now, assuming they abolish the statute of limitation, or concoct some unsolved crash, they could come after me with a piece of paper. However, it'd have to be a death or serious property damage involved, and that would mean substantial damage to my vehicle -- damage which would have prevented re-registration, sale, or change of the ownership title, and certainly would have prevented me from obtaining loans against the value of my car.

[Matt Bryant]

Re: AC

The people on those chat networks are so sad and socially inadequate they really have nowhere else to go.

TFTFY.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: AC

The people on those chat networks are so sad and socially inadequate they really have nowhere else to go.

Which is why you're here of course.

Any other pearls of wisdom, oh omniscient one, or can I go back to sleep now?

[Matt Bryant]

Re: AC Re: AC

"....Which is why you're here....." I'm here because it's a technical site, not because it's one for sad little sheeple to have a whining bleat about how they got outsmarted by the authorities yet again. You sheeple just provide a little additional entertainment. TBH, if you whining losers took yourselves back to Indymedia you would not be missed and the rest of us could get back to enjoying a technical site.

[HereWeGoAgain]

Where was the IRC server hosted?

If not in the UK, then there appears to be a prima facie case of law breaking by the spooks. And they can presumably be extradited.

[Yet Another Anonymous coward]

Re: Where was the IRC server hosted?

Not if they were acting legally within their remit.

There is a different word for when your official government forces are ordered to destroy the infrastructure of another country.

[GerdyCrawf]

One rule for some

This is a joke. Seems there is one rule for some and none for others. If governments are so quick to condemn then they must be treated equally when carrying out the same acts. Almost becoming funny, that an organisation can continue to persecute and cover up, and expect people to overlook the fact that they have been committing cyber crimes all these years.

[Fink-Nottle]

Wait ... the "GCHQ bastards" wear white hats?

[Anonymous Coward]

The only difference between the police and the bad guys

is that the cops are put on a salary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: The only difference between the police and the bad guys

and extremely generous pensions

[MrDamage]

Re: The only difference between the police and the bad guys

And they wear tits on their heads.

[Robin Bradshaw]

Im outraged

All the assets of a nation state intelligence agency and the best they could do was a SYN flood!!!

What the bloody hell have my taxes being paying for? At the very least I would have expected them to have taken control of the IRC server by exploiting the IPMI implementation and formatted its drives.

Or perhaps reflashed its bios with one with a rootkit embedded in its SMM handlers, even if they couldnt write it they could have bought it from the NSA's toy catalogue.

Bunch of useless chair warming muppets.

[dssf]

Re: Im outraged... Maybe

They didn't want to tip their hand, or by way of attack reveal technical abilities or likely unit ID.

By doing a typical DDOS, they can avoid rapid ID of themselves, muck about in the board, sew confusion, suspicion, wariness, and jitters. Maybe even prompt a few to expose their own skills while attempting to unmask the DDOS source.

[Anonymous Coward]

I know DDoS attacks against IRC servers aren't uncommon...

But we're talking about an IRC server being DDoS'd by a security agency.

A place where people go to talk (regardless of how affiliated they are with Anonymous or not.)

So I'm guessing this means that Freedom of Speech no longer means shit the fascists in charge.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tit for Twat

A paranoid would say - that was just the distraction

[Anonymous Coward]

SYN Flood? so the NSA have reinstalled Naptha, how very 1999, hope the didn't forget the seven proxies.

[fearnothing]

If a SYN flood does the job, why bother revealing what your true capabilities are for one lousy IRC server?

Not that I'm saying what they did was right or anything.

[Vociferous]

Why?

If you had free access to your enemy's command communications, would you disrupt it and force the communications to hidden channels, or would you monitor it, catalog content and participants, and sprinkle it with disinformation?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is for the good of the state, that the bearer of this letter has done what is done"

Signed,

David C.

And another movie reference NSA/GCHQ vs. Anonymous/LulzSec is looking more and more like Alien vs. Predator--"Whoever wins, we lose"

[WatAWorld]

DoS attacks should only happen with court orders

While LulzSec and Anonymous are not physically violent groups, they are not law-abiding political organizations either.

DoS attacks on peaceful mainstream or even peaceful fringe political groups would be outrageous.

But these two specific groups are not groups set up merely to exchange and develop political viewpoints or engage in peaceful lobbying. They do advocate law breaking and denying the civil rights of other citizens.

There may be other issues I have not thought of, but only issue I currently see is why wasn't the DoS done openly under a court order. Police and security agencies must not be allowed to become an all-in-one legislative, policing, judicial and punishment system.

Police and security agencies must remain under democratic control of our parliaments and our judges -- otherwise it means the Soviets and Maoists won the Cold War.

To me this is far far less disturbing than spy agencies gathering material on regular peaceful citizens of long-time allied countries and their current and future political, business, academic, technological and religious leaders.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: DoS attacks should only happen with court orders

Why do you assume that this action did not have a court order? We have a lot of very secret courts and judges where things like this can be requested.

Of course, that is a whole other can of worms..

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: DoS attacks should only happen with court orders

No offence, but yes, there are clearly many issues you've not thought of. I hope you never become a statesman, if you approve of courts making one law for us and one law for them.

If DDoS is a criminal/legal matter, rather than a military one, the correct circumstances in which a DDoS attack would be a permissible action for a security agency/LEO to take is precisely never, not ever. As a rationale it's a bit like government saying "They disrupted our service, or perhaps those of our friends, so we feel perfectly justified in disrupting services for potentially thousands of people who have absolutely nothing to do with them, on the basis that we just might inconvenience the bastards we're after in the process."

"Police and security agencies must remain under democratic control of our parliaments and our judges -- otherwise it means the Soviets and Maoists won the Cold War."

If you seriously believe the intelligence agencies are under democratic oversight and control, you appear to be experiencing about a year of missing time... last year to be precise. There are other kinds of undemocratic realities to be experienced than life under Maoism or Marxism–Leninism, not least our own special national Road to Hell, the tyranny of the zealously well-meaning and morally blinkered.

[Anonymous Coward]

this is what a police state looks like

[Mnot Paranoid]

I think it's time for some music

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xZmlUV8muY

PG was right!

[Vociferous]

No you melodramatic moron, this, this and this is what a police state looks like.