Hacktivism resurges – but don't be fooled, it's often state-backed goons in masks

From triggering a water tank overflow in Texas to shutting down Russian state news services on Vladimir Putin's birthday, self-styled hacktivists have been making headlines. But don't let the Guy Fawkes avatars fool you. Today's "hacktivists," especially those going after critical infrastructure, often have less in common with …

[Alan Mackenzie]

.... by using default passwords for internet-accessible programmable logic controllers.

Just what are PLCs accessible from the internet for?

Maybe there'd be less malware and disruption if the default for a computer system was NOT to be on the internet, and only very restricted systems for which there were a good reason would be connected.

[Mike007]

Re: .... by using default passwords for internet-accessible programmable logic controllers.

After a windows update, the guy who acts as their global IT team needs to be able to remote in and double click the desktop icon to start the software that runs the facilities safety systems.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe hacktivists from the 90s learned a couple things in 3 decades.

Or maybe they were so good they realized they could get more done with a certain type of mask.

[doublelayer]

In many cases, they realized that hactivism isn't a great tool for activism. Most sincere attempts were ineffective because they were causing minor damage and not getting much attention or support. We don't like that the NSA's spying on us? Okay, let's knock out access to their website. Having succeeded at this, what do you get? Is the NSA unable to spy? No, they're not degraded at all. All you get is one news story which most people ignore. Similarly with pro-Russia groups that took out the public-facing websites of airports in Europe and the US, which didn't stop flights from taking off like clockwork, nor did they inconvenience most travelers who would use airline websites instead. People who did that three decades ago often determined that there were more effective and less risky things they could do instead. A physical and vocal protest will probably get as much if not more attention and it has the benefit of being legal if you're identified.

I can think of only a few hactivist groups that obtained real results. The Guacamaya group, for example, which specializes in obtaining access to private information of governments and publishing it, has gotten more sustained attention to things they are trying to promote. Most others are either government-backed or acting like they are, going for destructive campaigns intended to back up wars rather than activist campaigns designed to change behavior or get attention.

[DS999]

Once it went from something that just makes the news for your cause

With zero personal risk to you, to something that's seen as a real crime that can put you in jail for years and may reflect badly on your cause as a result, I think they decided other avenues of activism were less risky.

[Anonymous Coward]

Governments have been fully at this for decades. Also, psychological operations and sponsoring of activist groups, NGOs etc. I didn't worry about this too much until I realised they had turned inwards and direct this as often at their own people as foreign competitors. It has also been used very destructively to try and supress new powers emerging that might weaken their own, even if no physical threat. The CIA as well as getting hooks into social media have even tried creating platforms for at least one country. I don't think that was the success they had hoped for so they focused on hooking into commercial platforms where they can't resist working on their own countrymen "in the interests of national security" of course. Nothing to do with their political desires.

[HuBo]

"These groups, and their motivations, run the gamut"

So true! Just recently we've seen a rather educational hack where HUD cafeteria monitors were used to broadcast an insightful documentary on the enjoyment of lower extremities as lollipops. It was punctual, impresive, victimless, and as yet unclaimed it seems (?).

At the other end of the spectrum, the US Gov's between bragging about orchestrating a major long-term hacktivist cyberattack, on itself, that continues to claim thousands of innocent victims daily, all for DOGE brownshirt ideological reasons.

The breadth of the hacktivism gamut couldn't be clearer than from these two examples imho (from much needed self-defensive low-cost cyberguerilla of an informative kind, to majorly de-stabilizing wanton cyberchainsaw nation-state destruction and de-securisation of we-the-people's infrastructure)!