Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Security United States The Almighty Buck The Internet IT Technology Politics

Cyber-Terrorists Attacking U.S. Banks Are Well-Funded 83

An anonymous reader writes "A DDoS attack targeting American Express on March 28th was just one in a series of incidents by self-proclaimed 'cyber-fighters' over the past few weeks. Beyond that, it's part of a much longer campaign to disrupt financial infrastructure using attacks over the internet. Ars details the group behind the most recent attacks, called 'the cyber-fighters of Izz ad-Din al-Qassam.' From the article: 'Named after a Muslim cleric who led The Black Hand, an anti-British and anti-Zionist jihadist organization in the 1920s and 1930s, and sharing a name with the military wing of Hamas (which the group's statements claim it is tied to), Izz ad-Din al-Qassam has taken credit for a variety of attacks on U.S. financial institutions over the past year, all allegedly in protest against the posting of trailers for the film The Innocence of Muslims on YouTube. Until the film is removed, the group said it would target "properties of American-Zionist CapitalistsThis attack will continue till the Erasing of that nasty movie." [sic]' There are concerns that the group is providing cover for organizations looking to defraud those banks. 'But even if the group behind the attacks isn't profiting from them, [Arbor Networks' Dan Holden] said it's clear that there are very real investments being made in their activities—maybe not in servers or hard assets, but in the form of countless hours of maintenance of the botnet by finding new servers to exploit, and further development of attacks. "Regardless of who's behind this," Holden said, "it has to be funded at some level. Even if it's hacktivists, it's got to be funded hacktivism." That, he says, is because of both the amount of time dedicated to the attack, and to its ongoing refinement. "It's not that these are the most sophisticated things in the world," he explained, "but it has been getting more sophisticated, and it's growing."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cyber-Terrorists Attacking U.S. Banks Are Well-Funded

Comments Filter:
  • Suckers! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Saturday March 30, 2013 @11:58AM (#43318567) Journal

    Clearly these 'terrorists', however adequate their funding, are a bunch of amateurs.

    As the recent history of the US(and more recently EU) banking sectors has demonstrated, the best way to disrupt financial infrastructure is to operate it. Plus, politicians will fight like dogs to see who can bail you out more generously, and you'll walk away with a fat bonus and no legal consequences!

  • by Jeremiah Cornelius ( 137 ) on Saturday March 30, 2013 @12:00PM (#43318575) Homepage Journal

    Pull the other one. It's got BELLS on it.

    This is a pure propaganda allegation. Unsourced, with out validation. Hamas? Gimme a break.

    Wait for the shoe to drop, with additional restrictive and obtrusive laws on Internet users.

    Even the "underwear bomber" has now been positively outed as a US "intelligence" operation. [] Not that anyone is noticing that little story.

  • by SplashMyBandit ( 1543257 ) on Saturday March 30, 2013 @03:29PM (#43319715)

    Given the stated motivation of the perpetrators would "cyber-jihadi" be more accurate?

    It shows clearly what is motivating the attackers (a desire to impose Sharia on the web - no criticism of Islam allowed, even if completely true) and it excludes those who merely are using the internet in a way the Government doesn't like (since they are not jihadis).

    Note: The movie "Innocence of Muslims" is mostly factually correct - according to *Islamic* scriptures. It may have shitty production values, but it does describe Mohammed's actions accurately according to Islamic Scripture. Here's a fact check of the Innocence of Muslims movie: []
    Now you know that the movie is not slanderous, but accurate, aren't you disgusted that Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration used it as an excuse to cover the attack in Benghazi and hide their gunrunning to Islamic groups? (Anyone who votes for the incompetent and duplicitous Hilliary in 2016 is insane!).

    Unlike most Western laws, Sharia defines "slander" is anything a Muslim doesn't want you to hear - even if completely true (actually, especially if it is *true*). Islamists do not want the West to understand the scriptures of Islam and the life of Mohammed - they want to present a whitewashed version instead because the reality of Islamic doctrine would offend Western sensibilities. That's why there are so many Islamist apologists going around using 'taqiyya' and the even more insidious 'tawriya'. Here is a citation for the meaning of these words: []

    The actions of cyber jihadis is not often only to do vandalism but it is in-fact to provoke the reaction you predict from politicians, who will criminalize broad swathes of internet activity under 'terrorism' laws. This reaction serves the goal of Sharia by eliminating Free Speech criticism of Islam. It is the same way that Hilliary Clinton stupidly was manipulated into supporting UN Resolution 16/18 which also supports Sharia and attacks Free Speech. Please also see Stephen Coughlin's excellent analysis of the manipulation of the West at: []

  • by SplashMyBandit ( 1543257 ) on Sunday March 31, 2013 @10:36PM (#43328065)

    Some good points but some barely masked anti-Semitic libels in there too. I'm surprised the forged falsehood "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" didn't make it in your wee rant.

    You do know that the territories of Judea and Samaria (called the "West Bank" when illegally occupied by the Jordanians from 1948-1967) are disputed territory, yes? the last clear cut owner was the Ottoman Empire followed by the British Mandate granted by the League of Nations. Here's a discussion of the historical legalities for you to chew on: []
    The territory was supposed to be settled by negotiation but de-facto ownership has been established by Israel gaining territory after being attacked in several wars by multiple opposing armies.

    ps. the Arab Ummah has plenty of land. The fight is not about land. Yasser Arafat (an Egyptian terrorist born in Cairo, not a "Palestinian") btw and other PLO members stated such. Here's are little known citations from an Arabic scholar laying out the PLO's position and the fiction created to justify their intended genocide. At least the PLO tell the truth, the political far-Left provide a false historical narrative to match their view. Please see slides 6 to 13 (or even better, everything) of the following presentation quoting the PLO movers and shakers: []

    The land of Palestine is tiny and the Arabs have plenty of other countries to live in as Muslims. They want to destroy all of Israel in the great genocide commanded in the Qur'an. That has been their goal for 1400 years, and after some time off (thanks to the Crusades pushing back, a heavy defeat in Vienna in *9/11* 1683 [ever wonder why that date is special?] and later colonial powers), they are now getting back into the swing of things. They convinced the Soviet Communists, their allies and assorted Leftists to help them (here's a nice video explaining how this came about in the UN: ). You are getting sucked into supporting genocide because you lack the knowledge of the history of the region. I suggest you get up to speed on history before you come on Slashdot with libelous anti-Semitic falsehoods: they simply don't match the objective historical record (although they do match the historical revisionist propaganda that the Left have been inculcating into the youth of the US and West).

    So, if you think the Israelis have control over US policy I suggest you ask yourself why Netenyahu had to publicly humiliate himself trying to get the rest of the World to act on the Iranian nuclear programme. I mean, the Iranians state daily "Death to America, Death to Israel, Death to the West" and are working on a *capability* of nuclear weapons (if not the weapons themselves). Yet somehow the Israelis are perceived as having undue control. Yet when the Saudis have a problem with a country they do not have to publicly humiliate themselves in the same way - a quite word to a Texan oilman or his successor and threats go away (Saddam threatened Saudi in 1991 after Kuwait, capturing Khafji; while Israel is a hated enemy of Iran the Iranian arch-enemy is actually Saudi Arabia).

    So, yes, Israel does have influence over US politics. There are a great many countries and lobbies that do - all struggling to get the upper hand. However, recent events and revelations have shown that the current Leftist/collectivist/statist Obama Administration has been most influenced not by Israel, but by Israel's enemies. Israel seeks to influence US policy but does not fundamentally seek to alter the laws and culture of the US or Western World. The Muslim Brotherhood and Organization for Islamic Cooperation, are busy at work changing how the youth of the West are educated, ensuring that any criticism of Islam and Mohammed are met with "Days of rage" which gets blamed on the people practicing Free Speech rather than the violent rioters

The road to ruin is always in good repair, and the travellers pay the expense of it. -- Josh Billings