Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Republicans Security The Internet Communications Network Privacy News Politics Technology

Newsweek Website Attacked After Report On Trump, Cuban Embargo (talkingpointsmemo.com) 342

Posted by BeauHD from the difference-of-opinion dept.
After Newsweek published a report titled "How Donald Trump's Company Violated The United States Embargo Against Cuba," the site found itself on the receiving end of a "massive" denial-of-service attack that managed to shut down the site for several hours. TPM reports: Editor-In-Chief Jim Impoco noted that the attack came as the story earned national attention. "Last night we were on the receiving end of what our IT chief called a 'massive' DoS (denial of service) attack," Impoco wrote in an email to TPM. "The site was down most of last evening, at a time when Kurt Eichenwald's story detailing how Donald Trump's company broke the law by violating the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba was being covered extensively by prominent cable news programs. Our IT team is still investigating the hack." Later Friday afternoon, Impoco emailed TPM that in an initial investigation, the "main" IP addresses linked to the attack were found to be Russian. It should be noted that it is possible to fake an IP address. "As with any DDoS attack, there are lots of IP addresses, but the main ones are Russian, though that in itself does not prove anything," he wrote. "We are still investigating." Eichenwald tweeted Friday morning: "News: The reason ppl couldnt read #TrumpInCuba piece late yesterday is that hackers launched a major attack on Newsweek after it was posted."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Newsweek Website Attacked After Report On Trump, Cuban Embargo More

Newsweek Website Attacked After Report On Trump, Cuban Embargo

Comments Filter:

  • Putin has Trump's back... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    It's a bromance.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AaronW ( 33736 )

      It could very well be. From TPM [talkingpointsmemo.com]: "As with any DDoS attack, there are lots of IP addresses, but the main ones are Russian, though that in itself does not prove anything," he wrote. "We are still investigating."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by poity ( 465672 )

      DDoS is not the way a nation state conducts counter-propaganda. It makes no sense strategically since Russia has far more effective resources in RT and various online outlets from which to publish much more impactful hits. It also makes no sense tactically since the sudden absence of some information only highlights the existence of that information.

      This points to non-state actors, and unwise ones. It might have been some Trump fans. But it also could have been some other individual or group that Newsweek h

      • DDoS is not the way a nation state conducts counter-propaganda.

        You seem to be laboring under the misapprehension that thugs are smart.

  • potential backfire (Score:5, Insightful)

    by VernonNemitz ( 581327 ) on Friday September 30, 2016 @06:10PM (#52991743) Journal
    The more that Americans perceive that Russia thinks that electing Trump will be good for Russia, the more likely Americans might also think that electing Trump might not be so good for America.

    • What if Putin is counting on that to make sure Hillary wins?

      ooooooooh

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dbIII ( 701233 )
        Putin wins no matter who gets elected. Nobody is seriously considering getting in his way.

        What is amusing is that Trump is getting finance from Russian banks because others don't trust him. Another thing that is more depressing than amusing is that Trump does not see Putin for what he is or just doesn't care.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by wasted ( 94866 )

      So, if we get WAAAY deep into conspiracy theory, perhaps Clinton faked the email security ineptitude to give her plausible denial, and her IT folks have control of many Russian computers (or are spoofing IP addresses) to perform a DDoS that makes it look like the Russians support Trump.

      I don't know that even an electric monk would believe that Clinton's staff faked email security ineptitude, though.

    • The more that Americans perceive that Russia thinks that electing Trump will be good for Russia, the more likely Americans might also think that electing Trump might not be so good for America.

      That was my thought also, but in the context of a false-flag operation arranged by the Dems to bring further discredit down upon The Donald. You'd think that seeing him constantly step on his own dick would be enough to convince people not to vote for him, but there are lots of voters who still imagine his presidency would be good for them. And they're the same kinds of people who still carry the old Cold War grudge and have a hate on for them Russkies. I wouldn't put it past Democratic strategists to take

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dbIII ( 701233 )
        My money is on a few annoyed script kiddies doing their attack of the week got annoyed by the same thing at once.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AHuxley ( 892839 )
          Yes, domestic. What nation with all the Bear code news, all international ip ranges been watched and well understood would even need to try this?
          Discovery is an issues and junk or fake data been offered as a honeypot is a risk.
          US sites and all access is well tracked by the NSA, GCHQ with in the US and at all international access to US networks.
          Data flow in or out, or access to a site would be discovered by the NSA, methods understood and protective methods worked on.
          Most nations just use their gene

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dbIII ( 701233 )

            The internet belongs to the NSA, GCHQ and NRO. No data flows domestically or as international data in or out without their tracking it.

            Indeed, but from various leaks it appears the NSA at least can't find their arse with both elbows so while they have stuff on a disk somewhere what are they going to do with it? They couldn't even spot the "Arab Spring" happening until they saw it on Fox.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AHuxley ( 892839 )
              That would be State or CIA, MI6, front foundation or NGO funding :)
              Tempora shows the day to day totality of tracking everything even on a more limited UK budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
              The ability to reconcile any data movements domestic origins would be trivial over days or longer.
              The long term view seems to be to track the skill set of any other nations ability to enter a US/UK network and note the tools used and any live searches done in such events.
              Why anyone with access would use a da

  • The nature of the Trump-fans is pretty obvious (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Friday September 30, 2016 @06:19PM (#52991763)

    They are authoritarian followers, that fight anybody that disagrees with them with violence. They are irrational and dangerous. They are unable to find a middle-ground with others. This is the same type of people that are responsible for countless mass-murders throughout history and have establishes countless totalitarian states. These people are the enemy of anybody not in their camp. And they destroy nations.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I totally agree! Like you said they're just like Clinton fans.

    • Re:The nature of the Trump-fans is pretty obvious (Score:4, Insightful)

      by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Friday September 30, 2016 @07:48PM (#52992223) Journal

      The really gold standard of stupidity is that some Trump supporters think that there is a sizeable population of 1%-ers who are quaking in their boots at the thought of a Trump presidency.

      These dumbfucks actually think that Trump will bring about change that will be against the desires of the wealthy.

  • Trump, Putin, and Streisand! A match made in...

    *HURK*

    Sorry, sorry, i don't think i can finish that thought. And now i need to go get some brain bleach.
    • At first I was thinking the folks who perpetrated the DoS attack generated the SE (Streisand Effect) having the unintended consequence of drawing many more views of the Newsweek article then would otherwise occur. Then I thought maybe that was the purpose of the DoS attack. Draw your own conclusions.

  • Correlation? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ichthus ( 72442 ) on Friday September 30, 2016 @06:26PM (#52991803) Homepage
    Did Newsweek publish any other stories that day (or that week)? Is there a definite correlation between that publishing of that story and the DDOS?

    • Did Newsweek publish any other stories that day (or that week)?

      No, the only thing that Newsweek published all week was a story about Trump. Not many people know this, but Newsweek is down to 1 employee who is both the journalist and webmaster.

      Is there a definite correlation between that publishing of that story and the DDOS?

      There is definitely a correlation between the two. They happened on the same day. That's a correlation. You could even say that Newsweek gets hit by DOS attacks any day they post a piece by Kurt Eichenwald about Trump breaking the Cuban embargo.

    • Good point. It could have been Brad or Angelina's minions. Or they did a story on Justin Bieber's new girlfriend and all the Beliebers couldn't handle it.

      I mean, it could have been anybody.

  • I for one am shocked (Score:5, Funny)

    by barakn ( 641218 ) on Friday September 30, 2016 @06:28PM (#52991807)

    ... just shocked that Trump supporters don't believe in the 1st Amendment right to free speech. I truly thought they had the Bill of Rights tattooed on their thighs.

    • Obviously you're kidding as he's clearly against the 4th, and only semi-supports the 2nd. His position on the 1st has been made clear with his desire to censor the internet.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by swalve ( 1980968 )
      Oh, they do. But they also believe that rights are only for some people.

  • We get the government we deserve (Score:5, Funny)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Friday September 30, 2016 @06:28PM (#52991815) Journal

    In before the first post saying that a DDOS attack is actually free speech.

    Meanwhile, the orange tweaker-in-chief is up at 3am rage-posting about some chick that wouldn't sleep with him 15 years ago.

    http://www.salon.com/2016/09/3... [salon.com]

    I think God's just fucking with us now.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • If four or five years ago you'd been in a creative writing class and written a story detailing this election and Trump's role in it, it would have been panned as "ridiculous", "unrealistic", "pure nuttery" and "impossible"....but here we are.

      If you'd written about a presidential candidate who bragged about being able to shoot people in the middle of the street with without losing a single voter, the teacher would have told you that the scene was childishly unbelievable in the extreme.

      If you'd written that t

    • Let's just agree that we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

  • Trump's a D-Bag, but... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by eepok ( 545733 )
    Trump's a D-Bag, but if there's literally no evidence that the DDOS came as a RESULT of the article (only that it came after the story), then why are we strongly insinuating causality?

    There's no need for that. Trump's already shit stain and everyone knows it. There's no need to jump to conclusions and tie him to something that he may not be associated. Because if it turns out that he's NOT associated, this will just be conspiracy theorist and Trump pariah bait.

    • Also there are fanatics on both sides. An action attacking negative news on the public figure doesn't mean it was carried out by the opposing team.

      There is a good chance a fanatical supporter was involved, but it doesn't eliminate the leadership or a sympathetic friend either.

      • Have you actually seen the candidates? Looked at them, considered their backgrounds, seen their flaws, without comparing them to each other? Compare them to some of the more solid citizens you know, not another psycho power-mongering politician. I have and I wouldn't hire either of them to clean my septic system, much less for the office of president of the US.

        I think it is exceptionally safe to say that any of their "supporters" are in fact "fanatics." They would have to be in order to generate the sus

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          I think it is exceptionally safe to say that any of their "supporters" are in fact "fanatics." They would have to be in order to generate the suspension of disbelief and maniacal myopia necessary to support either of them. Their flaws are like something straight out of bad fiction, and yet here they are, the first runner up and the winner of the most "powerful job on the planet."

          Hillary is a run-of-the-mill politician. Far from the worst by any stretch of the imagination of someone who actually understand politics. Trump is a run-of-the-mill attention-whoring media animal. Also far fro the worst of the genre.

          Meanwhiile, your shrill denunciations are pretty extreme.

          • Hillary is a run-of-the-mill politician. Far from the worst by any stretch of the imagination...

            Wait, no, there is something truly exceptional about Hillary Clinton: she is a woman. As such, she is on the brink of making history. I also think she has a decent shot at turning in a better than average performance as chief executive. I suspect we will see a considerably more assertive stance re Russian adventurism, for one thing. If not then I suppose I would hope for a quick segue to the next impending historical event, a hispanic CiC.

          • The average "I don't follow politics or world events but I love reality TV!" voters are going to be voting in force.

      • There is a good chance a fanatical supporter was involved, but it doesn't eliminate the leadership or a sympathetic friend either.

        In fact, given that "the main IP addresses linked to the attack were found to be Russian", the sympathetic friend theory looks like the winner. However, if the Trump campaign fails to denounce it, then by implication it condones it, and is therefore complicit.

        That said, the strategy is idiotic. I could not imagine any more effective way to get the story trending, as it deserves.

      • There's a lot of this happening in Russia. Anyone anywhere displeases Putin and there's a hack or DDOS soon after. So it's likely either Trump fans are learning from the Putin fans, or else the Putin jugend are involved.

    • why are we strongly insinuating causality?

      Because of the temporal correlation. Surprised I should need to explain that to you, or did you feign ignorance.

    • why are we strongly insinuating causality?

      Because of the temporal correlation. Actually, suspecting rather than insinuating.

      There's no need for that.

      There is a need for that, it is a healthy process of investigation. From the article: "the main IP addresses linked to the attack were found to be Russian." Again, this is just correlation, but it certainly does present the appearance of Russian meddling in American politics in favor of Donald Trump. If so, it amounts to state-sponsored cyber-terrorism. Better to err on the side more public scrutiny rather than less.

  • Alternatively, Newsweek may have simply screwed up their servers and decided that blaming it on "Russian hackers" was going to give their story more credence. Or Hillary or her supporters may have engineered such attacks, for the same reason. You can't believe anything these people say.

  • Seriously, who cares? The embargo has more holes than a slice of Swiss cheese. Any American who wanted to go to Cuba just had to go via another country, and they've worked out a scheme with Cuba to prevent it from ever showing up on your passport [ibtimes.com]:

    But that’s not the only way. For decades, despite the embargo, some Americans have been visiting Cuba by way of indirect flights through countries such as Canada, Mexico and the Bahamas. These trips require less paperwork and can cost less than half the official option. An official, state-approved trip from the U.S. can cost between $4,000 and $5,000 for a week. A package including a resort stay and round-trip flights through Canada or another country will cost about $1,290 (or $1,500 Canadian), according to Krytiuk.

    Typically, American travelers book flights to Cuba through a Canadian city or Caribbean hubs such as Nassau, Bahamas, or Cancún, Mexico. From there, every traveler going to Cuba is issued a tourist card for the passport. Upon arrival, Cuban customs agents remove one half of the card, and take the other half upon departure -- leaving no official record of the visit in a traveler’s passport.

    • Seriously, who cares?

      Not you, apparently. But law abiding people do.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by swalve ( 1980968 )
      Visiting Cuba isn't necessarily violating an embargo. My understanding is that an American citizen can go there if it is for a legitimate purpose and no money is spent on anything beyond basic food and lodging. Paying for a room and a meal? Fine. Buying trinkets and cigars? Not fine.

      Regardless, what you claim has nothing to do with Trump. He is accused of doing business with Cuba through a front company. There is no question but that such activity would be highly illegal.

  • Imagine what he'd be able to accomplish as commander in chief.

  • IMHO the Cuban Embargo was an unconstitutional usurpation of power by the Federal Government.

    Think about it: Telling US citizens that they can't go to some place the government doesn't like because they're forbidden to spend US currency there (or spend other "hard" currency they bought with US currency), and going there requires spending money? Shades of the Iron Curtain and Catch-22. (If the US government wants to forbid such a thing and have even a chance of finding a Constitutional authorization, they

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close