Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Communications The Internet Government Network Privacy Security Twitter United States Wireless Networking News Technology

WikiLeaks To Its Supporters: 'Stop Taking Down the US Internet, You Proved Your Point' (hothardware.com) 338

MojoKid writes: The Internet took a turn for the worst this morning, when large parts of the DNS network were brought down by a massive distributed denial of service attack (DDoS) targeting DNS provider Dyn. If you couldn't access Amazon, Twitter, and a host of other large sites and online services earlier today, this was why. Now, if a couple of additional tweets are to be believed, it appears supporters of WikiLeaks are responsible for this large scale DDoS attack on Dynamic Network Services Inc's Dyn DNS service. WikiLeaks is alleging that a group of its supporters launched today's DDoS attack in retaliation for the Obama administration using its influence to push the Ecuadorian government to limit Assange's internet access. Another earlier tweet reassures supporters that Mr. Assange is still alive, which -- along with a photo of heavily armed police posted this morning -- implies that he may have been (or may still be) in danger, and directly asks said supporters to stop the attack. WikiLeaks published this tweet a little after 5PM: "Mr. Assange is still alive and WikiLeaks is still publishing. We ask supporters to stop taking down the US internet. You proved your point." It was followed by: "The Obama administration should not have attempted to misuse its instruments of state to stop criticism of its ruling party candidate."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WikiLeaks To Its Supporters: 'Stop Taking Down the US Internet, You Proved Your Point'

Comments Filter:
  • .... or by the 2nd?

    Looks like the shoe's on the other foot, at least for their 15 minutes of Internet infamy, whomever did this.

    • .... or by the 2nd?

      Looks like the shoe's on the other foot, at least for their 15 minutes of Internet infamy, whomever did this.

      We don't threaten to jail our political opponents - that would be a dictatorship!

      (But we totally use our influence to silence their detractors! That's completely different!)

  • Ruling Party (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Friday October 21, 2016 @08:52PM (#53127533)

    LoL. Someone doesn't have the most basic understanding of how the USA works.

    • Agreed. We currently don't have a ruling party. We have a president of one party and a legislature with a majority from a different party.

    • by ugen ( 93902 )

      It's written by Russians, I wouldn't expect any different.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      And that someone is the previous repliers. We do have a ruling party - the rich.

  • Wikileaks hadn't been pushing Trump leaks as hard as Clinton leaks. Now its supports are trying to take down US infrastructure. I used to think that Wikileaks is a neutral organisation promoting government transparency, but not any more. I kind of feel that they are up to no good.

    • Equal amounts? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Friday October 21, 2016 @09:05PM (#53127619) Homepage Journal

      Wikileaks hadn't been pushing Trump leaks as hard as Clinton leaks. Now its supports are trying to take down US infrastructure. I used to think that Wikileaks is a neutral organisation promoting government transparency, but not any more. I kind of feel that they are up to no good.

      What do you propose? Should Wikileaks hold off on Clinton until they have an equal amount on Trump?

      Is that your definition of neutral? That they must expose corruption in equal amounts for both sides?

      • Re:Equal amounts? (Score:4, Informative)

        by fufufang ( 2603203 ) on Friday October 21, 2016 @09:25PM (#53127753)

        Wikileaks hadn't been pushing Trump leaks as hard as Clinton leaks. Now its supports are trying to take down US infrastructure. I used to think that Wikileaks is a neutral organisation promoting government transparency, but not any more. I kind of feel that they are up to no good.

        What do you propose? Should Wikileaks hold off on Clinton until they have an equal amount on Trump?

        Is that your definition of neutral? That they must expose corruption in equal amounts for both sides?

        How about not sensationalising everything they publish? How about not making political statements against Clinton? They can leak stuff without appearing to be political, you know.

      • Wikileaks hadn't been pushing Trump leaks as hard as Clinton leaks. Now its supports are trying to take down US infrastructure. I used to think that Wikileaks is a neutral organisation promoting government transparency, but not any more. I kind of feel that they are up to no good.

        What do you propose? Should Wikileaks hold off on Clinton until they have an equal amount on Trump?

        Is that your definition of neutral? That they must expose corruption in equal amounts for both sides?

        They should just publish without opinion or manipulation. Assange has made it clear it wants to be more than just an independent source of information.
        Transparency doesn't work when the gatekeeper has an ego.

      • Clinton has been in public office for 30 years and is a big steaming pile of evil and now we have the emails to prove it.

        Despite the Liberal narrative, there isn't much being "exposed" about Trump because there's nothing there to expose that isn't already public.

        It's just anti-intellectualism to assume every person running for office is equally corrupt.

        Liberals just can't accept the facts: Clinton is evil. Trump says mean things.

        • Except Trump's withheld tax returns, unknown business relationships, the use of his non-profit for personal gain, his importing of cheap Chinese steel which was dumped illegally on the market, his hiring and abuse of illegal immigrants used to build his projects (complain about being underpaid again and I'll have you deported!), his record of sexual harassment and assault, his history of racial bias in housing access, his multiple lies on stages contradicted by his own words as little as a few hours later a

        • by schnell ( 163007 )

          It's just anti-intellectualism to assume every person running for office is equally corrupt.

          Agreed.But "corruption" - in the dictionary sense of giving outside parties undue influence for personal gain - isn't the only criterion for a person's vote. I think, to your statement, that Clinton is certainly more "corrupt" due to providing favored access and potentially some degree of quid pro quo to donors to her family foundation. But it's possible - although unpalatable - that someone is more corrupt but still better prepared to do their job.

          It sucks that we have such poor choices to pick from, but I

      • What do you propose? Should Wikileaks hold off on Clinton until they have an equal amount on Trump?

        I don't know, maybe post anything at all about Trump?
        Offer a bounty on his tax returns?

        At this point, it seems like Assange is just trying to solidify a relationship with the Republican party in order to get the US off his back.
        I'm interested in a Wikileaks that posts about all abuses and corruption in my government.
        Not just the ones that help Assange meet his agenda.

    • The NSA and NRO are toxic organizations. What the hell is there to leak about Trump that hasn't been leaked, and what would it matter even if Wikileaks had something extra to throw on that pile? Hillary's skeletons involve about policy and important governmental stuff. Trump's skeletons are about him being an airheaded flip-flopping womanizer.

      If your first reaction, upon seeing evidence that a candidate for the most powerful position in the world has not only been lying but is self-aware of her lies and
      • What the hell is there to leak about Trump that hasn't been leaked, and what would it matter even if Wikileaks had something extra to throw on that pile?

        How about his tax records for the past 30 years, like Hillary made available in the same way every candidate has done in modern history?

        Hillary's skeletons involve about policy and important governmental stuff. Trump's skeletons are about him being an airheaded flip-flopping womanizer.

        Her "skeletons" are all in the open, and not a single thing from the hacked documents has shown anything that surprises anyone. There hasn't been anything of note from her, and very little of note that will matter for more than a few weeks from any of her aides and associates.

        Also, Trump's skeletons are buried in his tax returns, which nobody has seen. Oh, and the hundreds

    • Maybe I don't understand English but what I read is that they do NOT support the DDOS. They realized people were doing it because of them and is asking them to stop.

      I think you're blinded by your hatred toward a political candidate. Wikileaks is not a perfect organization but also does not have access to all the secrets of everyone. It just happen to have more about Hillary, probably because more people have something against her or her party and thus Wikileaks get more data (because, let me spell that for

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      What would Wikileaks have to publish on Trump that the media hasn't already published? The Hillary stuff is the only stuff worth publishing.

    • When were they ever neutral once Assange took over as sole leader?

    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      The leakiest thing about Trump is his mouth, for better or for worse. He doesn't hold back anything, so there isn't anything interesting for WikiLeaks to publish.

      • The only thing that could be "leaked" that would be of interest would be his tax returns. I wonder if they would prove him to be as broke as I think he is.

    • Trump leaks

      It hasn't had to. Trump leaks come from Trump's own mouth for the audience of the entire world to mock. What's the point of a leaking organisation digging up dirt on someone who spends his entire day rolling in mud and doesn't shower before going on stage?

  • by quax ( 19371 ) on Friday October 21, 2016 @08:55PM (#53127549)

    ... that they are a bunch of jerks. Point taken.

    • A long time ago I saw an interview with Assange on The Colbert Report, before Wikileaks became such a household name. As I recall, he was very up front in the interview that free speech and power to the people is great and all, but that his primary motivation was that he's a jerk. I'm paraphrasing, but seriously. Watch the interview. He never proclaims to be a champion of any ideal other than making the rich and powerful angry at him personally, then thumbing his nose at them while they struggle in futi

      • by quax ( 19371 )

        I guess, with the exception of the revenge part, that worked out swimmingly for him.

        Too bad that this turned into a one man show. At one point I really thought of Wikieaks as a force for good.

    • by Bruce Perens ( 3872 ) <bruce@perens.com> on Saturday October 22, 2016 @12:01AM (#53128383) Homepage Journal

      There's no proof that it has anything to do with Wikileaks, but in a world of IoT devices with no thought toward security, anyone who cares to do so can mount DDOS with the power of a national entity.

      What's the point of doing what Assange and Wikileaks have been doing without any moral position? He isn't helping his own case.

      • You hit the nail on the head there, but most of us trying to point out the moral issues with the way Wikileaks is conducting themselves now are getting modded trolls.

        I don't imagine that Wikileaks has anything to do with causing the DDOS, but wouldn't be surprised at all if someone claiming to be behind it contacted Wikileaks to take credit as a sign of support.

  • by Mal-2 ( 675116 ) on Friday October 21, 2016 @08:59PM (#53127567) Homepage Journal

    It doesn't really matter who was firing the shot, so much as all those loaded, pwn3d weapons remaining in the wild that can be pressed into service again and again. This is not the first such event, it's at least the third. It won't be the last either, and the only way I can see to stop it is to permanently dismantle the IoT until it can be rebuilt from the ground up with security in mind. If security is too hard for the poor vendors and end users, then don't rebuild it. The health of the network as a whole is far more important than any single purpose for which it is used -- besides which, the devices can't be trusted to do their jobs anyhow once they've been pwn3d.

    Make the vendors take them back in a recall -- could be a service recall in which they are made field-upgradable, or if they're hard-coded then they get the Galaxy Note 7 treatment as the hazards they are. Those who won't take them back should be cited under FCC Part 15 rules and have their certifications revoked and fines levied. It is easily provable that the devices are "causing harmful interference". It's time to get them off the network. Like yesterday.

    • "the only way I can see to stop it is to permanently dismantle the IoT"

      How do you do that without breaking the internet? How do you do that without onerous registration or whitelisted hardware? How do you get your way without destroying the network?

      There is nothing special about 'the IoT', they are computers on the internet, like any others. Why dont we start with educating people on how to administer and secure their networks before you start taking out your ass again.
    • That 'cure' is going to be worse than the disease. Maybe most people around here are too young to remember, but the internet has had these growing pains before. What was it, MyDoom? Sasser? I forget. This was early 2000s, and there was a month or so when things were a lot worse than they were today. Huge chunks of the internet were unusable, I mean it was BAD. I had an XP box literally get pwned about 20 minutes after a fresh install had finished, before it could finish downloading security updates. (T
      • That 'cure' is going to be worse than the disease. Maybe most people around here are too young to remember, but the internet has had these growing pains before. What was it, MyDoom? Sasser? I forget. This was early 2000s, and there was a month or so when things were a lot worse than they were today.

        In the early 2000s, it was possible to live life without worrying about whether the internet was down. Today, so many services of various degrees of sensitivity have moved to a place where they require the internet be up and running in order to function. In 2004 when those both hit, you also didn't have anywhere near the number of computers online 24/7 as you do today, given that many people were still on dialup services. 2004 was the year that broadband finally got close to surpassing dialup service for mo

    • The problem is that as I understand it many of the devices being abused were made by companies that no longer exist. Others are Chinese companies over which we have no control and until/unless China is attacked I don't see the Chinese government having much interest in forcing them to fix the issue. Hell, even if they did fix the issue how do you get all of the devices updated when they don't have a remote update feature?
  • Back when the internet was a porn distribution system everything was fine.

    Now it's just a factoid distribution system so one group of conspiracy theory loons can yell at the other conspiracy theory loons that they're all a bunch of damn lunatics.

  • I'm in the U.S., and other than a little random slowness - i didn't really notice much earlier today. Slashdot was a little slow, maybe. But the claim that some supposed Assange supporter "took down the U.S. Internet" seems silly at best. If it honestly was someone's best attempt to take down the U.S. Internet, they did a piss-poor job of it.

    As an aside... this sounds very similar to those cases where some random crazy guy hurts a few people, then later ISIS posts something saying "That was us! Cower in fea

  • Nice single point of failure : P

  • There is zero evidence that the USA is behind this.

The Tao is like a stack: the data changes but not the structure. the more you use it, the deeper it becomes; the more you talk of it, the less you understand.

Working...