FBI executed forty search warrants in connection with Anonymous DDoS attacks

FBI executed forty search warrants in connection with Anonymous DDoS attacks

www.scribd.com

Search Warrants Executed in the United States as Part of Ongoing Cyber InvestigationFBI agents today executed more than 40 search warrants throughout the United States as partof an ongoing investigation into recent coordinated cyber attacks against major companiesand organizations. Also today, the United Kingdom’s Metropolitan Police Service executed additional search warrants and arrested five people for their alleged role in the attacks

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.breakingnews.com

Just came across this article on breakingnews.com (linked below) with a link to the above, scribd.com

Suspected internet hacker group, notoriously known as "Anonymous' or less formally "Anon" are going to be the target of some new search warrants handed doen by the FBI along with the UK Metro Police.

I didnt think it would take this long for the warrants to come out, since Anon has ramped up their efforts in the past few months, but it came down today.

I know scibd is a little buggy for some people to load, I will try to download the pdfs and post them within the thread as images for all to read.

www.scribd.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Yeah I read this earlier this morning on BBC's text service on my tv. The five in the UK that were arrested are from different parts of the country so not related other than being a part of Anonymous.

I'm all for free speech and rather like Anonymous for having the guts to stand up to some stuff they've campaigned against but I'm not sure hacking sites like Amazon etc was a good thing to do. Sure it got them in the MSM but they were talked of as being spotty teens living in their parent's basement in the papers and tv and also called cyber terrorists so it kinda took away from the good they've done against Scientology by making them look so bad in the MSM.

Ok everyone, I am questioning the validity of this now, I tried to save the document but I could only right click save image, and it saved just a blank document with the FBI letterhead.

Could this be a forgery, or just a hastily thrown together PDF to get the news out.

Looking more into detail now.

One could directly compare the DDoS attacks against these companies with pro-life activists preventing access to Abortion clinics.

The goal is ultimately the same. The difference is one group is writing a program behind a computer screen, whereas the other group binds there arms in front of the facility.

"...Denying service to legitimate users..."

So you can prevent commerce as long as you don't use a computer program to prevent it?

I am sure their are loop holes in the law that prove the legality of the pro-lifers protests, but I still see this as highly contradictory.

You might actually be able to compare the "useless commands and information" with the garbage that is Religion.



Edit: OP suspects validity of the paper. Obviously my thoughts becomes moot in that event.

Financial Times artcile
Financial Times article seems to lend to the credibility here:

An online “hacktivist” group that brought down the websites of perceived opponents of WikiLeaks has itself become the target of an international police crackdown.

The London Metropolitan Police arrested five men in connection with a recent spate of attacks by Anonymous, behind last month’s revenge assault on the websites of a number of organisations that had severed links with WikiLeaks.

In the US, the Federal Bureau of Investigation said it executed “more than 40” search warrants on Thursday to gather evidence likely to lead to arrests

There we go.

Originally posted by Marulo
One could directly compare the DDoS attacks against these companies with pro-life activists preventing access to Abortion clinics.
The goal is ultimately the same. The difference is one group is writing a program behind a computer screen, whereas the other group binds there arms in front of the facility.
"...Denying service to legitimate users..."
So you can prevent commerce as long as you don't use a computer program to prevent it?
I am sure their are loop holes in the law that prove the legality of the pro-lifers protests, but I still see this as highly contradictory.
You might actually be able to compare the "useless commands and information" with the garbage that is Religion.
Edit: OP suspects validity of the paper. Obviously my thoughts becomes moot in that event.

edit on 27-1-2011 by Marulo because: (no reason given)

Protesting outside a clinic is not the same as stopping people from actually entering..
If they do that then I would say it is a crime and they would be moved to allow customers to enter..

Originally posted by backinblack
Protesting outside a clinic is not the same as stopping people from actually entering..
If they do that then I would say it is a crime and they would be moved to allow customers to enter..

Yes protesting is one thing, but denial of service is another.
Anon can protest all they want just as the anto abortion crowd
But denying customers of services is where the protest crosses the line.

Originally posted by youdidntseeme

Originally posted by backinblack
Protesting outside a clinic is not the same as stopping people from actually entering..
If they do that then I would say it is a crime and they would be moved to allow customers to enter..

Yes protesting is one thing, but denial of service is another.
Anon can protest all they want just as the anto abortion crowd
But denying customers of services is where the protest crosses the line.

I think my post was agreeing with that statement..

Now on the fbi website:

source
and an article from sfgate stating local san franciscans targeted as well
sfgate

The FBI said in a press release that facilitating or conducting a denial of service attack is punishable by 10 years in prison.

I think these high-profile arrests are as much to put off any future attempts like this, rather than simply to punish the perpetrators of this last DDoS attack.

There are going to be far less people getting involved in future campaigns of this type, now they realise that some of them are not quite as ''anonymous'' as they thought they were !

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I think these high-profile arrests are as much to put off any future attempts like this, rather than simply to punish the perpetrators of this last DDoS attack.

There are going to be far less people getting involved in future campaigns of this type, now they realise that some of them are not quite as ''anonymous'' as they thought they were !

If that was not the intention it certainly will be an unintedned effect. I think that Anon has become so much wider and less connected once they started getting the attention of the MSM. This worked against them because many 'hackers' that had no idea what they were doing became involved and thereby weakened the effect.

Perhaps they will tighten up now, since many of the novice Anon will be scared away.

They're only catching the runts of the herd.

You think anyone with any smarts would be using their own internet connection for these attacks?

Originally posted by jessejamesxx
They're only catching the runts of the herd.

You think anyone with any smarts would be using their own internet connection for these attacks?

You would think so, but many times what I refer to as 'keyboard bravado' or 'internet muscles' come into play. The hackers think they are too good or get lazy in their security. I have known a few people who thoguht they were ok by using an online proxy, only to find out it was a shell proxy set up by the authorities. Many proxy sites are not as anonymous as you would want.

But either way, runts or big dogs, the next time they try and launch a ddos, there will be less people attacking and the chances of denial of service actually occuring is much less.

reply to post by backinblack


Yes indeed. As long as the building is accessible, it is fine.

I was not specific, but there are many instances where those protests prevent the access of the building for hours and that was the intent from the beginning.

reply to post by backinblack


Indeed.

It certainly was not challenging the idea.

I tried to help the Iranian students after that bogus election by hacking Iranian government websites. It didn't help. When a government has the power to contain and hurt those who oppose, they do it.

Originally posted by StlSteve
I tried to help the Iranian students after that bogus election by hacking Iranian government websites. It didn't help. When a government has the power to contain and hurt those who oppose, they do it.

Steve, is this really something you want to be publicizing here?
Not saying it was right or wrong, but cmon man really?

Your point is valid though, but we also have to ask what was the intention of Anon. Were they trying to make a difference, trying to be noticed or just trying to annoy.

I think at the end of the day all they really did was annoy some people, like ordering 20 pizzas to your neighbors house because he shovelled snow onto your driveway.

reply to post by youdidntseeme


I meant that anyone of any value would've been using a long range wifi antennae or driving around hunting for open/hacked wifi with a laptop.

I thought Anon ddosing those sites was pretty stupid to start with but I have to say I feel sorry for the guys that got arrested. Let's be clear here what they probably did to comit this crime was download an executable file that was linked to in a chat room and run it for a few hours.
Were probably not talking about the actions of some kind of shady l33t hacktivist, because someone like that probably wouldn't get caught, were talking about some people that went along with the crowd on a rather silly web site