Hactivist attacks against Jihad/Al Quaeda

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Hactivists do a lot of good work, such as protecting consumers from internet scammers (www.scamorama.com). Other activities might be considered good/bad, depending on your political leanings (protesting G8 summit, Iraq war, etc).



Anyone out there actively trying to thwart Al Quaeda related Websites? If so, what strategies are/would you use (for informational purposes only ? How would you hack the website that documented the Paul Johnson kidnapping and beheading?



http://www.thehacktivist.com/modules...rder=0&thold=0

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 9
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    This thread belong to AO : move it here.
  • Reply 2 of 9
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,261member
    We could always move this entire forum to their website.



  • Reply 3 of 9
    1337_5l4xx0r1337_5l4xx0r Posts: 1,558member
    Murbot's on the right track. I'd look into denial of service (DOS) attacks. Probe the web sites and find out what OS it is running.
  • Reply 4 of 9
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    Or perhaps one might presume the proper authorities are already on the case and may be tapping the site. Quite possibly the last thing they want is some script kiddie borking the box and having the AQ admins move to a more secure system (which might inhibit future action or close a channel of information you helped compromise). Vigilantism is never an excuse for interfering in security operations.



    Leave it to the professionals.



    Although... the Snoop filter might give them pause.
  • Reply 5 of 9
    randycat99randycat99 Posts: 1,919member
    I realize your post is well-meaning, but I would be more comforted if there was any evidence that our intelligence agencies were doing this, not that it is just a possibility.



    I mean, there are people who will criticize on the drop of a hat that our intelligence is completely bobo, but then we are to assume that they naturally have a website snoop well in-hand? I don't really know which way is more plausible these days.



    I reside back to my personal fantasy of a real-life "Swordfish" with America at heart.
  • Reply 6 of 9
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Randycat99

    I realize your post is well-meaning, but I would be more comforted if there was any evidence that our intelligence agencies were doing this, not that it is just a possibility.



    I mean, there are people who will criticize on the drop of a hat that our intelligence is completely bobo, but then we are to assume that they naturally have a website snoop well in-hand? I don't really know which way is more plausible these days.



    I reside back to my personal fantasy of a real-life "Swordfish" with America at heart.




    Sadly, this is the kind of information that government agencies love to 'neither confirm nor deny'



    Same with encryption... if you let them know you're working on cracking it (or have done so), the very admission that you're targeting them is often enough of a warning for them to shift systems. Secrecy is paramount.



    When's the last time the government admitted wiretapping anybody while in progress?



    NSA didn't even exist publicly until it had decades of 'black' work done.

    ECHELON and CARNIVORE were similarly silent operations until later disclosure from budget filings and/or whistleblowers.

    MI5 and MI6 in the UK have until the last decade lived so much in the shadows that the public introduction of their Heads to Parliament (and therefore the public) was front page news. The fact MI5 hangs their nameplate on their spiffy new HeadQuarters building on the Thames is equally shocking to those who remember the days when they'd never admit which building belonged to whom.



    Folks in the secret world tend to prefer their secrets kept.



    One of the factors that makes success possible for them is invisibility.



    For Joe Public to bust in on the criminal action (and potential spoil an undercover) just because they "didn't see the police doing anything" might be the dumbest move ever.



    Not to say the Robert Novak's of the world don't occasionally expose the name of a spy, but they're supposed to be punished for blowing that cover.



    Ditto most surveillance operations... if they're done well, nobody knows until its over.



    Maybe what the authorities are interested in is the IP info of any regular visitors to that site.

    Now imagine that along comes Script Kiddie A with his DDOS attack.

    Potentially, you've just masked the trail of the real criminals by overloading the logs with (non-AQ) hits and forcing the authorities to chase down thousands of 'innocent' 'patriots' who've slammed the server, instead of the handful of 'suspects' they'd have netted without Script Kiddie "help".



    Not to say that's what's happening... just that half-cocked vigilantism might have consequences.
  • Reply 7 of 9
    nwhyseenwhysee Posts: 151member
    Send them penis enlargement emails.
  • Reply 8 of 9
    curiousuburbcuriousuburb Posts: 3,325member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by nwhysee

    Send them penis enlargement emails.



    Now that's brilliant. Head games hidden in spam.
  • Reply 9 of 9
    randycat99randycat99 Posts: 1,919member
    ...or nothing at all. That's the problem. We don't know either way, and I don't think we would have to try hard to find people who suspect that our intelligence work is "asleep on the job" in one case or another.



    I agree with your premise that a DoS attack could possibly mask important IP data, however.



    I like the penis enlargement email idea, though. ...or maybe bait them with blackmarket virgin mail order offers? No need to wait to collect your 70 virgins! You can collect NOW online! [fine print]click here to unsubscribe[/fine print]
Sign In or Register to comment.