Print 59 comment(s) - last by Keeir.. on Jul 18 at 7:23 PM

AntiSec has successfully attacked security contractor Booz Allen Hamilton, who it accuses of social engineering.  (Source: Booz Allen Hamilton)

As part of the attack AntiSec exposed the usernames and passwords of U.S. soldiers.  (Source: AP Photo)

Members of parent group Anonymous are also attacking agriculture giant Monsanto.  (Source: Food Freedom)
Ex-LulzSec members and their new help from Anonymous continue to wreak havoc on the web

AntiSec, first a project launched by infamous hacker group LulzSec [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14], and later the name of a new hacker collective formed by members of the now-defunct LulzSec, continues to strike.  Its mission is to attack international governments and corporate interests.

I. Who is Booz Hamilton and Why Were They Hacked?

Much like the February attack on HBGary by Anonymous, or the late May attack on Infragard -- a private sector affiliate of the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation -- the latest attack focused not on official government servers, but on a contractor with weaker security.

This time around AntiSec's victim was Booz Allen Hamilton, a prestigious contractor with hundreds of millions of dollars of contracts in its name.  Booz Hamilton employs former U.S. Central Intelligence Agency director Robert James Woolsey Jr. and former U.S. National Security Agency director John Michael "Mike" McConnell.

AntiSec says it targeted the group for a couple of reasons.  First, it points to the company's alleged complicity in monitoring private sector financial transactions during the SWIFT investigation.  Second, it writes about a secret social engineering project which HBGary and Booz Hamilton cooperated on, stating:

One of the more interesting, and sadly overlooked, stories to emerge from HBGary's email server (a fine example to its customers of how NOT to secure their own email systems) was a military project - dubbed Operation Metal Gear by Anonymous for lack of an official title - designed to manipulate social media. The main aims of the project were two fold: Firstly, to allow a lone operator to control multiple false virtual identities, or "sockpuppets". This would allow them to infiltrate discussions groups, online polls, activist forums, etc and attempt to influence discussions or paint a false representation of public opinion using the highly sophisticated sockpuppet software. The second aspect of the project was to destroy the concept of online anonymity, essentially attempting to match various personas and accounts to a single person through recognition shared of writing styles, timing of online
posts, and other factors. This, again, would be used presumably against any perceived online opponent or activist.

HBGary Federal was just one of several companies involved in proposing software solutions for this project. Another company involved was Booz Allen Hamilton. Anonymous has been investigating them for some time, and has uncovered all sorts of other shady practices by the company, including potentially illegal surveillance systems, corruption between company and government officials, warrantless wiretapping, and several other questionable surveillance projects. All of this, of course, taking place behind closed doors, free from any public knowledge or scrutiny.

II. What Was Stolen?

So what did AntiSec take from Booz Hamilton?  The contents of the heist are available here, courtesy of a torrent hosted by The Pirate Bay.

First, AntiSec made off with 90,000 logins of both private and public sector employees, which include members of the U.S. Military.  Members of US CENTCOM, SOCOM, the Marine Corps, various Air Force facilities, Homeland Security, State Department staff, and what looks like private sector contractors were all exposed.

The passwords are hashed, but they use a very weak unsalted MD5 hash (128-bit), meaning that they should be available in rainbow tables, which these days are even available online.

This breach is very serious, given how people recycle their passwords in numerous locations.  Given the number of exposed logins, it's likely that it will expose at least some soldiers to possible malicious attacks.

Additionally AntiSec claims to have run a shell and used it to delete source code on the company's SVN server.  Honestly, this isn't exactly something they should be lauding, as virtually all defense contractors use extensive tape backups and likely can restore the code without much difficulty.  Ultimately this amounts to a mere annoyance, and perhaps a few lost hours of productivity.

In the more significant department, AntiSec claims to have obtained "maps and keys" to other security contractors.  This could lead to additional attacks, so contractors who could be a target should definitely take a look at the distributed file.

III. Hacktivism?

Again it's hard to condone the kind of social engineering that Booz Hamilton is accused of conducting, but the way that AntiSec went about its intrusion seems rather unfortunate and childish.  Rather than gain access to email, which could actually prove such allegations and put them in context, it instead attacked U.S. soldiers, who already have their hands full.

Even if Booz Hamilton indeed engaged in social engineering, it's unclear who exactly it directed those efforts against.  Obviously, if it was trolling jihadist forums in an attempt to subvert them, that would be significantly different than, say, trolling U.S. political forums.

So was the attack on Booz Hamilton justified?  That depends on your perspective.

That said, Booz Hamilton committed some very poor practices here, which should bring its contracts into question.  First, it clearly did not properly protect its gateway machine.  Second, much like Bitcoin-mega exchange Mt. Gox, it used an unacceptably weak level of encryption, exposing its users to harm.  Third, it failed to code its databases to avoid SQL injection attacks, which should be mandatory for any contractor working with classified materials.

IV. Monsanto Attacked

In related news, Anonymous vowed Monday to step up attacks on contractor Monsanto Comp. (MON).  

Monsanto is a firm with a long and controversial history.  It is accused of abusing intellectual property rights to sue small farms (allowing its patented crops to blow seeds onto their properties, then suing them); trying to bribe officials in Canada and Indonesia [1][2]; and suing dairy farmers who advertise that their milk doesn't contain growth hormones.  And they also were the company responsible for spraying Agent Orange all over soldiers in Vietnam, which is thought to have led to cancer and other ailments.

Anonymous broke the news of new possible attacks, writing:

@MonsatoCo is now suing small dairy farmers for advertising that they use no growth hormones.  For NOT using their product.

The operation's Twitter account "OpMonsanto", posted on June 26:

We're going to hit @MonsantoCo with something a little bit more serious than a DDoS this time around. Fuck 'em. #ExpectUs

It posted a brief press release, writing:

Over the last 2 months we have pushed the exposure of hundreds of pages of articles detailing Monsanto's corrupt, unethical, and downright evil business practices. We've created a nice go-to reference guide on piratepad/anonpad(, backed up elsewhere), where anyone can read up on and add their own info about MonsantoCo.

We blasted their web infrastructure to shit for 2 days straight, crippling all 3 of their mail servers as well as taking down their main websites world-wide. We dropped dox on 2500+ employees and associates, including full names, addresses, phone numbers, and exactly where they work. We are also in the process of setting up a wiki, to try and get all collected information in a more centralized and stable environment. Not bad for 2 months, I'd say.

What's next? Not sure... it might have something to do with that open 6666 IRC port on their nexus server though ;)

Expect Us

It indeed "doxed" Monsanto's employees -- in fact it appears to have exposed the names and addresses of 2,500+ of them.  How this information might be used/abused is unknown, but it could lead to at least some minor harassment.

V. Who is Anonymous/AntiSec/Etc. Again?

Anonymous is a group without a leader.  The group has tens of thousands of members worldwide.  However, not all members are skilled hackers.

Hackers with Anonymous have a tendency to break off into smaller subgroups.  For example LulzSec, who conducted much griefing of gamers in recent months, was one such group.  AntiSec, who targets governments and corporations, is another such group.

Nobody "leads" Anonymous or its subgroups.  Someone simply suggests a target and willing members participate in the attack.

The mass media has had much difficulty wrapping its head around the concept of Anonymous, though it appears most are finally starting to get it.

Anonymous arose via people who met via the image-board site 4Chan, but today the group has grown well outside the confines of that site.  The tricky thing when dealing with Anonymous or its subgroups is that the opinions or actions of one member are not necessarily those shared by another member.

This year Anonymous has been extremely active.  Among other efforts, it helped to influence the revolutions in the Middle East and drive them along.

Ultimately much of what Anonymous and its subgroups do can be viewed as hacktivism of sorts.  However, whether the ends justify the means is a topic of much debate.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Good for them
By fstarnella on 7/12/2011 9:32:24 AM , Rating: 3
If any company needs to be taught a lesson it's Monsanto. Possibly one of the most evil companies on the planet. I hope they burn them to the ground.

RE: Good for them
By Spuke on 7/12/2011 9:53:14 AM , Rating: 3
Fuck Monsanto

RE: Good for them
By AntiM on 7/12/2011 11:01:53 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. If nothing else, it can bring light to the questionable practices of our government and evil companies like Monsanto. Though, I seriously doubt we'll hear anything about this on any of the major news outlets. I also have to question these so called government contractors that are headed by former high ranking government employees. These companies recieve a LOT of taxpayer money for probably doing a bunch of nothing for us in return, except getting themselves hacked and exposed.

RE: Good for them
By NanoTube1 on 7/12/2011 11:04:40 AM , Rating: 4
Monsanto are super-scum, they should burn.

RE: Good for them
By inperfectdarkness on 7/12/2011 12:20:35 PM , Rating: 3
100% agree.

but for the record, monsanto didn't drop agent orange in vietnam. it certainly manufactured it though.

RE: Good for them
By jonmcc33 on 7/15/2011 7:16:58 AM , Rating: 2
So all bullet manufacturers should burn too then, eh? They didn't shoot anyone but they sure made the ammo! Good logic!

RE: Good for them
By Uncle on 7/12/2011 12:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
I hope Anon has checked the security of Monsanto servers before they announced the forthcoming breaches. Otherwise Monsanto gets the heads up, and the shredders start to work overtime.

RE: Good for them
By Taft12 on 7/12/2011 12:55:54 PM , Rating: 5
Otherwise Monsanto gets the heads up, and the shredders start to work overtime.

If Antisec manages to hack into the physical copies of Monsanto's records, I will indeed be impressed!

RE: Good for them
By Reclaimer77 on 7/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: Good for them
By shin0bi272 on 7/12/2011 7:02:33 PM , Rating: 5
one note about DDT though. There was a study done on DDT back in the late 70's or early 80's that fed people 100X the YEARLY recommended dose of DDT on a DAILY basis for 3 or 6 months. No one got sick. And just in case you were going to try saying it was done by monsanto... it was done at that conservative bastion the university of california at Berkley.

But DDT got banned anyway because of environmentalists shouting lies in the streets and now millions have died from mosquitos because of their lies. good job eco freaks.

RE: Good for them
By borismkv on 7/13/2011 1:12:29 AM , Rating: 3
Same thing with Aspartame. Scientists fed the rough equivalent of 1000 pounds of the stuff to lab rats and a couple of them got cancer. You can do anything with (bad) science.

RE: Good for them
By cserwin on 7/13/2011 3:26:31 AM , Rating: 3
I'm no environmentalist, but in the conservative western state where I live, DDT wreaked havoc on our birds of prey population.

I wrote a paper on this in college, a friend of mine was (is) a scientist working on Peregrine restoration at the World Center for Birds of Prey in Boise, Idaho. It seemed interesting.

In the 80's, the Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon were both on the brink of extinction, and the Kestrel population was decimated, too. It's not fiction, it really did happen.

The issue is not necessarily toxicity of DDT itself, but toxicity of a by product of DDT called DDE. While the relationship between DDT and raptor reproductive failure is tenuous, the causal relationship between DDE and reproduction failure of some birds is settled science. This study was seminal and replicated:

It was proper to ban DDT in the US where malaria is not an issue. The Bald Eagle and Peregrine have both recovered.

The anti-regulation types and chemical lobby like to whip people up by stating the case for DDT while conveniently ignoring that it breaks down into DDE.

Also, DDE is pretty nasty for people, too. Enjoy the reading:

Should DDT be used to control Malaria in some part of the world? Probably. But is it appropriate for wide spread use as an agricultural pesticide? No.

I live in Idaho. We're as red as red gets. We don't want DDT in our state.

RE: Good for them
By Reclaimer77 on 7/13/2011 9:13:51 AM , Rating: 1
No study has actually proved DDE causes cancer or other illness in humans. Coffee is 50 times more carcinogenic, that's how low of a risk DDT/DDE is.

while conveniently ignoring that it breaks down into DDE.

Ignoring what? That a completely harmless chemical has been found to gather in human and animal tissue? I'm pounding away at Google, and I cannot for the life of me find ONE study that proved DDE is harmful. Or really even "potentially" harmful. You're speaking as if it's an absolute fact, which it's clearly not.

I'm no environmentalist, but in the conservative western state where I live, DDT wreaked havoc on our birds of prey population.

Hold on, I'm getting all choked up. Let me shed a tear for the birds. Oh in the time it took me to write this, 10 more people just died of Malaria.

RE: Good for them
By KaTaR on 7/13/2011 3:18:53 AM , Rating: 3
Be careful what you wish for.

Dow Chemical and Rockwell International were in charge of manufacturing plutonium warheads for decades (Google Rocky Flats). Plenty of ill effects on the workers and plutonium still buried under 3ft of soil. FBI had to raid the place to put an end to the 'evil'. Maybe we should burn them to the ground too and ban the use of all plastics (Dow Chemical) and GPS positioning (Rockwell International)? That will show them!

RE: Good for them
By Wolfpup on 7/18/2011 1:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
Monsanto is just hilariously evil. I mean you'd think it was cheesy writing if they existed in a movie LOL

Mixed Feelings
By tng on 7/12/2011 9:30:18 AM , Rating: 3
I have mixed feelings about this one. I will say that as a corporation, Monsanto is about the worst out there. Yes they do sue small farms when their patented seed blows from one farm to the other and sprouts. Big Oil has nothing on Monsanto.

However Monsanto aside, these guys are upset over somebody having multiple logins to social and forum sites that they use to try to sway peoples opinion? Can we get a DUH?

RE: Mixed Feelings
By tastyratz on 7/12/2011 11:44:07 AM , Rating: 3
On every side, Monsato is evil and for once I think they "antisec" is going after someone who actually deserves it.
With all the bad choices so far you have to assume they would hit a good target eventually though

RE: Mixed Feelings
By Taft12 on 7/12/11, Rating: -1
RE: Mixed Feelings
By tng on 7/12/2011 1:41:48 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, that rootkit thing and the pulling of support for Linux on the PS3, really bad, but Monsanto still has them beat.

What the article says is true, Monsanto sued small farms in several states because some of it's patented seed blew in from a nearby field and sprouted. Instead of Monsanto taking the original planter to task, they blamed the person who owned the field for growing a crop they did not pay for. In one state they got their way with one small farm that refused to use their seed. Guy lost his farm.

RE: Mixed Feelings
By Reclaimer77 on 7/12/2011 2:59:01 PM , Rating: 3
Sony certainly fits the 'evil' bill as well.

Excuse me, but when did Sony start going around murdering people? This retarded "Sony is evil" rant on Daily Tech is beyond immature. They have done nothing that would earn them the label of "evil" by any objective measure.

Stop applying your belief system to a legal enterprise.

RE: Mixed Feelings
By deathwombat on 7/13/2011 12:40:59 AM , Rating: 1
Sony never murdered anyone, but their rootkits left so many computers vulnerable that even members of Congress called it a threat to national security. Sony is evil, but Monsanto is eviler.

Is Monsanto really evil?
By KaTaR on 7/12/2011 5:56:55 PM , Rating: 2
Think about this for a sec.
They do provide most of the world with the advanced crop seeds needed to feed our ever growing and hungry population. They spend $1.3bn per year in R&D to develop newer seeds and chemicals in order for crops to grow faster, produce more, use less water, and resist ever-evolving diseases and insects. A big part of the reason we have access to plenty of cheap food despite emerging market consumption exploding, is because average crop yields per acre have been going up by around 3% to 5% every year for the last two decades thanks in part to evil Monsanto.

I'm not a fan of the company or anything, but lets be honest and keep things in perspective. If we used the same seeds we were using 50 years ago, food production of all types would be a fraction of what it is today. Oil going up 6x because of emerging market demand is bad enough. Better seeds and traits are a big part of why food prices have not gone up the same way. It's not the little farmer who made those improvements, it's Monsanto with their massive R&D budget. So yea, make your money and develop better seeds so we can continue to eat for cheap.

RE: Is Monsanto really evil?
By tng on 7/12/2011 6:16:30 PM , Rating: 3
A companies actions tell you what you need to know.

I have seen the patented seed litigation where a farmer who didn't even want the stuff on his land is sued by Monsanto just because the stuff was carried by the wind and happened to land on his property. Also though I am less familiar with it suing dairy farmers because they advertise the truth (they don't feed growth hormone to cows for increase production)?

What kind of a company sues for such things? Also Monsanto has a very active lobby in state houses that push for rules that, at the very least, produce a competitive advantage for them over other companies.

As for increased food production, there are allot of things that have contributed to that over the past 50 years. I grew up working on farms and have seen many innovative ideas that had nothing to do with the seed itself. Just in the past 5 to 10 years, the advent of GPS has allowed farmers to plant 5 to 10% more on the same land. That is progress.

RE: Is Monsanto really evil?
By KaTaR on 7/12/2011 7:46:22 PM , Rating: 3
A couple of snippets from the court ruling in Canada:

"none of the suggested sources [proposed by the farmer] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality."

"Our task, however, is to interpret and apply the Patent Act as it stands, in accordance with settled principles. Under the present Act, an invention in the domain of agriculture is as deserving of protection as an invention in the domain of mechanical science. Where Parliament has not seen fit to distinguish between inventions concerning plants and other inventions, neither should the courts."

Because the stuff grew in a concentrated amount in a concentrated area, his explanation about the wind carrying over didnt fly with the court. With that premise established, that they concluded that it was most likely intentional. If you still think the stuff was carried by the wind, then your argument should be with the Canadian Supreme Court, not the company.

In addition to all this: The guy wasn't just a 'small farmer'. He was in the business of breeding seeds and wanted to sell them for profit. The court said he didn't have to pay any damages to Monsanto for the first year of use but he continued to sue for 6 years after that in order to try and prove that he 'owned' the trats. The reason for that is because he wanted to sell the Roundup resistant canola seeds as a business and compete directly with Monsanto. That kind of tell you everything about why this is far more complicated.

Whether he developed them or stole them (we wont know the truth), the point is that Monsanto was 'evil' because this was potentiall a big IP theft. If the farmer just wanted the stuff off his land this issue would have probably never gone to court.

RE: Is Monsanto really evil?
By JayWiz on 7/12/2011 9:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
Well done, nothing like a little fact research to dispel the internet intelligence (I read it on the 'net). Thanks for the info!

RE: Is Monsanto really evil?
By tng on 7/13/2011 8:59:21 AM , Rating: 2
A couple of snippets from the court ruling in Canada: there are a couple of cases where they were correct in bringing litigation. Here are a some "snippets" from the other side.

The Center for Food Safety[109] listed 112 lawsuits by Monsanto against farmers for claims of seed patent violations. The Center for Food Safety's analyst stated that many innocent farmers settle with Monsanto because they cannot afford a time consuming lawsuit. Monsanto is frequently described by farmers as "Gestapo" and "Mafia" both because of these lawsuits and because of the questionable means they use to collect evidence of patent infringement.

We can dig up all 112 lawsuits if you want and that is just in the US.

Another one for you...
Gary Rinehart of Eagleville, Missouri was sued by Monsanto in 2002, which claimed he had violated their Roundup Ready Soybean patent. Rinehart was not a farmer or seed dealer, but he still had to spend money for his legal defense. Monsanto eventually dropped the lawsuit, but never issued an apology, admitted to making a mistake, or was compelled to pay for Rinehart's legal expenses, The company has also been accused of showing up at farmers' houses, making accusations, and demanding records
There is more if you want, this is just from Wikipedia, there is tons and tons more out there....

Evil chemicals!
By Biodude on 7/12/2011 2:33:18 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Monsanto image

Lawsuits, dangerous practices, etc, all aside for a moment, I love how Aspartame is listed right along with PCBs.

People that don't know actual science can be very amusing to those of us that do.

It's made in a lab! It must be evil! LOL

RE: Evil chemicals!
By Reclaimer77 on 7/12/2011 3:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah and DDT? I really don't get that one. It saved tens of millions of people from dying of Malaria and other illnesses, without making a single person sick, but it's "evil"?

RE: Evil chemicals!
By tng on 7/12/2011 6:04:07 PM , Rating: 3
Problem with DDT was that it was not any worse or better than what we have now, just that it was way over-used.

When bugs that formerly died from DDT developed resistance, instead of moving to a new variant or different chemical, they would just double the dose. Soon they were spreading so much of it around that it really started to have some adverse affects on the environment.

That being said, thousands of people die every year in equatorial countries from Malaria and other things that even very limited use of DDT could prevent. However it is now like nuclear power, it has a bad image that is way out of proportion to what it really is.

RE: Evil chemicals!
By Keeir on 7/18/2011 7:23:55 PM , Rating: 2

Try hundreds of thousands... not to mention the hundred of millions that suffer from sickness.

90k accounts in a searchable list
By dazzlepod on 7/12/2011 11:38:53 AM , Rating: 4
For military personnel to check if your account was leaked,

RE: 90k accounts in a searchable list
By Divide Overflow on 7/12/2011 12:56:35 PM , Rating: 2
Don't tell me, another "enter your email and password info to see if it's been compromised" site.

By rudolphna on 7/12/2011 3:10:25 PM , Rating: 2
No. Open webpage,

CTRL+F opens a search, type in your last name, see if your email comes up in the search. It's just a list.

Who are the bigger douchbags?
By Desslok on 7/12/2011 12:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
Say what you will about Monsanto, but come on leave the troops alone! They have enough to worry about like getting blown up or shot. They shouldn't have to worry about some group screwing with their credit etc.

RE: Who are the bigger douchbags?
By BailoutBenny on 7/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: Who are the bigger douchbags?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/12/11, Rating: -1
RE: Who are the bigger douchbags?
By BailoutBenny on 7/13/2011 9:08:53 AM , Rating: 1
Treasonous words? You mean like Sedition? As in the Alien and Sedition acts? Fuck you.

I don't respect a military made up of people who won't question immoral orders. The Nazis used the excuse that they were just following orders too. The military is not protecting anything but the wealth of a few powerful people. Get off your fucking high horse of treating the military as some sacred entity. It isn't sacred and there is always room for criticism. Every individual should be using their head instead of just following orders.

There is a guy you should look up, Smedley Butler. Most decorated Marine in the U.S. He wrote a book, "War is a racket," I'd suggest you read it and learn why we really fucking have our endless wars.

I don't have a problem fighting a real immediate danger. I have a problem with our interventionist foreign policy and so should anyone else who actually believes in freedom. Since people volunteer for the military, no one is forcing them in. They are willing joining a military in a time of no occupation or threat thereof and have witnessed our most recent interventions. The onus is on the volunteers for still joining such an organization.

There was a real fear of standing armies when the constitution was written which is why Article I, Section 8 has this (fairly toothless, but important to the point) clause:

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

A professional standing army is the bane of liberty everywhere and this clause doesn't cap the threat but it was intended to force people to think about that army in their backyard (or around the world, in our current case) every 2 years and whether it really is necessary.

RE: Who are the bigger douchbags?
By tng on 7/13/2011 10:26:19 AM , Rating: 2
....a military made up of people who won't question immoral orders.
I don't have a problem fighting a real immediate danger.
Here is where you have a miss-understanding. The military is a team, for even a small squad of solders to work together in combat successfully, they can't debate orders or the larger question of the war they are fighting each time they go into combat. Just doesn't work. Sounds nice to think that you can analyze each order to see if it is moral or not, but it really doesn't work well in the real world.

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
Can you imagine if it we had to defend an invasion from say, Mexico, and we had to raise, equip and train people to defend the country? Think that is done overnight? The world moves much faster today than it did back in the day when sails powered ships.

Also lest face facts, the military is there for primarily two purposes, to kill people/break things and intimidation. There is plenty of room for abuse in the military and yes it happens, but it is not some feel good jobs program and abuse is limited because of the morality of the individuals in it.

I don't think that you would be happy with even a part time military.

RE: Who are the bigger douchbags?
By inperfectdarkness on 7/12/11, Rating: 0
By inperfectdarkness on 7/14/2011 3:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
wow. sarcasm meters must be broken on DT today...

RE: Who are the bigger douchbags?
By Bad-Karma on 7/13/2011 12:50:18 AM , Rating: 1
I can't think of a single instance where myself or any other service member decided on their own to go kill people.

We've always been deployed by the orders of the President and Congress. Our elected civilian leaders.

RE: Who are the bigger douchbags?
By Bad-Karma on 7/13/2011 12:46:06 AM , Rating: 2
I realize it was just a training database, but you think AntiSec would be a bit smarter than to fool with the personal information of military personnel.

It wouldn't take a whole lot of prodding to get a operations type to pay the members of AntiSec a very personal visit.

Thank You
By whyres on 7/12/2011 11:21:48 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you to all these hacker groups that are exposing corruption and injustice within our failing economic system.

Finally a breath of fresh air.

RE: Thank You
By Divide Overflow on 7/12/11, Rating: 0
RE: Thank You
By alphadogg on 7/12/2011 1:18:38 PM , Rating: 2
That's just stupid. Most cases of corporate crime have been discovered by whistleblowing. How is this hacking any different? (Excepting the leaking of passwords of staff.)

RE: Thank You
By aharris02 on 7/12/2011 2:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, if these hacker groups really wanted to gain some backing, they'd ensure their attacks remain directed at corporate entities and corrupt individuals involved, while leaving the average worker/soldier/gamer out of it.

I was excited to hear that Monsanto was targetted, only to see all Monsanto employee details published.

Makes me think Christmas & all the excitement and anticipation of running downstairs in the morning, only instead of coming around the corner to find presents under the tree, there's a puppy, mauled to death by a raindeer.

Hacking is hacking
By JayWiz on 7/12/2011 11:27:55 AM , Rating: 2
So we're supposed to feel good about hackers because they expose what? personal names and address? They seem to be about as useful as a high school bully...
By the way does anon condone the recently revealed hacking of phones by that bristsh newspaper. After all they were just exposing the lousy security for phones..LOL

RE: Hacking is hacking
By Uncle on 7/12/2011 12:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
Most people here agree Monsanto is an evil corrupt Corporation, has been since the 60's. The people working for them know whats going on, so that tells me they have sold their souls to the devil so to speak for money to make a living. So my question would be, "What kind of principals do these workers have, helping to put farmers out of business, and to take over the seed supplies of our major crops, corn, soybean etc. Ever walk into a store and see shelves of Roundup or its derivatives,that's another corner of the market place they want to take over or all ready has. Anybody that works for Monsanto or its affiliates deserves to get whats coming from Anon and their affiliates.

The thing I worry about
By shin0bi272 on 7/12/2011 7:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
The thing I worry about with stupid kids hacking government websites is that that causes the government to implement laws ... and they are usually worded like anyone found repeatedly going to a website is guilty of a federal crime and will be thrown in jail for eternity. They word them so poorly that anyone who has a favorite website can be under suspicion and the hackers just augment their tactics and get away while the rest of us suffer with the new laws. No what they need is a faster way to backtrace the ip its coming from and have local police go there and pick up the person doing it... you know since there are already "anti-hacking" laws on the books.

RE: The thing I worry about
By strapmonkey on 7/13/2011 1:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
Shin, your worry is well founded. U.S. Federal law is purposefully vague, which allows broad interpretation, which in turn allows the to make it up as they go along.

We are all criminals in the eyes of the Federal government. Unless we are part of the Federal government. Then, we are exempt from law altogether. Also, once integrated, we are exempt from any responsibility to the ideals we are sworn to uphold. A nice, tidy arrangement that. Unless, like the vast majority of us in the U.S., you aren't employed by the feds.

Of course, if you ARE a federal employee, you are sworn to serve the people. The people don't serve you. This country stopped paying even lip service to that ideology on 9/11/2001.

Monsanto tsk tsk
By poi2 on 7/12/2011 9:36:27 AM , Rating: 2
Disgraceful act !

By The0ne on 7/12/2011 2:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
I like how Mick already condemn AntiSec in his own baffling news gathering. I also like how people support one bad, aren't most business?, company but not another. Sure, one may not know about the other company but that doesn't mean they're not to no good.

Great for flame posts though!

You forgot a bullet point......
By strapmonkey on 7/13/2011 1:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
First, it clearly did not properly protect its gateway machine. Second, much like Bitcoin-mega exchange Mt. Gox, it used an unacceptably weak level of encryption, exposing its users to harm. Third, it failed to code its databases to avoid SQL injection attacks, which should be mandatory for any contractor working with classified materials.

And, fourth, in obviously conflicted interest, Booz H hired former high ranking federal bureaucrats to engage in unethical and illegal activities in direct contravention of the sociopolitical ideals said individuals swore to uphold.

Allegedly, granted. Given the unquestionably high moral fiber of the individuals so named, I'm sure it's all a misunderstanding. I mean, corruption at the highest levels of civil and corporate government? In the U.S.? C'mon, get real.

Gotta go, they're kicking in my front door. Guess the project was a success........

By NellyFromMA on 7/13/2011 1:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
Just saying, I'm willing to believe 'hackers' will basically be considered terrorists 2.0 in the next decade. I call it now.

Coincidentally, they may as well be. They sure are earning the title. Almost makes you wonder, just as proxy wars were/are fought amongst countries via 'terrorists'/militants, will the next phase in proxy wars be these hacking battles between parties or nations. I also call that now.

By DAOWAce on 7/15/2011 9:03:33 AM , Rating: 2
The only reason I clicked on this article was because it had Monsanto in the title.

I'm glad to see so many people are against them.

Anonymous just fell deeper into my respect pocket.

By xiaomai on 7/18/2011 7:31:59 AM , Rating: 2

I tide fashion
not expensive
Free transport

Did we all miss the point?
By sabbede on 7/12/2011 12:16:16 PM , Rating: 1
Okay, Monsanto is douchebags. Granted. If Anonymous or anyone else can help shed light on their improprieties then all's the better.

Releasing the personal information of the people who put their lives on the line for us is utterly unacceptable.
On balance, I think Anonymous is beneficial, but for this I would have them imprisoned.

People who spend all day taking bullets don't need to be worrying about having their SSN's posted on the internet.

By nananan on 7/12/11, Rating: -1
"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki