backtop


Print 57 comment(s) - last by Wolfpup.. on Jun 5 at 4:25 AM


Multiple pages were posted in a defacement attack against PBS today.

The website was attacked for including criticism of Wikileaks in its recent FRONTLINE special "WikiSecrets".  (Source: PBS)
Fake stories include one that claimed late-rapper Tupac Shakur was discovered to be living

PBS has become the latest victim of a concerted hacking campaign.  The party responsible is a familiar one -- they're the same group that recently hacked Sony Corp.  But this time around their motives were different.  The hackers this time were using the hack to show their support for embattled website Wikileaks.

I. PBS Stirs the Pot With Wikileaks Special

PBS special "WikiSecrets" aired last Tuesday as part of the news agency's FRONTLINE program, which tackles tough issues.  The program offered a surprisingly comprehensive view that showcased various parties offering both the praise of Wikileaks and its chief (suspected) informant U.S. Army Spc. Bradley Manning, and criticism of the aforementioned.

But advocates of the controversial leaks site took issue with the negative portions of the program.  Particularly touchy to supporters was a section in which writers for the British newspaper Guardian claimed that Wikileaks founder Julian Assange had said that Iraqi and Afghani allies to the U.S. "deserve to die".  

As Guardian is an extremely prestigious publication, on par with The New York Times in the U.S., this was a heady accusation.  Supporters of the site blasted PBS and Guardian claiming that Mr. Assange's comment was taken out of context or fabricated.

Among those offended were a group of savvy hackers.

II. Tupac's Back?

On Sunday, the PBS blog "PBS Newshour" saw a surprising story get posted, claiming that late-rapper Tupac Shakur was back.  This wasn't some sort of strange take on the recent Meek Mill hit; it actually claimed the late rapper was found alive.

The post claimed that Mr. Shakur actually did not die from the 1996 shooting and was instead "alive and well in a small resort in New Zealand".  It cited "locals" as a source and claimed that Notorious B.I.G. was also alive and had lived in the town for some time.

Tupac Shakur, perhaps the most famous gangster rapper of the 1990s, was murdered in Sept. 1996.  Notorious B.I.G. (real name Christopher George Latore Wallace) was murdered soon after in March 1997.  The murders ended the multi-platinum careers of both artists and shocked the rap industry.

The murders have lent fodder to conspiracy theories -- both serious and sensational over the years, thanks to the unsolved nature of both murders and questionable ties between LAPD officers and thuggish Death Row Records CEO Marion "Suge" Knight, Jr.

PBS was left scrambling to remove the post and others.  The news organization posted a statement, commenting:

Last night there was an intrusion to PBS's servers. The erroneous information on the 'PBS Newshour' site has been corrected. The intruders also posted login information to two internal sites—one that press use to access PBS Pressroom and an internal communications website for stations.  

Teresa Gorman, who works in social media and online engagement for the PBS program "NewsHour," published a series of Twitter posts today commenting on the breach.  She comments, "If you missed it: our site has been accessed by hackers. Thanks for staying with us."

III. LulzSec Claims Responsibility for Post

In a series of updates on Twitter a team of hackers who call themselves "LulzSec" mocked PBS, pointing out the hack and eventually claiming responsibility for it.

The hackers wrote:
"Oh s–, what happened to @PBS?"

...then:
"What's wrong with @PBS, how come all of its servers are rooted? How come their database is seized? Why are passwords cracked? :("

After posting links to usernames and passwords, the group wrote:
"Oh yes, that's right... #Sownage tomorrow. We hope. We decided to obliterate @PBS instead out of distraction."

In addition to the Tupac page, LulzSec or its affiliates posted a story entitled "Unicorns Dragons and Chix With Swords".  They also created a page titled "FREE BRADLEY MANNING. F– FRONTLINE!" that contained the text "ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO LULZSEC."

Some of the pages are still available courtesy of Google's or Freeze.it's cache, though they've been removed from PBS's site [1] [2] [3].

LulzSec has released a longer statement via pastebin, commenting:

Greetings, Internets. We just finished watching WikiSecrets and were less than impressed. We decided to sail our Lulz Boat over to the PBS servers for further... perusing. As you should know by now, not even that fancy-ass fortress from the third shitty Pirates of the Caribbean movie (first one was better!) can withhold our barrage of chaos and lulz. Anyway, unnecessary sequels aside... wait, actually: second and third Matrix movies sucked too! Anyway, say hello to the insides of the PBS servers, folks. They best watch where they're sailing next time.

The statement was posted along with links to the "gathered" information here.

IV. Who is LulzSec?

The group's bio asserts:

We are LulzSec, a small team of 80-year-old men and people who smoke on webcam. Right?

The group, which says it has no affiliation with Anonymous (who shares similar adversaries) is part of the growing hacker/griefer web movement, that contains such players as GNAA (whose full name contains a profane racial slur) and the slightly more sedate Gnosis, who hacked Gawker Media last year.

LulzSec gained attention for being one of the groups to hack several Sony sites via SQL injection last week.  SQL injections attacks are considered rather "easy" hacks -- by contrast the PBS attack appeared much more sophisticated and in-depth.



Comments     Threshold


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

Punish.
By lwatcdr on 5/30/2011 7:02:21 PM , Rating: 5
Welcome to vigilantly world.
You can have freedom of speech of you only say what the thugs want you too say. They are not hackers, activists, or anything else but criminals. PBS did nothing but publish a story that that they believed was accurate as possible. This was nothing but an attack on the freedom of the Press. It is time for the tech community to understand this isn't about the LOL anymore but that groups like these are becoming a real threat to our rights.




RE: Punish.
By Darkefire on 5/30/2011 7:47:50 PM , Rating: 5
This is getting ridiculous. They're attacking PBS now? Possibly the closest thing to a non-partisan news outlet we have left, and they deface the website over the simple report of a story? I fully support Wikileaks and the work they've done in bringing transparency to a world whose governments are trying their hardest to deceive their citizens, but between Assange losing his mind to paranoia and Anonymous mistaking anarchy for activism they've just about used up all the goodwill they've generated over the years. True revolutionaries succeed because they garner the public's support, but the cyberterrrorism we've been seeing over the past few weeks is doing almost the exact opposite. Time to pack it in, guys, we're not going to hide you among us if you keep breaking our shit.


RE: Punish.
By Amedean on 5/30/11, Rating: 0
RE: Punish.
By SPOOFE on 5/30/11, Rating: 0
RE: Punish.
By Belard on 5/31/11, Rating: 0
RE: Punish.
By Spookster on 6/2/2011 6:19:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by Amedean on May 30, 2011 at 8:29 PM

For real, why don't they attack highly partisan media outlets like FOX News .... Cry me a fricken river for Wikileaks - lame nut hackers


If they hacked into Fox News and posted false or ridiculous stories would anyone even notice?


RE: Punish.
By Samus on 5/30/2011 10:35:34 PM , Rating: 5
Most ridiculous target, ever.


RE: Punish.
By mmatis on 5/31/11, Rating: -1
RE: Punish.
By overlandpark4me on 6/2/2011 8:11:46 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed, but I guess if he is way out to the left, you might think they are non-partisan. Still a funny as hell post.


RE: Punish.
By The Raven on 5/31/11, Rating: 0
RE: Punish.
By Arsynic on 5/31/2011 2:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
How can a network funded by the government be unbiased? They carry the water of the government on a daily basis.

It doesn't justify the hack by any means, but they are the network of our oppressors.


RE: Punish.
By hyvonen on 6/1/2011 5:41:32 PM , Rating: 2
PBS is heavily funded by donations from non-profits and viewers themselves.


RE: Punish.
By TheJian on 6/2/11, Rating: 0
RE: Punish.
By nxjwfgwe on 6/3/11, Rating: 0
RE: Punish.
By Wolfpup on 6/5/2011 4:25:03 AM , Rating: 2
I will say that that story was shockingly biased considering it was coming from PBS. I mean it barely touched on what was actually IN the leaks, and barely touched the fact that this is how papers operate. Instead they spend maybe 30-40 minutes of it just issuing vague defamation of you-know-who's character...as though a 22 year old getting upset when he's dumped is weird, and as though any of that is the story to begin with.

Someone I was watching it with wondered if they'd been pressured to go that route.

Now's replacement "Everything's Equal!" I'd expect this from...let alone corporate news, but Frontline?


RE: Punish.
By MonkeyPaw on 5/30/2011 8:16:44 PM , Rating: 5
Green movements have eco-terrorists, and the hacking community has the same. Not all hackers are this aggressive, but obviously some are. Just like not everyone who holds a gun is a killer, not all hackers are doing illegal things. Unfortunately, it's a vague group of individuals spread across the globe, and I guess some of them enjoy manipulating society. I would just be all the more cautious about what info you let other people keep!


RE: Punish.
By mcnabney on 5/30/2011 10:53:39 PM , Rating: 1
Not all hackers are doing illegal things?

Really?

Can you legally 'hack'? Aren't all intrusions by definition criminal?


RE: Punish.
RE: Punish.
By infidel01 on 5/31/2011 3:26:22 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, you need to look into hacking. Its not only the act of breaking into a network, its a way of life. Its the idea that there are ways around everything. That you should not just take that line set out for you by the world but think of a soultion to your own problems rather then mindlessly accepting what is said to be truth.


RE: Punish.
By Wiggy Mcshades on 6/3/2011 11:59:01 AM , Rating: 2
Are you a real person? I thought I was the only one left who realized what you said. "That you should not just take that line set out for you by the world but think of a soultion to your own problems rather then mindlessly accepting what is said to be truth." <- one of the most beautiful things I've seen in text.


RE: Punish.
By Quinton McLeod on 5/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: Punish.
By chick0n on 5/30/2011 10:41:02 PM , Rating: 5
so, if someone comes and stab me in the neck. he should be free and I deserves to die, simply because I was the one who did not protect myself from that stab ?

If I go ahead and slap someone real hard in his/her face for no real reason, and because I used too much force, one of my hand actually got injured from the slap. can I go ahead and sue the person who I just slapped for "hurting" my hand?

This is purely a criminal act. It does not matter what their reasons was. Wrong is Wrong. Stop making it seems like they did the right thing. jackass.


RE: Punish.
By SPOOFE on 5/30/11, Rating: 0
RE: Punish.
By mvs on 5/31/2011 2:58:06 AM , Rating: 1
crime is crime


RE: Punish.
By SPOOFE on 5/31/2011 6:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
And false equivocations are false.


RE: Punish.
By mvs on 6/1/2011 5:39:05 AM , Rating: 2
True.


RE: Punish.
By Wiggy Mcshades on 6/3/2011 12:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
Who defines what is a crime? I didn't get a say in what a crime is or isn't. Right and wrong is a social construct, therefore it only exists in your head. It isn't real.


RE: Punish.
By icanhascpu on 5/31/11, Rating: 0
RE: Punish.
By chick0n on 5/31/2011 1:01:38 PM , Rating: 3
still don't get it do u ?

so ok fine if I never update my OS i deserves getting hack ?

I know its good to update your software from time to time but it doesn't mean I should get hack.

a crime is a crime.


RE: Punish.
By ironargonaut on 5/31/2011 7:13:27 PM , Rating: 3
The analogy was appropriate. He was responding to the poster who mentioned murder not the original article.

No, the worst that happens is reporters or news agencies don't fully report for fear of having hackers attack them.


RE: Punish.
By Darkefire on 5/30/2011 10:47:28 PM , Rating: 2
By this logic, if someone breaks into your house it's your own fault for not investing in a security system or buying a top-quality lock. These weren't white-hat professionals testing vulnerabilities, these were vandals and thugs using a flimsy excuse of supporting Wikileaks in order to deface a blameless website. They neither need or deserve any "blame the victim" apologists.

And yes, they are a threat to our rights because by abusing the freedoms our forefathers fought and bled for they give additional excuses to governments to take them away in the name of "security" and "safety". Remember that the next time you're struggling to get some DRM-infested software to work, being watched by Big Brother on every streetcorner or getting the Prison Shower Welcome from a TSA agent.


RE: Punish.
By SPOOFE on 5/30/2011 10:53:13 PM , Rating: 1
If your rights are in danger of being taken away due to someone else's actions, your rights were already in danger to begin with.


RE: Punish.
By Darkefire on 5/30/2011 11:01:30 PM , Rating: 2
My point exactly. Freedom on the internet is tenuous enough without nitwits abusing the system for their own petty ends. I don't want to have to tell my kids someday about the good ol' days where you could log on without having to be licensed and vetted by Uncle Sam, which is where we'll be headed if we give them enough ammunition to convince the public that the internet isn't safe without supervision.


RE: Punish.
By EricMartello on 5/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: Punish.
By Joe McPlumber on 5/31/2011 12:27:46 AM , Rating: 2
Argh i was feeling rather blase about the whole thing until you said that bit.

Did the previous comment go over your head or are you really that timid? Or both?


RE: Punish.
By SPOOFE on 5/31/2011 12:33:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Freedom on the internet is tenuous enough

The fact that you follow this statement up with complaints about nitwits is what indicates to me that your priorities are messed up. Anonymous - or any similar group - will never cause you to lose your rights; only overreactions by powerful figures and the public that gets caught up in the hubbub can do that.


RE: Punish.
By hillsurfer on 5/31/2011 1:49:46 AM , Rating: 2
So, if a child is raped, it's the child's fault because the child didn't defend itself. So, the government's wrong in making child rape illegal.

That's an interesting line of reasoning you have there. If it worked at all, it would work with any crime, and it obviously doesn't. It's true that governments interfere too much in our lives, but it's also true the "We the People" demanded that interference. That's how we got here from there.


RE: Punish.
By Arsynic on 5/31/2011 2:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
More like "virginality world"...


RE: Punish.
By Wiggy Mcshades on 6/3/2011 11:54:00 AM , Rating: 2
Our rights are long past gone, hate to point that one out. At least LulzSec tells you when they try and bully someone for saying what they wanted to say?


The dangers of supporting hacktivism
By hellokeith on 5/30/11, Rating: 0
RE: The dangers of supporting hacktivism
By jrs77 on 5/30/2011 8:35:45 PM , Rating: 1
Identity and financial theft can only happen to you, if you're stoopid enough to give away your information to anyone on the web. I'm using the web for the last 16 years now, totally anonymous because I know this can happen.

I'm not supporting the hackers there, to make this clear, but I laugh about the people who get their information stolen and abused, when they themselves gave it away freely to anyone in the web.


By mindless1 on 6/2/2011 3:19:03 PM , Rating: 2
You're being very ignorant. Merely using your credit card at a restaurant can cause it to happen, and that isn't much different than charging something on an improperly secured website.

That it hasn't happened to you for 16 years means nothing. I haven't been in a car wreck for that long, but it happens all the time to innocent people when the other driver was to blame.


losers.
By chromal on 5/30/2011 7:17:49 PM , Rating: 3
It's pretty astonishing to watch how far Wikileaks has fallen from an organization with seemingly praiseworthy goals to a gang of criminals devoid of morals or ethics. It's astonishing to me that they are seemingly blind to just how far across the line delineating good from evil they've strayed. At this point, it's apparent the world will be a better, and safer, place when they're relegated to being forgotten behind steel bars and cement walls, a day anyone who values democracy, equality, and the rule of law will herald. Hey guys, don't let that jail cell door hit you on the ass.




RE: losers.
By FaaR on 5/30/11, Rating: 0
funny
By poohbear on 5/30/2011 10:54:59 PM , Rating: 2
i lulz! indeed funny but PBS is hardly a partisan site, they're pretty neutral and shouldnt have been targeted. if they were gonna target someone for the Guardian's journalists comments then go after the Guardian's site, not PBS, they were just relaying the message. so that was lame.




It will be easier...
By Beenthere on 5/31/2011 12:09:47 PM , Rating: 2
...to track the hackers the more they hack so in the end they will be prosecuted and pay for their crimes.




Most of the Commenters are Reactionary
By monglerbongler on 5/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: Most of the Commenters are Reactionary
By SPOOFE on 5/30/11, Rating: 0
RE: Most of the Commenters are Reactionary
By drlumen on 5/31/2011 2:41:08 AM , Rating: 5
So explain to me how does defacing a public news organization (even with chalk on an outside wall) help to bring light to any perceived government cover-ups or help to reduce the amount of suppression of information to the people of the world?

I only vaguely knew of wikileaks before all the Afghani papers, Manning, BankOfAmerica etal. but now I just see wikileaks and their self-proclaimed defenders of justice claims and recent actions as simply acts of desperation by rebels without a clue.

These wikileaks 'supporters' like to waive the banner that they are acting and doing this because our government is oppressing us all by keeping information from us. Information that should be free and open to the world. Then, to further that cause they retaliate against a public news organization. In this case, it appears they WANT censorship of the press but ONLY WHEN IT SERVES THEM. All other viewpoints be damned as theirs is the only one that matters? The government may not be perfect but I will take the gov't over some wikileaks fanatical manifesto any day!

With the recent revelations that Assange was trying to sell secrets to the highest bidder only confirms he does not give a crap about justice or government transparency or whatever tripe-du-jour he tries to shovel out. In fact, it proves that he is really a republican at heart!


By SPOOFE on 5/31/2011 6:19:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So explain to me how does defacing a public news organization (even with chalk on an outside wall) help to bring light to any perceived government cover-ups or help to reduce the amount of suppression of information to the people of the world?

Uh, no, it doesn't work like that. You don't just get to invent stuff I have to explain, else I'd be demanding to know why you molest children. I compared the damage done to PBS to chalk drawings on a sidewalk; I made no assertion about bringing anything to light or any of that other nonsense you're spewing.


Bravo...
By xpax on 5/30/11, Rating: -1
RE: Bravo...
By SPOOFE on 5/30/2011 10:00:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I hope that groups like these (WikiLeaks, Anonymous, LulzSec, etc) continue to fight the good fight.

Me, I don't hope that they will, but I know that they will. At this point I treat it more like a hurricane or an earthquake.


RE: Bravo...
By Kenenniah on 5/31/2011 9:41:58 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
These alleged concerns are in fact just clever ways of disguising a growing movement within the US government to suppress dissenting views, eviscerate free speech and control the press.

Just out of curiousity, what would you call hacking and defacing a website because someone disagrees with a story? Sounds an awful lot to me like someone wants to "suppress dissenting views, eviserate free speech, and control the press."

Sorry, if they don't want me to think of them as hooligans and keyboard warriors, they need to practice what they preach. To truly believe in free speech, you have to believe in it for everyone which includes PBS etc. It's not free speech if it's only free for those that agree with you :P


RE: Bravo...
By xpax on 5/31/2011 1:22:40 PM , Rating: 1
Remember first and foremost that there is no connection between groups like LulzSec and WikiLeaks itself. They are separate entities, and while they may share common goals, I'm positive that WikiLeaks doesn't support their actions.

That being said, there is still no link between LulzSec and the suppression of views or impingement upon free speech. They didn't take pages about Frontline down, they didn't change that content to reflect their own ethos. All they did was hack the site and place their signature page on it. There was no effort to obscure the information that Frontline put forth in their documentary.

LulzSec isn't trying to cover up their inner workings/mistakes by imprisoning people for no reason. The US government is. If the sort of issues raised by the leaks aren't made public, the powers that be will learn nothing from them. They'll take no corrective action, nor will they voluntarily become completely transparent. This simply can't be permitted, and WikiLeaks is the only real line of defense at this point.


RE: Bravo...
By Kenenniah on 5/31/2011 2:46:09 PM , Rating: 3
I never said there was a connection between the groups. I merely pointed out the irony in trying to promote transparancy, freedom of the press, and free speech by attempting to persuade others to not make use of those rights.

quote:
All they did was hack the site and place their signature page on it.

No effort to obscure? What they did is a form of punishment the intent of which is to say don't run stories like that again.

quote:
They best watch where they're sailing next time.

Sounds a lot like a threat to me along the lines of only say what we want you to or we'll hack you. You don't have to forcibly take away someone's rights to suppress freedom. You only have to bully them into fearing to excercise those rights.

Responsible mature people would debate the issues in open forums, or run their own stories on their own mediums. They would not resort to illegal activity, threats, and coercion to get their points across.


RE: Bravo...
By xpax on 5/31/2011 4:05:46 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I never said there was a connection between the groups. I merely pointed out the irony in trying to promote transparancy, freedom of the press, and free speech by attempting to persuade others to not make use of those rights.

I'm not sure how this action would persuade anyone to withhold their opinions. Typically this sort of thing only makes people more vigilant.
quote:
No effort to obscure? What they did is a form of punishment the intent of which is to say don't run stories like that again.

Actually, it's more on par with graffiti. It's not even vandalism as no damage was done. Do you honestly think the hackers believe this would deter PBS/Frontline from doing more stories? I doubt it. It's more of a public protest than anything else.
quote:
Responsible mature people would debate the issues in open forums, or run their own stories on their own mediums. They would not resort to illegal activity, threats, and coercion to get their points across.

The problem is one of volume. The voice of PBS is heard around the country -- some guys blog is almost invisible in comparison. They merely used the power of PBS to spread their own message. And as far as "illegal activity" is concerned -- civil disobedience is often justified when the government is using it's power to suppress dissenting opinions.


RE: Bravo...
By cubby1223 on 5/31/2011 11:49:00 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
These alleged concerns are in fact just clever ways of disguising a growing movement within the US government to suppress dissenting views, eviscerate free speech and control the press.


*IF* we take your viewpoint, then the way to prevent suppression of dissenting views, promote free speech, and protect the press...

is by the wikileaks & their support "hackers" as they suppress dissenting views, eviscerate free speech and control the press...

They are attacking PBS, a news organization. How stupid can you be?


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki