Anonymous declares war on mastercard, paypal, and possibly others!
One of the hackers told the Daily Telegraph they were attacking the website's payment mechanism, and warned that Mastercard 's payment system could be next. The group has previously attacked the websites of Visa, Amazon and Mastercard but has not previously tried to disrupt a payment system.
The hackers decided to attack the Paypal website after it suspended payments to the Wikileaks fundraising account.
The group has previously attacked the websites of Visa, Mastercard and the Swedish government. It has already attacked the websites of Visa, Mastercard and the Swedish government.
The hackers were also planning an attack on the website of Amazon, the online retailer, but opted not to after a split between its members.
One of the hackers said: "We attacked VISA and MasterCard's front end website, which is the page you see when you load visa.com or mastercard.com. We did not attack the payment mechanism for those two, but we did so with Paypal."
"It is definitely an information war. The core principle behind it is [that] information is free, governments keep information to themselves, Wikileaks releases them to the general public and the war occurs."
A spokesman for Paypal insisted that the site had not been disrupted: "As far as we are aware there hasn't been any further impact no the site and it remains fully functional."
Earlier the attackers brought down the official Swedish government website in revenge for accusations of rape in the country against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
The official site, regeringen.se, was offline for several hours overnight and only a message saying the site could not be reached was visible.
The actions so far have been essentially attacks by volume, known as DDoS or distributed denial of service, in which the target site is hit with massively increased numbers of visitors with the intention of exceeding its capabilities and forcing it to crash.
In this case, hundreds of volunteers have downloaded something called a botnet, which aids the distribution of the command to attack the site. The volunteers wait until they are given a signal on an internet chatroom, before launching the massed attack.
The attacks are illegal in Britain and carry a maximum sentence of two years.
Internet security experts warned that Amazon could be next after the firm removed WikiLeaks contents from one of its services.
Carole Theriault, a senior security consultant at Sophos, a computer security firm, said: "If the big companies weren't locking down their information before, they're definitely doing it now.
"This is really unprecedented and Amazon could be next."
She added: "Hacking is illegal and it's not just the companies which are the victims of this, it's also the people who are trying to use their services to shop and the sellers of those items who can't sell them.
However she said it was unlikely, although not impossible, for people's credit card details to be unearthed by such attacks.
"Data held by financial services companies is extremely safe and it's in their interests to keep it that way."
The group of "hacktivists" calling themselves Anonymous posted a blog setting out its aims as campaiging for free speech.
The post read: "Hello World. We are Anonymous. What you do or do not know about us is irrelevant. We have decided to write to you, the media, and all citizens of the free world at large to inform you of the message, our intentions, potential targets, and our ongoing peaceful campaign for freedom.
"The message is simple: freedom of speech. Anonymous is peacefully campaigning for freedom of speech everywhere in all forms. Freedom of speech for: the internet, for journalism and journalists, and citizens of the world at large. Regardless of what you think or have to say; Anonymous is campaigning for you."
The hackers decided to attack the Paypal website after it suspended payments to the Wikileaks fundraising account.
The group has previously attacked the websites of Visa, Mastercard and the Swedish government. It has already attacked the websites of Visa, Mastercard and the Swedish government.
The hackers were also planning an attack on the website of Amazon, the online retailer, but opted not to after a split between its members.
One of the hackers said: "We attacked VISA and MasterCard's front end website, which is the page you see when you load visa.com or mastercard.com. We did not attack the payment mechanism for those two, but we did so with Paypal."
"It is definitely an information war. The core principle behind it is [that] information is free, governments keep information to themselves, Wikileaks releases them to the general public and the war occurs."
A spokesman for Paypal insisted that the site had not been disrupted: "As far as we are aware there hasn't been any further impact no the site and it remains fully functional."
Earlier the attackers brought down the official Swedish government website in revenge for accusations of rape in the country against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.
The official site, regeringen.se, was offline for several hours overnight and only a message saying the site could not be reached was visible.
The actions so far have been essentially attacks by volume, known as DDoS or distributed denial of service, in which the target site is hit with massively increased numbers of visitors with the intention of exceeding its capabilities and forcing it to crash.
In this case, hundreds of volunteers have downloaded something called a botnet, which aids the distribution of the command to attack the site. The volunteers wait until they are given a signal on an internet chatroom, before launching the massed attack.
The attacks are illegal in Britain and carry a maximum sentence of two years.
Internet security experts warned that Amazon could be next after the firm removed WikiLeaks contents from one of its services.
Carole Theriault, a senior security consultant at Sophos, a computer security firm, said: "If the big companies weren't locking down their information before, they're definitely doing it now.
"This is really unprecedented and Amazon could be next."
She added: "Hacking is illegal and it's not just the companies which are the victims of this, it's also the people who are trying to use their services to shop and the sellers of those items who can't sell them.
However she said it was unlikely, although not impossible, for people's credit card details to be unearthed by such attacks.
"Data held by financial services companies is extremely safe and it's in their interests to keep it that way."
The group of "hacktivists" calling themselves Anonymous posted a blog setting out its aims as campaiging for free speech.
The post read: "Hello World. We are Anonymous. What you do or do not know about us is irrelevant. We have decided to write to you, the media, and all citizens of the free world at large to inform you of the message, our intentions, potential targets, and our ongoing peaceful campaign for freedom.
"The message is simple: freedom of speech. Anonymous is peacefully campaigning for freedom of speech everywhere in all forms. Freedom of speech for: the internet, for journalism and journalists, and citizens of the world at large. Regardless of what you think or have to say; Anonymous is campaigning for you."
ReportReport this topic to moderators FlagFlag as not safe for work.
Views: 1,984
RATE
30
Posted: 2010-12-11 07:49:56
Psst.
Responses (42) / Sorted by points
Agreed. When the rights of citizens are endangered, you can expect anonymous to do something about it.
Dammit. I think johnecash follows you on sharenator O_O Because 3 days after your comment johnecash shows up to shove his cynicism and ideals down people's throats. And he hardly comments on any of my posts unless you comment (that's what I've come to notice on a few of them). I think that's a bit weird. Don't you? I'm not saying that you're connected to johnecash just that I think he follows you.
When I see these Kids lighting themself on fire to protest what they think, then they have done something. When I see them stand if front of a tank, then they have done something. When I see them walk up to armed police and military personnel only to put a flower in the barrel of the gun, then they will have done something. As is they have not stopped any one or changed anything. They have been an annoyance, much like a fly buzzing around the room.
It's to scare those who would silence wikileaks, to make them relize that there are ways for them to make them pay. If they were to fully crash these 3 web sites. That wouldn't only make the ppl that are creating the problem pay, but also those who did not. This is more of a way of getting those who did not create this whole issue, change the minds of those who did.
So far they have scared no one. So far an annoyance is all they are. Collateral damage is never a good way to get the public to join your cause. Read the Art of War by Niccol Machiavelli. He was a the master of how to sway the public in your favor. He also addresses the problems of collateral damage.
Mastercard would be a very large room. I have never been a big fan of "vigilantes." The idea starts off good in the begging, but most end up letting the "power" go to their head. Just look at the KKK. A group with good intentions to begin with, yet we all know what it turned into.
they can't stop us for we are everyone and we are no one
"And yes, there will be blood." Oh yeah. This'll get bigger.
They are most definitely "getting them".
because it's not 4chans fault, moot probably isn't worried, he is not doing anything to anger anyone.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
I laughed. canz i haz cookiez now?
I laughed. canz i haz cookiez now?
as long as my money is going to be harmed im all for it but if my money is harmed i will not hesitate to do what needs to be done to keep my money safe.
which is why i would not hesitate to make sure i keep my money safe.
Lol, in Britian, DDoSing is illegal? Maximum 2 years? Well, put it this way, because of the (fucked up) way our politics work, if you are black, muslim or an imigrant, you probably wont get arrested at all. If you are British, you would probably get the entire 2 years, but then again, we have pathetic jail sentences here. They will say 2 years but you probably get out after a month for "good behaviour".
This comment is below viewing threshold (Show Comment)
View: 640x480
You're just full of negativity aren't you? Such is the life of a cynic. If you didn't like it, then why'd you post a comment? Nobody cares what you think. If you don't like it, don't make a comment explaining why you don't like it.
It seems at least one person cares what I think. You care so much about what I think you had to post back. If you want to give me rules, try and live by your own rules or your being a hypocrite. You're just full of negativity aren't you? Such is the life of a hypocrite. If you didn't like it, then why'd you post a comment? Nobody cares what you think. If you don't like it, don't make a comment explaining why you don't like it. Those who live in a glass house, should not throw stones. Well done living up to your own expectations kid.
I never said I didn't like your comment. I just said it was stupid. I was explaining your stupidity. I said you were a cynic, not a hypocrite. There's a difference. Since you're apparently older than me, tell me, what's a 25 or 30 year old doing on sharenator? Who's giving rules again? Is that all you do? Try to insult people with metaphors? You're right. Nobody cares what you think. Nobody can refer to: most people or some people. It's not always all people. I, in this given moment, just happened to care enough about your comment to comment back. Since you like to give meaningless advice to people that don't give a shit, I will give you some: stop being an ass hat. That is all. Now you can go back to whatever hole you crawled out of.
Hmm... wrong again. I am not the least bit angry. Is this the epitome of fun or excitement for you? 'Cause it would seem that all you like to do is troll people. Besides, you never answered my question. What's a 25-30 year old doing on a website such as this? Shouldn't you be out having a life? Or are you just another wolf in sheep's clothing? Someone who pretends like they're older than someone when they are actually younger or the same age. So unless you explain to me why a supposed ex-marine that's 25-30 years old is on a site such as this, I suggest you stop calling me "kid". Because it makes you seem all the more stalker/paedophile-ish. But that's just me. So, are you done? Or would you like to further argue whatever point you're trying to make. If not, then I bid you a good day.
Again with the name calling? Is that all you know how to do? You really must stop insulting yourself. Come up with something different for a change. You're beginning to sound like a broken record; and nobody likes a broken record. I still want to know why you keep adressing my age. It's very weird. Do you just like the term "young" or "kid"? If I did't know better I would say you were fascinated with "young" people or "kids".
So far you don't know better. According to your profile you are 16. That makes you a kid, a child. I am sorry to see you are not bright enough to figure that out yourself. If you want me to answer your question you must give me some incentive to answer it. I hate to say your warm personality is not enough.
