GCHQ unit uses DDOS attack tactics against the likes of Anonymous & LulzSec
30 replies, posted
[url]http://rt.com/news/gchq-ddos-attacks-anonymous-670/[/url]
[QUOTE]British intelligence has its own hacker subdivision that uses questionable practices for hunting down enemies of the state, reveals a new leak from Edward Snowden. GCHQ is fighting Anonymous and LulzSec hacktivists with DDoS attacks and malware.
A classified document obtained by NBC News reveals that the British secret service is brandishing a cyber-sword in the guise of the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG), an intelligence unit not constrained by domestic or international laws.
The JTRIG unit is staging distributed denial of service (DDoS) cyber-attacks, implanting malware to disclose identities of hackers in order to prevent their communications. JTRIG is such a secret unit that its very name has never been mentioned anywhere before.
A PowerPoint presentation prepared for a 2012 NSA conference called SIGDEV, obviously from the collection of documents from the former NSA contractor, Edward Snowden, contains information about the Rolling Thunder operation against Anonymous hacktivists. JTRIG organized a DDoS attack on the internet relay chat (IRC) used by Anonymous, which reportedly resulted in 80 percent of the users quitting internet chat rooms.[/QUOTE]
fighting f̶i̶r̶e̶ fagets with fire
I swear to god if they're the reason my internet has been shit recently...
[quote]A classified document obtained by NBC News reveals that the British secret service is brandishing a cyber-sword in the guise of the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG)[/quote]
cyber-security is basically just metal gear rising
And a normal end-user would face 10 year jailtime for this, but because it's the government its suddenly legal.
Hurrrr.
leads me to believe that this JTRIG unit is a bunch of quacks if they performed something as reckless as a DDoS attack just to take down a chatroom
How the fuck do you "hunt somebody down" with a DDoS?
DDoS is what it says - denial of service. It doesn't help you find people, it doesn't help you penetrate some secure spot. It's just dumb "this device stops letting traffic through"
I cannot imagine an even [I]remotely[/I] constructive use of a DDoS.
Fighting minor inconveniences with minor inconveniences, how quaint.
[QUOTE=Lomme;43821660]Fighting minor inconveniences with minor inconveniences, how quaint.[/QUOTE]
A properly targeted DDoS is not minor in any way
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43821655]How the fuck do you "hunt somebody down" with a DDoS?
DDoS is what it says - denial of service. It doesn't help you find people, it doesn't help you penetrate some secure spot. It's just dumb "this device stops letting traffic through"
I cannot imagine an even [I]remotely[/I] constructive use of a DDoS.[/QUOTE]
pretty much this
[editline]7th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=NitronikALT;43821668]A properly targeted DDoS is not minor in any way[/QUOTE]
this isn't a "properly" targeted DDoS
iirc ddos is one of the only ways to "catch" tor users.
The internet has truely become a wild west.
DDoS is one of the easiest ways to fuck over people on the internet. There are so many applications out there that you can simply buy or even get for free that do it all for you.
DDoSing in real life is easier than "hacking" in games like AC: Blackflag and Dues Ex, which, I don't know about you guys, but I think that it is pretty sad.
[QUOTE=Duplolas;43821926]DDoS is one of the easiest ways to fuck over people on the internet. There are so many applications out there that you can simply buy or even get for free that do it all for you.
DDoSing in real life is easier than "hacking" in games like AC: Blackflag and Dues Ex, which, I don't know about you guys, it pretty sad.[/QUOTE]
performing an attack from one system is simply a denial of service, not a DDoS
there's a pretty big difference and one is significantly more difficult to do properly than the other
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43821655]I cannot imagine an even [I]remotely[/I] constructive use of a DDoS.[/QUOTE]
Load/Stress testing?
Still. These guys are twats.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43821655]How the fuck do you "hunt somebody down" with a DDoS?
DDoS is what it says - denial of service. It doesn't help you find people, it doesn't help you penetrate some secure spot. It's just dumb "this device stops letting traffic through"
I cannot imagine an even [I]remotely[/I] constructive use of a DDoS.[/QUOTE]
If you read the article they also mention the use of malware to track people down.
[QUOTE=DeEz;43821951]performing an attack from one system is simply a denial of service, not a DDoS
there's a pretty big difference and one is significantly more difficult to do properly than the other[/QUOTE]
Not really, all you have to do is rent one of the several massive Russian botnets
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43821655]How the fuck do you "hunt somebody down" with a DDoS?
DDoS is what it says - denial of service. It doesn't help you find people, it doesn't help you penetrate some secure spot. It's just dumb "this device stops letting traffic through"
I cannot imagine an even [I]remotely[/I] constructive use of a DDoS.[/QUOTE]
They code a GUI in visual basic and use it to track their IP address.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43821655]How the fuck do you "hunt somebody down" with a DDoS?
DDoS is what it says - denial of service. It doesn't help you find people, it doesn't help you penetrate some secure spot. It's just dumb "this device stops letting traffic through"
I cannot imagine an even [I]remotely[/I] constructive use of a DDoS.[/QUOTE]
There is a use. By shutting down uncontrolled tor nodes and controlling their own tor nodes they can then track users who think they are 100% anonymous. This is a "constructive" use/hunting somebody down using ddos.
[editline]7th February 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43822834]They code a GUI in visual basic and use it to track their IP address.[/QUOTE]
You forgot to treble salt the md5 hash on the ssl.
They DDOS'd the chat rooms, not anonymous/lulzsec themselves.
[QUOTE=Sir M;43821523]I swear to god if they're the reason my internet has been shit recently...[/QUOTE]
wow you must be anonymous!
calm down there, slugger
[quote][B]the Joint Threat Research Intelligence Group (JTRIG), an intelligence unit not constrained by domestic or international laws[/B]
JTRIG is such a secret unit that its very name has never been mentioned anywhere before.[/quote]
This rustles the fuck out of my jimmies. Sounds like fucking mass effect Spectres or something
I was instantly reminded of CSI Miami for some reason. "Show me the image of that license plate" "Now should me the reflection on the license plate" "Now let's see this mans cellphone in the reflection" "MAGNIFY" "ENHANCE image"
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;43822933]There is a use. By shutting down uncontrolled tor nodes and controlling their own tor nodes they can then track users who think they are 100% anonymous. This is a "constructive" use/hunting somebody down using ddos.
[editline]7th February 2014[/editline]
You forgot to treble salt the md5 hash on the ssl.[/QUOTE]
The proper way to do is it to supercharge the electro-inturbenators on the helical cybermancer shaft in a 3:1 resonance system for neo-triangulation.
So by "going after anonymous" does that mean going after anyone they don't know the identity of? Or are they just ddos'ing targets completely at random?
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43821655]How the fuck do you "hunt somebody down" with a DDoS?
DDoS is what it says - denial of service. It doesn't help you find people, it doesn't help you penetrate some secure spot. It's just dumb "this device stops letting traffic through"
I cannot imagine an even [I]remotely[/I] constructive use of a DDoS.[/QUOTE]
Taking down GCHQ.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;43821655]How the fuck do you "hunt somebody down" with a DDoS?
DDoS is what it says - denial of service. It doesn't help you find people, it doesn't help you penetrate some secure spot. It's just dumb "this device stops letting traffic through"
I cannot imagine an even [I]remotely[/I] constructive use of a DDoS.[/QUOTE]
Well, from the point of view of GCHQ, it's a (comparatively) easy and cheap method of disabling websites or other servers, which are known to be used for activities they don't like, without having to go through the bother of getting the ISP to shut them down or whatever.
Surely? I'm not defending it, like others have said there's a lot of collateral damage, it's not that effective and it just seems like a method of evading the lawful ways of tackling websites governments don't like. But I can see why they would use it, just hopefully in combination with better methods...
I would imagine that both Anonymous and lulzsec are made up of a great many different types of people. People with different skill sets, motivations, and targets. When you think about what they are, it makes sense for them to be a target of intelligence gathering operations, although this may be a bit overboard. We don't know if "real" terrorists were using their networks to speak and coordinate, or if some of the "hacktivists" had grown more ballsy in their movements. That's the problem with this kind of leak, it gives no context.
Really, these groups offer more interference and noise for someone who was planning a "real" attack or cyberattack, rather than the "lulzy" stuff that these groups are known for.
[QUOTE=Capnscarlet;43824756]Well, from the point of view of GCHQ, it's a (comparatively) easy and cheap method of disabling websites or other servers, which are known to be used for activities they don't like, without having to go through the bother of getting the ISP to shut them down or whatever.
Surely? I'm not defending it, like others have said there's a lot of collateral damage, it's not that effective and it just seems like a method of evading the lawful ways of tackling websites governments don't like. But I can see why they would use it, just hopefully in combination with better methods...[/QUOTE]
not only is there collateral damage, but it's also extremely ineffective
the server is only down for as long as you nuke it, and you can't keep ddosing it forever
[QUOTE=DeEz;43827720]not only is there collateral damage, but it's also extremely ineffective
the server is only down for as long as you nuke it, and you can't keep ddosing it forever[/QUOTE]
Not only that, but it's not like it's particularly difficult for anyone to just use a different IRC.
[QUOTE=DeEz;43827720]not only is there collateral damage, but it's also extremely ineffective
the server is only down for as long as you nuke it, and you can't keep ddosing it forever[/QUOTE]
Well sure, but being as how these are governments it's not unreasonable to say they could keep it up as long as they wanted to - computer resources are much less of an issue. Although, now I consider it, it would only really make sense if they had their own botnet-esque thing, which is still pretty hard without using malware like all the criminals.
So it sort of seems like they're either deliberately mass-infecting other's computers, or they're just incompetent. Either way...
I thought LulzSec stopped being a thing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.