Unmasking the "Anonymous" Hackers(spectrum.ieee.org)
spectrum.ieee.org
Unmasking the "Anonymous" Hackers
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/telecom/security/unmasking-the-anonymous-hackers
2 comments
Not quite sure I agree. Anonymous has zero financial incentive to do any of this, which may or may not be a requisite to gang-status. Either way, it's still a point worth considering.
I don't think gang members do it for the money, but rather for the social status. By definition you don't have that here; as soon as someone proclaims herself a "leader" they get raided just as hard as any of Anon's targets. Moot has a love-hate relationship with Anon and certainly isn't a leader figure in a sense that he isn't directing raids.
So to your point Anon is something very different than traditional gangs, but I think that's because there's no hierarchy to aspire to, rather than lack of money.
So to your point Anon is something very different than traditional gangs, but I think that's because there's no hierarchy to aspire to, rather than lack of money.
Good point, but I think that some, if not the majority of gangs only exist to make money. No money = no power = no gang. Anonymous has no comparable feature.
I see anon more as a sort of underground ideological group than anything else. The first comparable movement that comes to mind is Project Mayhem (with less physical destruction of property and more identity ambiguity.)
I see anon more as a sort of underground ideological group than anything else. The first comparable movement that comes to mind is Project Mayhem (with less physical destruction of property and more identity ambiguity.)
Ok, but how the heck can you get social status when you are completely anonymous and no one knows who you are, not even your fellow gang members? They don't seem to have unique Anonymous ids, or do they?
Oh wait, now I see. That's your point - that the difference is they don't have social status. OK, good point.
Oh wait, now I see. That's your point - that the difference is they don't have social status. OK, good point.
If you recall the last zf0 zine (zf05.txt), Anonymous was shown to have a loosely organized group who directed raids when they picked up enough momentum and convinced enough kids and btards to launch LOIC. Most other anon jump on when there is sufficient critical mass and coverage, resulting in more lulz to be shared all around. Technically we are all Anonymous.
It's amazing how a writer can get so many things wrong in such a short article.
I guess I should expound: The title of the article is silly. Anonymous is a concept and perhaps the first large scale stand alone complex (SAC) (http://www.cydeweys.com/blog/2008/01/28/scientology-sac/) we have seen emerge. Trying to unmask an SAC is a sisyphean effort because it acts as a scale free network. This is very important to white hats who need to protect against attacks. We aren't dealing with your garden variety skiddies or black hats. As evidenced by the attacks in Operation Payback, Anonymous has created a voluntary botnet with LOIC's new hivemind feature. Anonymous is something different.
The author states: "Whenever a thread is particularly weak, discussants mark it with an image of Guy Fawkes." This is wrong. The author is attempting to show knowledge of chan culture, but he can't even get basic facts straight. Another example: "Once, hackers in the group busted into an online children’s game, flooding an animated swimming pool with their own characters." Also wrong. Five minutes on Google will tell you about the raid on Habbo (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/The_Great_Habbo_Raid_of_Jul...). Not only is Habbo not a children's game -- its target market is teenagers -- the raid shut down numerous aspects of the game. Sloppy research and/or writing on the author's part. And then there is his use of the word "hacker" and the phrase "busted into" to describe the act of registering an account. The author seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what he is writing about.
All of these details are important to anyone that wants to understand Anonymous, which should include any white hat, and especially those of us who work on multi-player web based games. It's amazing how a writer can get so many things wrong in such a short article.
The author states: "Whenever a thread is particularly weak, discussants mark it with an image of Guy Fawkes." This is wrong. The author is attempting to show knowledge of chan culture, but he can't even get basic facts straight. Another example: "Once, hackers in the group busted into an online children’s game, flooding an animated swimming pool with their own characters." Also wrong. Five minutes on Google will tell you about the raid on Habbo (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/The_Great_Habbo_Raid_of_Jul...). Not only is Habbo not a children's game -- its target market is teenagers -- the raid shut down numerous aspects of the game. Sloppy research and/or writing on the author's part. And then there is his use of the word "hacker" and the phrase "busted into" to describe the act of registering an account. The author seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what he is writing about.
All of these details are important to anyone that wants to understand Anonymous, which should include any white hat, and especially those of us who work on multi-player web based games. It's amazing how a writer can get so many things wrong in such a short article.
"Anonymous is an internet-era gang, plain and simple."
Indeed they are.