Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Wikileaks and DDoS attacks - some thoughts

0 helpful
62 replies

by deadly ernest

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I was just reading a CNET article about Wikileaks and it mentions some recent DDoS attacks against Wikileaks. This got me thinking.

Most DDoS attacks are organised by bad guys to cause trouble for companies for financial gain or by hackers who are picking on particular companies that upset them. The only people Wikileaks have upset lately are certain US government bureaucrats and politicians due to them making available documents leaked to them from within the US bureaucracy. It seems the US government can't stop their people doing the leaking, hmm a good story back there somewhere, so they're trying to stop them being made public by a non US citizen on a non US web site.

Now, all of a sudden, Wikileaks is being hit with DDoS attacks. It does make me wonder who is organising them as Wikileaks is NOT the sort of organisation the usual organisers of DDoS attacks will hit. The circumstances makes me wonder if this is a black CIA operation or something similar organised by a US government Agency. If that is so, it then raises the question of this being the first one they've done, or not.

I don't know any answers to these issues, but sure would like to know.

On a related issue, I do find it interesting that certain people in the US power structure aren't upset about the dirty linen these cables represent, but are upset that their dirty linen is being made public. In short, doing bad things is OK as long as they don't get caught and they seek to punish those who publicise the nasty work and not those who did the dirty deeds.

What are your thoughts?

62 replies

by jamesrl

I was ok with Wikileaks releasing the video of the Iraqi journalists being killed by the gunship in a terrible case of mistaken identity, because an injustice had been done and the US government had closed the books and denied any issues.

But to publish all the private messages between diplomats and the state department? How do you expect diplomacy to take place if there isn't trust and if there is no privacy there can be no trust. Sometimes there is a need for private deals to be made.

I do think that the US government can't touch Assange, he is not a US citizen, he didn't committ an act on US soil, or even it seems coerce a US citizen into a crime - he was simply presented the data by a pissed off insider. I may not approve of all the deals done, or all the comments said, but I'd rather there be effective channels for diplomacy than the alternative, where nations argue with guns and butter.

As for the DDOS attacks, it might be possible that the US government wanted the attacks, but surely they wouldn't get their own hands dirty. Similarly the Chinese have been doing similar things in cyberspace, but they always have the excuse that it wasn't government employees doing it, and so they can also say that they take no responsibility, wasn't their idea etc.

by dogknees

There can only be trust where there is complete openness. Perhaps what you mean is that some people won't stand up and accept the consequences of their words and actions. That they don't accept that they are responsible for those consequences. That they want the power but not the personal responsibility for the results. Especially if those outcomes are not what they intended.

These people are making deals on my behalf. I have a right to know what the deals are and why they are being made. Real reason, not spin.

Ultimately what matters most to me is honesty and calling things what they are. Hiding behind diplomatic language is dishonest.

by jamesrl

Let me make an analogy.

What if you had a relationship with a significant other, and every discussion, argument, disagreement was captured and then shared with your friends, your ex, your parents and your partners family and friends. Do you think that would work out?

by jamesrl

I don't know if I'd go so far as saying the gunner and pilot (and the controllers) deliberately murdered the journalist. But they failed to take the time to properly evaluate and assess the target before shooting. They were not in any danger. I know what my father in law, who had been a major would say, he would have court marshalled the lot.

by robo_dev

https://www.infosecisland.com/blogview/9865-The-Jester-Hits-WikiLeaks-Site-With-XerXeS-DoS-Attack.html

He's an American who believes that WikiLeaks is putting US lives in danger.

A DDOS attack is easy to trace, somewhat amateurish, and only partly effective.

My opinion of Assange has changed 180 degrees. Posting the truth about the helicopter gunner shooting the reporters was heroic, trying to stop the war by posting the ugly details was noble, but just dumping all the world's secret communications crosses the line to being irresponsible.

There is power in having access to knowledge, but with this power comes a certain amount of responsibility.

There's lots of 'dirty laundry' out there in the world. You can use the sight and the smell of that mess to get something done, to expose a criminal, to help stop a war, or to raise public awareness of an issue.

Or you can just dump the dirty laundry in the middle of the street so everybody goes 'whew, that's some dirty laundry'.

But at the end of the day, it just means that going forward, those who keep secrets will use stronger encryption, access to secret networks will be locked down tighter, and soldiers carrying Lady Gaga CDs from a secure computing area will be subject to TSA-like screening.

I believe Assange is an egotistical bas_ard with a general dislike for the US, not some hero out to save the world. Of course that's my opinion, I could be wrong.

by nicknielsen

He appears to think his purpose is to 'enlighten' the world.

His chosen manner leaves something to be desired...

by charliespencer

Which also describe the DDOS attacks on Mastercard, Visa, and Paypal by the so-called 'anonymous' activists in response to those firms no longer accepting transactions for Wikileaks contributions.

by ansugisalas

Botnet sends forged packages to other machines that "returns" them to the target machine.
You'd have to crack open the bots to have a way to find the perpetrator.

by av .

He is nothing but an opportunist looking to profit or make a name for himself, regardless of the cost. The cost, in this case, are human lives.

Every government engages in covert operations and they all depend on intelligence. I don't think the world needs to know every detail. Maybe if a coverup was involved it would be a valid cause, but otherwise, there needs to be diplomatic conversations between countries that should be kept private.

I wouldn't want to be Julian Assange. He has burned a lot of very powerful people, and not just in the US. He deserves whatever he gets and I hope the insider from the US who gave him all of the files spends the rest of his life in prison.

AV

by hal 9000

For these people. I have yet to hear any complaints against the Main Stream Media who is running with this story and why also have copies of the papers involved.

Wikileaks is supposed to be a Media Based organization which I'm not overly sure about to begin with but none the less they most defiantly get most of their Income from the Traditional New Media who not only buy into what Wikileaks gets but as part of the deal are handed this information before Wikileaks makes it public on their Web Site.

While this guy is most defiantly getting the credit from much of the Worlds Political Movement for doing this I find it funny that no complaints are being leveled against any of the other Media who are not only reporting this but have paid for the privilege to have the papers to begin with.

Personally if I was this guy I would have just shut my mouth and said nothing but the one certainty is when the Media gets things like this they are [b]Most Defiantly[/b] going to use it as it suits their ends. Wikileaks on the other hand releases it all and doesn't pass comment unlike the rest of the media. Personally to me those who are not getting any comment are the worst offenders in the current foray.

Col

by ansugisalas

Silence can cost lives too.
And Assange is just the face. Being a target is his job. The network is there to make sure people can get something out, even against all odds.
They can't very well filter, except for untruth.

by deadly ernest

1. The correspondence that Wikileaks is making public has been sent to them by someone within the US Government system for their won reasons. Wikileaks are just making them public. The person commiting any crimes here is the person or persons sending the material to Wikileaks, not Wikileaks.

2. What's upsetting the US government bods is that the material is making public their dirty tricks and bad behaviour, not their good or proper diplomatic behaviour. in short, the spotlight is on what they're doing naughty.

Valid diplomatic mail is about fair and proper discussions and negotiations, not how to do the dirty on someone else during diplomatic negotiations, not on how to coerce them or bribe them, which is the parts in the exposed material that's upsetting US officials.

3. If what Wikileaks is doing is so bad, then every US media that has done the same thing with any other papers from any other government should be dealt with in the same way. Yet the US government helps the US media publicise leaked material from other governments. Which makes them hypocrites.

4. If leaking the info about the dirty tricks with the gunner is good, then leaking the info about the dirty tricks of the diplomats is good as well. You can't say it's only good to leak what you want to be leaked. Either it should all be transparent or none of it should be leaked.

I will agree that leaking battle plans prior to a battle would be wrong as it may cost lives, but leaking diplomatic dirty tricks after the event is not the same thing as it shows what liars those supposed honest diplomats are. If they can't negotiate in good faith, then they deserve to be exposed. The US politicians don't like it as it shows them all for what liars they are.

It is interesting that some people are saying his leaking the information is irresponsible behaviour but aren't saying the dirty tricks by the diplomats is wrong. Exposure of wrong behaviour by government officials - elected or appointed - is about the only way they will be made to clean up their acts.

by hal 9000

Leaking or Investigating Watergate was Treason and those involved should be tried in Secret and then shot when they convict themselves by their own mouths. ;)

No difference here either the public has a right to know or they don't but in this case the far bigger problem is that someone stole this data to begin with. The fact that they managed to do this with such large amounts of Data means that they where either very high up, there where several of them or there has been a Major Security Failure by those tasked with Securing the Nation.

I know what I'm more scared of and it's not the first two options. ;)

Col

by deadly ernest

1. Who got the documents and got them out is the one at fault.

2. How bad is the security to let this happen?

3. Why is it seen as OK when it hurts anyone but senior US political players, but bad when it does? It should be the same for all.

by otaku_lord

diplomacy and honesty are NOT the same thing.

Diplomacy
?noun
1. the conduct by government officials of negotiations and other relations between nations.
2. the art or science of conducting such negotiations.
3. skill in managing negotiations, handling people, etc., so that there is little or no ill will; tact: Seating one's dinner guests often calls for considerable diplomacy.

Honesty
?noun,plural-ties.
1. the quality or fact of being honest; uprightness and fairness.
2. truthfulness, sincerity, or frankness.
3. freedom from deceit or fraud.
4. Botany. a plant, Lunaria annua, of the mustard family, having clusters of purple flowers and semitransparent, satiny pods.
5. Obsolete. chastity.

by deadly ernest

anything else is just a case of lies to be repudiated at the first opportunity and not conductive to good ongoing relationships.

Honest diplomatic relationships do NOT require you to lay your governmental soul bare, but they do require you to speak the truth when you do say something and they do require you NOT to engage in dirty tricks to get what you want by lies and theft.

by saurondor

Although Wikileaks could be charged with assisting the person who actually committed the crime and be responsible for the crime itself. We should really ask ourselves how could this come to be and more important yet. Has it happened before and we didn't hear about it?

What if the person who got the documents in the first place turned to China or North Korea instead of Wikileaks? What if there are people doing this right now and leaking stuff to other governments?

The Wikileaks leak is like seeing a bad movie. We've been told its bad, but we just haven't listened to the dialog yet to know exactly how bad it is. The issue isn't that the US Government and its representatives abroad are doing these "bad things". The US is a super power driven by corporate interests. What else did you expect? If someone thinks this is new or revealing they should catch up on some history, I'd recommend Roman history.

What I see as the real issue is why is this leaking from this end and not the other. Are the Russians clean? The British? The French? The Chinese? For heavens sake no. So why is the defense network of the country that spends more money in defense than just about everyone else combined have issues like this?

by jamesrl

Where you can be charged in one country for activities you did in another. War crimes are one, some countries have enacted laws where if one of their citizens committs sex crimes in other jurisdictions they can be charged, but thats being challenged in court.

If as they claim, Wikileaks didn't instigate the theft, but simply received the information after the theft, what can they charge him with, since he wasn't in the US nor is he a US citizen?

I haven't seen too many bad leaks, just embarsassment. One I did see that could cause someone to lose their life, is the fact that someone in the Iranian Security ministry was leaking information about Taliban activities around Khandahar to Canadian diplomats, who gave the intel to Canadian forces in the region. Iran is a highly factionilized country, and the Revolutionary guards like and support the Taliban, the security establishment does not. If the guard can find the source of leak, they will assassinate him/her. And its possible that without that intel, more Canadian solidiers will die. But hey thats ok right? WRONG!

by deadly ernest

1. The leaker is NOT a felon until such time as they're identified, charged, tried, and convicted. Then those who assisted in the felony can be charged with assisting.

2. People can only be charged with crimes that they committed within the jurisdiction of the court being charged in. The Wikileaks server is outside the USA so USA courts have no legal jurisdiction, but that won't stop them trying.

3. Leaks of this sort have happened in the past and been publicised by the US media with the assistance and approval of the US government. However, in those cases it was not the senior US diplomats who were embarrassed by having their dirty laundry made public, so they approved the actions.

4. The US government is way out of order to put pressure on other governments or any business to act against Wikileaks to stop this or get some revenge for it.

by hal 9000

That fear is always a good thing and the threat of reading Wikileaks is just that.

Good thing that i can't be bothered reading that rubbish as to me most of what has been reported here is nothing more than Gossip, which I'm not really interested in. [b]Shock Horror they have a name for Foreign Leaders, They don't always say nice things about the people that they are dealing with. What's the bet that when that particular piece was written the person in question didn't do as they where asked?[/b]

Now I wonder if I was to admit to reading Wikileaks if it would do any thing to my existing Security Classification. I very much doubt it but I suppose I can hope.

[b]Hi Y'All I'm a avid Wikileaks reader please don't approach me to do any more Secure Work as I may be susceptible to Laughing in your Face.[/b] :^0

Actually I think my comments about the New Sport that I'm pushing of Hunting and Mounting a Polly a Day till they are all Extinct would do more damage to me but those that matter just laugh or ask where they sign up. :_|

Actually if the Idiot who runs that Site is guilt of anything doesn't that make people like Rupert Murdock guilty too?

OH but he's Fox so he can do no wrong. :^0

Here from my understand Wikileaks publish it all and it's the Main Stream Media who are Cheery Picking what they want to push so maybe reading the NY Times or watching Fox News will have the same effect. ;)

Col

by nicknielsen

I much prefer the classic "anonymous sources".

I have a feeling Wikileaks is a means to an end. As it's only a feeling, I've not dedicated much thought to determining what that end might be.

by charliespencer

"I do find it interesting that certain people in the US power structure aren't upset about the dirty linen these cables represent, but are upset that their dirty linen is being made public. In short, doing bad things is OK as long as they don't get caught and they seek to punish those who publicise the nasty work and not those who did the dirty deeds."

Agreed. That's what I found so upsetting about the whole 'CIA torture' and 'Abu Ghraib prison' issues. More people were concerned about our questionable actions being disclosed than about our potential human rights or Geneva convention violations. There was much talk about how disclosing these behaviors was a threat to our national security, far more than there was talk regarding the threat of the behaviors themselves.

Nothing in the previous paragraph should be construed as an opinion on the topic of Wikileaks.

by charliespencer

The diplomatic cables were leaked by a US Army private. He had access to the files from his work computer and would download the data to DVDs labeled as music.

In the wake of Sept. 11th, changes were made to US intelligence policies. The idea was to eliminate the inter-agency blocks that prevented analysts from seeing all the pieces of the puzzle. We've gone too far and relaxed one of the basic rules: it doesn't matter what your clearance level is if you don't need to know.

This kid (arrested, charges pending) wasn't high up or a bigwig; he just had access to information he shouldn't have. Someone dropped the ball on controlling who had access. Someone else dropped it on locking down computers with that could access that data so they couldn't save locally.

UPDATED - Speaking of not locking down computers...

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/military-bans-disks-after-wikileaks-should-you/42601?tag=nl.e019

Say, Major, isn't that your horse leaving the barn?

by deadly ernest

are those that made the system such that the person could have access to such information without the proper reasons.

BUT, they should also be taking action against those who are shown to behaving in an inappropriate manner in their dealings with other nations. yet, it's these people and their replacements who are screaming the loudest about their actions being made public. To them, and the senior US politicians, the crime is not that they behaved badly, but that their bad behaviour is now public. And that is wrong.

by hal 9000

This is what the Official Story appears to be a Nobody is responsible for leaking these documents.

But I have to ask Why/How was he allowed to gain access to this type of thing.

It's a [b]MAJOR[/b] failure in security.

I know when I was working for Certain Organizations I wasn't allowed to take any Recordable Media off Base. I could take whatever I liked onto the base but was refused permission to leave with it. While there was some Official Data that left the Base it had to go through channels and I was never allowed to remove it myself. Though on several occasions I did accompany the person carrying it to give Opinions on the contents of the Data removed from the base.

To me the scary thing is that someone like the person accused was allowed access to begin with and was basically allowed free reign to do as they pleased.

That is what scares me as it shows a [b]Complete Lack of Understanding[/b] of even the most basic Security Procedures and the people responsible should be raked over the coals for their stupidity.

Perhaps even Treason for allowing this to happen to begin with. Some Idiot Kid if that was what really happened should never have been allowed to have access to things like this let alone be in a position to remove them or even have access to a Live Net Link to send them off base.

If the People Responsible for this mess are still in charge they need to be removed from that position and the rules rewritten.

While the current crap is just that, just imagine if some real [b]Sensitive Information[/b] had of been released. It just doesn't bear thinking about.

Of course if this was something intentional which has since been denied well that's a completely different story. ;)

Col

by saurondor

Some real Sensitive Inforation was leaked?

I mean what if 250,000 docs is just the tip of the iceberg. What if 1,000,000 docs were leaked and just 250,000 published on Wikileaks for "validation purposes by the US Government". Which the Government has been so kind to actually validate by its actions to stop Wikileaks.

What if this is not the act of a sole perpetrator, but rather an organization selling this info. What better way to validate the veracity of it than to publish part of it (the less juicy part) on Wikileaks and wait for a response. And a response they got. Now it's time to sell the rest.

by the 'g-man.'

the fact is was a journalist involved was by chance and is what got them 'caught'.

Just how many others that did not involve such people and hence swept under the carpet is what I'm thinking.

by ansugisalas

would love to synthesize an antidote from that.

"It's a case of accidental genocide, what can we do?"

by jamesrl

Murder involves intent. The official reports say the pilot thought the guy with the camera had a rocket launcher. Murder would have to be if he knew it wasn't a rocket launcher. Negligent homicide would be if he didn't look hard enough. Certainly to me, as a photographer, I immediately identified the guy on the footage as a guy with a camera.

Truth is that unless you are psychic you and I won't ever know the truth, and even a board of inquiry might not find the truth.

by jamesrl

Do not need to be open to the public, only the results do.

Lets take North Korea. They have nuclear materials and the capability to build and test nuclear weapons. The thing that has restrained them is their need for food and support, not only from China , their traditional ally, but from others, including the US. If all of the deals and negotiations became public, North Korea would be shamed, they would also then become more bellicose, and we would all be a few steps closer to Nuclear war.

Honesty yes, total openness no.

by deadly ernest

be such that any exposure of behind the scenes stuff should NOT caused major embarrassment or trouble - yet these have, which shows they were NOT honest.

by dogknees

Given that they are shamed by there own behaviour, not someone elses, they should suck it up!

Maybe it's tradional. So are a lot of things we don't do any more. The world changes, hopefully towards a more open and honest way of doing things. Why should people who are working against this be protected from embarrasment?

If you're a servant of the people and you do the wrong thing, you deserve approbation and public shame.

That's where I part ways with a lot of people. These people are not our leaders, they are our servants and need to remember it.

by santeewelding

More than surprised, that not more of this -- a whole, great-big more of this -- is not all over TR.

What are you people -- reticent? Withdrawn until you think you know more? Confused? Scurrying to your burrows?

Enough has been done, with still more coming.

Speak up.

by ansugisalas

And now they think the "cyberwar" is spreading.
And, by the way, this "jester" is a convenient fellow, is he not?
And did anybody buy it, when Estonian infrastructure was being attacked by "activists with no connection to the kremlin", over the moving of a statue to a memorial park?

by the 'g-man.'

That such a leak can come from the US. I mean this is the biggest IT related security breech in history we are reading about. That must cause a warm glow and shows the state of US security in a very bad light.

by robo_dev

If an individual has access to classified data, and he gives it to somebody else, that's really not a 'breach', it's an unauthorized disclosure.

And further, Manning leaving a secured area with a DVD of data is more of a a physical security breach. The guard who does the inspection when you leave a classified area does not review the contents of every disk, he relies on the individual to be truthful about it.

In this case no systems were hacked into, no passwords were stolen, and no encryption was broken. It was not a security breach, it was a case of disclosure and data theft.

A long time ago, I did PC support on classified computer systems. In my tool bag were lots of diskettes: DOS boot disks, Windows disks, Compaq Diag disks, etc. On each disk was a label, that I had to sign, which was a certification that it contained no classified data. The guard did not read the data on any diskette, ever. As long as they were labeled, they would pass. Since I had a security clearance, he went on the assumption that I was not lying.

This is a shining example of the most difficult security issue in IT: the insider threat. You can build the most secure system on the planet, but if a untrustworthy person has the keys to the kingdom, it's all for naught.

I am assuming that the bulk of the Wiki material was the data that Bradley Manning copied to DVD.

I contend that it's not really possible to build a security control strong enough to prevent a motivated person from disclosing information he or she has access to.

In this case, it's very true that if Manning did not have write-access to a DVD drive would have helped.

But what if Manning had simply made copies or took photographs of secret documents? Sure, it would have taken longer, but the advantage of working in a secret environment is that nobody really knows exactly what you're doing, which can allow people to do all sorts of things.

That would be no different and no less damaging, and not considered to be IT related.

The 'failure' is that Manning's commanding officers trusted him, not that security controls were lacking.

If somehow Manning could not get the DVD burner to work, he could have discovered other methods to get the data from the protected system.

by ansugisalas

"the jester"...
Supposedly a vigilante who claims to have taken on terrorist sites... and who thinks that wikileaks is a danger to US soldiers abroad.

Especially, apparently, US soldiers working with corrupt foreign governments.

by ansugisalas

Pal of a pal was leading a column of danish leopard 1 tanks along a road (part of the danish plan to immediately and heavily retaliate to all the militias who liked to shoot a little at UN convoys - "Operation bullybeating")...
Then he gets a warning from command that a US apache combat helicopter has spotted a column of t-52s in their area.

There were no damn t-52's and luckily for my pal's pal, the apache crew didn't have permission to engage on their own.

And a leopard 1 doesn't look like a t-52.

by jamesrl

My father in law was involved with Canada's purchase of Leopard 1s for Canada, from the Army's side. Later he went on to work for the manufacturer. A Leopard doesn't look at all like any Russian tank of that era.

Sadly we had a similar incident in Afghanistan that didn't work out so well.

A group of Canadian soldiers went to a firing range that was used by all NATO forces, including Americans. The commanders in the area had been briefed the range would be in use that night. The Canadians were practising with small amrms, including light machine guns with tracers. A pair of F16s were orbiting at 23,000 feet, flown by some National Guardsmen. One of them spotted the tracers, and reported they were being fired on. They were denied permission to retaliate, but did anyway. Four Canadians killed, eight were injured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarnak_Farm_incident

by ansugisalas

No other word for that kind of people.
Not taking one's job seriously is always bad, but if that job is other people's life and death... well, it's bad.

by ansugisalas

Said Winston, mike open, live broadcast to france.

One problem here is - that the diplomats have "intelligence" on their host country's leadership. They also have certain assessments of same leadership, part of the discourse and repartee they have within their organizations.
And in the discourse and repartee that they share with their host country's diplomats, they have assessments of, and "intelligence" on, the leadership of third party nations.

When they report home, they make reference to all of these, in a not-very-diplomatic way.

It's part of a diplomatic sub-culture... and I'm not entirely sure we should allow that sub-culture to live in total privacy.

by jamesrl

The National Guard pilots had been given "uppers" by their doctors. It may have clouded their judgement.

Still, in my opinion, there is no way that someone at 23,000 feet should feel threatened by a machine gun, the effective range of a .50 calibre MG is about 6000 feet. So there should have been no bomb drop without direction of the controllers.

by saurondor

Wouldn't that piece of information be more valuable to the Iranian guards than to Wikileaks? Is that the only Taliban related piece of information on the government's defense network? Hardly so. Could more leaks be happening right now without the general public's knowledge? Probably so.

So who's the guiltiest here? Wikileaks? The leaker? Or the government for having such lax security?

I believe the ultimate responsible here is the government. They're handling very sensitive material with low levels of security. That is ultimately what is putting peoples lives at risk. A bit like carrying around nuclear waste in a ox cart. Some is bound to spill.

BTW, this isn't meant to justify or excuse Wikileaks or the person who provided Wikileaks with this stuff. Just to raise the issue that it was possible due to incompetence and lack of due diligence on the government's part. By not securing a network to the standards they bragged (and billed) to.

Ultimately the responsibility of a lock is on the locksmith and not the amount of crooks trying to get through your door.

by ansugisalas

should be in a plane while on uppers!
Not even in an engineless glider... let alone a fighter plane!

by ansugisalas

"But what if Manning had simply made copies or took photographs of secret documents? Sure, it would have taken longer, but the advantage of working in a secret environment is that nobody really knows exactly what you're doing, which can allow people to do all sorts of things"

- Man, that Manning sure is taking a lot of photocopies...
- Man, that Manning is fiddling constantly with some small item above that pile of papers as he leafs through them...

Vs.

-Man, that Manning is dozing at his desk while his computer is running maintenance again.

Which one of those three is least likely to cause a question about what Manning is carrying out with him?

This discussion is closed to new replies.