Wanna go Double Dutch?
9th December 2003
HAven't seen any such propaganda untill you posted this Section.
If they post it all over websites and such it may work against them, getting the message out in a too forceful way is bound to get people against you.
Anyway, I don't really care. What's wrong with full or nearly full disclosure. The opposit seems more harmful to me, keeping information secret and away from public in order to maintain your influence in/on the market and making it difficult for competitors to challenge you. For example he EU forces microsoft to disclose more information about there software so competitors of various software have an easier time making programs that work better on windows systems and with other microsoft products so that people are les "forced" to buy microsoft software of various applications. As for secuirty issues: disclosing such information may be abbused, but it also pressures manufactures into closing these security issues. Which in the end sounds far better, as otherwise a "limited" amount of indiviiduals, who are aware of certain security holes will still use them, possibly against you. And the company/service that provided the product could play dumb and tell you "we didn't know" or throw you a bone to set you on the wrong track, hoping to shut you up.
Adeptus Moderatus We purge with chain and bolter
22nd May 2005
There will always be people for and people against these sort of things, really. The way they're trying to advertise their campaign is rather stupid, though. Get people pissed off at them? Do they expect that, by attacking sites such as Image Shack, they'll scare people into listening to them? That's a rather flawed theory they've got there, if you ask me.
What's funny, though, is that I'm sure similar groups would do similar attacks on sites to get the opposite done once companies would stop sharing holes in their software defences. I don't even know that many companies whom publicly show all of their system's weaknesses. You can't really stop outsiders from finding out these weaknesses by themselves and then releasing them on the net. That's like trying to fight piracy by hacking the site of an internet provider.
I've been reading more about these guys, I've found two articles which helps to explain the whole spheel they're attempting to do.
Do some hackers hijack our computers in order to sell us security software? The Anti-Sec folks would answer affirmatively. It’s akin to those commercials where a young girl or young mother is at home at night, and some bushy-haired stranger, or otherwise menacing-looking dude is breaking a window to get in, then – cut to the home security ad. Well, what if those same home security systems, using a sort of capitalistic subterfuge, really sent bushy-haired strangers out at night to break our home windows, thereby scaring us into buying their security product?
Sounds ludicrous, I know, but the idea that the security industry is, in fact, doing that is not new, and the cyberspace is abuzz with the debate of "full disclosure": is it right? Is it wrong? Is it merely a form of capatilistic chicanery gone amok? (More on that in a minute.) The idea here – or the allegation -- is essentially the same. Or at least that’s some of the Anti-Sec hyperbole flying around in cyberspace.
Here’s the deal: Anti-Sec guys are apparently wholly against the idea of “full disclosure.” What’s that, you ask? According to the rogue group, it’s the security industry practice of making publicly available all security vulnerabilities in order to, as in the example above, enrich itself by selling yet more security software, firewalls, ad nauseum. But, so the gripe by Anti-Sec goes, by making public this security vulnerability information, “genuine” hackers can use it to further their malicious ways, thereby causing all us grief and to, well, buy more security and anti-virus software. It’d be like the United States government publishing top secret security vulnerabilities at nuclear power plants, thereby practically forcing us to buy their nuclear-proof spacesuits. That’s a far-fetched analogy, but you get the gist.
Anti-Sec is calling on the security industry to stop the practice of full disclosure, the practice of publicly making available exploits and security vulnerabilities. According to the group, full disclosure is a scam that helps security companies sell software such as firewalls and anti-virus tools as the published exploits can and are used by script kiddies; that is the companies are purposely empowering those doing the wrong thing so as to create more fear and exploits as part of driving business for services that offer protection against these things.
Not really sure if what methods they expose do anything in the long run though.
I am anti-section too.
10th September 2007
book;4945568I am anti-section too.
I saw it somewhere on an important post.
"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.
To be honest I've found it more of a nuisance. A friends forums affiliate box was seriously affected by this, with about 3 or four of the affiliate images being replaced by this. Also full disclosure allows multiple companies, including the one in control of the software to be allowed to react to the bugs and holes and plug them in.
Without it, one might have rampant long term security holes.
It was a huge nuisance to me as well. A lot of the graphic work I do is for friends. People were contacting me with "Hey, do you know what happened to my signature?". I didn't even bother to read the message at first because I was more concerned with fixing the problems that it caused me, then I was annoyed because it caused me so much work. Any organization that plays with those rules automatically gets stuck on my "do not like" list--no matter what they support.
I didn't make it!
TBH if there hacking sites then there really just exposing who really runs the organization, hackers, I was thinking it was like that for a while, but after months of battling virus's I really don't think there out to scam us, I mean I once got hit by a virus that would zoom into the bottom left part of the screen then display a blue screen, then imitate the windows loading screen saying right under it "Windows has experienced an error, it seems you have an unregistered version of Antivirus 2009" of course if you hit the windows key the menu would pop up...... I started up Symatec and the thing destroyed the spyware and the other virus's it help get on there.
Antivirus 2009 actually was pretty smart when hacking my comp, when I tried downloading AVG it would try to redirect me to other pages made up which criticized AVG, then once I got to downloading it the hacker out up some grey screen preventing me from clicking the download link, which I then closed then downloaded AVG, didn't really get the spyware though.
Sometimes they're trying to put out something, but in many cases they seem to be coming off as an annoyance.
I think they just did this attempting to get what they were believing out to as many people as they could, but most of imageshack's user base I'd imagine isn't concerned with these things, and understandably they're very angry at being inconvenienced.
On top of that, most of this group threatens to keep coming back until the site is taken down. Even if it's an empty threat, it's not a good way to win over people.