Hacker Collective Anonymous Promises To Take Down Missouri Government And Bank Sites

In the wake of the Ferguson grand jury decision not to indict officer Darren Wilson for the shooting of unarmed Michael Brown, hacker collective Anonymous posted a video promising to take down websites belonging to the government of Missouri.
The video is posted on YouTube by a different offshoot of the hacker group than the one responding to Ku Klux Klan taunting last week.

This time, the threat comes from a band calling itself GSA AMCF (Ghost Security Anonymous / AnonMafia Cyber Family), and they are obviously vexed by the grand jury verdict.

Addressing protesting citizens in Ferguson and all over the US, they created a video in the Anonymous style, the message being delivered via computerized voice-over.

“Anonymous shall Target any Missouri Government or Bank sites now, so you better increase your security because we're here and we're not gonna standby and watch you let this man walk free,” it is said in the video, read by someone wearing a Guy Fawkes mask; the footage should be familiar though, because it has been used in other Anonymous videos too.

It is unclear, though, what it is they expect with this kind of action, since launching a distributed denial-of-service attack would not lead to a change of verdict.

On the other hand, the initial group battling KKK, and still holding hostage their Twitter account, dumped online personal information of alleged leaders, as part of #OpKKK / #HoodsOff.

Code:

Source: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Hacker-Collective-Anonymous-Promises-to-Take-Down-Missouri-Government-and-Bank-Sites-465978.shtml

 

I can't imagine actually going on the attack against this group of snakes. A computer is a slim weapon if these klan fools decide they have nothing better to do that hunt you down. As "Anonymous" as they think they may be, they are messing with psychopaths as if it was some kind of video game. I understand the frustration, but the bulk of this has been delivered onto us by the government. It's safer to go after the government than going after an organized crime outfit.

 

true anonymity knows no fame.

 

Truth spoken...

 

Jesus Christ!
I mean choose your fucking battles already.

What exactly are these people protesting? That a white cop can't protect himself?

Michael Brown WAS a VIOLENT THUG who beat a police officer and tried to take his gun. He most likely would have killed officer Wilson if he got it.
These are the facts, he did not surrender, he turned back and charged toward the officer, these are the facts.

Black protesters, stop living in denial of the truth and admit you jumped to the wrong conclusions. There is nothing here to protest about, again, choose your fucking battles. You're only making yourselves look bad in this incident. Let it go already, you are wrong.

Black people and protester,
YOUR racism and YOUR ignorance and YOUR blind intolerance is showing.

 

The government is going to take down their own websites? Cool story, bro.

Every time I see this ridiculous "Anonymous" crap, I laugh, because it is so obviously a government op. It's obviously a well-funded operation. How fucking gullible do people have to be to believe this shit, and the fact that nobody from this supposedly "anonymous" group has been busted by the feds? Give me a fucking break. Controlled opposition to the max. It just gives the government another excuse to pass more laws to control the internet while further fueling their phony racial tensions to keep people from thinking about things that are actually important. Anonymous, whoever they are, play into exactly what the government wants.

 

Some of them have been caught and prosecuted....quite harshly, I might add.

 

I know everything being controlled by the feds is your modus operandi... but well funded? How much does a Guy Fawkes mask cost?

I'm certain there are some agents within the ranks of anonymous, but it lacks no centralization or leadership.

The government doesn't need laws to control the internet, the US department of Commerce owns the root name servers, and are a root CA, meaning they can sign valid certificates for any server that any browser would accept. They conduct DPI over every IP packet, and issue single secret warrants that cover all customers of an IP provider.

That's not to say it's a hopeless situation. But the internet is owned. An elaborate scheme of cyber punks to pass laws which to pass laws to give the government control it already has seems to make little strategic sense. I wouldn't put it past them though.

 

i've never quite understood the need for signed certificates and trust. ok, i really do get it, the concept of it, but it seems like kinda a scam. anyone can produce an SSL certificate, can they not? and it be just as valid, but browsers will say "Get outta there, this place is full of hackers" cuz it's not a "trusted" certificate. the thing is, one has to pay for "trust", but it changes nothing in the actual implementation of SSL. maybe you could further elaborate on this if i'm wrong about this somehow since im sure you probably deal with such issues professionally.

and the whole situation is getting out of control, i don't think this is what IAB and the IETF probably envisioned at their conception. (not the certificate implementation, but the gross commercilization, and that sort of thing that should be hated)

 

You have it right.

this is all it takes to create a certificate.

Place a .htaccess file on your server and require SSL, point to the certificate, and the encryption will be as strong as any bank TLS connection you'll have. Actually that one I just typed in was a 4096 bit RSA key, so likely stronger cryptographically. But it will give you the warning that your browser doesn't know the site, get outta here. That's because the server and the person with the key can still decrypt the content.

The problem lies within DNS really. If you memorized the IP address of your bank, and went to there site, that warning wouldn't matter, because you would know your destination did have the end to end encryption that SSL/TLS provides. But nobody does that. They go to bankofamerica.com. I can make a website called bankofamerica.com that shows dancing puppies. Or something malicious. If I can trick you to visit that site by altering your DNS requests, or by search engine tricks or whatever, then you will sign on to my puppy site with your bank credentials.

The model which has been devised to prevent that happening is called web of trust. Essentially there are root Certificate Authorities which are trusted Verasign and such, highly regulated. They issue certificates to domain registers like GoDaddy which can issue certificates which are only valid for sites they register. Then when you register your domain, you supply them with your cert. That cert will be trusted by your browser, but only for the specific domain.

So if I tried to put an eBay certificate on a Shopify store, your browser would still reject it. It's not a perfect model, but without this registering, anyone's grandmother could claim to be Gmail. An interesting thing to note is that every nation state is a root CA. That means if Guatemala or Russia says that it's Gmail, it's Gmail as far as your browser is concerned.

There's a decent solution to this problem, DNSSEC which has been around since IETF suggested it in 2008 which is cryptography verifying of domains. But for a variety of reasons, it's not catching on. When I first hooked up my internet (I have charter) and misspelled a domain name hopforums.com or something, it would resolve to charters suggestion pages and search engine. Charter's no longer my DNS server, but you can see why they'd do something like that.

Essentially because they're a horrible organization and it increases their revenue.

From a security perspective, an ideal solution would be to create your own DNS server. Pretty easy to do, especially if you're just populating it with sites you trust and visit often. Then use a public DNS server as a secondary DNS server for general browsing. Since you could resolve the DNS within your internal network, it couldn't be poisoned without touching a DNS server you'd have internally.

 

Bigoted post of bigoted lies, I'm afraid.

 

You live a sheltered online life.

 

That was the testimony of the officer. Which was filled 10 days after the incident, after consulting with several attorneys, about why he fired the last fatal shot.

It conflicted with the testimony of the witnesses, all of which say that Brown was either surrendering or stumbling after multiple gunshot wounds. The only people who state 'facts' about this case are race baiters with their fox news CSI crack team, or the opposite end of the spectrum. From my perspective, not being on the scene, he was a criminal who robbed a store, got in an altercation with a cop, and the cop took pleasure in firing the last unnecessary fatal shots. But I wasn't there too.

A constructive solution is to force any officer who carries a firearm to wear a helmet camera, and to force police departments to keep accurate records of fatal shootings. These incidents will drop dramatically if those are implemented.

This thread is of Anonymous within the tech forums anyway. Opinions formed from the vitriolic race bating commentary which we accept as 'news' these days is slightly off topic.

 

That's what you've been told by your favorite media source. You have no idea what really happened that day...just like the rest of us because we weren't there. We know what we are told and we know what that cop said. That's the way the current system is designed to work and I would think most of us realize that by now. Maybe the guy was a "thug", maybe he wasn't. Maybe he stole things from the store, maybe he didn't. I haven't even seen proof that he was walking down the middle of the street. The police car should have a dash-cam. Can it even be proved that he was jaywalking? I haven't seen the proof with my own eyes. Maybe the camera was "malfunctioning" or maybe they just don't want to show anyone what it recorded. Again...I don't know anything more than anyone else but only a very select few actually know what happened that day and I'd bet the farm that the grand jury isn't in that group. To make assumptions like you have only shows that you don't know anything more than the next person. But I bet there are people who are counting on you having that blind opinion.

 

and after the cameras are worn on the chest. and it clearly shows the criminals being the aggressor.. after all that proof is said and done.. they will still riot in the streets because in their world, the sun is a giant polka-dotted elephant pissing lemon juice in the sky..

 

I think it sounds like a good idea to me, but something i notice is the ones who seem to most strongly support body cameras are the wrong people, and for the wrong reasons. Policies must be implemented carefully or risk crippling police effectiveness against crime.

 

Blood trails and common sense tells the true story.
Don't be so paranoid that you can't even reason properly.