MasterCard Hit by DDoS in WikiLeaks Revenge

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

buckinbottoms

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2009
28
0
18,580
0
Pfff, Gov should shut down 4chan next.

Worst statement ever by a group.. wooo we took down an insignificant website that had practically no functional impact on a company. woot...?

(snooze fest)
 

derek2006

Distinguished
May 19, 2006
40
0
18,580
0
I use to support wikileaks in the beginning, but now they are out of control. 95% of everything they release is a shot at the United States. They also use to be a whistle-blower site but now they are just releasing secrets that deal with national security. An example is they recently released documents that listed the most vulnerable places to attack the US, how is that whistle-blowing? They are just attacking the US now and are a threat to America that needs to be eliminated.
 

chickenhoagie

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2010
311
0
18,930
0
[citation][nom]derek2006[/nom]I use to support wikileaks in the beginning, but now they are out of control. 95% of everything they release is a shot at the United States. They also use to be a whistle-blower site but now they are just releasing secrets that deal with national security. An example is they recently released documents that listed the most vulnerable places to attack the US, how is that whistle-blowing? They are just attacking the US now and are a threat to America that needs to be eliminated.[/citation]
the hippies on these forums will never believe you derek
 

bison88

Distinguished
May 24, 2009
249
0
18,830
0
Not down, just slow? Umm isn't that what happens with a DDoS attack. That is a lame attempt to give media coverage that the "cyber terorists" haven't taken us down, but only 1 in 1,000 legitimate site requests might actually get through.

It's not just you! http://mastercard.com looks down from here.

You're down Mastercard, admit it FFS don't pretend like all of us on the Interwebz are stupid.
 
G

Guest

Guest
remember if you cause harm to the banks it's only hurting yourself as it's going to come from your wallet as a taxpayer for their losses on the other hand if they make a profit then they keep it...understand the game?
 

spectrewind

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2009
194
0
18,630
0
I wonder if any of these companies that suffer from DDOS have any kind of RoundRobin DNS implementation? Given what has happened, I'm betting the answer is "NO".

If you're going to go after "www.mastercard.com", why not have multiple/random IP addresses for several servers and just rotate host A resource records to make the attack spread across a collection of servers that all transact to mirrored database info behind a firewall. Hmm...
 

stingstang

Distinguished
May 11, 2009
294
0
18,940
5
[citation][nom]kinggraves[/nom]Sounds like a good plan to me, I've got nothing to hide.I'm sure the spread of STDs would lessen if everyone's medical records were easily accessible.BTW, the cause is irrelevant. VISA and MasterCard are based solely off the finances of others, and have no business in telling those customers where to spend their own money. The last time my bank tried to tell me where I could spend my money, I called them and told them either the transaction would go through or my next transaction would be closing the account.The US is really shooting themselves in the foot here. Instead of turning WikiLeaks into the villain, they're turning themselves into the villain. Can't you at least pretend to still be a free country?[/citation]

It's not actually your money when you use a credit card. It's a loan. If a company doesn't want it's money going somewhere, it had a right to tell you "no". How do you define the term 'credit'?
 

guanyu210379

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2007
649
0
19,260
81
Any Banks or money institution who are going against Wikileaks is actually against the basic pricipal of the democracy.
Any forms of blocking, or sensoring, etc. in order to control or to limit freedom of speech are against democracy.
Do not tell me that USA is moving away from democracy?

BTW: People also have the right to know all of those hidden stuffs.
 

wavebossa

Distinguished
Sep 25, 2008
46
0
18,580
0
These DDoS attacks were suuuch a bad idea. Prior to this, WikiLeaks could have garnered support playing the card of "Freedom of Speech" and "Journalism" to combat claims that they were a terrorist sympathetic website who's main purpose was to bring down the U.S.

Well, they could have made claim.. if they hadn't decided to engage in this petty cyberwar.

Now they no longer play the part of a victim in a big conspiracy + coverup. Now they just look like pretentious pricks who believe that not only is their cause of greater importance, but also that they are above reproach.

The once journalistic site has shed its facade, and is now showing its true colors

P.S. DDoS attacks on Sarah Palin? Roflwut? I cannot even begin to fathom what they hope to achieve by doing that. At least the other targets made a little bit of sense.
 

figgus

Distinguished
Jan 12, 2010
233
0
18,830
0
[citation][nom]stingstang[/nom]It's not actually your money when you use a credit card. It's a loan. If a company doesn't want it's money going somewhere, it had a right to tell you "no". How do you define the term 'credit'?[/citation]

Yeah, because MasterCard doesn't process DEBIT card payments... you know, money that is NOT a loan? Nor is the payment contract they enter into binding, right?

They agreeed to handle payment transactions for you when you use their card. This is a pretty clear violation of said agreement. After all, you can't opt to not pay them interest or penalties or fees....
 

Achilles295

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2010
5
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]wavebossa[/nom]These DDoS attacks were suuuch a bad idea. Prior to this, WikiLeaks could have garnered support playing the card of "Freedom of Speech" and "Journalism" to combat claims that they were a terrorist sympathetic website who's main purpose was to bring down the U.S.Well, they could have made claim.. if they hadn't decided to engage in this petty cyberwar.Now they no longer play the part of a victim in a big conspiracy + coverup. Now they just look like pretentious pricks who believe that not only is their cause of greater importance, but also that they are above reproach. The once journalistic site has shed its facade, and is now showing its true colorsP.S. DDoS attacks on Sarah Palin? Roflwut? I cannot even begin to fathom what they hope to achieve by doing that. At least the other targets made a little bit of sense.[/citation]

The attacks are NOT sanctioned by WikiLeaks. These are individuals like you and me, who have a right to know what goes on behind their goverment's closed doors. And this is bigger than the US. These documents contain information about nearly every country in the world.

And your statement would have made sense if there was actually any damage done to any of the websites attacked. This is the most peaceful demonstration you can have over the internet.

They shed their facade? Shown their true colors? Could you be any more of a sanctimonious g-lackey?
 

wavebossa

Distinguished
Sep 25, 2008
46
0
18,580
0
[citation][nom]Achilles295[/nom]The attacks are NOT sanctioned by WikiLeaks. These are individuals like you and me, who have a right to know what goes on behind their goverment's closed doors. And this is bigger than the US. These documents contain information about nearly every country in the world. And your statement would have made sense if there was actually any damage done to any of the websites attacked. This is the most peaceful demonstration you can have over the internet.They shed their facade? Shown their true colors? Could you be any more of a sanctimonious g-lackey?[/citation]

/sigh

It's wonderful to be blissfully idealistic. Its one of humanities greatest strengths. However, it is not always rational. People love to declare and assign themselves rights that do not exist. The right to know where are the most vulnerable places to attack in the US.. exactly what entity entitles you to know that again? And If you say the constitution I may just squirt coffee out of my nose.

Secondly I will agree you that the attacks were done by their supporters. But I will not take back what I said about them being a mistake.

That was simply my point, you are implying things that were never stated in my post. If you assume I back our government 100% in everything it does, then you are wrong. But if you assume privacy should be done away with 100%, you dead wrong.

Some people use the reasoning that, "We pay their salaries with our tax money, we deserve to know what is going on" I fully agree with this to an extent. We need to reach an agreement that their are some things that SHOULD be leaked and some things that SHOULD remain private, and we need to elect people who we have enough faith in to tell the difference.

Besides, you (i'm sure) work for some employer. There are somethings that you MUST divulge to them (i.e. credit, job history, drug test, criminal record, etc), but there are somethings that are not pertinent to your ability to function in your workspace, and thus your employer has no business knowing (i.e. when you had your first kiss, when you lost your virginity, a full list of your internet history, a video-log of how you spend your time outside of work, etc).

Do you understand what I am getting at? There are some things that should be brought to light, however there are some things like (what is the best and most effective way to launch a bio-attack on the US) that just do not fall under the banner of "exposing governments lies"

If you cannot discern the differences between the two, I shall leave you in your ideology, and just hope one day you are able to think more rationally.
 

Achilles295

Distinguished
Dec 5, 2010
5
0
18,510
0
[citation][nom]wavebossa[/nom]/sighIt's wonderful to be blissfully idealistic. Its one of humanities greatest strengths. However, it is not always rational. People love to declare and assign themselves rights that do not exist. The right to know where are the most vulnerable places to attack in the US.. exactly what entity entitles you to know that again? And If you say the constitution I may just squirt coffee out of my nose.Secondly I will agree you that the attacks were done by their supporters. But I will not take back what I said about them being a mistake. That was simply my point, you are implying things that were never stated in my post. If you assume I back our government 100% in everything it does, then you are wrong. But if you assume privacy should be done away with 100%, you dead wrong.Some people use the reasoning that, "We pay their salaries with our tax money, we deserve to know what is going on" I fully agree with this to an extent. We need to reach an agreement that their are some things that SHOULD be leaked and some things that SHOULD remain private, and we need to elect people who we have enough faith in to tell the difference.Besides, you (i'm sure) work for some employer. There are somethings that you MUST divulge to them (i.e. credit, job history, drug test, criminal record, etc), but there are somethings that are not pertinent to your ability to function in your workspace, and thus your employer has no business knowing (i.e. when you had your first kiss, when you lost your virginity, a full list of your internet history, a video-log of how you spend your time outside of work, etc).Do you understand what I am getting at? There are some things that should be brought to light, however there are some things like (what is the best and most effective way to launch a bio-attack on the US) that just do not fall under the banner of "exposing governments lies"If you cannot discern the differences between the two, I shall leave you in your ideology, and just hope one day you are able to think more rationally.[/citation]

I haven't seen the exact document that you keep referring to, but for example, I've seen one which states that the US government were funding Turkey's invasion of Greek air space. Should the public not be privy to that kind of information? And this is just an example of the MANY secrets contained that the US G. would rather keep secret.

And of course there were going to be document's endangering their national security but this is not just about the US, and that was MY point. Should they have gone through all 250.000 of them to see which were too sensitive? Yes. But what's done is done and I can't wait to see the backlash this will have.
 

gr33nf00t

Distinguished
Aug 16, 2009
11
0
18,560
0
What would be truly sad is if some people (government officials, CIA operatives, etc.) ended up losing their lives or those of family members because wikileaks gave those who wish to do them harm access to information that would enable them to do so.

But hey, we gotta fight the power, right?
 
G

Guest

Guest
What strikes me most is that both MasterCard and Visa accept donations to the KKK, while denying it to WikiLeaks.... The truth is now considered obscene, but hatred and discrimination is acceptable! Strange, strange logic...
 

K2N hater

Distinguished
Sep 15, 2009
203
0
18,830
0
[citation][nom]Someguynamedmatt[/nom]Please, excuse my language, but are you f***ing retarded?! You've got about the same chances of getting away with this as if you had just attacked the US Treasury building. Maybe they're taking measures to prevent it (for their sake, they'd better be), but do you really think you're so great that they can't track you down sooner or later? Why don't you just go stab a prison guard and save yourself the trouble?On a rather unrelated note, I'm waiting for the day to come when hackers finally break into a way to modify a system's BIOS. So many computers will be overvolted, and god knows what else, to death when that day arrives...[/citation]
That's not the only way to crash a PC for real. HDD, video card and motherboard firmware can be overwritten/erased through Windows with ease... We don't see it happen because the virus makers would rather turn PCs into spam mail bots.
 

cammmy

Distinguished
Dec 16, 2009
19
0
18,560
0
So it's not the credit card companies' jobs to tell us who we can donate money to and it is immoral of them to do so?

So if the Taliban setup an account for donations and Visa/Mastercard/Paypal refused to make payments to it. That would also be despicable?

They say they are fighting for freedom from oppression too...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY