comment below > > I've noticed a marked increase of defaced Chinese sites in the last few > > days, this latest China vs USA cybergraffiti is becoming reminiscent of > > the tit for tat defacements between the Palestinian and Israeli sites a > > few months ago. > > It's a hit and miss affair, largely comprised of various individuals with > their own *non-politically-motivated* agenda. agreed wholeheartedly > > > These trends are often perceived as being a barometer for public > > feeling, though the defacers are usually a small handful of groups > > devoting a lot of time to their "cause". The article makes a valid > > point, the guy was defacing Chinese sites long before he found his "just > > cause". The defacers often change their tune from "we deface coz it's > > fun" to "we deface to improve security" the transition usually takes a > > few months. > > Bull. These don't indicate any trend of any sort, unless you want to buy > into the idiocy that holds that every .com defacement is "proof" that all > "hackers" are anti-commerce. NO they don't indicate a trend, BUT they are perceived by the media as being so, read what was said instead of immediately taking a confrontational stance > > Having said all that, gone are the days when a nations borders prevented > > the general populus from having direct contact with a potential > > adversary. There are groups who seem to project a genuine political > > agenda, G-Force Pakistan and Herbless to name but two. I was recently > > introduced to the term "asymmetric warfare" which seems to describe > > their actions quite well (Asymmetric warfare focuses whatever > > comparative advantages one side has against the other side's relative > > vulnerabilities or weaknesses) > > If defacements qualify as an instrument of war, then my butt is a musical > instrument and a fart is a whole note. Defacements aren't an intrument of war agreed, I think my following paragraph elaborated as such, BUT many are under the impression that if the website was defaced then the network was hacked. It is a way to get a statement across to a wide audience with minimal effort hence asymmetric warfare > > > For the most part these defacements are harmless, as most Internet facing > > websites reside outside the network perimeter, with the obvious exception of > > the companies that rely on these sites for their business, the greatest loss > > for these targets is kudos. > > Can you restate that? That run-on made no sense to me. The website isn't usually in the heart of the network, therefore if the website is compromised it doesn't immediately follow that the whole network is compromised, the media often sees a defacement as an entire network being hacked. Perhaps as you didn't understand what I'd said, you could have asked for clarification prior to blowing those notes out of your musical instrument > > > defacement sites > > http://defaced.alldas.de > > http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/ > > http://www.safemode.org/ > > Take a look at my e-mail address. I know about defacement sites. I'm not saying you don't, I recognised your "handle". However, I also sent the mail to ISN some of whom may not be so familiar and may want to follow what I've said Take Care and loosen up Andy > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Cancer Omega" <comegaat_private> > > To: <ISNat_private> > > .c > > ISN is hosted by SecurityFocus.com --- To unsubscribe email LISTSERVat_private with a message body of "SIGNOFF ISN".
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 16 2001 - 02:52:16 PDT