Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

June 26, 2011 -

Hacking group Lulsec announced that it has ended its 50 day cyber attack operation and will now disappear from existence.

"For the past 50 days, we've been disrupting and exposing corporations, governments, often the general population itself, and quite possibly everything in between, just because we could," the group wrote in a message uploaded to The Pirate Bay file sharing website on Saturday.

"It is time to say bon voyage," the message concluded. "We must now sail into the distance."

The Lulz farewell also claimed that the group was comprised of six members and that it was always the plan to run a 50 day hacking free-for-all and then stop. The Lulz claimed responsibility for attacking various web sites and services including Sony Pictures, Nintendo, The Escapist, Eve Online, Bethesda, Epic Games, League of Legends, the Central Intelligence Agency, the US Senate, and the Arizona Department of Public Safety.

While the group (believed to be a break-away group from Anonymous) claims that it was always their intention to stop after 50 days, some recent developments may have had more to do with their departure from the scene.

First, the most obvious reason might be that this group of hackers have caught the attention of the FBI and the CIA, who won't sit back and let their security be compromised without some sort of response. Secondly, there are other hackers who apparently don't like this group very much and have promised to reveal their real identities to the public. Rumor has it that that has already happened, but this has yet to be confirmed.

But the disappearing act might not be enough to save this group. PandaLabs technical director Luis Corrons thinks that these "young people" have the false impression that they won't ever be caught.

"In the Lulz group, they know what they are doing when it comes to breaking into places," PandaLabs technical director Luis Corrons told AFP. "It's their way to say the security here sucks and we are going to show you why. Based on the way they act, I would say they are young people."

"These guys are upsetting a lot of people," added Corrons. "They think they will never be caught, and that could be their biggest mistake."

Whatever the reasons for the group's sudden departure, companies that do business on the Internet must be breathing a collective sigh of relief.

Source: AFP

Posted in

Comments

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

There are rumors going around that the real reason they stop was because they rubbed some REAL  hackers the wrong way and all their personal information was released. It seems that LulzSec got a taste of their own medicine.

http://thedailyattack.com/2011/06/22/team-poison-pwnz-lulzsec/

 EDIT:

More info, looks like the rumors are becoming real. And for the looks of it these groups are also hunting down Anon. Damn these guys don't screw around.

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=234795

 http://lulzsecexposed.blogspot.com/

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

Those aren't rumors.  The FBI was handed a fat stack of information on almost all of them by a set of real hackers who called them out.

One of the funniest things i read was that they only targeted Arizona for the ease of the hit, rather than actual political reasons.

Here are we -- and yonder yawns the universe.

Here are we -- and yonder yawns the universe.

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

This group openly said they had no political reasons, they were doing it for kicks, which makes it worse in my book, especially when they expose said data to the other criminals.

And it was only a matter of time. Most people stop poking the nest when they're about to get stung, but these idiots started throwing firecrackers

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

A dutch (accused) member was apparently bragging about how there's no way the FBI can reach him. How easily they forget that a few guys got nailed for the Wikileaks-war.

Also, I really should write down that guy's name, just in case I run into a company that employs him, so I know not to deal with them.

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

Bragging doesn't equate with guilt or actual involvement, especially when the identities of the actual people are practically unknown. It usually has more to do with impressing people (they want to sleep with) than anything they've ever done. 

How many people lately have boasted of their involvement with Team 6, or that their uncle is in it, just because no one can really prove them a liar.

There's a very reasonable chance this Dutch guy was just running his mouth off and now that the authorities are paying attention he'll quickly change his story (which any smart and guilty person would do, of course). I wouldn't be surprised if further evidence shows he was just mouthing off like an idiot, and that he knows just enough about computers to turn one on and surf for porn.

Saying that Jack Thompson is impotent is an insult to impotent men everywhere. They've got a whole assortment of drugs that can cure their condition; Jack, however...

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

I noticed that Jester was involved in the hunt. I think he also took down WikiLeaks. And the more I read about it the more I like that fellow.

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

Everything that has been said about who these people are and what they know about security has all been without evidence. People have repeatedly been claiming that they are "just a bunch of kids" and that "they don't know shit about hacking". Yet, I haven't seen one bit of evidence that they are what people say. What I have seen are a lot of assumptions and hear-say. I seriously believe that people are just throwing these labels and assumptions on these people because they're too impotent to do anything more than that to make themselves feel better. If you people base your decisions on mere rumor and circumstantial evidence, I hope I never end up in a court with your kind serving jury duty.

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

^ Forgets the fact that one of the arrested hackers was a kid. Others who have been named in the media are also kids. They are just a bunch of kids, and yes they likely don't now much about hacking (it's not exactly hard to get hold of the software to let you do this).

Unfortunately for supporters like you their image has been blown apart. It turns out that they were just a bunch of nerdy kids afterall.

For LulzSec, goodbye and good riddance.

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

"Forgets the fact that one of the arrested hackers was a kid."

Evidence? I haven't see one shred of anything that definitively ties that kid to LulzSec. So far it's only been by the say-so of authorities that have a vested interest in not looking like impotent boobs. That and an angry mob of people that don't have the slightest understanding of the situation, but are thirsty for blood and vengeance.

I am not a supporter of LulzSec, but the fact that you immediately draw that conclusion is pretty telling of how ignorant and absolutist you are. I'm not defending LulzSec, I'm defending the ideal that we can't blame every Tom, Dick, and Harry that the government tells us are the bad guys without a single piece of hard evidence. You want to be pissed that some hackers made life unpleasant for you? Fine, you should be mad. But don't go taking things to "Salem witch trial" proportions while ignoring the need to satisfy the burden of evidence. I want the real people responisble to answer for what they did, not some scapegoat they can wave at us. Just accusing the first suspect they find of being LulzSec without anything but cricumstantial evidence isn't serving justice. What's worse, when they do this shit, they actually let the real criminals get away.

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

So basically what you're saying is that there is no evidence because you say there's no evidence.
Are you claiming to have all the details? You know things the authorities don't? Sorry, but I don't buy it. I'd rather go on the word of authorities than some person on the internet. Besides, circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Cases have been made on far less.

Secondly, it's not yours, mine, nor anyone else's job to play judge, jury, or executioner here. This isn't a courtroom, it's a public forum for people to voice their opinions. If people want to believe the kid is tied to Lulzsec, that's their right. I'll agree with you on the fact that there hasn't been any publicly-exposed evidence tying the kid to the group, but that doesn't mean there isn't any at all.

Me, for example, I think the kid was a member. But I don't think so because the government  or the police or anyone else says so, I think so because that's just what my insticts tell me. But on the other hand, I'm not going to try to convince anyone else, that's just what I think. I could very well be wrong.

The burden of evidence doesn't fall on anyone here; it's on whoever is trying to make a case against the accused.

Personally, I'm glad they're gone. Not because of anything they did to me, but because they were some major self-righteous douches. And from what I'm reading on other channels, they're getting a taste of their own medicine.

_____________________________________________________________________________

"Power means nothing without honor and pride."

http://grifsgamereviews.blogspot.com My video game review site.

Atlanta Video Games Examiner for examiner.com

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

If people take, as a matter of policy, the authorities' word that they've caught so-and-so of group X without question, how will we be able to judge when they are purposely deciving us to look good in a bad situation? Prejudgement is a dangerous thing when people's freedom is at stake. I'd rather be able to see the guilty party be taken to justice than just whoever the cops assume is the criminal based on loose associations and circumstantial evidence.

And every criminal trial in these United States requires that the prosecution submit evidence and testimony that proves "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the accused commited the act in question. We don't convict people on suspicions and circumstantial evidence, despite what you may think. If they do, then those people should be subject to severe scrutiny and investigation for potential corruption. It's far worse to convict an innocent person, than to let a guilty person go free.

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

"If people take, as a matter of policy, the authorities' word that they've caught so-and-so of group X without question, how will we be able to judge when they are purposely deciving us to look good in a bad situation?"

Firstly, again, that's our right as Americans to decide what we believe or not. I know that I certainly don't need anyone telling me what to believe. I had enough of that when I went to church as a kid. I agree with you that sometimes authorities bend the truth to varying degrees in attempt to make it look like they're doing a better job than they're doing. But I disagree that they do it all the time.

"And every criminal trial in these United States requires that the prosecution submit evidence and testimony that proves "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the accused commited the act in question."

Again, you are correct, and again, you completely missed and/or ignored my point. First, look around. This is NOT a courtroom; We are not holding anyone on trial. Second, you are right they have to present evidence and testimony that proves "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the accused is guilty, but that doesn't necessarily means that it has to be exclusively hard evidence, or that there has to be any hard evidence at all. As stated previously, circumstantial evidence is STILL evidence.

There have been successfully prosecuted murder cases that didn't even have a body. There's been some that didn't have a murder weapon, or even a motive. And to my knowledge, there haven't been any investigations of foul play or corruption. We can and we DO convict on circumstantial evidence, whether you like it or not. Just not on sheer allegations.

Think of it this way, and this is purely theoretical, not making any allegations: Let's say the kid is responsible for the Sony hack that made them bring the PSN down. He destroys any and all hard evidence tying him to the hack. According to your logic, that automatically makes him innocent, since there's no hard evidence, only circumstantial evidence, and according to what you say, circumstantial evidence should be completely inadmissible.

_____________________________________________________________________________

"Power means nothing without honor and pride."

http://grifsgamereviews.blogspot.com My video game review site.

Atlanta Video Games Examiner for examiner.com

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

On top of the fact that nothing that they did could be considered "mature". Their modus operandi seems to be breaking in, saying "Your security sucks, and this is why", taking what they wanted, and leaving. They could have been a whole lot more civil than that. Their approach was at best infantile, and at worst arrogant.

Definitely not something that a mature, grown-up human being would do. The fact that just about everything they did was for laughs ("teh lulz") doesn't help that perception, either.

_____________________________________________________________________________

"Power means nothing without honor and pride."

http://grifsgamereviews.blogspot.com My video game review site.

Atlanta Video Games Examiner for examiner.com

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

So explain to me how a mature, grown up, person would behave when breaking into someone's website. You can't, because breaking into someone's website uninvited is the very essence of lacking maturity and decency. The standards are not exactly high when you're commiting cyber crime. Or maybe you're just pissed because they had to rub our noses in it too? They're hackers, any expectation of decency is out the door. This is not a legitimate argument you're making.

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

one could have just stayed silent about it and just nabbed whatever they wanted, not really post about it elsewhere.  These hackers and GeoHotz got the ire of everyone because they pretty much waved their accomplishments in front of EVERYONE'S faces.

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

Well, when you're as irresponsible with security as Sony was, I think it's a public service when somone points out their severe insufficiencies in a way that garners the most attention and imeptus to resolve it. Otherwise, they would remain complacent while putting people at further risk without their knoweledge of the source of the leak.

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

Except no one pointed it out, their intent was clearly to just steal information from people who actually wanted to spend money with the service.

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

Nevertheless, you are now more informed about how much you can trust Sony right?

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

-Greevar

"Paste superficially profound, but utterly meaningless quotation here."

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

More informed?!?

More informed about the potential for Sony being hacked? Does that matter? Because they've already been hacked! We seem to be skirting around the issue that the crime has already been perpetrated. These hackers weren't informing us about the potential of hack attacks, they were actually committing the hack attacks, the same ones they were apparently trying to warn us about!

When airport security is tested, FAKE bombs are used, not real ones. Testing for the potential of hack attacks does not mean hacking and bringing down the service whilst at the same time copying all customer information.

Stop trying to make us believe that LulzSec were providing a service to the public, they weren't.

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

About as much as I can trust any other company that choses to do business over the net.

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

Good bye, good riddance, and DO drop the soap.

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

^This.

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

I knew it. I called it a while back, they that'd burn bright and hardly last.

They probably set out with the intention of being like Anonymous. They'd make some grand gesture of 'hacktivism' and wow the whole intertubes,w how ould rally behind them and support their cause. Show those big business fat cats whose boss! They thought. Start a revolution and 'expose' these companies for the world to see! They'd say!

Turns out, they were just a handful of jackasses who thought that taking down a server for a couple of hours amounts to some grand gesture of sticking it to the man. Personally, I can't wait until the rest of the internet strings these guys up by their toenails.

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

I hope they all get arrested and end up paying severe fines and jailtime for releasing all that personal information.

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

What personal information?

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

They released login information for things like emails and Xbox Live accounts.  It got to the point where Gizmodo ran an article with a search function to see if any of your account info got posted.

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.293755-Lulzsec-resleases-x...

"
Lulzsec did not hack Xbox Live or Microsoft. If you've been following their Twitter feed, they are supposedly off "for the weekend". Not to mention that the passwords and emails they've posted are from entirely random websites. Even Lulzsec has admitted that they don't know what sites they're from, or if they even work. In addition, Major Nelson himself has confirmed that there is no breach of Xbox Live. Finally, if Lulzsec did hack Microsoft/Xbox Live, you bet they'd be making Tweets about it. They're pretty public about what they do"

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

The only reason they're claiming they're walking away is because they've finally got the government's attention. Oh, that and one of 'em already got arrested, showing that they're not nearly as smart as they think the are.

When the going gets tough, the hackers try and run away.

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

 what is so stupid about that?

Only fools fight odds they can not win.

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

Did you just Obi-wan us?

Saying that Jack Thompson is impotent is an insult to impotent men everywhere. They've got a whole assortment of drugs that can cure their condition; Jack, however...

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

He who hacks and runs away lives to bitch and hack another day! Notice they didn't actually go after the government like they said they would (and encouraged everyone else to). Shows you where their walk stops and their talk starts.

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

Didn't they hack the CIA? That's kind of a major government target. 

The only ones bigger would be the NSA, Russian, Chinese, or major criminal organizations. And some of those aren't averse to going after people who annoy them in a very personal (painful and messy) way.

Saying that Jack Thompson is impotent is an insult to impotent men everywhere. They've got a whole assortment of drugs that can cure their condition; Jack, however...

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

Err, yes they did? Not going to go on a good/bad tangent or whatever, but they took on Arizona and a few police agencies.

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

I think the point here is that if they weren't stupid to begin with, there wouldn't be any odds to fight against, would there?

_____________________________________________________________________________

"Power means nothing without honor and pride."

http://grifsgamereviews.blogspot.com My video game review site.

Atlanta Video Games Examiner for examiner.com

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

These people are liars and thieves. They say they're done and you're going to believe them?

The biggest hit is yet to come...it's not over yet!

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

They forgot exposing people's personal information for thousands of scammers and identity thieves

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

Yeah, I heard they released info. Assholes.

Re: Lulsec: 'Internet Rampage Over'

They did, my mother's information was o na list they posted online.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Code Avarice's Paranautical Activity make its way back onto Steam?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
ZippyDSMleequiknkold:you too eh? 0-o10/22/2014 - 10:23am
Michael ChandraI don't like bullying anymore than you do, and yes, I think you're petty. Not commenting on the sob part, because I don't know your mother and don't see why I'd insult her.10/22/2014 - 10:02am
quiknkoldif that makes me petty, then I guess I'm one petty sob10/22/2014 - 8:48am
quiknkoldwell I'm sorry Conster, Having my skull smashed in when I was 14 made me skeptical to apologies when it comes to Bullying regardless of the platform its given. I guess Bullies beat the sympathy out of me.10/22/2014 - 8:47am
ConsterOn an unrelated note, I'm missing a "heck if I know" option on the poll.10/22/2014 - 8:33am
ConsterIf someone offends a bunch of people on twitter, they should apologize on twitter, and not accepting said apology because it's "only" on twitter is petty.10/22/2014 - 8:22am
BillThe first link is 4 days old, I didn't see it until today.10/22/2014 - 8:19am
BillJust posting them for the record since they have become part of the GG narrative.10/22/2014 - 8:17am
Billhttp://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/21/Incredibly-GamerGate-is-winning-but-you-won-t-read-that-anywhere-in-the-terrified-liberal-media10/22/2014 - 8:14am
BillOh yeah, http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2014/10/17/Supporting-GamerGate-Does-Not-Make-You-a-Bully10/22/2014 - 8:14am
BillThere are now two pro GG articles on Breitbart today, one by James Fudge's favorite "quotes out of context" writer Milo. Amazingly Milo claims GG is winning.10/22/2014 - 8:13am
quiknkoldhavent seen any apologies from the "Other Side" except from Boogie, and he made a video, and I saw him give his apology and I accepted it.10/22/2014 - 8:03am
Michael ChandraWhich usually is "the guy is an ass and I don't really believe it, but fine, benefit for the doubt THIS time and no second chances."10/22/2014 - 7:58am
Michael ChandraI'll accept his apology for something that, no matter whether a joke or serious is way out of line, just as much as I accept apologies from others.10/22/2014 - 7:57am
Michael ChandraRefusing to accept an apology that is done through the same medium and does not sound horribly half-assed is just plain childish.10/22/2014 - 7:56am
Michael ChandraPeople on 'both' sides of the debate have screwed up and apologized without such acts. Where's your criticism on the other side?10/22/2014 - 7:56am
E. Zachary KnightReason posted the second part of their GamerGate story: http://reason.com/archives/2014/10/22/gamergate-part-2-videogames-meet-feminis/10/22/2014 - 7:51am
quiknkoldagain, I dont accept any apology when I cant see their face when they give it to me. He needs to do a video, or do something positive like charity or whatever.10/22/2014 - 7:15am
Michael ChandraBut that's the case with every apology, isn't it?10/22/2014 - 5:57am
Michael ChandraDon't get me wrong. The guy from Gawker screwed up, and he acknowledged that and apologized. Whether people believe him is a second thing.10/22/2014 - 5:57am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician