Al Jazeera web site gets hacked

PH01

So much for freedom of the press...

bug

your joking............f**king stupid f**ks. : :mad:






Does fox news have a website.;)

PH01

Originally posted by bug
your joking

Apparently not - see for yourself...
http://www.aljazeera.net/

eth0_

Originally posted by PH01
Apparently not - see for yourself...
http://www.aljazeera.net/

Their site is so crappy for a minute there I thought it was a "hack" in the style of skyfox/tomo.....e.g, register a site with a similar name to your target and brag how you hax0red someone's site

MAC_E

Heres a decent articale on the subject

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/29984.html

DiscoStu

another one www.iraqwar.ru that purports to having access to GRU intellignece reports has been suffering DDoS attacks for the past two days.

Ronan|Raven

www.aeronautics.ru is also very slow recently suggesting it to is suffering from ddos attacks or something similar.


God Bless the land of the "free"

DadaKopf

That's a shame, especially after Index on Censorship just awarding them with a big fat award for journalistic excellence.

Sand

Ah come on lads- Wheres your sense of humour? When Gandalf posted about french and Germans hacking US websites it was hilarious - the americans agreed obviously cos they seem to be returning the favour so everyone can be in on the joke.

Goodshape

I don’t know, there's just something about hacking a news site with 'land of the free' c7ap that doesn’t seem to make much sense.

Didn't hear about the germans and french.

Ro

Someone's changed their DNS now too. It was pointing at a server in France this morning.

C:\>ping www.aljazeera.net

Pinging www.aljazeera.net [127.0.0.1] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 127.0.0.1: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=128
Reply from 127.0.0.1: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=128
Reply from 127.0.0.1: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=128
Reply from 127.0.0.1: bytes=32 time<10ms TTL=128

Ping statistics for 127.0.0.1:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 0ms, Maximum = 0ms, Average = 0ms

bug

Ah come on lads- Wheres your sense of humour? When Gandalf posted about french and Germans hacking US websites it was hilarious - the americans agreed obviously cos they seem to be returning the favour so everyone can be in on the joke.

I imagine your talking about f**kgermany.com or f**kfrance.com, I think it was the German one that was hacked wasn't it?

The diference to me is that Aljezeer is a news source regardless of whether you agree/disagree with its content.
These site, that were hacked by the Germans are IMO, just set up to take the piss, they're not really IMO, supplying info to the general public, but rather set up IMO, by trailer trash to take the piss out of various european countries.

besides if I hacked cnn.com and stuck a picture of Saddam there do you think the Americans would find that funny?

gandalf

Sand bug has described the difference before i posted. I would also add that the muppet in the US was actually using his site for profit by selling shoddy goods on the back of them.

The people who carried out this attack obviously don't want another point of view available to the masses and while aljazeera have a "position" on the conflict it is freshing to see a alternative viewpoint to balance out all the pro-invasion press in the western media.

Gandalf.

Sand

besides if I hacked cnn.com and stuck a picture of Saddam there do you think the Americans would find that funny?

Yeah, I reckon a good proportion of them would actually - from what I hear CNN is known in some circles as the communist news network, and when they got an interview with Saddam whilst another american network ( Fox wasnt it? ) was getting thrown out there was more snide remarks about CNN and Saddam up a tree. So Saddam coming to you live courtesy of CNN would have some humour value.

The diference to me is that Aljezeer is a news source regardless of whether you agree/disagree with its content.

The people who carried out this attack obviously don't want another point of view available to the masses and while aljazeera have a "position" on the conflict it is freshing to see a alternative viewpoint to balance out all the pro-invasion press in the western media.

Hardly, if were talking freedom of speech here then theres no way you can say its funny to stop someone saying one thing, but on the other hand its a grave and unjust and totally unfunny to stop another person saying something else. The only thing that has changed is the victim - I can understand why people not found of the war would have different levels of respect for free speech depending on who is being shut up but it doesnt change the actual principle.

As for Al-Jazeera theyve been (unfairly in my opinion ) painted as rather anti - US, so it is fairly funny to go to their webby and see a full page patriotic salute to america. Its pretty much the last thing youd expect to see. Like I said, develop your sense of humour - its not like they sprayed death to all arabs or something on it.

DeVore

My Opinion:
Hacking any site is bad. Regardless of what the content therein is. Who gave us the right to decide... oh you can get hacked and its funny, but you are sacrosanct...

Webdefacing (lets not call it hacking because its not) is just stupid and is the equivalent of vigilante censorship even if the content seems TO YOU to be "unworthy" of protection.

DeV.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dahamsta

I don't think so. You should always work within the law. If the law isn't working, you should try and fix it.

(Yes, yes, I'm being hypocritical and idealist. But it's true. )

adam

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

monument

The police (or who ever) dont take down the sites, they take them over and try to track the people who visit the sites.

dahamsta

They have done that in the past monument, but that's hardly evidence that they do it all the time. The ones they've taken over have been owned or operated from the US, but I would imagine that the majority are owned and operated from Asian countries where the laws are too relaxed.

Dave, it would be great to see the sites taken down, the question is how and which ones. What about sites where the kids are of legal age in the country of operation? What about sites that have morphed images? And how do you block access to them from another country? Do you firewall at the borders? At the ISP? Who decides?

I'm not defending it, obviously, I'm just saying that it's really tricky. The U.S. has been trying to tackle it for years, much more proactively than here. The latest bill wants to outlaw suggestive domain names (like whitehouse.com) and morphed images. The ACLU and EFF will probably oppose it, for reasons they believe very strongly in. I'm not sure they're wrong on some points.

adam

monument

I should have said, they have in the past.

o sleep

i'm not much of a computer genius, so i don't know all that much about hacking, but in order to hack a site, do you have to actually enter the site? that is, in order to hack, say, the american government website, would you have to go to their page? if so, i'm thinking anyone who was hacking child porn (not that i'm suggesting either way what someone should do) should probably be careful. isn't that what that guy from the who claimed in his defence? or something like that ('research', wasn't it?)