An online war started by two of the original hacker groups set the groundwork for the ideological battle now surrounding WikiLeaks.
The first Great Hacker War lasted from 1990 to 1992, when a fight broke out between two of the most prominent hacker groups, the Legion of Doom (LOD) and the Masters of Deception (MOD). It started with “flame” attacks—basically online name calling—and later led to LOD members turning several members of MOD over to the authorities.
Both groups shared a private, invite-only message board where members could discuss. Word was passed around the message boards that a prominent member of LOD, who went by the handle, Erik Bloodaxe, was alerting companies of vulnerabilities hackers were posting to the site.
An argument broke out between the two factions, and LOD declared “That’s it! It’s official now. LOD declares war on MOD!” according to a MOD textfile. Other groups later joined the fray, and in 1991, Erik Bloodaxe started internet security company ComSec.
The authorities later cracked down and MOD founder “Phiber Optik” was arrested. “It was the end of an era,” according to hacker message board Hellbound Hackers.
The online battle was a microcosm of the different directions hackers would go in. Some went into the Internet security business, some went into crime, some joined the government.
Now, 20 years later, the scene has matured. Information security is on the front lines, and the U.S. government is recognizing cyberspace as a battlefield comparable to any other.
Information releasing website WikiLeaks is spurring new debate in the hacker community, and a prominent hacker stands at each front. The conflict has escalated to include some of the top names in the hacker community either applauding, condemning, or joining the conflict.
The conflict began before WikiLeaks released any of its massive troves of reports on Iraq, Afghanistan, or the State Department.
Famed hacker Adrian Lamo, once referred to as “the Homeless Hacker,” was contacted by Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning.
“When he first messaged me, I really kind of wrote off what he was saying because he wasn’t entirely clear with what he wanted to say ... It was a while before I really started to take him seriously,” said Lamo.
Manning said he had information on a secret operation. When Lamo asked a friend in Army counter intelligence about it, he was told to never mention it’s name again. “I knew that the information that I was getting was serious, and that the rest of it, by virtue of that, was probably credible,” said Lamo.
Concerned over the potential damage the files Mannings had could cause, Lamo turned him in. He has since received regular death threats for his action, yet maintains his stance that it was the ethical thing to do.
“I knew what I was doing and the kind of fate that I was sending Bradley to,” he said. “I know the feeling of the next 10 years of my life not going to be the way they would have been otherwise.”
What Lamo didn’t count on, however, was that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange would go through with releasing secret reports allegedly provided by Manning.
Manning was originally arrested with charges regarding the release of a single video of a helicopter shooting a group of men in Iraq, later dubbed “Collateral Murder” by WikiLeaks.
Given Assange’s vow to protect its sources, Lamo believed that Assange would not release the State Department cable communications, as the trove of documents was allegedly tied directly to Manning.
“I thought, honestly, that he would never release the cables, especially not in this number, because that was the one thing in particular that was associated with Bradley Manning,” Lamo said.
Rather than hold the documents until after Manning’s case was closed, however, Assange released the reports, and Manning is now facing much harsher punishment.
Continued on the next page...
Not all hackers are bad. They are divided into three main categories—White Hats, Gray Hats, and Black Hats. White Hats work to secure networks; Gray Hats are ethical attackers who will often hack websites and then alert the company of the vulnerability; while Black Hats are the attackers and individuals who use their skills for crime.
Hackers are often misperceived as all falling under the Black Hat definition.
As the WikiLeaks debate plays out, each faction of hackers has reacted differently. The actions of WikiLeaks have raised debate among hackers over whether it is responsible to release secret documents to the public, and whether it is ever correct to turn in another hacker.
“Basically it boils down to whether WikiLeaks is right, wrong, or outright terrorists. I was approached by people of all different opinions at the Next HOPE conference,” Lamo said.
HOPE, an acronym for “Hackers of Planet Earth” held the Next Hope conference from July 16 to 18, and a panel was held around WikiLeaks, called “Informants: Villains or Heroes?”
Lamo was joined on the panel by WikiLeaks spokesman Jacob Appelbaum, who also plays a large role in the Tor encrypted Internet communication project.
“Our community has been thrust into the middle of this global controversy due to the multiple connections to the various players,” states a description of the discussion on the HOPE website. “There are a number of contentious questions and issues that we’re all dealing with right now.”
Matthew Jonkman, founder and CEO of Emerging Threats, and president of the Open Information Security Foundation, said his largest concern is how the actions of WikiLeaks could affect government communications.
“I’m more concerned that the U.S. government is going to lock itself back down again so that the FBI can’t see what the NSA is working on,” Jonkman said, adding “They are going to have to react, and the typical bureaucratic reaction is an overreaction, and let’s hope that doesn’t kill some of those inter-department channels.”
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was once part of the hacker scene in Australia. He went by the handle “Mendax,” and maintains a fan-base among hackers.
After Assange began releasing secret government documents through WikiLeaks, the U.S. government assigned one of its own hackers, Peiter Zatko, to prevent such leaks from ever taking place again. He is currently leading a program to secure government networks known as CINDER, and works for DARPA, the advanced research branch of the Department of Defense.
Zatko, who’s handle was “Mudge,” was one of the top hackers of Boston-based hacker think tank L0pht. The group claimed “in a matter of 30 minutes, they could make the entire Internet unusable for a couple of days,” during a congressional committee hearing in May 19, 1998.
After Assange was arrested in Sweden on charges of sexual molestation, and actions were taken against the finances and Web domain of WikiLeaks, other hacker factions began to step forward.
Members of the Anonymous Operations Internet group began a campaign known as Operation: Payback. The group launched distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks against websites, including PayPal and MasterCard. The form of attack overloads a website with queries and can shut it down.
The attacks were widely defined as being launched by hackers, yet were actually being launched by a simple piece of software known as the Low Orbit Ion Cannon (LOIC).
As the attacks played out, prominent ethical hacker organization 2600, which publishes the online hacker magazine 2600 Magazine, issued a statement condemning the actions of Anonymous Operations.
“These attacks, in addition to being a misguided effort that doesn’t accomplish very much at all, are incredibly simple to launch and require no technical or hacker skills,” states a Dec. 10 press release from 2600.
It states that the attacks “must not be allowed to be associated with the hacker community,” adding, “That has not been, and never should be, the hacker way of dealing with a problem.”
The first Great Hacker War lasted from 1990 to 1992, when a fight broke out between two of the most prominent hacker groups, the Legion of Doom (LOD) and the Masters of Deception (MOD). It started with “flame” attacks—basically online name calling—and later led to LOD members turning several members of MOD over to the authorities.
Both groups shared a private, invite-only message board where members could discuss. Word was passed around the message boards that a prominent member of LOD, who went by the handle, Erik Bloodaxe, was alerting companies of vulnerabilities hackers were posting to the site.
An argument broke out between the two factions, and LOD declared “That’s it! It’s official now. LOD declares war on MOD!” according to a MOD textfile. Other groups later joined the fray, and in 1991, Erik Bloodaxe started internet security company ComSec.
The authorities later cracked down and MOD founder “Phiber Optik” was arrested. “It was the end of an era,” according to hacker message board Hellbound Hackers.
The online battle was a microcosm of the different directions hackers would go in. Some went into the Internet security business, some went into crime, some joined the government.
Now, 20 years later, the scene has matured. Information security is on the front lines, and the U.S. government is recognizing cyberspace as a battlefield comparable to any other.
Information releasing website WikiLeaks is spurring new debate in the hacker community, and a prominent hacker stands at each front. The conflict has escalated to include some of the top names in the hacker community either applauding, condemning, or joining the conflict.
Information Ideology
The conflict began before WikiLeaks released any of its massive troves of reports on Iraq, Afghanistan, or the State Department.
Famed hacker Adrian Lamo, once referred to as “the Homeless Hacker,” was contacted by Army intelligence analyst Bradley Manning.
“When he first messaged me, I really kind of wrote off what he was saying because he wasn’t entirely clear with what he wanted to say ... It was a while before I really started to take him seriously,” said Lamo.
Manning said he had information on a secret operation. When Lamo asked a friend in Army counter intelligence about it, he was told to never mention it’s name again. “I knew that the information that I was getting was serious, and that the rest of it, by virtue of that, was probably credible,” said Lamo.
Concerned over the potential damage the files Mannings had could cause, Lamo turned him in. He has since received regular death threats for his action, yet maintains his stance that it was the ethical thing to do.
“I knew what I was doing and the kind of fate that I was sending Bradley to,” he said. “I know the feeling of the next 10 years of my life not going to be the way they would have been otherwise.”
What Lamo didn’t count on, however, was that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange would go through with releasing secret reports allegedly provided by Manning.
Manning was originally arrested with charges regarding the release of a single video of a helicopter shooting a group of men in Iraq, later dubbed “Collateral Murder” by WikiLeaks.
Given Assange’s vow to protect its sources, Lamo believed that Assange would not release the State Department cable communications, as the trove of documents was allegedly tied directly to Manning.
“I thought, honestly, that he would never release the cables, especially not in this number, because that was the one thing in particular that was associated with Bradley Manning,” Lamo said.
Rather than hold the documents until after Manning’s case was closed, however, Assange released the reports, and Manning is now facing much harsher punishment.
Continued on the next page...
WikiLeaks Debate
Not all hackers are bad. They are divided into three main categories—White Hats, Gray Hats, and Black Hats. White Hats work to secure networks; Gray Hats are ethical attackers who will often hack websites and then alert the company of the vulnerability; while Black Hats are the attackers and individuals who use their skills for crime.
Hackers are often misperceived as all falling under the Black Hat definition.
As the WikiLeaks debate plays out, each faction of hackers has reacted differently. The actions of WikiLeaks have raised debate among hackers over whether it is responsible to release secret documents to the public, and whether it is ever correct to turn in another hacker.
“Basically it boils down to whether WikiLeaks is right, wrong, or outright terrorists. I was approached by people of all different opinions at the Next HOPE conference,” Lamo said.
HOPE, an acronym for “Hackers of Planet Earth” held the Next Hope conference from July 16 to 18, and a panel was held around WikiLeaks, called “Informants: Villains or Heroes?”
Lamo was joined on the panel by WikiLeaks spokesman Jacob Appelbaum, who also plays a large role in the Tor encrypted Internet communication project.
“Our community has been thrust into the middle of this global controversy due to the multiple connections to the various players,” states a description of the discussion on the HOPE website. “There are a number of contentious questions and issues that we’re all dealing with right now.”
Matthew Jonkman, founder and CEO of Emerging Threats, and president of the Open Information Security Foundation, said his largest concern is how the actions of WikiLeaks could affect government communications.
“I’m more concerned that the U.S. government is going to lock itself back down again so that the FBI can’t see what the NSA is working on,” Jonkman said, adding “They are going to have to react, and the typical bureaucratic reaction is an overreaction, and let’s hope that doesn’t kill some of those inter-department channels.”
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange was once part of the hacker scene in Australia. He went by the handle “Mendax,” and maintains a fan-base among hackers.
After Assange began releasing secret government documents through WikiLeaks, the U.S. government assigned one of its own hackers, Peiter Zatko, to prevent such leaks from ever taking place again. He is currently leading a program to secure government networks known as CINDER, and works for DARPA, the advanced research branch of the Department of Defense.
Zatko, who’s handle was “Mudge,” was one of the top hackers of Boston-based hacker think tank L0pht. The group claimed “in a matter of 30 minutes, they could make the entire Internet unusable for a couple of days,” during a congressional committee hearing in May 19, 1998.
After Assange was arrested in Sweden on charges of sexual molestation, and actions were taken against the finances and Web domain of WikiLeaks, other hacker factions began to step forward.
Members of the Anonymous Operations Internet group began a campaign known as Operation: Payback. The group launched distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks against websites, including PayPal and MasterCard. The form of attack overloads a website with queries and can shut it down.
The attacks were widely defined as being launched by hackers, yet were actually being launched by a simple piece of software known as the Low Orbit Ion Cannon (LOIC).
As the attacks played out, prominent ethical hacker organization 2600, which publishes the online hacker magazine 2600 Magazine, issued a statement condemning the actions of Anonymous Operations.
“These attacks, in addition to being a misguided effort that doesn’t accomplish very much at all, are incredibly simple to launch and require no technical or hacker skills,” states a Dec. 10 press release from 2600.
It states that the attacks “must not be allowed to be associated with the hacker community,” adding, “That has not been, and never should be, the hacker way of dealing with a problem.”
![[LIVE Q&A 05/08 at 10:30AM ET] Federal Push for Voter Registrations Receives New Scrutiny Ahead of 2024 Election](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fimg.theepochtimes.com%2Fassets%2Fuploads%2F2024%2F05%2F07%2Fid5645817-CR-TN_REC_050824-1080x720.jpg&w=1200&q=75)
