Solve : Anonymous hacker group: Two jailed for cyber attacks?

1.	Solve : Anonymous hacker group: Two jailed for cyber attacks?
Answer» Two men who carried out cyber attacks for the Anonymous hacking group have been jailed. Christopher Weatherhead, 22, of Northampton, and Ashley Rhodes, 28, of Camberwell, London, were jailed for 18 months and seven months respectively. The two men carried out distributed denial of service, or DDoS, attacks which paralyse computer systems by flooding them with online requests. The ones they attacked included payment site PayPal, costing it £3.5m. Co-defendant Peter Gibson, of Hartlepool, was given a six-month sentence, suspended for two years. Another defendant, Jake Birchall, 18, from Chester, will be sentenced on 1 February. 'You're being stung' The sentences were handed down at Southwark Crown Court and are thought to be the first convictions for DDoS in the UK. Full story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21187632Thanks. But what is 3.5 m GBP in $$ Did they really do that much damage? Is that not like robbing a bank?Kind of curious as to if 3.5 Million pounds is exagerated, if they TOOK a 3.5 Million Pound loss then they must be claiming that around 35 to 40 Million Pounds worth of TRANSACTIONS were interrupted that would not complete the transaction of after the DDoS ended. Thinking the 3.5 Million is not an actual loss but an estimated or guesstimated one thats exagerated. Its probably more like 3.5 Million Pounds of transactions were unable to be processed for a short period of time during the DDoS, of which most processed later in the day when the DDoS attack was lifted and paypal is looking at a loss of around 350,000 pounds vs 3,500,000 pounds. Quote from: DaveLembke on January 26, 2013, 06:30:01 PM Kind of curious as to if 3.5 Million pounds is exaggerated, if they took a 3.5 Million Pound loss then they must be claiming that around 35 to 40 Million Pounds worth of transactions were interrupted that would not complete the transaction of after the DDoS ended. Thinking the 3.5 Million is not an actual loss but an estimated or guesstimated one thats exaggerated. Its probably more like 3.5 Million Pounds of transactions were unable to be processed for a short period of time during the DDoS, of which most processed later in the day when the DDoS attack was lifted and paypal is looking at a loss of around 350,000 pounds vs 3,500,000 pounds. Yes of course a lot of the transactions would complete later, and perhaps they had to hire temporary staff to clear the backlog and unravel the MESS. As a Sophos blogger said, you need to take this sort of damage figure with a pinch of salt. It seems to include the cost of precautions taken after the attack by PayPal that were an investment to protect the company into the future, if so it is stretching things a bit to include this in the cost of recovering from an attack. If you had a fire you might spend money afterwards analysing where process changes were needed, paying fire consultants and buying the improved alarms, sprinklers, extinguishers, and emergency training you should have had in the first place, but is that money part of the "damage"? But there is no doubt that the hacktivist quartet did, and intended to do, as much damage as they could. They're said to have bragged on IRC, saying: We have probably done some million pound of dmg to mc (The word dmg, of course, means damage, while mc is shorthand for Mastercard.) I should note that if they had actually stolen, or obtained by fraud, that sort of amount, or caused that sort of physical damage to equipment, the sentences would have been much bigger, so maybe the judge used that pinch of salt when determining the sentence. They have clear guidelines on sentence levels and actual monetary loss has to be proved. A few things spring out at me from the BBC report: The Ministry of Sound (a night club/concert/record company) estimated the cost of the attack on its sites as £9,000. The judge noted that they had debated attacking a musician's web site but decided against it. He told the court: "They got themselves into a bit of an ideological twizzle. On one hand, they wanted to attack her because she had taken a stand against breach of copyright. But on the other hand, they didn't like the idea of attacking artists." Crown Court (senior) judges pick their words carefully. Everything they say and do is potentially subject to review by the appeal courts and even more senior judiciary. They do not use gently mocking language like that about sex offenders, murderers and bank robbers. Clearly these OFFENCES (UK spelling) fall into the less serious end of the spectrum. However any criminal conviction will blight their careers. No job requiring a good character, e.g. in government service or in the FINANCE or banking industries is going to be open to them, potentially for a decade or more. Quote from: Geek-9pm on January 26, 2013, 12:33:52 PM But what is 3.5 m GBP in $$ $$$$$ 5.53 million USD (real money) at today's rate Quote from: Salmon Trout on January 27, 2013, 02:52:21 AM The judge noted that they had debated attacking a musician's web site but decided against it. I forgot to say this was Lily Allen. I can quite see why they didn't want to attack her. (These are young guys remember) Quote from: Salmon Trout on January 27, 2013, 04:13:40 AM I forgot to say this was Lily Allen. I can quite see why they didn't want to attack her. (These are young guys remember) LOL. I'm glad to see these arrests. These Anonymous members think they can do anything and get away with it. Their arrests showed them otherwise. Quote from: soybean on January 27, 2013, 10:05:49 AM LOL. I'm glad to see these arrests. These Anonymous members think they can do anything and get away with it. Their arrests showed them otherwise. The mindset of the entire Anonymoose group.

Answer»

Two men who carried out cyber attacks for the Anonymous hacking group have been jailed.

Christopher Weatherhead, 22, of Northampton, and Ashley Rhodes, 28, of Camberwell, London, were jailed for 18 months and seven months respectively.

The two men carried out distributed denial of service, or DDoS, attacks which paralyse computer systems by flooding them with online requests.

The ones they attacked included payment site PayPal, costing it £3.5m.

Co-defendant Peter Gibson, of Hartlepool, was given a six-month sentence, suspended for two years.

Another defendant, Jake Birchall, 18, from Chester, will be sentenced on 1 February.
'You're being stung'

The sentences were handed down at Southwark Crown Court and are thought to be the first convictions for DDoS in the UK.

Full story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21187632Thanks.
But what is 3.5 m GBP in $$ Did they really do that much damage? Is that not like robbing a bank?Kind of curious as to if 3.5 Million pounds is exagerated, if they TOOK a 3.5 Million Pound loss then they must be claiming that around 35 to 40 Million Pounds worth of TRANSACTIONS were interrupted that would not complete the transaction of after the DDoS ended. Thinking the 3.5 Million is not an actual loss but an estimated or guesstimated one thats exagerated.

Its probably more like 3.5 Million Pounds of transactions were unable to be processed for a short period of time during the DDoS, of which most processed later in the day when the DDoS attack was lifted and paypal is looking at a loss of around 350,000 pounds vs 3,500,000 pounds. Quote from: DaveLembke on January 26, 2013, 06:30:01 PM

Kind of curious as to if 3.5 Million pounds is exaggerated, if they took a 3.5 Million Pound loss then they must be claiming that around 35 to 40 Million Pounds worth of transactions were interrupted that would not complete the transaction of after the DDoS ended. Thinking the 3.5 Million is not an actual loss but an estimated or guesstimated one thats exaggerated.

Its probably more like 3.5 Million Pounds of transactions were unable to be processed for a short period of time during the DDoS, of which most processed later in the day when the DDoS attack was lifted and paypal is looking at a loss of around 350,000 pounds vs 3,500,000 pounds.

Yes of course a lot of the transactions would complete later, and perhaps they had to hire temporary staff to clear the backlog and unravel the MESS. As a Sophos blogger said, you need to take this sort of damage figure with a pinch of salt. It seems to include the cost of precautions taken after the attack by PayPal that were an investment to protect the company into the future, if so it is stretching things a bit to include this in the cost of recovering from an attack. If you had a fire you might spend money afterwards analysing where process changes were needed, paying fire consultants and buying the improved alarms, sprinklers, extinguishers, and emergency training you should have had in the first place, but is that money part of the "damage"?

But there is no doubt that the hacktivist quartet did, and intended to do, as much damage as they could. They're said to have bragged on IRC, saying:

We have probably done some million pound of dmg to mc

(The word dmg, of course, means damage, while mc is shorthand for Mastercard.)

I should note that if they had actually stolen, or obtained by fraud, that sort of amount, or caused that sort of physical damage to equipment, the sentences would have been much bigger, so maybe the judge used that pinch of salt when determining the sentence. They have clear guidelines on sentence levels and actual monetary loss has to be proved.

A few things spring out at me from the BBC report:

The Ministry of Sound (a night club/concert/record company) estimated the cost of the attack on its sites as £9,000.

The judge noted that they had debated attacking a musician's web site but decided against it. He told the court: "They got themselves into a bit of an ideological twizzle. On one hand, they wanted to attack her because she had taken a stand against breach of copyright. But on the other hand, they didn't like the idea of attacking artists."

Crown Court (senior) judges pick their words carefully. Everything they say and do is potentially subject to review by the appeal courts and even more senior judiciary. They do not use gently mocking language like that about sex offenders, murderers and bank robbers. Clearly these OFFENCES (UK spelling) fall into the less serious end of the spectrum. However any criminal conviction will blight their careers. No job requiring a good character, e.g. in government service or in the FINANCE or banking industries is going to be open to them, potentially for a decade or more.

Quote from: Geek-9pm on January 26, 2013, 12:33:52 PM

But what is 3.5 m GBP in $$

$$$$$ 5.53 million USD (real money) at today's rate

Quote from: Salmon Trout on January 27, 2013, 02:52:21 AM

The judge noted that they had debated attacking a musician's web site but decided against it.

I forgot to say this was Lily Allen. I can quite see why they didn't want to attack her. (These are young guys remember)

Quote from: Salmon Trout on January 27, 2013, 04:13:40 AM

I forgot to say this was Lily Allen. I can quite see why they didn't want to attack her. (These are young guys remember)

LOL.

I'm glad to see these arrests. These Anonymous members think they can do anything and get away with it. Their arrests showed them otherwise. Quote from: soybean on January 27, 2013, 10:05:49 AM

LOL.

I'm glad to see these arrests. These Anonymous members think they can do anything and get away with it. Their arrests showed them otherwise.

The mindset of the entire Anonymoose group.

Solve : Anonymous hacker group: Two jailed for cyber attacks?

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Reply to Comment