last time I checked ns1.syrianelectronicarmy.com was hosted out of Russia and includes " qatar-leaks.com" which seems to have disappeared
This explains why Iran is threatening action if the US bombs Syria, for example.
The Putin regime has certainly shown itself capable of significant international "hijinx" (such as assassination, vote rigging, etc.) but overall this doesn't fit their MO.
(*: note that when I say "Iran" here I am talking about the current Iranian regime, very much not the Iranian people.)
Is this not obvious to everyone else as it is to me? People, think about what is happening here and the timing of it all.
This is a false flag operation to turn the public opinion against "hackers" so these crazy internet regulations bills can start passing and so that they can get away with spying scandal.
If these "hackers" taking down social media sites and NYT times were actually the Syrian government, they'd be going after US government targets in an effort to undermine the bombing that's about to begin.
Their regime is about to get bombed. Taking down twitter is low on their priority list. But it's quite good timing for a propaganda campaign against "hackers" and now allows the US government to label hackers as terrorists. Scary stuff.
Another possibility is that your opinion is wrong.
If these "hackers" taking down social media sites and NYT times were actually the Syrian government
The thing is, nobody thinks the SEA is part of the Syrian government, any more than the Irish Republican Army was part of the Irish government. It's just a name the group have adopted to show their affiliation and make themselves feel badass.
Another possibility is that your opinion is wrong.
Yes, because the bombing of the regime means that every single person supporting the Syrians is automatically going to focus all their efforts on one single task. It is not like there can be people with different perspectives on how to solve a "problem" with the same common goal. /s
If you think people can't make the difference between the SEA and people who browse reddit and privacy activists, then you're setting the bar pretty low for the intelligence of the population. Especially considering people are getting more and more informed
Your need for a conspiracy seems pretty great
You can't know for sure it is a false flag operation, but you can't easily rule it out either.
> "twimg.com is a domain used by Twitter which is an widget company that is part of a network of sites, cookies, and other technologies used to track you, what you do and what you click on, as you go from site to site, surfing the Web. Does that not mean that SEA will be intercepting this data?"
TechCrunch is reporting that registrar MelbourneIT has been hacked.. This wouldn't surprise me but I'm puzzled as to why either site would register with such a bad registrar.
They aren't URLs, they are domain names.
The ones that aren't the domain name you are looking for are glue records.
There's no way to globally search "show me every corp.*.com domain in existence."
I bet they'll put in for a transfer ASAFP now!
Melbourne IT acquired part of Verisign a few years ago, their Enterprise "Digital Brand Management Services". I assume these big companies are either existing customers, or just new customers using that particular part of the service.
I ask because I find it harder to believe that they are responsible for this. Just like I don't trust the YouTube videos either. I would find it more likely that three letter agencies are involved as PR.
To add to the matter, SEA is certainly aware of this:
"So, do we host http://twimg.com with Javascript code so all Twitter users will be redirect to our website? #SEA"
https://twitter.com/Official_SEA16/status/372496956020379648
$ whois twitter.com
Whois Server Version 2.0
Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information.
TWITTER.COM.GET.ONE.MILLION.DOLLARS.AT.WWW.UNIMUNDI.COM
TWITTER.COM
And then:
$ whois verisign.com
Whois Server Version 2.0
Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information.
VERISIGN.COM.MIGHT.SUCK.FYRAE.COM
VERISIGN.COM
I get really crazy responses like this for almost every major site I try (cnn.com, yahoo.com, google.com).
VERISIGN.COM.MIGHT.SUCK.FYRAE.COM is a subdomain of FYRAE.com
Also this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4415269/suspicious-result...
whois twitter.com => whois(".*twitter\.com.*") $ whois facebook.com
Whois Server Version 2.0
Server Name: FACEBOOK.COM.ZZZZZ.GET.LAID.AT.WWW.SWINGINGCOMMUNITY.COM
IP Address: 69.41.185.229
Registrar: TUCOWS DOMAINS INC.
Whois Server: whois.tucows.com
Referral URL: http://domainhelp.opensrs.netand some info from my old whois: $ whois twitter.com
Whois Server Version 2.0
Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information.
Server Name: TWITTER.COM.GET.ONE.MILLION.DOLLARS.AT.WWW.UNIMUNDI.COM
IP Address: 209.126.190.71
Registrar: PDR LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM
Whois Server: whois.PublicDomainRegistry.com
Referral URL: http://www.PublicDomainRegistry.com
Domain Name: TWITTER.COM
Registrar: MELBOURNE IT, LTD. D/B/A INTERNET NAMES WORLDWIDE
Whois Server: whois.melbourneit.com
Referral URL: http://www.melbourneit.com
Name Server: NS1.P34.DYNECT.NET
Name Server: NS2.P34.DYNECT.NET
Name Server: NS3.P34.DYNECT.NET
Name Server: NS4.P34.DYNECT.NETGet your shit together guys, this is serious business.
Edit: looks like there's an update now: http://status.twitter.com/post/59528478030/twitter-service-i...
Name Server.......... ns27.boxsecured.com
Name Server.......... ns28.boxsecured.com
Ya, not so much.
http://status.twitter.com/post/59528478030/twitter-service-i....
Kind of dodgy that there was no status update until 1.5 hours after the issue surfaced.
http://blog.opendns.com/2013/08/27/high-profile-domains-unde...
A good amount of what is contained in the logs is things like porn searches, more porn, porn. But amongst the typical naughty bits things like religious queries for Christians, Catholics, Jews, Muslims were being recorded.
Telecomix[3] helped to leak the log-set, and as it stands it is _the_ example of how state entities monitor peoples of 'interest.' Much of these people are long since dead, killed early on as they were the most public[4].
So while the SEA's most public facing events are hijacks, phising, and massive redirects. Please do focus on the end result of pervasive surveillance[5].
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecomix
Comedians, the media, etc. accused Bush of an adjust war for someone that used a chemical attack on his own people because there were no found WMD's even though there was evidence of a chemical attack.
Now we are going in again to try to save things. Will Obama come out as a hero? Probably. Should he? Well if he should, Bush needs to get some slack finally.
Don't get me wrong- I think we should do something. But when I hear we are going to do another 3 day bombing run, it's just like Iraq all over again, except this time it's who the Democrats want to bomb. Isn't there an answer that doesn't involve bombing? What are we, Germany in WWII?
Clearly you have never used their ticketing system.
Their exact response: "Our systems follow strict security measures and only enables us to send the password out to the main email contact in case of password recovery being requested. So rest assured your account password is safely stored with us. "
The currently debated reaction to Syria's chemical weapons attack is a limited response intended to punish the Assad regime, to attempt to reduce its ability to launch more such attacks in the future and to provide it with a disincentive to do so.
It would not be an attempt to topple the regime or to take over Syria for American interests.
Further, the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war as a pretext for invading Iraq in 2004 is, as we all know, extremely disingenuous, given that these attacks happened more than a decade prior – and with the support of the U.S. at the time:
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/8/26/new-document...
[EDIT: I'm not arguing in favor of the U.S. intervening in Syria, though, least of all without proper congressional authorization.]
We've attempted low touch "tomahawk diplomacy" before. We bombed Saddam's Iraq for their intransigence and aggression in the late '90s, we bombed Afghanistan and the Suddan in 1998 in retaliation for the bombings of our embassies, and so on. For the most part such things are utter wastes of effort.
Retaliatory strikes are almost always bullshit. "Proportionate response" is just a fancy word for retaliation or revenge. Low touch warfare is almost always a mistake (see also: drone campaigns). We need to have clear geopolitical objectives, we need to be even clearer how we plan to achieve those objectives, and we need to follow through with as much effort (in whatever form) is required to achieve those objectives. Anything else is like some sort of macabre lottery. Attempting to see if killing a few people will magically result in a desired outcome even though the chances are low.
Granted, one should be under no illusions, there are some very serious "bad guys" in the region, and in Syria specifically. Bad guys who few people on Earth should object to being killed. However, the situation is also much more complex than that and it's never the case that military action only kills or injures the exact people you want and no one else. There is a 3 (ish) side sectarian war in progress in Syria which has now spread to Lebanon. Taking out the al-Assad regime could perhaps be a good thing but it won't bring an end to the sectarian war. Whether or not chemical weapons are used as long as that war continues tens of thousands of people are going to be killed each year it goes on, if not more. I don't think the Obama administration has a very strong understanding of the complex dynamics on the ground in Syria nor do they have a firm plan on how to end the war there. Moreover, I think the lessons the administration has taken from what happened in Libya (even taking into account the later attack on the US embassy) are likely to lead them to believe that the situation is far less complex than it actually is.
And yet another possibility is that your opinion is wrong!
I like this "adding nothing to the discussion" game!
You raise and issue and they give you a ticket to track the issue.
They then send you an e-mail asking for more details.
You reply with the details and then they send you another e-mail saying the issue has been escalated.
A little while later you get another e-mail asking for the exact same details as the first e-mail, so you send them the same details.
You then get another e-mail saying this issue has been escalated.
Guess what happens next.
You guessed it, they send yet another e-mail asking for the exact same details you have now provided on two occasions.
They bounce you around in an infinite loop with a continual stream of spam e-mails until you finally get fed up and close the ticket.
Its like saying what ever the presidents frat was, is part of the government.
But my tin-foil hat hasn't been working very well lately so the government radio signals may be blocking me from seeing something.
Doesn't sound like restraint coming out of isreal..
The other way around. Israel wants more U.S. involvement. And did you notice that Israel recently bombed Lebanon in retaliation? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23806767
Things are enough of a powder-key economically this sort of thing to get out-of-hand in a big way.
China and America are co-dependent but at cyber-cold-war. Russia just recently gave the middle-finger to the U.S. with Snowden and we refused to meet with each other. The two primary powers that emerged after the last world war are no longer at the top so there is an open gap for who's next: the U.S. who no one wanted to mess with is overstretched, underfunded, and there is no better president to have at the helm if you want a war with the U.S. than one who has not achieved much militarily other than social reform and withdrawal, is on the edge of economic shambles due to decades of overspending much more than the stock market and media would lead you to believe, and whose party's voting constituents aren't in favor of a war, and Russia, who turned into a mafia-run state with former KGB at the helm that are unable to elicit much nationalism- much less a military power it used to be, doing the equivalent of selling its military assets on ebay for years.
Mass executions from chemical attack or otherwise are not the reason we are getting involved. This is a power struggle. Some big players (Clinton comes to mind) in U.S. Democratic party are set on cleaning up the Iran/Syria/Lebanon area, and Republicans are always up for a war. But, I'm afraid they will get more than they bargained for.
Yes. A declining media/entertainment company and an advertising firm?
>In the US, at least, you don't get a much higher profile non-government target than the NY Times.
Google, Academi/Blackwater, any number of our oil companies?
But on the other hand, we at least had proof of the false flag attack by Germany. In this case we have, to this point, faith and educated guesses, but it's faith nonetheless.
If it's not legit it would have to be because they let their own Twitter account get hacked at the same time Twitter was being hacked... which seems very noncompliant with Occam.
Having said that, what on earth is it about that account that makes you think it has any kind of authority?
To be frank, I just couldn't care less who it was. This action is utterly irrelevant to anything that is happening in the real world.