The Anti-sec Movement

[-Section-]

So, I'm sure a lot of you have been seeing these

Spoiler:

images all over the place. Image Shack isn't the only place to be hacked in order for this organization's message to be sent, either. I've been researching a bit and to this point, they seem to have limited themselves to private websites, blogs and home pages in their crusade against full disclosure. Until now, of course.

This article is two years old, from when the Anti-sec movement first showed up.

They seem to have a particular grudge against a site called Milw0rm.(Information on this site can be found here) Which, interestingly enough, closed two days ago.

Full disclosure definition here.

Thoughts, past experiences?

[Commissar MercZ]

I saw it pop up over on another forum I was on, and somewhere else I was hosting an image of mine got affected too.

I'm confused really what they're trying to do. From the article and their image's manifesto, they are opposed to "full-disclosure" in regards to security and protection.

They're getting that message out by doing this to imageshack accounts, but I wonder will this only make people more hostile to them? Maybe trying to show what full disclosure can do in the wrong hands? I don't know.

[Dr. Awesome]

I never go to imagashack myself

[ConstanceJill]

You don't need to go there to see pictures hosted on it, that people post on forums.

[aliannahfth]

Great Job!

[Zamamee]

Originally Posted by aliannahfth

Great Job!

Umm...what?

[SeinfeldRules]

I don't understand what they are trying to do.

[ConstanceJill]

What I wonder is what "sec" means... in french it means "dry", but I guess that's not it

[Serio]

Originally Posted by SeinfeldRules

I don't understand what they are trying to do.

As far as I understand they're trying to stop security providers(The big anti-virus and firewall providers) from sharing information about their customers.

ConstanceJill: Anti-dry movement? :lol:

[Nemmerle]

They're trying to stop security companies and their associated hacker friends from releasing details of holes in security systems, since those have a way of falling into the wrong hands and thus make the sale of security software more necessary. In a way they have a point, if you publish holes in security systems then anyone can use them; on the other hand if you don't the security companies have no motive to ever fix them - and sooner or later someone who isn't interested in telling everyone about the hole is going to find it and exploit it in a more destructive manner.

Or to put it another way they're a bunch of people with some middle of the road rhetoric and too much free time. Same old, same old; do them for terrorism and let's be done with it.