ZeroPaid.com » media

Anonymous Dumps Nearly 5GB of Brazilian Government Data to ThePirateBay

Drew Wilson — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 22:32:19 +0000

The quantity is large, but that might be what you would expect for a data dump with such large claims. Anonymous has posted a 4.73GB archive to BitTorrent filesharing website ThePirateBay claiming to expose corruption between the FBI, Brazilian ISPs and the government of Brazil.

The release can be found on a Tor website. Some might note that this is a slight change in release tactics. In previous releases, announcements like this were made via site's like PasteBin. Not this one, it seems. The release notes state the following:

On the same day that dozens of Brazilian government officials were arrested on corruption charges, and the communications ministry proposing to ban independent internet access providers, we are releasing a cache of evidence revealing government coverup of a corruption investigation involving the CIA, the Brazilian telecom industry, and multiple US corporations. Protógenes Queiroz led Operation Satiagraha, an investigation of the Brazilian Federal Police. The investigation looked into money laundering, misuse of public funds, and corruption. The investigation took place for nearly four years from 2004 until 2008. Satiagraha resulted in the arrest of several investors, bankers and bank directors. The most noted figure in the investigation was Daniel Dantas, a Brazilian banker, financier, and founder of Opportunity Asset Management. The group lead an international private sector partnership that bought out a significant chunk of Brazilian telecoms. Quirozez was removed from the operation, as he did not tell his superiors of Secret Service involvement. He was also investigated for collaborating with the Brazilian Secret Service with the use of illegal wire taps. The full files were never released in the investigation, and many of the implications were thus never pursued due to the high corruption within the Brazilian Government. These files containing the evidence collected from Operation Satiagraha, an operation that went to the heart of exposing the level of corruption with corporations involved with the Brazilian Government centering around Daniel Dantas and Kroll, a multi-national corporation with ties to former CIA agents, evidence that has remained unreleased to date. Though in an interview Protegenese Quirozez tried to expose the possiblity of a government oppressor's involvement in attempt to take down the government, this is not the case, and just shows the government has fear in what these files truly can bring onto them. These files have been obtained by an anonymous team, and are now here for all the public to see. We do not stand for government or parties. We stand for freedom, of people and information. We are releasing them to spread information, to allow the people to be heard and to know the corruption in their government. We are releasing them to bring power to the voice of the people of Brazil. We are releasing them to end the corruption that exists, and truly make those who are being oppressed free.

The contents of the data dump can be found on BitTorrent filesharing website ThePirateBay. What will be interesting to see is what kinds of stories come out of the data that was exposed here. To help, Anonymous included some notes on some of the files that are significant in this release. They are:

How the Privatization Scheme Works
People Involved with the operation
List of Investors
Who has money on Oportunity - American banks
NAJI Speaks about 50 milion euros, his conections with the Saudi Arabian king, Page 5
Envolvment with the actual president Dilma R
Proof of BNDES Involvment (Brazilian Bank of Development)
Document to the Supreme Court of New York about Brasil Telecom
Report of Dantas successfully being contacted by a journalist, and expediting a news article in good favor of him to be written through bribery

While the release is now older, apparently, Anonymous isn't happy with the little amount of media coverage this has obtained. In a Tweet just two hours ago as of this writing, "Not much media coverage about Satiagraha/#CorruptBrazil by now. Tbh we are disappointed. What are you waiting for media? Grab your stories!" There really could be a number of reasons for this. One possibility is that there is a window between when a story breaks and when it hits the media. That window, in my experience, can be anywhere between a few minutes to a few days. Another possibility is some sort of geographical narcissism playing a roll for some media organizations - in that unless it's something directly related to the US, then it's less likely to be reported on. Since this is the hacking of the Brazilian government and not a US government institution, then there is a better chance that the story will receive more resistance in terms of coverage in the first place. Unless a "far away" country is flooded, on fire, rioting, experiencing economic collapse, having a horrible disease spreading, or another big crises happening, then it's not likely that it's worth reporting on (as far as some are concerned). Maybe this story is viewed, by some, as purely a domestic political dispute with few far-reaching implications. A third possibility can be what I like to call the "unknown variable" rule. I've written numerous stories that I think will be big news out there. All logic points to a certain story getting a lot of attention - then nothing (as if no one cared). Then, I write some other stories thinking that it wouldn't get much attention and then the ZeroPaid server is struggling to keep up with demand because the article is so popular. There is just no explanation for why something is popular and why something is not. There's seemingly that variable that decides whether something is popular or not and there seems to be no rhyme or reason for it. One last possibility, and probably the most asinine possibility I can think of, is that some media outlets are bored of hacking news (i.e., "Oh hooray. Anonymous exposed more government corruption. Whoopty doo. I'd rather watch paint dry right now.") Anonymous has been in the media for some time and, really, a story can have a limited period of time before there's a sense of desensitization to it and it no longer (for some) becomes news to them. Even if there is some big new thing that is going on, it's been in the media too long. The media might want quail instead of bread (for lack of a better analogy) this month - and the media is quite interested in economic news right now after all. All this is not saying that something can predictably be popular. I've seen stories that I knew showed promise of being popular only to be the hottest story of the day and other stories that I knew would be largely ignored and be correct. It's just that not every story can be nicely predictable like that. It would appear a lot of what makes a news story hot or now also applies to hacking now. Over the years, I've personally encountered a lot of weird quirks and wound up making rules that sometimes sounds outright stereotypical and cynical, but wind up being true in practice. All All I personally can say to Anonymous about their comment of being disappointed over something like this, "join the club." Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

LulzSec Sets Release Date While More Claim They Are Compromised

Drew Wilson — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 22:56:01 +0000

With so many questionable reports circulating in the media, if you have a healthy dose of scepticism, chances are, you'll have a good grasp of what is really going on. Another group has come forward to claim that they compromised LulzSec and plan to hand their details over to the FBI. Just hours after these claims surfaced, LulzSec set Friday as the date of their first document dump.

It might very well be considered the fog of war if you are looking at the public relations front between LulzSec and those hoping to stop them. Already, we debunked earlier press coverage that suggested that the leader of LulzSec had been arrested by the UK police. It turns out, the person in question merely operated an IRC channel and was not exactly involved in the hacking activities carried out by LulzSec. Afterwards, media reports incorrectly blamed LulzSec for hacking Distribute.IT when a different hacker by the name of EVIL clearly took credit for it. It's incidences in the media such as these that makes it much more difficult to search through and separate fact from fiction. The Credibility Problems With Those Opposed to LulzSec In addition to the multitude of reports with questionable accuracy is the growling list of people claiming to have compromised LulzSec. The earliest contender is WebNinja who posted content to PasteBin claiming that LulzSec is nothing more than a CIA operation. Call me overly sceptical, but isn't calling another hacker group you want to take down government spies the oldest trick in the book to discredit them? Nevertheless, they claim that Adrian Lamo is the leader and members of LulzSec comprise of people from the media ("possibly Guardian"), and a CIA operative. They also posted a Whois of LulzSec.com which isn't LulzSec's official website. Isn't it also entirely possible that Whois information can be faked as well? In a bizarre twist, after the accusations of LulzSec being CIA, WebNinja then says, "We all want to see LulzSec behind bars for their insane acts." It's quite a strange combination. WebNinja, at one point, claims to know that LulzSec has members of the CIA on board, then in the next minute, they claim that they want LulzSec behind bars. To me, this doesn't really add up, but there are plenty of people out there willing to take someone who has a grudge against LulzSec at their word. WebNinja isn't alone. Another group is also claiming that they compromised LulzSec. That report is coming from ABC which cites "TeaMpOisoN". The article links to a blog which quotes the notice as saying, "No matter how many bots you gather, no matter how much people you lie to, no matter how much pre-made tools you use, you will _NEVER_ represent the real hacking scene, we warned you, we told you we do not make empty threats, we gave u 48hrs to secure your ircs yet u failed to do so, instead u posted hashes from public forums and then claimed you doxed us and laughed at the fact that i was 17years old. stop telling yourself that u are hackers, putting a ip into a irc is NOT hacking nor is using pre-made tools and scripts to grab databases… you do not represent the anti-sec movement, u are not allowed to greet underground groups like zf0, ab, h0n0, el8 like your member “AnonSabu” was doing, you will never be apart of the underground scene, if anyone thinks you are underground and can actually hack they have no idea about what happens in the underground scene. oh and TeaMp0isoN Issue 2 is coming out VERY soon exposing lulzsec members (pictures, addresses, passwords, ips, phone numbers etc). . . . not so anonymous anymore are you? lets hope that you can swim because the lulzboat just got titanic’d…" That blog was kind enough to link to the original page in question. Unfortunately, the page is now nothing more than a 404 error page (presumably because the defaced page was taken down). The problem I have with this is not that I can't find the original source of the message in question, it's that LulzSec hasn't been taken down yet. If a hacker wants to take down another group, why boast about something that they are going to do? I think it's a pointless exercise because it amounts to little more than chest beating in the end. If hacker groups want my advise in dealing with LulzSec, it's this, "Shut up about talking about taking down LulzSec and take them down already." (Or to borrow from "The Good, The Bad and the Ugly", "If you're going to shoot, shoot! Don't talk!") Hackers aren't the only ones doing the chest thumping though. Just check out the following quote from (Ironically) The Guardian:

the members of LulzSec are either modern-day versions of Arsène Lupin, Maurice Leblanc's fearless gentleman thief for whom the risk of capture was part of the thrill, or they're absolute, grade A imbeciles (spoiler alert: it's the second one). We've all seen enough movies – which is to say, the first 10 minutes of Sneakers – to know what happens when you mess with the UK government. Any day now, in Wales or Warsaw or Wasilla, a spotty kid in a V for Vendetta T-shirt will be dragged from his parents' house at gunpoint and bundled – sobbing and pleading that it was all a joke – into the back of a van.

This might speak for itself, but just in case, I think this shows that some people such as the person quoted above aren't any more mature than the very people they purport to despise. It's even more depressing that this comes from such a high end online news site to begin with. Perhaps a lot of this shows that anyone who is opposed to LulzSec is only capable ot hurling insults at them. If that's really the case, it really shows the sorry state of affairs of those hoping to stop them. Some of these claims of who LulzSec works for are getting to the point that the circle of speculation is causing them to trip up in their own claims. The most credible thing we were able to locate was a rumour started by the New York Times which commented on a raid by the FBI on a server farm. After noting how several websites were forced offline as a result, the article features the following:

A government official who declined to be named said earlier in the day that the F.B.I. was actively investigating the Lulz Security group and any affiliated hackers. The official said the F.B.I. had teamed up with other agencies in this effort, including the Central Intelligence Agency and cybercrime bureaus in Europe. Mr. Ostroumow declined to name the client targeted by the F.B.I. and said that he did not know why it had drawn their interest. It was also unclear why the agents took more servers with them than they sought, he said.

One should note that these two paragraphs are, in fact, very carefully worded. It effectively states two things: 1. The FBI is investigating and trying to track down LulzSec and anyone affiliated with them. 2. The FBI raided the server farm, but couldn't say why. This doesn't necessarily mean that the FBI raided the server farm as part of an investigation into LulzSec and I think that anyone who points to that and says that the FBI raided LulzSec is merely delving into speculation. Depressingly, one website went so far as to proclaim that the "the noose is tightening on LulzSec". The report even vaguely refers to the other questionable reports we've mentioned already to confirm their suspicions. Overall, I think that what a lot of this is giving off an image that some media outlets will scour the internet for "LulzSec" and "compromised" and believe anything Google spits out at them. The only thing the opposition really has of any substance is an IRC operatives arrest and rumours that the FBI raided some of LulzSec's property. At the end of the day, everything else merely amounts to fluff, huff and puff. The only thing I see a lot of the name calling accomplishing is trying to diffuse the air of control expressed by LulzSec. They are trying to remove that sense that LulzSec is the only group in question that is in control of all of this. If it's psychological warfare that is the only weapon those opposed to LulzSec has, then they are in way more trouble then they let on. Additionally, if the FBI are relying on vigilante justice, this could show a certain level of helplessness they really have when it comes to internet activity such as this. Is LulzSec's Biggest Enemy Themselves? All of this doesn't mean that LulzSec is perfect in every way. Far from it actually. The one thing that is really going strong for them at this stage is their ability to deliver. They were able to post compromising information on sites like ThePirateBay which lends them a certain level of credibility. What is curiously different about their promises of hacking the government is that they are giving it a lot of build-up. They say they've hacked the government, but havn't actually produced anything as of yet. However, just four hours ago (after these claims of LulzSec being compromised), they Tweet, "We're hoping to have Operation Anti-Security Payload #1 ready by Friday." So, they set a date. Really, this is a crossroads moment for them because they set a specific day. If they deliver whatever it is they plan on delivering on that date, then that just adds to their credibility. If they don't deliver on that date of it what they have to offer isn't much, then I think their credibility will be thrown in to disarray. Not unsalvagable, but it will be damaged. The thing with LulzSec is that it's very plausible to see how they can be taken down. It's possible that they'll feel invulnerable and eventually let their guard down once which is all that authorities would need. There's too many cases where a high-end criminal ends up misstepping because of over confidence and ultimately tripping and banging their head. It would not be a huge surprise to see LulzSec ending the same way. Ironically, all these claims of LulzSec being compromised have alleviated this possibility for now. The only hope, at this stage, is if they become overly paranoid and self-destruct. This is plausible after the incident when LulzSec kicked out two of their members and exposed them to the FBI for being "snitches". The downfall to this strategy of hoping they get overly paranoid or overly confident is that it tends to take a long time to occur. What will ultimately be interesting is seeing what happens on Friday. Will they or will they not deliver on something big? That's a big question in my mind. Conclusion LulzSec rise to fame is quite interesting, but the real question will be how long it will last. If those who oppose them really want to stop them, they should stop inadvertently helping them by focusing on the ultimate goal of seeing them behind bars, not showboating about how they are going to compromise them. Launching verbal attacks instead of letting LulzSec get too comfortable will very likely only serve to hurt any efforts at stopping them. The one thing I will keep in mind is if LulzSec was busted as much as some would let on, they would be behind bars by now, not posting on Twitter. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Media Gives LulzSec Credit for Another Hack They Never Carried Out

Drew Wilson — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:54:47 +0000

If there is anything that is surprising about the LulzSec story, outside of their success, is the poor quality of journalism when it comes to covering the hacking. After improperly giving LulzSec credit for breaking in to and compromising UK census data, now they are giving LulzSec credit for bringing down Australian domain registrar Distribute.it.

Earlier today, we covered how several major news outlets incorrectly reported that the leader of LulzSec was arrested. Other media organizations not only incorrectly identified the person that was arrested in the UK, but also incorrectly attributed LulzSec for breaking in to the UK governments websites. Just hours after we finished debunking that news story, some media outlets are now reporting that LulzSec hacked domain registrar Distribute.it. Like the other story we debunked, this story is also false. The report comes from the International Business Times. It reports the following:

A report by the Register said that hacker group LulzSec took down the Distribute.IT. LulzSec over the past month has hacked Sony Corp., the U.S. Senate, an FBI affiliate, the Public Broadcasting System, gaming sites, and online porn sites.

The problem with that? LulzSec never hacked Distribute.it. If they didn't, who did? We were aware of the Distibute.it hack earlier and know that someone else actually hacked the site. We were able to dig up one of the earlier reports of the Distribute.it hack from the Sydney Morning Herald which tells us the following:

When the hacker initially broke in, it defaced Distribute.IT's website with the message "OWNED BY EVIL AT EFNET YOU MOTHER f****ers". Evil is the same hacker who recently broke into the University of Sydney's website. In that instance Evil admitted to hacking into the university from Brazil for money.

On top of that, a quick scan of the LulzSec Twitter Feed doesn't show any mention of Distribute.IT. So, with someone else claiming credit (namely, a hacker by the name of EVIL) and LulzSec seemingly not claiming credit for the hack, I think the report that they hacked Distribute.IT is also thoroughly debunked. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.

Pirate Bay Takes Part in “Blackout for Hungary”

Jared Moya — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 15:22:12 +0000

Online protest against Hungary's new media law that critics say could require journalists to reveal their sources and bloggers to register with the govt.

Swedish BitTorrent tracker site The Pirate Bay is one of many sites that are taking part in today's "Blackout for Hungary" protest against the country's controversial new media law that took effect at the start of the new year. The law creates a new regulatory panel called the National Media and Communications Authority (NMHH) with the power to monitor newspapers, television broadcasts, and other media for signs of "unbalanced" or "offensive" reporting with the threat of fines for those journalists or news outlets that don't comply. It can issue fines for coverage that infringes upon human dignity, offends common morals, or fails to cover events of public interest. Critics say it will increase government regulation of the Internet, requiring all bloggers to register with the govt. A number of sites have joined together for the "Blackout for Hungary" in protest. From the Blackout for Hungary site:

On the 21st of December the party holding the majority of the Hungarian parliament voted in favor of a new media law that is a collection of some of the most oppressive and undemocratic laws from all over Europe including some worrying additions. To show our concern for fundamental rights and free speech we black out our online presence on the 5th January 2011 for at least 24 hours.

Sites can show their "outrage and solidarity with the Hungarian media" by including an HTML snippets that will automatically add a similar black splashscreen. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) said the law will severely restrict print and online media, which runs counter to OSCE standards. "Regulating print media can curb media freedom and free public debate, which are indispensable elements of democracies," wrote OSCE media freedom representative Dunja Mijatovic in a report. "Regulating online media is not only technologically impossible but it exerts a chilling, self-censoring effect on free expression." The govt's state secretary, Zoltan Kovacs, says this isn't true, that the law won't cover private websites or blogs unless they provide "mass information." He also defended the law's application of regulations formerly limited to television and radio to online and printed media, saying that the "convergence of media content distribution and the convergence of media platforms [...] corroborate the necessity to legislate." "Content that is broadcast on television is immediately available on the channel's website," he writes an letter rebutting criticisms of the new law. Similarly, all printed outlets are available online. These fundamental rules should be enforced uniformly for all outlets, otherwise loopholes could easily emerge in the regulation." Perhaps the biggest fear of all is that it could force media to reveal their confidential sources. “Media can be forced to reveal their sources, the media authority can search editorial offices, can copy reporters’ notes and mandate that publishers hand over confidential business information and levy serious fines on those that refuse,” said the Budapest-based daily Nepszabadsag. Other member countries of the European Union have criticized the law as being "incompatible" with the idea of the freedom of the press. The German govt, in an unprecedented move, has even pushed to limit Hungary's role in negotiations with other countries during its EU presidency for being unfit to represent European values. Stay tuned. jared@zeropaid.com __

Songbird, the Firefox-like Media Player

Mon, 06 Nov 2006 23:37:23 +0000

Songbird is a desktop Web player, a digital jukebox and Web browser mash-up. Like Winamp, it supports extensions and skins feathers. Like Firefox, it is built from Mozilla, cross-platform and open source.

Firefox is known for its open-source software that allows programmers to toy with features and help with bug fixes. Now, there is a media player to rival Windows Media Player, Winamp and other like players.

Songbird is at version 0.2 so take that into consideration as you hear about the pros and cons. This software will continue to be improved and changed but right now, it features the ability to play MPEG Audio (mpga), MPEG Layer 3 (mp3), MP4 Audio (mp4a), Ogg Vorbis, Speex, AAC, WMA, FLAC; and lesser known, LPCM, ADPCM, and AMR.

The creators of the program don’t claim to have a “better” product or a bug-free version just yet, but it’s certainly got features you can utilize. While installing the software you are asked if you want to include extensions, for iTunes import, Shoutcast, audioscrobbler (last.fm), or Wikipedia. It offers to scan your system for media files and then continues with the basic installation of the software. You can also set the program up for iPod sync. which many will look for.

There are mini-modes, skins (they have renamed this to “feathers”) and most of the basic options you would expect from a media player. All in all it seems to be a great addition to the media player family. Keep in mind it is open-source and will bear many improvements over time…probably much faster than Microsoft-based software.