Anonymous Claims They Will Release "The Interview" Themselves 239
An anonymous reader writes In a series of tweets the hacker collective Anonymous says they will release "The Interview" to the masses if Sony won't. A few of the tweets read: "Seriously @Sony we warned you. We infiltrated your systems long before North Korea. We thought you'd take it as a warning and fix your s@#t." and "We're not with either side, we just want to watch the movie too and soon you too will be joining us. Sorry, @SonyPictures."
Marketing? (Score:4, Interesting)
Sony makes a, by all reports, terrible movie. Suddenly the hack gives it a tremendous amount of press coverage and controversy. When they finally relent and release it, will the overall ticket sales be up or down?
Nah, Sony is much too honest and honorable of a company to consider such a thing......
Re:Marketing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Morally speaking, of course Sony would do something underhanded in order to boost sales.
But this specific tactic doesn't make sense. Too much incriminating evidence about Sony's own underhanded practices has been released by the hackers. Too many of Sony's own people have been put at risk because of this. Sony might be evil, and they might be stupid, but they are not this spiteful.
Re: Marketing? (Score:3, Interesting)
sure, it boasts sales - but having worked for sony pictures, i can tell you, them not releasing the movie sounds more like they are glad not to have to deal with this (allegedly) turd anymore. it saves them millions of marketing costs if they don't.
i've heard that most sony employees only just now are getting their computer access back - most of them have been working with pen and paper for the last 2 1/2 weeks (except for a rudimentary email program that was shipped to them on new harddrives). so i guess t
Re: (Score:2)
Hard perimeter? Please. It's a question of when, not if, those get breached.
Defense in depth -- including detection, response and remediation -- is the only way to play.
Re: Marketing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hard perimeter? Please. It's a question of when, not if, those get breached.
Defense in depth -- including detection, response and remediation -- is the only way to play.
This. Perimeter defenses are necessary, of course, but they don't do a damn thing when some exec gets his machine owned by clicking that spear phishing link. So you'd better have something that alerts you when that happens.
Re: (Score:2)
More to the point, in a case like this you need multiple nested perimeters. The media *is* the value of the company, so that should be stored on read only media, in multiple copies at different (secure) locations. Possibly encrypted, but then you need a somewhat similar protection for the keys.
Access to the media doesn't need to be available to anyone whose job doesn't involve editing it. So that another perimeter separate from that of the main company. If some management honcho says that he needs acces
Re: (Score:2)
"Keep a tight perimeter"--Ron Bergundy
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. Internally the security could be a shitshow, but you lock down the security of any connection going outside the company.
Any connection? Really? Granted, not allowing outbound connections to the Internet is a pretty good way to tighten up security, but it also an unrealistic approach in many cases. To suggest that nobody on Sony's Internal network had any reason to connect to the Internet is absurd. Again, it seems clear that they were doing a poor job of securing things, but suggesting a "no Internet" policy is just too simplistic to be considered seriously here.
Re: (Score:2)
If this was a targeted attack, then forbidding outbound connections isn't sufficient. That keeps data from being transmitted out, but it doesn't keep malignent distorters from operating. Randomly changing a few bits every once in awhile could do quite a bit of damage, even invalidating backups, and be quite difficult to detect.
Re: (Score:2)
The hack was real. The threats against releasing the movie weren't.
Re: (Score:3)
...At least this way the focus on finding and killing the hackers as gone up.
This caught my eye. Really? We've decide to kill the hackers? Somehow I don't think the president would sanction killing people who have not physically hurt U.S. citizens as a "proportionate response".
I was writing that last sentence seriously, but then thought, "hey, this is the president who ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen who just made some YouTube rants - of course he'd consider killing them.
But actually, no. The president will not order, or sanction, the killing of the douchebags who hacked
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The president will not order, or sanction, the killing of the douchebags who hacked Sony.
When Sony hires some Pinkerton Men to take care of it quickly and quietly in Thailand, if the Thai authorities don't push the issue, would the US sanction Sony in any way? Would it matter whether the hackers were found in the US and took a trip to Thailand? Would it matter if the trip was in a trunk in the hold of a private plane?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Marketing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also the release of internal emails and salaries
Think Better.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We're talking about the company that put a rootkit on its music CDs.
Re: (Score:2)
but rootkit doesn't get you a meeting with Al Sharpton about racially insensitive remarks.
Re:Marketing? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're talking about the company that put a rootkit on its music CDs.
I can't believe I'm defending these guys, but...
The rootkit fiasco was Sony BMG Entertainment, not Sony Pictures. Yes, they are both parts of Sony corporation but they are separate business units with separate reporting structures inside a megagiant international conglomerate. Blaming SPE for Sony BMG actions is like blaming the Department of Agriculture for the NSA's warrantless wiretapping because they are both part of the US government.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, it isn't like business don't do separations like that just to sever themselves from the actions of their
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Yes, they are both parts of Sony corporation"
I have heard your argument about other companies -- specifically AT&T. I had AT&T for my cell phone and they did nothing but make me angry. The service was mediocre, not terrible, but their handling of contracts and service were downright offensive. When I had a chance, I dropped them in favor of prepaid.
Later a man came knocking at my door selling AT&T branded internet(+phone+whatever else). I told him no, shove it, get off my lawn, I will never be
Re:Marketing? (Score:5, Informative)
In this specific case, BMG was a separate music company that Sony purchased shortly before the scandal. There wasn't a guy working in a Sony office in Japan who approved the rootkit. It happened nine years ago, it didn't actually act as a backdoor to people getting hacked, and I think it's time for Slashdot to get over it.
Re: (Score:2)
> Sony makes a, by all reports, terrible movie.
What? By all reports it is a typical low-brow, stoner and fart jokes seth rogen movie. Nothing enlightening, but funny enough for a matinee or rental, especially if you are going to watch it will baked.
Seriously, what is it with all the haters going around proclaiming the movie to be universally shitty? Is it some kind of false balance thing going on? Or is it hipsterism?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to figure out where these people all saw it already given that the premier got canned.
There used to be an old saying, back when people had these things called "books" and the saying went "don't judge a book by its cover".
I think this was going to be very much like Pineapple Express. It's not going to win an oscar, but then few movies I enjoy with a lot of people while drinking booze and munching on chips do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The destruction to their internal network is very real and expensive. The private information leaked will have very real consequences and is already causing legal problems for them. While they can come out ahead on this if very lucky, they could also be be up way behind. If the movie is leaked and Sony never officially releases it then they come out 100% at a loss from all this. They're definitely losing hundreds of millions on the IT breach alone.
Re: (Score:2)
I plan on pirating the movie and having a drunken night of watching it with friends.
I'm a little drunk rihght now. Pardon the uh... typos? Fuck off, it's Solstice.
Re: Marketing? (Score:2)
Devaluation of the company means cheaper share price.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The bulk of executive compensation is typically in stock. And either because the stock vests over time or because they're using a blind trust to get around SEC rules, they're only able to sell a little bit at a time. Because they're constantly granting themselves stock (Carl just dropped a deuce. Good job Carl! Have some RSUs! So, how are negotiations progressing with that blood-sucking labor union?), they always have a ton of unsold, illiquid stock.
Also, once you get really rich banks will grant you loans
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"management runs to the US Government "
was that before or after they speculated on a certain Black President's preference for films with Black movie stars?
http://www.latimes.com/enterta... [latimes.com]
"Should I ask him if he liked DJANGO?" she wrote, referring to the film about a freed slave. Later in the exchange Pascal wondered if she should ask Obama if he liked two other African American-focused films, "The Butler" and "Think Like a Man."
I don't think anyone ever wants to be a position to have to talk to Al Sharpton
Re:Marketing?... NOT! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Should I ask him if he liked DJANGO?" she wrote
I can't quite see why this is being made out to be such a scandal. So she asked a colleague if a black guy might be interested in films starring black characters. Okay, it's a bit naive, but scandalous? Really?
It's not like she said anything insensitive to Obama; she merely asked a colleague for advice about how to act appropriately. I'd think that recognizing your ignorance in advance and correcting it would be preferable to ignoring it and then blurting out something stupid/embarrassing to the POTUS.
I'm probably missing some critical detail, but to me it seems like the only thing she's guilty of is not having enough experience interacting with black people in a social context. That's a weakness, to be sure, but if it's a sin then it's a sin that a lot of other people are also guilty of. I think this is a pretty good example of why people are so reluctant to enter any discussion about race -- anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
She also asked whether she should be prepared to ask the president if he would like to go check out some thick white broads after feasting on fried chicken and red pop (no ice).
I'm pretty sure that if you're at work and and pretty high up in a big corporation, you should have enough common sense and basic human dignity and respect not to be asking a colleague whether it's true that black people have a special bone in their ankle that prevents them from enjoying movies with white stars.
I mean, everyone knows
Re: (Score:2)
It's true, I LOVE Liam Neeson movies! I've no idea why... he's a pretty good actor who happens to get properly cast more often than not.
As for Django.... My wife and I put off watching it for a year, as a lot of people I know made it out to be super offensive/over-the-top. Turns out, I think it's one of Tarantino's best films.
But I digress.... Companies tend to be clueless, as a whole - as people tend to be clueless, as a whole. I mean, how hard is it to ask yourself the converse of a question? "Is it t
Re: (Score:2)
Some do have that special bone but I think it's in their head actually...
Re: (Score:2)
if you still have to ask what is proper etiquette in dealing with a highly educated and well-traveled black man
Rat, once again, you're a colossal moron. She wasn't asking "how to deal with" the president, she was making a shitty and tasteless joke.
you are either ...a Republican
Fun fact: There's no Republicans involved in this story. Like most Hollywood types, the Sony exec here GAVE A SHITLOAD OF MONEY TO OBAMA'S CAMPAIGN.
Believe it or not, you'll never go wrong by just treating American people as people, regardless of their skin color.
But if they vote for someone who Rat doesn't approve of, watch out.
Re: (Score:2)
You mad, bro?
Re: (Score:2)
All that tells us is their money is on the winner.
Fun fact: Just because I draft Tom Brady in my fantasy league doesn't mean I'm a Patriots fan.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the nuclear version of "some of my best friends are black".
"ALMOST ALL OF MY FRIENDS ARE BLACK #NotAllRepublicans"
and,
"I'M DOWN WITH KANYE AND LOVE THICK BROADS TOO! AND I'M WHITE!"
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's not like there are any votes or anything where 90% of black people completely reject Republicans.
Oh wait...
Re: (Score:2)
So oddly enough people in their business would have about a solid a grasp of the movie viewing demographics of any people alive. While it may have been meant as a racist re
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I make it as one or two skilled hackers, who used a couple of NK hacker tools as a deliberate red herring.
What about this breach required an army? They took their time as Sony's network people had their heads up their asses.
Then b jumped in for lols and to add chaos, well done as usual.
Has anybody else noted that the torrent of 'the Interview' that Sony is poisoning is 5 months old? Not sure what to make of that. Private torrent that went public? Hope no records of seeders were kept.
I wouldn't beli
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I've said in other threads, Sony won't benefit from the publicity if it doesn't release the movie. Now I suppose you'll claim that Sony owns Anonymous too, and is having them release a torrent version of the film that secretly includes a better version of the famed Sony rootkit.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony won't benefit from the publicity if it doesn't release the movie.
Why not? Doesn't the publicity distract from their inability to secure their network? Don't major motion pictures have insurance, so if they manage to "delete" this movie from reality, they'll get some payout, and wouldn't it be more than spending $55M promoting a movie that makes $35M in the box office?
And if they wanted to "release" the movie, throw up a torrent of it and wait 30 seconds. It'll be "released".
Or are you saying that the only possible motivation is profits for an unwatchable joke of a m
Re: (Score:2)
And an insurance company isn't going to do a better job of figuring out "burning it for the insurance" than a bunch of speculative Internet commenters?
put up or shut up (Score:2, Insightful)
just get on with it already. unless you don't have it.
I was wondering (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I mean, if North Korea can get into Sony's network, why can't Anonymous?
calling it (Score:2, Insightful)
There are only tenuous links to North Korea. (A hotel network in Thailand and a language localization, both of which could have easily been done by anybody). The "North Korea" ultimatum, which was also anonymous, was only made AFTER the media had speculated about it.
North Korea claimed that they weren't responsible, and more notably they didn't publicly post any long-winded justifications as to why the hack was a good thing (besides the omnipresent "evil west" speal) or leverage the data for their own ga
Re: (Score:2)
Until it's proven otherwise, I'm going to assume that these guys are the same ones that did the hack and that the North Korea link is bullshit.
So you're going with "no evidence" to support your conclusions over "some evidence". Yep, that's some sound reasoning there. Look, I have my doubts about the Norks' ability to pull this off on their own, but then again, that is a part of the world where governments (not beholden to Wall Street and priorities that rarely stretch beyond the current fiscal year) are willing to play long-ball. They may well have been auditioning players and laying plans for a long time, or they may have outsourced the work. In
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It could just have easily been an inside job, done with portable drives, backed by any faction.
Could you explain why this faction in Sony would be hacking South Korean banks?
FBI blames North Korea for Sony hack [cnet.com]
North Korea was identified as the culprit based on the type of attacking software used to penetrate Sony Pictures' computer networks. Those malicious programs, known as malware, are among those known to have been used by North Korea in the past, the FBI said.
The malware also included code that pointed to Internet addresses previously used by North Korea. The FBI also said the tools used to attack Sony were similar to those North Korea used against South Korean banks and media outlets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well then, until you take a plane to South Korea, examine the situation yourself (how will you convince the banks to let you look?), and spend probably a couple of years developing the expertise on how the North Koreans operate to say one way or another you don't have much useful to say on the matter I would guess. Can we rely upon your silence until you have that expertise and direct access to evidence?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Restroom.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Have a great night.
Re: (Score:2)
Many people here hold a variety of opinions against me since I don't share their views. I'll take clarity over agreement if agreement means being wrong.
If you don't want to believe the FBI, that's fine. But then you don't really have an informed basis for much else to say unless you examine the evidence yourself, you designate someone else as worthy of trust, or choose to engage in speculation (and are clear that is what it is). If you are going to trust another party in this surely that party of trust i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I see. So you will just assume the opposite when a US government law enforcement agencies makes a statements ... in all cases, without proof. (Because you really think you're going to get definitive proof of every statement they make?) I think you might have "jumped the shark" there. And frankly I find it amusing that you are effectively believing North Korea's denials.
As to that "WMD bullshit fiasco" .... (assuming you're talking about Iraq instead of Libya that surrendered its WMDs, or Syria which (su
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are U.S. troops set up in Afghanistan anywhere except there's a running oil pipeline?
There is no pipeline.
Pipe Dreams - The origin of the "bombing-Afghanistan-for-oil-pipelines" theory. [slate.com]
Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline Still a Dream* [commondreams.org] - Published on Monday, September 20, 2010
A working pipeline, if it ever gets built, will require a country more stable than Afghanistan is now or will be any time soon. It is too easy to sabotage otherwise, and that would result in billions of dollars down the drain. Nobody is going to risk it.
I'm sure that you are aware of the U.S. involvement where Iraq is concerned. We install a dictator until he gets so out of control, then go in and knock him down, while the war profiteers rejoice.
The US didn't install Saddam. He was a local bully-boy that worked his
Re: (Score:2)
Iraq was not engaged in an invasion of Kuwait or Iran prior to the 2003 invasion; we fought the first Iraq war to push him out of Kuwait, and he stayed out. The Iraq-Iran war was long, long over before the 2003 invasion. Likewise, Iraq last attacked Israel in 1991, not at any time remotely near the 2003 invasion.
I do not have time to write an essay to rebut each and every one of your highly misleading or outright false "points." Your post is bullshit and a good example of Brandolini's Law. Suffice it to
Re: (Score:2)
You're post is bullshit. Iraq's long history of aggression, violations of human rights, crimes against humanity, and many other crimes was a part of the discussion prior to the invasion. You're trying to rewrite history but it fails since not everyone has forgotten. The same regime was in power the entire time and it was only going to get worse when Saddam's sons took over.
Iraq actually did posses banned missiles and warheads at the time of the invasion. What it didn't have was the chemical agent filler
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since 2003? Maybe you should look into what countries won oil contracts from the Iraqi Ministry of Oil. That would mainly be European and Chinese companies. US companies didn't tend to be interested due to the turmoil. There was also a lot of work to do in bringing Iraq's oil fields back on-line and up to their potential due to the neglect of Saddam's era. Keeping things running was and is a challenge due to attacks by insurgents.
If you think something else was going on you probably have some unreliabl
Re: (Score:2)
Proving Again that Dictators Lack a Sense of Humor (Score:2, Insightful)
The only thing worse and with less sense of humor than the CIA is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You just gotta figure no matter who loses, Humanity wins.
Unfortunately, in this case, both sides win. Does that mean humanity loses? North Korea gets to flex its muscles and show that it has the ability to censor the US for awhile. Sony had a movie that was going to flop, but now they just need to hold on to it for a little while before releasing it and they'll rake in the millions.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The only thing worse and with less sense of humor than the CIA is ... the Korean dictatorship. Had they not wigged out over a freaking B-list movie than their Supreme A-Hole would have garnered some degree of sympathy form the American public but instead they decided to shoot themselves in their foot once again.
Don't fall victim to the false narrative of NK being run by nutjobs. No one runs a country, especially not for 50+ years without being extremely shrewed and cunning. They clearly don't give a fuck about regular citizens, but they sure know how to play other countries given the tiny amount of real power they have. Don't let them play you too.
I've been idling watching the DPRK's actions over the last 15 years, and this article is the first one about the Sony hack that matches up with what all the serious s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, nobody's perfect.
Re: (Score:2)
Prove it.
I'd like to see a movie/film titled "Sony v(ersu)s N(orth Korea". :P
press coverage aweful (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of the news reports over this are just awful. Here in Australia the nightly news talked about how Sony had delayed releasing their "blockbuster". Either they have redefined the meaning of the word to "pile of shit barely B rated movie" or the press is getting even worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Or people may actually enjoy watching stupid humor. God forbid a movie like Pineapple Express makes $100m at the boxoffice and comes in at number 2 behind The Dark Night.
Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that everyone else is wrong about it.
News Flash : All Corporate IT security is a joke. (Score:2)
It has been well known that all Corporate IT security is a complete joke. CIO refuses to spend the money on it, COO refuses to make users actually follow real security procedures, and the CFO loves the "it wont happen to us" line that means they will not have to actually spend money on real IT security.
This is not new, I'm just glad that it's happening in a very public way so that maybe the worthless executives out there will actually listen to their IT experts about the fact that we NEED to spend the mo
Re:News Flash : All Corporate IT security is a jok (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't just stupid C*Os, though they certainly exist. The problem is also our inability to communicate properly with them. Me personally, guilty as charged, btw. -- it took me many, many years to understand how the C-level thinks and how to talk to them to get what you want. And even then you often don't because of some under-the-radar corporate politics that's going on right then.
No, this hack will in no way change anything. None of the previous public hacks did.
One of the main problems is that C*Os are right that a lot of security money is totally wasted on bullshit, like security awareness trainings for an audience that doesn't give a fuck, shouldn't have to give a fuck, and will forget everything they accidentally heard over their playing Farmville or bullshit bingo while you were talking in front, wasting their precious office time. Or on technically cute systems that are as fascinating as they are useless. Or on trying to convince a C*O that he needs military-grade security without explaining him why he should consider himself a military man.
For about 10 years now the security industry has - at the speed of a turtle - realized that it doesn't take human factors into consideration nearly enough. We've all thrown the mantra of the stupid user around as if it would explain anything, and explained our consistent failure to complete our mission by pointing fingers at others, just like you do above.
Guess what? Everyone in a company has too few resources, executives meddling in their things and idiot managers fucking things up, but the others still manage to largely accomplish their goals.
Re: (Score:2)
Not all corporate IT security is a joke. Some of it you don't hear news stories about.
Well, OK, but some of it actually is pretty good.
Nice! (Score:2)
Downloading it on torrent is a good way not to support either Sony or North Korea. In fact, torrenting this movie gives a big "fuck you", not only to sony, but NK.
was not sony you fools. (Score:2)
Sony's Already Announced Release (Score:2)
http://nypost.com/2014/12/21/s... [nypost.com]
Comment removed (Score:3)
Proportionate response (Score:2)
Anonymous should just email this idea to the Obama admin.
The proportionate response to North Korea hacking Sony Pictures (Assuming it is an American based company) is not to put them on the terrorist sponser list as no-one has been terrorised. The proportionate response is to release the movie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous fizzled right after the kingpins were jailed, which btw, is not a good recommendation for their anonymity.
Now, Anonymous is a bunch of script kiddies who are reduced to throwing LOIC at weak sites for DDOS lasting a few hours at most.
Every time I lean on them, they send me death threats and stuff.
Fuck Anonymous.
Re:anon (Score:5, Informative)
"Anonymous" is a floating designation, not the same people all the time - so it's hard to define them.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Those people who are featured in TFA are them.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you have the official anonymous membership list, CaptainDork?
Re: (Score:2)
Because they made a statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Which anonymous "made a statement"?
The Brooklyn anons or the Westchester anons? Did it come straight from the president of Anonymous or maybe the board of directors? Or is it maybe THESE anons?: http://motherboard.vice.com/re... [vice.com]
Now you're learning of the inherent problem with anonymous, leaderless groups, cuck.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that all of you anons? Two?
Pitiful.
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous fizzled right after the kingpins were jailed
last I checked, they keep finding and arresting "kingpins" of Anonymous like its some sort of hierarchal organization, and not just a common banner for many diffrent losely knit groups with no real relation to eachother, except mabey a shared culture. After a suposed "kingpin" was arrested, they'd hack something else, fucking hillarious. We, in America, like to think all our foes in
Now, Anonymous is a bunch of script kiddies who are reduced to throwing LOIC at weak sites for DDOS lasting a few hours at most.
Thats all they ever were, ever. Except for a handful that figured how how to use sql-injection scripts. Anonymous where never s
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you leaning on them?
I'm a button-pusher.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why *nobody* ever does such a thing, right?
Re:and under the law any uploading the torrent fel (Score:5, Funny)
What's that? Sharing copyrighted movies (released or otherwise) is against the law?
Thank you, Joe_Dragon. We had absolutely no idea.
We'd better contact these Anonymous guys and let them know, right? I'm sure they would change their mind if they were made aware if this information.
Thank you for linking us to that new information from that forum post from 2003.
Re: (Score:2)
1) Yes, Anonymous is this stupid. It's an unorganized group of small groups of varying capabilities and talents. Some are only talented at mouthing off stupidly.
2) If Sony is pretending to be Anonymous, they are doing it anonymously, and therefore not doing it under false pretenses.