<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_11_1430249</id>
	<title>ImageShack Hacked, Security Groups Threatened</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1247325780000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://jasonanton.com/" rel="nofollow">revjtanton</a> writes <i>"Last night a group calling themselves 'Anti-Sec' hacked ImageShack, one of the largest image hosting sites on the web, and replaced many of the site's hosted pictures with one of their own, which <a href="http://mashable.com/2009/07/10/imageshack-hacked/">detailed their manifesto</a>.  The group's grievance is against full-disclosure of exploits, an issue that was debated recently <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/story/09/07/10/145202/Researcher-Discovers-ATM-Hack-Gets-Silenced?from=rss">after a presentation on an ATM exploit was canceled</a>. Anti-Sec simply wants the practice within security circles to end, and they've promised to cause 'mayhem and destruction' if it doesn't. These people are taking direct aim against a sector of the IT industry that is already armed to fight the ... but they also already know that.  It should be interesting to see how this plays out."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>revjtanton writes " Last night a group calling themselves 'Anti-Sec ' hacked ImageShack , one of the largest image hosting sites on the web , and replaced many of the site 's hosted pictures with one of their own , which detailed their manifesto .
The group 's grievance is against full-disclosure of exploits , an issue that was debated recently after a presentation on an ATM exploit was canceled .
Anti-Sec simply wants the practice within security circles to end , and they 've promised to cause 'mayhem and destruction ' if it does n't .
These people are taking direct aim against a sector of the IT industry that is already armed to fight the ... but they also already know that .
It should be interesting to see how this plays out .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>revjtanton writes "Last night a group calling themselves 'Anti-Sec' hacked ImageShack, one of the largest image hosting sites on the web, and replaced many of the site's hosted pictures with one of their own, which detailed their manifesto.
The group's grievance is against full-disclosure of exploits, an issue that was debated recently after a presentation on an ATM exploit was canceled.
Anti-Sec simply wants the practice within security circles to end, and they've promised to cause 'mayhem and destruction' if it doesn't.
These people are taking direct aim against a sector of the IT industry that is already armed to fight the ... but they also already know that.
It should be interesting to see how this plays out.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660569</id>
	<title>Help for the unfamiliar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247331060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For those unfamiliar with the site and only loosely following security issues, is there any speculation on how the hack was done?  Was ImageShack stupid enough to be hosting a web site on Windows or was it a Linux hack?  Was the site designed (perhaps mis-designed) to allow remote users the ability to upload data?  Or was it something as simple as allowing ssh or ftp from anywhere?</p><p>If its a windows hack, the story lead-ins should perhaps reveal that so Linux users know whether or non they should just shake their heads or whether they should actually be concerned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For those unfamiliar with the site and only loosely following security issues , is there any speculation on how the hack was done ?
Was ImageShack stupid enough to be hosting a web site on Windows or was it a Linux hack ?
Was the site designed ( perhaps mis-designed ) to allow remote users the ability to upload data ?
Or was it something as simple as allowing ssh or ftp from anywhere ? If its a windows hack , the story lead-ins should perhaps reveal that so Linux users know whether or non they should just shake their heads or whether they should actually be concerned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For those unfamiliar with the site and only loosely following security issues, is there any speculation on how the hack was done?
Was ImageShack stupid enough to be hosting a web site on Windows or was it a Linux hack?
Was the site designed (perhaps mis-designed) to allow remote users the ability to upload data?
Or was it something as simple as allowing ssh or ftp from anywhere?If its a windows hack, the story lead-ins should perhaps reveal that so Linux users know whether or non they should just shake their heads or whether they should actually be concerned.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661245</id>
	<title>Err... wait...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247335320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bring it on.</p><p>Let them attack as many sites as they like. If there really are that many top-secret vulnerabilities that they know about, why not let them reveal their existence?</p><p>Sounds pretty silly to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bring it on.Let them attack as many sites as they like .
If there really are that many top-secret vulnerabilities that they know about , why not let them reveal their existence ? Sounds pretty silly to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bring it on.Let them attack as many sites as they like.
If there really are that many top-secret vulnerabilities that they know about, why not let them reveal their existence?Sounds pretty silly to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660801</id>
	<title>I'm hoping..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247332500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>that this is just some sort of reverse logic... because now, anyone wanting to hide details of sec exploits are thrown into the group of these "nasty hackers"..
<p>
I mean, it's mostly only big corps that are for "non-disclosure".. the rest of the free world wants to know!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that this is just some sort of reverse logic... because now , anyone wanting to hide details of sec exploits are thrown into the group of these " nasty hackers " . . I mean , it 's mostly only big corps that are for " non-disclosure " .. the rest of the free world wants to know !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that this is just some sort of reverse logic... because now, anyone wanting to hide details of sec exploits are thrown into the group of these "nasty hackers"..

I mean, it's mostly only big corps that are for "non-disclosure".. the rest of the free world wants to know!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660905</id>
	<title>Re:Leave door open or we will rob you ?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247333160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly. It sounds like straight out of the mouth of <a href="http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zensursula" title="wikipedia.org">Zensursula</a> [wikipedia.org], who enforced censorship and filtering of the net in Germany, to "fight against child porn", while is reality, it just results in a protective cover above the real child porn criminals.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly .
It sounds like straight out of the mouth of Zensursula [ wikipedia.org ] , who enforced censorship and filtering of the net in Germany , to " fight against child porn " , while is reality , it just results in a protective cover above the real child porn criminals .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly.
It sounds like straight out of the mouth of Zensursula [wikipedia.org], who enforced censorship and filtering of the net in Germany, to "fight against child porn", while is reality, it just results in a protective cover above the real child porn criminals.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662571</id>
	<title>so, does this mean...?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247345100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given slashdot's stance on full-disclosure and security, anybody think this site may be targeted? Just curious...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given slashdot 's stance on full-disclosure and security , anybody think this site may be targeted ?
Just curious.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given slashdot's stance on full-disclosure and security, anybody think this site may be targeted?
Just curious...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661491</id>
	<title>my $0.02</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247337120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading the text of their "manifesto" is quite interesting (assuming the link above actually points at what they said).</p><p>I don't believe its incredibly accurate (what they claim). Full-disclosure (if you've been around for a while) sort-of came about due to the security industries inability to actually respond to real threats (and they are still incapable of it). Often exploits would become available over the 'net from script-kiddie producers (i.e. the people with the real brains to figure out wholes in software and produce something even a script-kiddie could use) and so when something like SSH was "exploited" it was typically a case of the script kiddies being armed before the targets of the exploit.</p><p>Now-a-days, full disclosure mostly benefits the industry cause when the "ssh" attack came out, every person who wrote an ssh server could check to see if they were vulnerable and patch appropriately rather then say (only) f-secure finding out about the hack, fixing their own server software then running around telling everyone that "only we're secure!".</p><p>However, i dont get why imageshack were attacked, they seem to have very little to do with the people they claim they "are a target" of their rampage. Or was it just cause its such a widely used website that alot of people would see it where as most security-related sites are pretty low on the radar for alot of people?. What are imageshack doing running fedora core 5 (at least, the way i read that post they appear to be running an fc5 kernel)?</p><p>Of course being a linux advocate, why couldn't they have attacked a windows based server farm? Or made every ATM in the world print their message (now THAT would have gotten some serious publicity).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading the text of their " manifesto " is quite interesting ( assuming the link above actually points at what they said ) .I do n't believe its incredibly accurate ( what they claim ) .
Full-disclosure ( if you 've been around for a while ) sort-of came about due to the security industries inability to actually respond to real threats ( and they are still incapable of it ) .
Often exploits would become available over the 'net from script-kiddie producers ( i.e .
the people with the real brains to figure out wholes in software and produce something even a script-kiddie could use ) and so when something like SSH was " exploited " it was typically a case of the script kiddies being armed before the targets of the exploit.Now-a-days , full disclosure mostly benefits the industry cause when the " ssh " attack came out , every person who wrote an ssh server could check to see if they were vulnerable and patch appropriately rather then say ( only ) f-secure finding out about the hack , fixing their own server software then running around telling everyone that " only we 're secure !
" .However , i dont get why imageshack were attacked , they seem to have very little to do with the people they claim they " are a target " of their rampage .
Or was it just cause its such a widely used website that alot of people would see it where as most security-related sites are pretty low on the radar for alot of people ? .
What are imageshack doing running fedora core 5 ( at least , the way i read that post they appear to be running an fc5 kernel ) ? Of course being a linux advocate , why could n't they have attacked a windows based server farm ?
Or made every ATM in the world print their message ( now THAT would have gotten some serious publicity ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading the text of their "manifesto" is quite interesting (assuming the link above actually points at what they said).I don't believe its incredibly accurate (what they claim).
Full-disclosure (if you've been around for a while) sort-of came about due to the security industries inability to actually respond to real threats (and they are still incapable of it).
Often exploits would become available over the 'net from script-kiddie producers (i.e.
the people with the real brains to figure out wholes in software and produce something even a script-kiddie could use) and so when something like SSH was "exploited" it was typically a case of the script kiddies being armed before the targets of the exploit.Now-a-days, full disclosure mostly benefits the industry cause when the "ssh" attack came out, every person who wrote an ssh server could check to see if they were vulnerable and patch appropriately rather then say (only) f-secure finding out about the hack, fixing their own server software then running around telling everyone that "only we're secure!
".However, i dont get why imageshack were attacked, they seem to have very little to do with the people they claim they "are a target" of their rampage.
Or was it just cause its such a widely used website that alot of people would see it where as most security-related sites are pretty low on the radar for alot of people?.
What are imageshack doing running fedora core 5 (at least, the way i read that post they appear to be running an fc5 kernel)?Of course being a linux advocate, why couldn't they have attacked a windows based server farm?
Or made every ATM in the world print their message (now THAT would have gotten some serious publicity).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28667405</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not sure I get it</title>
	<author>mtremsal</author>
	<datestamp>1247415000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Do no harm or I pown you" worked for Celestial Being.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... but they had gundams so the comparison may fall short.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Do no harm or I pown you " worked for Celestial Being .
... but they had gundams so the comparison may fall short .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Do no harm or I pown you" worked for Celestial Being.
... but they had gundams so the comparison may fall short.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662077</id>
	<title>Re:Leave door open or we will rob you ?</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1247341800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>They are pushing for change in the whitehat security industry itself, so that script kiddies and security companies stop exploiting the consequences of full disclosure.</p></div><p>You weren't doing too badly until you got to the "so..." part.  The reasons why they're doing this are fairly obvious, it's the same reason drug runners would oppose drug legalization -- it would devalue the product.  These are clearly people who engage in black-hat activity (witness the fact that they just did -- any argument that they aren't is in stark contradiction to the known facts).  The "so..." part of your above sentence should say, "... so that script kiddies can no longer do what we do more cheaply."  You can buy access to botnets and such from people like this.  They are selling a product.  This is BIG business.  Ending full disclosure will (they believe) reduce the number of script kiddies with access to the same information and exploits as they have.  This will increase the value of the product they sell, and make them even more money than they already rake in.  Any other reason they give is just an attempt to convince other people who would be compelled with the "it'll make us richer" reason.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are pushing for change in the whitehat security industry itself , so that script kiddies and security companies stop exploiting the consequences of full disclosure.You were n't doing too badly until you got to the " so... " part .
The reasons why they 're doing this are fairly obvious , it 's the same reason drug runners would oppose drug legalization -- it would devalue the product .
These are clearly people who engage in black-hat activity ( witness the fact that they just did -- any argument that they are n't is in stark contradiction to the known facts ) .
The " so... " part of your above sentence should say , " ... so that script kiddies can no longer do what we do more cheaply .
" You can buy access to botnets and such from people like this .
They are selling a product .
This is BIG business .
Ending full disclosure will ( they believe ) reduce the number of script kiddies with access to the same information and exploits as they have .
This will increase the value of the product they sell , and make them even more money than they already rake in .
Any other reason they give is just an attempt to convince other people who would be compelled with the " it 'll make us richer " reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are pushing for change in the whitehat security industry itself, so that script kiddies and security companies stop exploiting the consequences of full disclosure.You weren't doing too badly until you got to the "so..." part.
The reasons why they're doing this are fairly obvious, it's the same reason drug runners would oppose drug legalization -- it would devalue the product.
These are clearly people who engage in black-hat activity (witness the fact that they just did -- any argument that they aren't is in stark contradiction to the known facts).
The "so..." part of your above sentence should say, "... so that script kiddies can no longer do what we do more cheaply.
"  You can buy access to botnets and such from people like this.
They are selling a product.
This is BIG business.
Ending full disclosure will (they believe) reduce the number of script kiddies with access to the same information and exploits as they have.
This will increase the value of the product they sell, and make them even more money than they already rake in.
Any other reason they give is just an attempt to convince other people who would be compelled with the "it'll make us richer" reason.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661059</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662227</id>
	<title>Re:Leave door open or we will rob you ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247342880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's a difference between disclosing vulnerabilities and disclosing exploits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a difference between disclosing vulnerabilities and disclosing exploits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a difference between disclosing vulnerabilities and disclosing exploits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661685</id>
	<title>Re:Some observations</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1247338860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You have an odd definition of perfect grammar.  Their writing style isn't bad, but they had run-on sentences and incorrect hyphenation in a few places early on and then deteriorates completely towards the end into something barely coherent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have an odd definition of perfect grammar .
Their writing style is n't bad , but they had run-on sentences and incorrect hyphenation in a few places early on and then deteriorates completely towards the end into something barely coherent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have an odd definition of perfect grammar.
Their writing style isn't bad, but they had run-on sentences and incorrect hyphenation in a few places early on and then deteriorates completely towards the end into something barely coherent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661039</id>
	<title>Re:Is this considered full-disclosure ...</title>
	<author>ILuvRamen</author>
	<datestamp>1247334120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>well not exactly but wouldn't it be funny is someone <i>did</i> publish the exploit they used to hack imageshack?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-P</htmltext>
<tokenext>well not exactly but would n't it be funny is someone did publish the exploit they used to hack imageshack ?
: -P</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well not exactly but wouldn't it be funny is someone did publish the exploit they used to hack imageshack?
:-P</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660331</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28663987</id>
	<title>Re:Leave door open or we will rob you ?</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1247313120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These assholes are like wannabe racers that do twice the speed limit and yell at everyone else for holding them up while thinking they own the road. Also they drive SUVs, so they should f off and die.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..was that good (bad) enough?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These assholes are like wannabe racers that do twice the speed limit and yell at everyone else for holding them up while thinking they own the road .
Also they drive SUVs , so they should f off and die .
..was that good ( bad ) enough ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These assholes are like wannabe racers that do twice the speed limit and yell at everyone else for holding them up while thinking they own the road.
Also they drive SUVs, so they should f off and die.
..was that good (bad) enough?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660615</id>
	<title>Easy  to  identify ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247331300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their language and style sounds rather distinct. If other writings of them are available on the web, they should be easy to identify.<br>There's also quite a lot of text.</p><p>Stephan</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their language and style sounds rather distinct .
If other writings of them are available on the web , they should be easy to identify.There 's also quite a lot of text.Stephan</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their language and style sounds rather distinct.
If other writings of them are available on the web, they should be easy to identify.There's also quite a lot of text.Stephan</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661015</id>
	<title>What is their motivation?</title>
	<author>fictionpuss</author>
	<datestamp>1247333940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean, if they got their way, completely. What would happen? Anyone motivated enough could find an exploit of their own and hack anyone else. But presumably this would eradicate the script-kiddie element as it would require an element of skill.</p><p>Is this just another way of the internet evolving itself? If you're an asshole or are part of a company which fucks someones shit up for profit, then in that potential future you'd be vulnerable to backlash. This isn't the chaos ensuing from giving automatic weapons to the mob, as the weapons would only be in the hands of those parts of the mob who give enough of a shit to actively study things which are beneficial to the internet as an organism; thereby sustaining a symbiotic relationship.</p><p>Or are they just a bunch of bored script-kiddies? Either way it's interesting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , if they got their way , completely .
What would happen ?
Anyone motivated enough could find an exploit of their own and hack anyone else .
But presumably this would eradicate the script-kiddie element as it would require an element of skill.Is this just another way of the internet evolving itself ?
If you 're an asshole or are part of a company which fucks someones shit up for profit , then in that potential future you 'd be vulnerable to backlash .
This is n't the chaos ensuing from giving automatic weapons to the mob , as the weapons would only be in the hands of those parts of the mob who give enough of a shit to actively study things which are beneficial to the internet as an organism ; thereby sustaining a symbiotic relationship.Or are they just a bunch of bored script-kiddies ?
Either way it 's interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, if they got their way, completely.
What would happen?
Anyone motivated enough could find an exploit of their own and hack anyone else.
But presumably this would eradicate the script-kiddie element as it would require an element of skill.Is this just another way of the internet evolving itself?
If you're an asshole or are part of a company which fucks someones shit up for profit, then in that potential future you'd be vulnerable to backlash.
This isn't the chaos ensuing from giving automatic weapons to the mob, as the weapons would only be in the hands of those parts of the mob who give enough of a shit to actively study things which are beneficial to the internet as an organism; thereby sustaining a symbiotic relationship.Or are they just a bunch of bored script-kiddies?
Either way it's interesting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661301</id>
	<title>Re:What is their motivation?</title>
	<author>fictionpuss</author>
	<datestamp>1247335620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the stated goal. But all ideologies have at least one secondary goal which is of greater importance to the members - e.g. religions may preach love and peace, but will do anything (including contradicting the primary message) to protect the secondary goal of sustaining the religion.</p><p>Example - if they just manage to get all security companies out of business, then what's to stop new security companies popping up in the future once their movement starts to decay and their numbers drop? Nothing. It would be stupid to only have that as the single goal because it's short-sighted.</p><p>So there is a secondary goal at work here, just curious what it actually is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the stated goal .
But all ideologies have at least one secondary goal which is of greater importance to the members - e.g .
religions may preach love and peace , but will do anything ( including contradicting the primary message ) to protect the secondary goal of sustaining the religion.Example - if they just manage to get all security companies out of business , then what 's to stop new security companies popping up in the future once their movement starts to decay and their numbers drop ?
Nothing. It would be stupid to only have that as the single goal because it 's short-sighted.So there is a secondary goal at work here , just curious what it actually is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the stated goal.
But all ideologies have at least one secondary goal which is of greater importance to the members - e.g.
religions may preach love and peace, but will do anything (including contradicting the primary message) to protect the secondary goal of sustaining the religion.Example - if they just manage to get all security companies out of business, then what's to stop new security companies popping up in the future once their movement starts to decay and their numbers drop?
Nothing. It would be stupid to only have that as the single goal because it's short-sighted.So there is a secondary goal at work here, just curious what it actually is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660629</id>
	<title>They have a point but it's not that simple</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1247331420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, full disclosure can make things worse but some companies take an "out of sight, out of mind" approach to fixing exploits and if no one knows about it they don't fix it.
<br> <br>
But I'm not sure it's much better only having a few experts able to steal money and run bot nets over a longer period of time or a lot of clueless script kiddies doing it within a shorter period.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , full disclosure can make things worse but some companies take an " out of sight , out of mind " approach to fixing exploits and if no one knows about it they do n't fix it .
But I 'm not sure it 's much better only having a few experts able to steal money and run bot nets over a longer period of time or a lot of clueless script kiddies doing it within a shorter period .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, full disclosure can make things worse but some companies take an "out of sight, out of mind" approach to fixing exploits and if no one knows about it they don't fix it.
But I'm not sure it's much better only having a few experts able to steal money and run bot nets over a longer period of time or a lot of clueless script kiddies doing it within a shorter period.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660825</id>
	<title>Confused...</title>
	<author>WPIDalamar</author>
	<datestamp>1247332560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm confused.</p><p>So they're a group of black-hat hackers?  I assume this since, well, what they did qualifies as black hat hacking.</p><p>So that would mean they WANT a less secure world, right?  They don't want vulnerabilities fixed.  They don't want people to know about them.  They want less competition from script kiddies.</p><p>But they're arguing against full disclosure in a way that makes it sound like they want a more secure world.</p><p>Actually, that's Brilliant!</p><p>It's almost like saying "I want more republicans in office, so go vote democrat!", but their subject matter is such that most people won't understand and actually agree with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm confused.So they 're a group of black-hat hackers ?
I assume this since , well , what they did qualifies as black hat hacking.So that would mean they WANT a less secure world , right ?
They do n't want vulnerabilities fixed .
They do n't want people to know about them .
They want less competition from script kiddies.But they 're arguing against full disclosure in a way that makes it sound like they want a more secure world.Actually , that 's Brilliant ! It 's almost like saying " I want more republicans in office , so go vote democrat !
" , but their subject matter is such that most people wo n't understand and actually agree with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm confused.So they're a group of black-hat hackers?
I assume this since, well, what they did qualifies as black hat hacking.So that would mean they WANT a less secure world, right?
They don't want vulnerabilities fixed.
They don't want people to know about them.
They want less competition from script kiddies.But they're arguing against full disclosure in a way that makes it sound like they want a more secure world.Actually, that's Brilliant!It's almost like saying "I want more republicans in office, so go vote democrat!
", but their subject matter is such that most people won't understand and actually agree with them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660787</id>
	<title>I'm not sure I get it</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1247332500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In order to put an end to security consultants and companies spreading fear of being hacked in order to sell security oriented products and services, they will go on a reign of terror hacking everything that isn't secured to the nines? Uhmmmmmm. I'm not sure how that works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In order to put an end to security consultants and companies spreading fear of being hacked in order to sell security oriented products and services , they will go on a reign of terror hacking everything that is n't secured to the nines ?
Uhmmmmmm. I 'm not sure how that works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In order to put an end to security consultants and companies spreading fear of being hacked in order to sell security oriented products and services, they will go on a reign of terror hacking everything that isn't secured to the nines?
Uhmmmmmm. I'm not sure how that works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660605</id>
	<title>They have a point but it's not that simple</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247331240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, by using full disclosure some  exploits become much worse because then it becomes something anyone can do. But some companies won't fix their exploits if they're not known about and I'm not sure I'd feel much better with a handful of experts able to pinch my money over a long period of time or having a load of script kiddies able to do it in a shorter period of time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , by using full disclosure some exploits become much worse because then it becomes something anyone can do .
But some companies wo n't fix their exploits if they 're not known about and I 'm not sure I 'd feel much better with a handful of experts able to pinch my money over a long period of time or having a load of script kiddies able to do it in a shorter period of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, by using full disclosure some  exploits become much worse because then it becomes something anyone can do.
But some companies won't fix their exploits if they're not known about and I'm not sure I'd feel much better with a handful of experts able to pinch my money over a long period of time or having a load of script kiddies able to do it in a shorter period of time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664867</id>
	<title>no, this isn't interesting.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247324460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should hack them back.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should hack them back .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should hack them back.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660337</id>
	<title>Making the world a better place.</title>
	<author>moj0e</author>
	<datestamp>1247329680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they are North Korean....<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) (JK)</p><p>Actually, I find it interesting that the group wants to make the world a better place by<br>discouraging full disclosure.... the funny thing is that they want to do this<br>by destroying things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they are North Korean.... : ) ( JK ) Actually , I find it interesting that the group wants to make the world a better place bydiscouraging full disclosure.... the funny thing is that they want to do thisby destroying things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they are North Korean.... :) (JK)Actually, I find it interesting that the group wants to make the world a better place bydiscouraging full disclosure.... the funny thing is that they want to do thisby destroying things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28663303</id>
	<title>They then also stand for destruction of knowledge</title>
	<author>CHRONOSS2008</author>
	<datestamp>1247307720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These script kiddies are stupid retards , and im gonna say it if you really want to get a hacker war going tell them not to post knowledge , YUP a kid somewhere got trouble and me thinks hes whiny lil dribble will come back to haunt him<br>Fine go after wannabe security sites profiting and such but leave the knowledge up so we can all have it.<br>YOU cannot close the door on knowledge and call your self any form of hacker</p><p>CHRoNoSS<br>Chair<br>United Hackers Association</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These script kiddies are stupid retards , and im gon na say it if you really want to get a hacker war going tell them not to post knowledge , YUP a kid somewhere got trouble and me thinks hes whiny lil dribble will come back to haunt himFine go after wannabe security sites profiting and such but leave the knowledge up so we can all have it.YOU can not close the door on knowledge and call your self any form of hackerCHRoNoSSChairUnited Hackers Association</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These script kiddies are stupid retards , and im gonna say it if you really want to get a hacker war going tell them not to post knowledge , YUP a kid somewhere got trouble and me thinks hes whiny lil dribble will come back to haunt himFine go after wannabe security sites profiting and such but leave the knowledge up so we can all have it.YOU cannot close the door on knowledge and call your self any form of hackerCHRoNoSSChairUnited Hackers Association</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662263</id>
	<title>Re:Some observations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247343000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) The text was syntactically and grammatically near perfect....</p><p>From the message, I'm absolutey certain they're in America</p></div><p>Huh?  You've <i>got</i> to be kidding.  Syntactically and grammatically near perfect English almost rules out the author being American.  The number of Americans who can speak or write English with the skill of a well-educated non-native speaker is vanishingly small.  The non-native speaker is not disadvantaged from having spent a lifetime listening to what passes for English in America.  The poor American has to first unlearn much of his or her speech patterns before they can being to learn proper English syntax and grammar.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) The text was syntactically and grammatically near perfect....From the message , I 'm absolutey certain they 're in AmericaHuh ?
You 've got to be kidding .
Syntactically and grammatically near perfect English almost rules out the author being American .
The number of Americans who can speak or write English with the skill of a well-educated non-native speaker is vanishingly small .
The non-native speaker is not disadvantaged from having spent a lifetime listening to what passes for English in America .
The poor American has to first unlearn much of his or her speech patterns before they can being to learn proper English syntax and grammar .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) The text was syntactically and grammatically near perfect....From the message, I'm absolutey certain they're in AmericaHuh?
You've got to be kidding.
Syntactically and grammatically near perfect English almost rules out the author being American.
The number of Americans who can speak or write English with the skill of a well-educated non-native speaker is vanishingly small.
The non-native speaker is not disadvantaged from having spent a lifetime listening to what passes for English in America.
The poor American has to first unlearn much of his or her speech patterns before they can being to learn proper English syntax and grammar.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28665415</id>
	<title>They messed up one of my posts on Superiorpics</title>
	<author>Master of Transhuman</author>
	<datestamp>1247333880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>with this shit.</p><p>They better pray I never learn who they are in the real world. They've got a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.45 hollow point coming fast toward their kneecaps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>with this shit.They better pray I never learn who they are in the real world .
They 've got a .45 hollow point coming fast toward their kneecaps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>with this shit.They better pray I never learn who they are in the real world.
They've got a .45 hollow point coming fast toward their kneecaps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28665573</id>
	<title>Centrist terrorists</title>
	<author>Michael Woodhams</author>
	<datestamp>1247337060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This reminds me of a "Not the Nine O'Clock News"* skit interviewing a spokesman for a centrist terrorist group.</p><p>"All we want is peace and tolerance, and we're prepared to maim and kill to achieve our ends."</p><p>Straying off-topic, another favourite quote from the show: "Political scientists think they have finally understood current [Reagan era] American foreign and defence policy. Having been late for the last two world wars, they want to make sure they are extra early for the next one."</p><p>(Both quotes from ~25 year old memories and are therefore unreliable in detail.)</p><p>* A British 1980's politics/satire/skit comedy TV show.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This reminds me of a " Not the Nine O'Clock News " * skit interviewing a spokesman for a centrist terrorist group .
" All we want is peace and tolerance , and we 're prepared to maim and kill to achieve our ends .
" Straying off-topic , another favourite quote from the show : " Political scientists think they have finally understood current [ Reagan era ] American foreign and defence policy .
Having been late for the last two world wars , they want to make sure they are extra early for the next one .
" ( Both quotes from ~ 25 year old memories and are therefore unreliable in detail .
) * A British 1980 's politics/satire/skit comedy TV show .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This reminds me of a "Not the Nine O'Clock News"* skit interviewing a spokesman for a centrist terrorist group.
"All we want is peace and tolerance, and we're prepared to maim and kill to achieve our ends.
"Straying off-topic, another favourite quote from the show: "Political scientists think they have finally understood current [Reagan era] American foreign and defence policy.
Having been late for the last two world wars, they want to make sure they are extra early for the next one.
"(Both quotes from ~25 year old memories and are therefore unreliable in detail.
)* A British 1980's politics/satire/skit comedy TV show.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661745</id>
	<title>Re:What is their motivation?</title>
	<author>Nursie</author>
	<datestamp>1247339280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would eradicate the script kids?<br>They wouldn't have as ready a source of info to make their scripts with, but I don't get the feeling they'd be the ones making the scripts anyway. Their scripts come from black hats that have skills.</p><p>Frankly all this would do is mean that companies *cough* MS *cough* could get away with not patching stuff for longer, leaving things even more vulnerable. It's lunacy what they're asking for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would eradicate the script kids ? They would n't have as ready a source of info to make their scripts with , but I do n't get the feeling they 'd be the ones making the scripts anyway .
Their scripts come from black hats that have skills.Frankly all this would do is mean that companies * cough * MS * cough * could get away with not patching stuff for longer , leaving things even more vulnerable .
It 's lunacy what they 're asking for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would eradicate the script kids?They wouldn't have as ready a source of info to make their scripts with, but I don't get the feeling they'd be the ones making the scripts anyway.
Their scripts come from black hats that have skills.Frankly all this would do is mean that companies *cough* MS *cough* could get away with not patching stuff for longer, leaving things even more vulnerable.
It's lunacy what they're asking for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662505</id>
	<title>Re:Some observations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247344560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>You sound like that psycho-analyst from Die Hard 3 - who was almost completely wrong on all counts... but made himself sound important aswell<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>You sound like that psycho-analyst from Die Hard 3 - who was almost completely wrong on all counts... but made himself sound important aswell ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You sound like that psycho-analyst from Die Hard 3 - who was almost completely wrong on all counts... but made himself sound important aswell ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662067</id>
	<title>Re:Some observations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247341740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1) The text was syntactically and grammatically near perfect. You don't often see that in these sorts of things.</p><p>2) The cadence and style was sort of familiar. I was always able on usenet to identify forgeries not by the path, but by the way they were written. Any idiot can put words where they're not supposed to be, but very few people can wrote like somebody else.</p><p>3) I posit that if they weren't good intentioned they'd have hacked DHS.</p><p>It would not surprise me if this turned out to be a bunch of CS/security professors or the like, or their minions doing their work.</p><p>From the message, I'm absolutey certain they're in America, and had either a very rigorous or British schooling.</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>1) The text was syntactically and grammatically near perfect. You don't often see that in these sorts of things.</p><p>2) The cadence and style was sort of familiar. I was always able on usenet to identify forgeries not by the path, but by the way they were written. Any idiot can put words where they're not supposed to be, but very few people can wrote like somebody else.</p><p>3) I posit that if they weren't good intentioned they'd have hacked DHS.</p><p>It would not surprise me if this turned out to be a bunch of CS/security professors or the like, or their minions doing their work.</p><p>From the message, I'm absolutey certain they're in America, and had either a very rigorous or British schooling.</p></div><p>That's some serious insinuation. The academic security community is FOR public disclosure. That makes even less sense than the manifesto.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) The text was syntactically and grammatically near perfect .
You do n't often see that in these sorts of things.2 ) The cadence and style was sort of familiar .
I was always able on usenet to identify forgeries not by the path , but by the way they were written .
Any idiot can put words where they 're not supposed to be , but very few people can wrote like somebody else.3 ) I posit that if they were n't good intentioned they 'd have hacked DHS.It would not surprise me if this turned out to be a bunch of CS/security professors or the like , or their minions doing their work.From the message , I 'm absolutey certain they 're in America , and had either a very rigorous or British schooling.1 ) The text was syntactically and grammatically near perfect .
You do n't often see that in these sorts of things.2 ) The cadence and style was sort of familiar .
I was always able on usenet to identify forgeries not by the path , but by the way they were written .
Any idiot can put words where they 're not supposed to be , but very few people can wrote like somebody else.3 ) I posit that if they were n't good intentioned they 'd have hacked DHS.It would not surprise me if this turned out to be a bunch of CS/security professors or the like , or their minions doing their work.From the message , I 'm absolutey certain they 're in America , and had either a very rigorous or British schooling.That 's some serious insinuation .
The academic security community is FOR public disclosure .
That makes even less sense than the manifesto .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) The text was syntactically and grammatically near perfect.
You don't often see that in these sorts of things.2) The cadence and style was sort of familiar.
I was always able on usenet to identify forgeries not by the path, but by the way they were written.
Any idiot can put words where they're not supposed to be, but very few people can wrote like somebody else.3) I posit that if they weren't good intentioned they'd have hacked DHS.It would not surprise me if this turned out to be a bunch of CS/security professors or the like, or their minions doing their work.From the message, I'm absolutey certain they're in America, and had either a very rigorous or British schooling.1) The text was syntactically and grammatically near perfect.
You don't often see that in these sorts of things.2) The cadence and style was sort of familiar.
I was always able on usenet to identify forgeries not by the path, but by the way they were written.
Any idiot can put words where they're not supposed to be, but very few people can wrote like somebody else.3) I posit that if they weren't good intentioned they'd have hacked DHS.It would not surprise me if this turned out to be a bunch of CS/security professors or the like, or their minions doing their work.From the message, I'm absolutey certain they're in America, and had either a very rigorous or British schooling.That's some serious insinuation.
The academic security community is FOR public disclosure.
That makes even less sense than the manifesto.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661023</id>
	<title>Re:Some observations</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247334000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I no get rigorous or Brit schooling and I are good grammer.</p><p>What I mean is, that is quite a statement to make, there are plenty of people who learned to write by reading, not in school.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I no get rigorous or Brit schooling and I are good grammer.What I mean is , that is quite a statement to make , there are plenty of people who learned to write by reading , not in school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I no get rigorous or Brit schooling and I are good grammer.What I mean is, that is quite a statement to make, there are plenty of people who learned to write by reading, not in school.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662313</id>
	<title>"Look out, we'll further ruin our own credibility"</title>
	<author>Pahalial</author>
	<datestamp>1247343360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is anyone else tremendously amused at the method these guys have chosen to get their message out? I don't necessarily disagree with them - specifically, I usually only believe in full disclosure being necessary when an exploit is already in use in the wild - but it seems to me that they're just going to polarize the debate against their own position. IT security geeks are notably stubborn, defiant, etc., and being attacked over this will only entrench them further in their position. And to add to this, the 'attack' is frankly negligible - your blog will be defaced! Of course, you will certainly have backups now that we've warned you, but it'll still be defaced for up to a few hours!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is anyone else tremendously amused at the method these guys have chosen to get their message out ?
I do n't necessarily disagree with them - specifically , I usually only believe in full disclosure being necessary when an exploit is already in use in the wild - but it seems to me that they 're just going to polarize the debate against their own position .
IT security geeks are notably stubborn , defiant , etc. , and being attacked over this will only entrench them further in their position .
And to add to this , the 'attack ' is frankly negligible - your blog will be defaced !
Of course , you will certainly have backups now that we 've warned you , but it 'll still be defaced for up to a few hours !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is anyone else tremendously amused at the method these guys have chosen to get their message out?
I don't necessarily disagree with them - specifically, I usually only believe in full disclosure being necessary when an exploit is already in use in the wild - but it seems to me that they're just going to polarize the debate against their own position.
IT security geeks are notably stubborn, defiant, etc., and being attacked over this will only entrench them further in their position.
And to add to this, the 'attack' is frankly negligible - your blog will be defaced!
Of course, you will certainly have backups now that we've warned you, but it'll still be defaced for up to a few hours!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28666483</id>
	<title>What are the trying to prove anyway.</title>
	<author>portalcake625</author>
	<datestamp>1247400840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure they were demoing Imgshack's insecurity, but this is really not the way to get heard. They should have made a racket at a DEFCON, where all their "security experts" are. Otherwise, this just pisses a whole fu**ton of people who haven't realized this and not switched to Photobucket.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure they were demoing Imgshack 's insecurity , but this is really not the way to get heard .
They should have made a racket at a DEFCON , where all their " security experts " are .
Otherwise , this just pisses a whole fu * * ton of people who have n't realized this and not switched to Photobucket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure they were demoing Imgshack's insecurity, but this is really not the way to get heard.
They should have made a racket at a DEFCON, where all their "security experts" are.
Otherwise, this just pisses a whole fu**ton of people who haven't realized this and not switched to Photobucket.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661623</id>
	<title>Re:What is their motivation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247338260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>They just want companies to stop showing people exploits, so companies that rip people off by offering protection can't continue.</p></div></blockquote><p>Or to shore up the black market sales value of exploits. Full disclosure obviously ruins profits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>They just want companies to stop showing people exploits , so companies that rip people off by offering protection ca n't continue.Or to shore up the black market sales value of exploits .
Full disclosure obviously ruins profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They just want companies to stop showing people exploits, so companies that rip people off by offering protection can't continue.Or to shore up the black market sales value of exploits.
Full disclosure obviously ruins profits.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661171</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662979</id>
	<title>Re:Some observations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247305260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They used the spelling 'advise' where an American would have used 'advice'. So, probably British, Aussie or Kiwi - or pretending to be.</p><p>http://romeo.copyandpaste.info/txt/imageshack-pwned.txt</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They used the spelling 'advise ' where an American would have used 'advice' .
So , probably British , Aussie or Kiwi - or pretending to be.http : //romeo.copyandpaste.info/txt/imageshack-pwned.txt</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They used the spelling 'advise' where an American would have used 'advice'.
So, probably British, Aussie or Kiwi - or pretending to be.http://romeo.copyandpaste.info/txt/imageshack-pwned.txt</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661323</id>
	<title>Pretty much</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1247335740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It'll be quite amusing to watch their dumb asses get drug off to prison if they actually carry out their threat of "destruction and mayhem." Cyber criminal types seem to forget that when it comes to criminal investigations, the bigger a target you make yourself the more likely you are to get caught. When you are just causing trouble, there just isn't enough care to really devote any resources to going after you. However if you do real damage, all of a sudden there's more interest. The more damage, the more resources spent in finding you.</p><p>This is why when your car is broken in to, you get to fill out a police report and maybe have a cop come dust for prints. However if someone if murdered, there are cops all over, detectives assigned to the case and so on. The more harm you cause, the more dedicated they are to finding and stopping you.</p><p>However, my guess is like most of these Internet Tough-guy hacker types, they've got no way to actually carry out any sort of threat. So they'll just do stupid shit like deface images on imageshack, and nobody will care enough to try and track them down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 'll be quite amusing to watch their dumb asses get drug off to prison if they actually carry out their threat of " destruction and mayhem .
" Cyber criminal types seem to forget that when it comes to criminal investigations , the bigger a target you make yourself the more likely you are to get caught .
When you are just causing trouble , there just is n't enough care to really devote any resources to going after you .
However if you do real damage , all of a sudden there 's more interest .
The more damage , the more resources spent in finding you.This is why when your car is broken in to , you get to fill out a police report and maybe have a cop come dust for prints .
However if someone if murdered , there are cops all over , detectives assigned to the case and so on .
The more harm you cause , the more dedicated they are to finding and stopping you.However , my guess is like most of these Internet Tough-guy hacker types , they 've got no way to actually carry out any sort of threat .
So they 'll just do stupid shit like deface images on imageshack , and nobody will care enough to try and track them down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It'll be quite amusing to watch their dumb asses get drug off to prison if they actually carry out their threat of "destruction and mayhem.
" Cyber criminal types seem to forget that when it comes to criminal investigations, the bigger a target you make yourself the more likely you are to get caught.
When you are just causing trouble, there just isn't enough care to really devote any resources to going after you.
However if you do real damage, all of a sudden there's more interest.
The more damage, the more resources spent in finding you.This is why when your car is broken in to, you get to fill out a police report and maybe have a cop come dust for prints.
However if someone if murdered, there are cops all over, detectives assigned to the case and so on.
The more harm you cause, the more dedicated they are to finding and stopping you.However, my guess is like most of these Internet Tough-guy hacker types, they've got no way to actually carry out any sort of threat.
So they'll just do stupid shit like deface images on imageshack, and nobody will care enough to try and track them down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28671249</id>
	<title>Re:Some observations</title>
	<author>SlashBugs</author>
	<datestamp>1247406120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, that use of "advise" doesn't make sense in British or Aussie English. Brits and Aussies agree with North Americans that "advise" is a verb, "advice" is a noun. It's just a typo. Skimming that text, nothing leaps out at me as being specific to British or US English.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , that use of " advise " does n't make sense in British or Aussie English .
Brits and Aussies agree with North Americans that " advise " is a verb , " advice " is a noun .
It 's just a typo .
Skimming that text , nothing leaps out at me as being specific to British or US English .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, that use of "advise" doesn't make sense in British or Aussie English.
Brits and Aussies agree with North Americans that "advise" is a verb, "advice" is a noun.
It's just a typo.
Skimming that text, nothing leaps out at me as being specific to British or US English.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662979</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661171</id>
	<title>Re:What is their motivation?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247334780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I doubt that they are script kiddies.</p><p>They just want companies to stop showing people exploits, so companies that rip people off by offering protection can't continue.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt that they are script kiddies.They just want companies to stop showing people exploits , so companies that rip people off by offering protection ca n't continue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt that they are script kiddies.They just want companies to stop showing people exploits, so companies that rip people off by offering protection can't continue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661637</id>
	<title>Example of a virus from Image Shack.</title>
	<author>afxgrin</author>
	<datestamp>1247338440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A friend of mine had her machine infected with one of the imageshack exploits.  It was basically a double extension EXE, labelled like Aphoto.jpg\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.exe</p><p>She wasn't paying much attention and had hit OK when prompted to run the program.  So her computer had started sending me MSN links to similar images hosted on ImageShack.</p><p><a href="http://rapidshare.de/files/47821553/this\_is\_a\_virus.exe.html" title="rapidshare.de">Here's the EXE that I got sent.</a> [rapidshare.de]</p><p>Someone I was chatting with in a technology IRC chatroom had run the virus in a VM, and it apparently has code to detect the presence of a VM, rapes your registry, spreads itself to multiple EXEs across your system, and a bunch of other weird things.  The code is apparently run through one of those code masher programs to prevent decompilers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A friend of mine had her machine infected with one of the imageshack exploits .
It was basically a double extension EXE , labelled like Aphoto.jpg \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _ \ _.exeShe was n't paying much attention and had hit OK when prompted to run the program .
So her computer had started sending me MSN links to similar images hosted on ImageShack.Here 's the EXE that I got sent .
[ rapidshare.de ] Someone I was chatting with in a technology IRC chatroom had run the virus in a VM , and it apparently has code to detect the presence of a VM , rapes your registry , spreads itself to multiple EXEs across your system , and a bunch of other weird things .
The code is apparently run through one of those code masher programs to prevent decompilers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A friend of mine had her machine infected with one of the imageshack exploits.
It was basically a double extension EXE, labelled like Aphoto.jpg\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_.exeShe wasn't paying much attention and had hit OK when prompted to run the program.
So her computer had started sending me MSN links to similar images hosted on ImageShack.Here's the EXE that I got sent.
[rapidshare.de]Someone I was chatting with in a technology IRC chatroom had run the virus in a VM, and it apparently has code to detect the presence of a VM, rapes your registry, spreads itself to multiple EXEs across your system, and a bunch of other weird things.
The code is apparently run through one of those code masher programs to prevent decompilers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28671311</id>
	<title>A good consipracy theory is an unproven one</title>
	<author>apresrasage</author>
	<datestamp>1247406840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Many a contributor asks here: <br>
what's the motivation and why the specific target?<br>
<br>
If we follow the money we get: <br>
1) Non-open-source software shops<br>
2) EOM software shops<br>
3) Propriatory software shops<br>
<br>
Oh, did I mention that posting spolits hurts those who are not open source, but helps<br>
the open source community to debug and fix software in a fraction of the time this gets<br>
(if every) done in closed shops? <br>It also allows sysadmins to take action in a meaningful<br>
way. Yeah, the security dudes get a cut from this too if you let them.<br>
<br>
As in other incidents where the terrorist and rebel has way less to gain than many other<br>
interest groups<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... something smells fishy here<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if we just could prove this<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Many a contributor asks here : what 's the motivation and why the specific target ?
If we follow the money we get : 1 ) Non-open-source software shops 2 ) EOM software shops 3 ) Propriatory software shops Oh , did I mention that posting spolits hurts those who are not open source , but helps the open source community to debug and fix software in a fraction of the time this gets ( if every ) done in closed shops ?
It also allows sysadmins to take action in a meaningful way .
Yeah , the security dudes get a cut from this too if you let them .
As in other incidents where the terrorist and rebel has way less to gain than many other interest groups ... something smells fishy here ... if we just could prove this .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Many a contributor asks here: 
what's the motivation and why the specific target?
If we follow the money we get: 
1) Non-open-source software shops
2) EOM software shops
3) Propriatory software shops

Oh, did I mention that posting spolits hurts those who are not open source, but helps
the open source community to debug and fix software in a fraction of the time this gets
(if every) done in closed shops?
It also allows sysadmins to take action in a meaningful
way.
Yeah, the security dudes get a cut from this too if you let them.
As in other incidents where the terrorist and rebel has way less to gain than many other
interest groups ... something smells fishy here ... if we just could prove this ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662259</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not sure I get it</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247343000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sounds familiar...  Can't get what you want? Terrorize people...  Gotta love CyberTerrorists, I wonder if they have beards and really bad B.O.  too?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds familiar... Ca n't get what you want ?
Terrorize people... Got ta love CyberTerrorists , I wonder if they have beards and really bad B.O .
too ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds familiar...  Can't get what you want?
Terrorize people...  Gotta love CyberTerrorists, I wonder if they have beards and really bad B.O.
too?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662131</id>
	<title>Re:They have a point but it's not that simple</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1247342280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But I'm not sure it's much better only having a few experts able to steal money and run bot nets over a longer period of time or a lot of clueless script kiddies doing it within a shorter period.</p></div><p>I'm sure.  I'd rather have some idiot punk walk into my house and steal the TV than some knowledgeable professional come in, empty the contents of my safe, and steal the far more valuable painting on the wall while leaving the relatively worthless TV alone.</p><p>If the argument is it reduces the number of idiot punks running around, so I don't find out about the defect in my security system until the professional comes along, it's fairly easy to see why it's a bad thing, even if it does in fact reduce the number of idiot punks running around stealing TVs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But I 'm not sure it 's much better only having a few experts able to steal money and run bot nets over a longer period of time or a lot of clueless script kiddies doing it within a shorter period.I 'm sure .
I 'd rather have some idiot punk walk into my house and steal the TV than some knowledgeable professional come in , empty the contents of my safe , and steal the far more valuable painting on the wall while leaving the relatively worthless TV alone.If the argument is it reduces the number of idiot punks running around , so I do n't find out about the defect in my security system until the professional comes along , it 's fairly easy to see why it 's a bad thing , even if it does in fact reduce the number of idiot punks running around stealing TVs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But I'm not sure it's much better only having a few experts able to steal money and run bot nets over a longer period of time or a lot of clueless script kiddies doing it within a shorter period.I'm sure.
I'd rather have some idiot punk walk into my house and steal the TV than some knowledgeable professional come in, empty the contents of my safe, and steal the far more valuable painting on the wall while leaving the relatively worthless TV alone.If the argument is it reduces the number of idiot punks running around, so I don't find out about the defect in my security system until the professional comes along, it's fairly easy to see why it's a bad thing, even if it does in fact reduce the number of idiot punks running around stealing TVs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660629</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660779</id>
	<title>Re:Help for the unfamiliar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247332380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They are running lighttpd and PHP (at least, that is what the headers say), so I doubt they are running on Windows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They are running lighttpd and PHP ( at least , that is what the headers say ) , so I doubt they are running on Windows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are running lighttpd and PHP (at least, that is what the headers say), so I doubt they are running on Windows.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660569</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28663577</id>
	<title>How would you know?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247309520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How would you know? How would we even know it's a group, rather than a lone bottom feeder in his parent's cellar? Or just some loose bunch of people without much organisation, coherence or anything else that makes it an actual group? Even if it is, how would we know it's the same group as then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How would you know ?
How would we even know it 's a group , rather than a lone bottom feeder in his parent 's cellar ?
Or just some loose bunch of people without much organisation , coherence or anything else that makes it an actual group ?
Even if it is , how would we know it 's the same group as then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How would you know?
How would we even know it's a group, rather than a lone bottom feeder in his parent's cellar?
Or just some loose bunch of people without much organisation, coherence or anything else that makes it an actual group?
Even if it is, how would we know it's the same group as then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660357</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28663893</id>
	<title>Re:Some observations</title>
	<author>libkarl2</author>
	<datestamp>1247312400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about the CS prof theory, but I'm not really willing to simply dismiss it offhand.</p><p>There is a definite schiziodal declaration and <i>different psychological knowledge</i> embedded in their intent statement. The tracts of their manifesto (what I could find) struck me as doctrinaire, and para-moralistic: precisely the type of High Ideal/Low Internal Projection thinking that sucks in well intentioned but young,  frantic, and inexperienced activists. They feel their cause is bigger than the damage they inflict on innocent by-standers, when in fact it is because their cause lies just slightly outside the normal person's worldview IMHO. They are becoming frustrated. They have to attack in order to be heard. They've already subverted their own cause in this regard. They've doomed themselves.</p><p>Security by obscurity is proven myth. I would hate to have to be on the wrong side of that debate. Doesn't sound like much fun, and anything you say or do is only going to serve to strengthen your opponent's position.</p><p>Ah, to be young again... and have absolutely no idea what I am doing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about the CS prof theory , but I 'm not really willing to simply dismiss it offhand.There is a definite schiziodal declaration and different psychological knowledge embedded in their intent statement .
The tracts of their manifesto ( what I could find ) struck me as doctrinaire , and para-moralistic : precisely the type of High Ideal/Low Internal Projection thinking that sucks in well intentioned but young , frantic , and inexperienced activists .
They feel their cause is bigger than the damage they inflict on innocent by-standers , when in fact it is because their cause lies just slightly outside the normal person 's worldview IMHO .
They are becoming frustrated .
They have to attack in order to be heard .
They 've already subverted their own cause in this regard .
They 've doomed themselves.Security by obscurity is proven myth .
I would hate to have to be on the wrong side of that debate .
Does n't sound like much fun , and anything you say or do is only going to serve to strengthen your opponent 's position.Ah , to be young again... and have absolutely no idea what I am doing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about the CS prof theory, but I'm not really willing to simply dismiss it offhand.There is a definite schiziodal declaration and different psychological knowledge embedded in their intent statement.
The tracts of their manifesto (what I could find) struck me as doctrinaire, and para-moralistic: precisely the type of High Ideal/Low Internal Projection thinking that sucks in well intentioned but young,  frantic, and inexperienced activists.
They feel their cause is bigger than the damage they inflict on innocent by-standers, when in fact it is because their cause lies just slightly outside the normal person's worldview IMHO.
They are becoming frustrated.
They have to attack in order to be heard.
They've already subverted their own cause in this regard.
They've doomed themselves.Security by obscurity is proven myth.
I would hate to have to be on the wrong side of that debate.
Doesn't sound like much fun, and anything you say or do is only going to serve to strengthen your opponent's position.Ah, to be young again... and have absolutely no idea what I am doing...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660817</id>
	<title>Ok.</title>
	<author>EddyPearson</author>
	<datestamp>1247332560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Guess the OpenSSH bug is real...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Guess the OpenSSH bug is real.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guess the OpenSSH bug is real...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661721</id>
	<title>Re:Leave door open or we will rob you ?</title>
	<author>Tycho</author>
	<datestamp>1247339160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OT: your sig "I am <i>not</i> merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a  <b> <i>Citizen</i> </b> of the State of Texas"</p><p>I assume you aren't going to try to deny that you are also a citizen of the United States of America at this point.  Other people, now in jail, have tried not to pay income taxes and other federal taxes by claiming that they had renounced their US citizenship and were now just a citizen of the State of X, but not a US citizen any longer.  None of these individuals actually successfully argued in court that they were just a citizen of State X and not a US citizen, so they no longer had to pay income tax.  Most idiots in this position would have found their lawyer unwilling to make that argument, or if acting as their own lawyer these idiots might have found themselves stopped as soon as they started and fined $5000 each time during trial for even trying.  When one makes a frivolous argument that is not valid and that relates to income taxes in court, expect a bill.  Obviously the lesson to take back in this argument and with others is to not parse words intentionally incorrectly, and that you will not find any valid loophole to avoid paying any income taxes.  Just to suck it up and pay your income taxes like everyone else.  If you are behind on filing a year or two, contact a tax lawyer and then negotiate with the IRS and do so before the IRS calls you, you will always end up better off that way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OT : your sig " I am not merely a " consumer " or a " taxpayer " .
I am a Citizen of the State of Texas " I assume you are n't going to try to deny that you are also a citizen of the United States of America at this point .
Other people , now in jail , have tried not to pay income taxes and other federal taxes by claiming that they had renounced their US citizenship and were now just a citizen of the State of X , but not a US citizen any longer .
None of these individuals actually successfully argued in court that they were just a citizen of State X and not a US citizen , so they no longer had to pay income tax .
Most idiots in this position would have found their lawyer unwilling to make that argument , or if acting as their own lawyer these idiots might have found themselves stopped as soon as they started and fined $ 5000 each time during trial for even trying .
When one makes a frivolous argument that is not valid and that relates to income taxes in court , expect a bill .
Obviously the lesson to take back in this argument and with others is to not parse words intentionally incorrectly , and that you will not find any valid loophole to avoid paying any income taxes .
Just to suck it up and pay your income taxes like everyone else .
If you are behind on filing a year or two , contact a tax lawyer and then negotiate with the IRS and do so before the IRS calls you , you will always end up better off that way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OT: your sig "I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer".
I am a   Citizen  of the State of Texas"I assume you aren't going to try to deny that you are also a citizen of the United States of America at this point.
Other people, now in jail, have tried not to pay income taxes and other federal taxes by claiming that they had renounced their US citizenship and were now just a citizen of the State of X, but not a US citizen any longer.
None of these individuals actually successfully argued in court that they were just a citizen of State X and not a US citizen, so they no longer had to pay income tax.
Most idiots in this position would have found their lawyer unwilling to make that argument, or if acting as their own lawyer these idiots might have found themselves stopped as soon as they started and fined $5000 each time during trial for even trying.
When one makes a frivolous argument that is not valid and that relates to income taxes in court, expect a bill.
Obviously the lesson to take back in this argument and with others is to not parse words intentionally incorrectly, and that you will not find any valid loophole to avoid paying any income taxes.
Just to suck it up and pay your income taxes like everyone else.
If you are behind on filing a year or two, contact a tax lawyer and then negotiate with the IRS and do so before the IRS calls you, you will always end up better off that way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660891</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660357</id>
	<title>Astalavista</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247329800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For interested readers; these were the same people who killed astalavista. (Logs of that attack can be found all over the internet if you google).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For interested readers ; these were the same people who killed astalavista .
( Logs of that attack can be found all over the internet if you google ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For interested readers; these were the same people who killed astalavista.
(Logs of that attack can be found all over the internet if you google).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661597</id>
	<title>actually one more thing....</title>
	<author>pjr.cc</author>
	<datestamp>1247338020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(this is intended mostly as humor more than reality)</p><p>On the plus side, if any security group you buy software/hardware from gets hacked by these guys, you know that perhaps you choose the wrong security software/hardware provider... But, no doubt, the security consultant of their closest competitors will be knocking on your door shortly to sell their own product and show how anti-sec haven't hacked them yet!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( this is intended mostly as humor more than reality ) On the plus side , if any security group you buy software/hardware from gets hacked by these guys , you know that perhaps you choose the wrong security software/hardware provider... But , no doubt , the security consultant of their closest competitors will be knocking on your door shortly to sell their own product and show how anti-sec have n't hacked them yet !
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(this is intended mostly as humor more than reality)On the plus side, if any security group you buy software/hardware from gets hacked by these guys, you know that perhaps you choose the wrong security software/hardware provider... But, no doubt, the security consultant of their closest competitors will be knocking on your door shortly to sell their own product and show how anti-sec haven't hacked them yet!
;)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660807</id>
	<title>How is imageshack a supporter of full disclosure?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247332560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>supporters of full-disclosure and the security industry in its present form</p></div><p> (whatever that is)</p><p>How does imageshack fit into that definition? I guess it's just another script kiddy who chose imageshack because he happened to know an exploit, and the alleged cause is pure trolling BS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>supporters of full-disclosure and the security industry in its present form ( whatever that is ) How does imageshack fit into that definition ?
I guess it 's just another script kiddy who chose imageshack because he happened to know an exploit , and the alleged cause is pure trolling BS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>supporters of full-disclosure and the security industry in its present form (whatever that is)How does imageshack fit into that definition?
I guess it's just another script kiddy who chose imageshack because he happened to know an exploit, and the alleged cause is pure trolling BS.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660765</id>
	<title>What's New?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247332320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>People have been defacing websites for more than a decade. Twitter gets screwed nearly every day by kids.


Some flashy kiddies who act so immaturely should just be ignored - all this slashdot article has done is further their attention grabbing.


Anyhow, someone is always looking to break in. Give the chance for people to fix it, give time for the patch to propagate, let the people know what caused it - someone else might trigger something in their mind for some other software.


And of course, this is fully usable in a malicious way. But my kitchen knife is also fully usable as a murder weapon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>People have been defacing websites for more than a decade .
Twitter gets screwed nearly every day by kids .
Some flashy kiddies who act so immaturely should just be ignored - all this slashdot article has done is further their attention grabbing .
Anyhow , someone is always looking to break in .
Give the chance for people to fix it , give time for the patch to propagate , let the people know what caused it - someone else might trigger something in their mind for some other software .
And of course , this is fully usable in a malicious way .
But my kitchen knife is also fully usable as a murder weapon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People have been defacing websites for more than a decade.
Twitter gets screwed nearly every day by kids.
Some flashy kiddies who act so immaturely should just be ignored - all this slashdot article has done is further their attention grabbing.
Anyhow, someone is always looking to break in.
Give the chance for people to fix it, give time for the patch to propagate, let the people know what caused it - someone else might trigger something in their mind for some other software.
And of course, this is fully usable in a malicious way.
But my kitchen knife is also fully usable as a murder weapon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661787</id>
	<title>Double Speak</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247339640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That "manifesto" is an obvious attempt at reverse psychology.  Large corporations and governments would LOVE to eliminate full disclosure. Exploits and fixes will then become trade secrets and sold off at a premium to the richest customers that can afford the "Elite Protection Package".</p><p>The best disinfectant will always be sunshine, not shadows.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That " manifesto " is an obvious attempt at reverse psychology .
Large corporations and governments would LOVE to eliminate full disclosure .
Exploits and fixes will then become trade secrets and sold off at a premium to the richest customers that can afford the " Elite Protection Package " .The best disinfectant will always be sunshine , not shadows .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That "manifesto" is an obvious attempt at reverse psychology.
Large corporations and governments would LOVE to eliminate full disclosure.
Exploits and fixes will then become trade secrets and sold off at a premium to the richest customers that can afford the "Elite Protection Package".The best disinfectant will always be sunshine, not shadows.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661841</id>
	<title>Re:Leave door open or we will rob you ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247340060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>From what I can understand from their manifest, they don't want full disclosure of exploits so<br>1) Other script kiddies cannot use them too easily<br>2) General public is not aware of the risks<br>3) Security companies cannot prepare protection against them</p><p>This is like... let's thing about proper, slashdot analogy... bunch of car thieves telling that they are against installing immobilizers in cars and warning they will steal cars of immobilizer producers and supporters till they stop distributing immobilizers. When they stop, thieves will come back to stealing random cars, with less effort.</p></div><p>I'd rather have a mature hacker gain access to my porn collection and download what he likes. Heck he can even check out the low balance on my checking account and move on. As opposed to some kids, leaving $13.37 in my account and deleting my porn by accident or because he wants to play a prank on me for having more porn than he does.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I can understand from their manifest , they do n't want full disclosure of exploits so1 ) Other script kiddies can not use them too easily2 ) General public is not aware of the risks3 ) Security companies can not prepare protection against themThis is like... let 's thing about proper , slashdot analogy... bunch of car thieves telling that they are against installing immobilizers in cars and warning they will steal cars of immobilizer producers and supporters till they stop distributing immobilizers .
When they stop , thieves will come back to stealing random cars , with less effort.I 'd rather have a mature hacker gain access to my porn collection and download what he likes .
Heck he can even check out the low balance on my checking account and move on .
As opposed to some kids , leaving $ 13.37 in my account and deleting my porn by accident or because he wants to play a prank on me for having more porn than he does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I can understand from their manifest, they don't want full disclosure of exploits so1) Other script kiddies cannot use them too easily2) General public is not aware of the risks3) Security companies cannot prepare protection against themThis is like... let's thing about proper, slashdot analogy... bunch of car thieves telling that they are against installing immobilizers in cars and warning they will steal cars of immobilizer producers and supporters till they stop distributing immobilizers.
When they stop, thieves will come back to stealing random cars, with less effort.I'd rather have a mature hacker gain access to my porn collection and download what he likes.
Heck he can even check out the low balance on my checking account and move on.
As opposed to some kids, leaving $13.37 in my account and deleting my porn by accident or because he wants to play a prank on me for having more porn than he does.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664643</id>
	<title>Re:Their message is certainly ironic,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247321100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is not ironic.  It is the same message that terrorists have used in every age, whether they be the Weathermen, the KKK, the IRA, or Hezbullah: do X or something bad will happen to innocent people.  So these people use computers to deface the work of others, or perhaps to destroy some online website that they disagree with.  How are these terrorists to be treated?  As the criminal scum they are.  Hunt them down, arrest them, try them, convict them, and stuff them in to cages with other scum-bag criminals.</p><p>As soon as they decided to cause harm to people in order to FORCE their particular point of view upon everyone, they became terrorists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is not ironic .
It is the same message that terrorists have used in every age , whether they be the Weathermen , the KKK , the IRA , or Hezbullah : do X or something bad will happen to innocent people .
So these people use computers to deface the work of others , or perhaps to destroy some online website that they disagree with .
How are these terrorists to be treated ?
As the criminal scum they are .
Hunt them down , arrest them , try them , convict them , and stuff them in to cages with other scum-bag criminals.As soon as they decided to cause harm to people in order to FORCE their particular point of view upon everyone , they became terrorists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is not ironic.
It is the same message that terrorists have used in every age, whether they be the Weathermen, the KKK, the IRA, or Hezbullah: do X or something bad will happen to innocent people.
So these people use computers to deface the work of others, or perhaps to destroy some online website that they disagree with.
How are these terrorists to be treated?
As the criminal scum they are.
Hunt them down, arrest them, try them, convict them, and stuff them in to cages with other scum-bag criminals.As soon as they decided to cause harm to people in order to FORCE their particular point of view upon everyone, they became terrorists.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661519</id>
	<title>tl;dr</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247337360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If they really wanted to get their message across, they could have made it a bit more to the point. 90\% of people aren't going to read some random wall of text.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If they really wanted to get their message across , they could have made it a bit more to the point .
90 \ % of people are n't going to read some random wall of text .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they really wanted to get their message across, they could have made it a bit more to the point.
90\% of people aren't going to read some random wall of text.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664717</id>
	<title>0day exploit in OpenSSH, and thieir IP address.</title>
	<author>Doug52392</author>
	<datestamp>1247322240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet: This same group claims that there is a 0day vulnerability in OpenSSH, and used it to attack the site of a security consultant: <a href="http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2009/Jul/0028.html" title="seclists.org">More here.</a> [seclists.org]<br> <br>

And, what do you know? These kids (yes, script kiddies, most likely teenagers) FORGOT TO REMOVE THEIR IP ADDRESS FROM THAT POST. 125.238.144.224. <br> <br>
I, for one, find it quite ironic that they want "full-disclosure" abandoned, yet they know about a potentially devastating vulnerability in OpenSSH and won't tell anyone. Kind of reiterates why we need full-disclosure.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised this has n't been mentioned yet : This same group claims that there is a 0day vulnerability in OpenSSH , and used it to attack the site of a security consultant : More here .
[ seclists.org ] And , what do you know ?
These kids ( yes , script kiddies , most likely teenagers ) FORGOT TO REMOVE THEIR IP ADDRESS FROM THAT POST .
125.238.144.224 . I , for one , find it quite ironic that they want " full-disclosure " abandoned , yet they know about a potentially devastating vulnerability in OpenSSH and wo n't tell anyone .
Kind of reiterates why we need full-disclosure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned yet: This same group claims that there is a 0day vulnerability in OpenSSH, and used it to attack the site of a security consultant: More here.
[seclists.org] 

And, what do you know?
These kids (yes, script kiddies, most likely teenagers) FORGOT TO REMOVE THEIR IP ADDRESS FROM THAT POST.
125.238.144.224.  
I, for one, find it quite ironic that they want "full-disclosure" abandoned, yet they know about a potentially devastating vulnerability in OpenSSH and won't tell anyone.
Kind of reiterates why we need full-disclosure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28663455</id>
	<title>a better place</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247308680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who knows anti-sec is a group? I wouldn't be surprised this sort of action comes just from one man, pretending to be a group a sick showoff. He needs some attention, in that he is succesful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who knows anti-sec is a group ?
I would n't be surprised this sort of action comes just from one man , pretending to be a group a sick showoff .
He needs some attention , in that he is succesful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who knows anti-sec is a group?
I wouldn't be surprised this sort of action comes just from one man, pretending to be a group a sick showoff.
He needs some attention, in that he is succesful.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661059</id>
	<title>Re:Leave door open or we will rob you ?</title>
	<author>not\_anne</author>
	<datestamp>1247334240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Respectfully, you're missing the point. Their point is that full disclosure helps the exploiters exploit more. Anti-sec is pointing out that there are two main ways that full disclosure is a bad thing:</p><p>1. Full disclosure allows cut and paste script kiddies to wreak continual havoc with detailed and fully documented exploits from the whitehat security industry.</p><p>2. The whitehat security industry (antivirus, firewalls, auditing services) profit hugely from full disclosure by scare tactics.</p><p>They are pushing for change in the whitehat security industry itself, so that script kiddies and security companies stop exploiting the consequences of full disclosure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Respectfully , you 're missing the point .
Their point is that full disclosure helps the exploiters exploit more .
Anti-sec is pointing out that there are two main ways that full disclosure is a bad thing : 1 .
Full disclosure allows cut and paste script kiddies to wreak continual havoc with detailed and fully documented exploits from the whitehat security industry.2 .
The whitehat security industry ( antivirus , firewalls , auditing services ) profit hugely from full disclosure by scare tactics.They are pushing for change in the whitehat security industry itself , so that script kiddies and security companies stop exploiting the consequences of full disclosure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Respectfully, you're missing the point.
Their point is that full disclosure helps the exploiters exploit more.
Anti-sec is pointing out that there are two main ways that full disclosure is a bad thing:1.
Full disclosure allows cut and paste script kiddies to wreak continual havoc with detailed and fully documented exploits from the whitehat security industry.2.
The whitehat security industry (antivirus, firewalls, auditing services) profit hugely from full disclosure by scare tactics.They are pushing for change in the whitehat security industry itself, so that script kiddies and security companies stop exploiting the consequences of full disclosure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660785</id>
	<title>Wikipedia?!</title>
	<author>jkxx</author>
	<datestamp>1247332500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Anyone seeming abnormally slow load times for wikipedia at this time? (Or at least a very odd title image)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Anyone seeming abnormally slow load times for wikipedia at this time ?
( Or at least a very odd title image )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Anyone seeming abnormally slow load times for wikipedia at this time?
(Or at least a very odd title image)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662063</id>
	<title>Re:Wikipedia?!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247341740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I got one of the proxy/load-balancing servers telling me that it couldn't relay the connection (or something like that. it was a bit ago, and I've closed the tab.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I got one of the proxy/load-balancing servers telling me that it could n't relay the connection ( or something like that .
it was a bit ago , and I 've closed the tab .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I got one of the proxy/load-balancing servers telling me that it couldn't relay the connection (or something like that.
it was a bit ago, and I've closed the tab.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660785</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661343</id>
	<title>It's in their name</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247335980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Images hack us</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Images hack us</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Images hack us</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28728505</id>
	<title>Re:Leave door open or we will rob you ?</title>
	<author>Svartalf</author>
	<datestamp>1247839740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excuse me...</p><p>In my sig, I do not claim I do not owe taxes- in no way is that claim in my sig indicating that this is the case.  In fact, I ended up finally paying the back taxes owed during the dot-com bust back with my 2007 returns.  I take quite a bit of umbrage at you insinuating that with what I claim there is about taxes.  It's actually quite telling and part of the reason I put it there in the first place.</p><p>What I do claim in that line is that those in government and business should quit treating me as "just a taxpayer" or "just a consumer"- which is what they are all doing (Even with the current US Administration and Government...  Change I can believe in...largely more of the same...).</p><p>I'm a Citizen of a specific State, and the State and the Federal Government are answerable to me for what they do.  I'm not just a money source and an occasional source for votes.</p><p>I'm your <em> <b>customer</b> </em> if you're a business- consumers just take what they're given and they should enjoy the privilege.  As a customer, you have to convince me to take on your products and services and I'm just as likely as not to turn my back on you if you do something stupid (RIAA members, for example...) and find other sources or do without.</p><p>Heh... Where in all of that (Or my sig, for all that matter...) comes what you came up with?  There ISN'T anything of the sort and you <em> <b>assumed</b> </em> something.  But, hey, I guess I shouldn't be upset...this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. after all; where lack of critical thinking and understanding of your rights passes for the opposite all the time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excuse me...In my sig , I do not claim I do not owe taxes- in no way is that claim in my sig indicating that this is the case .
In fact , I ended up finally paying the back taxes owed during the dot-com bust back with my 2007 returns .
I take quite a bit of umbrage at you insinuating that with what I claim there is about taxes .
It 's actually quite telling and part of the reason I put it there in the first place.What I do claim in that line is that those in government and business should quit treating me as " just a taxpayer " or " just a consumer " - which is what they are all doing ( Even with the current US Administration and Government... Change I can believe in...largely more of the same... ) .I 'm a Citizen of a specific State , and the State and the Federal Government are answerable to me for what they do .
I 'm not just a money source and an occasional source for votes.I 'm your customer if you 're a business- consumers just take what they 're given and they should enjoy the privilege .
As a customer , you have to convince me to take on your products and services and I 'm just as likely as not to turn my back on you if you do something stupid ( RIAA members , for example... ) and find other sources or do without.Heh... Where in all of that ( Or my sig , for all that matter... ) comes what you came up with ?
There IS N'T anything of the sort and you assumed something .
But , hey , I guess I should n't be upset...this is / .
after all ; where lack of critical thinking and understanding of your rights passes for the opposite all the time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excuse me...In my sig, I do not claim I do not owe taxes- in no way is that claim in my sig indicating that this is the case.
In fact, I ended up finally paying the back taxes owed during the dot-com bust back with my 2007 returns.
I take quite a bit of umbrage at you insinuating that with what I claim there is about taxes.
It's actually quite telling and part of the reason I put it there in the first place.What I do claim in that line is that those in government and business should quit treating me as "just a taxpayer" or "just a consumer"- which is what they are all doing (Even with the current US Administration and Government...  Change I can believe in...largely more of the same...).I'm a Citizen of a specific State, and the State and the Federal Government are answerable to me for what they do.
I'm not just a money source and an occasional source for votes.I'm your  customer  if you're a business- consumers just take what they're given and they should enjoy the privilege.
As a customer, you have to convince me to take on your products and services and I'm just as likely as not to turn my back on you if you do something stupid (RIAA members, for example...) and find other sources or do without.Heh... Where in all of that (Or my sig, for all that matter...) comes what you came up with?
There ISN'T anything of the sort and you  assumed  something.
But, hey, I guess I shouldn't be upset...this is /.
after all; where lack of critical thinking and understanding of your rights passes for the opposite all the time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661033</id>
	<title>More info</title>
	<author>mrkitty</author>
	<datestamp>1247334060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>@ <a href="http://www.cgisecurity.com/2009/07/antisec-hackers-replace-all-imageshack-images.html" title="cgisecurity.com">http://www.cgisecurity.com/2009/07/antisec-hackers-replace-all-imageshack-images.html</a> [cgisecurity.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>@ http : //www.cgisecurity.com/2009/07/antisec-hackers-replace-all-imageshack-images.html [ cgisecurity.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>@ http://www.cgisecurity.com/2009/07/antisec-hackers-replace-all-imageshack-images.html [cgisecurity.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662705</id>
	<title>Re:Making the world a better place.</title>
	<author>stanchion7</author>
	<datestamp>1247302800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hadn't really come to a conclusion on this event yet, but I feel your summary is spot on.

Many, many years ago, I remember how jealously script kiddies would guard their toys.  That is exactly what this feels like.

"Security through obscurity is no security at all"</htmltext>
<tokenext>I had n't really come to a conclusion on this event yet , but I feel your summary is spot on .
Many , many years ago , I remember how jealously script kiddies would guard their toys .
That is exactly what this feels like .
" Security through obscurity is no security at all "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hadn't really come to a conclusion on this event yet, but I feel your summary is spot on.
Many, many years ago, I remember how jealously script kiddies would guard their toys.
That is exactly what this feels like.
"Security through obscurity is no security at all"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660341</id>
	<title>Wow</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247329680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'd like to see where this goes. This is gutsy, and apparently they know what they're doing and they mean business. Their message is clear, concise, and I don't completely disagree with them. Interesting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see where this goes .
This is gutsy , and apparently they know what they 're doing and they mean business .
Their message is clear , concise , and I do n't completely disagree with them .
Interesting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see where this goes.
This is gutsy, and apparently they know what they're doing and they mean business.
Their message is clear, concise, and I don't completely disagree with them.
Interesting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843</id>
	<title>Some observations</title>
	<author>rs79</author>
	<datestamp>1247332680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) The text was syntactically and grammatically near perfect. You don't often see that in these sorts of things.</p><p>2) The cadence and style was sort of familiar. I was always able on usenet to identify forgeries not by the path, but by the way they were written. Any idiot can put words where they're not supposed to be, but very few people can wrote like somebody else.</p><p>3) I posit that if they weren't good intentioned they'd have hacked DHS.</p><p>It would not surprise me if this turned out to be a bunch of CS/security professors or the like, or their minions doing their work.</p><p>From the message, I'm absolutey certain they're in America, and had either a very rigorous or British schooling.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) The text was syntactically and grammatically near perfect .
You do n't often see that in these sorts of things.2 ) The cadence and style was sort of familiar .
I was always able on usenet to identify forgeries not by the path , but by the way they were written .
Any idiot can put words where they 're not supposed to be , but very few people can wrote like somebody else.3 ) I posit that if they were n't good intentioned they 'd have hacked DHS.It would not surprise me if this turned out to be a bunch of CS/security professors or the like , or their minions doing their work.From the message , I 'm absolutey certain they 're in America , and had either a very rigorous or British schooling .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) The text was syntactically and grammatically near perfect.
You don't often see that in these sorts of things.2) The cadence and style was sort of familiar.
I was always able on usenet to identify forgeries not by the path, but by the way they were written.
Any idiot can put words where they're not supposed to be, but very few people can wrote like somebody else.3) I posit that if they weren't good intentioned they'd have hacked DHS.It would not surprise me if this turned out to be a bunch of CS/security professors or the like, or their minions doing their work.From the message, I'm absolutey certain they're in America, and had either a very rigorous or British schooling.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664725</id>
	<title>Re:If you catch a thief breaking into a house...</title>
	<author>zuperduperman</author>
	<datestamp>1247322300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your analogy is the strawman they want to present.   The reality is actually that nearly all whitehats subscribe to a policy of full disclosure only after notifying the vendor / owner of the software and giving them a period of time to address it.   Full disclosure occurs when that process fails.  So it's not the same as displaying your security code on TV - it's like sending the company that makes the security system a letter warning them about a fault in their system that applies to everybody using that system, then hearing nothing back, then realizing that a significant number crooks are probably aware of the problem and then finally publishing an ad in the newspaper when it is clear that there is enormous risk to the community.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your analogy is the strawman they want to present .
The reality is actually that nearly all whitehats subscribe to a policy of full disclosure only after notifying the vendor / owner of the software and giving them a period of time to address it .
Full disclosure occurs when that process fails .
So it 's not the same as displaying your security code on TV - it 's like sending the company that makes the security system a letter warning them about a fault in their system that applies to everybody using that system , then hearing nothing back , then realizing that a significant number crooks are probably aware of the problem and then finally publishing an ad in the newspaper when it is clear that there is enormous risk to the community .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your analogy is the strawman they want to present.
The reality is actually that nearly all whitehats subscribe to a policy of full disclosure only after notifying the vendor / owner of the software and giving them a period of time to address it.
Full disclosure occurs when that process fails.
So it's not the same as displaying your security code on TV - it's like sending the company that makes the security system a letter warning them about a fault in their system that applies to everybody using that system, then hearing nothing back, then realizing that a significant number crooks are probably aware of the problem and then finally publishing an ad in the newspaper when it is clear that there is enormous risk to the community.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28663277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661203</id>
	<title>Re:Some observations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247335020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The text (http://romeo.copyandpaste.info/txt/imageshack-pwned.txt) is far from perfect english.  It is actually quite poorly written, though it does affect a learned style.  I would not be surprised at all if this was written by someone who didn't have english as their first language.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The text ( http : //romeo.copyandpaste.info/txt/imageshack-pwned.txt ) is far from perfect english .
It is actually quite poorly written , though it does affect a learned style .
I would not be surprised at all if this was written by someone who did n't have english as their first language .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The text (http://romeo.copyandpaste.info/txt/imageshack-pwned.txt) is far from perfect english.
It is actually quite poorly written, though it does affect a learned style.
I would not be surprised at all if this was written by someone who didn't have english as their first language.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660309</id>
	<title>first post</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247329560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28663671</id>
	<title>Excellent use of irony</title>
	<author>gr8dude</author>
	<datestamp>1247310300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think they are pro full-disclosure, and this action is just a pun.</p><p>The message they are trying to get across is: <em>"If you close your eyes, the world doesn't disappear. Here's an example of a hack, just to show you that vulnerabilities will continue to exist even if you don't make them public. Not only that, but there will also be people who will find them and use them, regardless of your will to make them public or not"</em>.</p><p>The message is worded well, others noticed it too; I think the author is too intelligent to be so ignorant of the truth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they are pro full-disclosure , and this action is just a pun.The message they are trying to get across is : " If you close your eyes , the world does n't disappear .
Here 's an example of a hack , just to show you that vulnerabilities will continue to exist even if you do n't make them public .
Not only that , but there will also be people who will find them and use them , regardless of your will to make them public or not " .The message is worded well , others noticed it too ; I think the author is too intelligent to be so ignorant of the truth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they are pro full-disclosure, and this action is just a pun.The message they are trying to get across is: "If you close your eyes, the world doesn't disappear.
Here's an example of a hack, just to show you that vulnerabilities will continue to exist even if you don't make them public.
Not only that, but there will also be people who will find them and use them, regardless of your will to make them public or not".The message is worded well, others noticed it too; I think the author is too intelligent to be so ignorant of the truth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28671663</id>
	<title>Re:My best guess is...</title>
	<author>apresrasage</author>
	<datestamp>1247409780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><ul>

<li>Or they're just a bunch of script kiddies trying demonstrating their "l33t 5k1lz".</li></ul></div><p>Sadly, most scrip-kiddies would not be able to read the last sentence and
paraphrase it. (btw: that's 1337)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or they 're just a bunch of script kiddies trying demonstrating their " l33t 5k1lz " .Sadly , most scrip-kiddies would not be able to read the last sentence and paraphrase it .
( btw : that 's 1337 )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

Or they're just a bunch of script kiddies trying demonstrating their "l33t 5k1lz".Sadly, most scrip-kiddies would not be able to read the last sentence and
paraphrase it.
(btw: that's 1337)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661903</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664763</id>
	<title>Re:Their message is certainly ironic,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247323020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least now I know why my sig and avatar pics are broken. Hopefully imageshack.us has some backups and can recover from this skulduggery.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least now I know why my sig and avatar pics are broken .
Hopefully imageshack.us has some backups and can recover from this skulduggery .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least now I know why my sig and avatar pics are broken.
Hopefully imageshack.us has some backups and can recover from this skulduggery.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660529</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>taoye</author>
	<datestamp>1247330820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No it isn't. These guys don't even understand what they're talking about... and we'll see if they mean business when the FBI comes a knockin'...</htmltext>
<tokenext>No it is n't .
These guys do n't even understand what they 're talking about... and we 'll see if they mean business when the FBI comes a knockin'.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No it isn't.
These guys don't even understand what they're talking about... and we'll see if they mean business when the FBI comes a knockin'...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661779</id>
	<title>US Gov't</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247339580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe the US Gov't and other industries that have been harmed by full-disclosure is involved with this, and that the effort involves more than one "group".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the US Gov't and other industries that have been harmed by full-disclosure is involved with this , and that the effort involves more than one " group " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the US Gov't and other industries that have been harmed by full-disclosure is involved with this, and that the effort involves more than one "group".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661031</id>
	<title>The motive and action contradict each other..</title>
	<author>Seth Kriticos</author>
	<datestamp>1247334060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The fact that they hacked ImageShack shows that there is a vulnerability, probably one that was exposed before. In terms of natural selection this is a good thing to make the severity of the vulnerability clear. I think it would be a good thing if this kind of attacks would happen more often to get a better relation to security situation overall, because many companies and individuals tend to ignore otherwise.<br><br>Their message is complete bullocks tough. Full disclosure in combination with destructive exploiting would harden the technology, but their agenda is to just 'not talk' about holes in the security, which is completely stupid, as it would only produce a temporal or no relief at all and then someone would wreck much more havoc.<br><br>So their statement "Security through obscurity" is complete crap, but we already know that.<br><br>Now away from wishful thinking, what will probably happen?<br><br>1. As these guys/girls (probably script kiddies, as they don't seem to have much cognitive power) did cause some financial damage, they will probably be tracked down and sentenced to something not nice for them (as they stepped on both sides toes).<br><br>2. People with financial interest exploiting vulnerabilities will continue to do so while they'll be staying below the radar (full disclosure or not, it stays like this), as companies don't give a damn in cases where the damage is not obvious or not on their side.<br><br>3. Security industry will stay as it is - because the white hat approach works better than the alternative.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact that they hacked ImageShack shows that there is a vulnerability , probably one that was exposed before .
In terms of natural selection this is a good thing to make the severity of the vulnerability clear .
I think it would be a good thing if this kind of attacks would happen more often to get a better relation to security situation overall , because many companies and individuals tend to ignore otherwise.Their message is complete bullocks tough .
Full disclosure in combination with destructive exploiting would harden the technology , but their agenda is to just 'not talk ' about holes in the security , which is completely stupid , as it would only produce a temporal or no relief at all and then someone would wreck much more havoc.So their statement " Security through obscurity " is complete crap , but we already know that.Now away from wishful thinking , what will probably happen ? 1 .
As these guys/girls ( probably script kiddies , as they do n't seem to have much cognitive power ) did cause some financial damage , they will probably be tracked down and sentenced to something not nice for them ( as they stepped on both sides toes ) .2 .
People with financial interest exploiting vulnerabilities will continue to do so while they 'll be staying below the radar ( full disclosure or not , it stays like this ) , as companies do n't give a damn in cases where the damage is not obvious or not on their side.3 .
Security industry will stay as it is - because the white hat approach works better than the alternative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact that they hacked ImageShack shows that there is a vulnerability, probably one that was exposed before.
In terms of natural selection this is a good thing to make the severity of the vulnerability clear.
I think it would be a good thing if this kind of attacks would happen more often to get a better relation to security situation overall, because many companies and individuals tend to ignore otherwise.Their message is complete bullocks tough.
Full disclosure in combination with destructive exploiting would harden the technology, but their agenda is to just 'not talk' about holes in the security, which is completely stupid, as it would only produce a temporal or no relief at all and then someone would wreck much more havoc.So their statement "Security through obscurity" is complete crap, but we already know that.Now away from wishful thinking, what will probably happen?1.
As these guys/girls (probably script kiddies, as they don't seem to have much cognitive power) did cause some financial damage, they will probably be tracked down and sentenced to something not nice for them (as they stepped on both sides toes).2.
People with financial interest exploiting vulnerabilities will continue to do so while they'll be staying below the radar (full disclosure or not, it stays like this), as companies don't give a damn in cases where the damage is not obvious or not on their side.3.
Security industry will stay as it is - because the white hat approach works better than the alternative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660891</id>
	<title>Re:Leave door open or we will rob you ?</title>
	<author>Svartalf</author>
	<datestamp>1247333040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good analogy- so it's not in keeping with the "proper, slashdot analogy" thinking.</p><p>You have to do a <em> <b>**BAD**</b> </em> car analogy for it to be that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good analogy- so it 's not in keeping with the " proper , slashdot analogy " thinking.You have to do a * * BAD * * car analogy for it to be that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good analogy- so it's not in keeping with the "proper, slashdot analogy" thinking.You have to do a  **BAD**  car analogy for it to be that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660865</id>
	<title>Judging by the thought process behind this</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1247332860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So the average age of this group is apparently what, 15 or thereabouts?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So the average age of this group is apparently what , 15 or thereabouts ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So the average age of this group is apparently what, 15 or thereabouts?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28666315</id>
	<title>Reminds me of my government</title>
	<author>JJJK</author>
	<datestamp>1247397360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember how germany <a href="http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/13/0218246" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">outlawed</a> [slashdot.org] "hacker tools"? I guess these anti-sec-terrorists can relate to that. Thinking that banning something easily available will help anyone but criminals is very similar to thinking that bullying people into shutting up will stop hackers from finding security holes.</p><p>Well-meaning but technologically ignorant politicians are one thing (personally I think they are the biggest threat to science and progress), jerks like this are another. I'm sure they are a bunch (if there is more than one) of angry young men who feel like they know exactly what's best for the world and who are almost religiously passionate about imposing their will on others.</p><p>I'm sure many of us have felt something similar at some point of our lives, but the origin of that emotion is a need to feel powerful - not solving some problem or anything altruistic at all. If you resort to terrorizing people so they act the way you want them to, then you are nothing but a power-hungry terrorist. No matter how pure you think your reasons are.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember how germany outlawed [ slashdot.org ] " hacker tools " ?
I guess these anti-sec-terrorists can relate to that .
Thinking that banning something easily available will help anyone but criminals is very similar to thinking that bullying people into shutting up will stop hackers from finding security holes.Well-meaning but technologically ignorant politicians are one thing ( personally I think they are the biggest threat to science and progress ) , jerks like this are another .
I 'm sure they are a bunch ( if there is more than one ) of angry young men who feel like they know exactly what 's best for the world and who are almost religiously passionate about imposing their will on others.I 'm sure many of us have felt something similar at some point of our lives , but the origin of that emotion is a need to feel powerful - not solving some problem or anything altruistic at all .
If you resort to terrorizing people so they act the way you want them to , then you are nothing but a power-hungry terrorist .
No matter how pure you think your reasons are .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember how germany outlawed [slashdot.org] "hacker tools"?
I guess these anti-sec-terrorists can relate to that.
Thinking that banning something easily available will help anyone but criminals is very similar to thinking that bullying people into shutting up will stop hackers from finding security holes.Well-meaning but technologically ignorant politicians are one thing (personally I think they are the biggest threat to science and progress), jerks like this are another.
I'm sure they are a bunch (if there is more than one) of angry young men who feel like they know exactly what's best for the world and who are almost religiously passionate about imposing their will on others.I'm sure many of us have felt something similar at some point of our lives, but the origin of that emotion is a need to feel powerful - not solving some problem or anything altruistic at all.
If you resort to terrorizing people so they act the way you want them to, then you are nothing but a power-hungry terrorist.
No matter how pure you think your reasons are.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28663345</id>
	<title>Picking Legitimate Targets</title>
	<author>Zerocool3001</author>
	<datestamp>1247307960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It seems a little odd to me that they picked an image hosting site (especially one a few steps above rapidshare in usefulness) to attack first. One of their stated goals from their website:
<br>
<a href="http://romeo.copyandpaste.info/" title="copyandpaste.info" rel="nofollow">http://romeo.copyandpaste.info/</a> [copyandpaste.info]<p><div class="quote"><p>-----[ Check list / Goals:
	<b>Take down every public forum, group, or website that helps in promoting exploits and tools or have show-off sections.</b>
	Publish exploits rigged with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/bin/rm to whitehats, let them rm their own boxes for you.
	Spread the anti-security movement.
	Revive pr0j3ct m4yh3m.</p></div><p>I understand that imageshack might get people's attention and spread your message, but if you stated goal is to attack sites that host tools and disclose exploits, wouldn't something like <a href="http://sectools.org/" title="sectools.org" rel="nofollow">Sectools.org</a> [sectools.org] be more appropriate? Or maybe they couldn't handle something legitimate...

Also, it seems likely that they would use tools distributed from just such a site to exploit an OpenSSH vulnerability.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It seems a little odd to me that they picked an image hosting site ( especially one a few steps above rapidshare in usefulness ) to attack first .
One of their stated goals from their website : http : //romeo.copyandpaste.info/ [ copyandpaste.info ] ----- [ Check list / Goals : Take down every public forum , group , or website that helps in promoting exploits and tools or have show-off sections .
Publish exploits rigged with /bin/rm to whitehats , let them rm their own boxes for you .
Spread the anti-security movement .
Revive pr0j3ct m4yh3m.I understand that imageshack might get people 's attention and spread your message , but if you stated goal is to attack sites that host tools and disclose exploits , would n't something like Sectools.org [ sectools.org ] be more appropriate ?
Or maybe they could n't handle something legitimate.. . Also , it seems likely that they would use tools distributed from just such a site to exploit an OpenSSH vulnerability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It seems a little odd to me that they picked an image hosting site (especially one a few steps above rapidshare in usefulness) to attack first.
One of their stated goals from their website:

http://romeo.copyandpaste.info/ [copyandpaste.info]-----[ Check list / Goals:
	Take down every public forum, group, or website that helps in promoting exploits and tools or have show-off sections.
Publish exploits rigged with /bin/rm to whitehats, let them rm their own boxes for you.
Spread the anti-security movement.
Revive pr0j3ct m4yh3m.I understand that imageshack might get people's attention and spread your message, but if you stated goal is to attack sites that host tools and disclose exploits, wouldn't something like Sectools.org [sectools.org] be more appropriate?
Or maybe they couldn't handle something legitimate...

Also, it seems likely that they would use tools distributed from just such a site to exploit an OpenSSH vulnerability.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660377</id>
	<title>Leave door open or we will rob you ?</title>
	<author>abies</author>
	<datestamp>1247329980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what I can understand from their manifest, they don't want full disclosure of exploits so<br>1) Other script kiddies cannot use them too easily<br>2) General public is not aware of the risks<br>3) Security companies cannot prepare protection against them</p><p>This is like... let's thing about proper, slashdot analogy... bunch of car thieves telling that they are against installing immobilizers in cars and warning they will steal cars of immobilizer producers and supporters till they stop distributing immobilizers. When they stop, thieves will come back to stealing random cars, with less effort.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what I can understand from their manifest , they do n't want full disclosure of exploits so1 ) Other script kiddies can not use them too easily2 ) General public is not aware of the risks3 ) Security companies can not prepare protection against themThis is like... let 's thing about proper , slashdot analogy... bunch of car thieves telling that they are against installing immobilizers in cars and warning they will steal cars of immobilizer producers and supporters till they stop distributing immobilizers .
When they stop , thieves will come back to stealing random cars , with less effort .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what I can understand from their manifest, they don't want full disclosure of exploits so1) Other script kiddies cannot use them too easily2) General public is not aware of the risks3) Security companies cannot prepare protection against themThis is like... let's thing about proper, slashdot analogy... bunch of car thieves telling that they are against installing immobilizers in cars and warning they will steal cars of immobilizer producers and supporters till they stop distributing immobilizers.
When they stop, thieves will come back to stealing random cars, with less effort.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662937</id>
	<title>Re:What is their motivation?</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1247305020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What would happen, is that the prevalence of unskilled script kiddies would massively decrease, and the background scans taking place constantly would decrease... Because the perceived threats would have abated, people wouldn't bother installing updates or taking any measures to protect themselves. Also without public disclosure and/or active exploitation, software vendors would downplay the seriousness of their vulnerabilities and delay providing patches for them.</p><p>The end result of this, is that the smaller number of people who can acquire exploits, and this includes paid criminal gangs, would have a lot more power because they would no longer have to compete against the script kiddies for control of drone systems.</p><p>Incidentally, i am also against the *free* disclosure of vulnerabilities in non free software... Commercial vendors charge you a lot of money for their software, and can often be hostile or uncommunicative towards people who find bugs in their software... These people finding bugs are effectively doing their jobs for them and get nothing but grief in return, so it's no wonder that so many bug hunters are now working for criminal gangs.<br>A lot of these vendors want you to do their beta testing for them for free, and then report the bugs privately to them so they can silently fix them not even giving you credit for the find and often not disclosing any details to the public other than perhaps providing a black box patch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What would happen , is that the prevalence of unskilled script kiddies would massively decrease , and the background scans taking place constantly would decrease... Because the perceived threats would have abated , people would n't bother installing updates or taking any measures to protect themselves .
Also without public disclosure and/or active exploitation , software vendors would downplay the seriousness of their vulnerabilities and delay providing patches for them.The end result of this , is that the smaller number of people who can acquire exploits , and this includes paid criminal gangs , would have a lot more power because they would no longer have to compete against the script kiddies for control of drone systems.Incidentally , i am also against the * free * disclosure of vulnerabilities in non free software... Commercial vendors charge you a lot of money for their software , and can often be hostile or uncommunicative towards people who find bugs in their software... These people finding bugs are effectively doing their jobs for them and get nothing but grief in return , so it 's no wonder that so many bug hunters are now working for criminal gangs.A lot of these vendors want you to do their beta testing for them for free , and then report the bugs privately to them so they can silently fix them not even giving you credit for the find and often not disclosing any details to the public other than perhaps providing a black box patch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What would happen, is that the prevalence of unskilled script kiddies would massively decrease, and the background scans taking place constantly would decrease... Because the perceived threats would have abated, people wouldn't bother installing updates or taking any measures to protect themselves.
Also without public disclosure and/or active exploitation, software vendors would downplay the seriousness of their vulnerabilities and delay providing patches for them.The end result of this, is that the smaller number of people who can acquire exploits, and this includes paid criminal gangs, would have a lot more power because they would no longer have to compete against the script kiddies for control of drone systems.Incidentally, i am also against the *free* disclosure of vulnerabilities in non free software... Commercial vendors charge you a lot of money for their software, and can often be hostile or uncommunicative towards people who find bugs in their software... These people finding bugs are effectively doing their jobs for them and get nothing but grief in return, so it's no wonder that so many bug hunters are now working for criminal gangs.A lot of these vendors want you to do their beta testing for them for free, and then report the bugs privately to them so they can silently fix them not even giving you credit for the find and often not disclosing any details to the public other than perhaps providing a black box patch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660353</id>
	<title>related to openssh rumors?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247329800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These are the same people who say they've found an exploit in some versions of openssh.  Any connection?</p><p>http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2009/Jul/0028.html</p><p>http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=692036</p><p>http://lwn.net/Articles/340483/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These are the same people who say they 've found an exploit in some versions of openssh .
Any connection ? http : //seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2009/Jul/0028.htmlhttp : //news.ycombinator.com/item ? id = 692036http : //lwn.net/Articles/340483/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These are the same people who say they've found an exploit in some versions of openssh.
Any connection?http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2009/Jul/0028.htmlhttp://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=692036http://lwn.net/Articles/340483/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661903</id>
	<title>My best guess is...</title>
	<author>bXTr</author>
	<datestamp>1247340660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><ul>
<li>This is a legitimate threat, and they're truly against full disclosure.</li>
<li>Or they're using reverse psychology and are for full disclosure.</li>
<li>Unless they're using reverse-reverse psychology and are really against full disclosure.</li>
<li>But maybe they're using reverse-reverse-reverse psychology and are really for full disclosure.</li>
<li>...</li>
<li>Or they're just a bunch of script kiddies trying demonstrating their "l33t 5k1lz".</li>
</ul></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a legitimate threat , and they 're truly against full disclosure .
Or they 're using reverse psychology and are for full disclosure .
Unless they 're using reverse-reverse psychology and are really against full disclosure .
But maybe they 're using reverse-reverse-reverse psychology and are really for full disclosure .
.. . Or they 're just a bunch of script kiddies trying demonstrating their " l33t 5k1lz " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
This is a legitimate threat, and they're truly against full disclosure.
Or they're using reverse psychology and are for full disclosure.
Unless they're using reverse-reverse psychology and are really against full disclosure.
But maybe they're using reverse-reverse-reverse psychology and are really for full disclosure.
...
Or they're just a bunch of script kiddies trying demonstrating their "l33t 5k1lz".
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660693</id>
	<title>From their manifesto:</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1247331900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apparently they are against full disclosure of exploits, because this would lead to the cracks in the first place.</p><p>Sounds to me like they are Microsoft PR workers in disguise. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apparently they are against full disclosure of exploits , because this would lead to the cracks in the first place.Sounds to me like they are Microsoft PR workers in disguise .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apparently they are against full disclosure of exploits, because this would lead to the cracks in the first place.Sounds to me like they are Microsoft PR workers in disguise.
^^</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664859</id>
	<title>Um...</title>
	<author>shish</author>
	<datestamp>1247324340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They're demonstrating that full disclosure is bad, by making use of a secret exploit? And they aren't going to release the exploit so that it can be fixed, they're going to keep it for themselves so that they can hack more people? Do they not realise that they just shot their own point in the foot?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-/</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're demonstrating that full disclosure is bad , by making use of a secret exploit ?
And they are n't going to release the exploit so that it can be fixed , they 're going to keep it for themselves so that they can hack more people ?
Do they not realise that they just shot their own point in the foot ?
: -/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're demonstrating that full disclosure is bad, by making use of a secret exploit?
And they aren't going to release the exploit so that it can be fixed, they're going to keep it for themselves so that they can hack more people?
Do they not realise that they just shot their own point in the foot?
:-/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28667125</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not sure I get it</title>
	<author>TheTurtlesMoves</author>
	<datestamp>1247412060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>they probably sell firewall and other security software for their day job.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</htmltext>
<tokenext>they probably sell firewall and other security software for their day job .
; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they probably sell firewall and other security software for their day job.
;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28705281</id>
	<title>Removing competition?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247681760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Remove full disclosure of exploits so script kiddies stop capturing the vulnerable systems that the "Anti-sec movement" guy wants for themselves. Nice.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Remove full disclosure of exploits so script kiddies stop capturing the vulnerable systems that the " Anti-sec movement " guy wants for themselves .
Nice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remove full disclosure of exploits so script kiddies stop capturing the vulnerable systems that the "Anti-sec movement" guy wants for themselves.
Nice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660943</id>
	<title>Re:Making the world a better place.</title>
	<author>billcopc</author>
	<datestamp>1247333520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They want to discourage full disclosure, because it means they won't get to abuse undisclosed vulnerabilities as freely as they currently do.</p><p>Let me put it to you in more immediate terms: If the BH presentation on ATM exploits goes through, it will trigger a much more rapid response to patch the problem, which means the true exploiters have less time to plunder.  Now this is just one example...  There are hundreds of high-risk exploits discovered every day, some of which were obviously used to hack into ImageShack.  These kiddies are scared that full disclosure will take away their "toys".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They want to discourage full disclosure , because it means they wo n't get to abuse undisclosed vulnerabilities as freely as they currently do.Let me put it to you in more immediate terms : If the BH presentation on ATM exploits goes through , it will trigger a much more rapid response to patch the problem , which means the true exploiters have less time to plunder .
Now this is just one example... There are hundreds of high-risk exploits discovered every day , some of which were obviously used to hack into ImageShack .
These kiddies are scared that full disclosure will take away their " toys " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They want to discourage full disclosure, because it means they won't get to abuse undisclosed vulnerabilities as freely as they currently do.Let me put it to you in more immediate terms: If the BH presentation on ATM exploits goes through, it will trigger a much more rapid response to patch the problem, which means the true exploiters have less time to plunder.
Now this is just one example...  There are hundreds of high-risk exploits discovered every day, some of which were obviously used to hack into ImageShack.
These kiddies are scared that full disclosure will take away their "toys".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662363</id>
	<title>Re:Leave door open or we will rob you ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247343660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Looks like you are having a little trouble with the word "merely."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like you are having a little trouble with the word " merely .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like you are having a little trouble with the word "merely.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661721</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660715</id>
	<title>So rash</title>
	<author>UnixUnix</author>
	<datestamp>1247332020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>

    They didn't even bother to Ask Slashdot<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't even bother to Ask Slashdot : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

    They didn't even bother to Ask Slashdot :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661313</id>
	<title>WE WANT MORE!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247335680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.zone-h.org/mirror/id/8961233</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.zone-h.org/mirror/id/8961233</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.zone-h.org/mirror/id/8961233</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28663277</id>
	<title>If you catch a thief breaking into a house...</title>
	<author>amn108</author>
	<datestamp>1247307480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Let me describe a useful analogy:

When a house alarm code is "guessed" by a thief, and the thief is caught, the media report, if any, usually does not include disclosing the code on your TV-screen in big letters along with instructions how you too can do it, as they cover the incident. Does it?

This is however much like what reality is for IT players. As soon as one person breaks into another partys authorization domain, he/she feels it is their democratic duty to let any and all others know how they can do the same. Disregarding any opinion the target party of the break-in may have about it. Why? Some twisted moral codex, mutated from reality into virtuality, I guess.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Let me describe a useful analogy : When a house alarm code is " guessed " by a thief , and the thief is caught , the media report , if any , usually does not include disclosing the code on your TV-screen in big letters along with instructions how you too can do it , as they cover the incident .
Does it ?
This is however much like what reality is for IT players .
As soon as one person breaks into another partys authorization domain , he/she feels it is their democratic duty to let any and all others know how they can do the same .
Disregarding any opinion the target party of the break-in may have about it .
Why ? Some twisted moral codex , mutated from reality into virtuality , I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let me describe a useful analogy:

When a house alarm code is "guessed" by a thief, and the thief is caught, the media report, if any, usually does not include disclosing the code on your TV-screen in big letters along with instructions how you too can do it, as they cover the incident.
Does it?
This is however much like what reality is for IT players.
As soon as one person breaks into another partys authorization domain, he/she feels it is their democratic duty to let any and all others know how they can do the same.
Disregarding any opinion the target party of the break-in may have about it.
Why? Some twisted moral codex, mutated from reality into virtuality, I guess.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28666057</id>
	<title>anti-sec?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247391660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>more like anti-suck!</p><p>man, what a bunch of dicks..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>more like anti-suck ! man , what a bunch of dicks. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>more like anti-suck!man, what a bunch of dicks..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660837</id>
	<title>Re:Wow</title>
	<author>Sebilrazen</author>
	<datestamp>1247332620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'd like to see where this goes. This is gutsy, and apparently they know what they're doing and they mean business. Their message is clear, concise, and I don't completely disagree with them. Interesting.</p></div><p>Oddly, this comment, verbatim - save the "Wow" is the subject and not "Wow...", is on another <a href="http://mashable.com/2009/07/10/imageshack-hacked/" title="mashable.com">story</a> [mashable.com] about this.<br> <br>
Personally I fear people that would go to lengths to post the exact same thing on multiple sites than people with causes.  <br> <br>I'd like to give a shout out to Zorg, from the <em>Fifth Element</em> on this one "I don't like warriors. Too narrow-minded, no subtlety. And worse, they fight for <strong>hopeless causes.</strong> Honor? Huh! Honor's killed millions of people, it hasn't saved a single one."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd like to see where this goes .
This is gutsy , and apparently they know what they 're doing and they mean business .
Their message is clear , concise , and I do n't completely disagree with them .
Interesting.Oddly , this comment , verbatim - save the " Wow " is the subject and not " Wow... " , is on another story [ mashable.com ] about this .
Personally I fear people that would go to lengths to post the exact same thing on multiple sites than people with causes .
I 'd like to give a shout out to Zorg , from the Fifth Element on this one " I do n't like warriors .
Too narrow-minded , no subtlety .
And worse , they fight for hopeless causes .
Honor ? Huh !
Honor 's killed millions of people , it has n't saved a single one .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd like to see where this goes.
This is gutsy, and apparently they know what they're doing and they mean business.
Their message is clear, concise, and I don't completely disagree with them.
Interesting.Oddly, this comment, verbatim - save the "Wow" is the subject and not "Wow...", is on another story [mashable.com] about this.
Personally I fear people that would go to lengths to post the exact same thing on multiple sites than people with causes.
I'd like to give a shout out to Zorg, from the Fifth Element on this one "I don't like warriors.
Too narrow-minded, no subtlety.
And worse, they fight for hopeless causes.
Honor? Huh!
Honor's killed millions of people, it hasn't saved a single one.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660341</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661959</id>
	<title>Re:What is their motivation?</title>
	<author>\_Sprocket\_</author>
	<datestamp>1247341080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, if they got their way, completely. What would happen? Anyone motivated enough could find an exploit of their own and hack anyone else. But presumably this would eradicate the script-kiddie element as it would require an element of skill.</p></div><p>It goes back to an amplified version of the old BBS <a href="http://www.textfiles.com/hacking/" title="textfiles.com">philez</a> [textfiles.com] days.  Except now they're not historical curiosities but relevant instructions as the exploits they describe remain current.  At least, for a short while.</p><p>Since we're not falling back to the old analog MODEM days, but remaining here in the current Internet era, these tutorials will be just as distributed as they are now.  They'll be fed in to the underground community instead of the general public.  But in the Internet era, that underground community is much more connected and vast.  The only limiting factor will be the rate of trickle-down as a zero-day spreads from the inner circles to the general community.</p><p>Of course, there's money to be made on this information.  Malware markets and security vendors will both eagerly offer bounties for the information while attempting to cultivate direct contacts / placement in those communities.  Once malware is developed on a new exploit, security vendors will analyze it to update their software.  And in kind, once security vendors update their software, malware marketers will analyze patches / releases and develop malware seeking to take advantage of the adoption curve.</p><p>In short, we'll cycle through the 80s and 90s up to today's environment in record time.  With arguably more chaos.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , if they got their way , completely .
What would happen ?
Anyone motivated enough could find an exploit of their own and hack anyone else .
But presumably this would eradicate the script-kiddie element as it would require an element of skill.It goes back to an amplified version of the old BBS philez [ textfiles.com ] days .
Except now they 're not historical curiosities but relevant instructions as the exploits they describe remain current .
At least , for a short while.Since we 're not falling back to the old analog MODEM days , but remaining here in the current Internet era , these tutorials will be just as distributed as they are now .
They 'll be fed in to the underground community instead of the general public .
But in the Internet era , that underground community is much more connected and vast .
The only limiting factor will be the rate of trickle-down as a zero-day spreads from the inner circles to the general community.Of course , there 's money to be made on this information .
Malware markets and security vendors will both eagerly offer bounties for the information while attempting to cultivate direct contacts / placement in those communities .
Once malware is developed on a new exploit , security vendors will analyze it to update their software .
And in kind , once security vendors update their software , malware marketers will analyze patches / releases and develop malware seeking to take advantage of the adoption curve.In short , we 'll cycle through the 80s and 90s up to today 's environment in record time .
With arguably more chaos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, if they got their way, completely.
What would happen?
Anyone motivated enough could find an exploit of their own and hack anyone else.
But presumably this would eradicate the script-kiddie element as it would require an element of skill.It goes back to an amplified version of the old BBS philez [textfiles.com] days.
Except now they're not historical curiosities but relevant instructions as the exploits they describe remain current.
At least, for a short while.Since we're not falling back to the old analog MODEM days, but remaining here in the current Internet era, these tutorials will be just as distributed as they are now.
They'll be fed in to the underground community instead of the general public.
But in the Internet era, that underground community is much more connected and vast.
The only limiting factor will be the rate of trickle-down as a zero-day spreads from the inner circles to the general community.Of course, there's money to be made on this information.
Malware markets and security vendors will both eagerly offer bounties for the information while attempting to cultivate direct contacts / placement in those communities.
Once malware is developed on a new exploit, security vendors will analyze it to update their software.
And in kind, once security vendors update their software, malware marketers will analyze patches / releases and develop malware seeking to take advantage of the adoption curve.In short, we'll cycle through the 80s and 90s up to today's environment in record time.
With arguably more chaos.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661015</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661777</id>
	<title>Actually they are retired Sergeants of Marines...</title>
	<author>atrocious cowpat</author>
	<datestamp>1247339580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/244/244-h/244-h.htm" title="gutenberg.org">What?</a> [gutenberg.org] <br> <br>ac<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
[ gutenberg.org ] ac : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
[gutenberg.org]  ac :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660331</id>
	<title>Is this considered full-disclosure ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247329680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>... of their movement?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... of their movement ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... of their movement?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661115</id>
	<title>I agree</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247334480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Full disclosure is not the solution for security vulnerabilities like <a href="http://profile.imageshack.us/search.php?q\%5B\%5D" title="imageshack.us" rel="nofollow">this one</a> [imageshack.us], oh wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Full disclosure is not the solution for security vulnerabilities like this one [ imageshack.us ] , oh wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Full disclosure is not the solution for security vulnerabilities like this one [imageshack.us], oh wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664891</id>
	<title>Re:0day exploit in OpenSSH, and thieir IP address.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247325000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>This same group claims that there is a 0day vulnerability in OpenSSH, and used it to attack the site of a security consultant:</i> <br>
They never claimed any such thing,  They posted heavily-edited logs, and people assumed they have openssh 0-day.<br> <br>

<i>And, what do you know? These kids (yes, script kiddies, most likely teenagers) FORGOT TO REMOVE THEIR IP ADDRESS FROM THAT POST. 125.238.144.224.</i> <br>
You're an idiot.  That ip address belongs to the admin.  Learn how to interpret the output of '/usr/bin/w'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This same group claims that there is a 0day vulnerability in OpenSSH , and used it to attack the site of a security consultant : They never claimed any such thing , They posted heavily-edited logs , and people assumed they have openssh 0-day .
And , what do you know ?
These kids ( yes , script kiddies , most likely teenagers ) FORGOT TO REMOVE THEIR IP ADDRESS FROM THAT POST .
125.238.144.224 . You 're an idiot .
That ip address belongs to the admin .
Learn how to interpret the output of '/usr/bin/w' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This same group claims that there is a 0day vulnerability in OpenSSH, and used it to attack the site of a security consultant: 
They never claimed any such thing,  They posted heavily-edited logs, and people assumed they have openssh 0-day.
And, what do you know?
These kids (yes, script kiddies, most likely teenagers) FORGOT TO REMOVE THEIR IP ADDRESS FROM THAT POST.
125.238.144.224. 
You're an idiot.
That ip address belongs to the admin.
Learn how to interpret the output of '/usr/bin/w'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664717</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660375</id>
	<title>so, they'd rather?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247329980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, it sounds like they'd rather be able to sell their exploits to the highest bidder instead of publishing them for anyone to see. It will be interesting to see how much support this movement gets around here (there are already a few posts supporting them), because from the sounds of things it's almost the exact opposite of the OSS mindset.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , it sounds like they 'd rather be able to sell their exploits to the highest bidder instead of publishing them for anyone to see .
It will be interesting to see how much support this movement gets around here ( there are already a few posts supporting them ) , because from the sounds of things it 's almost the exact opposite of the OSS mindset .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, it sounds like they'd rather be able to sell their exploits to the highest bidder instead of publishing them for anyone to see.
It will be interesting to see how much support this movement gets around here (there are already a few posts supporting them), because from the sounds of things it's almost the exact opposite of the OSS mindset.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664313</id>
	<title>Re:I'm not sure I get it</title>
	<author>Sheik Yerbouti</author>
	<datestamp>1247316540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah not to mention that imageshack is clearly a security website that's in favor of full disclosure and has profited from it what with all the goatse pics WTF?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah not to mention that imageshack is clearly a security website that 's in favor of full disclosure and has profited from it what with all the goatse pics WTF ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah not to mention that imageshack is clearly a security website that's in favor of full disclosure and has profited from it what with all the goatse pics WTF?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662401</id>
	<title>What a load of...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247343960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reading this "manifesto" very charitably for the sake of an argument, the point appears to be that these people think (or purport to think) that the security industry creates the problems it'll then fix for money.</p><p>This, of course, is patently absurd; the problem that needs fixing is not the existence of an exploit but the vulnerability that is exploited. If a security researcher found it, a blackhat might find (or have already found) it as well, and then there'd be real trouble. A boat does not spring a leak only after someone found and told people about it, even if that someone is a carpenter who offers to fix it for a nominal fee.</p><p>And what's bad about that, anyway? Of course the security industry is about money; it's an industry! The people who hire them also do so for money, specifically to not lose a lot of money when the aforementioned blackhat comes along and tries to crack their network.</p><p>Also, I have seen some people here argue that the internet would be a better place if vulnerabilities and exploits were only available to people in the know. Them I must ask: Are you insane?</p><p>From the ability to find these things good intentions do not necessarily follow. If you think they do, you might want to educate yourself about the blackhat industry; for starters, FireEye's blog does a relatively good job of explaining their methods (among other things). Unsurprisingly, it also works for money, but unlike the security industry, it is in the business of exploiting vulnerabilities instead of fixing them. Make no mistake, there are criminal syndicates (such as the RBN) that employ blackhats who are in the know.</p><p>Sure, you might have a few less script kiddies around (might, not would. Remember the internet 15 years ago? No disclosure, but also no shortage of script kiddies), but script kiddies are mostly just an annoyance. The really dangerous guys would absolutely love it if the vulnerabilities they exploit were kept secret.</p><p>Finally, it should go without saying but doesn't that this kind of vigilante approach is highly despicable, especially because whitehats are well within their rights to disclose whatever they want and would be so even if disclosure was morally questionable. Approve or disapprove of full disclosure, you do not get to tell them what to do.</p><p>All of this only applies if these people actually believe what they wrote there. I am not convinced of that, but until I see evidence to the contrary, I will assume they're just stupid, not evil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reading this " manifesto " very charitably for the sake of an argument , the point appears to be that these people think ( or purport to think ) that the security industry creates the problems it 'll then fix for money.This , of course , is patently absurd ; the problem that needs fixing is not the existence of an exploit but the vulnerability that is exploited .
If a security researcher found it , a blackhat might find ( or have already found ) it as well , and then there 'd be real trouble .
A boat does not spring a leak only after someone found and told people about it , even if that someone is a carpenter who offers to fix it for a nominal fee.And what 's bad about that , anyway ?
Of course the security industry is about money ; it 's an industry !
The people who hire them also do so for money , specifically to not lose a lot of money when the aforementioned blackhat comes along and tries to crack their network.Also , I have seen some people here argue that the internet would be a better place if vulnerabilities and exploits were only available to people in the know .
Them I must ask : Are you insane ? From the ability to find these things good intentions do not necessarily follow .
If you think they do , you might want to educate yourself about the blackhat industry ; for starters , FireEye 's blog does a relatively good job of explaining their methods ( among other things ) .
Unsurprisingly , it also works for money , but unlike the security industry , it is in the business of exploiting vulnerabilities instead of fixing them .
Make no mistake , there are criminal syndicates ( such as the RBN ) that employ blackhats who are in the know.Sure , you might have a few less script kiddies around ( might , not would .
Remember the internet 15 years ago ?
No disclosure , but also no shortage of script kiddies ) , but script kiddies are mostly just an annoyance .
The really dangerous guys would absolutely love it if the vulnerabilities they exploit were kept secret.Finally , it should go without saying but does n't that this kind of vigilante approach is highly despicable , especially because whitehats are well within their rights to disclose whatever they want and would be so even if disclosure was morally questionable .
Approve or disapprove of full disclosure , you do not get to tell them what to do.All of this only applies if these people actually believe what they wrote there .
I am not convinced of that , but until I see evidence to the contrary , I will assume they 're just stupid , not evil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reading this "manifesto" very charitably for the sake of an argument, the point appears to be that these people think (or purport to think) that the security industry creates the problems it'll then fix for money.This, of course, is patently absurd; the problem that needs fixing is not the existence of an exploit but the vulnerability that is exploited.
If a security researcher found it, a blackhat might find (or have already found) it as well, and then there'd be real trouble.
A boat does not spring a leak only after someone found and told people about it, even if that someone is a carpenter who offers to fix it for a nominal fee.And what's bad about that, anyway?
Of course the security industry is about money; it's an industry!
The people who hire them also do so for money, specifically to not lose a lot of money when the aforementioned blackhat comes along and tries to crack their network.Also, I have seen some people here argue that the internet would be a better place if vulnerabilities and exploits were only available to people in the know.
Them I must ask: Are you insane?From the ability to find these things good intentions do not necessarily follow.
If you think they do, you might want to educate yourself about the blackhat industry; for starters, FireEye's blog does a relatively good job of explaining their methods (among other things).
Unsurprisingly, it also works for money, but unlike the security industry, it is in the business of exploiting vulnerabilities instead of fixing them.
Make no mistake, there are criminal syndicates (such as the RBN) that employ blackhats who are in the know.Sure, you might have a few less script kiddies around (might, not would.
Remember the internet 15 years ago?
No disclosure, but also no shortage of script kiddies), but script kiddies are mostly just an annoyance.
The really dangerous guys would absolutely love it if the vulnerabilities they exploit were kept secret.Finally, it should go without saying but doesn't that this kind of vigilante approach is highly despicable, especially because whitehats are well within their rights to disclose whatever they want and would be so even if disclosure was morally questionable.
Approve or disapprove of full disclosure, you do not get to tell them what to do.All of this only applies if these people actually believe what they wrote there.
I am not convinced of that, but until I see evidence to the contrary, I will assume they're just stupid, not evil.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660325</id>
	<title>Their message is certainly ironic,</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247329620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>in a "shoot the innocent bystander while sounding all righteous about risk" sort of way.</htmltext>
<tokenext>in a " shoot the innocent bystander while sounding all righteous about risk " sort of way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in a "shoot the innocent bystander while sounding all righteous about risk" sort of way.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661777
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28663277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28663987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662979
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28671249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28667125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660357
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28663577
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662259
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28663303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664717
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662363
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28663893
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661637
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660891
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661721
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28728505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660785
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662063
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661059
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28667405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660341
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660529
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660331
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661015
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661171
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661623
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662067
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660569
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661903
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28671663
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662227
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660629
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662131
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1430249_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28663277
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664725
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660375
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660615
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661039
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660943
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662705
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661637
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661059
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660891
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28663987
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661721
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28728505
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662363
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662227
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660785
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662063
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660787
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28667405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662259
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28667125
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660779
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661491
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660529
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660837
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28671663
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660353
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664717
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664891
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662979
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28671249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662263
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661203
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662067
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661777
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662505
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28663893
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660801
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660309
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28664763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661015
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661745
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28662937
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661959
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661171
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661623
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28661301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28663303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660865
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1430249.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28660357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1430249.28663577
</commentlist>
</conversation>
