Techcrunch hacked again
here is the message it shows:
So Arrington, how much did all the media coverage yesterday brought you in trough the welcome.html ad you forced people to? What a fucking retarded move was that you twat. You should be thanking me and sucking on my fucking ballsack for not deleting everyone on the box and publishing the mysql, if that's what you want O.K, I can do that. Also, you fucking dickwads from sites like Yahoo!, BBC and plenty more, where the FUCK do you see adult content on http://dupedb.com/ ???????? I mean honestly, are you fucktards also in just for the money?!?!?!
53 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 104 ms ] threadI went ahead and took a screen cap: http://imgur.com/koIso
Michael is out in Davos, Switzerland right now — he isn't masterminding an opportunistic ad campaign.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/26/techcrunch-hacked/
Which hasn't been updated with details as promised. The lack of details here and the fact that you got hacked again makes it look either like you don't know how he got in, or that there were multiple vulnerabilities.
http://www.wickedfire.com/shooting-shit/82271-shoemoney-com-...
Any time I try to visit a link to TC now, the interstitial comes up and then sends me to the front page. I'm not going to dig through to figure out where the actual content lives. Although, I've already dealt with the ads, so maybe it doesn't really matter.
I don't visit techcrunch often (its actually hard-coded banned in my hosts file), but I can bet it was planned couple of days in advance for this weeks apple announcement, or if it is the unlikely scenario that it happened the same day that they were hacked; it was merely a coincidence.
You just don't wake up one day and put up an interstitial ad in high traffic site.
They sold ads written on a WHITEBOARD shown on their streaming office cam for goodness sake.
Nearly every modern ad serving platform allows for interstitials, so this is within the realm of imagination.
But he didn't, so my crackpot theory is out the window.
http://www.beet.tv/2009/05/techcrunch-selling-ads-for-its-li...
Your theory is still a crackpot theory even if someone from TC didn't point it out. I doubt you have any IRL experience in selling online ad inventory.
Yes almost _all_ popular adservers allow interstitials, doesn't mean you see them all the time. Why? Because high paying inventory are only available in certain time of the year. Including, high-profile product launch and holiday shopping season.
Defined -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstitial_webpage
EDIT: I've been watching too much 24...
Bad boy need to find the only missing one !!
A sign of incompetence would be if they had their whole database wiped out and they did'nt have any backup (ala codinghorror.com) or they got hacked exactly the same way 1 month from now.
Getting hacked 2 days in a row only means they couldn't find the weakness yet. 48 hours is not a long time. Twitter gets hacked more often than this.
They very well could be incompetent, but you are judging too soon.
Because, you know, restoring from a backup is the same as securing a site, right? And there's no way that a hacker could do worse things? Because infecting some visitors or something similar wouldn't hurt their reputation?
Sorry for the outburst, but this happens way too often.
For that matter, a truly thorough cracker (with more time than constructiveness) might go to the trouble to identify more than one weak point, hold some in reserve, and exploit them sequentially over time - either to offer a more depressing experience to the site owner or to discredit the site's technical team [taking advantage of people willing to jump to your conclusion :) ]
Perhaps we could consider a similar policy on submissions and upvotes about site-defacements? The hack will already get plenty of attention from the normal visitors of the affected site, and coverage in other 'gotcha' outlets. Maybe we should dampen, rather than multiply, the coverage.
(A post-incident report with details of the vulnerability and valid countermeasures would be interesting. And if the normally-trusted site was at any point subverting visitors with malware, that too would warrant a warning submission. But racing to report and upvote each graffiti incident almost seems to be cheering it on.)
Sporting events have just one broadcaster. One person who controls what you see. Online, everyone is a broadcaster. That changes the game. Not everyone will agree to such a policy. And you just need one player to disagree to make it impractical.
Case in point: 9/11 attacks were shown on TV repeatedly - because there was more than 1 player who could do the broadcasting.
We don't all have to magnify the events. Each news site (and voter) can decide where they want to play on the information continuum. Should News.YC be more gotcha-tabloid-if-it-bleeds-it-leads, or less?
I was trying to view TechCrunch's "TechCrunch Hacked" article... but it was hacked.