Hundreds of Lithuanian Web sites defaced

Last weekend, several hundred Lithuanian Web sites were defaced with pro-Soviet and anti-Lithuanian slogans, according to The New York Times.

Last Friday, Lithuanian government sites were warned of an impending Web attack and mounted appropriate defenses. Several hundred commercial sites did not do so and over the weekend took the brunt of the attack. By Monday, most all of the sites had been restored.

As with last year's Estonian denial-of-service attacks, the new attacks appear to be in reaction to a law outlawing the display of Soviet symbols in Lithuania. Germany has similar laws outlawing the display of Nazi symbols.

Early evidence suggests a group of criminal hackers may have organized the attacks. The IPs used in the attacks appear to be from a variety of nations, but Reston, Va.-based iDefense told the Washington Post that one site, hack-war.ru, appeared to have organized the protest.

Over at our sister site ZDNet, Dancho Danchev examines whether the defacements could escalate into denial-of-service attacks, and concludes they might.

Meanwhile, in his blog, Brian Krebs speculates on nations or nationalistic parties within nations mounting or defending themselves against cyberattacks such as these in the future.

[anurfclip]

Hello: I?m starting to believe that the cyber attacks in Estonia and Lithuania are ultimately more about the provocative stance the US has taken with its foreign policy than about the removal of a war memorial or the outlawing of Soviet symbols.

For instance, we?re pushing for NATO in the former Soviet sphere thru actions like building a missile shield system in Poland and the Czech Republic to counter potential missiles from Iran. The missile shield system is seen as a first strike weapon against Iran and Russia has been very vocal about their opposition to it, as they see it as a threat to themselves as well.

Then extend this to how we are trying to prevent Iran from getting nukes, mainly to influence the role of oil there.

We?ve been very aggressive against Iran, even though it appears to be complying with just about everything we could ask and other nations like those in Europe have been saying that Iran has been compliant.

But we haven?t been as aggressive with North Korea. People have been commenting for a while that the main reason we?ve left this facet of the Axis of Evil largely alone is because it has nukes and the missiles to carry them. They further comment that this has been prompting others to at least consider the idea of having a nuclear deterrent and there is recent news that Iran has been testing new long range missiles. The reports also note that Iran is a long way from having a working nuclear weapons program and their missile system is in a similar state.

Iran appears to be working for non-proliferation because the best way to make oneself the target of nuclear weaponry is to have them, apparently. So that might explain the cooperation with the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency). But it looks like they are hedging their bets, partly because of what?s happening in Iraq and partly because of what they see in N. Korea.

Ultimately, the oil is a huge thing, its potential future scarcity and the power plays that can result.

The biggest thing that bugs me, though, is the echoes this seems to have with the Cuban missile crisis. I tend to consider the old Cuban missile crisis a win for the Russians, even though it?s usually considered a win by the US by most Americans. The Russians did take down their missiles, but after we agreed to remove our missiles from Turkey, which is right next door to them.

And our placement of those missiles in Turkey first is what apparently what provoked the Russians into placing those missiles soon after in Cuba and started that whole mess in the first place.

I?m saying we need to review our foreign policy overall, make it far less provocative and even ditch the idea of placing a shield there if all it does is:

1. Provoke yet another war
2. Has potentially created a major, new semi-Cold, semi-Hot one on the Internet
3. And, from what I understand, the majority of the people of the nations hosting these missiles have said out loud they don?t want them.

I?m aware that this is outside the scope of the column in some ways, but maybe not. I tend to believe that security, including computer security, is largely an illusion and that it can only be achieved thru good ties and relations between people. I believe that you can have the most secure, hard core system in the world, but it won?t matter because somehow, someone will find a way in. The only way to get around that is for people to see that it?s in their own best interest to have a safe internet to play or work or study in.

They wouldn?t be as inclined to cause damage and might even contribute to it being ?safe.?

It?s similar to my views on relations with other nations. Yes, it appears Iran is hedging its bets, but then we also created huge turmoil by surreptitiously overthrowing their newly elected, democratic government in the 50s, and we?ve had plenty of reactions with them since.

Is it possible to review this possibility, especially in light of recent provocative statements by both US and Russian military leaders? But also to review the idea that socials ties, good relations and actions between people could enhance cyber security as well. Simply because if one creates havoc, it can come back one way or another, but the flip side that if you do something constructive, that can also come back, and build on itself as well.

A ?do-onto-others? way.

[OKqualified]

to anurfclip: Big respect. All have correctly told.