<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;hacks&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 08:44:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>US's 'Cyberwar' Strategy: Making The Public Less Secure In The Name Of 'Security'</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130511/17253823048/uss-cyberwar-strategy-making-public-less-secure-name-security.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130511/17253823048/uss-cyberwar-strategy-making-public-less-secure-name-security.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The US government seems to be responding to "<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121017/19152520740/defense-secretary-leon-panetta-recycles-his-cyber-pearl-harbor-fud-third-times-charm.shtml" target="_blank">cyber Pearl Harbor</a>" by heading out on bombing runs of its own. All the concern for the safety of the American public displayed in Congress during the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130312/08093422297/why-cispa-could-actually-lead-to-more-hacking-attacks.shtml" target="_blank">CISPA push</a> seems to have been nothing more than the empty words we expect from our representatives. <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/10/4319278/us-government-hacking-threatens-cybersecurity-former-officials-say" target="_blank">Americans and American companies are now being caught in the crossfire</a> -- some of it "friendly."
<blockquote>
<i>The US government is waging electronic warfare on a vast scale &mdash; so large that it's causing a seismic shift in the unregulated grey markets where hackers and criminals buy and sell security exploits, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/10/us-usa-cyberweapons-specialreport-idUSBRE9490EL20130510" target="_blank">Reuters reports</a>.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>Former White House cybersecurity advisors Howard Schmidt and Richard Clarke say <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2013/5/9/4315228/hacking-back-cops-and-corporations-want-offensive-cybersecurity" target="_blank">this move to "offensive" cybersecurity</a> has left US companies and average citizens vulnerable, because it relies on the government collecting and exploiting critical vulnerabilities that have not been revealed to software vendors or the public.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>"If the US government knows of a vulnerability that can be exploited, under normal circumstances, its first obligation is to tell US users," Clarke told Reuters. "There is supposed to be some mechanism for deciding how they use the information, for offense or defense. But there isn't."</i></blockquote>
I'm not sure how increasing user vulnerability helps win a cyberwar, but no doubt any home team casualties will be written off as sacrifices for the greater good. Even more troubling than the government's willingness to sacrifice security for security (??) is the fact that it's unwilling to share this information.   What good are those provisions in CISPA and President Obama's recent cybersecurity <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130213/10460421964/cybersecurity-executive-order-actually-respects-some-privacy-so-do-we-actually-need-cispa-any-more.shtml">executive order</a> about the government sharing cybersecurity info with companies, if the government hoards the information for their own hacking purposes? <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/10/us-usa-cyberweapons-specialreport-idUSBRE9490EL20130510" target="_blank">More details from the Reuters report</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>Top U.S. officials told Congress this year that poor Internet security has surpassed terrorism to become the single greatest threat to the country and that better information-sharing on risks is crucial. Yet neither of the two major U.S. initiatives under way - sweeping cybersecurity legislation being weighed by Congress and President Barack Obama's February executive order on the subject - asks defense and intelligence agencies to spread what they know about vulnerabilities to help the private sector defend itself.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>When a U.S. agency knows about a vulnerability and does not warn the public, there can be unintended consequences. If malign forces purchase information about or independently discover the same hole, they can use it to cause damage or to launch spying or fraud campaigns before a company like Microsoft has time to develop a patch. Moreover, when the U.S. launches a program containing an exploit, it can be detected and quickly duplicated for use against U.S. interests before any public warning or patch.</i></blockquote>
Is it any surprise the public distrusts the government? It claims to be fighting a cyberwar in order to make us more secure and yet, when it goes on the attack, it values its own secretive efforts over the security of the public.
<br /><br />
As the government purchases more of these exploits to help fight its cyberwar, the lines on the battlefield are continuously redrawn and obscured. Buying exploits from independent hackers leaves them free to sell to other high bidding countries when not using the exploits themselves. This arms race also creates a perverse set of incentives. As the demand for new exploits increases, security companies and contractors that used to release information to those affected are now keeping their discoveries to themselves to preserve "market value."
<br /><br />
The Reuters report also notes that this new breed of security contractor is offering up, among other things, keys to criminal botnets. Endgame, a heavily funded tech startup with close ties to the intelligence community, is more than willing to hand over control of thousands of zombie computers for the right price.
<blockquote>
<i>Some of Endgame's activities came to light in purloined emails published by hackers acting under the banner Anonymous. In what appear to be marketing slides, the company touted zero-day subscriptions as well as lists of exactly which computers overseas belonged to specific criminal "botnets" - networks of compromised machines that can be mobilized for various purposes, including stealing financial passwords and knocking websites offline with traffic attacks.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>The point was not to disinfect the botnet's computers or warn the owners. Instead, Endgame's customers in the intelligence agencies wanted to harvest data from those machines directly or maintain the ability to issue new commands to large segments of the networks, three people close to the company told Reuters.</i></blockquote>
So, we're engaged in a cyberwar that's going to help us by hurting us, is that it? I understand that no one wants to be outgunned when facing the enemy, but what's being detailed here looks like a whole lot of collateral damage in the pursuit of unattainable goals. The same exploits will be used on both sides of the battle, and with end users and the companies they rely on being cut out of the loop, it will be the civilians who fare the poorest. We'll just be asked to pretend the government's saving us from something even worse.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130511/17253823048/uss-cyberwar-strategy-making-public-less-secure-name-security.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130511/17253823048/uss-cyberwar-strategy-making-public-less-secure-name-security.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130511/17253823048/uss-cyberwar-strategy-making-public-less-secure-name-security.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>adding-up-wrongs-to-make-a-right</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130511/17253823048</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2013 04:20:28 PST</pubDate>
<title>In Response To Aaron's Death: Don't Take Down, Build Up; Don't Attack, But Share</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130113/20555621651/response-to-aarons-death-dont-take-down-build-up-dont-attack-share.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130113/20555621651/response-to-aarons-death-dont-take-down-build-up-dont-attack-share.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ I've already written some basic <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130113/00034721650/some-thoughts-aaron-swartz.shtml" target="_blank">thoughts</a> on the death of Aaron Swartz, and I know that more will be forthcoming, but within the justifiable anger out in the world over this turn of events, there are some reports suggesting that DDoS attacks <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/13/mit-edu-doj-gov-w3-gov-all-currently-down-following-investigation-into-swartz-tragedy/" target="_blank">took down MIT's website</a> and possibly other sites (though, reports of the Justice Department's website being taken down were wrong).  This happened soon after MIT <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/13/3873352/mit-announces-internal-investigation-into-its-role-in-aaron-swarzs" target="_blank">put out a statement</a> about Swartz, following the statement from Swartz's family that pointed a finger directly at MIT.
<br /><br />
The family had said:
<blockquote><i>
&#8220;Aaron&#8217;s death is not simply a personal tragedy. It is the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach. Decisions made by officials in the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney&#8217;s office and at MIT contributed to his death.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
In response, MIT's statement, by president L. Rafael Reif, was actually somewhat self-reflective, admitting that the university needed to look closely at its own role in the situation, and appointing professor Hal Abelson -- someone quite knowledgeable and active in many of the same causes as Aaron -- to lead the investigation.
<blockquote><i>
To the members of the MIT community:
<br /><br />
Yesterday we received the shocking and terrible news that on Friday in New York, Aaron Swartz, a gifted young man well known and admired by many in the MIT community, took his own life. With this tragedy, his family and his friends suffered an inexpressible loss, and we offer our most profound condolences. Even for those of us who did not know Aaron, the trail of his brief life shines with his brilliant creativity and idealism.
<br /><br />
Although Aaron had no formal affiliation with MIT, I am writing to you now because he was beloved by many members of our community and because MIT played a role in the legal struggles that began for him in 2011.
<br /><br />
I want to express very clearly that I and all of us at MIT are extremely saddened by the death of this promising young man who touched the lives of so many. It pains me to think that MIT played any role in a series of events that have ended in tragedy.
<br /><br />
I will not attempt to summarize here the complex events of the past two years. Now is a time for everyone involved to reflect on their actions, and that includes all of us at MIT. I have asked Professor Hal Abelson to lead a thorough analysis of MIT's involvement from the time that we first perceived unusual activity on our network in fall 2010 up to the present. I have asked that this analysis describe the options MIT had and the decisions MIT made, in order to understand and to learn from the actions MIT took. I will share the report with the MIT community when I receive it.
<br /><br />
I hope we will all reach out to those members of our community we know who may have been affected by Aaron's death. As always, MIT Medical is available to provide expert counseling, but there is no substitute for personal understanding and support.
With sorrow and deep sympathy,
<br /><br />
L. Rafael Reif
</i></blockquote>
I am sure that many will continue to criticize MIT for its actions in this mess -- and some criticism may be well deserved.  That said, MIT's response here is a step forward -- and hopefully it creates real change in how MIT handles such things in the future.  I think that there are many, many, many reasons to be furious about the Justice Department's actions in the Swartz case (and I felt that long before Swartz's death).  However, a DDoS attack on MIT or the DOJ or anyone else is exactly <i>the wrong message</i> to send concerning Aaron.  Yes, I was just <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130111/08053821642/anonymous-launches-white-house-petition-saying-ddos-should-be-recognized-as-valid-form-protest.shtml">defending</a> the use of DDoS as a form of expression and protest, but this is <b>not</b> the kind of protest that serves Aaron's memory well.
<br /><br />
Aaron -- more than almost anyone else -- <b>did</b> stuff.  He <b>built</b> stuff and he <b>created</b> change.  Not by taking things down, but by building them up.  Not by attacking, but by sharing and informing and educating.
<br /><br />
Aaron's memory needs to be preserved, and his death will hopefully be a catalyst for many changes -- to the way the government prosecutes people, to the way computer hacking laws are used today, to the way copyright laws are used and much, much more.  But the way to do that is to do something proactive and <i>positive</i>.  The organization Aaron founded is called <a href="http://demandprogress.org/" target="_blank">Demand Progress</a>, and that's what we should be doing now.
<br /><br />
We should be looking for ways to <i>continue Aaron's work</i>, to build, to share, to create and to create change through sheer will of knowing what's right.
<br /><br />
So, don't participate in attacks or takedowns. Look for ways to build something up.  Create efforts to change problematic laws like the CFAA or copyright law.  Look for ways to share knowledge and expand our ability to learn and to educate each other.  Create ways for people to speak out and to enable everyone to do more. 
<br /><br />
That is the legacy that I believe Aaron would have wanted.  It will always be impossible to fill the void that Aaron's death has left in its wake -- but if it inspires each of us to do a little more, to create some positive change, to truly <i>demand progress</i> in the face of ridiculous odds, then <i>that</i> will be the testament to all that Aaron did for the world.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130113/20555621651/response-to-aarons-death-dont-take-down-build-up-dont-attack-share.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130113/20555621651/response-to-aarons-death-dont-take-down-build-up-dont-attack-share.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130113/20555621651/response-to-aarons-death-dont-take-down-build-up-dont-attack-share.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-what-he-would-have-wanted</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130113/20555621651</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:02:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Smart TV Exploit Means Hackers Can Watch You Watch TV</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/10482321363/smart-tv-exploit-means-hackers-can-watch-you-watch-tv.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/10482321363/smart-tv-exploit-means-hackers-can-watch-you-watch-tv.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Remember all the hubbub (now there&#39;s a word I never thought I'd use; thanks a lot, aging process) over Comcast's kind of, maybe plan to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080320/171005601.shtml">spy on</a> subscribers through their cable box as they watch TV, fold their laundry, or engage in coitus? There was quite an outcry at the time, even as Comcast said that the plan was only to have the cameras be able to recognize when different types or numbers of people were watching the tube. People just didn't feel comfortable with corporations being able to spy on them. As a result, Comcast backed away from the plan -- the people had defeated the corporation.<br />
<br />
All, apparently, so that hackers could spy on them instead. At least, that's what some reports are saying about <a href="http://securityledger.com/security-hole-in-samsung-smart-tvs-could-allow-remote-spying/">Samsung Smart TVs and an exploit that would allow hackers</a> to snatch social media credentials, access any files or devices connected to the smart TV...oh, and to use the built in cameras to spy the hell out of people as they do whatever they do while watching television.
<blockquote>
<i>In an e-mail exchange with Security Ledger, the Malta-based firm said that the previously unknown ("zero day") hole affects Samsung Smart TVs running the latest version of the company's Linux-based firmware. It could give an attacker the ability to access any file available on the remote device, as well as external devices (such as USB drives) connected to the TV. And, in a Orwellian twist, the hole could be used to access cameras and microphones attached to the Smart TVs, giving remote attacker the ability to spy on those viewing a compromised set.</i></blockquote>
The group that reportedly discovered the vulnerability, ReVuln, proudly stated that they would not publish any information about what they'd uncovered except to paying subscribers because <i>screw everyone else </i>(not an actual quote). They also have a company policy, apparently, that would prevent them from working with Samsung directly on a fix or even to disclose the hole, leading me to reach the logical conclusion that Dr. Evil is apparently running that company.
<br /><br />
Even more fun, thanks to how Samsung designed the product, chances are any fix that could be produced would be difficult to implement.
<blockquote>
<i>Currently, the Smart TVs offer no native security features, such as a firewall, user authentication or application whitelisting. More critically: there is no independent software update capability, meaning that, barring a firmware update from Samsung, the exploitable hole can't be patched without "voiding the device's warranty and using other exploits," ReVuln said.</i>
<br /><br />
<i>The company posted a video of an attack on a Samsung TV LED 3D Smart TV online. It shows an attacker gaining shell access to the TV, copying the contents of its hard drive to an external device and mounting them on a local drive, providing access to photos, documents and other content. ReVuln said an attacker would also be able to lift credentials from any social networks or other online services accessed from the device.</i>
</blockquote>
In other words, customers get to wait around until Samsung can figure this thing out on their own, since ReVuln won't help them out by company policy, or risk voiding their warranty on their smart TV that has a complete lack of security features. Nicely done, everyone involved.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/10482321363/smart-tv-exploit-means-hackers-can-watch-you-watch-tv.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/10482321363/smart-tv-exploit-means-hackers-can-watch-you-watch-tv.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121212/10482321363/smart-tv-exploit-means-hackers-can-watch-you-watch-tv.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>i-spy-with-my-little-eye</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121212/10482321363</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2012 07:20:30 PDT</pubDate>
<title>No, Mitt Romney Didn't Personally Hack Your Facebook</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121011/13265820680/no-mitt-romney-didnt-personally-hack-your-facebook.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121011/13265820680/no-mitt-romney-didnt-personally-hack-your-facebook.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ And the election season silliness continues. In keeping with the tradition of campaigning against candidates' <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121004/15110720598/maine-gop-apparently-believes-that-playing-world-warcraft-makes-you-unfit-office.shtml">gaming habits</a> and strange Obama/YouTube <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120924/21453920504/partisan-piracy-conservative-filmmakers-accuse-obama-supporters-uploading-their-film-to-youtube.shtml">conspiracy theories</a>, there&#39;s apparently been some hubbub surrounding the mysterious liking of Mitt Romney. Apparently a fair number of liberal-minded folks have noticed that their Facebook profiles have "liked" Mitt Romney on the social media network against the wishes of the profile owner. When questions began to rise as to how this was possible, one popular theory circulating was that Mitt Romney was Zero-Cool-ing people&#39;s Facebook profiles to garner more positive attention. Theoretically someone inside his campaign did this for him.
<center>
<p>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/84867722@N03/7775621820/" title="ryan_romney_laugh by Majordomo2012, on Flickr"><img alt="ryan_romney_laugh" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7272/7775621820_2a26820110.jpg" width="400" /></a><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:10px;">"Now we&#39;ll have to spell your name all &#39;puter like, p4uL rY4n!"</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:10px;">Image <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/84867722@N03/7775621820/">source</a>: CC BY 2.0</span></p>
</center>
<p>
Well, in what I&#39;m sure will shock everyone, no, Mitt Romney and his campaign did not rappel into a server farm Mission Impossible style and hack the internet tubes. Instead, the culprit appears to be <a href="http://motherboard.vice.com/2012/10/10/why-do-so-many-liberals-like-mitt-romney-on-facebook--2">Facebook&#39;s clumsy mobile application and its accomplice Senor Your-Fat-Fingers</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>[Facebook] concluded that users are probably liking the Romney page on a mobile device by either accidentally clicking on a Romney ad or a &ldquo;sponsored story&rdquo; from the Romney campaign in their news feed. A Facebook spokesman, who wanted to remain anonymous, said the issue is unique to mobile because of the way the app works on small screens, and rejected the idea that the Romney camp was engaging in clickjacking. He added that the company is currently working to clean up its mobile interface.</i></blockquote>
That, coupled with people who are "liking" Romney&#39;s page just so they can see what he&#39;s putting out there, even though they may not support him, is admittedly a far less fun explanation than the idea of Romney going all <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Net_(1995_film)">The Net</a> on social media, but I never claimed that the truth was better than fiction. So it&#39;s back to your regularly scheduled social media political talk for all of you. Remember: anyone supporting Obama is a Chinese commie spy moron and anyone supporting Romney is almost certainly Hitler.<br />
&nbsp;
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121011/13265820680/no-mitt-romney-didnt-personally-hack-your-facebook.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121011/13265820680/no-mitt-romney-didnt-personally-hack-your-facebook.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121011/13265820680/no-mitt-romney-didnt-personally-hack-your-facebook.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>going-mobile</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121011/13265820680</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Jun 2011 08:25:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Are There More Hacks &#038; Breaches This Year... Or Is It Just Shark Attack Week?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110614/13261814691/are-there-more-hacks-breaches-this-year-is-it-just-shark-attack-week.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110614/13261814691/are-there-more-hacks-breaches-this-year-is-it-just-shark-attack-week.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There have been an awful lot of stories of computer hacks and breaches lately, many of them high profile: Google, Citibank, Sony, the US Senate.  It certainly <i>feels</i> like everyone's under attack.  But is that really true?  Bruce Schneier suggests that it's <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20069995-245/attacks-on-sony-others-show-its-open-hacking-season/" target="_blank">just a media sensation</a>:
<blockquote><i>
"I truly don't think there's a higher instance of hacking right now. I think there's been a wave of media coverage," said Bruce Schneier, chief security technology officer of BT and one of the most respected security experts around. "We saw the same thing with shark attacks. It's not that there are more shark attacks. It's that they made the news when people started looking for them."
</i></blockquote>
It does make me wonder.  The media can be quite efficient at finding evidence of an epidemic when things are actually occurring at a normal rate, but it certainly does <i>sound</i> like some of the attacks lately are landing on bigger name targets.  Part of this may also be the more public attacks from groups like Anonymous and Lulz Security, who are doing what they do more for publicity reasons than as criminal enterprises. Either way, I'm curious to see what others think about the issue.  Are we really seeing more attacks and breaches today, or is the press just picking up on it lately?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110614/13261814691/are-there-more-hacks-breaches-this-year-is-it-just-shark-attack-week.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110614/13261814691/are-there-more-hacks-breaches-this-year-is-it-just-shark-attack-week.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110614/13261814691/are-there-more-hacks-breaches-this-year-is-it-just-shark-attack-week.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>questions,-question</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110614/13261814691</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 7 Mar 2011 09:42:58 PST</pubDate>
<title>Hackers Claim They Can Unban Banned PS3s While Banning Unmodded PS3s</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110306/22010113374/hackers-claim-they-can-unban-banned-ps3s-while-banning-unmodded-ps3s.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110306/22010113374/hackers-claim-they-can-unban-banned-ps3s-while-banning-unmodded-ps3s.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We recently noted that Sony had announced plans to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110217/00210313145/sony-continues-to-attack-ps3-jailbreakers-threatens-to-cut-them-off-playstation-network.shtml">ban any jailbroken PS3</a> from the PlayStation Network, because Sony apparently wants to punish people who want to put back features that Sony advertised and then <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100331/0128358800.shtml">removed</a>.  It appears that move may end up backfiring as well.  <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110304/16012513367/judge-says-no-anonymity-anyone-who-visited-geohots-ps3-hacking-website-watched-youtube-video.shtml#c674">Jay</a> was the first of a few of you to point to a report that <a href="http://www.megagames.com/news/sony-bans-hackers-hacker-unban-themselves-and-ban-legitimate-users" target="_blank">some hackers claim they've figured out how to unban banned PS3s</a> <i>and</i> at the same time to issue bans on unmodded PS3s.  There are some questions as to how accurate the report is, but if true, it would suggest another failed strategy by Sony.  Will it ever realize that trying to clamp down on its own users is a bad idea?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110306/22010113374/hackers-claim-they-can-unban-banned-ps3s-while-banning-unmodded-ps3s.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110306/22010113374/hackers-claim-they-can-unban-banned-ps3s-while-banning-unmodded-ps3s.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110306/22010113374/hackers-claim-they-can-unban-banned-ps3s-while-banning-unmodded-ps3s.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>don't-mess-with-the-hackers</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110306/22010113374</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>