Playstation Network hacked UPDATE

[Blue and White Puff Reach]

Last time their credit cards were stolen, that killed sony. They said they would fix that with the PS4, looks like they got hacked once again...

 

MS will never let Xbox get Hacked, they'll buy 2,000,000 deticated server if they have too.

[I_Make_Big_Boom]

Looks like PSN is back online.

 

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/playstation-network-back-online-after-ddos-attack/1100-6421898/

 

And there is no evidence to show that personal information was taken this round.

[Unease Peanut]

  On 8/25/2014 at 5:07 PM, MoM Destruct said:

Looks like PSN is back online.

 

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/playstation-network-back-online-after-ddos-attack/1100-6421898/

 

And there is no evidence to show that personal information was taken this round.

 

I already put that in the OP

[I_Make_Big_Boom]

  On 8/25/2014 at 5:13 PM, Unease N3wsnut said:

I already put that in the OP

 

Lol aw I didn't read it. 

[Caboose The Ace]

MS will never let Xbox get Hacked, they'll buy 2,000,000 deticated server if they have too....

 

Hate to break it to you, but Xbox has been hacked before but not to the scale Playstation has.

Edited August 25, 2014 by Caboose The Ace

[Mr Biggles]

  On 8/25/2014 at 5:41 PM, Caboose The Ace said:

MS will never let Xbox get Hacked, they'll buy 2,000,000 deticated server if they have too....

 

Hate to break it to you, but Xbox has been hacked before but not to the scale Playstation has.

To me that shows the level of care Sony gives about their customers.

[The Director]

  On 8/24/2014 at 11:50 PM, Mr Biggles said:

Seems it is happening to xbox too.

 

http://support.xbox.com/en-GB/xbox-live-status

 

LizardSquad:

 

"Is anyone having issues with the Xbox Live Login servers?"

Lol I love how the entire PSN was down, but XBL is having issues "Joining other Xbox Live members in online games"

[Mr Biggles]

  On 8/25/2014 at 7:48 PM, The Director said:

Lol I love how the entire PSN was down, but XBL is having issues "Joining other Xbox Live members in online games"

Sad thing is, they are still going at it you know

 

Lizard Squad @LizardSquad . 2h

We hear there are some Xbox Live issues, sorry

[The Director]

  On 8/25/2014 at 7:53 PM, Mr Biggles said:

 

Sad thing is, they are still going at it you know

 

Lizard Squad @LizardSquad . 2h

We hear there are some Xbox Live issues, sorry

 

You know what's funny though? They are having such a small effect I haven't even noticed any XBL issues. xD

[Silent Orbis]

PSN wasn't exactly hacked. Just a DDoS, which Anonymous can EASILY do on this scale. So, duhhh -- No personal info would get stolen. Oh, btw "Lizard Squad" wasn't responsible. It was FamedGod from Anonymous. "Lizard Squad" was just some kid going through an identity crisis, or something.

[The Director]

  On 8/30/2014 at 8:13 PM, Sιlεƞτ Ѳʀвιs said:

PSN wasn't exactly hacked. Just a DDoS, which Anonymous can EASILY do on this scale. So, duhhh -- No personal info would get stolen. Oh, btw "Lizard Squad" wasn't responsible. It was FamedGod from Anonymous. "Lizard Squad" was just some kid going through an identity crisis, or something.

Anonymous is not a hacker group. It is a non-group. It's members include everyone on the planet. Which includes the Lizard Squad. There's no such thing as a group rivalry against Anonymous, because it isn't an actual group. It is a brand.

 

FamedGod claims the reason s/he did what s/he did was to reveal the lack of security to Sony. Which is interesting considering that s/he could have just... you know... emailed Sony to let them know instead of taking away the enjoyment of those who play the Playstation online for hours.

 

Also, anyone else see the funny side of FamedGod not remaining anonymous while saying they're part of Anonymous?

[Silent Orbis]

Well, I knew that Anonymous is a non-group. But me mentioning it doesn't mean I'm assuming it's a group. But I think LS isn't ethical enough to be branded with that -- they lack the morals Anonymous fights for. But, FamedGod is anonymous. We're all anonymous right now, until our real info is revealed.

[The Director]

  On 8/31/2014 at 5:18 PM, Sιlεƞτ Ѳʀвιs said:

Well, I knew that Anonymous is a non-group. But me mentioning it doesn't mean I'm assuming it's a group. But I think LS isn't ethical enough to be branded with that -- they lack the morals Anonymous fights for. But, FamedGod is anonymous. We're all anonymous right now, until our real info is revealed.

The thing is though, when an individual takes credit for their actions then it doesn't reflect on the group as a whole. While Anonymous is not a traditional group (it's more of a brand as I said before) the concept still applies.

 

For instance, let's say I join a clan called Clan A. I think make a bunch of Halo montages showing me playing with my clan, but me getting the most kills and doing trickshots. Of course I tell you that I'm a member of Clan A, but that doesn't make you think that Clan A is awesome or formidable. It makes you think that I'm formidable.

 

Anonymous is the same way. When someone stages a protest (a DDoS attack for instance) and DOESN'T take credit for it, it gives Anonymous more credibility in the world's eyes. This causes smaller protests to gain more attention because it's done under the guise of Anonymous. This helps spread whatever message needs spreading.

 

When an individual says they are an Anonymous Hacker and then stages a protest, all it does is shine the light on that individual. It does not benefit the "brand", because then people stop paying attention to the Anonymous part and pay more attention to the individual instead. This causes smaller protests to go unnoticed.

 

Using a personalized handle creates individuality and an identity. Both of these are concepts that go against the core of Anonymous. By taking credit for hacking Sony on his/her personal twitter account instead of sharing the story with an Anon News outlet is taking individual credit for it rather than sharing the credit with the rest of Anonymous.

[Silent Orbis]

  On 9/1/2014 at 11:50 AM, The Director said:

The thing is though, when an individual takes credit for their actions then it doesn't reflect on the group as a whole. While Anonymous is not a traditional group (it's more of a brand as I said before) the concept still applies.

 

For instance, let's say I join a clan called Clan A. I think make a bunch of Halo montages showing me playing with my clan, but me getting the most kills and doing trickshots. Of course I tell you that I'm a member of Clan A, but that doesn't make you think that Clan A is awesome or formidable. It makes you think that I'm formidable.

 

Anonymous is the same way. When someone stages a protest (a DDoS attack for instance) and DOESN'T take credit for it, it gives Anonymous more credibility in the world's eyes. This causes smaller protests to gain more attention because it's done under the guise of Anonymous. This helps spread whatever message needs spreading.

 

When an individual says they are an Anonymous Hacker and then stages a protest, all it does is shine the light on that individual. It does not benefit the "brand", because then people stop paying attention to the Anonymous part and pay more attention to the individual instead. This causes smaller protests to go unnoticed.

 

Using a personalized handle creates individuality and an identity. Both of these are concepts that go against the core of Anonymous. By taking credit for hacking Sony on his/her personal twitter account instead of sharing the story with an Anon News outlet is taking individual credit for it rather than sharing the credit with the rest of Anonymous.

That's very true. So, while he may have participated in an AnonOp before, people have already labelled him  not realizing how they're being fooled -- And that's where the mistake is in this new scenario.

[WonderWombat]

It probably helps that Microsoft is a computer software company first and foremost, so their ability to prevent these things is likely higher than Sony's.