Bioware Hacked

[Sinclair Solutions]

That's it. I've changed all of the usernames and passwords that I can.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Apprently this must have been the American site because I have had no such letter and my passwords still work, I might change them though just to be sure.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

Apprently this must have been the American site because I have had no such letter and my passwords still work, I might change them though just to be sure.

Im from the UK.. maybe check your junk folder? if not then.. i dunno

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

Apprently this must have been the American site because I have had no such letter and my passwords still work, I might change them though just to be sure.

Im from the UK.. maybe check your junk folder? if not then.. i dunno

Nope nothing :/

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

Apprently this must have been the American site because I have had no such letter and my passwords still work, I might change them though just to be sure.

Im from the UK.. maybe check your junk folder? if not then.. i dunno

Nope nothing :/

Are you signed up with any of the bioware accounts? if you are, then im pretty stumped.. but i'd suggest you change your password just in case, cant do any harm.. but you're probably not in any danger if you dont

 

[Jordi]

what is it with hacking these days?!

There is no police on the internet, so people can pretty much do whatever the hell they please. Governments (and businesses) need to get on this shit, but as usual they are slow as hell.

}


so you are in favor of the PRO IP act?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRO-IP_Act

and the internet kill switch?

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20033717-281.html

I have to admit that I only skimmed both articles, but it seems to me that neither is dealing with hacking. If I'm reading it right, PRO IP is only about increasing penalties for trademark, patent and copyright infringement. You can only administer penalties after you have caught the offender and proven that he is guilty. I think that that is currently the problem, not penalties. Furthermore, I think the severity of the infringements mentioned in this act are so infinitesimal compared to hacking, that it makes me sad to think that authorities would want to address this first.

The internet kill switch is something entirely different, and it seems extremely excessive to me. Also, in terms of protecting people on the internet, this seems just crazy, as it is a nuclear option. I don't see how this would help website owners at all. All it would do is take down their websites, which they can easily do themselves should that be absolutely necessary.

These two measures only illustrate the absurdity of how some governments are dealing with law enforcement on the internet. The first act seems like the equivalent of having your police force only arrest people who are jaywalking, and does nothing else, and the second is like instead of having a police force, you just have one big nuclear bomb. Neither of these things help to protect regular people and companies, and they just give criminals a free reign.

 

[JET1971]

Its not the hackers' faults. Security updates for server software costs money. So they take the easy way out by not securing it properly.

analogy: If a bank decided to not upgrade its vault with paper walls to metal walls and some thief came by and stole all your savings..... would you really blame the thief as much as the banking company?

Companies should just delete account data that they dont plan on using anymore once they stop supporting the games.

If this keeps up, I see two possible outcomes:
paid internet security that leaves room for privacy goes up
or
pair internet security that does not leave room for privacy goes up (the easy way out for security firms... yet it would cause protests... I hope)

Actually, it is the fault of the hackers. When somebody gets attacked, it's always the perpetrator's fault first and foremost and not the victim's. This is always true no matter what the circumstances.

The company that does not properly secure customers information and make it as difficult as possible to get to is also at fault. the only real victims are the customers of those companies and not the companies themselves. Doing business on the internet has many benifits and security risks. when a company chooses to do business on the internet they are responsible for maintaining a certain reasonable level of security, such as customers personal information being kept on the most secure server within its network, if they have it on the same server as the company website then they did not maintain a reasonable amount of security, and furthermore if they did not encrypt any of it and the information is leaked out... The company is at fault for not protecting your information. If a bank does not lock the vault at night and the alarm system is broken, if all the money is stolen then it is the banks fault for not securing it, same thing applies to the internet.

Both a bank alarm and vault can be breached, any server connected to the internet can be breached. Alarm is broken and vault not locked is the same amount of security as the servers are not properly updated, personal information of customers is not encrypted and stored on the same server as the website or on another server that has complete open access to the webserver. If my personal information is on a server with that level of security and it gets leaked.. you bet your ass I will be blaming the company! If the server security was done properly with servers fully updated, personal information on another server other than the website with limited access and encrypted that gets hacked. well it was properly secured and I cannot blame the company.

 

[A1]

Its not the hackers' faults. Security updates for server software costs money. So they take the easy way out by not securing it properly.

analogy: If a bank decided to not upgrade its vault with paper walls to metal walls and some thief came by and stole all your savings..... would you really blame the thief as much as the banking company?

Companies should just delete account data that they dont plan on using anymore once they stop supporting the games.

If this keeps up, I see two possible outcomes:
paid internet security that leaves room for privacy goes up
or
pair internet security that does not leave room for privacy goes up (the easy way out for security firms... yet it would cause protests... I hope)

Actually, it is the fault of the hackers. When somebody gets attacked, it's always the perpetrator's fault first and foremost and not the victim's. This is always true no matter what the circumstances.

The company that does not properly secure customers information and make it as difficult as possible to get to is also at fault. the only real victims are the customers of those companies and not the companies themselves. Doing business on the internet has many benifits and security risks. when a company chooses to do business on the internet they are responsible for maintaining a certain reasonable level of security, such as customers personal information being kept on the most secure server within its network, if they have it on the same server as the company website then they did not maintain a reasonable amount of security, and furthermore if they did not encrypt any of it and the information is leaked out... The company is at fault for not protecting your information. If a bank does not lock the vault at night and the alarm system is broken, if all the money is stolen then it is the banks fault for not securing it, same thing applies to the internet.

Both a bank alarm and vault can be breached, any server connected to the internet can be breached. Alarm is broken and vault not locked is the same amount of security as the servers are not properly updated, personal information of customers is not encrypted and stored on the same server as the website or on another server that has complete open access to the webserver. If my personal information is on a server with that level of security and it gets leaked.. you bet your ass I will be blaming the company! If the server security was done properly with servers fully updated, personal information on another server other than the website with limited access and encrypted that gets hacked. well it was properly secured and I cannot blame the company.

Actually the companies and governments that get attacked are also victims in addition to all the customers, associates, and citizens. They get publicly embarrassed and lose money when such things happen. They also get harmed and that by the way is also bad for the customers, associates, and citizens. You may not like the victim and you may argue that the victim deserved to be attacked. But a victim is still a victim. And when someone gets attacked it's always the perpetrators fault first and foremost and not the victims, no matter what the circumstances. Sure maybe the victim could have been better prepared, but that doesn't matter because it's still the perpetrators fault, no matter what the circumstances.

 

[phelan511]

So when well those extra credit guys make another video talking about how great those hackers are....?

I don't recall them defending Lulzsec. They did sorta defend Anonymous, but it was more of the fact that Anonymous straight up said it wasn't them. As proof, 4chan got DDoS'd for a bit yesterday. Not sure by who but my money's on Lulzsec

Chances are it was Lulz, they tweeted about /b/ 'hunting' them.

Eh. Figured. Although to be completely honest if Anon wanted to get rid of them I'm pretty sure they would "let slip" some location data of Lulzsecs servers. I'm kinda thinking Anon just really doesn't give a flying fuck about them and is just waiting for Lulzsec to slip up and get themselves caught.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

So when well those extra credit guys make another video talking about how great those hackers are....?

I don't recall them defending Lulzsec. They did sorta defend Anonymous, but it was more of the fact that Anonymous straight up said it wasn't them. As proof, 4chan got DDoS'd for a bit yesterday. Not sure by who but my money's on Lulzsec

Chances are it was Lulz, they tweeted about /b/ 'hunting' them.

Eh. Figured. Although to be completely honest if Anon wanted to get rid of them I'm pretty sure they would "let slip" some location data of Lulzsecs servers. I'm kinda thinking Anon just really doesn't give a flying fuck about them and is just waiting for Lulzsec to slip up and get themselves caught.

lulzsec arent really keeping a low profile.. they have a twitter account amoungst other things, anon has tracked people down with way less info than that.. so im surprised it hasnt happened already.. especially seeing as 4chan has been ddos'd