Did you say Anonymous?

Sorry for the delay in publishing this post. Since there have been a lot of twists and turns involving Lulzsec and Anonymous lately, I had to refresh this post with the new information.

---

The security world has an interesting diversity.

I once had a discussion with some security professionals. During the conversation, I referred to the threat posed by Anonymous, as a decentralized group that takes justice into its own hands. The people I was talking to made a “wtf is Anonymous?” face. At the time, it bothered me to see other security professionals unaware of one of the most publicized threats.

The real question in all this: should there be a minimum body of knowledge that every security professional should have? Or must we accept the fact that the security field is becoming specialized and that, apart from sharing the desire to protect assets, the body of knowledge is disparate?

Back to that conversation, I took the opportunity to explain what Anonymous is and how this new threat was influencing the decisions that need to be made in system design. Everyone came out ahead and the information was better protected.

Along the same lines, the FBI made an interesting bust by capturing Lulzsec's leaders. One thing is certain: the operation was well put together and Lulzsec's opsec left a lot to be desired. Beyond the ideology promoted by Lulzsec (one can be for or against it for a wide variety of reasons, which isn't the subject of this post), their actions broke the law. It's important for law enforcement to make an example, to send a clear message that what happens on the Internet is governed by the same rules and laws as in the real world. Just because theft or destruction of someone else's property happens on the Internet doesn't mean it's exempt from the law.