this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2026
696 points (98.5% liked)

News

36375 readers
2468 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A website dedicated to naming ICE and Border Patrol employees is coming under a “prolonged and sophisticated” cyber attack after the Daily Beast revealed it planned to make public 4,500 names of federal immigration staff.

The founder of ICE List said the website was overwhelmed by malicious web traffic originating in Russia after the Beast reported that a huge cache of personal IDs had been leaked to the site by an alleged Department of Homeland Security whistleblower.

The Direct Denial of Service (DDOS) assault, which began on Tuesday evening and is still ongoing at the time of publication, saw a huge number of IPs simultaneously access the website of ICE List, a self-styled “accountability initiative.”

This has successfully overloaded the ICE List’s servers and is preventing people from accessing the site. The timing coincided with ICE List founder Dominick Skinner telling the Daily Beast he would make public the first tranche of names in the dataset, which was leaked following the shooting by an ICE agent of mom Renee Nicole Good.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Never, and attributing the use of Russian IPs to the Russian state for a DDOS attack is baseless speculation. This article is uninformed clickbait horseshit.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

It is the Daily Beast. They're basically the Weekly World News of internet media outlets. Surprised they haven't yet reported on what Bat Boy is doing.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

@phutatorius@lemmy.zip care to explain your disapproval of our discussion?

[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Gladly.

The discussion about whether a DDOS account has anything to do with Russia solely because the IP addresses used are Russian fails to take into account the fact that Russian state actors and affiliated parties have previously done it that way. That includes attacks against sites that I work on. Not only DDOS attacks, but lots of vulnerability-probing attacks have come from Russian IPs as well (though not all, of course: China's a close second on that leaderboard), and in one investigation of those, our security team was able to find a forum where the attacks were being coordinated. The discussion was in Russian. That doesn't mean they were state actors in that case, but Russia's not the kind of place where freelancers are allowed to operate against state interests for long. So maybe volunteers for the motherland, maybe mercenaries, maybe someone with a more formal relationship with the state. In that particular case, we stopped investigating at that point, since our goal was to harden our system further, rather than worry about attribution.

So yeah, you'd think that in the interest of good comsec, they'd go to the effort to obfuscate the origin of their attacks, but they don't always. Maybe they're sloppy, or they don't see the need, or don't want to incur the minimal additional complexity and/or cost.

I'd like to disclose more, but I'm in a position where there are some hard limits on what I can disclose about my personal and professional life.

Also, the Daily Beast is no paragon of journalistic integrity, but they're more a mixed bag than a never-credible source. Case in point: Michael Wolff's podcasts for them, which occasionally contain worthwhile insights mixed in with the tabloid gossip. I rank them a little below Times Radio, which also has a mix of clickbaity crap and occasional sound analysis. They're certainly nowhere near the gutter that the NY Post or the Daily Mail inhabit. Well, maybe one foot, but not both.

Anyway... mea culpa for having downvoted rather than joining in. I was in a hurry, about to head out the door, and should have instead waited until I had the time to comment.