<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"The chances are you already know about the Gawker Media security breach, a network-wide attack that compromised over a million registered accounts across Gawker's web properties. Internal memos were accessed, sensitive usernames and passwords uncovered and site modifications made.\r\n\r\nAs part of our ongoing coverage, we now bring you an exclusive interview with the group behind the attacks, Gnosis.\r\n\r\nWe had questions and Gnosis had answers that we are sure you'll want to see.\r\n\r\nWe spoke to three members of Gnosis, they will be identified as N, I and T.\r\n\r\nWho/what is Gnosis?\r\n\r\nI:\u00A0We are a small group, who have varying talents in computer technology, each member of the team is hand picked based on their skills and personality.\u00A0We generally just chat and code together as a tight knit group and work on projects in our free time.\r\n\r\nSo it's an invite only group?\r\n\r\nI:\u00A0It is yes.\r\n\r\nThat currently has three members?\r\n\r\nN: No, there are currently 13 members, with three &amp;quot;others&amp;quot;.\r\n\r\nDo you have a leader?\r\n\r\nI:\u00A0Ha, we were expecting that one.\u00A0We dont\u00A0believe\u00A0in having a leader of the group, everyone is as equal as the next.\r\n\r\nCertain members of the media have mentioned you were associated with 4chan/Anonymous, despite you strictly implying you were not. Can you explain your connection to 4chan?\r\n\r\nI:\u00A0We formed as a small group interested in learning about technology. Ever since, we have become a collective who work together on projects.\r\n\r\nN: As for 4chan,\u00A0we are not directly connected, no. But 4chan's influence on the net is large and several of our members visit the site. We don't directly agree with some of 4chans tactics,\u00A0or rather &amp;quot;anon's&amp;quot; tactics.\r\n\r\nWe believe that ddosing sites won't help their cause\u00A0and will only generate negative press\u00A0and I personally see in the media\u00A0a lot of acts being simply put under the umbrella of &amp;quot;4chan&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;anonymous&amp;quot;. We would have not wanted this to be lumped with such acts as DDOS'ing Amazon or Mastercard.\r\n\r\nNegative press?\r\n\r\nN: Well the saying goes that any press is good press.\r\n\r\nDid you believe compromising Gawker and publishing innocent users accounts would bring positive press?\r\n\r\nN: Nope\r\n\r\nI:\u00A0No, we did not.\r\n\r\nN: Which is why we did not lump it together with Wikileaks, or any other &amp;quot;aim&amp;quot;. We simply released it as it was.\r\n\r\nWould you say the timing of your release could have been better as to not be &amp;quot;lumped&amp;quot; in with Anonymous?\r\n\r\nI: The timing for the release was quite a rush to be honest, while we will not disclose why this was. We will say that, however rushed it was, we are happy with the release.\u00A0It is always going to be lumped with anonymous, no matter what it is.\r\n\r\nWell, at least by some people.\r\n\r\nWhy did you choose to deface Gizmodo's Twitter account above all others and why post #wikileaks supporting messages? Did you\u00A0believe\u00A0Giz was the most visible [Gawker] property?\r\n\r\nN:\u00A0I was the one who defaced the Twitter [account]. Gizmodo was very visible\u00A0and while the tweets were up for only 5 mins at max\u00A0they caused quite a big stir.\r\n\r\n[In answer to the first question] I believe in Wikileaks\u00A0and their cause, so I thought the first post would be &amp;quot;WIKILEAKS&amp;quot;.\u00A0I then started to post about the upcoming release\u00A0and I was actually just writing a tweet about the source code release date when they got control back.\r\n\r\nSo they [Gawker] acted almost instantly?\r\n\r\nN:\u00A0Nearly instantly, within 5 mins. They removed the tweets and changed the password.\r\n\r\nWhat motivated you to hack Gawker? Did you have something against Denton, Gawker or the its writers? Or all of them?\r\n\r\nT:\u00A0We were motivated by the sheer arrogance of the Gawker group of bloggers.\u00A0We are a technologically minded group of people, and we enjoy a challenge.\r\n\r\nWhen we got in, we were shocked by the apparent lack of any layers of security, setting off a chain, leading to compromise.\r\n\r\nN: As for the question about if this is a thing against its writers,\u00A0I personally have nothing against them, they have built what they call an &amp;quot;empire&amp;quot; and I respect that. So no, it is nothing personal.\r\n\r\nSo this had nothing to do with the 4chan/Gawker spat many months ago? Are you saying it's unrelated?\r\n\r\nN: Completely.\r\n\r\nI [wrongly] assumed the two incidents were connected?\r\n\r\nN:\u00A0We read about these as they happened and thought nothing of them\u00A0but a member brought it up and we decided to see if we could get inside Gawker\u00A0but the large gap was because we didn't really care at the time.\r\n\r\nBut after a quick pentest we discovered how truly arrogant they were, which makes more sense if you know the levels of security within Gawker.\r\n\r\nHow long did it take to compromise Gawker? Can you comment on how you gained access?\r\n\r\n\r\nI: Sorry but we do not wish to provide a timeframe but, if it helps, it didnt take us long.\u00A0The site is a set of components, and we tested and evaluated each ones integrity.\r\n\r\nN:\u00A0We had frontpage access quite quickly though, and like dominos the other systems fell into place.\r\n\r\nDid you employ XSS\u00A0vulnerabilities\u00A0or kernel vulnerabilities?\r\n\r\nN: We cannot comment, I am sorry. Though vulnerabilities were involved at several stages, in several components, we cannot specify which and what type.\r\n\r\nCan you comment on the stages in which you gained access to Gawkers web properties? \r\n\r\nN: We can't comment on the stages\u00A0but we did access the Email, the issue tracker, several web servers, Campfire, SVN\u00A0as well as some other old\u00A0internal\u00A0things that were not used anymore. There are others,\u00A0who's names do not spring to mind. They should all be in the README.txt [a file released in the torrent data].\r\n\r\nWhat do you say to the people who had their details compromised? Aren't they just unwitting pawns in the crossfire?\r\n\r\nI:\u00A0We\u00A0apologize\u00A0that you were caught in the crossfire of this attack, if you have a sufficiently good password over 8 characters then you are most likely not at risk,\u00A0anyone could have did what we did, it was wide open for everyone to exploit, we just got there first.\r\n\r\nWhy did you release user data?\r\n\r\nI: TBH, they would rather it was us, than some Russian spammer who would sell their databases, or use them for more malicious uses.\r\n\r\nT:\u00A0Release is the safest path, as it allows lessons to be learned.\r\n\r\nCan't you argue that a spammer would be able to use this data anyway?\r\n\r\nN:\u00A0A spammer could easily use this, but the true value lies with the passwords.\u00A0Someone clever could have extracted this information\u00A0and then bruteforced the hashes to get the passwords, and slowly and maliciously exploited them.\u00A0Now they are out in the open the people effected will be able to change.\r\n\r\nIn the short term yes, they could be used maliciously, but long term we would hope that the majority would change their passwords.\r\n\r\nWe don't want to condone what we did as right, because it will cause damage to the people caught in the &amp;quot;crossfire&amp;quot;\u00A0but it should be a reminder to everyone that security does matter\u00A0and that big sites take unacceptable liberties with users' data.\r\n\r\nT:\u00A0Additionally, we let users know their data was compromised, as we didnt look for other tracks, but it doesn't mean to say they were not there.\r\n\r\nAs we have repeated, _anyone_ could have gotten their hands on this info.\r\n\r\nN:\u00A0(Anyone with some skill that is)\r\n\r\nT:\u00A0Indeed.\r\n\r\nThen what\u00A0is your core ideology?\r\n\r\nN: Our ideology is to learn. As knowledge is power.\u00A0We like to explore\u00A0and work on interesting projects, some of which we believe\u00A0have not been attempted in the past.\r\n\r\nNow you have compromised Gawker, will you seek to attack anyone else?\r\n\r\nN: Well,\u00A0we have a few pokers in the fire, but nothing we can discuss. We will however\u00A0re-visit Gawker sometime in the future\u00A0and see if they have improved their security and fixed the numerous holes. I\u00A0hope they will, they mentioned they were hiring IT experts, whatever that means.\r\n\r\nSo is that to say you will be looking to announce more attacks soon?\r\n\r\nI:\u00A0No, we will not be conducting attacks like we have this time, we are not a malicious group intentionally. We will just revisit Gawker at some point to assess their security, and see if this drop has helped them improve security.\r\n\r\nAre you worried whether Gawker might have contacted the authorities following this attack?\r\n\r\nI:\u00A0We are not worried about this, as we beleive being broken wide open\u00A0will help them to secure their site. We have not been informed in any way of Gawkers intentions to call the authorities or not.\r\n\r\nWould you conduct strict security testing of other sites if they were found to be operating similar to Gawker? Put simply, who would be fair game?\r\n\r\nN:\u00A0The group is fairly decentralized, there are no orders per say,\u00A0if a member wants to investigate (or a group of members such as with Gawker)\u00A0then he or she can do, its at their discretion. We try to keep our ears open,\u00A0we sometimes hear that a big site is vulnerable and we take a look\u00A0and everyone is fair game on the internet, in my opinion.\r\n\r\nWhat would you say you have gained from all this?\r\n\r\nN:\u00A0We have gained an insight into how a large website works and is run\u00A0and what technologies they use, it was very interesting.\u00A0However I hope Gawker is the exception rather than the rule.\r\n\r\nIs there anything else you wish to point out for me, our readers, members of the press and/or public?\r\n\r\nN:\u00A0Uhh, well from my point of view it has been a fun ride, and good luck with the story.\r\n\r\nI:\u00A0I agree, Good luck with the story.\r\n\r\nT:\u00A0I'd just like to point out that the disclosure of source should be taking a lot more of the stage.\u00A0Other than that, it's been fun.\r\n\r\n T, can you elaborate?\r\n\r\nT: I feel that the fact that _full_ source has been released, Gawker may as well go opensource, which would be _very_ interesting, and would love to see how that plays out for Gawker and the open source community.\r\n\r\nN:\u00A0I actually agree on one point, I am reading a post by Fox News now\u00A0and the source is not mentioned once, which is a shame.\r\n\r\nAnyway,\u00A0thanks for taking the time to talk to us.\r\n\r\nT:\u00A0Thanks\r\n\r\nThank you for your time.\r\n\r\nGnosis also sent us a screenshot of the group writing and publishing the article that went live across the Gawker network. This was the post published by Adrian Chen, who went on to deny the posting and admit the site was hacked. Below is proof that Gnosis did indeed compromise the Gawker backend and publish the article:\r\n\r\n"^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://thenextweb.com/media/2010/12/14/an-interview-with-gnosis-the-group-behind-the-gawker-hacking/?awesm=tnw.to_17BWZ>