Exploring the Concept of Hacking: Unveiling the Activities of Anonymous

By Sarferaaz Khaan

Image Source: https://pixabay.com/photos/hacker-attack-mask-internet-2883632/

Introduction

Cyberspace, commonly referred to as the internet, is a global network of connected devices that allows people and organizations to communicate, access information, and conduct business. The threat of cybercrime has grown significantly in importance for people, companies, and governments as a result of the growing use of technology and the internet. Cybercrime is the term for illegal behaviors like identity theft, cyberbullying, hacking, phishing, and malware attacks that are carried out through computers or the internet. Cybercrime has the potential to seriously harm one’s finances and reputation, as well as compromise critical data. Anonymous is one of the most well-known hacker organizations in the world. This disorganized gang has a reputation for engaging in hacktivism and has been linked to various well-publicized cyberattacks against corporations, governments, and other organizations. For its acts, Anonymous has received both praise and condemnation, with some viewing them as an essential form of resistance against oppressive regimes and others denouncing their methods as damaging and illegal.

Hacking under the Information Technology Act 2000

One of the deadliest cybercrimes to emerge in the internet era is hacking. According to estimates, England placed first among nations that have experienced cyberattacks. It was estimated that in 2023, 33 billion accounts will be compromised, resulting in 2328 daily conversions and 97 hourly victims of cybercrime. 8,00,000 cyberattacks have been documented in total, with one occurring around every 39 seconds.

To access a computer system’s or network’s data and sources, one must first find any weaknesses in those systems or networks. Hacking is an attempt to gain unauthorized access to a private, public, corporate, or organization’s computer network to obtain information. Simply described, it is when someone gains unauthorized access to or control over a computer network or security system for improper or illegal purposes. It is the willful and intentional intrusion into a computer program without the owner’s legitimate authorization. It has an impact on an entity’s entire range of information and communication technology. These include social media scams, threats via the web, communications, and email, data breaches, compromises of the cloud and data storage, and serious data breaches.

Chapter XI Section 66 of the IT Act, 2000 particularly deals with the act of hacking. Section 66(1) defines a hack as, any person, dishonestly or fraudulently, any act referred to in Section 43 is called hacking, and Section 66(2) prescribes the punishment for it. Some more provisions related to hacking under the IT Act, 2000 are as follows:

• Unauthorized Access to Computer Systems (Section 43): This clause forbids anybody from entering a computer without authorization into a system, network, or resource. It includes techniques like hacking, password cracking, and getting around security barriers. Punishments and restitution for harm done may be imposed on offenders.
• Hacking with the Intent to Cause Damage (Section 66): This section makes it illegal to hack into computer networks or systems with the express purpose of doing harm to them. This includes actions like disseminating malware, infections, or ransomware. Those who are found guilty may get jail time and fines.
• Section 66A of the law addresses the penalties for hacking offences that result in unjustified loss or harm to any person. It is punishable by jail time and fines. However, in its historic ruling in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India in March 2015, the Supreme Court of India invalidated Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000. It was believed that the widespread abuse and arbitrary application of Section 66A violated the basic right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. As a result, the case was brought.

The act of hacking can be understood from the case of Kumar v Whiteley. In this case, the accused acquired unauthorized access to the Joint Academic Network (JANET), altered the passwords and removed files to prevent authorized users from accessing the system. Investigations had shown that Kumar had “made alterations in the computer database about broadband Internet user accounts” of the subscribers and was connecting to the BSNL broadband Internet connection as if he were the authorized legitimate user. Based on a complaint by the Press Information Bureau, Chennai, which discovered the unlawful usage of broadband Internet, the CBI filed a cybercrime case against Kumar and conducted investigations. The complaint also claimed that as a result of Kumar’s wrongdoing, the subscribers had suffered a loss of Rs 38,248. They said that he had previously “hacked” websites from Bangalore, Chennai, and other places.

Different Methods of Hacking

The following are the most common methods of hacking;

1. Virus attack – Using this kind of hacking, hackers insert viruses into website files that, if downloaded or installed on our computers, can corrupt or destroy the vital data they contain.
2. Cookie theft – Utilizing specialized techniques, a website that stores user data in the form of cookies occasionally becomes compromised. These cookies can be read and decrypted to disclose one’s identity, which can then be used to carry out online impersonations of that person. In most cases, cookies are either saved in plain text or with encryption.
3. Phishing – This only entails copying the original website to obtain user data such as account passwords, credit card information, etc. The most typical hacking method involves the hacker sending you a false message and invoice, asking you to confirm certain personal information, or tempting you with freebies.
4. UI Redress – This technique involves creating a fictitious user interface that, when clicked, sends users to another susceptible website. For instance, if we need to download music, the “download” tab would immediately transfer us to a different page, which is typically a fake website.
5. DNS Spoofing – Hackers exploit cached information from a website that a user may have forgotten to collect user data. Here, a person is coerced into visiting a bogus website that has been made to look authentic to redirect traffic or steal user credentials.

International Judicial Standards Related to Hacking

Not only India, but also the United States, Italy, Australia, the United Kingdom, and many other nations have had issues with and threats from hacking. However, nations like the US have well-crafted and put into effect strict regulations to prevent such unlawful data theft by hackers.

To prevent computer-related crimes and safeguard computer systems, the United States federal government passed the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) in 1986. It makes computer fraud, unauthorized access, and abuse crimes. The CFAA has penalties for violations, including fines, imprisonment, and/or both. The law now covers a larger spectrum of cybercrimes than it did in the past. It has drawn criticism, meanwhile, for its imprecise language and potential for abuse, which can result in harsh penalties and impede security research and innovation. Federal organizations like the FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) and DOJ (Department of Justice) enforce the CFAA and demand proof of unauthorized access, malicious intent, and showing damages or harm caused.

The Rise and Terror of a Hacker Group: The Anonymous

A legendary hacker group by the name of Anonymous rose to prominence in the shadowy online underworld. The early 2000s imageboard 4chan was the birthplace of Anonymous, which grew its roots in a world where identities were concealed by anonymous handles and malicious intent was commonplace.

Anonymous was created by a loose alliance of people from all around the world who came together with the same goal: to subvert social conventions and resist the repressive forces that lurk in cyberspace. Their collective identity developed into a symbol of resistance, promoting open government, societal justice, and free expression. They went out to leave their imprint with a digital arsenal at their disposal and a mask of obscurity.

Governments, businesses, and organizations were terrified by Anonymous after a string of outrageous activities. Their tactics ranged from distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks that rendered websites unusable to hacking into secure networks and disclosing private data to the public. They went for people they believed to be corrupt or tyrannical, much like modern-day vigilantes, to upset the existing quo and make the powerful answerable.

With its rapid growth, Anonymous attracted a wide range of people, each with its own set of abilities and goals. They used hacking tactics that appeared to defy the limitations of conventional cybersecurity procedures, harnessing the power of the internet to organize followers and plan their activities.

However, Anonymous did not have a centralized leadership structure or a spokesperson, and it worked in the shadows. Their mystery was only heightened by their cryptic nature, which also made it challenging for law enforcement to learn about their covert activities. The hacker collective came to represent the wild spirit that flourished in the limitless online.

Anonymous blurred the lines between activism and cybercrime as its actions resonated across the digital landscape, inspiring both adoration and condemnation. They developed into an unstoppable force, a modern-day Robin Hood who stood up for what they thought was right, even if it meant breaking the law.

The history of the internet is braided with the heritage of Anonymous, which is still a dynamic phenomenon. While their roots may have been in the depths of 4chan, their effect extended beyond the digital sphere, making a lasting impression on how the world views online activism and the strength of anonymous group action.

Biggest Attacks of the Anonymous since 2010

Operation Payback (2010)

The hacking group Anonymous ran a noteworthy operation in 2010 called Operation Payback. The campaign centered on launching distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) assaults on groups thought to be opponents of internet freedom and foes of free speech.

As a reaction to the steps taken against file-sharing websites, notably the legal actions and censorship attempts aimed at The Pirate Bay and WikiLeaks, Operation Payback was launched. Anonymous viewed these acts as attempts to limit information flow and threats to internet freedom.

In reaction, Anonymous carried out a number of DDoS assaults against different groups that were seen to be hostile to internet freedom, including anti-piracy organizations, copyright enforcement agencies, and banking institutions that had shut off WikiLeaks’ access to services.

HBGary (2011) 

When HB Gary Federal, one of the company’s subsidiaries, said that it would be revealing the identity of Anonymous members, the onslaught on HB Gary officially started. In retaliation, Anonymous launched a well-coordinated cyberattack that mainly made use of social engineering, phishing, and system weaknesses.

During the hack, Anonymous accessed HB Gary’s servers without authorization, altered their website, and stole a sizable quantity of internal data. Thousands of business emails, papers, and other sensitive data were among the stolen items; they were later made public.

The revealed emails included conversations about the development of sophisticated hacking tools, plots to target WikiLeaks, and attempts to influence online dialogue through sock puppets and astroturfing.

Sony Pictures (2014)

A massive cyberattack involving many organisations, including members of Anonymous, was launched against Sony Pictures in 2014. A significant quantity of private information was stolen and made public as a result of the assault, which was directed at Sony Pictures Entertainment, a prominent film and entertainment corporation.

The “Guardians of Peace” (GOP) organisation was first blamed for the attack on Sony Pictures. Later on, it was discovered that parts of Anonymous were also responsible for the intrusion. According to reports, a number of reasons led to the attack, including Sony’s legal measures against PlayStation modders, problematic Sony Pictures material, and a general desire to reveal corporate wrongdoing. The hackers illegally accessed Sony Pictures’ computer systems and stole a sizable amount of data.

OpIsrael (2013)

Operation Israel, often known as OpIsrael, was a significant cyberattack undertaken by Anonymous in 2013. Targeting Israeli websites and internet infrastructure was part of the operation’s protest against the Israeli government’s policies and interventions in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

On April 7, 2013, OpIsrael was launched, falling on Israel’s annual Holocaust Remembrance Day. Israeli websites and internet services were disrupted by anonymous hackers using a variety of strategies, including DDoS assaults, website defacements, data dumps, and social media disruptions.

Government websites, financial institutions, military organisations, educational institutions, and other organisations thought to be connected to or supporting the Israeli government were among the targets of OpIsrael. In order to undermine their internet presence, breach their systems, and make a political statement against tyranny, hackers targeted these targets.

Charlie Hebdo (2015)

On January 7, 2015, two assailants invaded the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris, shooting 12 people to death, including well-known journalists and cartoonists. Extremists who were incensed by the magazine’s satirical portrayals of Prophet Muhammad carried out the attack.

Anonymous announced its participation in the “OpCharlieHebdo” campaign in retaliation to the assault. They pledged to find and expose people and organizations connected to terrorism and extreme beliefs. Targeting websites, social media accounts, and other online platforms that encouraged or supported radicalization and terrorism, anonymous hackers and activists launched their cyberattacks.

ISIS (2015-2016)

Under the names “OpParis” and “OpISIS,” Anonymous began its campaign against ISIS. The group attacked ISIS-related websites and online platforms using a variety of hacking methods, including DDoS assaults, website defacements, and account takedowns on social media.

One of Anonymous’ top priorities was to identify and take down the social media and online networks that ISIS recruiters and propagandists were using. Thousands of Twitter accounts and websites connected to the terrorist group were found and denounced, which resulted in the suspension and removal of many of these channels.

Operation Darknet (2017)

Operation Darknet, also known as #OpDarknet, is the codename for a series of distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) operations launched by Anonymous against Lolita City, a website that allows users to share child pornography anonymously via the encrypted service of The Tor Project.

The goal of the operation, which started in early October 2011, was to bring light to the “Lolita City” subculture of pedophiles. The website was created via Tor, a programme that enables users to host and access webpages in an anonymous manner. The programme has been used in at least four other forum groups that have been accused of harbouring child porn. It was created to safeguard the identity of Internet users under regimes that forbid unrestricted internet access.

George Floyd Protests (2020)

In connection with the George Floyd demonstrations, Anonymous has been blamed for a number of cyberattacks. First, a suspected distributed denial of service (DDoS) assault over the weekend momentarily took the Minneapolis police department website down.

A server is flooded with data in this simple but successful cyberattack until it can no longer handle the load and stops functioning, similar to how shopping websites sometimes fall offline when they are overrun by customers trying to buy in-demand items. Unverified tweets that appear to show police radios playing music and obstructing conversation have also gone viral on Twitter. Experts contend that it is less likely to be a hack and more likely the consequence of demonstrators seizing a stolen piece of equipment.

Parler (2021)

Gigabytes of data, according to Anonymous, were taken from Epik, a company that offers hosting, DNS, and domain name services to a range of customers. Among other right-wing websites, they include the Texas GOP, Gab, Parler, and 8chan. The stolen information was made available as a torrent. According to the hacktivist collective, the data collection, which weighed in at over 180GB, included information from the firm spanning a decade.

Cyberwar against Russia (2022)

Using an “improved” version of the Russian Conti ransomware, anonymous hackers who have been targeting Russia since the invasion of Ukraine reported more attacks against vital infrastructure sectors. They also called for the targeting of businesses who “have blood on their hands” for continuing to do business in Russia following the massacre of Ukrainian civilians in Bucha.

WILL THE ANONYMOUS EVER BE FOUND?

Will Anonymous ever be Found?

Individual members of Anonymous are hard to identify and locate because the group is decentralized and loosely structured. The use of encryption technologies, proxy servers, and virtual private networks (VPNs) by Anonymous as means of identity protection can make it difficult for government authorities to track their online activity.

Identification efforts are further complicated by the group’s frequent use of pseudonyms or anonymity when carrying out its attacks. Although some individual Anonymous members have been detained and charged in the past, it seems doubtful that the entire organization will be tracked down and prosecuted as a whole.

Despite this, law enforcement organizations all around the world are continually striving to track down and arrest cybercriminals, including Anonymous members. It is feasible that new techniques and technologies will be created to assist in identifying and locating cybercriminals as technology continues to advance. It is difficult to anticipate whether or not the Anonymous organization as a whole will ever be prosecuted due to the decentralized and anonymous character of such groups, which poses a special problem for law enforcement.

Analysis

Within the parameters of hacking legislation, Anonymous’s operations pose complicated difficulties. Hacking, which involves unauthorized access to and manipulation of computer systems, is often prohibited by current laws such as the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Legal prosecution is hampered by Anonymous’ decentralized structure and use of anonymity, which make it hard to link particular activities to specific people.

Targeting organizations they believe are violating civil rights, Anonymous’ acts might be viewed as a type of hacktivism or civil disobedience. This raises concerns about how individual rights and adherence to the law should coexist in a digital world. Legal laws distinguish between malevolent hacking and ethical hacking, but when dealing with a large-scale, decentralized collective, pursuing justice and responsibility becomes challenging. I feel that entities attacked by Anonymous may take legal action, triggering discussions about responsibility, jurisdiction, and the efficacy of current laws. It is critical to modify legal frameworks to match the changing nature of cybercrime and hacktivism.

Conclusion

In conclusion, hacking is a complicated and varied phenomenon, as demonstrated by the operations of Anonymous. The motivations and intentions behind such operations might vary, even though hacking is frequently linked to criminal activity and crimes. With their covert and decentralized organization, Anonymous has employed hacking to subvert power structures, advance free expression, and draw attention to perceived injustices. The world has been fascinated and disturbed by their daring actions, which have sparked discussions about the limits of activism, the importance of cybersecurity, and the power structures in the digital sphere. Anonymous and their hacking activities have unquestionably had a lasting impact on the landscape of online activism and the ever-evolving character of the internet itself, whether they are perceived as disruptive troublemakers or digital vigilantes.