Talk:2007 cyberattacks on Estonia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PCulli.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to rename

This article may want to be renamed Estonian Cyberattack verses cyberwar. Cyberwar may seem to imply cyber attacks were exchanged instead of the incident being a one-sided attack. It should be noted a simple move is not possible since Estonian Cyberattack redirects to Estonian Cyberwarfare. MLWilson 22:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to have a name showing that Estonia was attacked, not the one who did the attacking. Perhaps Cyberattacks to Estonia 2007 or something along those lines. Current name is too ambiguous. DLX 06:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. For now I am goind to move this page to Cyberattacks on Estonia 2007. MLWilson 06:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Some new sources

• After Attacks, U.S. Government Sends Team to Estonia
• Nato plans action against cyberattacks
• EU targets cybersecurity after Estonia attacks
• Cyberattacks: Are Virtual Wars Next?
• Kremlin Accused of DDOS Cyberbullying

Sander Säde 19:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Estonian 'Cyber Riot' Was Planned, But Mastermind Still A Mystery Sander Säde 10:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Opinions of independent experts

I insist on using "many" independent experts, as opposed to "some" for following reasons:

1) All independent esperts who so far did not hesitate to disclose their names (i.e. are risking their reputations to support their claim) are saying that Estonian government claims can not be confirmed.

Wrong. First, the bit about "hesitate" is desinformative: most of the official experts -- those privy to the underlying data -- have not been named because of their organisations' media contact policies. Second, Linnar Viik has certainly not been "hesitating". Digwuren 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing article on Viik here. Good laugh was what I needed to finish off work week. Is associate college professor guru? Besides, if you re-read an article, even Viik did not support Paet's accusations. Probably he has a bit of a reputation to care about too.RJ CG 21:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And I guess here he is loudly protesting that Paet is accusing the wrong guys? Digwuren 22:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

2) BBC's reference to "experts" in May 17 article most likely refers to individuals on Estonian government's or telecom's payroll.

Or Europol's payroll. Digwuren 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not question depth of their knowledge, but calling them "independent" would be the biggest shame since USSR called their elections "free".

Have you ever seen a real computer security expert? These guys tend to be independent even when you actively try to bias them. Digwuren 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Waitaminute ... this reminds me ... this. So, tell us inquisitive minds, since when has cyberwarfare been among your "usual pattern of interest", and how many "strikes" have you earnt? Digwuren 22:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It does belong to Estonia topic, if you haven't noticed. And, besides several attempts of Korps! to remove or diminish sourced opinions of leading world experts (I still notice your modus operandi, but stopped to care about it), it had been pretty constructive work on touchy topic. Any more questions? RJ CG 22:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As an alternative I can suggest writing something like "All independent expert commented on... could not confirm Estonian accusations. None of independent experts agreed with Estonian statements". That would be equally true, but much more POV. Do you guys want to go with statement like this? RJ CG 20:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This would be wrong, and thus, not belong to Wikipedia. Digwuren 20:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Care to provide signed statement of an independent expert confirming Estonian accusations? Closest I could find was opinion of this Russian hacker guy, but he spoke more about "hints" or "delicate nudging" from somebody in the position of authority (old Russian belief that the Sun does not rise without the Czar's permission). TIA RJ CG 22:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact tag you removed, I replaced it with attribution and citation tags. you cant make a claim like that obscurely. Who were the experts? Wheres the source?--Alexia Death 21:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Next time try to do a little reading before you attack something you don't like. The richly sourced content of this section is proof. What else do you need? BTW, it is considered common courtesy to sign. RJ CG 21:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Signed now, sorry. I Did read the content. And no I did not find a source where the "calling hollow" occured. And If you know who the independent researchers were, please, attribute them! Otherwise the hole section needs a rewording.--Alexia Death 21:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the redundant sentence. Let the experts speak for themselves, if it is them who this sentence referenced.--Alexia Death 21:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK RJ CG 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Opinions of independent experts"

I have removed the blatant copy and paste from Shaun Waterman's commentary. This is an encyclopedic article, not a news magazine. Please mind the copyvios. --Lysy^talk 19:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Questionable edits (all probably done in good faith)

Will someone please offer a counterpoint as to why we shouldn't talk about the man who was convicted of attacks that generated this specific article about his attacks? I view it as an innocent mistake on the part of some editors to delete the relevant information (including its refs).

I wish to be bold and return the relevant information and its refs to this article on 4 March. Let the debate begin...

I recently made my first edit to this specific article; Oth made no edits before me. I added relevant details about a man living in Estonia who was convicted of launching attacks that are specific to this article. I consider the information relevant not only because this is the specific article about his attacks, but also because his status as a local student provides much-needed context for the article's third paragraph. I placed the relevant information in a relevant position and I ref'd it.

In his "Copyedit + ref" edit, Oth moved my edit down six paragraphs and he performed a minor rewrite. I implicitly accepted it under AGF and only scratched my head over his "+ ref" reference.

Twelve hours later, in his "Wording" edit, Oth changed "of launching the attacks" to "for attacking the website of the [ERF]." I consider both statements accurate, and I implicitly accepted Oth's edit under AGF because it provided more exact knowledge to the reader.

Forty hours later, in his "small cleanup" edit, Oth removed both the man's name and the ref.

I should note this isn't the first time someone removed both the man's name and the ref from a specific article about the man's attacks. Lysy did the same thing in a 24 Jan 08 edit.

A cursory glance at both Oth's edit history and Lysy's edit history proves they're active members and it certainly implies WP:AGF for both of them.

Rather, I view their actions as an innocent mistake to delete relevant information, including its refs. I wish to be bold and return the relevant information and its refs to this article on 4 March. Rob Rosenberger (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see that I have deleted any information from the article - name, offense and punishment are present (yes, I deleted the infoworld ref, but I replaced it with one from BBC and they are largely identical anyway). I specified your first edit because Estonian media wrote some time ago how everybody thinks now it was a one man war. In the end I noticed the information was already in the second paragraph so I decided to remove it from the lead section. Feel free to make all improvements you like. Oth (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision?

It seems to me that "Claiming responsibility" section should be re-written as "Responsibility" and both claims by the Nashi activist and conviction of the Estonian Russophone should be moved there. Also, I do not understand the reason for Tsyganok's statement being placed in the beginning of the article, as no expert could prove Russian involvement (as in "Russian government") and Tsyganok's opinion about attack's legality is irrelevant. Further clarifying, I do not understand the reason to place it there if I assume that article's objective does differ from "blame Russia". RJ CG (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well it's pretty easy to prove. 1) Bulk of the attacks were carried out using RBN botnets. 2) RBN is obviously working with government cause no law organization would let well known cybercrime organisation like RBN to exist unless they are told to buzz off by government. That is all that needs to be proven for someone who has common sense.

The relationship between russian gov. and RBN is probably as follows: Russia sees RBN frameworks as a good weapon for future and present wars and thus allows RBN to exist and do whatever is profitable for them. For example, sending out spam, doing internet frauds, selling childporn, etc. Suva Чего? 16:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Alleged attacks against Russian sites

Actually there were several Estonian attacks on Russian websites in the days prior to when the widely reported problems started with Estonian websites. In particular, one Russian web portal was defaced so that the homepage displayed the Estonian flag and played the Estonian national anthem. These Estonian hacking incidents were not widely reported in the international press, although were mentioned in the local press I believe. Unfortunately I don't have a link. However, for the sake of balance, this should be mentioned. Waverley2000 (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Source? It's reliability?? Relevance (i.e. how does it really relate to attacks against Estonian computers)??? But yes, if this material satisfies all the requirements (in which I doubt), you're welcome to add it. Ptrt (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Mystery solved

Sergei Markov of State Duma has admitted responsibility of an unnamed aide: [1]. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 23:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is an english language sources confirming this [2]. This article mentions another person, Konstantin Goloskokov, who admitted responsibility, and subsequently denied the right to a visa to the EU and USA [3], perhaps this is the unnamed aid Markov was speaking of? Martintg (talk) 06:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite plausible. AFAIK, it's known that Goloskokov was in Transnistria at that time; this could likely have been the "unrecognised republic" Markov speaks of.

Alternatively, Markov might have more than one net.thug among his aides. Isn't it charming how he puts visa concerns above justice and due process? 62.65.237.132 (talk) 08:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Another article: [4]. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)