LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   LQ Suggestions & Feedback (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/lq-suggestions-and-feedback-7/)
-   -   What's with these regular "I was hacked"? threads? (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/lq-suggestions-and-feedback-7/whats-with-these-regular-i-was-hacked-threads-4175682109/)

dugan 09-14-2020 10:07 AM

What's with these regular "I was hacked"? threads?
 
We get new accounts posting strange "I was hacked" threads fairly regularly, and I'm honestly starting to wonder if it's just a coincidence. I mean (hint, hint) I can't look at the post IPs.

They're all characterized by a) wild implausibility, b) refusal to seek help from anywhere other than this forum (even when people treat them seriously and advise them to take their computers in to be professionally serviced), and c) posting only about their hacking problem and then disappearing

The ones I know about are:

Sept 11, from "RPC" Vírus that slows down the copying of files to USB

April 14, from "Cookiemon": Hacker is configuring Chrome OS on my iPhone

Credit to TB0ne for compiling the links below:

November 17, 2019, from "LongDuckDong_69": My LG Stylo 4 Has Been Hijacked by Remote Administrator and OS as Well as Kernel Have Been Modified

August 26, 2019, from "lynxlyon2": System changes

June 26, 2018, from "Lynxlyon": How do you counter a death attack

June 22, 2019, from "Supermarketjedi": Can't update, upgrade or install packages on any Linux OS

March 20, 2018 from "Danwilliams1989": Mounting my phone. How do I stop them.

This list almost certainly isn't comprehensive, but you can already see how regular it's been since 2018.

hazel 09-14-2020 10:18 AM

Here's another one from today from RPC. Looks like a sequel to the one you found.
Being attacked by a virus that does the same thing but drivers are different

TB0ne 09-14-2020 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dugan (Post 6165699)
We get new accounts posting strange "I was hacked" threads fairly regularly, and I'm honestly starting to wonder if it's just a coincidence. I mean (hint, hint) I can't look at the post IPs.

They're all characterized by a) wild implausibility, b) refusal to seek help from anywhere other than this forum (even when people treat them seriously and advise them to take their computers in to be professionally serviced), and c) posting only about their hacking problem and then disappearing

The ones I know about are:

Sept 11, from "RPC" Vírus that slows down the copying of files to USB

April 14, from "Cookiemon": Hacker is configuring Chrome OS on my iPhone

Credit to TB0ne for compiling the links below:

November 17, 2019, from "LongDuckDong_69": My LG Stylo 4 Has Been Hijacked by Remote Administrator and OS as Well as Kernel Have Been Modified

August 26, 2019, from "lynxlyon2": System changes

June 26, 2018, from "Lynxlyon": How do you counter a death attack

June 22, 2019, from "Supermarketjedi": Can't update, upgrade or install packages on any Linux OS

March 20, 2018 from "Danwilliams1989": Mounting my phone. How do I stop them.

This list almost certainly isn't comprehensive, but you can already see how regular it's been since 2018.

Yep...glad someone else noticed. What gets me is the times/dates...typically from England (based ONLY on speculation given time differences/language). And typically one will drop off after posting for a bit, followed by a NEW poster, with an almost identical issue. User-creation times are always overlapping by a little bit, or consecutive.

Personally, I'd love to see the moderator close such threads, and post a 'form letter' stating that if the poster can provide actual, hard PROOF (beyond speculation), that the thread will be re-opened, or a new one could get created. But it probably won't happen, given the number of times first-few-post moderation has been brought up and shut down. And the fact that some moderators don't seem to care what's reported. I reported a spammer the other day, and the spam-link got removed, but the moderator of that forum left the spammer active...hardly worth the effort to report things when such moderators pick and choose.

pan64 09-14-2020 10:36 AM

Is this an issue?

personally what I do not understand: why do you (or anyone else) post answer[s] if you think it is spam? Do not feed the troll. Put him onto your ignore list.
There are a lot of threads started by a single-post user and containing several (>10) responses. Why?

sevendogsbsd 09-14-2020 11:19 AM

In my opinion, they are either from a single person who is trolling, or the poster(s) are either mentally ill (some sort of affliction that causes paranoid delusions) or the poster(s) are crack cocaine or methamphetamine users, both of which cause extreme paranoid delusions.

All of the threads have the same exact symptoms: a mysterious "hacker" is causing odd behavior on a bunch of the OP's computers, some of which are not even connected to the Internet or a network. Of course the "evidence" is a series of rambling, nonsensical statements by the OP that are not at all evidence but opinion. The last one even said a commercial antivirus couldn't find the virus, which of course normally means it doesn't exist, but that wasn't enough for the OP who still insisted a virus existed.

Yes, these threads drive me crazy as well, but for the fact of morbid fascination, I weigh in and answer them. Sigh.

I think Pan64's idea of blocking them is good. Thanks to the list from Dugan, I'll start there. "jazzy_mood" is another poster to add to Dugan's list. Multiple. threads about viruses that get on the PCs without a network connection.

Added all of the user's in Dugan's list to my "ignored members" list. More will surface I am sure :rolleyes:

TB0ne 09-14-2020 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan64 (Post 6165709)
Is this an issue?
personally what I do not understand: why do you (or anyone else) post answer[s] if you think it is spam? Do not feed the troll. Put him onto your ignore list.
There are a lot of threads started by a single-post user and containing several (>10) responses. Why?

I'll take a stab at this. The reason, is because folks typically ask a reasonable question (at first), and that person could actually have a problem. But it quickly devolves in 99.x% of the cases to a mysterious 'them', and the proof is never available. But we don't know unless we ask and try to help.

I feel like the moderators should step in quickly with such threads, as soon as the nonsensical ramblings start, and close it. The posters mentioned in this thread are great examples...I think they just want attention, and it makes them feel 'important' that they are important enough to be hacked.

pan64 09-14-2020 12:06 PM

I can only partially agree with it. [These] people want to be important, yes, and also they have a problem. But the real problem is not a virus or any technical issue, but the lack of their importance. So they start a dummy conversation about something which has no any real goal, no meaning, but as you wrote will take [y]our attention. And OP will be important, because nobody else knows the details, purpose and outcome.
And you can decide if you want to play this game or not.

TB0ne 09-14-2020 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan64 (Post 6165750)
I can only partially agree with it. [These] people want to be important, yes, and also they have a problem. But the real problem is not a virus or any technical issue, but the lack of their importance. So they start a dummy conversation about something which has no any real goal, no meaning, but as you wrote will take [y]our attention. And OP will be important, because nobody else knows the details, purpose and outcome.
And you can decide if you want to play this game or not.

Agreed totally; but we only know if it's genuine or not after we ask for details. But it becomes pretty clear pretty quick that they are (at best) 'misinformed'. Which is why a moderator should step in and close the thread quickly.

I report these things, but it rarely gets attention (to my knowledge), and when it does it's typically a 'keep on the subject' post.

rtmistler 09-14-2020 02:20 PM

I see one originator of a similar thread filed a few complaints, which are about some regular posters who have posted jokes, or sarcasm in reply to a thread question. The OP seems to be saying, "This seems an unreasonable reply to my thread."

I understand that people believe there may be problems with a person who has initiated poor threads and perpetuates this practice.

I also feel pan64's points are very applicable. My interpretation is, rather than add to a thread where you feel the OP is trolling, or asking questions and not providing helpful responses, then choose to not reply. Or do not reply further if they demonstrate that they can not, or will not, conduct a coherent discussion.

My simpler form is:
Quote:

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
As already noted, you sometimes see dozens of replies, and many times replies sans the OP's participation. They therefore achieved their onerous goal, if that was their intention.

I don't know what people expect here. I feel we see some amount of complaints about certain posters where people do not like their questions, maybe rightfully so. In many cases, the thread and question are not against any rules. I have, once or twice, considered a possible discussion where LQ considers revisions to the rules. Each time I inspect them, I'm rather hard pressed to offer modifications. It is an open forum and people have expressed their desire for freedom of speech, and also wish to not see over moderation of their discussions.
Quote:

Originally Posted by TB0ne (Post 6165769)
Agreed totally; but we only know if it's genuine or not after we ask for details. But it becomes pretty clear pretty quick that they are (at best) 'misinformed'. Which is why a moderator should step in and close the thread quickly.

I report these things, but it rarely gets attention (to my knowledge), and when it does it's typically a 'keep on the subject' post.

Please review the LQ Rules. Exactly what there discusses closing threads because some see the topic as unimportant? Perhaps I can invite you to do your own review of those rules and open a S&F discussion which proposes amendments to the LQ rules. I've just said that I have no suggestions that I feel would benefit the site.

A side point is that it sometimes people who feel they have tenure on discussion forums do sometimes feel as if they have carte blanch to act in certain ways and feel that their actions, above newer members, need to be above reproach. I'm not addressing anybody specifically, just something I've noticed.

sgosnell 09-14-2020 02:50 PM

Have any of you noticed the exponential rise in Twitter posts about Q and "the deep state"? People are becoming truly paranoid, about all sorts of things, but especially about the government. That phenomenon has been exploding in the past 4 years. And those paranoid people typically support the same political party. It's no surprise that the number of paranoids is growing, since the total population is growing, but the percentage seems to be increasing. I have no idea what to do about it.

TB0ne 09-14-2020 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rtmistler (Post 6165786)
I see one originator of a similar thread filed a few complaints, which are about some regular posters who have posted jokes, or sarcasm in reply to a thread question. The OP seems to be saying, "This seems an unreasonable reply to my thread."

I understand that people believe there may be problems with a person who has initiated poor threads and perpetuates this practice.

I also feel pan64's points are very applicable. My interpretation is, rather than add to a thread where you feel the OP is trolling, or asking questions and not providing helpful responses, then choose to not reply. Or do not reply further if they demonstrate that they can not, or will not, conduct a coherent discussion.

My simpler form is:As already noted, you sometimes see dozens of replies, and many times replies sans the OP's participation. They therefore achieved their onerous goal, if that was their intention.

I don't know what people expect here. I feel we see some amount of complaints about certain posters where people do not like their questions, maybe rightfully so. In many cases, the thread and question are not against any rules. I have, once or twice, considered a possible discussion where LQ considers revisions to the rules. Each time I inspect them, I'm rather hard pressed to offer modifications. It is an open forum and people have expressed their desire for freedom of speech, and also wish to not see over moderation of their discussions.

I don't disagree on principle at all, but closing a thread after it clearly derails into things like the mafia being involved in hacking Kali, and people being able to hack their systems when they're not even plugged in is different. There aren't (and can't be) any solutions to that persons problems that can be found on a technical forum. To me, that fits in with the "Question Guidelines" about not providing details when asked, specifically:
Quote:

Originally Posted by Guidelines
If you are unwilling or unable to ask questions in a manner that allows us to help you, it's unlikely our community will be able to provide you a solution. Unfortunately, serial offenders who show wanton disregard for this request after multiple pointers may be asked to seek help elsewhere


Quote:

Originally Posted by rtmistler
Quote:

Originally Posted by TB0ne
Agreed totally; but we only know if it's genuine or not after we ask for details. But it becomes pretty clear pretty quick that they are (at best) 'misinformed'. Which is why a moderator should step in and close the thread quickly.

I report these things, but it rarely gets attention (to my knowledge), and when it does it's typically a 'keep on the subject' post.

Please review the LQ Rules. Exactly what there discusses closing threads because some see the topic as unimportant? Perhaps I can invite you to do your own review of those rules and open a S&F discussion which proposes amendments to the LQ rules. I've just said that I have no suggestions that I feel would benefit the site.

I never meant to say or imply it was against the rules, just that it serves no purpose for such threads to be open. There isn't any technical knowledge to be gained or shared. Closing it terminates any further input from anyone. And hopefully if the OP posts again, they will provide actual technical issues to solve and discuss, with actual proof. I report them mainly so moderators can keep an eye on those problematic threads. Again, not picking on anything/anyone in general, just my $0.02 worth. A mod-post in such threads telling the OP to provide real evidence would go a long way in some cases.
Quote:

A side point is that it sometimes people who feel they have tenure on discussion forums do sometimes feel as if they have carte blanch to act in certain ways and feel that their actions, above newer members, need to be above reproach. I'm not addressing anybody specifically, just something I've noticed.
I think that long-term posters tend to value the forum more than 'drive by' posters, and when things (like the posters mentioned in this thread) come up, it devalues the entire site. I've had infractions (surprising no one), but I've only had one that was truly not deserved and it was reversed by Jeremy. I'm NOT above reproach, and the rules need to apply fairly and to everyone. There are some moderators (not you), who tend to apply things unevenly, if at all in some cases, and come down hard for minor infractions for others.

rtmistler 09-14-2020 05:31 PM

My :twocents: is that if a person is not going to listen to reasonable posts by any member, they're not going to listen to similar from a mod.

The subject has been discussed before, and it is one of the reasons why the Welcome to LQ page exists. It is rather impersonal, so I admit to not using it much these days.

I feel it is the responsibility of all members to work to not allow thread discussions to degrade.

Styles vary, as we all know.

sgosnell 09-14-2020 06:16 PM

It is the interwebtubez, so one must expect opinions that vary widely from one's own. It's a scary place, and there are weird people among the population. So I expect these threads, and I just ignore them. It's not worth my time to get involved, because arguing with a pig is an exercise in futility, because you just get dirty and the pig enjoys it. Do not feed the trolls! is something one always needs to keep in mind. If you just ignore the bozos, they will go elsewhere.

cynwulf 09-15-2020 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dugan (Post 6165699)
June 26, 2018, from "Lynxlyon": How do you counter a death attack

This one was comedy at it's best.

wpeckham 09-15-2020 09:26 AM

I start by considering each one carefully, then go from there. I admit, I lose patience if the stupid gets deep.

The problem is that about one time in a thousand (or two) if they say virus there might be some real malware involved. That needed investigation, and the OP often does not even understand the questions much less how to answer. About one time in a hundred (or two) if they say "hacked" there is an actual attacker trying to hack or disable their system. Rare, but it does happen and this needs investigation.

It is difficult to maintain focus when you have seen 52 operator errors, 46 device failures, and two known file system flaws or bugs and you see that next "it must be a virus" message come in. But in EACH of those cases there is an opportunity to teach something, and help the OP avoid being mislead in the future. And one time or another, it might even be a virus! Someday.

If you feel so sick of it you do not want to check it out, that is OK. Ignore it and some of the rest will step in. None of us is alone here. While we are not technically a team, this has many of the characteristics of team work and we can address it that way. We should!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:48 PM.