Sophos Cloud Optix
In March 2013, US computer security reporter Brian Krebs was swatted.
Swatting – a term that derives from SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) – is the practice of falsely reporting an emergency, as a prank or as revenge against someone, resulting in the dispatch of emergency services. In Krebs’s case, that meant armed law enforcement at his door.
Krebs’ persecutor had, in fact, spoofed an emergency call to make it appear that it had come from the journalist’s own phone.
The result: about half a dozen squad cars, lights flashing, surrounding Krebs’s front door, local police leaning over their cars and pointing guns at him.
That day, the police in his town learned what swatting is.
Good thing, because Krebs was again targeted with fraudulent emergency calls on 10 April 2013, and then yet again last week, on 7 May.
On Krebs’s side, the now-savvy police simply called to make sure all was OK.
Things were much different on the other end of the fake emergency calls, though.
As Krebs writes, his alleged tormentor du jour, a Twitter user with the handle @ProbablyOnion2, was leaving a long trail documenting his alleged escapades.
For example, his steady Twitter stream included offers to SWAT for money:
Put in your swat requests now.
…along with “nyah-nyah” messages for the FBI:
The investigation is far from over" - FBI Come on baby, if you think you got all the answers, I'm sitting here, waiting.
…and taunting messages to Krebs, asking him how his door was:
@ProbablyOnion2: @briankrebs how's your door?
@briankrebs: @ProbablyOnion2 door's fine, Curtis. But I'm guessing yours won't be soon. Nice opsec!
…to which Krebs replied with a reference to @ProbablyOnion’s “nice opsec,” given that @ProbablyOnion’s real identity had apparently just been identified in a document leaked onto Pastebin (which Krebs reposted).
Neither the Ottawa Police Service nor the FBI have yet named the underaged male – a 16-year-old from Ottawa – whom they arrested on Thursday.
Canadian police arrested the boy, a suspect they’ve linked to at least 30 swatting attacks against schools in North America which led to lockdowns or evacuations.
Some of the fake emergency calls involved bomb threats, hostage-taking, or the threat of an active shooter.
The teenager has been charged with 60 criminal offenses, including public mischief, mischief to property, uttering death threats, and conveying false info with intent to alarm.
As Krebs notes, the FBI estimates that each swatting incident costs law enforcement, on average, about $10,000.
But it’s not the money that worries them the most. Rather, it’s the possibility that one day, a swatting incident could turn deadly.
Kevin Kolbye, the assistant special agent in charge of the FBI’s Dallas office, which headed up the first federal swatting case in 2007, described for ABC News how a dangerous level of adrenalin flows in these situations:
[SWAT officers] are responding to a hostage or a possible homicide situation. They are very aware that they are going into a very dangerous situation. They are in a heightened state, the safety's off and their finger is close to the trigger.
Swatting is typically done by kids who think it’s fun.
It’s unfortunate that this type of young person has been given access to a computer – a device that, when used in this fashion, is, almost literally, like letting a child play with a loaded gun.
Image of SWAT team courtesy of Shutterstock.
Nice, detailed, article.
Thank you!
I teach computers to seniors, and I always hear, “my grandson is a computer genius.” Not until he understands he how TCP/IP and the Internet work.
What a fool!! NO .. it’s not funny to do crap like this at all!! Goes to prove how ignorant & mentally impaired one is and clearly hasn’t had decent upbringing!
Such trash should be put away in solitary confinement for a decade so that they have ample of time to rethink about what they did!
The parents and education system must also teach these kids what the effect of something like this is. Kids have been pranksters forever, it is the technology that is making it more widespread and from much broader vectors. My young child learned at 3 1/2 about calling 911, but unless I teach my child what that activity really means, there is no true understanding. If kids are educated on the full story, most probably will think twice about doing that, I know that was the case for me and the majority of my friends. It is also likely that the kids parents don’t even know what spoofing is or understand enough to teach around it, that is the challenge with how fast technology changes now. Still goes back to the basics of teaching cause and effect, consequences for actions.
Now maybe this kid is a bad apple, or maybe he is just a prankster who thinks it is funny and has no idea of the actual consequences.. I recall being a teenager, and there was a lot of arrogance and cockiness, which could have shown as malice if it were using the technology of today.
The 16 year old psychopath knows exactly what it (yes, it) is doing and knows full well the consequences of its actions. It enjoys its acts of sadism. Psychopaths are aware of what they do and how they affect others; they just don’t care. Once caught, they are good actors.
Parents should on occasion say no to their children rather than allow the latter to do or have whatever they want — especially when said children are known to violate the boundaries and rights of others. Demanding children can become self-entitled adults.
Damn… he is making Canada look bad…
Stupid kid. Glad he was caught without any of his little “games” turning deadly.
Send the bill to his parents.
His parents are both dead.
No doubt the child made incredibly wrong and sewriously harmful choices.
BUT, making the “parents responsible” has become an easy phrase to throw out there. For instance, when a parent buys an item from a company, for example, a car seat for a baby that is built in unsafe manner do we blame the parent for buying it? No, we hold the company responsible.
How about sending the bill to the computer programming architects that have made it possible for these crimes to occur? We live with a “fail safe” mentality and do we really believe that those designing and releasing software on the internet didn’t think, for example, of the dangers it can cause to have ways of untraceable calls? Really?
A computer can be used to “arm” people with good knowledge just as a gun can be good if only used defensively to protecting one from harm or death from another person. However, both are equally able to be used to do harm. Parents know of the dangers a gun can cause. The difference here is parents of a 16 yr old were not exposed to computers at a time when they could be used criminally and have little, if not and most likely no knowledge about the underground world of technology. But the computer architects know before their inventions become publicly aware and used of the possibilities of harm they can cause. Closing gaps and loop holes to potential crimes should be closed before the programs are made accessible.
Basically, they are using the public, including and especially our children (prime users of technology in an explorative manner) as bait to produce future protection from the Internet after crimes have been commited. All in need to keep making money and in their minds as “heroic” technology inventions. In fact, I wouldn’t doubt that “the fix ” to stop these problems have already been invented, just not made aware to any of us until the damage is being done so they can make a grand entrance and come save the day with their new and improved software that has been sitting on their shelves until they feel they can make maximum profit with it. If you look at society and technology, creating anti-social behaviours by putting a computer or cell phone with typing and texting between each person, Who are the real psychopaths the consumers or the inventors?
No doubt the child made incredibly wrong and seriously harmful choices.
BUT, making the “parents responsible” has become an easy phrase to throw out there. For instance, when a parent buys an item from a company, for example, a car seat for a baby that is built in unsafe manner do we blame the parent for buying it? No, we hold the company responsible.
How about sending the bill to the computer programming architects that have made it possible for these crimes to occur? We live with a “fail safe” mentality and do we really believe that those designing and releasing software on the internet didn’t think, for example, of the dangers it can cause to have ways of untraceable calls? Really?
A computer can be used to “arm” people with good knowledge just as a gun can be good if only used defensively to protecting one from harm or death from another person. However, both are equally able to be used to do harm. Parents know of the dangers a gun can cause. The difference here is parents of a 16 yr old were not exposed to computers at a time when they could be used criminally and have little, if not and most likely no knowledge about the underground world of technology. But the computer architects know before their inventions become publicly aware and used of the possibilities of harm they can cause. Closing gaps and loop holes to potential crimes should be closed before the programs are made accessible. Unfortunately, they don’t because they can make more profit by releasing the corrective software to the problem. I bet it is actually already invented and is sitting on a shelf until they feel it is time to make a grand “heroic” entrance and come save the day when they feel they can get maximum profit with it. Word on the street is the indestructible wheel was already invented. Invention was bought and not released in order for companies to keep selling tires.
Today’s society is changing to a psychopathic and sociopathic world. Creating anti-social behaviour between people by sticking technology between them. And society (meaning everyone…including you and me) are buying into and allowing it! So I ask you, who are the real psychopaths….the children (used as bait) by the companies tailoring marketing to them as the prime present users and the ones to pass on the encouragement to their children to use technology, or we as society that for the most part are ignorant to the complexities of it or those that design and build it knowing first hand of its good and evil?