On his Twitter account, CTO Luis Corrons continues taunting Anonymous after the facts.<p>I don't understand why Panda lets one of his employee behave like this. He looks emotionally involved. He's making those hacker's efforts more visible.
Pastebin from the attack: <a href="http://pastebin.com/LM9vdNWy" rel="nofollow">http://pastebin.com/LM9vdNWy</a><p>Some interesting data on there...<p>Si prefieres LogMeIn Free:
<a href="https://secure.logmein.com/" rel="nofollow">https://secure.logmein.com/</a>
Login: PSISuport@pandasecurity.com
Contraseña: panda01<p>...<p>El login de Windows, puedes usar cualquiera de los nuestros
Usuario: nombre.apellido
Password: Panda12345<p>Secure? Not so much.<p>As big as this might be for Anon I'm afraid they must've just guessed at passwords if that is the form of password security they used.<p>The root passwords were more secure but I'm willing to bet that the Windows logon(s) provided above had a file somewhere (Desktop perhaps) with the passwords in plain view. PasswordSafe or the like may have been used but chances are it had a password of similar strength to those above.
So the interesting question is what next?<p>The feds have arrested five individuals associated with Anonymous. Anonymous struck back, albeit in a somewhat childish way, reminding me of the KFC bombing in Jakarta in response to ABB's trial (not well planned, ad hoc attack which was both visible and largely ineffective at causing real damage).<p>Will Anonymous be able to recover, and carry out other high profile hactivism attacks? Or will they degenerate into more of what we see here?<p>I am not trying to draw moral equivalencies here. However, it seems that when looking at social positions relative to law enforcement, that's the closest parallel that comes to my mind at least in my experience.