World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

February 2010 Australian cyberattacks

Article Id: WHEBN0026192952
Reproduction Date:

Title: February 2010 Australian cyberattacks  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Anonymous (group), Operation Payback, Operation AntiSec, Censorship in Australia, Mahdi (malware)
Collection: 2010 in Australia, Anonymous (Group), Censorship in Australia, Cyberwarfare, Denial-of-Service Attacks, Internet Culture
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

February 2010 Australian cyberattacks

February 2010 Australian cyberattacks
A flyer for Operation Titstorm
Date February 2010
Location Internet and Australia
Methods spam, street protests, denial-of-service attacks
Parties to the civil conflict

The February 2010 Australian cyberattacks were a series of denial-of-service attacks conducted by the Anonymous online community against the Australian government in response to proposed web censorship regulations. Operation Titstorm was the name given to the cyber attacks by the perpetrators. They resulted in lapses of access to government websites on 10 and 11 February 2010. This was accompanied by emails, faxes, and phone calls harassing government offices. The actual size of the attack and number of perpetrators involved is unknown but it was estimated that the number of systems involved ranged from the hundreds to the thousands. The amount of traffic caused disruption on multiple government websites.

Australian Telecommunications Minister Stephen Conroy proposed the regulations that would mainly filter sites with pornographic content. Various groups advocating uncensored access to the Internet, along with companies like Google and Yahoo!, object to the proposed filter. A spokesperson for Conroy said that the actions were not a legitimate form of protest and called it irresponsible. The attacks also drew criticism from other filter protest groups. The initial stage was followed by small in-person protests on 20 February that were called "Project Freeweb".


  • Background 1
  • Attacks 2
  • Response 3
  • See also 4
  • References 5
  • Further reading 6


Stephen Conroy

The attack began as a protest responding to a plan by Australian Telecommunications Minister Stephen Conroy that would require internet service providers to block Australian users from accessing illegal and what the government deemed as "unwanted" content.[1] Websites to be blocked feature pornography showing rape, bestiality, child sex abuse, small-breasted women (who may appear under the legal age), and female ejaculation. Drawn depictions of such acts are included in the proposal.[2] The proposed filter also includes gambling sites along with others showing drug use.[3] A leaked version of the proposed blacklist (also referred to as the "refused classification" or "RC" list) also showed sites that did not include adult content. The name "Operation Titstorm" was in reference to the material that would be censored.[4]

Google has questioned the proposal, saying the prohibitions would be too broad.[1][4] It is strongly opposed by free speech groups. A poll conducted by McNair Ingenuity Research for the Hungry Beast television program found that 80% of their 1,000 respondents were in favour of the concept of the plan.[5] The survey also found that 91% were concerned about the government's intent to keep the list of filtered websites a secret.[6]

The Department of Defence's Cyber Security Operations Centre discovered the attack was coming on 5 February.[7] A statement released by Anonymous to the press two days before the attack said, "No government should have the right to refuse its citizens access to information solely because they perceive it to be 'unwanted'." It went on to read, "The Australian Government will learn that one does not mess with our porn. No one messes with our access to perfectly legal (or illegal) content for any reason".[8][9] Anonymous had previously garnered media attention with protests against Church of Scientology (Project Chanology) and the Iranian government.[10] In September 2009, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's website was hacked in a similar protest to proposed web censorship reforms.[5]


Flyers distributed to recruit participants said the attack was to begin at 8 pm AEST on 10 February.[9] On that day, government websites were targeted by denial-of-service attacks. The Communications Department said the hackers had not infiltrated government security, but had instead swamped government computer servers.[5] Sites were left unavailable for sporadic periods throughout the attack. At one point, the Australian Parliament's website was offline for about two days due to the high volume of requests.[11] Rudd's government site was also inaccessible for some time. As a primary target, the Communications Department also received a large amount of traffic. Government offices were also flooded with e-mail spam, junk faxes, and prank phone calls.[2] The Prime Minister's homepage was vandalized with pornographic images.[8] The flyer released before the attack called for the faxes to focus on cartoon pornography, female ejaculation, and small-breasted pornography.[12][13]

Reports of the actual size of the attack have varied. One cyber security expert described the attacks as "the equivalent of parking a truck across the driveway of a shopping centre".[14] A firm marketing security technology said that the peak of the attack was a relatively low 16.84 megabits per second.[2] One writer described the 7.5 million requests per second that initially brought down the Parliament website as "massive".[1] The site usually only receives a few hundred per second.[9] It appears that botnets made up of compromised computers were not used.[2] Estimates of the number of attacking systems involved have ranged from hundreds to thousands.[3][10]


A spokeswoman for Conroy said such attacks were not a legitimate political protest. According to her, they were "totally irresponsible and potentially deny services to the Australian public".[15] The Systems Administrators Guild of Australia said that it "condemned DDoS attacks as the wrong way to express disagreement with the proposed law".[16] Anti-censorship groups criticised the attacks, saying they hurt their cause.[10][15] A purported spokesperson for the attackers recommended that the wider Australian public protest the filter by signing the petition of Electronic Frontiers Australia.[17]

Anonymous coordinated a second phase with small protests outside the [18]

Several supporters of the attack later said on a messageboard that taking down websites was not enough to convince the government to back down on the web filtering policy and called for violence. Others disagreed with such actions and proposed launching an additional attack on a popular government site. A spokesman for Electronic Frontiers Australia said he believed there was no real intention or capacity to follow through with any of the violent threats.[19]

The attack also resulted in criticism of Australia's terrorism laws from the The University of New South Wales Law Journal.[20] One writer wrote that the provisions leave "no place for legitimate acts of online protest, or at least sets the penalty far too high for relatively minor cyber-vandalism".[21]

An Australian teenager was charged with four counts of inciting other hackers to impair electronic communications and two of unauthorised access to restricted data for his role in the attack. He was ordered to pay a bond instead of being convicted after pleading guilty and showing good behaviour.[22]

In July 2010, Conroy delayed implementing the plan pending a 12-month review into how refused classification content was rated. The proposal is not expected to go forward due to the opposition from The Coalition and the Greens. Internet service providers Telstra and Optus have both agreed to voluntarily block some content.[23]

See also


  1. ^ a b c Gross, Grant (10 February 2010). "Australian Parliament Web Site Attacked".  
  2. ^ a b c d Leyden, John (11 February 2010). "Aussie anti-censor attacks strafe gov websites".  
  3. ^ a b "Australia cyber attacks could last 'months': hackers".  
  4. ^ a b Kamenev, Marina (16 June 2010). "First, China. Next: the Great Firewall of... Australia?". Time. Retrieved 3 August 2010. 
  5. ^ a b c "Hackers protesting against a proposed internet filter that targets pornography shut down Federal Government website".  
  6. ^ "Why Conroy loves porn".  
  7. ^ "Hackers attack AU websites to protest censorship". International Business Times. 10 February 2010. Retrieved 13 February 2010. 
  8. ^ a b Marks, Kathy (11 February 2010). "Operation Titstorm – Hackers declare war on Aussie".  
  9. ^ a b c Kravets, David (10 February 2010). "Anonymous Unfurls ‘Operation Titstorm’".  
  10. ^ a b c Kleinman, Zoe (12 February 2010). "'"Cyber attacks against Australia 'will continue. BBC News. Retrieved 13 February 2010. 
  11. ^ "Australia cyber attacks could last 'months': hackers". The Sydney Morning Herald. 11 February 2010. Retrieved 11 February 2010. 
  12. ^ Ragan, Steve (10 February 2010). "Anonymous issues ultimatum to Australian government". The Tech Retrieved 1 March 2011. 
  13. ^ Moses, Asher (2010-02-10). "Operation Titstorm hackers strike Australia". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 4 November 2013. 
  14. ^ Marks, Kathy (11 February 2010). Operation Titstorm" hackers declare cyber war on Australia""".  
  15. ^ a b "Hacker raid condemned".  
  16. ^ a b Raywood, Dan (15 February 2010). "Australia prepares for week of protest against web filters after the Anonymous group hit key websites last week". SC Magazine ( 
  17. ^ LeMay, Renai (12 February 2010). "Anonymous says Titstorm beats a petition".  
  18. ^ LeMay, Renai (15 February 2010). "Anonymous' Titstorm moves to offline protest".  
  19. ^ Moses, Asher (25 March 2010). "Conroy's net gag sparks assassination and bomb plot chatter". Brisbane Times. Retrieved 3 March 2010. 
  20. ^ Hardy, Keiran. "Operation Titstorm: hacktivism or cyber-terrorism?". The University of New South Wales Law Journal (Australia) 33 (2): 474–502.  
  21. ^ Vaile, David. "Forward". The University of New South Wales Law Journal (Australia) 33 (2): 428.  
  22. ^ Ross, Norrie (7 December 2010). "Steve Slayo avoids jail term after inciting hack attack on Federal Government". Herald Sun. Retrieved 1 March 2011. 
  23. ^ Foo, Fran (7 September 2010). "ISP filter could be buried".  

Further reading

  • Ethan Zuckerman; Hal Roberts; Ryan McGrady; Jillian York; John Palfrey (December 2010). "Distributed Denial of Service Attacks Against Independent Media and Human Rights Sites". The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. Archived from the original on 2011-03-02. Retrieved 4 November 2013. 
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.