AllYouCanTech

Persons Indicted for Initiating DDoS Assaults on Prominent Worldwide Technology Firms

# Sudanese Nationals Indicted in Extensive DDoS Assaults on Global Tech Leaders and Vital Infrastructure

In a pivotal move in the battle against cybercrime, federal officials have indicted two Sudanese nationals for masterminding a series of distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks that impaired several of the globe’s foremost technology firms, governmental bodies, and vital infrastructure. The assaults, executed under the guise of “Anonymous Sudan,” targeted a diverse range of organizations, including hospitals, governmental sites, and significant tech corporations like Microsoft, OpenAI, and PayPal.

## The Magnitude of the Attacks

The two siblings, Ahmed Salah Yousif Omer, 22, and Alaa Salah Yusuuf Omer, 27, are charged with running a DDoS scheme that severely disrupted both public and private sectors. As stated by federal prosecutors, the operation conducted tens of thousands of DDoS attacks, significantly impacting the services of major tech enterprises, hospitals, and government institutions.

Among the prominent targets were:

– **Major Tech Companies**: Microsoft, OpenAI, Riot Games, PayPal, Steam, Hulu, Netflix, Reddit, GitHub, and Cloudflare.
– **Essential Infrastructure**: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, the US Departments of Justice, Defense, and State, the FBI, and state government websites in Alabama.
– **Media and News**: CNN.com.
– **International Targets**: Various sites and servers throughout Europe.

The breadth and intensity of these attacks underscore the increasing menace posed by cybercriminals utilizing DDoS tools to disrupt essential services and crucial infrastructure.

## Charges and Potential Penalties

The two brothers face grave accusations for their supposed involvement in the cyberattacks. Both have been indicted with a single count of conspiracy to damage protected computers. Furthermore, Ahmed Salah faces three counts of damaging protected computers. One of the most concerning allegations is that one of the brothers allegedly attempted to “knowingly and recklessly cause death” through their cyber assaults.

If found guilty on all counts, Ahmed Salah could be sentenced to life in federal prison, while his brother Alaa Salah could face a maximum of five years in federal prison.

## The Consequences of the Attacks

The DDoS attacks executed by Anonymous Sudan were not just disruptive but also perilous. The group’s activities were labeled by US Attorney Martin Estrada as “callous and brazen,” with the assailants even targeting hospitals that deliver emergency services.

For instance, an assault on Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles extended for eight hours, compelling the hospital’s emergency department to refuse incoming patients and redirect them to alternative medical facilities. Such interruptions in healthcare services can lead to life-threatening scenarios, particularly in emergencies.

In another occurrence, Anonymous Sudan initiated a five-day DDoS attack on Microsoft’s Outlook webmail service in June 2023, rendering the service unusable for protracted periods. The group even publicly mocked Microsoft, asserting their control over the company’s services. “Microsoft, the fate of your services is under our hands, we decide when to shut it down and when to leave it open,” one message from the group’s Telegram channel proclaimed.

The group also aimed at OpenAI’s ChatGPT, claiming to have taken portions of the service offline in November 2023. These attacks reveal the extensive implications of DDoS attacks on both daily users and the firms providing critical online services.

## Monetizing Cyberattacks

Besides executing their own attacks, the brothers purportedly profited from their DDoS tool by marketing it as a subscription service for paying clients. According to prosecutors, the service was promoted on various platforms, with pricing tiers contingent on the duration and intensity of the attacks.

For example, a package advertised in November 2023 charged $100 for one day of access, $600 for a week, and $1,700 for a month. By February 2024, the service was offering a “botnet with a power of up to 2 TB” for $300 daily, enabling customers to initiate up to 100 attacks every day.

This business model of vending DDoS capabilities to outside parties introduces further complexity to the case, indicating that the brothers were not merely cybercriminals but also facilitators for larger cyber assaults by other malicious entities.

## Law Enforcement Action

In March 2024, federal officials acted decisively by securing a court order to seize vital components of the Anonymous Sudan DDoS infrastructure. This included computer servers that initiated and controlled the DDoS attacks, along with accounts housing the source code for the DDoS tools. These seizures constitute a substantial blow to the group’s capacity to sustain its operations.

However, prosecutors have yet to reveal the location of the two defendants or whether they are set to appear in court. It remains uncertain whether the

“X’s Decreasing Advertisement Income Allows Musk to Bypass the EU’s Most Stringent Antitrust Laws”

# X Evades EU Gatekeeper Classification by Referencing Decreased Ad Income and User Participation

In a pivotal turn for Elon Musk’s social media venture, X (previously Twitter), the European Commission (EC) has determined that the platform does not meet the criteria to be labeled a “gatekeeper” under the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). This ruling follows extensive lobbying efforts by X to evade the strict regulations associated with the gatekeeper classification, which is assigned to entities that significantly influence the EU’s internal market.

## What is the Digital Markets Act?

The **Digital Markets Act (DMA)** represents a groundbreaking legislative initiative by the European Union aimed at overseeing major tech firms that serve as “gatekeepers” in the digital landscape. Gatekeepers are platforms that manage access to a vast user base and are crucial for businesses aiming to connect with consumers. The DMA’s purpose is to foster fair competition and prevent these companies from misusing their powerful positions.

To be designated as a gatekeeper, a company must fulfill various criteria, which include having a major influence on the internal market, delivering a core platform service that links businesses to users, and holding a robust, entrenched market position. Firms meeting these benchmarks face additional regulations, which encompass limitations on data usage and interactions with rivals.

## X’s Case Against Gatekeeper Designation

Since Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter in 2022, X has encountered considerable obstacles, particularly related to decreasing advertising income and user participation. These complications became focal points in X’s case against receiving the gatekeeper label under the DMA.

In a case filing presented by X, the platform’s **advertising income** and **user base** have both consistently diminished in the European Union since Musk’s acquisition. X contended that although it links advertisers to over 45 million monthly users, it does not exert a “significant impact” on the EU’s internal market. The company further underscored that its annual revenue in the EU was below the €7.5 billion benchmark necessitated for gatekeeper classification.

X additionally pointed out that its portion of the online advertising market in the EU is too minimal to be regarded as an “important gateway” for businesses to connect with consumers. The platform stated that it primarily specializes in **brand advertising**, as opposed to direct response advertising, which necessitates more sophisticated targeting and metrics tools. This, X claimed, places it at a disadvantage compared to larger rivals like Meta and Google, which possess more advanced advertising capabilities.

### Declining Ad Income and User Participation

A crucial aspect of the EC’s ruling was the evidence submitted by X indicating a **decrease in advertising income** and **user participation**. Since Musk’s takeover, the platform has struggled to maintain advertisers, many of whom have been put off by modifications to content moderation policies and worries about their ads being displayed alongside extremist content.

X’s submission disclosed that the platform’s **monthly active users** in the EU are markedly fewer than those of its counterparts. For instance, X asserted that its user base is 133% smaller than that of Facebook or Instagram, 60% smaller than LinkedIn, and 27% smaller than TikTok. Moreover, the platform contended that its user engagement has been consistently declining, further undermining its market position.

### Absence of Platform Authority

X further argued that it lacks the “platform power” to shape the online advertising market in the same manner as other gatekeepers, such as Meta or Google. Unlike these companies, X solely provides **first-party advertising** on its platform and does not possess the capability to track users across multiple platforms. This restricts its ability to furnish advertisers with the same quality of data and insights that other gatekeepers can provide.

Ultimately, the EC concurred with X’s reasoning, determining that the platform does not possess the scale or influence to be regarded as a critical gateway for businesses aiming to connect with consumers. Consequently, X eluded the gatekeeper classification and the additional regulatory obligations that accompany it.

## The Implications of the Ruling

For X, this ruling represents a considerable triumph. Evading gatekeeper status under the DMA signifies that the platform will not be liable to the stringent regulations that other technological giants, such as Meta, Google, and Apple, must follow. This affords X greater leeway in its operational strategies and enables it to pursue its business objectives without the heightened scrutiny that accompanies being a gatekeeper.

Nevertheless, the ruling also underscores the difficulties X faces in the European arena. The platform’s dwindling ad income and user engagement are evident indicators that it is having a hard time competing with larger, more entrenched players in the social media and online advertising sectors. While sidestepping gatekeeper status may offer some respite in the immediate future, X must seek strategies to reverse these trends if it intends to sustain its competitive edge over time.

### Possible Future Challenges

Despite this achievement, X’s future remains unpredictable. The European Commission has signaled that it will persist in monitoring the platform’s performance and

DNA Examination Validates That 19th Century Lions Were Human Predators

# The Tsavo Man-Eaters: A Narrative of Horror and Scientific Revelation

In the late 1800s, a duo of lions wreaked havoc in the Tsavo area of Kenya, claiming the lives of numerous individuals, including laborers constructing the Kenya-Uganda Railway. These felines, referred to as the “Tsavo Man-Eaters,” have since gained notoriety for their peculiar conduct and the enigma surrounding their assaults. More than a hundred years later, contemporary science continues to unveil fresh information about these creatures, illuminating their diet and the potential factors leading to their lethal rampage.

## The Tsavo Man-Eaters’ Era of Fear

In March 1898, British engineers initiated the building of a railway bridge over the Tsavo River as part of the Kenya-Uganda Railway endeavor. Lieutenant-Colonel John Henry Patterson was designated to oversee the project. However, shortly after his arrival, workers began to vanish under enigmatic circumstances. It soon became evident that two male lions, notably maneless, were accountable for the fatalities. These lions would audaciously invade the workers’ camps at night, seizing men from their tents and consuming them.

The assaults were unrelenting, with the lions slaying workers nearly every day at the peak of their terror. One particularly chilling episode involved the district officer, who narrowly avoided death with claw scars on his back, although his assistant wasn’t so lucky and met his end. The terror and dread among the workers escalated to such an extent that many abandoned the site, halting construction entirely.

Patterson, resolute in his pursuit to end the lions’ reign of terror, tracked them down. On December 9, 1898, he successfully shot the first lion. The second lion was killed 20 days later. Patterson preserved the lions’ pelts as trophies, using them as rugs in his residence for 25 years before finally selling them to the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago in 1924. Currently, the reconstructed lions, along with their skulls, are permanently displayed at the museum.

## How Many Lives Were Taken?

The precise count of individuals claimed by the Tsavo Man-Eaters remains a topic of contention. Patterson himself asserted that the lions took 135 lives, but modern estimates are considerably lower. A 2009 analysis that examined isotopic signatures from the lions’ bone collagen and hair keratin indicated a more modest tally ranging from 28 to 31 human victims. However, some projections still position the death toll at over 100, encompassing both laborers and local inhabitants.

## Fresh Perspectives from DNA Examination

The Tsavo Man-Eaters have intrigued scientists for many years, and recent breakthroughs in DNA examination have offered new perspectives on their diet. A team of researchers recently published findings in *Current Biology* that utilized DNA extracted from hairs lodged in the lions’ teeth to determine the species they had consumed. The research uncovered evidence of six species: humans, giraffes, oryx, waterbuck, zebras, and wildebeest.

The presence of human DNA confirmed that the lions had indeed targeted people, but the detection of wildebeest DNA was especially unexpected. Wildebeest were not known to inhabit the Tsavo area at the time, and the closest grazing territory for wildebeest was more than 50 miles away. This discovery implies that the lions might have traversed greater distances than earlier believed or that wildebeest were present in the region during that timeframe.

## Why Did the Lions Prey on Humans?

The inquiry into why the Tsavo lions turned to hunting humans has occupied researchers for years. Numerous hypotheses have been suggested, with one of the most notable being that an outbreak of cattle plague in 1898 significantly diminished the lions’ typical prey, compelling them to seek other food options. The lions may have initially scavenged human remains at a river crossing before developing a preference for live humans.

Another theory centers on the dental health of the lions. A 2017 investigation revealed that one of the lions suffered from a serious infection in the root of a canine tooth, which would have hindered its ability to kill its usual prey. Lions typically depend on their powerful jaws to suffocate their prey, and a compromised tooth would have rendered this method uncomfortable and ineffective. This might have led the lions to focus on humans, who are simpler to capture and kill than large herbivores like zebras or buffalo.

The recent DNA analysis demonstrated that both lions exhibited dental injuries, including fractured canine teeth. Over time, hair from their prey had built up in the exposed cavities of their teeth, allowing scientists to extract DNA samples. The revelation of these injuries supports the notion that dental issues may have played a role in the lions’ atypical behavior.

## The Legacy of the Tsavo Man-Eaters

The saga of the Tsavo Man-Eaters has fascinated the public for more than a century, inspiring literature, documentaries, and even films like *The Ghost and the Darkness* (1996). However, beyond the sensational narratives, the tale of the lions provides valuable insights into predator behavior and the intricate interactions between humans and