The comic, while one of the more notable ones to me, dismissed the issue that the act is subversive, and that's what is important in the case of hackers taking down a website. Furthermore, it downplays the significance somewhat. Graffiti on the white house or pentagon would likely make it to the news.
> Graffiti on the white house or pentagon would likely make it to the news.
Still not in the same league. Tagging the white house or pentagon would mean breaching a secure perimeter, whereas this was probably just a minor inconvenience to a sysadmin somewhere for a couple of hours. Nobody would have to assure the public that the President's life was never in danger because someone took down the white house's website. Sneak close enough to touch the windows and survive and it's a different story.
Hacking the NSA website is not hacking the NSA. Hacking a website is relatively easy and not that interesting to people who deal with servers day-to-day.
Well, more to the point, it doesn't imply anything about the business end of the agency's systems being compromised. If you hacked into the actual CIA or NSA as in having similar access to an authenticated agent, that would be quite bad for them. Taking down their website is something they don't really care about.
Right, see. When you say "Relatively easy" do you mean: "it is just subtly easier that compromising the NSA itself" or: "I'm surprised it doesn't happen every day"
The point isn't whether its easier or harder to deface a website. The point is that a public facing website is a more or less static advertisement for an organization (like a poster), thus taking it or even the server that hosts it down doesn't impact the operations of the organization in any meaningful way.