how-to block ads
|
|
view: topics flat text |
|
Comments on news posted 2008-05-30 08:46:49: Last weekend I saw that Internet TV company Revision3 had suffered from a denial of service attack. I thought nothing of it at the time, until I saw this Techdirt post that explains the denial of service attack was actually caused by Media Defender. ..
|
 | |  spewakR.I.P DadkinsPremium
join:2001-08-07
Elk Grove, CA
kudos:1 | Re: It was only a matter of time Me thinks that Rev3 is using the "court of public opinion" quite well. 
--
The weekend is here, grab a can of beer! | |
| | | | | | | Re: It was only a matter of time said by fAcEtIOUs:said by knightmb:I was wondering when this story would make it here.  I've been tipping this story for 2 days. I was wondering when it was going to show up too. What do you care? You have your own blog.  | |
| | | |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: It was only a matter of time He does... really ?
Never been there, but I see him here often.
--
Canada = Hollywood North | |
|
1 edit |  Revision3 not totally innocent - even by own CEOs words
Louderback, former editor in chief of PC Magazine, believes MediaDefender launched the attack in a misguided attempt to frustrate pirates who appear to have in the past harnessed Revision3's server.
"If we're doing something that is possibly helping people to share copyrighted stuff, we would shut it down in a second," he said in an interview Thursday.
Revision3 uses peer-to-peer technology to distribute legal, professionally produced programs. From the beginning of April until last week, the company used a tracker that was open to outside users.
MediaDefender discovered the tracking server and suspected that copyright infringers were also harnessing it. MediaDefender then used it to plant phony videos and music online--a technique the company deploys to frustrate copyright infringers.
Last week, when Revision3 realized that outside parties were using the tracker, the company closed access to it. Shortly after that, the denial of service attack started. While this doesn't get MediaDefender off the hook for the attack, it also removes Revision3 from the ranks of the pure and innocent. Their tracker was being used by pirates and they took a good long time doing anything about it.
Also, Revision3 also admits the DOS attack was triggered by their own actions and was an automatic response by MediaDefender servers and that it wasn't an intentional DOS attack.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | deadzonedPremium
join:2005-04-13
Baton Rouge, LA
1 edit | Re: Revision3 not totally innocent - even by own CEOs words Except MD was using Revision3 servers to send fake files without permission.... I know you hate all things pirate, but that alone exempts MD from any sympathy and certainly should be considered when you talk of "letting them off the hook".
Just because Pirates did it doesn't mean MediaDefender should do it. It makes them just as bad as pirates in my book. | |
| | DodgePremium
join:2002-11-27 | "MediaDefender discovered the tracking server and suspected that copyright infringers were also harnessing it"
There is not proof that it was, at least not in what you wrote.
"Also, Revision3 also admits the DOS attack was triggered by their own actions and was an automatic response by MediaDefender servers and that it wasn't an intentional DOS attack."
Where do they admit that? They said they closed the back door and MediaDefender threw an "epic tantrum". On top of that who sets up servers to start DDoS attacks as an autmatic response to anything?!? | |
| | | | | Re: Revision3 not totally innocent - even by own CEOs words said by Dodge:"MediaDefender discovered the tracking server and suspected that copyright infringers were also harnessing it" There is not proof that it was, at least not in what you wrote. »blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2008/05/30···english/Randy Saaf, MediaDefenders CEO, tells us that illegal file traders were taking advantage of the same loophole, a charge Louderback(CEO of Revision3) doesn’t dispute. said by Dodge:"Also, Revision3 also admits the DOS attack was triggered by their own actions and was an automatic response by MediaDefender servers and that it wasn't an intentional DOS attack." Where do they admit that? They said they closed the back door and MediaDefender threw an "epic tantrum". »blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2008/05/30···english/
Once Louderback reached MediaDefenders, the company was able to stop the requests, which happened automatically when Revision 3 closed the hole. But it took all weekend to reach someone, Louderback tells us. And while he doesn’t object to MediaDefender’s tactics when it comes to combating piracy – which are perfectly legal – Louderback wishes the company had “checked to see that we are a legitimate site first.”
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | TheGhostPremium
join:2003-01-03
Lake Forest, IL | Re: Revision3 not totally innocent - even by own CEOs words said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Dodge:"MediaDefender discovered the tracking server and suspected that copyright infringers were also harnessing it" There is not proof that it was, at least not in what you wrote. » blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2008/05/30···english/Randy Saaf, MediaDefenders CEO, tells us that illegal file traders were taking advantage of the same loophole, a charge Louderback(CEO of Revision3) doesn’t dispute. said by Dodge:"Also, Revision3 also admits the DOS attack was triggered by their own actions and was an automatic response by MediaDefender servers and that it wasn't an intentional DOS attack." Where do they admit that? They said they closed the back door and MediaDefender threw an "epic tantrum". » blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2008/05/30···english/Once Louderback reached MediaDefenders, the company was able to stop the requests, which happened automatically when Revision 3 closed the hole. But it took all weekend to reach someone, Louderback tells us. And while he doesn’t object to MediaDefender’s tactics when it comes to combating piracy – which are perfectly legal – Louderback wishes the company had “checked to see that we are a legitimate site first.” So basically, the folks at R3 discover their new server is open and is potentially being used for ill, so they lock it down, and THEN MD throws a fit at them. Great job, punish the folks that have fixed a security leak. Too bad none of the federal agencies will pursue criminal charges - too busy being lapdogs for the MPAA/RIAA I guess. | |
|
|  knightmbEverybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN | said by fAcEtIOUs:While this doesn't get MediaDefender off the hook for the attack, it also removes Revision3 from the ranks of the pure and innocent. Their tracker was being used by pirates and they took a good long time doing anything about it. Also, Revision3 also admits the DOS attack was triggered by their own actions and was an automatic response by MediaDefender servers and that it wasn't an intentional DOS attack. I don't think they were pure and innocent either, but neither is anyone else that I know of. I see it more of a matter of principal; they found a problem and fixed it. It may have taken a while, but that doesn't excuse Media Defender from using the same exploit that the pirates were using.
If my local bank ATM had a bug in which I withdraw $20 and it gives me $500 instead at no charge to my account, it shouldn't mean that I should come by the ATM every day to take out my $500 until one day they fix the bug, so I ram my car into the ATM in anger.
--
Fight NebuAD and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data | |
| | | | | Re: Revision3 not totally innocent - even by own CEOs words said by knightmb:said by fAcEtIOUs:While this doesn't get MediaDefender off the hook for the attack, it also removes Revision3 from the ranks of the pure and innocent. Their tracker was being used by pirates and they took a good long time doing anything about it. Also, Revision3 also admits the DOS attack was triggered by their own actions and was an automatic response by MediaDefender servers and that it wasn't an intentional DOS attack. I don't think they were pure and innocent either, but neither is anyone else that I know of. I see it more of a matter of principal; they found a problem and fixed it. It may have taken a while, but that doesn't excuse Media Defender from using the same exploit that the pirates were using. If my local bank ATM had a bug in which I withdraw $20 and it gives me $500 instead at no charge to my account, it shouldn't mean that I should come by the ATM every day to take out my $500 until one day they fix the bug, so I ram my car into the ATM in anger. When the bank fixes it they will just take the $480 out of account | |
|
| | | said by fAcEtIOUs:Also, Revision3 also admits the DOS attack was triggered by their own actions and was an automatic response by MediaDefender servers and that it wasn't an intentional DOS attack. BS.
To automatically DOS a server that cuts off your access shows malice and intention.
Sorry, 2 wrongs don't make a right and this screams of entrapment. | |
| | | | | Re: Revision3 not totally innocent - even by own CEOs words I agree.
Automating malicious intent isn't a way to avoid responsibility and it doesn't make the harm done unintentional.
"And while he doesn’t object to MediaDefender’s tactics when it comes to combating piracy – which are perfectly legal "
Are they legal? And if so why should society tolerate the government legitimizing what is private company vigilantism using attacks that would normally be considered criminal.
We should not have private enforcers, above the law in their crusade to stamp out illegal behavior. | |
| | | | | | Re: Revision3 not totally innocent - even by own CEOs words said by asdfdfdfdfdfdf :
I agree.
Automating malicious intent isn't a way to avoid responsibility and it doesn't make the harm done unintentional.
Are they legal? And if so why should society tolerate the government legitimizing what is private company vigilantism using attacks that would normally be considered criminal.
We should not have private enforcers, above the law in their crusade to stamp out illegal behavior.
Booby trapping your property is also illegal. 
This was nothing more than a booby trap. | |
|
| | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
2 edits | said by fAcEtIOUs:While this doesn't get MediaDefender off the hook for the attack, it also removes Revision3 from the ranks of the pure and innocent. How?
MediaDefender discovered the open tracker and tried to use(abuse) it. Revision3 notices the activity by MediaDefender and realizes the tracker is exposed, so they fix it--- and get attacked as a result.
I don't see how this suddenly means they were guilty of something shady. Even if someone (other then MediaDefender) did use the tracker inappropriately, that doesn't make Revision3 guilty of doing something wrong.
And yes, it was an intentional attack. MediaDefender is designed to attack/disrupt/destroy. The attack was intentional, if misguided. | |
|
 Smith6612Premium,MVM
join:2008-02-01
North Tonawanda, NY
kudos:21
1 edit | haha.... Seems like someone needs to fix their servers. | |
|  yuutomoThe Wonder KitterPremium
join:2001-08-27
Missoula, MT | hmm.... looks like MediaDefender needs to start getting the legal fire as well. both them and their mafia buddies the riaa need to be nailed for racketeering, extortion, and most any charge a mobster would be stuck with. | |
| |  nixenRockin' the BoxenPremium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA | Re: hmm.... said by yuutomo:looks like MediaDefender needs to start getting the legal fire as well. both them and their mafia buddies the riaa need to be nailed for racketeering, extortion, and most any charge a mobster would be stuck with. You'd think so, but when you've bought and paid for a significant percentage of the legislature, already, you can be fairly certain that the DoJ is pre-bought as well.
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell | |
| | |  catseyenuAck PfftPremium
join:2001-11-17
Fix East | Re: hmm.... said by nixen:You'd think so, but when you've bought and paid for a significant percentage of the legislature, already, you can be fairly certain that the DoJ is pre-bought as well. Bite the hand that feeds them?
They'd much rather roust your kids to rape your pocketbook.
Low hanging fruit and all that. | |
|
 Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDISPremium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
1 edit | Revision 3 sends FBI after MediaDefender said by TorrentFreak :
Louderback has no idea whether the attack on their network was intentional or not, but said he involved the FBI. “Was it malicious? Intentional? Negligent? Spoofed? I can’t say. But what I do know is that the FBI is looking into the matter – and it’s far more serious than toddlers squabbling over broken toys and lost cookies.”
This is yet another epic fail in MediaDefender’s history, and this might very well be the final punch to knock the company out. Most of you probably remember the leaked emails and confidential information, which cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars, and brought them on the verge of bankruptcy.
To quote MediaDefender’s CEO Randy Saaf: “This is really f*cked.”
Epic Fail indeed.
Hope he likes having Bubba as cell mate.
Watch your back and don't drop the soap, Randy.
»torrentfreak.com/revision3-sends···comments
--
"The trouble with computers, of course, is that they are very sophisticated idiots." - Doctor Who (from Robot)
| |
|
| |
|
