 MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | reply to ThrowDemsOut
Re: Illegal? said by ThrowDemsOut:said by footballdude:Aren't DDOS attacks illegal? If they admit doing it, shouldn't there be legal action? had their systems set to automatically bombarded the closed tracker with 8,000 SYN packets a second The systems weren't SET to create a DDos. That was a side affect of an attempt to reach a resource that was taken offline. Should MD been monitoring their system better? No doubt about it. But the characterization that they PLANNED a DDos is wrong. Trying to establish 8000 new sessions a SECOND is a DDoS, whether they meant to or not. Claiming ignorance is no excuse. Media Defender can claim whatever they want, but I'm sure this was completely intentional behavior that they KNEW would take the smaller trackers offline if the trackers found a way to block them.
Kind of like my girlfriend dropping a grenade in CoD4 after I killed her - only Media Defender's grenade was 9Gbps of bandwidth and hundreds of servers pumping out 8000 SYN requests per second. |
|
|
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Matt:Trying to establish 8000 new sessions a SECOND is a DDoS Minor nitpick but I don't know as if I'd call that a 'DDoS'. DDoS == distributed denial of service attack and is typically something that is launched with thousands of different hosts on hundreds of different networks, usually using owned systems (via a botnet).
What Media Defender did definitely qualifies as a DoS but I'd question whether or not the usage of the term 'DDoS' is accurate here. |
|
| said by Crookshanks:said by Matt:Trying to establish 8000 new sessions a SECOND is a DDoS Minor nitpick but I don't know as if I'd call that a 'DDoS'. DDoS == distributed denial of service attack and is typically something that is launched with thousands of different hosts on hundreds of different networks, usually using owned systems (via a botnet). What Media Defender did definitely qualifies as a DoS but I'd question whether or not the usage of the term 'DDoS' is accurate here. "The company, with 2,000 servers and 9Gbps of dedicated bandwidth at their disposal"
Sounds like a DDOS to me. May not have been distributed amongst many different networks, but it was many different computers within a high-speed network. |
|
 dnoyeBFerrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI | I think its resonable to assume it was distributed. Otherwise 2000 computers are not getting out of the same network pipe without DOSsing themselves. |
|
| reply to Necronomikro
i consider a DoS attack to be a DDoS attack when the packets come from computers that are distributed over a large area, not (from the sounds of it) a server farm. i don't know all the little details but based on "The company, with 2,000 servers and 9Gbps of dedicated bandwidth at their disposal" and that all the packets originated from a small set of IP addresses (maybe one???), but i wouldn't consider that a DDoS attack. i'm guessing the reason for all the servers (assuming they were in a server farm) was to be able to ensure the entire bandwidth of the connection (9 Gbps) could be saturated. |
|
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to Necronomikro
said by Necronomikro:"The company, with 2,000 servers and 9Gbps of dedicated bandwidth at their disposal" Sounds like a DDOS to me. May not have been distributed amongst many different networks, but it was many different computers within a high-speed network. According to the logs that I saw, two IPTABLES entries would have solved it. It sounds like they made a last-minute change on a Friday and left town for the weekend. MediaDefender's buggy scripts went nuts.
This was "amateur hour" on both MediaDefenders and Revision3's accounts. That said, MediaDefender was the inflicter of damage and was the primary cause of this accident.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
MattAll noise, no signal.Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
kudos:12 | said by funchords:said by Necronomikro:"The company, with 2,000 servers and 9Gbps of dedicated bandwidth at their disposal" Sounds like a DDOS to me. May not have been distributed amongst many different networks, but it was many different computers within a high-speed network. According to the logs that I saw, two IPTABLES entries would have solved it. It sounds like they made a last-minute change on a Friday and left town for the weekend. MediaDefender's buggy scripts went nuts. This was "amateur hour" on both MediaDefenders and Revision3's accounts. That said, MediaDefender was the inflicter of damage and was the primary cause of this accident. Doesn't matter what you do with iptables if you're sitting on a 100Mbps, or even 1Gbps port, and you have 9Gbps of traffic coming at you. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:1 | I doubt that MD was utilizing all 9 Gbps to flood Revision3. I haven't seen the logs that funchords  is referring to, but iptables or PF, or pick your packet filter can be quite effective against rudimentary DoS attacks. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | reply to Matt
very true |
|
| reply to dnoyeB
Actually, MD has a staggeringly huge pipe. All the servers were likely at their location, not distributed. |
|
| reply to Crookshanks
said by Crookshanks:said by Matt:Trying to establish 8000 new sessions a SECOND is a DDoS Minor nitpick but I don't know as if I'd call that a 'DDoS'. DDoS == distributed denial of service attack and is typically something that is launched with thousands of different hosts on hundreds of different networks, usually using owned systems (via a botnet). What Media Defender did definitely qualifies as a DoS but I'd question whether or not the usage of the term 'DDoS' is accurate here. I'd be inclined to agree. Swap distributed for directed and it becomes exactly what MD planned. |
|
 james
join:2001-02-26
CWCville USA | reply to cornelius785
said by cornelius785:i consider a DoS attack to be a DDoS attack when the packets come from computers that are distributed over a large area, not (from the sounds of it) a server farm. You can't just make up definitions for commonly used terms and then expect everyone to go along with you.
The distributed refers to not being a single computer attack, physical location is irrelevant. |
|
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by james:said by cornelius785:i consider a DoS attack to be a DDoS attack when the packets come from computers that are distributed over a large area, not (from the sounds of it) a server farm. You can't just make up definitions for commonly used terms and then expect everyone to go along with you. The distributed refers to not being a single computer attack, physical location is irrelevant. Whatever. I don't disagree with you, but whatever. We're arguing over semantics while agreeing on what happened.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
HTTP is the new Bandwidth Hog...
|
|
 burner50Helping Darwin WINPremium,VIP
join:2002-06-05
Cowtown
kudos:1
 ·inmotionhosting
| reply to Crookshanks
When the DoS attack is distributed over 2000 computers even if they are all in the same building IMO that is Distributed...
They DISTRIBUTED the DoS load over their entire server farm...
This company needs to go down.
--
I'm tired of killing stupid people just trying to do my job and go home! |
|
