Re: Illegal? in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20578522 en Sat, 05 Dec 2009 01:05:48 EDT Sat, 05 Dec 2009 01:05:48 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20653460 bear73 :
said by ISurfTooMuch See Profile :

Revision3 has asked the FBI to investigate.

IMHO, Revision3 should sue Media Defender, if only to prove a point that this behavior must stop.
+1 +1
--
If ya gotta go, Go with a SMILE!
»www.thereligionofpeace.com/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20653460 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:44:00 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20591099 burner50 : 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!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20591099 Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:00:36 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20589301 funchords :
said by james See Profile :

said by cornelius785 See Profile :

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...
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20589301 Wed, 04 Jun 2008 11:04:31 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20583845 james :
said by cornelius785 See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20583845 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 13:30:04 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20582264 moonpuppy :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by footballdude See Profile :

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.
You can spin it anyway you want but Media Defender has enough of a history to show this was not an accident. If they released this type of code without testing it, it would be like leaving a loaded gun on a street full of children. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20582264 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:09:36 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20582007 quibbly : I provide computer security services for many large companies and this is a prime example of a DDOS.

8000 SYN packets / second? Pretty insane in my books.

I'm not surprise Federal charges are not being presented, especially since there are a couple of violations under code 18 USC 1030 : »www.techlawjournal.com/cong106/s···1030.htm]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20582007 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 04:38:59 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20581465 anon : if you read about the mediadefender emails, you'll see the DA (or AG i forgot which) had friendly conversations with mediadefender.. so, it probably won't be him prosecuting his friends..]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20581465 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:19:29 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20581430 someuser :
said by digitalfreak See Profile :

said by ISurfTooMuch See Profile :

Revision3 has asked the FBI to investigate.

IMHO, Revision3 should sue Media Defender, if only to prove a point that this behavior must stop.
IIRC, in a previous article, the Revision3 CEO said they wouldn't sue because they couldn't afford the legal costs. Very unfortunate.

If the FBI brings a case against Media Defender, and especially if the the government wins, then it will be much easier for Revision3 to bring a private lawsuit. I'm not holding my breath...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20581430 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 00:12:39 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20581162 GamerGeek :
said by Crookshanks See Profile :

said by Matt See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20581162 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 23:20:40 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20580806 Fieryphoenix : Actually, MD has a staggeringly huge pipe. All the servers were likely at their location, not distributed.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20580806 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:15:05 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20580609 funchords : very true]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20580609 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:38:58 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20580608 openbox9 : I doubt that MD was utilizing all 9 Gbps to flood Revision3. I haven't seen the logs that funchords See Profile is referring to, but iptables or PF, or pick your packet filter can be quite effective against rudimentary DoS attacks.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20580608 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:38:27 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20580262 Matt :
said by funchords See Profile :

said by Necronomikro See Profile :

"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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20580262 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:34:43 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20580155 anon : what they did WAS illegal, but if you read the story on mediadefender, you'll see all the friendly calls made from the attorney general to mediadefender..]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20580155 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:12:02 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20579347 funchords :
said by Necronomikro See Profile :

"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...
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20579347 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:42:28 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20579170 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. 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20579170 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:06:54 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20579034 dnoyeB : It could also be the difference between manslaughter and negligent homicide. Considering, one has no business with his gun pointed at your nugget in the first place.
--
dnoyeB
"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20579034 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:40:59 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20579023 dnoyeB : I think its resonable to assume it was distributed. Otherwise 2000 computers are not getting out of the same network pipe without DOSsing themselves.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20579023 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:39:12 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578782 Necronomikro :
said by Crookshanks See Profile :

said by Matt See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578782 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:55:33 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578763 yock :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by footballdude See Profile :

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.
They should have to live with the side-effects of their system configuration just like anyone else. That many packets per second is nowhere close to being reasonable, and their systems architect would know it.

It's either gross negligence, or intentional tort.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578763 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:53:21 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578663 texans20 :
said by Austinloop See Profile :

Agreed, but T.K. is apparently indicating that MD should get a pass on any repercussions because they didn't mean to do a DDOS/DOS attack, their equipment was just set wrong. Yeah Right!!!!!
I don't speak for TK, as he is capable of speaking for himself, but I'd like to know where he said the company should get a free pass.
--
"I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies." Thomas Jefferson]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578663 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:35:12 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578597 Austinloop : Agreed, but T.K. is apparently indicating that MD should get a pass on any repercussions because they didn't mean to do a DDOS/DOS attack, their equipment was just set wrong. Yeah Right!!!!!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578597 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:25:26 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578546 nixen :
said by Austinloop See Profile :

Following that logic, if someone's gun was to go off accidentally and dispatch you from this earthly vail of tears, the shooter should get a pass because it was an accident????
Well, it would be the difference between a murder charge and a manslaughter charge...
--
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt. -- Bertrand Russell]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578546 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:16:42 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578522 Crookshanks :
said by Matt See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578522 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:12:18 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578515 anon :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by footballdude See Profile :

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.
I'm guessing hackers should start using that one as a defense.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578515 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:11:41 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578491 Mchart :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by footballdude See Profile :

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.
I don't think you realize the scope of what really happened. To create that large amount of traffic one would either have to be in control of a large botnet, or have a server-farm connected to a fairly large SONET link. Regardless if it was planned or not, it is a classic case of denial of service, and considering how large and aggressive it was - it likely was planned.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578491 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:08:52 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578410 digitalfreak :
said by ISurfTooMuch See Profile :

Revision3 has asked the FBI to investigate.

IMHO, Revision3 should sue Media Defender, if only to prove a point that this behavior must stop.
IIRC, in a previous article, the Revision3 CEO said they wouldn't sue because they couldn't afford the legal costs. Very unfortunate.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578410 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:58:45 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578394 TScheisskopf :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by footballdude See Profile :

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.
Says who? You? Your source for this is what? Media Defender? Have you no shame?

8000 connection attempts PER SECOND. Let me repeat that so it might sink in: 8000 CONNECTION ATTEMPTS PER SECOND. That is 8 connection attempts per millisecond. Care to posit what kind of hardware and software resources are needed to send SYN packets at that rate? Tell you what: if a clueful cop caught you or me with software that was intended to work in that manner, he or she would, at the very minimum, make us his or her long-term hobby and our lives something of a living hell.

No, I really guess you don't have any shame, if you are gonna come around peddling that.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578394 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:57:04 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578391 kcblack : I think they are terrorists.

Call homeland security, call the nsa, call the fbi!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578391 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:56:35 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578358 Austinloop : Following that logic, if someone's gun was to go off accidentally and dispatch you from this earthly vail of tears, the shooter should get a pass because it was an accident????]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578358 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:51:46 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578261 Omega :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by footballdude See Profile :

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.
So you support media defender inserting fake files into legal torrents? ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578261 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:37:02 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578153 Matt :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

said by footballdude See Profile :

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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578153 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:19:39 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578112 TKJunkMail :
said by footballdude See Profile :

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.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578112 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:12:25 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578074 Chiyo :
said by ISurfTooMuch See Profile :

Revision3 has asked the FBI to investigate.

IMHO, Revision3 should sue Media Defender, if only to prove a point that this behavior must stop.
+1]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578074 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:04:53 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578064 ISurfTooMuch : Revision3 has asked the FBI to investigate.

IMHO, Revision3 should sue Media Defender, if only to prove a point that this behavior must stop.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578064 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:03:03 EDT Re: Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578063 Morac :
said by footballdude See Profile :

Aren't DDOS attacks illegal? If they admit doing it, shouldn't there be legal action?
Yes, what Media Defender did (and is still doing) was illegal, but it's amazing what you can get away when your clients (**IA) are throwing money at Congress.

Realistically criminal proceedings should be opened against Media Defender at this point. Barring that I hope Revision3 sues Media Defender into bankruptcy, but with the **IA and their bottomless pockets backing Media Defender somehow i doubt that will happen. Someone on Slashdot also suggested that even if Media Defender goes under, the parent corp that owns it can just open shop under another company name with business as usual.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578063 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 14:03:00 EDT Illegal? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578031 footballdude : Aren't DDOS attacks illegal? If they admit doing it, shouldn't there be legal action?
--
It's a trick. Get an axe. - Ash]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20578031 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:56:20 EDT