how-to block ads
|
 
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| Re: Illegal? 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...
| |
| | 
Matt
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| Re: Illegal? 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. | |
| | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC | Re: Illegal? very true | |
| | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| 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. | |
| cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| 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. | |
| | 
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| Re: Illegal? 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. | |
| | |
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| Re: Illegal? 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...
| |
| 
dnoyeB
Ferrous 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. | |
| | Fieryphoenix
join:2004-05-10 | Re: Illegal? Actually, MD has a staggeringly huge pipe. All the servers were likely at their location, not distributed. | |
| Necronomikro
join:2005-09-01
| Re: Illegal? 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. | |
| | | |
|
