pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2009-Jul-27 8:39 am
Hmmm...How much did 4chan.org pay AT&T for this publicity? | |
|
| ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Re: Hmmm...probably not a cent. its too sweet of a deal for them. | |
|
| | pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty Premium Member join:2002-05-02 Mount Airy, MD |
pnh102
Premium Member
2009-Jul-27 9:05 am
Re: Hmmm...said by ArrayList:probably not a cent. its too sweet of a deal for them. I must be getting cynical. I must admit that prior to this story I'd never heard of this website. While I don't have any evidence to back up this assertion, I've come to believe that the saying "you can't buy this type of publicity" isn't really that true anymore. | |
|
| | | |
Re: Hmmm...4chan did not buy publicity to reach the likes of you. | |
|
| | | |
to pnh102
I had heard of it but figured it was on the same level of crap as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter. | |
|
| | | | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Re: Hmmm...no. 4chan (especially /b/) is far below the likes of social networking sites. | |
|
| | | | |
1 recommendation |
Re: Hmmm...said by ArrayList:no. 4chan (especially /b/) is far below the likes of social networking sites. I saw what you did thar! | |
|
| | | | | a333A hot cup of integrals please join:2007-06-12 Rego Park, NY |
to ArrayList
LOL!!!! I love /b/ !!! | |
|
| | | | | | funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA |
Re: Hmmm...said by a333:LOL!!!! I love /b/ !!! Personally, I can't look at it for more than 5 minutes without thinking that some of my brain cells have just died. I'm glad people enjoy it, but it's not for me. | |
|
| |
| | |
| | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | |
| | |
| | | |
| | CorydonCultivant son jardin Premium Member join:2008-02-18 Denver, CO |
to FFH5
I'd say that the underlying assumption, that we need some kind of net neutrality, is sound regardless of the reasons for the temporary "ban".
Last night, AT&T demonstrated that they can block access to a particular site and that, under certain circumstances (whatever those may be), they are willing to block access to certain sites.
In this case, apparently 4chan was blocked because it was the target of an ongoing DDOS attack. Well what kind of message does that send to attackers? That if they make life hard enough for a big enough ISP, they actually do have the power to shut down access to their targeted site?
That's a recipe to guarantee that these attacks continue and, if anything, get worse. Who do the script kiddies target next? The RNC? The White House? AT&T just set a bad precedent. | |
|
| | | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
FFH5
Premium Member
2009-Jul-27 12:31 pm
Re: Hmmm...said by Corydon:I'd say that the underlying assumption, that we need some kind of net neutrality, is sound regardless of the reasons for the temporary "ban". Last night, AT&T demonstrated that they can block access to a particular site and that, under certain circumstances (whatever those may be), they are willing to block access to certain sites. In this case, apparently 4chan was blocked because it was the target of an ongoing DDOS attack. Well what kind of message does that send to attackers? That if they make life hard enough for a big enough ISP, they actually do have the power to shut down access to their targeted site? That's a recipe to guarantee that these attacks continue and, if anything, get worse. Who do the script kiddies target next? The RNC? The White House? AT&T just set a bad precedent. I don't see it that way. The site is back up - probably after AT&T & the web site putting mitigation measures in place to blunt the effect of the DDOS attacks. A reasonable response to what occurred. | |
|
| | | | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
Re: Hmmm...it does not matter why they blocked it. the point is is that they proved they have the means to do it and are willing to do it. net neutrality takes that job away from them. | |
|
| | | | | |
Re: Hmmm...Not if they claim the offender is attacking their network or their customers. | |
|
| | | | | Dennis Mod join:2001-01-26 Algonquin, IL
4 recommendations |
to ArrayList
said by ArrayList:the point is is that they proved they have the means to do it and are willing to do it. net neutrality takes that job away from them. AT&T controls the routing within their network and peering routers via something you might have heard of called the IP protocol (TCP and UDP). They have always had the ability to control where traffic flows...everyone has, it's how the internet works. Net neutrality is a seperate issue and to be quite frank if you can't understand that you shouldn't really comment on it. The issues surrounding net neutrality don't have to do with blocking certain websites (although they can) but rather imparing or giving the ISP some type of unfair advantage that upsets the playing field. This whole situation is really just being overblown. | |
|
| | | | | | SLD Premium Member join:2002-04-17 San Francisco, CA |
SLD
Premium Member
2009-Jul-27 2:58 pm
Re: Hmmm...Whoh....nice bitch-slap, man! | |
|
| | | | | | ArrayListDevOps Premium Member join:2005-03-19 Mullica Hill, NJ |
to Dennis
AT&T is my dumb pipe, i wish that they would stay that way. | |
|
| | | | | | | Dennis Mod join:2001-01-26 Algonquin, IL
1 recommendation |
Dennis
Mod
2009-Jul-27 8:08 pm
Re: Hmmm...said by ArrayList:AT&T is my dumb pipe, i wish that they would stay that way. I agree...at least in theory. AT&T is not now, nor has it been since 2003 a dumb pipe. They currently block ports 135, 139 and 445. They've also started blocking port 25 to cut down on spammers. None of these ports have met with any resistance because it was generally accepted that it was to protect the end user. When an ISP changes the way IP's route for a specific situation (such as this) it is usually alway to mitigate a negative situation. They do it all the time the only difference this time is a group of people noticed and complained. If every ISP was only a dump pipe (which again in theory I agree with) then the internet would be basically unusable. DDoS attacks, man in the middle and good old fashioned UDP packets of death would run rampant and we'd all still be on AOL 3.0. There needs to be a balance between protection and nurturing...almost like being a good parent. That's going to be a difficult balance for any ISP. | |
|
| | | | | funchordsHello MVM join:2001-03-11 Yarmouth Port, MA |
to ArrayList
said by ArrayList:it does not matter why they blocked it. the point is is that they proved they have the means to do it and are willing to do it. net neutrality takes that job away from them. I think that 4chan was the focus of a DDOS attack and the node was, innocently, sending back ACKs to the forged SYNs it received. If true, that's a good enough reason for AT&T to null route that IP and it's not a Network Neutrality issue at all. | |
|
| | | | | | dynodb Premium Member join:2004-04-21 Minneapolis, MN
1 recommendation |
dynodb
Premium Member
2009-Jul-27 3:10 pm
Re: Hmmm...Right, because the kiddies at 4chan would never, ever be involved in perpetrating a DoS attack | |
|
| | |
to FFH5
Umm, who cares what anyone at DailyKOS has to say anyway? I hate that site, lol Worse than 4chan even, lol | |
|
| | | |
ExcessiveLOL
Anon
2009-Jul-27 7:52 pm
Re: Hmmm...",lol"
LOL! | |
|
| |
to pnh102
Well, AT&T blocked MySpace once blaming a "router issue." Even MySpace said it was an AT&T issue and they were working with AT&T. Funny, however, once Murdoch bought MySpace, no issues again.
It does raise the specter of AT&T blocking websites in the "public interest."
I don't know the truth so perhaps AT&T should publish it with facts to support it. | |
|
| | ••• |
| NerdtalkerWorking Hard, Or Hardly Working? MVM join:2003-02-18 San Jose, CA |
to pnh102
Uh... They didn't pay anything. In fact, that'd be breaking the rules as a matter of fact.
I'm just glad AT&T went and fixed this before things got too out of hand. Backlash is probably still coming though.
I read that thread last night as this was taking off and agree with the one guy who asks if anybody's ever heard of spoofed headers. Why the hell would 4chan be DDoSing itself? This is a completely clueless statement made by AT&T to admit wrongdoing; it's their way of covering their a**es before the cogs of the internet hate machine got fully spinning. Perhaps wise, but unwise of them to not admit wrongdoing and instead mutter something about DDoS and ARP and reliability that doesn't make sense. | |
|
| |
| |
to pnh102
said by pnh102:How much did 4chan.org pay AT&T for this publicity? As some people say, "Who cares?" Never been there, never will. 4Chan.org sounds like some group to promote Jackie Chan movies! | |
|
|
The internet hate machine will be watching..This was really close AT&T.. almost too close according to a lot of pple.
Adi | |
|
| |
Re: The internet hate machine will be watching..Indeed, be fearful, be very fearful, people, the ATT black helicopter fleet is loose. | |
|
| 1 edit |
to adisor19
said by adisor19:This was really close AT&T.. almost too close according to a lot of pple. Adi You rang? | |
|
|
| ••••• |
NOCManMadMacHatter Premium Member join:2004-09-30 Colorado Springs, CO |
NOCMan
Premium Member
2009-Jul-27 10:42 am
Explaining Why This was BlockedAll mobile operators have a problem or bottleneck in thier network in terms of capacity. When phones are not transmitting data they're not using limited RF channel resources.
The problem is that tcp scans can wake up thousands of mobiles who now then try to register on the network and thus take up all available channels. So the solution to when this happens is that they block the offending ip in question usually on network edge routers.
I have no idea how intergrated AT&T's network is, but it suggests that the wireless and landline portions share a common network and thus blocks to protect the wireless side can impact landline broadband users. | |
|
| ••• |
cho0b join:2006-09-26 united state |
cho0b
Member
2009-Jul-27 12:01 pm
loltrust me.. moot doesn't have the money to get AT&T do plan some sort of publicity stunt for 4chan. | |
|
|
What?!You mean that thousands of AT&T customers couldn't get express their "/b/tard'ism" (sic)? I didn't realize that was a bad thing.
Sarcasm Complete. | |
|
| Doctor FourMy other vehicle is a TARDIS Premium Member join:2000-09-05 Dallas, TX
1 recommendation |
Re: What?!One of the tags in the Slashdot coverage of this story read: andnothingofvaluewaslost.
It has since been removed. | |
|
David Premium Member join:2002-05-30 Granite City, IL |
David
Premium Member
2009-Jul-27 5:24 pm
From what it looks like here:it looks like cogent( from forum link here) as well as unwired broadband also blocked them for the same stuff as well. unwired broadband blocking nowalthough this link below seems to think the owner of 4chan should be doing more instead of taking a back seat. » mailman.nanog.org/piperm ··· 198.htmlsaid by link above The problem is the DDoS attacks. Not AT&T. 4chan's users constantly instigate this. Chris Poole needs to do more than just sit back and watch. He needs to start collecting this information and turning it in to the authorities, because all of this is convered under domestic terrorism as a cyber-crime. I'm betting there's reasons why he hasn't. He's afraid to get into trouble himself on some of the content that's posted to /b/... whether it's there 5 seconds or 5 minutes.
I could be way off on this but anyone thinking 4chan isn't remotely responsible for this either isn't reading or always thinks it's AT&T's fault no matter what. It's probably not 100% 4chan's fault just like it's probably not 100% AT&T's fault. For 4Chan to think it's not their fault at all is like trying to sell me a bridge crossing Missouri to illinois for $1. | |
|
| ••••• |
Duramax08To The Moon Premium Member join:2008-08-03 San Antonio, TX |
If you read this.......you just lost THE GAME. | |
|
| |
Re: If you read this.......i raged | |
|
| C0deZer0Oc'D To Rhythm And Police Premium Member join:2001-10-03 Tempe, AZ |
to Duramax08
Oh goddamn it. | |
|
|
Considering the content that's on 4chan.....I'm surprised that BBR is even mentioning their name because there probably are members under the age of 18 that read this site. | |
|
| |
xNPCAs Usual, Have Nice Day Premium Member join:2000-11-08 Errington, BC ·Shaw ARRIS TG3482
2 edits |
xNPC
Premium Member
2009-Jul-29 1:32 am
good news everyone!if you're reading this in my voice....you lose. | |
|
|
|