3 ms·

You're correct in both regards. As for the first point, that was just an auto correct mistake. My apologies. On the second point, you're correct that my theori

• jacquesm 10y ago
  The first would be fairly unprecedented and would eventually come out, besides, whichever 'ruthless competitor' would initiate it, it would help all the other competitors equally so I think you can simply forget about that one. A 'distraction to cover a different attack': The more obvious explanation is simply to deny control to people who wish to take down or re-image hosts that have already been hacked, that's much more direct, distraction alone of course could be a factor but is less likely if there is a more plausible explanation. Finally, linode is on the record as not paying attackers on principle in spite of being DDOS's within an inch of their lives, so that's a pretty bad thing to say about them unless you have evidence that they did in fact pay attackers in the past. What it could be is a high profile example to scare smaller companies into paying saying 'you don't want to happen to you what happened to Linode'.
  • ryanlol 10y ago
    >Finally, linode is on the record as not paying attackers on principle in spite of being DDOS's within an inch of their lives, so that's a pretty bad thing to say about them unless you have evidence that they did in fact pay attackers in the past. Not DDoS but they've got a history of doing somewhat similar things re: hacks in the past.