20 ms·
If several countries, distribute across various continents, have managed to put in place three-strikes and six-strikes (not that I think it's good), it means th
by martinced 14y ago
If several countries, distribute across various continents, have managed to put in place three-strikes and six-strikes (not that I think it's good), it means that the one and foremost knee-jerking argument saying "You can't do anything about DDoS because: [X] It's technically not realist" is gone.
Technically now ISPs could throttle the bandwith (or even disallow net access) to zombies boxen used in DDoS attacks in all the countries applying "x-strikes" rules.
So there may be light at the end of the tunnel.
It's not exactly as if DDoS was a fatality and nothing could be done about it.
- tatsuke95 14y ago>"Technically now ISPs could throttle the bandwith (or even disallow net access)" Most ISPs charge for bandwidth. Outside of governmental coercion, is there any incentive for them to do this?
- nwh 14y agoMost charge for incoming but not outgoing, which is what would be used in a DOS attack.
- superbaconman 14y agoWho's the ISP gonna throttle? It's next to impossible to tell the difference between a legitimate request and a zombie. Also not all zombies are knowing contributing to a ddos. Are you gonna kick grandpa off the net cause he doesn't think before he clicks? Make no mistake this is a very technically hard problem to solve. DDoS attacks aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
- codexon 14y agoMost DDoS attacks are not home connections with extremely limited upload speeds anymore. They are now reflected DNS attacks coming from legitimate DNS servers.