3 ms·

It's interesting that you're using the same exact talking points as Sven Olaf Kamphuis uses in his rt.com interview, mainly that CloudFlared failed to mitigate

by wmt 14y ago

It's interesting that you're using the same exact talking points as Sven Olaf Kamphuis uses in his rt.com interview, mainly that CloudFlared failed to mitigate the DDOS, when in reality they successfully mitigated the biggest DDOS attack in known history. "The attacks have already stopped because CloudFlare worked themselves into the middle of an attack and tried to turn it into a PR stunt for themselves which kind of like backfired because CloudFlare couldn’t handle the attack." http://rt.com/news/spamhaus-threat-cyberbunker-ddos-attack-956/ http://rt.com/news/spamhaus-threat-cyberbunker-ddos-attack-9... Suck to be CyberBunker though, they got spamhaused and couldn't even retaliate by launching the biggest DDOS attack ever. And they're still getting spamhaused.

TranceMan 14y ago
If others didn't take direct action [on their own back] this could well have been the 'biggest DDoS attack in known [and unknown] history'. Cloudflare would have melted. Yes 300GBs is a lot of traffic, especially if it is all aimed at you and you do not have the capacity. To say 300GBs can slow the Internet down and almost break it is laughable, sensationalist FUD and spun by Cloudflare. Cloudflare have zero control over what comes out of ISPs networks, in the end it was down to the ISPs to mitigate these attacks.
belorn 14y ago
If this is really the biggest DDOS attack in known history, its kind of a low bar. The amount of data used to initiate it (given that its an amplification attack) could easy be as low as 50-500 machines with 30-3Mbit/s connections. As described in a earlier article about ratters, (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/rat-breeders-meet-the-men-who-spy-on-women-through-their-webcams/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/rat-breeders-meet...) 500 machine is easy achieved daily by an infected torrent, and torrent users tend to have good connections. Or they could be bought from a botnet for a handful amount of cash. 500 machines, even if it would mean 500 new machines each hour, is still pocket cash. Either the Internet is very weak and will break because of 500 machines, or this attack is not worthy a title of "The DDoS that almost broke the Internet".

by wmt 14y ago

TranceMan 14y ago

If others didn't take direct action [on their own back] this could well have been the 'biggest DDoS attack in known [and unknown] history'. Cloudflare would have melted. Yes 300GBs is a lot of traffic, especially if it is all aimed at you and you do not have the capacity. To say 300GBs can slow the Internet down and almost break it is laughable, sensationalist FUD and spun by Cloudflare. Cloudflare have zero control over what comes out of ISPs networks, in the end it was down to the ISPs to mitigate these attacks.

belorn 14y ago

If this is really the biggest DDOS attack in known history, its kind of a low bar. The amount of data used to initiate it (given that its an amplification attack) could easy be as low as 50-500 machines with 30-3Mbit/s connections. As described in a earlier article about ratters, (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/rat-breeders-meet-the-men-who-spy-on-women-through-their-webcams/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/rat-breeders-meet...) 500 machine is easy achieved daily by an infected torrent, and torrent users tend to have good connections. Or they could be bought from a botnet for a handful amount of cash. 500 machines, even if it would mean 500 new machines each hour, is still pocket cash. Either the Internet is very weak and will break because of 500 machines, or this attack is not worthy a title of "The DDoS that almost broke the Internet".