8 ms·
Something along the lines of CloudFlare could be an option here. However, if the attacker does indeed know the actual IP of the Bootcamp servers (and Bootcamp
by coreymgilmore 13y ago
Something along the lines of CloudFlare could be an option here. However, if the attacker does indeed know the actual IP of the Bootcamp servers (and Bootcamp allows traffic from IPs other than CF) that point is moot.
Set up CF, only allow traffic from CF.
On another note, having CF monitor an attack like this could help them do more research into mitigating these attacks in general and allow them to try and hunt the attacker. They tend to make things like this public which would benefit everyone.
- devicenull 13y agoI personally wouldn't do any business with cloudflare, while they're still hosting the various booter sites where you can pay to run these attacks.
- bybjorn 13y agoCloudFlare is hosting booter sites?
- devicenull 13y agoYea, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7459904 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7459904
- xxdesmus 13y agoCloudFlare does not host any website or it's content actually. They are not a web hosting service.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- grey-area 13y agoIf you're going to make accusations like that, you should really back it up with extensive proof.
- devicenull 13y agohttp://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/02/the-new-normal-200-400-gbps-ddos-attacks/ http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/02/the-new-normal-200-400-gb... > As I noted in a talk I gave last summer with Lance James at the Black Hat security conference in Las Vegas, a funny thing happens when you decide to operate a DDoS-for-hire Web service: Your service becomes the target of attacks from competing DDoS-for-hire services. Hence, a majority of these services have chosen to avail themselves of Cloudflare’s free content distribution service, which generally does a pretty good job of negating this occupational hazard for the proprietors of DDoS services. http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1235995 http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1235995 http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1285880 http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1285880 http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1182576 http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1182576 I could post more, but why bother?
- grey-area 13y agoI could post more, but why bother? The krebs story was interesting thanks, the forum posts less so. I understand why cloudflare are reluctant to start rejecting customers based on content, but surely it's illegal to sell DDOS services? Perhaps they should change their TOS to exclude any sites which sell attack tools/services, because it looks really bad for them to be protecting sites that promote DDOS, which then provides them with repeat business. Are there still sites up protected by cloudflare which promote this sort of activity?
- devicenull 13y agoYea. They don't really bother to take them down. Their logic is that the attack traffic isn't technically leaving via their network, so it's not their problem. Take a look at whois for the domains in that last forum link. Two of those domains are still pointed at cloudflare nameservers. I'm sure there's tons more, but why bother compiling a list when nothing will change. If you're curious, a good place to look would be the hackforums 'DDOS as a service' section. I bet a lot of the active ones would go to cloudflare.
- 13y ago