6 ms·
If I were Github I would redirect the attacker back at one of their own resources. A attack reflection of sort. Edit: You're technically not attacking you're
by Fuxy 12y ago
If I were Github I would redirect the attacker back at one of their own resources.
A attack reflection of sort.
Edit: You're technically not attacking you're reflecting if the attack stops there's nothing to reflect.
Just like in martial arts you don't just take a beating you defend and return the opponents attack back at them. Seems fair to me.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y agoThat does not seem wise. China vs. GitHub, China will win.
- GutenYe 12y agoThat is true, even Google can't fight against China.
- zachalexander 12y agoI imagine they have the technical resources to – they just don't because as a public company they are obligated to maximize shareholder value.
- lotu 12y agoI would put it more on the fact that attacking a foreign government is kinda usurping the role US government and they won't take kindly to that.
- natch 12y ago...in China. Outside of China, my money would be on Google.
- jamiesonbecker 12y agoGoogle made a choice. You can always fight, even if you believe you will lose.
- shiggerino 12y agoIt would be interesting to know how important Github is for China's economy and how important China is for Github's.
- billyhoffman 12y agoChina's GDP is 10 Trillion dollars. Github is not at all important to China, other than a source of tools to citizens use to circumvent their authoritative regime.
- sixbrx 12y ago> Github is not at all important to China If that were the case, I don't think they would have backed down and allowed access to Github again.
- click170 12y agoOr maybe by blocking it during the timeframe they did, they have accomplished their mission and there was no further need for blocking. I sincerely doubt github is at all important to China.
- morenoh149 12y agoagain, then why did they unblock it? it is important, we're in a new paradigm for software where developing in the open leads to higher quality software written faster than previous ways
- shiggerino 12y agoIt's hardly a new paradigm, it's just a place with a lot of software that you'd otherwise have to write from scratch. It's merely software development catching up with everything else.
- shiggerino 12y agoI'm sure Github and free software is a goldmine to the country that built its economy on copying other people's stuff. On the other hand, the capitalists running the communist party might scoff at the idea of software that everyone is allowed to copy, because that offers no advantage to the unscrupulous. At least I'd imagine they would scoff at copyleft, just like Github does.
- alimbada 12y agoWho should they "reflect" the attack back at? Baidu, who seem to be a victim of HTTP hijacking in this case? Or the Chinese government? If the latter, then where exactly do you focus the counter-attack?
- briandear 12y agoBaidu == Chinese Government
- true_religion 12y agoI don't know. If I were a private company, I'd go out of my way to avoid antagonizing nation-state level governments.
- Pirate-of-SV 12y agohttp://www.gov.cn/ http://www.gov.cn/ That will show them! /s
- yAnonymous 12y ago>redirect the attacker back at one of their own resources Why only one? :)
- hk__2 12y agoBecause that’s not a DDoS anymore if you target a lot of traffic to a lot of different resources.
- yAnonymous 12y agoYes, it is an amplified DDoS. The attack doesn't become weaker, it would only target more machines.
- ISL 12y agoAn eye for an eye makes the whole world blind?
- itistoday2 12y agoAs much as I love MLK and Gandhi, this assertion never made sense to me. An eye for an eye would leave two people blind: the person who blinded the other, and the one that was blinded. Once people start seeing the severe consequence of blinding someone (getting blinded back), they and everyone else would most likely stop, not continue blinding more people.
- pbhjpbhj 12y ago>An eye for an eye would leave two people blind Well under your reading wouldn't it just leave them each without one eye. They may be blind but in most cases they will still have one other functioning eye. /pedantry "Who paid retribution for the second blinding? The second paid for the first, I demand a third eye" ... ergo the aphorism.
- dragonwriter 12y agoThe reason it doesn't make sense to you is because you are assuming it is applied in an ideal perfect universe, while the statement is referring to the real world, where any retributive rule is applied by imperfect actors who make errors in the assignment of culpability (both in identification of who is responsible and in identify whether their act was justified in the first place.) Such errors result in people who shouldn't be blinded themselves being blinded, and are themselves the subject of retaliation by the same error-prone process.
- itistoday2 12y agoWell said. It's your nuance that I like, and it's the lack of nuance in the original assertion that I find wanting.
- bashinator 12y agoAnd there are many, many real-world examples of this in the form of multi-generational inter-family feuds.
- ohjesusthatguy 12y agotechnically not attacking is the best kind of not attacking.