Slashdot Mirror


Gangs Extort Companies With DDoS Attacks

Pcol writes "The Financial Times reports that gangs based in Eastern Europe have been launching attacks on corporate networks costing the companies millions of dollars in lost business and exposing them to blackmail. Sites have been asked to pay up to ensure they are free from Distributed Denial of Service attacks for a year. One detective reported, 'If the demand comes in for $40,000-50,000, compared to the losses they're suffering, there's an attraction for the companies to pay and hope it goes away. But there's nothing to say it will go away.'"

423 comments

  1. A new financing model... by waytoomuchcoffee · · Score: 5, Funny

    For /.?

    1. Re:A new financing model... by metlin · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sure.

      But just that with all the story repeats, they might just forget that they'd been paid not to do that again.

      You know, that might actually prevent them from posting repeats though ;-)

    2. Re:A new financing model... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      That's what I was thinking. /. could make money by not writing articles.

    3. Re:A new financing model... by blair1q · · Score: 4, Funny

      Turn it around. /. should offer to block access from a company network.

      The productivity gains would be enormous.

    4. Re:A new financing model... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm unemployed you insensitive clod!

      Then again, hmm, maybe if slashdot blocked access from my home, I'd get off my butt and find a job.

    5. Re:A new financing model... by Gani-Ashraya · · Score: 1

      Is this the right time to remind everybody about Stephen Glass?

    6. Re:A new financing model... by jo42 · · Score: 1

      DDoS me! I dare you!! 192.168.2.42

      Go ahead, make my day.

  2. Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by BoomerSooner · · Score: 0, Troll

    I mean if their software facilitates this type of extortion shouldn't they be held accountable?

    1. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by anaphora · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I can't believe I just saw an anti-microsoft comment modded down. Holy jesus.

    2. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft does not facilitate DDoS attacks, the structure of the internet does.

    3. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      Its not MS doing the extortion.

      Say Ford made a car and then someone gets into an accident with you. Is Ford to blame that he ran a red light?

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    4. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by I8TheWorm · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, in this case you would have to sue the internetthingy because it allows all the traffic. Apache, IIS, WebSphere, they all fall to the DDoS attacks.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    5. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by hoggoth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't believe I'm responding to such an obvious troll.... but...

      How is this like a car that randomly explodes?
      This is like a gang threatening to slash your tires. Would the auto company be liable because their tires are not slashproof?
      As we know from THIS site, nobody is slashproof! :-)

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    6. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by tarquin_fim_bim · · Score: 1

      Because you don't own the software you only have licence to use it. Any other way is communism.

    7. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by Matt2k · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but if an Linux exploit is ever used by some IRC bozos, do you really want legal precident that says the companies can sue Linus?

      Sure, Microsoft is responsible for fixing the bugs, but it's the DDOSers that are commiting the actual crime. Blaming Microsoft is ultimately a cop-out, like suing the cigarette manufacturers or video game companies.

    8. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by OblvnDrgn · · Score: 1

      It's one thing if you're talking about attacks that are breaking past Microsoft security, but I was under the impression that a DDoS attack involves a whole lot of quick, repeated requests on the server, not a real cracker trying to get through.

      In which case, it's more like someone throwing a ton of pebbles at your Pinto's windshield, and suing Ford when eventually it cracks.

    9. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by loginx · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think a better way of seeing this is as follow:

      You buy a ford car.
      Someone tells you to pay $100/year and they won't punch holes through your tires for a year.
      Is ford to blame for selling you a car with tires that could be deflated? likely no.

    10. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by KjetilK · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, I think a liability that follows the money would actually be a good idea, for the free software community too. Think about it, companies like Red Hat would actually have a real product -- the warranty -- they would sell a warranty that their products are performing as advertized. They would earn more money and need to hire more people to audit code, resulting in more jobs and better code. And since we all know that free software is better than proprietary, well, we would be the winners!

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    11. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by SlightlyMadman · · Score: 1

      This is like a gang threatening to slash your tires. Would the auto company be liable because their tires are not slashproof?

      I agree that the poster's analogy was poor, but I think what he was trying to say (or at least the way I see it) is that it's not Microsoft's fault for making a DDOSable OS, but for making an OS that's so easily ownable, and can be used to DDOS other peoples' computers.

      So, in your analogy, it would be more like suing a company that sells the "Johnny gangmember tire-slash-o-matic" that allowed the gang to unleash their bitter tire-anny (sorry).

      --

      Money I owe, money-iy-ay
    12. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      As an MS user I resent the implication that MS is a "gang" or that the Disk Operating System is software which "attacks" people from eastern europe.

      mod parent 5 troll, you gotta hand it to him, he got in fast.

    13. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by Theatetus · · Score: 2, Funny
      Microsoft software has nothing to do with DDoS. DDoS cannot by stopped except by cutting off the source.

      DDOS attacks are usually launched through Windows boxes that have been exploited, for example by worms such as SOBIG.

      --
      All's true that is mistrusted
    14. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by schon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A lot of people seem to misunderstand you..

      They think that you're saying that MS is liable because someone can use all your resources (which is ridiculous, of course.)

      What I think you're saying is that it's MS that allows the security holes in their software, which allows these gangs to take control of other people's computers and launch the DDoS.

      Your analogy is wrong - perhaps a better one might be that an automobile manufacturer makes a car that can be easily stolen (say by jiggling the door handle, and a key is not required to start it) if someone steals this car, and drives it through a business's window, should the car manufacturer be liable?

    15. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by kernelfoobar · · Score: 1

      Maybe I should RTFA, but I don't see the relation with MS in just the above comments.

      As for the analogy, I guess it would be more accurate to say that they know that Pintos randomly explodes and then use that fact to cause accidents (i.e. leave it on the side of a busy street). Then who is really responsible?

      --
      Here we go again!
    16. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, christ, "exploited," that's great. You're one of my heroes.

    17. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by fractaloon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Another way to look at it...

      If a company makes windows without locks can you sue because your house was so easy to break into? Or better yet, can you sue them cause it was so easy to break into your house to rack up long distance charges on your phone? Who the heck was calling Eastern Europe from this number?

    18. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      Then when Red Hat gets 95% of users, people start developing exploits for it. Then not only would Red Hat would then have to pay people for their "warrenty" (however that works) but the same kind of suit w ould be brought against them as the on ethat took MS down. Then Red Hat goes down.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
    19. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem of forcing liability on MS is that then all related SW projects are culpable. Should there ever be a problem with Linux, then small Linux companies/developers/projects must also be liabel for their own projects. Not many open source developers/hobbiests can absorb a lawsuit like MS can, and the long of it is that people would be less likely to contribute to OSS.

    20. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see this more like buying a front door for your house. If someone breaks into your house because the lock is defective, should the door manufacturer be held accountable? Assuming, of course, that the door manufacturer manufactures the lock. In fact, the door manufacturer 'bundles' their locks with their doors in an effort to push lock manufacturers out of the market.

    21. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by Alranor · · Score: 1

      I just want to congratulate you for getting +1 informative on a post with an obvious goatse link.

      Well done Sir :)

    22. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      Anti-gun zealots have been trying to use that argument for years. They want gun manufacturers to be liable because some homicidal nutjob used a gun to shoot someone. A variation on their arguement involves the gun manufacturers not making a gun that was child-proof. Next we'll be suing a steel manufacturer for not molding a pipe that is swing-proof. Bunch of damned retards trying to get on TV.

    23. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      No, it'd be like selling tires with a large weak area, and putting a note saying (to the effect of) slash here to flatten tire by it.

    24. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      No, it's more like someone stealing your (locked) Escort (after the Pinto, but I chose it because (at least the early '90s models) have an emergency key which will work on all Escorts of that key design) to throw pebbles from it at a building.

    25. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      No, but Ford is to blame for the seatbelt not working...

      "Hey, it's less hassle to not use the seatbelt. That's why everyone is a root by default." - Microsoft logic

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    26. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by Mr.+Troll · · Score: 1

      If someone robs a bank and uses a Ford as their getaway car, is Ford liable?

      The answer is, OF COURSE NOT

      --
      Kiss my shiny metal ass
    27. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by subsoniq · · Score: 1

      If the brakes were faulty due to Ford's negligence, yes. In this case Microsoft made a faulty product that is being exploited for these extortion schemes. If an auto maker were to put out a product as faulty as, say, Microsoft Windows 98, they'd have to recall it or face serious consequences.

    28. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't the goatse link have been more fitting for SOBIG?

    29. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      I was asking a serious question.

      Most of the servers under attack are probably not running a MS-OS. A DDoS attack can be done from any OS, and it can happen to any server. Blaming MS is just plain stupid.

      If you really are serious, and don't want to come across as a troll, you should learn at least the basics of a DDoS attack.

      Lets say your phone number is 232-232-2323. Lets say 10 people set up a computer to call your house, over and over. Your phone goes useless. It doesn't matter what kind of phone you have, and it doesn't matter what kind of computers they have dialing your phone - you still can't get any incoming calls because those 10 computers will keep the line busy 24/7.

      That's a fairly low tech example of a DDoS attack. There are no easy solutions.

    30. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by KjetilK · · Score: 1

      Well, if RH had been doing their job as bad MS has been doing, wouldn't that be OK? Really, that's intended effect, if you do a bad job, you go out of business. It doesn't matter if it is a company based on free software or proprietary software, bad work = you die... However, it is possible that free software will last because of the increased peer-review.

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    31. Re:Isn't Microsoft culpable in this mess? by KjetilK · · Score: 1

      Well, that's a matter for politicians. I said "follow the money", because if it does, the liability would not apply to the individual developer, but to the distributor who takes money for the product. This distinction is very important.

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
  3. Fine. Let them! by freeze128 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The gangs can *TRY* to extort money, but in the long run, it would be cheaper to hire consultants or better administrators. This will have the effect of IMPROVING security worldwide. Thanks European gangs!

    1. re: fine. let them! by ed.han · · Score: 1

      you know, at first, i thought the article was talking about street gangs. i was thinking that the resulting l337 graffiti would be kinda funny...

      ed

    2. Re:Fine. Let them! by lurker412 · · Score: 1

      I can't agree with you. That's like saying that we should be grateful to criminals for exposing our vulnerabilities. It would be preferrable to have fewer criminals.

    3. Re:Fine. Let them! by ekephart · · Score: 1

      What about DDoS insurance?

      --
      sig
    4. Re:Fine. Let them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      DDOS hits where it hurts. Even firewalls wouldn't help much if your entire bandwidth is choked and your legitimate traffic can't get through.

      Even your ISP would take a hit if the DDOS is really heavy as happened to some of DALnet's server in the beginning of this year. It was said that it was in the gb/s range. Those are compromised machines using ip address spoofing. Its not easy or even possible to track it down to a certain group/individual. Now, what can consultants and better admins do to stop that?

      The governments need to step in to this and take some drastic actions or the ISPs should take actions like not allowing spoofed packets go through, etc.

    5. Re:Fine. Let them! by TheTomcat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What exactly would this consultant / administrative talent DO?

      You have 10,000 zombies firing packets at you, spoofed on random IPs, how do you stop this?

      We had to Akamize our stuff.. and that's extremely pricey (think 2+ salaries).

      S

    6. Re:Fine. Let them! by mblase · · Score: 1

      This will have the effect of IMPROVING security worldwide.

      Perhaps, but it also has the effect of damaging a company's public image and stock price by making them look ineffective or unsafe for consumers' data. That's the only reason protection money is paid to hackers.

      Any CEO with a brain knows that if a business is attacked once, it can be attacked more than once -- but appearing vulnerable to one's customers is just compounding the damage. Better, they reason, to pay off the extortionists and then beef up IT and network security.

    7. Re:Fine. Let them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, we had absolutely no problem absorbing the attack, and keeping web servers up. And these aren't super beefy web servers either. They aren't in round-robin configurations. They're just individual web servers getting hit by thousands of zombies.

      Totally easy, easy as pie to block.

    8. Re:Fine. Let them! by TheTomcat · · Score: 1

      saturated our bandwidth. there was really nothing we could do outside of using a proxy (to absorb the raw bandwidth consumption)... "real" http requests get passed on to us.

      S

    9. Re:Fine. Let them! by mcpkaaos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wait a tic...

      The extortionists want around $40-50K per year, and you think it'd be cheaper to hire consultant(s) or more/better sysadmins instead?

      Who do you work for, again? I'd like to know where not to ever send my resume.

      --
      It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
    10. Re:Fine. Let them! by Short+Circuit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From random IPs?

      If a router were able to know that both the source and destination IP adress lay within a given logical area on the network, maybe it should reject packets that come from the source IP, but from outside the area defined by the souce and destination. This would require the router to be on the border of that region, however.

      I suppose IPSec does that sort of thing automatically.

    11. Re:Fine. Let them! by AArmadillo · · Score: 1

      Huh? DDoS doesn't exploit any security issues. It is just a massive, overwhelming amount of data hitting your servers, possibly even bringing down your entire subnet. Pretty much the only thing you can do is call your upstream router and ask them to block traffic from DDoS hosts -- an extremely time-consuming and tedious task, supposing your upstream router even gives a damn about you.

    12. Re:Fine. Let them! by TheTomcat · · Score: 1

      Pretty much the only thing you can do is call your upstream router and ask them to block traffic from DDoS hosts -- an extremely time-consuming and tedious task, supposing your upstream router even gives a damn about you.

      AND, this only works if the originating packets don't have spoofed source addresses...

      S

    13. Re:Fine. Let them! by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Informative
      The gangs can *TRY* to extort money, but in the long run, it would be cheaper to hire consultants or better administrators. This will have the effect of IMPROVING security worldwide. Thanks European gangs!

      Commercial rates for security consultants start at $2,000 per day. People in the middle tier charge as much as $5,000. Big name consultants such as Bruce Schneier can name their price.

      And the fact is that none of us can do diddly against a DDoS attack, except advise you on how to configure bigger pipes and how to get in touch with ISPs quickly to stop the traffic from their networks.

      Occasionally there is a DDoS that has a flawed mode of attack that can be diverted. There have been a couple of attacks against the Whitehouse that were like that. They can divert the attacks because they can get top rank consulting for free in extremis.

      Not paying might be cheaper in the long run, but in the long run we are all dead. The answer is not consultants, it is law enforcement and better infrastructure.

      For example why exactly does anyone need to send a stream of several thousand SYN packets per second from a home computer to the same IP address for several hours at a time? There is simply no reason why a home machine should need to do that, nor should a home machine be sending millions of DNS requests per second to any machine.

      There is a pretty easy fix to DDoS attacks, put intelligence into cable modems and router boxes. Even if there is an option that allows the expert user to turn the checking off the boxes should be shipped in a safe configuration by default and it should not be possible to disable the safety catch without physical access to the modem.

      Congress could encourage ISPs to adopt this type of technology by merely suggesting that ISPs be made liable for attacks mounted from their machines.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    14. Re:Fine. Let them! by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      If it stays one gang, sure.

      When people find out it's profitable and there's suddenly a couple dozen of these gangs, it'll be a little more expensive.

      Plus there are problems like different people from the same gang getting you multiple times by posing as a bunch of different gangs...

    15. Re:Fine. Let them! by placeclicker · · Score: 1

      We should force ISP's to block Spoofed source packets.

      There is no legitmate reason for them to exist in the first place.

      Cable and DSL isp's especially.

      --

      Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of /.
    16. Re:Fine. Let them! by placeclicker · · Score: 1

      And first and foremost, Disallow the creation of packets with spoofed source's.

      Hell, anyone even know a reason we're allowed to lie about who we are on the internet?

      --

      Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of /.
    17. Re:Fine. Let them! by Mike+McTernan · · Score: 1

      I saw a posting on /. a long time ago on how to solve this. It's not my idea, but it is very simple and very clever.

      Essentially what you do is program the routers on the internet such that every 1000,000'th packet they forward, they also send an additional packet onto the destination stating how the router routed the packet - i.e. the link it came in on, and the link it went out on.

      Anyone getting a Dos attack of any sort will then get extra traffic that will reveal the route taken by the Dos packets, even if the source IP addresses are spoofed. Sure this adds to the Dos attack, but filtering these packets should be easy, and they atleast help find the source(s).

      Doing this should make it very hard to 'hide' on the internet if you transmit any sort of volume of traffic from some location. The only problem is updating all the routers to do this.

      --
      -- Mike
    18. Re:Fine. Let them! by PGillingwater · · Score: 1

      > We should force ISP's to block Spoofed source packets.

      > There is no legitmate reason for them to exist in the first place.

      Since some /. readers may not realize the validity of the above comments, so let me explain.

      I know of no technique to differentiate between incoming spoofed packets, based on the limitations of the current protocols (IPv4.) It may be possible to enforce anti-spoofing with IPv6, but i'm not an expert in this area.

      The poster is referring to egress checking for ISP's, so that they filter all OUTgoing traffic, and simply drop packets which appear not to originate in their own, known networks. Simple really, and I wish more providers would do this -- including dropping all 10/8, 172.16/12 and 192.168/16 nets, as well as the Microsoft private IP space -- plus let's get rid of all port 135 traffic too while we're at it.

      Disclaimer: I used to own an ISP, but haven't been in that business for 10 years.

      --
      Paul Gillingwater
      MBA, CISSP, CISM
    19. Re:Fine. Let them! by Bytal · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't increasing the intelligence of routing hardware enough to limit DoS emanating from single home machines also give the ISPs a lot more insentive to block home run servers, p2p clients, check for NAT and make sure you don't visit "unsavory" locations on the net?

    20. Re:Fine. Let them! by caluml · · Score: 1

      Please tell me, oh great network admin, how you protect your network against a huge flood, many T/E1s worth of random packets, with random source addresses, aimed directly at your IP addresses?

      Regardless of whose fault it is that there are so many boxes available to the DDoSers, once those packets start coming, you can't do much. You can contact your upstream ISP, and ask them to start filtering, but if the packets appear to be coming from valid addresses, you'll end up filtering out legitimate traffic too.

    21. Re:Fine. Let them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are the moderators insane? How is someone who doesn't even read the headline +5 "insightful"??

    22. Re:Fine. Let them! by sklib · · Score: 1

      The problem there is when the extra packets you propose get spoofed themselves, and you're back at square 1.

      --
      -S
    23. Re:Fine. Let them! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This would require the router to be on the border of that region, however.

      Oh yeah, a minor detail, surely. I have a couple of these kicking around collecting dust.

    24. Re:Fine. Let them! by Zeinfeld · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Wouldn't increasing the intelligence of routing hardware enough to limit DoS emanating from single home machines also give the ISPs a lot more insentive to block home run servers, p2p clients, check for NAT and make sure you don't visit "unsavory" locations on the net?

      ISPs would be much less bothered about people running servers from home if the chance of them being compromised was lower. If an ISP wants to do any of the things you mention they can pretty much do it at the moment, it is pretty easy to block incomming server traffic, just drop incomming SYN packets at the main router. Same goes for censorship.

      The proposal I am making requires the regulator to maintain state which makes it difficult to implement in a router.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    25. Re:Fine. Let them! by southpolesammy · · Score: 1
      For example why exactly does anyone need to send a stream of several thousand SYN packets per second from a home computer to the same IP address for several hours at a time? There is simply no reason why a home machine should need to do that, nor should a home machine be sending millions of DNS requests per second to any machine.

      Question: Are you advocating that we create devices that disallow this or create policies that disallow this? The difference is not so subtle -- on one hand, we require an inherent limitation of technology, which runs counter to most ideals of progress.

      The alternative, which I believe is desirable, is to allow such events, but police based on acceptable use and other such legalities. It builds a community that is intolerant of abuse, rather than sheltered from it.
      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    26. Re:Fine. Let them! by Zeinfeld · · Score: 1
      And first and foremost, Disallow the creation of packets with spoofed source's.
      Hell, anyone even know a reason we're allowed to lie about who we are on the internet?

      That would have to be filtered at the IP level, but the next generation of cable modems will have built in WiFi routers so it is not a big issue.

      The question to ask is what is the point of sending a packet with a spoofed source address unless it is to attack another machine?

      Of course one of the positive effects of NAT boxes is that you get this protection built in for free.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    27. Re:Fine. Let them! by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 1

      The gangs can *TRY* to extort money, but in the long run, it would be cheaper to hire consultants or better administrators. This will have the effect of IMPROVING security worldwide. Thanks European gangs!

      We're talking DDoS and flooding here, not security holes. There's not much a better consultant or admin can do about a sustained flood, you have to fight it in completely different ways. Let me say it again: this is [b]not a security[/b] issue, is a [b]Denial Of Service[/b] issue.

      --
      i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
    28. Re:Fine. Let them! by Jonathan+Platt · · Score: 1

      You surly can't justify this form of attack, there is no moral basis what so ever. It's always easier to exploit software than to make it bug free. I'm sure the admins a many times more skilled than the script kiddies already.

      --


      VENI, VIDI, VICI, DIXI
    29. Re:Fine. Let them! by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      Why do ISP's, Universities and Companies not do this anyway? I mean as an "acceptable use policy". Suspend user accounts. This might also be the case for packets with IP address's which are spoofed.
      It might be that software/devices that flag such actions and event automatically suspend accounts - thus meaning the perpetrator will need to contact them for service resuming could make it easier to catch, prevent and discourage such attacks.
      However it still leaves them open to distributed attacks.

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
    30. Re:Fine. Let them! by jred · · Score: 1

      It would be even cheaper to hire hitmen...

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    31. Re:Fine. Let them! by jelle · · Score: 1

      "as well as the Microsoft private IP space"

      Huh?

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    32. Re:Fine. Let them! by PGillingwater · · Score: 1

      >> "as well as the Microsoft private IP space"
      >
      > Huh?

      Google for "APIPA." The space is 169.254/16, which used to belong to a company that was bought by Microsoft, and has been reserved for Private use with Windows systems that fail to obtain a DHCP lease.

      For more information, see:
      http://www.winnetmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm? Articl eID=7464

      --
      Paul Gillingwater
      MBA, CISSP, CISM
    33. Re:Fine. Let them! by jelle · · Score: 1

      Hmm.

      Now that is whack.

      If a computer can't get a DHCP lease, then it should do TCP/IP, with any IPnumber.

      Oh, well. Yeah, filter that too.

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    34. Re:Fine. Let them! by Mike+McTernan · · Score: 1

      Seems unlikely. Given enough packets, you could process them to find entire routes; spoofed packets would probably just yeild unconnected dots or some noise. Even if the spoofed packets were skillfully crafted to lead routes back to others making fake tails, they would have to be crafted such that they correlated with actual routers that could route between suggested IP addresses. Finally, the spoofed routing packets would also cause extra rooting packets to be sent, and so re-enforce the trail leading to the spoofer.

      Spoofing these routing packets may add to the noise, but it certainly wouldn't prevent the true source(s) of the DDos being identified; at worse it would yeild some false avenues to explore.

      --
      -- Mike
  4. Internet Mafia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    So now there's an internet mafia.

    So who's the god father? I vote Al Gore.

    1. Re:Internet Mafia by ENOENT · · Score: 1

      IIS sleeps with the fishes.

      --
      That's "Mr. Soulless Automaton" to you, Bub.
    2. Re:Internet Mafia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anyone else think of OpenBSD in that comment too?

    3. Re:Internet Mafia by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1

      Yup. This is your basic protection racket scam.

    4. Re:Internet Mafia by Kissing+Crimson · · Score: 1
      Perfect topic for a new poll:

      Al Gore

      Linus Torvalds

      RMS

      D J Bernstein

      Steve Ballmer AKA Monkey Boy

      Steve Jobs AKA Super Ego

      Wil Wheaton

      Anybody but CowboyNeal

      --
      What's that smell? Ah, that's my karma burning...
    5. Re:Internet Mafia by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Nice server you got here. Be a shame if something happened to it...

      #include horse_head.h

      Kierthos

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    6. Re:Internet Mafia by sherpajohn · · Score: 1

      I gotta vote for Wil Wheaton. They guy is almost as geeky as the character he played on TV. And when I was on the TNG mailinglist it was amazing to see the amount of nasty and negative remarks made about him when he appeared in an episode. Personally, I was always a fan of Wesley. Right from the Traveller episode ;)

      --

      Going on means going far
      Going far means returning
    7. Re:Internet Mafia by k12linux · · Score: 1

      Don't forget SCO... $3 billion makes what these gangs ask for look like spare change.

    8. Re:Internet Mafia by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 1
      I vote Al Gore.
      Bush'll still win.
      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    9. Re:Internet Mafia by Hatta · · Score: 1

      He does have the right credentials. 8 years service as the 2nd in command of the most powerful organized crime syndicate in the world.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    10. Re:Internet Mafia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The fun part is when some fucktard moderator comes along and mods you +1, Insightful.

      I want my share of the day's mod abuses, dammit.

    11. Re:Internet Mafia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least with the real mob, when you pay reliably for a protection racket, you actually do kind of insure yourself against problems from other thugs.. With these guys you're still open to any scriptkiddy with a taste for mayhem

  5. Haven't they seen Bush's example? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    You never negotiate with terrorists!! You tell them to bring it on!!

    Oh wait, that isn't working so well right now, so they might have seen his example.

    1. Re:Haven't they seen Bush's example? by AnnCoulterTroll · · Score: 0

      You fucking traitor, go to hell.

    2. Re:Haven't they seen Bush's example? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We already are on the way to hell, so what is the punishment again?

      I wish you the best of luck new troll, an Ann Coulter theme troll, I love it! LOL

  6. Difference? by WolfieN · · Score: 0

    What's the difference between this and SCO? They both basically blackmail the companies and jam them up.. are we going to give into SCO?

  7. protection market by musikit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    funny thing is with the old mobsters paying protection money to mob A would stop mob B from doing the same.

    what's to stop another DDoS group from doing the same?

    as the movies teach never pay the protection money

    1. Re:protection market by tarquin_fim_bim · · Score: 1

      And do they carry their laptops in violin cases?

    2. Re:protection market by Pac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the good old days, the protection package included protection from other gangs. I don't know why the model couldn't be extended to the virtual space - if you DDoS my "clients", I will DDoS you...

    3. Re:protection market by swb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's two kinds of protection:

      One kind is the low-level "Pay me or I wreck shit". In this model, you don't actually get "protection" from anyone else, just the people you paid don't arbitrarily wreck your stuff. If some third party decides to play rough, the people you're paying protection to generally don't care, unless it threatens their protection money (ie, driving a store owner completely out of business).

      The more sophisticated kind of protection generally involves paying someone so that you can operate without interference. Generally this involves handing over a percentage of the operations as a tithe or tribute (and in fact among Italian mafia, it is a historical descendent of the practice of conquered peoples paying tributes to Roman officials). In this case, since the payment is generally dependent on the successful completion of whatever the protected activity is, you'd be more likely to get muscle applied in your favor to keep rivals away. But even then there may be extra money associated with hiring muscle, and often it is an artificial ruse used to obtain larger tributes. (In an episode of the Sopranos, Tony uses a black political agitator to get more tribute out of a construction business that is already paying tribute. He then "breaks up" the black's protest and later splits the take with the black's leaders).

    4. Re:protection market by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

      Better yet, why not set yourself up as several gangs? If they pay you off once, ya'z can still hitz em agains for more dough!

      --
      There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
      most of us won't be able to afford it.
      -- Lemmy
    5. Re:protection market by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 1

      Same as taxes.

    6. Re:protection market by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 1

      Ummm, the point is they can't track down where the DDoS's are coming from, so how exactly would group A know who to DDoS?

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    7. Re:protection market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called "being leet and blowing the other cyber gangs out of cyberspace".

      You just gotta hack the sh*t out of your competition.

  8. A new financing model for /.? by canfirman · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nah, a new financing model for SCO.

    --
    It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
    1. Re:A new financing model for /.? by SunPin · · Score: 1

      SCO already owns DDoS. Eastern European gangs are free to use the DDoS method of extortion but they must pay a per-packet licensing fee of $699.

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
    2. Re:A new financing model for /.? by Xeth · · Score: 1

      It'd be a moral step upward...

      --
      If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
  9. hmmmm by H8X55 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    slashdot does this everyday, for free. accidentally, even.

    1. Re:hmmmm by H8X55 · · Score: 1

      Redundant?

      i didn't even read the previous replies!

      maybe i wasted to much time RTFA first.

  10. And the diffrence is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    And what is the diffrence between this and security companies that extort protection money out of us to protect us from vulnrabilities that they research and publish? Eeye anyone?

    1. Re:And the diffrence is? by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      The distinction is in who pulls the trigger. If I sell bulletproof vests, am I responsible for all the people who suddenly realize that shooting someone in the chest might do some damage?

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  11. Lunch money by landaker · · Score: 3, Funny

    One kid reported, 'If the demand comes in for $4-5, compared to the losses they're suffering, there's an attraction for the wimps to pay and hope it goes away. But there's nothing to say it will go away.'

    1. Re:Lunch money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      One kid reported, 'If the demand comes in for $4-5, compared to the losses they're suffering, there's an attraction for the wimps to pay and hope it goes away. But there's nothing to say it will go away.'

      I brought lunch, I don't have any money. Here you can have my lunch, its tofu and brocolli.

  12. what happened to the good old days... by physicsboy500 · · Score: 2, Funny

    when we could just hold kids for ransom?

    --
    The original generic sig.
    1. Re:what happened to the good old days... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      [Trots off to the Ukraine, finds a bunch of 14 year old hackers, abducts them, holds them for--]

      Hey! Who the hell would pay ransom for these kids anyway?!!

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  13. Sue MS instead? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps they should sue MS instead?

    After all, this is most likely from zombie networks enabled by MS's complete refusal to pay heed to even the basest of security issues for home PCs.

  14. Isn't that basically what MS has done for years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is, pay upgrade protection against loss of functionality? "Nice joint you got here. Be a shame if something were to happen to it."

  15. Pffft! Gangs! by jpsst34 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I bet it's those damn Jets! They're always trying to stick it to the Sharks.

    --
    How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
  16. Internet Death Penalty, anyone? by programmeratarms · · Score: 1

    If a small country contains a source of DDOS attacks, wouldn't it make sense for whoever is upstream to pull their plug? Perhaps the corporate-controlled US government will eventually use threats of sanctions/conquest to bring this about...

    1. Re:Internet Death Penalty, anyone? by mobiux · · Score: 1

      Your assuming that these aren't world wide drone PC's just waiting for an address to DDoS.

      Finding the country of origin may be pretty difficult.

    2. Re:Internet Death Penalty, anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DDOS, by its name and nature, is distributed. The actual perpetuators may from a small/big country but the actual attack is usually from many places. Because of ip spoofing its usually very difficult to tell exaclty *where* the compromised machines are, forget about finding who from where is commandeering them.

  17. Mob getting with the times by pvt_medic · · Score: 1

    Ah good for organized crime they keeping up with the times.

    reminds me of the movie "Analyze That" where they talking about how they need to get with the times, and discussed about getting a website.

    --
    30% Troll, 50% Underrated, 10% Interesting
    Score:5, Troll
    1. Re:Mob getting with the times by Loosewire · · Score: 1

      whish i was able to mod that funny hehehehe :-)

      --
      Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
  18. pay me or ill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    submit your story to slashdot

  19. This isn't surprising... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Firstly, I'm suprised it took this long for something like this to happen. Though I suspect it's been happening for a while. Organized crime has always been ready to utilize new technology in the persuit of money / Power.

    Secondly, How is this different from some company installing spyware/nagware that's not uninstallable and then sending you email asking you to pay 20 bucks for a utility that'll "remove" their piece of software.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:This isn't surprising... by signe · · Score: 4, Funny

      Secondly, How is this different from some company installing spyware/nagware that's not uninstallable and then sending you email asking you to pay 20 bucks for a utility that'll "remove" their piece of software.

      Easy. Asking for money to not attack someone's servers is extortion. Your example is an "innovative business model".

      -Todd

      --
      "The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
    2. Re:This isn't surprising... by s1r_m1xalot · · Score: 1
      Organized crime has always been ready to utilize new technology in the persuit of money / Power.

      Don't forget the pursuit of women! First you get the money, then you get the power, then you get the women!

    3. Re:This isn't surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Secondly, How is this different from some company installing spyware/nagware that's not uninstallable and then sending you email asking you to pay 20 bucks for a utility that'll "remove" their piece of software.

      Both the target and the perpitrator are different. Since the story is about a corporation it gets press. Your examples (presumably) involves a consumer so it doesn't matter. Where you been for the last 20 or so years?

    4. Re:This isn't surprising... by Ichijo · · Score: 1
      How is this different from some company installing spyware/nagware that's not uninstallable and then sending you email asking you to pay 20 bucks for a utility that'll "remove" their piece of software.
      That's like the Boy Scout spaghetti dinner fundraiser where the spaghetti is free but the Pepto Bismol is $10.
      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    5. Re:This isn't surprising... by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 1
      In this case, though, if the DDOSers are, as suspected nothing but a bunch of nerds, then Women will top all priorities.

      Don't belive me ? ask anyone here on /.

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    6. Re:This isn't surprising... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

      I think you just created the civil equivalent to the insanity defense...

      "My client would like to point out that he was not infact robbing a bank, he was merely exercising an 'innovative business model'".

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    7. Re:This isn't surprising... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is also extortion, there was just an article about that on /. the other day...

  20. Gangs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like Gayngs if you ask me.

  21. Awesome ... by obsidianpreacher · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    How awesome is it that I see a story I submitted posted on /. ... by someone else ...
    2003-11-12 18:40:27 Hackers Blackmail & Extort Corporations (articles,security) (rejected)
    I asked a question in my submission that I think would be really interesting to debate -- is this the first wave of the "only outlaws will have hacks" ideology that is being formed by constant C&D/DMCA/etc. ...?
    --
    topreacher@signature.slashdot.org 1% rm -rf sig
  22. What gives? by Orien · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've never understood why operations like this are so hard to track down. If you give them $40,000 that creates a finantial paper trail that is traceable! The same thing with spam, if it is illeagal spam and they ask you for money, at some point the money has to go somewhere. Why do the feds have such a hard time connecting the dots on cases like this? I'm sure there is something I'm missing so someone please inform me.

    1. Re:What gives? by Grey_14 · · Score: 0

      The international nature of the internet, provided with instant electronic money transfers, makes these transactions extremely hard to trace, though it's not impossible, it requires the cooperation of possible dozens of country's, their banks. Imagine a payment, to a paypal account registered with a stolen credit card, thats transfered in an out of bank accounts all over the country, before being distributed accross several dozen real credit cards, from several different accounts, and of course, everything is happening through servers and banks in 9 different country's, and takes place almost instantly.

    2. Re:What gives? by EmCeeHawking · · Score: 1

      Why do the feds have such a hard time connecting the dots on cases like this?

      If you were a publically-funded bureuacrat, mooching off the taxpayers' teat, having virtually no accountability to anything, and having your power and salary linked closely with the size of your department, and you had two options:

      A. Manage a fully competent operation, maximize efficiencies, and report that you're doing so well that you can do the job with an even lower budget next year.

      B. Bungle up every possible part of your operation, breed and encourange inefficiency, and report that you need a 50% budget increase next year to keep up with the horrendous workload.

      What would you choose?

    3. Re:What gives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure there is something I'm missing so someone please inform me.

      cash?

    4. Re:What gives? by The_K4 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The issues becomes when it crosses country lines. I recently had trouble with a buisness in Canada, I live in the US. The US police have the police who's jurisdiction the company is in do the investigation. The Canadians have the police who's jurisdiction the victim is in do the investigation. Neither set of authorities would investigate a clearly illegal act. They both refered me to the FBI who said "Unless it's a terrorist act, we will not even start a report".

    5. Re:What gives? by Orien · · Score: 1

      If it's cash, they have to show up in person to collect it.

    6. Re:What gives? by itsari · · Score: 0

      I had trouble with a business based in Arizona (I'm Canadian) and also did not receive help from the Canadian or US authorities. I finally got through to those [unkind people] by complaining to their local comerice association.

    7. Re:What gives? by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      I thought I'd point out that you can still file in your local small claims court against them. They fall under your jurisdiction because they chose to do business in that jurisdiction and are therefore subject to the laws of that jurisdiction. This is the same arguement we use to sue spammers. They sent me a piece of spam and are therefore choosing to do business in my local jurisdiction. You can ge a default judgement against them which will be a piece of cake since it's doubtful they'll appear in your local US small claims court. After you get the default judgement you need to do some more research on the company and find any assets they might have in the US. For example did they buy stock in a US company? Do they happen to have a local US office for customer service or tech support? Is their domain registered with a US registrar? That last one is fun. You could have the domain seized and sold to repay the debt they owe you. That'd get their attention in a heartbeat. :-) Best of luck.

    8. Re:What gives? by The_K4 · · Score: 1

      I looked into going this route, however I was told by the court clerk that this wouldn't work. See: this. I was told that I would need to sue where the defandant is located. I explained to the clerk that the defendant was a canadian company. She went and consulted with the judge that she works for and told me that if I filed this case the judge would be forced to tell me that it wasn't covered by her jurisdiction. I wish it were that simple, but it's not.

    9. Re:What gives? by macdaddy · · Score: 1
      I'd seek the (hopefully free) advice of actual counsel because people have been doing it for years. I can't remember what the website was but I remember from previous /. discussions something about a legal website where you can buy pre-paid services from lawyers. You might look into that as a cheap way to get an answer. I know for one thing that we anti-spammers use this tactic to sue spammers in our local jurisdictions for the simple fact that they are doing business in that local jurisdiction and subject to its laws. You might to look into the SpamCon Foundation Law Center (formerly SueSpammers Project) or SpamLaws for past cases to prove that you can sue in your local district. BTW, the site you linked to actually covers your problem.

      With proof in hand that the court does have jurisdiction you shouldn't have much trouble getting it pushed through. Anyhow IANAL but I drool over the ADA's assistants on TV. :-) Best of luck.

    10. Re:What gives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read this primer on internet personal jurisdiction and then decide.

    11. Re:What gives? by hughk · · Score: 1
      This has changed. There are now fields in electronic money transfers for reporting the true beneficiary. It is easier to trace but you really need a cooperative law engorcement officer to open the records.

      Another trick (to borrow one from the feds) is to suggest that extortion of this magnitude may be from terrorists. Many such groups do offer 'protection' as a sideline.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    12. Re:What gives? by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 1

      Basically, what it comes down to is this: you have to issue legal action in the country of origin. Now you, the victim, may or may not choose to go through this hassle depending on a lot of things.

      Secondly, the FBI can and does get involved in "cybercrime" such as this. There was even a recent piece of news on fbi.gov saying how they tightened collaboration with Eastern European countries and how they have nailed several cases of fraud working together with the local police. So yeah, they'll help.

      Third, it depends on what the situation in that particular country is. It may be an extremely corrupt and unstable regime. The local police may not give a damn about Internet DDoS if they have gang shootouts in broad daylight in the center of the country capital. The FBI can't do much if there's no cooperation from the local police.

      Fourth, let's assume you have decent support from the local police and other local organizations (see the recent story about the Romanian Blaster copycat, where FBI was helped by both the police and a local anti-virus company). In such a case the criminals may be found fairly quickly.

      Fifth, there's the question of "can you do anything to them once you've found them?" FBI can't do anything anymore from this point on. Even if the local police is good enough to find them, the local legal system may not be up to par. They may be part of a gang no local judge will touch less they have a death wish; they may be the offspring of some big local political figure who will smother the whole issue in no time; they may simply have enough money to bribe their way out.

      You must remember that these countries most often have high corruption and low income per citizen (so bribe works very well -- to the point you can say it's a regular aspect of everyday life). Sometimes they try to do the right thing, again there's the Romanian example which recently has raised the prison sentence for cybercrime to some ungodly level (11 years or so IIRC -- I remember it was assessed to be (much) more than the rape sentence). Such a sentence may help scare the 14yr old script-kiddies, but there are cases such as the ones above when you can't touch the criminal. And then you're back to square one.

      Oh, and this is one of the "easy" cases, when all you want is to catch the criminals. The fun begins when there's been a fraud and you're trying to get back some money or merchendise -- good luck then.

      --
      i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
    13. Re:What gives? by The_K4 · · Score: 1

      He he he....too bad they had to put the best looking one in to the Witness Protection Program! :)

      After I got shotdown in small claims court (well the clerks office to fill out tyhe paperwork for small claims court) it got to the point where it became too much time and money to fight over.......i guess that does mean that the company who was clearly wrong wins, but i would spend more time and money winning then it's worth!

    14. Re:What gives? by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      That's my biggest problem with suing spammers. My state has the law but I fear my courts are either a) so technoligically inept that they won't know what to do with the law, or b) they'll not want to deal with it and toss it out for no apparent reason just to be rid of it. Tracking down most spammers is a piece of cake for me cause I've been doing it so long. I just haven't taken the time to personally sue for myself. My state's law has been tested and upheld though, which is a plus.

  23. And in other news... by mishehu · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...the Financial Times reported that it had received a DDoS attack from all those /. readers accessing their site. The Financial Times has responded by offering $50,000 protection money to /. ....

  24. HahaHAhaHehahahehe... by t4b00 · · Score: 1

    HAHAHAHAhahahahaAAAAAAhahaha

    Let the GAMES begin!

  25. Anyone looking for work in security? by phorm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For $50,000 a year, sounds like a decent wage for anyone who's currently unemployed. Why not just hire a good whitehat instead of caving into blackhat demands?

    1. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by fliplap · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And then what exactly is a "good whitehat" going todo to stop a DDoS?

    2. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by ekephart · · Score: 1

      Becuase it would be extremely difficult for a whitehat single-handedly to prevent a sophisticated DDoS attack.

      --
      sig
    3. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by master+control+progr · · Score: 1

      You can anybody you want, but when you get DDoS'd they're just going to be another bystander. We don't have the ability to stop a DDoS on the client (victim) side.

      --
      This is my sig.
    4. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hackers are computer criminals. There is no such thing as a good hacker. Make up a new word.

    5. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by phorm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You could consider, to some extent, a good slashdotting as a form DDOS... so I suppose it depends on how you are getting DDOS'ed. There are ways to stop a slashdotting, and also to stop certain forms of DDOS attacks.

      Of course, the other solution is to employ somebody to track down the buggers doing the DDOS'ing....

    6. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Die, troll. DIE!

    7. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Because I'm telling the TRUTH? AP uses the word "hacker" with a negative connotation. AP is about a billion times more influential than slashdot, so who am I going to side with, a bunch of brainwashed Linux fucktards or the AP?

    8. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Baaaaa
      Baaaaa

    9. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no such thing.

      hackers, by definition, are computer criminals.

    10. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by pen · · Score: 1
      How about we put an end to this slashdotting-as-DDoS argument. A DDoS attack consists of a number of computers flooding the target server with bogus traffic with the intention of taking the server down. A slashdotting consists of a large number of people that visit the site with the intent to read it, and maybe even purchase something. Each hit to the site comes from a real person.

      Yes, the site may become unavailable due to either, but that doesn't mean they're anything similar.

    11. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by smitty45 · · Score: 1

      "There are ways to stop a slashdotting"

      Do you have any suggestions on that ?

    12. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by nutzica · · Score: 1

      Especially when your parents' income is around $150/month...

    13. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by ferkelparade · · Score: 1

      ...other than paying $50k to CmdrTaco?

      --
      frotz grue
    14. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by br0ck · · Score: 2, Informative

      As reported on their cyber attacks page, Spamhaus.org is using the iSecure product from Melior to block the DDoS from mimail and variants. If iSecure fails and spamhaus.org is unreachable, here's the Google cache.

    15. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      And then what exactly is a "good whitehat" going todo to stop a DDoS?

      Change the network specs to use traceable packets.

      (There was a time when one good whitehat who thought of this could have done it.)

    16. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by X_Bones · · Score: 1

      For $50,000 a year, sounds like a decent wage for anyone who's currently unemployed. Why not just hire a good whitehat instead of caving into blackhat demands?

      Maybe because it's not a hacking attack, but a DDoS attack?

      The only way businesses can protect themselves against this is to distribute their content, via Akamai or some other mechanism. Although I wonder why home ISPs don't take more notice of this problem, since every packet sent from their routing domain (by way of the zombie computers these gangs control) costs them money.

    17. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by bigjocker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you have to ask, then you are not a whitehat :)

      There are several techniques, most of them involve identifying a "connection fingerprint" and block it at the ISP level

      --
      Life isn't like a box of chocolates. It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.
    18. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by khufure · · Score: 0

      QoS, Syn-flooding, Router & ISP filtering and hardening, and multiple POPs help. Spreading out your content with an Akamai-like solution also helps.

    19. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by smitty45 · · Score: 1

      QoS ? how's that help with the stabilizing of a site in the face of spiking legitimate traffic ? I would think that throttling the traffic would only serve to produce a 'partial' slashdotting, at best. maybe one out of every 5 requests are handled, etc.

      ISP filtering what and how ? http traffic ?

      how can 'syn-flooding' help mitigate a slashdotting, seeing how a 'synflood' is itself a DOSing-style attack ?

      multiple "POPs" and akamaization, I will agree with, but most sites aren't able to withstand those costs.

      I'm curious if anyone has any techniques on withstanding a slashdotting when the only situation is a classic 1 connection, load-balanced, static html-driven site.

    20. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by naelurec · · Score: 1

      Its a shame .. I always kept a clear distinction between "Hacker" -- a proficient computer user/programmer vs "Cracker" -- someone who using computers to gain illegal access into something.

      However, atleast according to dictionary.com a hacker is now defined as both.. though the cracker definition defines them completely separate from a hacker (infact it goes indepth to distinguish the two) -- too bad it is contradictory to the hacker definition on the SAME SITE.. grr.. no wonder there is confusion.

    21. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by bluesnowmonkey · · Score: 1

      How does a "good whitehat" stop a DDoS? Seriously, I'd like to know.

    22. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such "solutions" are easy to bypass and do not solve the problem.

    23. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      Blocking it at the ISP level is not a real solution. A few years ago I worked for a place that was fed by BBN Planet. We'd get DDoSed every once in a while. BBN planet would apply a filter to their border routers for you to stop the attack, but only for 24 hours. The filters would increase the CPU load on their routers, so they didn't want to have too many in place at once.

      And if you're on a smaller ISP the DDoS attack is probably hurting them too, so applying filters there wouldn't help.

    24. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by UserGoogol · · Score: 1

      Dictionary.com is not a single dictionary, rather it is a compilation of dictionaries which offer their contents online. The Jargon File (the compilation of computer folklore and slang currently maintained by ESR) is included.

      Cracker is only defined as a malicious computer guy in the Jargon File. Hacker, however, is defined in the "good" way in a few "real" dictionaries, including my favorite dictionary in the world, American Heritage.

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    25. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>> $50,000 a year, sounds like a decent wage for anyone who's currently unemployed

      And then in comes from Eastern Europe! My job got outsourced in that area! 200$/week coder. I was told that for them it's like being here with the equivalent of 250K; so they where really happy to do 60 to 90 hours a week for that 200$.

      With 50K you could buy a house in Kazakstan and have food for the next 25 years!

    26. Re:Anyone looking for work in security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try, but there's a catch: good whitehats are currently employed. It's mostly bad IT guys who got canned when the bubble burst.

  26. goddamnit RIAA by grocer · · Score: 1

    Now they're offering business models to organized crime...does anyone really think illegal gambling even thought it was losing money to online gambling until the RIAA started screaming about piracy?

    Now there's irony...

    1. Re:goddamnit RIAA by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

      It never fails. No matter what the topic is and no matter how unreleated, someone has to make an comparison to the RIAA.

      Uh-huh... Right... This is exactly what the RIAA is donig.

      --
      Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
  27. How Much Is Bill's Cut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You gotta wonder if M$ is taking its piece of the action?

  28. About damn time! by Grey_14 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I'm shocked something like this is only coming up now, It's probably happened in the past, and we havent heard about it, but really, these companys are GIGANTIC targets, with deep pockets, and the attackers are not two sleazy toughs with baseball bat's, but skilled(?) crackers, who can remain anonymous,and protect themselves from the law enforcement efforts provided to those with deep pockets. Still though, They run the risk of bringing the law down on DDoS'ers world over, SPEWS and etc. are being ddos'd and dont have the financial backing to bring the law into it, if Law enforcement tracks these guys down, they may extend into anyone doing DDoS's like this. And finally, We could just blame everything on the spammers.

  29. Quick! Someone call SCO! by Our+Man+In+Redmond · · Score: 4, Funny

    Surely this is a violation of their IP in regards to extorting money using online means!

    --
    Someone you trust is one of us.
    1. Re:Quick! Someone call SCO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will people quit moderating this shit as funny. They've been kicking this dead horse for way to fucking long.

    2. Re:Quick! Someone call SCO! by gnu-generation-one · · Score: 1

      "Surely this is a violation of their IP in regards to extorting money using online means!"

      My MP would call it a "computer-implemented invention"

    3. Re:Quick! Someone call SCO! by Our+Man+In+Redmond · · Score: 1

      Will people quit moderating this shit as funny. They've been kicking this dead horse for way to fucking long.

      Oh shut the hell up about SCO and talk about the posts, will you?

      --
      Someone you trust is one of us.
  30. SOLUTION? by exhilaration · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So how do you protect yourself from a DDOS attack? Are there any closed-source or open-source products that can do it? I've seen "network appliances" that claim to protect you, but I haven't read any reviews.

    1. Re:SOLUTION? by Scarblac · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      So how do you protect yourself from a DDOS attack?

      Rumour has it you can get an extra expensive "extra subscriber" account at Slashdot if you pay enough, and then they promise they won't link to you.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    2. Re:SOLUTION? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IANAE, but here's a suggestion:

      First, arrange with lots of DNS servers able to switch subdomain details in a snap.

      Second, set up N web servers: n(1), n(2) [..] on separate networks.

      If n(1) stops replying, n(2) notifies the DNS servers asking them to change the subdomain www.unddosble.com to n(2)'s IP address.

      If n(2) fails, n(3) takes over, and so on.

      Also, these servers should have pretty big pipes, so they can withstand an attack as long as possible.

      Anyone tried something like this?

    3. Re:SOLUTION? by planckscale · · Score: 1
      The solution? A lot of money. Is it worth the price of 4 extra T1's, 12 extra servers/boxes/switches, not to mention labor? The solution is to be able to call up your ISP, tell them you're being DOS'ed and have them call and yourself call the authorities. If the authorities don't help, then we need new authorities.

      --
      Namaste
    4. Re:SOLUTION? by AArmadillo · · Score: 1

      I highly doubt any single 'network appliance' could protect you from a DDoS attack. A DDoS simply fills your bandwidth -- any filters would have to be placed upstream, where a large-bandwidth router is sending data to your (relative) low-bandwidth connection. If you plan ahead, you can have a multihomed network (ie, two entirely seperate upstream routers) but this doesn't prevent DDoS kiddies from hitting both of your 'homes.'

    5. Re:SOLUTION? by jwhitener · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was under the assumption that products are available that allow you to block traffic from any IP that sends data over a pre-defined threshold. This block happens automatically when the data limit is reached.

      After the IP is marked as "blocked", the program can dynamically re-direct the traffic down a small pipe of its own.

      The problem is, when a new packet comes in, a program still has to run a check to see what IP its from, and make a decision whether to keep it or block it. That in itself takes work, and if the traffic level is very high, that small amount of work can create a ddos effect itself.

      The best solutions lean more towards the hardware level. With programs flashing/writing new instructions to very robuts switches and routers that block traffic that exceeds certain conditions before it even enters the space that your website resides in.

    6. Re:SOLUTION? by merlin_jim · · Score: 2, Informative

      I was under the assumption that products are available that allow you to block traffic from any IP that sends data over a pre-defined threshold. This block happens automatically when the data limit is reached.

      But in a DDoS attack, the traffic is coming from thousands of IPs... even if each one individually trips that threshold, there's no reason a DDoS can't IP-spoof. As a matter of fact most of them do anyways, because it generates three times as many packets if the SYN/ACK handshake protocol fails...

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    7. Re:SOLUTION? by Kenja · · Score: 1

      Most DDoS attacks do not use up your bendwidth but instead overload your server. A good firewall with statefull packet checking can reduce the risk of such attacks. Hell, my little Netscreen 5XP at home does this very well.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    8. Re:SOLUTION? by r00t_ur_b0x · · Score: 1

      Problem is that even if you were able to get this arrangement with the core DNS servers, DNS replication by the ISPs (which is where nearly everyone gets DNS info) will take far too long to propagate - probably on the order of 24 hours or so. Unless you can notify all of these ISP DNS servers to update (which is unlikely for a multitude of reasons) you will have a relatively long downtime.

    9. Re:SOLUTION? by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      Hmmm. Well, I've never used the products I described (just talked to a friend about them).

      So in reality, there isn't anything you can do if the IP attack of each client is constantly changing its sent IP address by spoofing?

      Is it possible to spoof a mac address? Perhaps the products that were described to me rely on a number (other than an IP) that is harder to spoof.

    10. Re:SOLUTION? by merlin_jim · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are networks that are resistant to DDoS attacks... basically the network just block superfluous traffic.

      Unfortunately, there is no solution to DDoS attacks other than good security at the edges of the network. As long as anyone in the world can install Win98, not run Windows Update once, get cable internet service, and not be held accountable by their ISP for any bad things their computer may do that they didn't know about... DDoS will always be with us.

      A strategy to deal with DDoS must be part policy, part networking hardware, part server hardware, and part software. Basically, you use an ISP whose routing hardware is DDoS resistant, you over-build your servers, and trim the software. That should eliminate big points of failure. At least until the next generation DDoS software comes out.

      If I were to design a perfect world where DDoS attacks don't happen, I would enact legislation (world-wide, mind you... though only a few countries implementing it would be a good thing)... basically requiring two things:

      1. An internet router is responsible for ensuring that packets coming from outside the internet are from an IP address that is directly connected to it
      2. An internet router is required to suspend service for 1 hour in the case of a packet storm, where a packet storm is a series of packets from one IP to another IP utilizing 50% of the available bandwidth

      Alternatively, a less severe suggestion for number 2... if you see a packet storm, throttle the bandwidth of those packets severely for 10 minutes.

      If every ISP implemented the above two rules, DDoS would be MUCH harder to implement.

      You can build a DDoS resistant router based on heuristics... if you see a sudden spike in traffic going to a particular server, then put that traffic on a lower priority level. As you see packets come across, characterise them. Once a certain number of packets share a certain number of characteristics in a certain amount of time, it is safe to assume that the packets are part of a DDoS and should be filtered for a small period of time... 15 minutes or so; just enough to keep the traffic to a manageable level.

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    11. Re:SOLUTION? by merlin_jim · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is it possible to spoof a mac address? Perhaps the products that were described to me rely on a number (other than an IP) that is harder to spoof.

      It is possible, but commodity networking cards generally don't support it (for a reason)

      But I do not believe that mac addresses survive transit to the internet...

      Many ISPs DO require static mac addresses, though, and if your mac address / IP address aren't the same then they don't route your packets. This was a big inconvenience to people with a home network until NATs started getting the feature to imitate a particular mac address.

      Anyways, if your ISP requires your mac address, then you can't IP spoof... because they'll have a big table in a router saying what IP addresses belong to what macs, and if the two numbers on any upstream packet aren't in the table... it just won't route the packet.

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    12. Re:SOLUTION? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not nessecarely. Did you try myip when they still offered a free service?

      If you registered a subdomain, it was up and running and available within one minute.
      I believe this can be done with subdomains only, but then again, I am not an expert

    13. Re:SOLUTION? by scovetta · · Score: 1

      I think Apache has an anti-DOS feature now, pretty simple, if you send it too many requests in too short a time, it drops everything you send for X amount of time. I can't see it being very difficult to keep a buffer of source IPs and a counter at the router level and stop things that way-- How many systems are used in a DDOS attack? Even a few thousand shouldn't be difficult to spot, flag, and then drop. I presume the bottleneck is on a server doing processing, so just nab it before it gets there. I never understood why DDOS was still a big deal, seems like a solvable problem to me...

      --
      Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
    14. Re:SOLUTION? by master+control+progr · · Score: 1

      If we're doing this upstream, why not just require ISP's to use Ingress Filtering? Getting rid of the ability to spoof your IP makes it a lot harder to DOS.

      --
      This is my sig.
    15. Re:SOLUTION? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've been getting some really good lab reults in testing with the Floodguard and the Crunchbox. both combined makes for a really powerful way of stopping DDOS attacks, but the only problem is that the ISP's would have to allow access to their upstream routers to stop it, and this is a political problem in that ISP's would never allow a 3rd party to control their routers.

      Until this happens, there really isn't anything out there that can actually stop or mitigate a DDOS attack.

    16. Re:SOLUTION? by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      It is possible, but commodity networking cards generally don't support it (for a reason)

      I beg to differ, every card I've tried allows MAC spoofing. Just try "ifconfig hw ether XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX" on your card to see if it works (I'm assuming that Linux is being used).

      MAC spoofing is only really useful on subnets, however, since (IIRC) ARP data doesn't get broadcast through gateways. For the immoral, however, such spoofing is a great way to get around licensing software such as FlexLM.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    17. Re:SOLUTION? by pacman+on+prozac · · Score: 1

      2. An internet router is required to suspend service for 1 hour in the case of a packet storm, where a packet storm is a series of packets from one IP to another IP utilizing 50% of the available bandwidth

      Only problem is that makes it even easier to drop routers, and along with them ISPs & hosts.

      Good egress filtering would be a start, pursuading the entire world to implement it is another matter. Even then you are going to have trouble avoiding a flood of geniune traffic, especially from a distributed network....how do you tell someone hasn't just linked your site from /.

      A good windows firewall that ISP's could give away with their setup CD's would do the world a huge favour.

  31. The detective in the story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is named Mick Deats. Anyone else see that previous Slashdot article on how wrods aer lgebile eevn wneh letters are transposed? To Mr. Deats...I'm so sorry.

    1. Re:The detective in the story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's awsome!
      Dick Meats, heheh

  32. New Financial Model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess this is a new Microsoft Subscription Service :)

  33. How do they accept payment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Do they use paypal?

  34. Wrong, it is ILLEGAL! by John+Seminal · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Companies should be allowed to install horrible software filled with security holes and people should not break into these systems. The corporations own these software packages, and the hacker has no rights. If compuetr science students think they will get more money by extorting these companies so they pay more for administrators, then that is extortion. When you get down to it, this is no different than a criminal breaking and entering into someones house, then saying "the owner left his door unlocked, i was helping improve security". I think we must have strong sentances where convicted hackers go to prision for as many years as if they broke into a home.

    What you see happening is what will cause more restrictions on freedom in an attempt to control illegal activity.

    --

    Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    1. Re:Wrong, it is ILLEGAL! by master+control+progr · · Score: 1

      Your analogy is a little weak. In this case, the criminals are not getting into the house through an open door, they're coming in through the wide open space where the walls should be. When vulnerabilities are discovered, companies issue patches and (usually) security is improved.

      --
      This is my sig.
    2. Re:Wrong, it is ILLEGAL! by pen · · Score: 1

      Well, it's more like a big store than a house; And the hackers are effectively (and deliberately) blocking the entrance to the store for paying customers. It doesn't matter what means they use to achieve this effect.

    3. Re:Wrong, it is ILLEGAL! by sjbrown · · Score: 1

      When you get down to it, this is no different than a criminal breaking and entering into someones house, then saying "the owner left his door unlocked

      Ugh. How many times are we going to see this analogy. Slashdot's lameness filter should be able to catch this one by now. If you're trying to prove that it's easy to abuse analogies, congratulations, point made. Here let me help:

      This is the same as a bank putting up a big sign that says "We Have Money In Here!", then, when someone comes up to a teller and asks for some money, the teller just hands it over instead of checking to see if they have an account.

      Yes, I know. IHBT. Whatever.

    4. Re:Wrong, it is ILLEGAL! by thedillybar · · Score: 1

      ...and people should not break into these systems...

      In theory, this makes some sense. In practice, it does not.

      The fact of the matter is that someone will eventually exploit the security hole. I would much rather have it be some computer science students than a criminal. The computer science students will harmlessly inform me of the security hole (or do something resulting in very little damage). The criminal will steal my passwords and credit card numbers and do some serious damage.

      Your argument that it is illegal doesn't carry much weight. Once upon a time it was illegal for African Americans to own property too. Our laws can approach perfection, but they can never achieve it. And right now I must wonder if they are even approaching it...

    5. Re:Wrong, it is ILLEGAL! by milkman_matt · · Score: 3, Funny
      Well, it's more like a big store than a house; And the hackers are effectively (and deliberately) blocking the entrance to the store for paying customers. It doesn't matter what means they use to achieve this effect.

      So if blocking a big store is like hacking.. and hackers are terrorists... All those grocery store employees striking here in California are terrorists!?
      :)

      -matt

    6. Re:Wrong, it is ILLEGAL! by k12linux · · Score: 1
      So if blocking a big store is like hacking.. and hackers are terrorists... All those grocery store employees striking here in California are terrorists!?

      No, the hackers are preventing the companies from doing business and the... oh. Wait, I got it.. the hackers are doing this to get more money and the strikes are to... oh nevermind. :(

    7. Re:Wrong, it is ILLEGAL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Fuck, that's getting old, isn't it? They lost all of my sympathy after about a week. I felt a little guilty the first time I went to the usual grocery store because the cashiers that I know were giving me the stinkeye and the like. Now, I'm over it. You're all overpaid anyways.

      Get back to work, slappy (yes, I know it's ironic that I say that at noon on a Wednesday while posting to slashdot). The scabs are as good at their jobs as you were after all this time, and now you're just annoying the public at large.

    8. Re:Wrong, it is ILLEGAL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the grocery workers strike is to keep the companies from removing health benefits which were paid for under their previous contract. Thus they are not trying to get "more", they are simply trying to keep what they have. We all better hope labor prevails otherwise they will be simply the first domino in a long chain of what I call "executive benefits propped up on the backs of the middle class"

    9. Re:Wrong, it is ILLEGAL! by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
      It does not matter who YOU would want to exploit the security hole unless you own the systems. If it is your software or system, then you can allow anyone to do anything they wish. The point is if someone else owns it, then nobody has any right to be poking around.

      Your second point "that it is illegal doesn't carry much weight" will be addressed by law makers once they start passing very tough laws. If these activities are effecting buisnesses, I can assure you they have lobby groups to make sure tougher laws get passed. And when it happens, I am sure there will be an outcry when the first Comp Sci student goes to jail for running a sniffer on someone else's network.

      Personally, I can not understand why a hacker wants to tinker with other people's property and bandwith. The "good" hackers will one day be the Admins who will have to deel with the next generation of script kiddies who make their life a living hell, and cause them to get paged at 10pm.

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    10. Re:Wrong, it is ILLEGAL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that you have the Patriot Act, you don't need to go through so much trouble. It's really easy: do you like person A? No? Then person A is a terrorist. Yes? Then you're a terrorist.

    11. Re:Wrong, it is ILLEGAL! by ndogg · · Score: 1

      That's all fine and dandy, but the reality is that we need security. To believe that laws can solve all the problems is a fantasy.

      It's illegal to murder, but it still happens.
      Pedophilia is illegal, but kids still need their parents to look out for them.

      What you point out is an unrealistic look at the world. It doesn't matter why a cracker would want to do the things he would do. What matters is that he does them. If legislation stopped such activity, then there would be no need for police or armies.

      --
      // file: mice.h
      #include "frickin_lasers.h"
    12. Re:Wrong, it is ILLEGAL! by Atryn · · Score: 1
      Well, it's more like a big store than a house; And the hackers are effectively (and deliberately) blocking the entrance to the store for paying customers. It doesn't matter what means they use to achieve this effect. So if blocking a big store is like hacking.. and hackers are terrorists... All those grocery store employees striking here in California are terrorists!?
      Ummm... You seem to forget that striking workers do not BLOCK the entrance to a store, they merely pickett in front of the store and encourage people not to enter. The hacker analogy would be more akin to anti-abortion protestors violently blocking/preventing entrance to a clinic, which is, BTW, illegal.
      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    13. Re:Wrong, it is ILLEGAL! by milkman_matt · · Score: 1
      Ummm... You seem to forget that striking workers do not BLOCK the entrance to a store, they merely pickett in front of the store and encourage people not to enter. The hacker analogy would be more akin to anti-abortion protestors violently blocking/preventing entrance to a clinic, which is, BTW, illegal.

      Yeah but that's why I put the ":)" after the post, it was a joke :P

      Then again.. you've gotta admit, it was a -far- better analogy than most of the ones you see around here :)

      -matt

    14. Re:Wrong, it is ILLEGAL! by bechthros · · Score: 1

      Well, when my car was broken into, the first question the cops asked was "was your door locked?" When I said no, they shrugged and left. The insurance company said, "was your door locked?" When I (foolishly) replied that it wasn't, they refused to pay. Your analogy is specious, but I'm kidna wondering if you weren't being sarcastic in the first place, just by your first sentence...

  35. Stupid Gangs... What they ought to do by EricWright · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... is patent DDoSs, then extort, er... I mean, charge licensing fees, to anyone invoking a DDoS against a site. I mean, isn't that what US patents are good for these days?

  36. Blackmail ? by BillsPetMonkey · · Score: 1

    It exposes companies to blackmail? I wonder what they're finding? The corporate ethics grey area steps in to cloud the issue ...

    --
    "It's not your information. It's information about you" - John Ford, Vice President, Equifax
  37. must be crips... by Greenisus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    cuz bloods kill

  38. Top 10 New Mafia Websites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    www.lac0san0stra.com
    www.sicialiand00ds.net
    www. Omerta-Online.com
    www.e-Bottomofthe-Bay.org
    www. SlashStabShootThrottle-dot.org
    www.hotbotta-bing. net
    cor.leo.ne
    www.SleepswiththeBabelFishes.org
    www.We-Hack-and-We-Whack.com
    www.Go-Go-Gotti.inf o

  39. Re:And what makes you think.... by botzi · · Score: 1

    Organized crime has always been ready to utilize new technology in the persuit of money / Power.

    that it's orgranized crime we're talking about? Of course if you call 15-25 teens looking for the easy big money and thinking that in their country there'll never eb found, yes you're right.
    Seriously, I don't recall a DDoS attack done by a major person. Anyone has a counter-example?

    --
    1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
  40. Doesn't matter by morzel · · Score: 1
    Hiring consultants or better administrators won't help much. This is not about poor security or a bad setup, but about raw bandwidth and server resources that are being drained because other people's setups were compromised.
    Basically, there's nothing you can do (in a technological fashion) about it. Only thing that you can do is hunt them down and sue them; which is not that simple in a global environment.

    --
    Okay... I'll do the stupid things first, then you shy people follow.
    [Zappa]
    1. Re:Doesn't matter by PGillingwater · · Score: 1

      > Basically, there's nothing you can do (in a technological fashion) about it. Only thing that you can do is hunt them down and sue them; which is not that simple in a global environment.

      Bzzzt! Wrong. I grant that there is nothing you can do as the victim of a DDOS, except to design networks with good peering, your own AS and multiple providers with good upstream filtering, however there is a simple, technical solution, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread -- all ISPs should filter their outgoing packets to prevent spoofing.

      It's true this won't entirely eliminate DDOS -- but it will make the tracking of the origin (the zombie) much easier, and therefore ease the challenge of upstream filtering.

      --
      Paul Gillingwater
      MBA, CISSP, CISM
  41. Why do I Keep Getting Left Out? by coupland · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fifteen years ago all the cool kids would make fun of me and call me a computer geek and never pick me for the baseball team and stuff. Now all the cool geeks are going off forming gangs and taking down servers and I'm still left out! I can't figure this world out...

    1. Re:Why do I Keep Getting Left Out? by NotAnotherReboot · · Score: 1

      You think the 'cool geeks' are the ones doing this? No, this is a small number of people who lack any morals and are not seen as cool to anyone, whereas the "cool kids" in school that made fun of people are now the ones bagging groceries. Let some time go and you'll see that these 'cool geeks' are no cooler than the bullies of elementary.

    2. Re:Why do I Keep Getting Left Out? by reconn · · Score: 1
      [...]no cooler than the bullies of elementary.

      Except with rolex watches and fast cars and beautiful east european girlfriends.

      --
      Everything that was once directly lived has receded into a representation. -debord
  42. Follow the money by ttyp0 · · Score: 1

    I doubt the gangs ask for cash to be left in a briefcase in the park. I assume they use PayPal, Wire Transfer, Money Order to a PO, etc.. Anytime electronic money moves it can be traced to the receiver. Just report them to their local police.

    1. Re:Follow the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, why didn't we think of that!

      Thanks,
      The National Hi-Tech Crime Unit of Britain

    2. Re:Follow the money by dustinbarbour · · Score: 1

      ..then punch them in the face!

    3. Re:Follow the money by calethix · · Score: 1

      Thanks, you just reminded me of Office Space. :)
      'I don't know nothing about no money laundering'

      That was a great movie.

    4. Re:Follow the money by taustin · · Score: 1

      Given the countries these kinds of attacks come from, it's likely they are the local police.

  43. I'm surprised no one has mentioned by mblase · · Score: 2, Insightful

    DDoS attacks require a *lot* of hacked computers. Usually Microsoft OSes with low security settings.

    It annoys me that MS's bad approach to security is now threatening businesses worldwide on two levels, first by exposing their own computers and then by exposing them to distributed attacks by the general populace. Even businesses that didn't have a single MS system in use are affected by one company's half-@$$ed security practices.

    Not trying to troll, just making a genuine point. If consumer computers were security-locked by default, DDoS attacks would be infinitely more difficult to pull off.

    1. Re:I'm surprised no one has mentioned by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Let's say HP and Gateway were extorted several times. They'd suddenly have an incentive to install and support Linux.

      Nah...they'd pressure Microsoft to do a rush job with their next "more secure" OS.

      Well, it was a good daydream while it lasted.

  44. Hmm by downix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The primary targets appear to be gambling sites.

    Why is it whenever the mob is involved, their first target are gambling sites? Next thing it will be online porn and pharmacudicals.

    --
    Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
    1. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Next thing it will be online porn ...

      Online porn? When did that happen?

    2. Re:Hmm by rawshark · · Score: 1

      A: you want to hit a "dotcom" site-- one where the site actively generates money for the company, since thats where it hits them the hardest

      B: Gambling sites, as well as pr0n, makes money

      C: I imagine eBay/Amazon are too big to knuckle under these people, or have the bandwidth to deal with them

    3. Re:Hmm by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

      These Kidz have big balls. I'd be wary of extorting a gambling sites. Usually people involved in gambling are 'connected' and can afford real protection, the kind with lead slugs and silencers. From what I have heard, they already employ hackers of their own that could track these people down. Ever heard the stories of how Las Vegas' phone system has been 0wn3d for years? Can't think what would break up a gang of asshat hackers better than bullets to the back of the head.

      --
      music lover since 1969
    4. Re:Hmm by SplendidIsolatn · · Score: 1

      The primary targets appear to be gambling sites.

      I also think in part it's because in certain areas of the world, those sites will get a lot less sympathy from outside authorities, especially if the activities are illegal in those areas. If I'm an authority in Country A, and someone tells me that people in my country are crippling servers for a Company B in Country B, where the service Company B provides is illegal in my part of Country A, I'm going to be a lot less enthusiastic about helping them track down said hackers.

      --
      sig--we don't need no goddamn sig
    5. Re:Hmm by dexter+riley · · Score: 1

      bullets to the back of the head

      Also known as the ping of death.

  45. Probrably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He went to the University of Oklahoma. There aren't too many things he knows, like how to sign his name. Never mind what a DDOS attack is.

    1. Re:Probrably not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot your name, let alone sign it=)

  46. Obli.... by devphaeton · · Score: 1

    I for one, welcome our new packet-wielding Overlords....

    (and stuff).

    Seriously...

    When are eCommerce and all these other jagoffs going to get tired of Tha Intarw3b so that us geeks can have it back? O_o

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
  47. This sounds fishy by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    I wonder to what extent this is largely invention. I find it hard to believe this is remotely widespread.

  48. This sounds like a good way for Slashdot to make $ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They could get paid not to post an article because it would otherwise bring a server to it's knees. This happens because so many people read Slashdot and click on the article link at the same time. Most website servers weren't made to handle this kind of sudden increase in traffic. This can result in a Direct Denial of System attack. So if companies know what's good for them and don't want a DDoS denial attack they should pay up!

    Heheheheheheh.

  49. Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or it is as bad as some greedy lady and her lawyers lying in court to get $$$$ from McDonald's just because the lady chose to spill hot coffee on her lap.

    Once you check the facts, this is a textbook example of why we need tort reform, and jail terms for those who dare to bring such frivolous lawsuits to the court room.

    McFact #1) McDonald's sold millions of cups of coffee. Only a few hundred complainers thought it was too hot.

    McFact #2) After McDonald's was forced by this lawsuit to make their coffee cold, customer complaints about the coffee went way up (of course, it was now cold)

    McFact #3) The most important one: she spilled the coffee, not McDonald's. Come on people, if you dump coffee in your own crotch, it is your own fault!

    1. Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit by welthqa · · Score: 1

      From what I remember of the story, she sued not because the coffee was spilled, or hot. But that it was so hot it caused 3rd degree burns. 3rd degree burns. Apparently there were over 700 reports of burns from coffee that was over 180 degrees Fahrenheit. Now I'm as much against frivolous lawsuits as the next guy, but come on, coffee is a hot drink, not a burn your flesh in seconds drink.

      On the topic's note about the extortion. GOOD. I'm looking forward to a cyberpunk dark future. I'm going to get a gun and fight evil clowns, and hack and use monowire, and get a light tattoo. I hope there is more of this anticorporate stuff.

      --


      100% Pure Evil With The Look And Feel Of Wholesome Goodness
    2. Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But that it was so hot it caused 3rd degree burns. 3rd degree burns. Apparently there were over 700 reports of burns from coffee that was over 180 degrees Fahrenheit. "

      700 reports, out of millions of cups sold. It was clearly not "too hot"

    3. Re:Frivolous McDonald's Lawsuit by welthqa · · Score: 1

      Clearly you are missing the point. The number of people who filed complaint with corporate McDonalds does not mean only 700 people were burned. The point isn't how many people. The point is the coffee burned this 79 year old lady so bad, she was hospitalized for 8 weeks and underwent skin grafts. She only initally requested $20,000, but McD's refused so she took them too court.

      Why not get yourself a pot of boiling coffee and dump it in your lap before you post again AC explaining how it is not "too hot".

      --


      100% Pure Evil With The Look And Feel Of Wholesome Goodness
  50. It's even cheaper... by devphil · · Score: 1


    ...to pay the 40 grand to a hitman who will fly to Eastern Europe and put a bullet in the heads of the DDoS gang members. Problem solved for everyone, and permanently.

    Heck, my weekend's free. My suitcase is right here. Anybody got $40,000?

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
    1. Re:It's even cheaper... by satanicat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can imagine the headline. . , hitman kills a bunch-o 14 year olds for 40 grand=)

      --
      How Now Brown Cow
    2. Re:It's even cheaper... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...to pay the 40 grand to a hitman who will fly to Eastern Europe and put a bullet in the heads of the DDoS gang members. Problem solved for everyone, and permanently.

      Heck, my weekend's free. My suitcase is right here. Anybody got $40,000?"

      If you think its just geeks involved in this, you are dead wrong (pun intended). Geeks DDos you for free.

    3. Re:It's even cheaper... by fireweaver · · Score: 1


      devphil (51341) wrote on 2003.11.12 19:45

      >You cannot apply a technological solution to a >sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)

      Bullets are excellent technological solutions to sociological problems like this one.

    4. Re:It's even cheaper... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Question: How do you clean out endemic corruption? What does it take? Really, I would honestly like to know.

      Because 14 year-olds aren't generally this sophisticated... There's a lot of really sophisticated organized crime in Eastern Europe, aided and abetted by corruption in banking and government circles. Nobody's got the cojones to insist they clean up their act, so they'll keep on engaging in wire and credit card fraud, trafficking drugs and prostitutes, and running international extortion rackets. The banks will continue to help them launder their money, and the government officials in their countries will continue to turn blind eyes to their activities.

      Dunno about you, but if it was my business that *I* built, my hard work, my money that I fucking *earned* -- I tend to agree with the solution implied in your post and... well, it's not terribly hard to find people who'll do, "things" for the right price. Your imagination can do the rest.

    5. Re:It's even cheaper... by hughk · · Score: 1

      You would pay a whole lot less than $40K for a local hitman. About $10K tops for Russia and about $2K for the Ukraine. However you would have to find the right target to hit.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  51. how to pay? by maxconsulting · · Score: 0

    It's pretty hard to receive payment in a manner that is untracable. How are they mitigating that?

    1. Re:how to pay? by calethix · · Score: 1

      A lot of people seem to be bringing this up so I'll make a wild guess. However, IANAC (criminal) so I don't really know.
      I would start by opening an account in the name of someone who's identity I've stolen. Once the money was placed in that account, I would transfer it through several more with it eventually ending up in a few accounts which are also under stolen identities. At which point, I would go close out the accounts and leave with my money. I might even have some buddies in other countries collect some of the money from other accounts in there area.
      Good luck tracking that money down.

      If it was as simple as calling up the bank and saying 'hey who's account is this... cool, thanks, let's go arrest 'em guys', it wouldn't be a problem because they would all be caught.

  52. My God someone has finally done it! by Str8Dog · · Score: 3, Funny

    I am stupified... someone has finally found the ????? in the buisness plan. Amazing...

    1. Buy computers
    2. Blackmail companies for $40k or DDoS them
    3. Profit!

    --


    Str8Dog
    using System.Darkside; public
  53. Re:You stupid cunting fuckstick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By facilitating the distributed bit.

  54. Re:And what makes you think.... by The_K4 · · Score: 1

    well there's a lot of suspission that spamers are DDoSing some of the black-list sites. it's not been proven, but if it's true it's the counter-example you are looking for,

  55. Name check... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Detective Superintendent Mick Deats"
    Maybe I should go outside more...
    But, I could have sworn I read the name different...

  56. What can be done? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    So we know that the DDoSes happen, and that they are real pain. There is not much the law can do, especially if the source is in another country. In this case, I ask the question, what can companies do, technologically to deal with the problem? Also, how can you tell the difference between being Slashdotted (some metacrawlers have the same effect) and being DDoSed?

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  57. A good way to combat offshoring? by Rotten168 · · Score: 1

    You figure, if you could get a company to deny all traffic from a specific country... maybe they'd be more willing to hire domestic folks. Or, even better, threaten to ruin companies if they offshore.

  58. scheming by so+sue+mee · · Score: 1

    1. find a company with high volume cheap transactactions (amazon? ebay?) or someone you do not like like Bill's Ole SmallishSofty 2. organize an army of eastern european hackers 3. ddos 4. blackmail 5. PROOOOFFFIIIITTTT!!!!!!!!!

  59. Unfortunate name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    from the article... "Detective Superintendent Mick Deats"

  60. I shake my head... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if I didn't have this intense, general hatred towards Eastern Europe already because of uncontrolled spamming, this happens...

    My question is: wtf is wrong with these people? Is the drinking water contaminated there or something? Or is braindeaded-ness running rampant?

    You know who you are .ro

  61. Slash dot is the best at DDos attacks by gumbysworld · · Score: 0

    Slash dot is the best at DDos attacks.

    All you gotta do is sneak a really good article onto their server. Report this mind blowing article to slashdot and before you know it, the servers are down for days.

    slash dot is the ddos attackers dream.

  62. They make pay to their hacked eBay accounts... by jcrb · · Score: 4, Informative

    which they transfer to one of the 100's of stolen credit card numbers they have which they then go off and use to by something very expensive (in person).

    As a side note, I know a network security company who got hit with one of these, end result? The FBI and the local (eastern european) police arrested and are trying the hackers in question.

    When you start trying to extort real money across international borders you are into real crime. The FBI does investigate these attacks, and I am sure they will get much better at it as time goes on.

    --
    -jon
  63. Kalashnijkov! Kalashnijkov! by The+Ape+With+No+Name · · Score: 1

    Cigani! Juris!

    --
    Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
  64. I have a solution for this mess... by david@ecsd.com · · Score: 1

    ...but it involves Guido and Nunzio tracking down the extortionists and hitting them with baseball bats.

    "Coming from Eastern Europe you say?" says Special Agent Buttbreath. "Too bad, so sad." You then make a call to your anti-extortion squad and they go to work for you.

    Of course, this will take reaseach for the going rates in the country that the threats are coming from; if they want you to pay $10,000, you do $10,001 of bodily damage to them--it doesn't have to be on one person, spread it around to their families--kick their cats. Let them know that they're playing in the big leagues. If the authorities are unwilling, or unable, to do something about this, then the time for vigilantes to step up. Sure, you'll occationally start a war with the real Russian Mafia, but those are the chances you take when you get that MBA, my friends.

    This post was only halfway flippant. Thugs need to find out that there are consequences to their actions, even if that action is hitting enter on a keyboard.

  65. Re:This sounds like a good way for Slashdot to mak by bruns · · Score: 2, Informative

    I donno about anyone else, but twice now the SOSDG's main web server has been Slashdotted, and it didn't even cough. Its on a 1.5/256 DSL line. Maybe it could be because we don't load our pages down with tons of crap, and don't depend on SQL databases to do our main content.

    *shrug*

    Or it could be that we just know how to run our server really well :)

    --
    Brielle
  66. Karmic in a way... by CaptTofu · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For the outsourcing some companies have been doing. You let some Ukrainian company design software for integral parts of your organisation's business and later get screwed by some thugs blackmailing you, well, this is one of those cases where maybe you should have paid a little more to hire domestic programmers who come from a less thugocratic society.

    Saving a buck has its limits!

  67. DDoS extortion for cheapskates... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "Pay me $40.000 by Monday or I'll get your site posted on Slashdot!"

  68. Question.. by Archalien · · Score: 1

    How come blackhats never seem to figure out that they are destroying the very thing (Internet) that they are using for personal gain?

    What does it take to instill a little cause-and-effect knowledge?

    I too once had a dark side on the Internet and it didn't take me very long to realize "Hey, I like this huge source of information and facility of communication... I think I'll quit polluting it."

    Those who destroy the very thing they are causing the destruction with are kicking their own ass.

    Wake up and respect yourself and the things you find so useful.

    1. Re:Question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That one should be modded up +1, insightful.

  69. Worldpay by rf0 · · Score: 1

    This is what hit Worldpay a few days ago where their system was just flooded with bogus orders. Not a traditional DDOS but still just as effective. more details

    Rus

    1. Re:Worldpay by pegr · · Score: 1

      Nope, the attacks on WorldPay were network-level, not application level. This is the same old Trin00-type crap Yahoo got hit with. Now if the attack were on the app level, just imagine how fscked up the backside systems would be as well!

  70. Extorsion by jabber01 · · Score: 1

    And this is different from Microsoft's "embrace, extend, and necessitate upgrade" policy how, exactly?

    --

    The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
    What you do today will cost you a day of your life

    1. Re:Extorsion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't know, but what's your point again?

      It doesn't matter what the topic is, some loser asswipe always has to post some offtopic "M$" bash. Grow up.

    2. Re:Extorsion by The_Steel_General · · Score: 1
      And this is different from Microsoft's "embrace, extend, and necessitate upgrade" policy how, exactly?
      1. They're asking for the money upfront!
      2. Much more difficult to register their products for copyright protection!
      3. Two words: Free T-Shirts!
      4. No big release festival for "WinDDoS 95"!
      5. Hey, at least it doesn't come with Clippy the helpful paper clip!
      Remainder of the top ten list left to the general public.

      TSG

    3. Re:Extorsion by jabber01 · · Score: 1

      Coward!

      The point is very much the denial of service. MS does deny service to force you to upgrade to their newest version. They've done it with Office all along. They do it with Windows, since patching and repatching makes the previous version so unstable that you have to upgrade to get any real work done. Most recently, they did it with Messenger.

      It doesn't matter what the topic is, some loser asswipe AC always has to post some abuse drivel without actually considering the validity of the point being made. Grow up.

      --

      The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
      What you do today will cost you a day of your life

    4. Re:Extorsion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      MS does deny service to force you to upgrade to their newest version. They've done it with Office all along. They do it with Windows, since patching and repatching makes the previous version so unstable that you have to upgrade to get any real work done. Most recently, they did it with Messenger.

      And RedHat is doing it now as well, as does IBM and CA and Sybase and everyone else who realizes that supporting a product base requires money. I guess these little facts escape you, but that's OK. Oh, and wait a few months for the announcement from SuSe as well. When that story breaks, you can link to my post here to show everyone how wrong I was.

      Welcome to the real world. You know, where stuff costs money. "Asswipe".

    5. Re:Extorsion by jabber01 · · Score: 1

      You'd almost have a good argument, if you didn't have to punctuate your point with insult.

      Thing is, there is quite a bit of difference between charging for support, and deliberately making the previous product obsolete to force a paid-for upgrade.

      Red Hat, IBM and the rest, when selling commodity software, sell their "value added" product, not the essential base product. MS sells the base, and forces the upgrade path.

      Linux can be run with a bit of blood, sweat and tears, without Red Hat's "value". Apache is free, while WebSphere is Apache + bugs. Eclipse is free, while WSAD is Eclipse + plug-ins + config effort. There's nothing that can be done, legally, to get in on the ground floor of Windows - 90% of desktops, as I'm sure you know, is why there's no "hook" or "value added" to entice the user.

      All the distro companies, that add valuable "value" have every right to charge for it. Win, Office, and to a large degree IE, have the average customer by the short-hairs, and so MS exploits this situation to squeeze every dime of profit out of the ignorant. It may make perfect sense in Adam Smith's world, and works in the "real" one as well, but the ability to pro9fit certainly doesn't make it "right" or "fair".

      But you go right ahead and insult me if it makes you feel good about yourself, troll.

      --

      The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
      What you do today will cost you a day of your life

  71. Would this stop DDoS? by froggle2003 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For some time I've pondered the ways to stop DDoS.

    Couldn't you write a program that scans each incoming packet and keeps statistics. Won't DDoS packets come far more frequently from a given source?

    Is there a way to avoid spoofed packets by making sure you can reply to the source first? Shouldn't current protocols be designed to avoid spoofing? Or is it more fundamental (e.g. spoofing must be solved at a lower layer in the networking model)?

    Where are the machines these attacks originate from located? Can't we get their ISPs to get rid of them, or ban ISPs that are known to be bad?

    1. Re:Would this stop DDoS? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Packet sources are often randomized, so as to hide the attacker. An attempt to reply to the source adds more work to your server. Finally, the biggest problem comes from your internet connection being wasted at full capacity.

    2. Re:Would this stop DDoS? by onomatomania · · Score: 1

      You demonstrate a massive lack of understanding about how DDoS attacks actually work.

      It doesn't matter what you do with the packets. You can analyze them all you want. You can discard every single packet. The result would be the same. Once you've received them the damage is already done, it's pointless to even bother looking at their contents. When someone DDoSes you, it completely and totally saturates your network connection. Legitimate packets are dropped before they can possibly reach you. No amount of analysis of the packets will change anything. Even if you could distinguish with 100% accuracy which packets were bogus and which were legit, it would not help you, as the majority of legitimate packets will never see your equipment -- they will be dropped at some point upstream of your connection.

      "Making sure you can reply to the source first"? Are you joking? When this happens your network connection is COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY USELESS. DEAD. You might as well shut everything off until the flood stops.

      As far as determining which ISPs these packets come from, good luck. If it is truly distributed, they come from all over the world. And the source is almost always spoofed so it's not like you can just look at the packets and determine where they're coming from... Yes, in theory this shouldn't be possible. If every ISP insituted egress filtering, it would make things like this a lot harder. But most ISPs refuse to do this. Sometimes it's out of complete incompetance, other times it's justified by "we don't have enough CPU in our routers to do egress filtering." But essentially, it boils down to the fact that doing egress filtering will cost them money and it has zero effect on potential customers (nobody knows or cares about this), so it's not likely to be done any time soon. Sad, but true. There was recently a discussion of this matter on the DShield mailing list, if you want more background.

      And, even if you could somehow identify which ISP the packets were coming from, good luck doing anything about it. Take the case of spam. We've been trying to get all these open anonymous proxies taken down for years, but yet there are still thousands of nets across the globe that just don't listen to or don't have an abuse desk. It's a completely futile endeavor. In the case of spam there's no question as to the IP addresses of these open proxies, and I'm sure countless pissed off postmasters have sent email to the abuse@ address responsible for these machines, only to be routinely ignored.

      So, in summary:
      - When a DDoS strikes you it knocks you off the net completely
      - It's usually impossible to tell the true source of the traffic
      - If done well the traffic will appear to come from thousands of different sources and so it can't be easily filtered upstream
      - ISPs have shown zero desire to implement egress filtering, which if done univerally would make spoofing impossible or very difficult

      The best you can hope for is that the traffic has some identifying pattern, such as every packet having the same source or destination port. If this is the case AND you have a competant and cooperative upstream, you can make some headway with filtering, but expect to have a massive amount of dropped legitimate packets because of the sheer volume. And if done correctly the flood packets cannot be easily filtered.

  72. solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) shut off the internet.
    2) disinfect and patch EVERY COMPUTER in the WORLD.
    3) profit?

    windows, linux, bsd... everything has had security holes in it. there are, unfortunately, MANY zombie machines that simply never get patched. heck, i'll wager there are some with incorrect dates that still have some of those historical worms running on them.

    there are thousands and thousands of zombie machines, and it only takes a handful of packets to trigger them.. and some of those machines are on massive huge pipes.

    do what some US universities did -- simply shut off access to -everyone- until they either patch their machine or sign a waiver.

    To quote Wheel of Time: "Have to clear rubble before you can build"

    Ignorance is not an excuse. Find the zombie machines and punish their owners.

  73. Never pay. by AmoebafromSweden · · Score: 1

    The solution is simple.

    Never Pay.

    Kidnapping only became a business because people payed.

    Of course it is not funny for someone who get their relatives kidnapped och their networks DOS'ed.

    Are someone sad because they relatives are kidnapped? That kidnapping would never have happened if the kidnappers hadnt gotten any money in the first place.

    It CAN end here tonight.

    1. Re:Never pay. by Liselle · · Score: 1

      This is like the issues with Spammers and spam email. We can sit here and bat around the idea that "if everyone stopped buying the stuff they'd go out of business", but clearly this is not going to happen. So, it's not a viable solution, unfortunately. As usual, there is no such thing as a simple answer to a complex problem.

      --
      Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
  74. Any company that pays is stupid by cyberlotnet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its not like Gang A can Stop Gang B from DDos attacking a network.. This is not the slums where they can have hired henchmen beat anyone else trying to inch into there area.

    You pay gang A to go away.. a month later gang B hits you.. You complain to gang A.. They tell you its not them.. You pay gang B.. a month later gang C hits you.. WASH and Repeat till your company is broke

    1. Re:Any company that pays is stupid by Galvatron · · Score: 1

      ...then gang A hits you again, only they claim to be gang D. Yeah, the whole thing is just stupid.

      --
      "The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
    2. Re:Any company that pays is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well... that's one way to cure the world of capitalism. ;)

  75. whooooooaaaaa by Marc2k · · Score: 1

    Holy crap, you stole the crap out of my name!

    --
    --- What
  76. The internet needs to change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need mandatory egress filtering for every ISP, and also we need standards for upstream filtering.

    1. Re:The internet needs to change by TheTomcat · · Score: 1

      That WOULD have solved the problem.

      The same is true of spam and open relays, though.

      S

    2. Re:The internet needs to change by k12linux · · Score: 1

      What ever happend to the good old days where entire ISPs got blacklisted when they didn't do their job and where incorrectly configured mail servers with open relays were blocked as well? Yeah, it sucks to get blacklisted, but it sure does get you to fix the problem and fast at that.

    3. Re:The internet needs to change by TheTomcat · · Score: 1

      The blacklist hosts were DDoSed into oblivion.

      Ironically..
      (-:

      S

    4. Re:The internet needs to change by leerpm · · Score: 1

      IPv6 will fix this. Because of the hierarchy in the addressing methodology, ISPs will be able to drop any packets coming from source IPs that do not match the network they are directly responsible for.

    5. Re:The internet needs to change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What ever happend to the good old days where entire ISPs got blacklisted when they didn't do their job.

      Fortunately those pricks were DDOS'd out of existence. I say fortunately, as I was collateral damage, and there was nothing we could realistically do. We are a small company without the time or money to move to a completely different service provider. We had little pull on the ISP, and honestly they were fighting the problems, but new spammers sign up as customers every day -- and they have contracts also. The ISP has to prove the spammer violated the contract, then terminate them. By that time, more spammers have signed up. These hardcore blacklists were total bullshit, I'm glad SPEWS is gone.

      Posting anonymously so the spam nazi's don't attack my servers.

    6. Re:The internet needs to change by TheTomcat · · Score: 1

      Nothing stopping ISPs from implementing this in IPv4, even.

      Tell your router to drop traffic that doesn't have a source or destination of your block, and it will. No IPv6 magic necessary.

      The problem is that ISPs won't, and don't.

      S

  77. Bregovic rules by metulj · · Score: 2, Informative
    Translation for you non-South Slavs:

    Cigani! Juris!: Gypsies! Attack!

    Too funny. Get the money!

  78. It is not that simple by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 1

    The gangs can *TRY* to extort money, but in the long run, it would be cheaper to hire consultants or better administrators. This will have the effect of IMPROVING security worldwide. Thanks European gangs!

    Speaking as a systems security consultant, I cannot disagree. But keep in mind that using that logic we'll have to thank burglars for door and windows security improvements, while in fact those improvements are only needed to keep our homes safe from those very same burglars in the first place. They are not part of the solution, but part of the problem, as Bruce Schneier would say.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
  79. that much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What company has a website that makes in excess of $40,000-$50,000 a year? Excluding eBay and Amazon maybe.

    1. Re:that much? by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not just that a company directly makes money from their web presence. Many companies provide information at no cost to it's consumers (FAQ's, Knowlege Bases, Instructions, etc...). The availability of these resources often lead to our purchasing a product.

  80. To put this in perspective... by InfraredEyes · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...the targets need not be large companies with high-profile Websites. My small (5 person) company is just now recovering from a DDOS attack against the DNS server used by our ISP; as of yesterday evening, they were getting repeated hits from at least 15,000 zombies. Our email and our Website were completely inaccessible for about 24 hours, and many other DNS customers will have suffered similarly. Various changes in server IP address etc. seem to have fixed the problem for now. The advice from the DNS server people is to use at least two independent DNS services in future. It must hurt to have to tell customers, in effect, to do business with your competitors to ensure service.

  81. do your homework, son by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 1

    It pays to know what you're talking about.

    McReality #1) That coffee was 185 degrees fahrenheit. Over 700 people complained about it.

    McReality #2) You can still get a hot cup of coffee at McDonald's

    McReality #3) McDonald's sold her a dangerous product. If I buy a phone that explodes when dropped, should the company be liable for damages if I drop it?

    --

    --
    the strongest word is still the word "free"
  82. Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It should be "Gangs extort money from companies..."

    Duh.

  83. Consultants? Better admins? Bah! by dark-br · · Score: 1

    hire consultants or better administrators...

    I say hire some bad ass psyco punk to hunt those h4x0rs down and givem a full load... maybe hit them with old routers, stickem fingers on powersources, or better then all, use those printers that can print on stone and wood to tatoo those fuckers "ive been ddosed" on the forehead!!

    Ok... im much more calm now :)

  84. is this a troll? by SethJohnson · · Score: 1


    Not sure if you are trolling. I'll bite.

    These criminals aren't cracking the systems of the people they're squeezing money from. They're performing a denial of service attack from a bunch of other comprimised systems and demanding money from their targets. It doesn't matter what software their victims have installed. The criminals are exploiting vulnerabilities of the TCP/IP protocol itself.
    1. Re:is this a troll? by John+Seminal · · Score: 1
      I am just saying that because of these activities, we will all lose freedom. I am positive the day is comming when there will not be any more aninimity on the web.

      I think we need to instal more "monitoring" software in library's and colleges, and have video tapes of who uses the pc's so the legal authorities can start making some arrests.

      --

      Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."

    2. Re:is this a troll? by dissy · · Score: 1

      > I am just saying that because of these activities, we will all lose freedom.

      Attacking someone, and charging them to not do that again, was illegal LONG before this internet thing came to be.

      I dont care what so ever if you want the freedom to attack people.

    3. Re:is this a troll? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course. Because "monitoring" software and video tapes == more freedom!

      Maybe they should start by arresting pricks like you to insure the rest of us can keep *our* freedom.

    4. Re:is this a troll? by SethJohnson · · Score: 1


      Thanks for answering my question about if this is a troll.
  85. Listening to lying attorneys is not "homework" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for the irrelevant link. Their first "source" was a crooked organization of those who get rich from lying in the courtroom during frivolous lawauits.
    "McReality #1) That coffee was 185 degrees fahrenheit. Over 700 people complained about it."

    Already dealt with. 700 out of many millions.

    "McReality #2) You can still get a hot cup of coffee at McDonald's"

    Except now you have far too many complaints that it is cold then you used to have complaints it was hot. The frivolous lawsuit has prevented McDonald's from selling the coffee the customers want.

    "McReality #3) McDonald's sold her a dangerous product. "

    That is a McFiction of yours. If only 700 out of millions had a problem, it is clearly safe.

    "If I buy a phone that explodes when dropped, should the company be liable for damages if I drop it?"

    Invalid example. A more valid one is "If I buy a phone that hurts me if I smash myself over the head with it, should the company be liable?".

    Of course not. Nor should a company be liable to such frivolous lawsuits because someone spills hot coffee into her crotch instead of drinking it. Anything can be dangerous if you CHOOSE TO DO SOMETHING IDIOTIC with it.

    1. Re:Listening to lying attorneys is not "homework" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need an army full of attorneys like you. Might straighten shit out. What is it about law school that turns normal people into asses?

  86. Nice internet you've got there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be a shame if something happened to it.

  87. There lives are forfiet by peter303 · · Score: 1

    You just dont muck around with businesses like gambling and expect to get away with it. Once their identities are discovered, they'll be pushing up daisies.

  88. What exactly would this consultant / admin do? by dark-br · · Score: 1

    What SpamHaus did, use this

    1. Re: What exactly would this consultant / admin do? by TheTomcat · · Score: 2, Informative

      As far as I can tell, this device blocks traffic on the "local" side of your pipe to your ISP.

      This allows the DDoSers to saturate your pipe, thus DDoSing you.

      Even if it DOES block all traffic, and magically re-opens your pipe, you're still not safe:
      If these "gangs" control thousands, or hundreds of thousands of "drones", there's nothing stopping them from generating "LEGITIMATE" (well-formed; handshake; non-spoofed) traffic on an allowed protocol and saturating your bandwidth, this way. You can put 50,000 null-routes in your ACLs.. your hardware will choke, and the IPs will change, so you'll block legit traffic.

      S

  89. Re:This sounds like a good way for Slashdot to mak by ramk13 · · Score: 1

    Not to be a naysayer, but the entire page load for SOSDG was under 3k. I supposed there is a lesson to be learned from that, but I imagine there are cases when people acutally want to put more than 3k of streamlined content on their pages. Maybe people who want to use graphics...

    I wasn't intentionally sarcastic, but I didn't delete it once I reread it, because it's true - Not everyone wants to make 3k text web pages.

    Not to say that you didn't do a nice job on your webpage, but the problem of surviving a slashdotting is less trivial than just 'running your server well.'

  90. Sympathy for the Devil by Ridgelift · · Score: 2, Funny

    More than a dozen offshore gambling sites serving the US market were hit by the so-called Distributed Denial of Service attacks and extortion demands in September and the tactic is now spreading. Sites have been asked to pay up to $50,000 to ensure they are free from attacks for a year.

    Offshore gambling sites? Almost as if one gang who run the casinos are being hit by other gangs. I wonder who the Cyber-Godfathers are?

  91. Not a good price point by aiken_d · · Score: 1

    $10K, maybe. $40K, and I'd rather hire a private investigator to bust the guy. The less scrupolous might hire a "private investigator" to make sure the guy ends up in the hospital. Even if it's international, $40K should cover it.

    Cheers
    -b

    --
    If I wanted a sig I would have filled in that stupid box.
  92. Guilty of owning a drone?? by markxsd · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Maybe one answer is to go after the owners of the drones. If Joe has a hacked Windows 98 PC always connected via DSL (in the unlikely event that a 98 PC would stay up for more than 3 hours without crashing ;-). Let's say he never applied a patch to it and now it's being used for DDOS. Does he share some of the responsibility for the crime that is being committed with his hardware?

    An analogy might be... if I left a gun unattended just by my front door, and a would-be murderer pushed my door open and took it, maybe I would share some small part of the responsibility for his future crimes. I'd certainly feel some sense of guilt...

    If Joe's getting stung, he's going to shout at his vendor -> his vendor is going to shout at his manufacturer -> his manufacturer is going to shout at the people who set up his OS, and left in lots of vulnerabilities in there along with an insecure default setup. At the very least, Joe is going to make sure he tells all of his Joe pals not to leave their machines with always on connections and no security patches.

    I know Joe is a victim too, but maybe we need to be a little more pragmatic about how we can reduce the growing problem of DDoS attacks. Individual Joe's are alot easier to track down and scare than the Russian mob.

  93. Re:This sounds like a good way for Slashdot to mak by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I donno about anyone else, but twice now the SOSDG's main web server has been Slashdotted, and it didn't even cough. Its on a 1.5/256 DSL line.

    Of course, it didn't even cough. It's only serving 256 Kbps of bandwidth! A Pentium 75 running Apache can saturate a 10 Mbps network with static page requests and never hit a high load average!

    I mean, for static requests, the code in Apache might as well be:

    $fp=fopen($sourcefile, 'r');
    while (fwrite($stdout, fgets($fp, 1024)))
    {}
    fclose($fp);

    At which point the *only* bottleneck is I/O.

    The question is really: How many people never saw your website due to the anemic bandwidth?

    Answer that, and then you have something to say.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
  94. Collateral damage to my company. by runner_one · · Score: 0

    I suspect there are many more companies than the number that are listed in the article that are experiencing this type of extortion. For example the DNS service (primary and backup) we use, (Worldwidedns.net) went down yesterday morning from a DDOS. And are still not back up to speed yet, (check out the note at the top of their home page). Our company is spread out over several states and we use a web based database for all transactions. We were effectively shut down all day. I edited the hosts file of the machines in my local office to reflect the IP address of our servers so at least we could conduct some business. I did add another DNS service to our domains as a backup, but the fact that we operate across several domains the delay for the WHOIS updates to propagate down the system means that we still are not fully operational yet. There is no legal punishment that would satisfy my anger toward the lowlifes that perpetrate this type of crime.

  95. Nah... by ViolentGreen · · Score: 1

    It's probably because people don't RTFA.

    --
    Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
  96. Ah /. by doublebackslash · · Score: 0

    2 stories ago someone said that people should release hacks into the wild so as to avoid being CnD'd based on the DMCA, well how quickly things move here at slashdot.

    Keep up the good work underground mafia lords, keep up the good work. Soon DMCA will give way to online security analysts and my future will be stable in the patching business.
    =)

    --
    md5sum /boot/vmlinuz
    d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e /boot/vmlinuz
  97. rrrright by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    irrelevant
    adj.
    Unrelated to the matter being considered.

    So that linked article was quite relevant. The fact that you don't agree with it doesn't change that.

    1. 185 degrees is too hot. There's really no debating that. Nobody can drink coffee that hot.
    2. Do you have any sources for this claim? Far too many comlpaints?
    3. If something causes third degree burns necessitating a skin graft, it's clearly not safe.

    Finally, spilling coffee is something that is likely to happen accidentally, bashing oneself upside the head with a phone is not. It's not as if this lady decided "hey, what the hell? I think I'll just dump this scalding hot coffee into my lap!"

    --

    --
    the strongest word is still the word "free"
  98. One way of making sure by AvengerXP · · Score: 1

    "But there's nothing to say it will go away."

    Make them sign a contract hahahaha

    --
    Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
  99. This guys say there is.... by dark-br · · Score: 1

    The Melior iSecure Technology, currently applied to dDoS & Penetration Testing Defense,

    * Detects and defends against (distributed) Denial-of-Service attacks (dDoS)
    o bandwidth flooding attacks
    o network attacks
    o low/medium/high-bandwidth application-level attacks
    o works against known and unknown attack tools
    * Cloaks your networks & systems against attackers
    * Works "on the wire" (thus: In Line Scanner - ILS)
    + as stand-alone version (ISP/Carrier deployment)
    + as modular TIPS version (enterprise/site deployment)
    * Works in real time (6 nanoseconds to 6 milliseconds)
    * Works to full bandwidth capacity (currently: 100 Mbit/s, 400 Mbit/s, or 1Gigabit/s)
    * Cannot be detected, addressed, or compromised (no MAC or IP address)
    * Does not require configuration to be effective and works instantly
    against DoS/dDoS attacks ("plug & protect") - optional administration
    - no baselining / QoS setting
    - no signatures
    - no "learning curve" for traffic pattern matching
    * Foundation layer of security ---
    protects and enhances the effectiveness of IDS and firewalls
    * Compliments existing infrastructure - no reconfiguration necessary
    * Built for very large, large, medium, and small enterprise deployment

    SpamHaus is using it. Check out their site

    p.s.: I dont work for them :)

  100. This is news? by djeaux · · Score: 1

    I've had a sneaky suspicion for a while that this is exactly how a number of self-proclaimed "security consultants" get their business: run an exploit or DoS attack on a target, then volunteer to make the system "immune" to future attacks.

    --
    "Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
  101. Is it like with the prostitutes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm picturing some pimped-faced geek in servitude getting bitch slapped by his pimp for being slow with the SYN flood.

  102. How to collect? by gr8_phk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How do these guys expect to collect the money without being caught? You need to show up in person to accept cash (or at least show up at a drop point) and large transfers can be tracked... Can't they? So how do they collect?

    1. Re:How to collect? by taustin · · Score: 1

      Wire transfers to banks in countries that do not have extradition treaties with the US (or where the officials who sign extradition orders are willing to take a cut).

    2. Re:How to collect? by jonhuang · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or they set up a few fake auctions on ebay set up with stolen credit card numbers. The company uses "buy it now" (this launders the money) and the money is transfered electronically into a stolen or shady account.

    3. Re:How to collect? by igny · · Score: 1

      I searched Ebay for 'protection', 'DDOS', and could not find any relevant auctions. I desided not to offer the protection from DDoS myself, because I can not provide that and thus it would be a fraud. Can I just offer a promise not to shoplift, I think I am able to deliver that. How much should I ask, is $50 ok?

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    4. Re:How to collect? by butane_bob2003 · · Score: 1

      They meet you in a hotel room in Prague, have lots of armored Mercedes and thugs with HK submachine guns. Or did you think that only happens in movies? More likely they set up a transfer to a private bank in a country where the banking laws are less restrictive.

      --


      TallGreen CMS hosting
  103. Re:This sounds like a good way for Slashdot to mak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Maybe it could be because we don't load our pages down with tons of crap, and don't depend on SQL databases to do our main content.
    *shrug*
    Or it could be that we just know how to run our server really well :)
    "

    Like a no-cycling sign to a cyclist...

  104. Reduce the effect with IPv6? by Mr+Smidge · · Score: 1

    Would an IPv6 internet make it more difficult for these kind of DDoS attacks to come about?

    A good whitehat wouldn't be able to do much against thousands of incoming packets from randomly forged IP addresses, but is it (as) possible to do this if every computer had a direct connection via an IPv6 address to the internet?

  105. I'm as greedy as anyone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, my arguments make sense if there is no money involved. However, if I stand to earn a few hundred thousands by lying in the courtroom in order to get the ladder company to cough up $10 million because some clumsy oaf stumbled off the top of a ladder and busted his pinkie, you might find me lying with the best of 'em.

  106. Quick by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 1

    Someone set us up the Gang!

    1. Re:Quick by Bendebecker · · Score: 1

      I take it your referring to Monty Python's The Piranha Brothers:<br>"Denied the opportunity to use their talents in the service of their country, they began to operate what they called 'The Operation'... They would select a victim and then threaten to beat him up if he paid the so-called protection money. Four months later they started another operation which the called 'The Other Operation'. In this racket they selected another victim and threatened not to beat him up if he didn't pay them. One month later they hit upon 'The Other Other Operation'. In this the victim was threatened that if he didn't pay them, they would beat him up. This for the Piranha brothers was the turning point.<Br><br>

      Doug and Dinsdale Piranha now formed a gang, which the called 'The Gang' and used terror to take over night clubs, billiard halls, gaming casinos and race tracks."<br><br>
      I have the radio one on tape, its a lot better than the tv one.

      --
      There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
      most of us won't be able to afford it.
      -- Lemmy
  107. BIG difference. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So in other words, if someone finds a threat, and helps you fix it, they shouldnt be paid? They should keep it secret and hopefully nobody will find it? Get real. If you have to make a living and you are doing security research shouldnt you be paid for it, if you have a solution? Who cares if YOU found the problem, you didn't create it.

  108. Obviously by Trolling+4+dollas · · Score: 1

    This is Clinton's fault. He and Gore first invented the internet to try and get the economy rolling but of course it exploded in their face when no one bought anything on the superhighway of bankruptcies. Now it's just a criminal realm used by software, music, and movie pirates and other criminal extortionists. Now thanks to George Bush a fine upstanding man, we now have the DCMA to protect us from the thieves and thugs. Bush knows that shutting down free thought and the internet will put an end to the madness. Clinton and his band of traitorous thieves can go crawl back under that commie rock of theirs.

    1. Re:Obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Idiot. It was CLINTON who signed the DMCA into law.
      I know...you're liberal...you won't let one or two facts get in the way of your opinion.

    2. Re:Obviously by Trolling+4+dollas · · Score: 1

      You forgot to look at my name. I'm a troll looking for right wing zealots to reply in support.

  109. Quite safe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "So that linked article was quite relevant. The fact that you don't agree with it doesn't change that"

    No, it wasn't relevant since I had already specifically dismissed the false claims in the parent item.

    "185 degrees is too hot. There's really no debating that. "

    No, it's not. There is really not debating that it is not too hot at all. The ones who will debate you are most McDonald's coffee drinkers. Or all but 0.000018% of them.

    "If something causes third degree burns necessitating a skin graft, it's clearly not safe."

    See the telephone example. It's safe unless you go out of your way to abuse it. If your false claim were true, you'd have millions of 3rd degree burn cases. Instead the reality is that it was safe: hardly anyone at all consuming this coffee at this supposedly high heat had any problem at all.

    Safe, indeed: it has been estimated that they sell 1,000,000 cups per DAY. And they get 700 burn complaints over many years. Probably from twits who pour it onto their genetalia.

    Now, excuse me, I'm going to go sue Apple because an iMac can kill if dropped from a 2 story window.
    It us also true that an iPod can present a choking hazard. That criminally negligent company.

    1. Re:Quite safe by welthqa · · Score: 1

      You, sir, must be incredibly blissful.

      --


      100% Pure Evil With The Look And Feel Of Wholesome Goodness
  110. Next, time, do not pour coffee into your crotch. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Clearly you are missing the point"

    I get the points, and understand that they have no validity.

    "The number of people who filed complaint with corporate McDonalds does not mean only 700 people were burned."

    Yes, it does. There is only evidence that something happened if there is evidence that it happened. Don't go and try to improve your case by referring to imaginary made-up situations.

    "The point isn't how many people. The point is the coffee burned this 79 year old lady so bad,"

    The number of people have everything to do with it. How is it that many millions are happily able to drink the coffee but a mere 700 have a problem.... and the one you mention actually was POURING IT INTO HER CROTCH. The problem is not the coffee, clearly: it is the people.

    " She only initally requested $20,000, but McD's refused so she took them too court."

    That was exactly $20,000 more than she deserved. She made an outragenous demand, and then filed an utterly frivolous lawsuit when the company laughed at her greed.

  111. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Why not get yourself a pot of boiling coffee and dump it in your lap before you post again AC explaining how it is not "too hot"."

    Why not? Because it would be stupid and 100% my own fault. However, unlike that lady, I have some sense of right and wrong and will not get greedy and try to get rich by making people who had nothing to do with my own stupidity give me money for it.

    We need tort reform, so people who make frivolous lawsuits like that lady go to jail.

  112. Remember! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your mare would never DDoS you!
    (at worst, when she's not in mood, she could issue a classic "Denial of Service"/" Access Denied" by lowering her tail)

  113. Nice lie there.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not get yourself a pot of boiling coffee and dump it in your lap before you post again AC explaining how it is not "too hot"."

    Nice sneaky little lie there, but your arguments are peppered with lies.

    This argument has to do with 185-degree coffee. Now you are equating it with "boiling coffee", which is actually above 212 degrees: a hefty difference of 28 degrees! With your latest argument, you've actually made the coffee almost 30 degrees hotter than it actually was! But what do the facts matter to you, you've got a case to make.

    1. Re:Nice lie there.... by welthqa · · Score: 1

      You got me there! I'll settle for 185 degree coffee dumped in your lap. Then you can tell me about the facts and the case I'm trying to make.

      --


      100% Pure Evil With The Look And Feel Of Wholesome Goodness
  114. Re:Need paper trail by FreakWent · · Score: 1

    Off topic, but if you reckon the cigarette makers aren't liable, why blame heroin dealers? Is your reasoning that companies should be immune from suits related to products because the buyer shouldn't have bought them?

  115. What is needed by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

    As some of you have correctly pointed out, it's not a security issue for the target site, however it is still a security issue. The security problem lies with the ping zombie machines that are being operated by these gangs (or just about anyone who knows where to find a collection of compromised machines). There really needs to be more cooperation between ISPs worldwide, and their upstream providers. It will be expensive in terms of time (especially for big ISPs), but what needs to happen is that ping flood victims need to contact their upstream providers, and those providers need to collect data about the sources of the attacks. The ISPs hosting the zombie machines need to disable the accounts associated with the tainted computers.

    It's an ugly, sloppy way to do it, but it may be the most effective way. Ultimately, it's up to the user to properly configure his machine, whether he does it himself, or pays someone to do it. My biggest fear would be that half of the Internet-connected population of computers are compromised, in which case shutting down those accounts would create a massive consumer backlash and probably lawsuits. In that case, let's discuss building an Internet for non-stupid people.

    At any rate, ISPs are going to have to take a more active role here, because I certainly don't want to see the Internet Terrorism Act follow up the Patriot Act and the DMCA.

    --
    Fred

    "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
    -RMS
  116. No, I'm pissed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I'm pissed. These sort of frivolous lawsuits happen all the time, and needs to stop.

  117. Something easy to steal != cupable for theft by baileytal · · Score: 3, Insightful
    ...an automobile manufacturer makes a car that can be easily stolen (say by jiggling the door handle, and a key is not required to start it) if someone steals this car, and drives it through a business's window, should the car manufacturer be liable?
    No. Theft of property is an act seperate from the nature of that property. The fact that I left my wallet on the window sill does not mean that I am in any way responsible for your choice to take it, or the subsequent fact that you used the money to finance a criminal act. The fact that a car is easy to steal does not weaken the law against stealing the car. There is no such thing (at least not in any jurisdiction I'm aware of) as aggravated theft. Whatever the thief did with the car is entirely his or her responsibility. Now, if the car's brakes were of a faulty design...
    --
    Never at a loss for words... because of the voices.
    1. Re:Something easy to steal != cupable for theft by ChreodeRiot · · Score: 1

      don't you think that a car with a lock has an implied ability to deter crime?

    2. Re:Something easy to steal != cupable for theft by baileytal · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sure it probably deters thieves. However, locks are a pragmatic response to the fact that the prohibition itself has little deterrent effect upon dedicated thieves. Whether it deters a thief or not has no bearing on whether or not it is against the law to steal the car or its contents.

      The legality or illegality of their entering your car without your permission isn't changed by the presence of a lock. I can leave my car parked in the middle of a parking lot with the doors wide open, and still enjoy the protection of the law against theft. It may be smarter to lock your car in the context of your particular environment, but not locking your car doesn't abrogate the legal prohibition. It just makes you careless, and easier for someone to enter your car.

      The analogy here is the fact that MS software has easy-to-access-holes in it does not mean that exploiting those holes is made any more "legal". It may be negligent, but it doesn't represent permission to someone else to exploit the hole.

      --
      Never at a loss for words... because of the voices.
    3. Re:Something easy to steal != cupable for theft by ChreodeRiot · · Score: 1

      My intention was not to describe the purpose of locks, I was saying that by putting locks on a car and selling it that way, the manufacturer is implying that the locks have some proficiency at preventing your car from being stolen.

      I realize that this doesn't have really anything to do with the thief's crime of stealing, other than the implicit ability of the product to prevent said crime.

      It does nothing to excuse the crime, this is more of a question about the relationship between the manufacturer and purchaser and the resonable expectations of the purchaser.

  118. The Front Is.... by g_goblin · · Score: 0

    XBox Live..

  119. New Gang Economy by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Old gangs running the "protection" racket could actually offer protection for a price, by ensuring the exclusivity of their turf, and freedom from other gangs for those in it. That's how the tax/police model works, theoretically offering the taxed a chance to choose the Boss by voting. But these Eastern European "gangs" can't guarantee exclusive control of their turf (the Internet). By the same token, neither can the police. Where will the equilibrium coalesce? Or have we swept over the edge of chaos, into the abyss?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  120. Belkin Routers by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 1

    Hope that some of the trojan'd computers are behind Belkin routers. This way, Belkin get's DDOS'd

  121. Free as in Beer by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    That is the best website bizmodel I've ever seen. "Superscriptions" to distractingly powerful websites! It's like the Alka-Seltzer company giving away Free Beer (TM).

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  122. Can we use the US PATRIOT act on them? by placeclicker · · Score: 1

    This is despicable. DDoS attacks come from the scum of the earth, and they should be treated as such.

    ISP's should start taking care of this, or we should track down and arrest anyone who even tries to DDoS a network. Treat them as adults, even if they're L33T H4X0R 13 year old brats.

    --

    Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of /.
  123. Re:Need paper trail by Matt2k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As long as cigarettes are legal, I think it's silly to bring legal action against the manufacturers, cigarettes are bad for you and as far as I know, everyone is familiar with this. As soon as cigarettes are outlawed, then if someone wants to keep distibuting then, then sue away. I think if anyone wanted to sue Microsoft for having security holes, they'd have to take a long hard look at themselves first and think about the consequences. Such action would have strong merit however if you could point to a a vulerability that Microsoft intentionally introduced or refused to fix, such as a backdoor. There are a lot of injustices in the world, but it's important to pick your battles carefully. Today it's people using windows exploits to DDOS vulnerable sites, tomorrow it might be a bug in sendmail or bind doing the same thing.

  124. Solution! by OECD · · Score: 2, Funny

    The solution is obvious; just patent "Extortion by the web!" Now the crooks will have to pay you!

    --
    One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
  125. Re:Need paper trail by Matt2k · · Score: 1

    Oy. You can tell I'm a slashdot noob because that totally stripped all my line breaks, like I'm an illiterate boob or something.

  126. casino and sportsbook by QNX · · Score: 0

    I work for a sportsbook/casino and we've been triggered...and had to pay....like many of the big ones in the market.

    It's about time these guys get caught!

    --
    Karma: Very Very Very Very Bad
    1. Re:casino and sportsbook by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      which book do you work for?

    2. Re:casino and sportsbook by QNX · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I cannot disclose this information. But most of them were targetted anyway.

      --
      Karma: Very Very Very Very Bad
    3. Re:casino and sportsbook by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      Well, I hope it isn't Pinnacle (who reportedy paid off the crooks) (but is an excellent book) :-)

    4. Re:casino and sportsbook by QNX · · Score: 0

      Try again!
      Think better, bigger!
      Anyway, the whole industry has been hit and it will continue until they get caught.
      They do it during the week-end so the books are more affected...lose more money, so books prefer to pay in most case. Worse...books receive an email before the attack begin!
      They will get caught, it's a matter of time...although it's in russia...dunno who will go get some mafia guys in russia ...

      --
      Karma: Very Very Very Very Bad
    5. Re:casino and sportsbook by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      bigger than Pinnacle? Olympic? Grande? Willam Hill?

      Better? Nah...:-)

  127. software liability insurance by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Software development companies already carry liability insurance, paid out of their revenue. The economics depend on the value of entire industry's products exceeding the loss due to defects. The SW revenue must also include the insurance operating expenses and profit. So there's nothing to stop Red Hat, or you, from offering a warranty of liability, compensating a user for proven losses. It would be interesting to see insurance companies contracting systems analysts as claims examiners.

    This all leads to insured code signatures, and host firewalls with insurance "policies". Kind of like an evolved "membrane" of insurance wrapping "nuclei" of code, separating the LAN "cytoplasm" from the Inter(celluar)net(fluid). Only the secure survive, when Code Lives!

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  128. ^&@*($%! West Side Story by ashitaka · · Score: 1

    Thank you.

    I will now have that music playing through my head for the rest of the day.

    Don't suppose you kiddies out there know what I'm talking about.

    Another Nathalie, no grits.

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    1. Re:^&@*($%! West Side Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oooh, look at me! I'm so sophisticated and erudite with such obscure esotiric tastes that nobody 19-or-under knows what the fuck I'm talking about!

  129. Mod Parent Insightful by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    Old gangs running the "protection" racket could actually offer protection for a price, by ensuring the exclusivity of their turf, and freedom from other gangs for those in it. That's how the tax/police model works, theoretically offering the taxed a chance to choose the Boss by voting. But these Eastern European "gangs" can't guarantee exclusive control of their turf (the Internet). By the same token, neither can the police. Where will the equilibrium coalesce? Or have we swept over the edge of chaos, into the abyss?

    Quite true, and well said.

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  130. Yakuza in Japan by chmilar · · Score: 1
    The Yakuza in Japan have a history of extorting money from corporations by doing things like disrupting shareholder meetings.

    Companies would even hire a rival Yakuza group to protect them from the one making threats.

    Mobsters doing ddos is just a high-tech example of an age-old practice.

    Some more info: article

    --
    Reading Slashdot is ruining my spelling and grammar.
    1. Re:Yakuza in Japan by Trolling+4+dollas · · Score: 1

      The Yakuza are kind of cool. I went to a Yakuza party when I was in Japan. Pretty swanky house even though the guy was just a Nationalist van driver and other odd job kind of gangster guy.

  131. Time for Somebody to Kick some Ass by serutan · · Score: 1

    Seriously, what I want to see now is somebody to track down one of these "gangs" and then hire goons to break into where they live, destroy their computer equipment and bust their heads open. I know that probably sets a bad precedent, but I think it would be a great deterrent. "Cyber-gangs" might feel bold wreaking havoc from the safe end of a wire, but I expect that like most geeks they would be highly uncomfortable with the possibility of real violence upon themselves.

  132. RFC2267 is ISP best practice for IPv4 today by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Hierarchy can make this more efficient, but only if addresses actually get assigned hierarchically. Most IPv4 Internet connections today are either using their ISP's address space or are using their own registered address space, so ISPs can do source address assurance today, and some do. RFC2267 recommends that all ISPs do this. That means that a user with a /24 can impersonate the other 253 addresses on their connection, but can't impersonate addresses on other connections, so if the user is doing Bad Things, they can be blocked.

    The main difficult case is end-users who have multiple ISP connections and may send packets out their ISP2 connection with their ISP1 address, but even that's manageable.

    Routers have traditionally not been very good at doing this kind of filtering, at least without burning large amounts of CPU because it's not implemented in the ASICs, but there's been increasing support recently. For ISPs using Cisco routers, the common approach is uRPF reverse packet filtering, which drops packets with a Source IP address that the router doesn't have a valid route for. Typically on end-user connections you run it in strict mode (which drops it if there isn't a route using the interface that the packet came from), and in the middle or peering edges of the network you'd run loose mode, which drops it if there isn't _some_ route known to the router.

    Some ISPs implement this, including one of the largest in the US (Disclaimer: my employer hasn't authorized me to give a shameless plug here, so I won't name them) and most ISPs are at least pretty good about filtering BGP route announcements to only permit addresses that the customer actually owns. That's not universal, and it's sometimes harder to validate ownership than you'd expect, so there's a certain amount of IP address space hijacking, typically of space where the original owners are a dead.com so they're not around to complain when somebody forges a request to one of the registries.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  133. Misunderstanding by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

    > I can't see it being very difficult to keep a buffer of source IPs and a counter at the router level and stop things that way-- How many systems are used in a DDOS attack? Even a few thousand shouldn't be difficult to spot, flag, and then drop.

    The zombies involved in a properly designed DDOS attack will spoof IP addresses. Any given machine will send packets flagged for a wide array of IP addresses, but not the same one(s) over and over again. Since it's very hard to tell until you try to respond to it whether a request is spoofed, you have to respond to all of them to have any chance to respond to legitimate requests. Because they're coming in so fast, most servers simply can't keep up, and so a legitimate user's requests just get lost in a sea of invalid requests. Blocking traffic by IP address would be entirely ineffective at stopping such an attack, because the zombie doesn't use a particular IP address enough, and even if you did block one, it'd still be bombing you on several thousand other addresses. And that's just one machine.

    Virg

  134. Informal sanctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the late '80's and early 90's, right after Holland basically declared there was no such thing as computer crime against any computer connected to the internet, there were a few more or less well known crackers who wound up in an alley with a bullet in the head. There were rumors that they had been severely annoying some large corporations controlled by some other corporations owned by some folks with a lot of vowels in their last names, and that with formal resolution of their grievances out of the question they had resorted to informal methods which were quite effective in dealing with the problem.
    This suggests they had best be careful who they lean on.

  135. Well.. by nate+nice · · Score: 1

    Why not? It's all about the Benjamin's, after all. Get a hustle and stick with it.

    --
    "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
  136. Costs? by phorm · · Score: 1

    but most sites aren't able to withstand those costs

    Do they cost more than $50,000/yr?

    Better investment than selling out to internet terrorists.

  137. Nice bandwidth you have here... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...shame if something were to "happen" to it...

  138. PARENT IS GROUSER!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And the title of your one sucked ASS.

  139. Protection rackets by any other name by Reziac · · Score: 1

    Paying off extortion rackets is cheaper than the alternatives, yeah ... IF there's only ONE, and IF it's a one-shot deal, and IF it weren't like painting a big red target on your company. Not so cheap when you've paid off 30 or 40 of them, all of which will be back next year to collect another installment, in growing droves as word gets around about who's willing to pay 'em off.

    "Once you pay the danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane." -- British proverb (ca. 800 A.D.)

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  140. right by smitty45 · · Score: 1

    oh of course, I'm not arguing for it. I was only curious about how anyone here has dealt with slashdotting without having to be geographically load balanced, or distributed across multiple-connections.

    There have been 3 different online magazines I have worked where we have survived a slashdotting, but that was about 2 years ago. I assume that these days the amount of traffic is even larger.

  141. A different analogy: car by SysKoll · · Score: 2, Funny
    Let's try a different analogy, which I hope is obvious:

    Assume that you're the maker of a popular brand of cars. You're very successful and there are millions of these cars all over the places. There are problems with it, and you have issued recalls. Many times. Most users are just happy with their cars and never bothered.

    Now, your cars have a curious problem: if a jerk points a finger at someone's home and yells "Shazam!", all the parked cars around just start and bee-line to this home. Soon, they crash into the walls, splash into the pool, and make the home unlivable.

    Granted, these jerks are criminals. And you, the car maker, issued several recalls. But it's really not that hard to point a finger and yell "Shazam!". Lots of bored kids do it. And a lot of car owners don't even know what a recall is. So this problem happens frequently.

    Now, don't you think the owners of the devastated homes might want to drag you to court?

    --SysKoll
    --

    --
    Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

  142. Oh my god, what have we come to by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 1

    The old protection racket has gone digital. I, for one, would love it if we could just give anyone found guilty of being involved in this sort of extortion a lobotomy. Why must people be so driven by greed that they do something so heinous? These folks are on my list just below spammers who retain the top position for volcano diving when I rule the world.

  143. Who should be responsible for DDOS attacks-Answer by Wishful · · Score: 1

    Simply, the ISPs should take responsiblity for traffic leaving their networks onto the Internet. All spoofed traffic could quite simply be avoided by ALL ISP Internet routers doing the simple task of not forwarding packets with source IP's that dont match the network they come from. Yes it increases CPU usage on each router, but its a highly effective way of preventing IP spoofing. The real question is why haven't those clever sods at the ISPs done this already ? Wishful

  144. This happened to one of our clients by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the linked article:

    More than a dozen offshore gambling sites serving the US market were hit by the so-called Distributed Denial of Service attacks and extortion demands in September and the tactic is now spreading.

    I work for a UK-based online advertising company and one of our clients has had first hand experience of this. They paid up.

    Protecting the business of offshore gambling sites is not the number one priority of most law enforcement agencies.

  145. Solution by rjbrown99 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have been on the security consulting end of at least 4 of these over the past 12 months. The issue with many of the targets is that they can't use Akamai or a co-lo site because their businesses are illegal in many countries (i.e. no online gambling in the USA.) So the database and transaction servers must be located in their own country.

    Here's my solution. Co-locate your primary web content, graphics, and other critical services on a high-bandwidth connection in the USA. Use a TopLayer Intrusion Prevention switch to defend the site from traditional and SYN-type attacks. For the back-end database, create either a VPN or PPP tunnel to your actual site in Costa Rica, the Caribbean, or wherever else you are located. The only IP addresses that you advertise will be the ones from the co-lo site - this includes all inbound email, web, DNS, and other traffic. You also want a sniffer at this location that has out-of-band access so you can get to it and create custom router/IDS filters if needed.

    The strategy is that if the bad guys can't find your slow (but necessary) offshore connection, they can't launch DoS attacks against anything but your co-lo site.

    The only way I can see to beat the problem is to hide from the bad guys. You can't get 3GB of bandwidth in Central America so you are pretty much out of luck if you try to use traditional DoS methods.

  146. ...so you want $100,000 or you'll DDOS us off... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the face of the net.

    My response - go right on ahead and do this.

    if you're successful we'll just order out some pizza and have an office party until you decide you're bored with us.

    If you decide to 'camp on' and stay with us for the long run we'll just redirect our DNS to other locations where we're already mirrored to deal with such an incident. Before you ask - our sites were mirrored at least a year prior to "September 11".

    At worst some people will gain some weight (some of whom badly need it anyway) and you won't be attacking someone else.

  147. Hit my network by Unregistered · · Score: 1

    And i'm sending a white van full of fertilizer after you. They'll learn quick not to fuck with me.

    1. Re:Hit my network by chrome · · Score: 1

      If you can find them :)

      Thats the problem with DDoS attacks. Its very, VERY hard to track down who was responsible.

    2. Re:Hit my network by Unregistered · · Score: 1

      In this case it's the people that are asking for money. You can't hide that paper trail nearly as well.

  148. Re:Who should be responsible for DDOS attacks-Answ by chrome · · Score: 1

    Most ISPs don't know about ingress filtering.

    I know, it's sad, but there are a lot of non-technical ISPs out there these days.

    Really, to get it out there, it should be mandated. You lose your ASN if you don't do ingress filtering, or something like that.

  149. Improving network security on Service Providers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Service Provider have the key to avoid that kind of attacks. But a Worldwide solution is requiered.

    Mechanismsm like unicast reverse path forwarding can be used to avoid IP Address Spoofing and Smurf-like attacks.

    Take a look at

    http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/iosswrel/ ps 1835/products_configuration_guide_chapter09186a008 00ca7d4.html

    Network Engineers should understand that kind of tools.

  150. Re:Need paper trail by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
    Cigarette makers are selling legal products, paying taxes, posting the required warnings, and following the law.

    Heroin dealers are selling illegal products, pay no taxes, and do not follow the law.

    Trying to pretend they are the same thing makes no sense.

  151. You have a case for more than $5K by hughk · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Until the popular operating systems are locked down sufficiently, we will continue to see zombies. While there are zombies, it is difficult but not impossible to trace who is initiating the attack.

    Rate limiting SYN packets is one answer, but you can DDOS someone just with HTTP GETs if you have enough machine. Just ask a recent /. effect victim.

    The other thing is to just follow the money. This is where the FBI come in. It is *very* difficult now to make a transfer of more than a few thousand dollars through the banking system anonymously. Ironically, the only way that works are the informal methods used by overseas workers (and Al Quaida) to send cash home.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
    1. Re:You have a case for more than $5K by SpaceJunkie · · Score: 1

      Maybe we would be better off stopping anonymous money/bank transfers than trying to prevent these attacks. That would prevent Al Quaida money and extortion mechanisms. Although it is not impossible to send 50 grand in unmarked notes instead.
      Unfortunately - that would still leave people with politically/competatively motivated attacks to continue.

      --
      OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
    2. Re:You have a case for more than $5K by hughk · · Score: 1

      It isn't easy to be anonymous now. The Islamic (Hawala) remittance system uses personal trust between intermediaries. As little cash as possible is actually shipped, rather an informal netting mechanism is used at each end to minimise the actual cash transferred. The old cash in a briefcase isn't really guaranteed now over a few thousand.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
  152. Unlikely by hughk · · Score: 1

    The local law enforcement people aren't that sophisticated. If you have that kind of knowledge, chances are you are working with a reasonable pay check.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  153. Not really... by hughk · · Score: 1
    If you outsource your software, you are placeing your company's balls on a plate. Generally speaking, you protect your interest by speccing your system as component subsystems and then giving different subsystems to different outsourcing companies and you audit the product.

    Actually, having work for programmers in these countries keeps them out of trouble. Very few people would *want* to work with the mafya and with that kind of money, they would demand to be involved, whether the programmer likes it or not.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  154. What does this have to do with DDoS attacks? by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    Sure, it's fashionable to blame those Ukrainians who do better work for less money, anyway.

    But in the end, a DDoS attack couldn't care less what software is on your machine. You just have gazillions of packets per second coming your way. Your firewall probably stops them, yes. That software made in Ukraine probably doesn't even see a single one of those packets. Your outgoing pipe may well be 100% free and not answering to those pings.

    But your incoming pipe is still stuffed. Your site _could_ send heaps of pages back, but the client's _requests_ are competing for that stuffed inbound pipe. Maybe one of them gets through every minute. Most don't. Your site is out of commission anyway.

    So how's software written by domestic programmers going to help you against that?

    Now to be mean: you just proved that you have no clue about what you're talking about. Just another bigotted clueless redneck spewing crap like "thugocratic society." Maybe _that_'s why those companies prefer to outsource to skilled Ukraineans or Indians. Beats paying some local bigotted retard who thinks he doesn't really need any skills to earn 150k a year. Unlike you, those "thugocrats" actually know their job.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  155. What to do? by garwain · · Score: 1

    I found one simple solution when I got DDOSed by about 5000 zombies all trying to connect on some high range port, which never connected to my system because of my firewall, but still ate a lot of bandwidth. Actually the attack was rather ineffective other than costing me a couple hundred dollars in bandwidth. I just called my provider and they firewalled the port so the traffic never came down the pipe to my system, and everyone was happy.

  156. Let it go already by Kombat · · Score: 1

    Let it go.

    The public associates "hacker" with bad. They always have, and they always will. People like you who try to muddy the waters aren't helping.

    You're like the feminists who want to eliminate the word "woman" and instead persuade everyone to migrate to "womyn" instead.

    --
    Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
  157. OK, that will do. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "You got me there! I'll settle for 185 degree coffee dumped in your lap. Then you can tell me about the facts and the case I'm trying to make."

    The fact: if I dump the coffee in my lap, it is my own fault. Case closed.

  158. Yahoo DDOSed?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi,

    I was wondering if anyone knew if Yahoo was being DDOSed right now???

    It's been up and down all day...

    Thanks,
    My offlist email is bensch 128 at yahoo .dot. com..

    This is to keep spam off my back....

    Thanks,
    Ben

  159. Re:This sounds like a good way for Slashdot to mak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=31337&cid=0&pi d=0&startat=&threshold=-1&mode=thread&commentsort= 1&op=Change

  160. been ddosed too by johntheother · · Score: 1

    A few days ago, my nameservers were ddosed into extinction, - I had an unhappy day playing with routers and on hold to various tech support departments. The thought springing to my mind is that Vlad the Impaler was also from Eastern Europe. Perhaps a "traditional" approch to this sort of banditry would be helpful. Oh, i'm feeling better already.