Slashdot Mirror


DoubleClick Hit by DDoS Attack

YetAnotherName writes "The Washington Times is reporting that everyone's most beloved online advertising distributor, DoubleClick, was subject to a DoS attack crippling the company's DNS servers, and preventing up to 75% of advertising from making it to web pages and surfers' eyes."

18 of 531 comments (clear)

  1. Good or bad? by EdZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not sure whether the encouragement of DDOS-ing even 'evil' companies should be encouraged.

    1. Re:Good or bad? by adam+mcmaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree, this sort of thing has an effect on many people other than the intended victim; as someone who works for a hosting company (admittedly a small one, but hey) I can tell you how annoying it is when your chosen datacenter is taken down by this kind of thing.

  2. Actually... by MacGoldstein · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Although it may seem like some sort of poetic justice that Doubleclick was attacked...

    The attacks had more far-reaching effects. Pages would take forever to load for me (certain pages, not all), if they used doubleclick ads, simply because the browser was waiting for the final item (the ad) to load.

    Whether or not you like doubleclick, their widespread adoption made this a productivity hit for those of us who frequent pages w/ doubleclick content (even if we never notice it).

  3. Don't tolerate them by zoloto · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No matter how much I hate /ads/, a DDoS should not be tolerated no matter to whom it's directed. Weather it's kernel.org or microsoft.com, let's try to use our knowledge constructivly instead of destructivly. How does that sound? And where does any one person think a DDoS will get for anyone as a whole? If anything, it'll bring a stronger resolve to preventative measures and keep them going strong. They have the $!! so where will it really get those who started this "attack"?

    1. Re:Don't tolerate them by dsanfte · · Score: 3, Insightful
      No matter how much I hate /ads/, a DDoS should not be tolerated no matter to whom it's directed.


      Sorry man, in the days of the DMCA, INDUCE, and PATRIOT acts, I'll take my poetic justice wherever I can get it. I applaud this for the same reason I applaud thieves getting their asses hauled into prison, because they damn well deserve it, regardless of whether forced confinement is "wrong" or not.
      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
  4. Re:Old News for Nerds, Stuff that's Days Old by daeley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    let subscribers do it like Fark does.

    Yeah, 'cause there's no bastion of journalistic potency like Fark.

    Granted this story broke yesterday, but since you obviously already knew about it from *some* source, I don't see what the problem is. Now we get to discuss it on /.

    --
    I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
  5. Re:3rd worst servers in existence ? by skurk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't one of the most aggresive advertisers in time, X10.

    --
    www.6502asm.com - Code 6502 assembly or.. DIE!!
  6. Re:Sad news by JabberWokky · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Am I the only person left who thinks it is unethical to use a person's site and block their ads? I find it deeply troubling that there are many people who work for or would like to work for internet companies that turn around and bite the prevailing revenue source for those same companies.

    You can argue all you want, it is a matter of personal belief. I consider it to be something that should not be made illegal, but also something that is terribly impolite to do and does have a negative effect upon something that you like enough to patronize.

    It's kind of like when the cool coffee house with all the great local bands closes down because nobody bought any coffee. Everybody bitches how much it sucks, but never connects that they were taking up a chair for four hours without buying a drink.

    If you like the site, how about some respect for the people who work on it? Common decency appears to be growing much less common.

    --
    Evan

    --
    "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
  7. Re:Devil's Advocate by Grrr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All those sites that you go to that have these ads are staying in business because of them.

    False.

    If DoubleClick went away so would a lot of that content.

    True.

    Gotta watch out for "all" and "never"... :)

    The devil doesn't really need an advocate, eh?

    <grrr>

  8. Re:Good? by Mesaeus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Regarding CoolWeb we'd better skip the DDOS phase and go straight to beating the shit out of their employees with various blunt instruments, I call dibs on their "CEO". I just cleaned up a family's pc where the children got a fullscreen popup without any controls of naked 12-14 year olds, every single time they logged on. Courtesy of CoolWebSearch. That company is made up of a bunch of sick individuals, and they've perfected their "art" of drive-by-installing their spyware so much that the latest versions (there's about twenty different ones) are harder to get rid of than most virusses.

  9. Quick refresher on how the "FREE" sites work... by Omega · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I realize this is probably an unpopular opinion to have on slashdot, but I don't think most people understand that someone has to pay the hosting fees, bandwidth, editing time, content, etc. So here's how the so called "FREE" sites (those that are remaining on the net anyway) work. They exist because of advertising. As "evil" as ads may be, they pay the bills for Slashdot, The Onion, IMDb, Yahoo, etc.

    Not to get all MPAA on you, but when you block the ads, you're hurting the site. Not only that, but you're encouraging "innovation" on the advertisers side to keep you from blocking the ads. This leads to a mixing of advertising and content, so that the web pages start becoming all flash or all pictures so you can't filter out certain images without breaking the whole site for yourself.

    Want to keep the subscription sites down and keep the free web up? Leave the banner ads be. Hell, click on them once in a while. If the advertisers and website are satisfied with how their ads are doing, they'll be less aggressive and less likely to piss you off.

    1. Re:Quick refresher on how the "FREE" sites work... by LazloTheDog · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If the ad blinks or flashs, I block them. If the ad has a shitty server that causes the page to hang, I block them. And I don't care what site has them, because they are giving me a crap experience. doubleclick has been blocked for a long time now. If enough folks did this, the more astute sites will use a less intrusive ad provider.

      JM

      --
      Oink, Oink!!
    2. Re:Quick refresher on how the "FREE" sites work... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You cost the site bandwidth, you fucking moron. Free sites go down when too few people even click the ads. Or do you think the companies running the ads don't pay attention to have much traffic the site gets them? What a fucking moron, and an asshole to boot.

      I know you are, but what am I?

      All childishness aside, think about this rationally, please. The original assertion was that blocking ads results in lower ad revenue. This is incorrect. It's not the blocking, but the not clicking that reduces revenue. Whether I see the ad or not, I am not clicking. Advertisers always assume that a certain percentage of people will not be affected by the ads. I represent part of that percentage. Feel free to call me an asshole for not doing what they already know I'm not going to do, but think about the alternative. Are you saying that everyonbe ahould click every ad that comes up? Don't you think the ad company is going to get suspicious when a grossly abnormal percentage of people are clicking through? I understand your knee-jerk, but you have to understand that "freeloaders" like me have already been accounted for.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  10. Site clearly still broken by IBitOBear · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No matter how many times I click refresh, the DoubleClick corporate site will not not display any banner ads, nor pop up nor pop under any X10 windows...

    Oh, what did you say? "The leader in network advertising" only has tasteful advertisements on their own site?

    Isn't that a tad hypocritical?

    Shouldn't the people advocating annoying, bouncing, animated, rollover tripe beleive in their own products and techniques enough to use it on their own pages?

    Clearly they don't, and they don't.

    One could only dream of the day when all the advertisers who patronize DoubleClick ask them selves why DoubleClick doesn't use their own service to advertise their own service...

    Perhaps because their customers would realize how much such techniques annoy and drive off potential clients....?

    Nah, marketeers (as in mouse, not misspelling 8-) will never get wise to their own lack of wisdom.

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
  11. Re:Sad news by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 5, Insightful
    That's because they don't. They were referring to the people who pay them to place their ads; the people who click on the ads would be Doubleclick's customers' customers.

    The people who click on the ads are Doubleclick's product.

    --
    But then again, I could be wrong.
  12. Probably by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Do you consider it unethical to read a newspaper without reading their ads? Record a TV show and then fast forward through the commercials later? Get up and get food/go to the bathroom during commercials? Throw away mail flyers for products? Use a text based browser? Have a visual imparement?

    In all these cases, you are ignoring/blocking ads. Sites have a right to try and advertise, but it's your computer, and you have a right to change the presentation to meet your needs.

    Also if the advertisers learned a little something form successful advertising, such as Google and newspapers, they would have a much better chance of not getting blocked:

    1) Be less obtrusive. The web is a random access media. Interrupting people with full screen or popup ads is annoying and counter the operation of the web. Thus people hate them and want them gone.

    2) Be relivant. Do nto slather your ad over ever site on the internet. Target your ad at sites that attract people that care.

    3) Be honest. A large number of ads are highly deceptive in their nature.

    Double click violates all of these their ads are a pain, they advertise whatever, wherever and most of them are "Punch the monkey and win" or "You have a message" or "Your computer is broadcasting an Internet IP address".

    I LIKE Google ads, since they relate to what I search for. Thus, if I want to buy something, I search and then look in the right hand column since the ads are unobtrusive, relivant to what I want, and honestly trying to sell me it.

    1. Re:Probably by DreamerFi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bob is being nice to you. He's giving you free pictures of flowers. Being nice to Bob and viewing the whole site is the right thing to do.

      Now, where am I wrong?

      Here's where you are wrong: Bob picked a business model to make sure he could continue to give out those pictures. He could have picked many, but he picked advertising. That may or may not work: perhaps it earns him enough money to continue doing it this way, perhaps it doesn't. It is not relevant wether people actually view the advertising, buy something based on the advertising, etc, because it's clearly a deal between the advertiser and bob. Not between me and bob. I have no responsibility to make his business model work for him. Suppose he signed a contract that doesn't make him enough money - he just needs 5% more. Would it be an ethical requirement for me to visit his site 5% more to make up for his bad decision? No? How about 50%? I have no ethical requirement to make any business model at all work. I am not ethically required to make the store at the corner profitable, and I'm not ethically required to make Bob profitable. It's his gamble that advertising is a way to get money from my visits to his site.

      -John

  13. Re:Sad news by thrillseeker · · Score: 4, Insightful
    that is kind of the point - I am sure that you can justify using the site without the ads.

    Sure I can justify it - I'm not going to eat a bowl of shit just to get to the cherry.

    Abusive ads are ignored in any way possible (adblock, making a note to never buy anything from that company, never visiting the site again, whatever) by everyone who visits a site in some way, either mentally or physically. If it blinks, wiggles, flashes, has sound, pops up, pops under, moves around, or is just plain ugly it gets ignored from then on - forever if it has any moving parts. Sites that elect to serve such abusive ads will eventually go out of business. Sites that make an effort to serve relevant and simple ads will still be around - some of them that make a serious effort to "do no evil", such as google, will even make money.