Slashdot Mirror
BitTorrent Servers Under DDoS Attacks
jZnat writes "CNet News.com reports that popular BitTorrent tracker hosts such as Suprnova and LokiTorrent underwent DDoS attacks on Wednesday (I'll bet you noticed). The culprits are primarily unknown, but these sites were flooded beyond control from the attack. This appears to be striking an interest in revising the BT protocol and Suprnova's interest in making their own protocol."
We all know it's the MPAA and RIAA.
RIAA adopting Lycos's tactics?
As if that weren't enough, now they'll most certainly feel some variant of the Slashdot effect as people try to check it out. Way to go!
Future Slashdot headline: Lycos apologizes for wrongly targeted DDoS attacks
I would like to know whether suprnova.com and suprnova.net were hit by the DDoS attacks. They try and maky money of the popularity of suprnova.org and there are a number of people that actually get suckered into paying those sites.
So it's time to switch to a serverless network under an open-source project? You mean something like Kademlia in the eMule?
Please speak for yourself. The fact that you're living in a country with strict file copying/distribution laws doesn't mean this is the same in the rest of the world. At least here in the most countries of Europe there's nothing wrong with distributing copies of music, video and software.
Whoever was responsible, it surely isn't one of the many-many, oh yes, and many other :) people, who use bittorent regularly to fetch stuff. That is, we all have some hunch who might be the bad guy: a). those who oppose all forms of sharing (won't name them, you know those bad, bad, bad guys in associations :) needn't have been themselves personally, but you know this alright b). somebody who just has something against suprnova or the others.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
Suprnova's interest in making their own protocol.
I am all up for new protocols, but there is a reason why we do not have:
http, httmyp, tthpp, hhtp, mshttp [I wouldnt doubt], SCOhttp, HPhttp
Don't fragment the issues, work on a common protocol, if we can uncouple protocol and application (which has happened in all major networks I think) then good.
Go for it supe..r..pr..nva...! but make it open.
I kinda knew bit torrents would be attacked, can't they just publish the ip's that are attacking them, and get us to click on them a bit?
teardrop attack?
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
I knew I shouldn't have installed that new screensaver from the MPAA.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
This is a perfect example of why it's not quite right to take the law into your own hands against someone who you **feel** is wrong.
I have had my site targeted before, and I run a completely legit, whitehat site. Just because someone thinks they're better off financially without a competitor does not mean he's justified to try to take me down.
I ran a very small BitTorrent tracker for distributing our videos. (2 torrents, very few clients)
A few weeks ago we started receiving a massive attack, mostly from client addresses in Asia.
The attack wasn't a DDoS per se - they were just "hijacking" my tracker by using it for their own torrents. But the volume of traffic (>100 requests/sec) had the effect of a DoS attack.
I was surprised that the standard BitTorrent server does not have some way to prevent unwanted torrents from appearing on your tracker. I was also surprised that my "small-time" tracker (only named by via 1 web page) attracted such a hijacking.
I will not run a tracker without the ability to deny usage to unwanted torrents. Although I'm uncertain about running any tracker at all now, since the hijack basically killed our internet connection.
At the very least, do not run a BitTorrent tracker on a critical DNS name like your primary web site. The attacking clients in my case were all performing DNS lookups. (I could tell they were attacking a DNS name, not an IP address, by changing my DNS entries). Luckily I had used a separate DNS entry for the tracker, so I just pointed it to 127.0.0.1 to stop the attack. But if I had used my primary web server's address, I'd be in real trouble.
As of right now (0047 : 03/12/2004 GMT-8) Loki Torrent seems to be dead... Slashdot effect? or another DDos ? (or is there a difference?)
At least here in the most countries of Europe there's nothing wrong with distributing copies of music, video and software.
/. for a while.
If you are in a country with membership of the EU, you might be interested* in reading Directive 2001/29 EC on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society. This has most definitely had an impact on the copyright regime in the UK, although, even before this, unauthorised distribution of copyrighted files was not permitted.
And, on the topic of wondering whether there is "nothing wrong" with distibuting, perhaps some thoughts about the moral rights of authors? Not protected as much in mainland Europe as in the UK (mainland seems to prefer protection of economic rights), but important nonetheless.
*Disclaimer. You might not be interested in reading this at all, but it is of sufficient length to help prevent you posting misleading statements on
I don't know what the hell your statistics prove,or even if they're right, but I do know that, wherever he or she is, your high school mathematics teacher would be proud of you.
Have you given serious thought to a career in marketing or PR? With that kind of commitment to mumbo jumbo and ridiculous statistics you'd be a natural.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
You have a fatal flaw in your logic. You are assuming that people will read the article.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
I find it interesting that the focus with regards to DDoS attacks that I have read about is not on proper security and precautions, but rather the client/server applications being attacked. Because your Apache server is DDoS'd, does that mean you distribute your website through ftp? Of course not, you take further security precautions and strengthen your protection against DDoS attacks. Why then should there be a need to "create a new protocol" to "protect" from attacks?
Protocols in and of themselves do not inherently have protection from these kinds of attacks. That is not the purpose of a protocol. The purpose of a protocol is to establish an agreed method of communications between two or more identified systems in a connection. This is where the problem persists: identification.
DDoS is not successful because it overrides the buffers or socket space for connections to a server. It is successful because these sockets are kept open longer than they should be.
What a server needs is not a "secure" protocol, because any protocol (method of communication) can be compromised so long as the attacker can make the protocol believe that an identified, valid entitiy has made a connection and intends to communicate.
Instead, system administrators need to strengthen the rules in their firewalling and subsystem (kernel) to improve the latency of the socket states so that the system will not fail when attacked. I believe GNU/Linux has many tools available as well as kernel modules already available in order to accomplish much of this already.
Rather than wasting time in creating YAP (Yet Another Protocol), the time and effort may be better utilized creating the system and firewalling tools needed to combat DDoS at its root.
This brings it even further to the point of not necessarily even having to reconfigure and install and reconfigure again the varied tools needed for server-side protection, but even look as close as the router itself and the built-in firewalls there.
I believe even Cisco has given some hardware advice for DDoS here.
We don't necessarily need to be creating so much as we should be perfecting and improving.
Suprnova isn't a tracker :)
If you want to put something up on it you have to find your own tracker first!
www.monkeys-in-bras.com - _the_ place for the decerning monkey viewer.
The problem is that the community doesn't have the same say over the actions of DDoSers that a wild west town's citizens would have over their sheriff.
If a small group decided that slashdot was politically unsettling (and they'd have quite a lot to go on) and decided to take it down for a few days I expect that most of us would be annoyed.
DDoSing the pirates and spammers of the web is just one more way to fill the net with junk, and it's usually a small group (or single lycos) who decide to take the action without approval.
For once I prefer Microsoft's approach of taking the spammers to court. At least that might have some positive results.
It is official; Netcraft confirms: Bittorrent is dying.
:(
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered Bittorrent community when IDC confirmed that Bittorrent market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all P2P services. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that Bittorrent has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. Bittorrent is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin [amdest.com] to predict Bittorrent's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Bittorrent faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Bittorrent because Bittorrent is dying. Things are looking very bad for Bittorrent. As many of us are already aware, Bittorrent continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
Azureus is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time Azureus developers Bob Wentz and J.D. Stone only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Azureus is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
BitTornado leader TheShad0w that there are 7000 users of BitTornado. How many users of burst! are there? Let's see. The number of BitTornado versus burst! posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 BitTornado users. Bittorrent posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of BitTornado posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dbblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
Jesus Christ this trolling shit is hard to do. I know I left the other half with BSD
STOP MENTIONING SUPRNOVA .. you're ruining it for everyone who actually knows what the hell it is... please stop!!!
The key word in my message is "distributing". I doubt that distributing an album to 300 people through bittorrent falls under non-commercial personal use copies
Mother is the best bet and don't let Satan draw you too fast.
A network with no central servers or even 'supernodes' reduces the effect of DoS-attacks, and leaves no single person or company to attack with a lawsuit. But that alone isn't enough. Other problems remain, like the privacy issue. Many P2P networks reveal IP addresses of nodes on 'the other end'. Thus, after retrieval of a file, you know from what IP address(es) the file came from. That leaves the network vulnerable for attacks or legal steps against individual users.
To prevent this, it must be impossible to find out who/where a retrieved file (or search query) actually came from (IP, geographical location or otherwise).
Besides the well known Freenet, there's another promising one called ANts. From what I can tell, it works by passing data between nodes, without passing info on the endpoints where data is coming from/going to. Each node passes data on, but doesn't know if the next node will keep it, or in turn pass it on to yet another node in a path. IP addresses are replaced with a virtual 'network ID' (regularly discarded), and combined with encryption, a single node can't tell what it's passing on, where it came from, or where it's going. IP addresses are only known for a few neighbours it contacts directly. For an analogy, think anonymous remailers. The project page also mentions something similar called MUTE. I guess you could call projects like this 3rd generation P2P networks. Looking forward to it! (and please add if you know more like these)
While these two sites may be the biggest sites that we know of under DDoS attacks to me it seems to be more widespread. I am a moderator of a small Mazda enthusiast forum and we underwent a variety of DDoS attacks pretty much all night from varying addresses. I have no clue why someone would want to DDoS a small non-profit forum (we have our own server) but seems to me like Suprnova.org and the other BitTorrent sites are just collateral in a much larger game.
Luckily for us, we have a very good admin and he was updating the firewall rules pretty much left and right. Site never went down but at least we weren't posted on the front page of Slashdot either... then things would have been a bit different.
...there's just too many variables that are directly opposing.
Central vs decentral
Peers vs supernodes vs superservers vs tracker
Anonymity vs speed
Integrity vs fuzzy search
Search by content vs by index vs by hash vs...
Routing vs direct links
Indexing vs index poisoning
Trust vs anonymity
Leeching vs control
It is impossible to create a network that can achieve all of them at once.
Http is by comparison a trivial protocol. It involves only the connection between two hosts. Creating a virtual network of P2P clients is more like reimplementing the whole of layers 3 (IP), 4 (TCP), 5 (sessions) in the OSI model.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The best answer to a distributed attack is a distributed network. If no node in the network is essential to its operation, such an attack isn't possible.
suprnova.org probably doesn't want to be the world's supplier of content, even without the DDoS part. I find your reasoning completely backwards. Why should your Apache server be the only server?
If you had a dozen mirrors hosted around the world, it'd be much harder to take down. With web pages, you can do that. With trackers, you can not. Not yet. Because the protocol doesn't support it.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Suppose server X hosts a really popular large file of, say, 100MB in size. Suppose that server only has 1MB/sec upstream bandwith. Suppose users A and B both want the file. The server needs to send the file twice, once for A and once for B. Obviously, this takes twice as long as sending the file just once. And if there's two more people, C and D, also downloading the file, it needs to be sent four times and takes four times as long as sending it only once. In other words, the more people are downloading the file, the slower each download gets.
The torrent principle tries to solve this problem. The idea is that A and B start downloading different parts of the large file. For example, A could start downloading the first half and B the second half. Once A has downloaded some of the file, he starts sending it to B, and B does the same. Suppose, for the sake of simplicity, that both A and B have the same bandwith as the server, and that everyone has the same up- and downstream bandwith.
Now, A is getting the file from server X at 1/2 MB per second. A is also downloading the file from B at 1/2 MB per second, and thus is getting a combined speed of 1 MB/sec. The same goes for B.
This is the torrent principle: use the upstream bandwith of downloaders to help ease the load on server.
Now, A and B need to learn about each other's existence in order to cooperate in this way. In BitTorrent, this is done via a tracker. You download a small torrent file, which contains the address of the tracker, the names and sizes of the files in this torrent, and checksums for each part of the file (to prevent people from sending fake parts). Someone generated this torrent file from file(s) he had on his computer, uploaded it to a torrent tracker, and then launched BitTorrent. BitTorrent checks the files against the checksums, notices that there is no pieces missing, and thus doesn't try to download any - just upload (making it a so-called "seed"). It then connects to a tracker and lets it know that "I'm here". When someone else uses this torrent file, their BitTorrent client connects to the tracker, asks for addresses of peers, and starts downloading pieces from them (and uploading pieces to them - there is a simple "tit for tat" method that ensures that you serve best the nodes which upload to you, thus ensuring that everyone will indeed participate). Once a node gets all the file pieces and has thus finished the download, it becomes a "seed" and keeps on uploading untill the user terminates it.
So, the trackers are absolutely vital for BitTorrent; without them, the clients can not learn about each other, and thus can't connect to each other and up- and download.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
The key word in my message is "distributing". I doubt that distributing an album to 300 people through bittorrent falls under non-commercial personal use copies
And I'm sure the people distributing those copies don't believe that 70 years after the death of the artists counts as the "limited time" granted in the constitution... go figure.
Of course, we all know that's never true which is the problem with other P2P software. ADSL and cable modems unfairly favor downloading (consuming) content rather than uploading (serving). This is just another example of the corporate world trying to control the dissemination of information. There's no good technical reason they couldn't run a symmetrical DSL signal over your voice line like they do ADSL, they just don't want to. It's the same reason many of these ISPs still require you to login via PPPoE and get a dynamic IP for your "always on, high speed dedicated connection". They're stuck in a 1995 mentality of dialup users consuming content rather than sharing information. Dynamic IPs on cable and DSL really bug me. You can get one plan with dynamic IP and PPPoE from SBC for $29/month, but add in a static IP and suddenly you're looking at $75/month. WTF? You need to account for that customer using an IP address whether you assign it dynamically or whether it is static... why the rape on static prices?
You know, I have 5 moderator points, and I just couldn't find a single good post to mod up, here. So I'll say what I think needs saying.
How do you know that the Lycos spam-DDoS screen saver *isn't* what is taking out bittorrent?
I can think of a number of possibilities, any of which might be worth investigation.
(1) - As was mentioned elsewhere, it *could* be that lycos is leasing its services out to the RIAA.
(2) - It could be that the spammers are using Bittorrent servers
(3) - It could be that the spammers have hijacked the bittorrent servers (as I understand, a lot of bittorrent hijacking has come from China. Perhaps not coincidentally, a lot of spammers use servers in China to host their activities.)
(4) - It could be that the spammers have somehow masked their servers' real identities to look like bittorrent servers.
There are a few possibilities that might be worth checking out. Anyhow, I'll hold onto my 5 points, I guess. Shoot, I might just deposit them in the bank and wait till inflation takes em out.
Slashdot just ain't what it used to be (as you can tell by looking at my low slashdot ID number).
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
The corporate world isn't trying to control the dissemination of information. They are protecting their profits. It's not necessary for them to have symetric lines for most DSL customers as their downloading habits are very much skewed towards the download bandwidth. It's also cheaper for them to provide aDSL service then it is to provide sDSL. Upload bandwidth I beleive is more expensive, bit for bit, then the download. There is also distance limitations on the speeds available. sDSL may work well at relative slow speeds, but once you get to faster speeds, the upload speeds greatly reduce. Verizon offers download speeds between 768kbit@18,000 feet and and 7.1mbit@9,000 feet. There is no way that they can provide 7.1mbit upload speeds@9,000 feet.
Dynamic IP addresses are used for several reasons. The first is that it discourages customers from running servers. It doesn't eliminate it, but it makes it more of an inconvienence.
Those that truly need static addresses typically are willing to pay a premium for it. Business customers for instance. They can't afford to have e-mail not delivered or their website unavailable during that short period when an IP address may be updated. In this case, it is about the $$$. Most ISPs will renew a lease so in effect your dynamic address is typically static, but it's not guaranteed though.
Dynamic addresses are also cheaper for the ISP. In many cases the addresses aren't actually owned by the ISP but instead "leased" to them. The ISP ends up paying for each one of them. If they give everyone static, they need to have 1 or more addresses per customer. If they hand them out on a as-needed basis, they can save money as not everyone needs one at all times. At most they would need the same number of addresses as what they would need with static. At the least, they would need 1 per active customer. As leases expire the addresses can be reused, reducing the total number of addresses needed over the long term.
PPPoE is used because it can simplify the back end support and accounting process for the ISP as they can use essentially the same system for both dialup and DSL customers. If everyone is essentially treated as a PPP customer, regardless of the actual connection method, the same authenticaion servers can be used, the same tracking/billing servers, etc. ISPs didn't have to get another set of conectivity to migrate dialup users over to DSL.
When carrying table legs always remember: 1. NEVER pretend it's a sawn off shotgun. 2. NEVER tell somebody in a pub you are going to kill them with a shotgun. 3. When confronted by armed police, PUT YOUR TABLE LEG DOWN. This is a good time to stop pretending you have a shotgun, or Darwinism may occur.
I was conned by an old man in a cloak. It turns out those *were* the droids I was looking for.
...is longer than that. It could be an intriguing investigation...kind of like "who shot JR".
RIAA if I'm not mistaken lobbied (unsucdessfully thank goodness) to have legislation put in place to permit them to hack into suspect computers at their discretion if I recall, and MPAA is just another pea in that IP-hoarding pod.
Other suspects? There are too many to mention, but boradly speaking they might fall into one of several categories besides the above:
* Large closed source software vendors or someone connected to them (Microsoft, etc). They would be trying to shut down a big source of piracy. I doubt it is Microsoft, they are not that dumb. In any case suprnova et al are not the right target...that is shooting the messenger, not the perpetrators who make use of their resources.
* One of the above-mentioned perpetrators (copyright violators who up/download cracked software and movies). I've noticed that a sizeable minority of heavy BT users out there are immature and petty (probably teenagers sequestered in their basements). If they are knocked off suprnova or similar sites or are slagged in a community forum they get all out of joint and retaliate. The stupid turds brought it on themselves and such retaliation is not warranted.
* Some of the seedier on-line proprietors, such as those who run revenue generating sites imitating the free suprnova.org, because if the free sites go away it might steer more revenue to them. I wouldn't put it past them
* Commercial porno sites. P2P networks are full of porn (you don't even have to search on an obvious sexual keyword sometimes) and it is pretty much all ripped off of some pay site. Most (not all, but most) on-line porn businesses are run by people lacking morals and intelligence (witness the whining by one porno purveyor about Google caching thumbnail images and deep-linking into his site with regard to the latter). SO it is very likely a porn-vendor arranged the dDOS attacks.
Part of me hopes it really was RIAA or MPAA...they are cartels that are unhealthy for the industry and it would be cool if there was finally a reason to shut them down. However, I think it's one of the latter 3 groups I mentioned.