Slashdot Mirror


Taking on an Online Extortionist

An anonymous reader writes "When an online exortionist comes a knocking, threatining a DDoS, do you pay or fight? For many, paying may seem like a sensible option when compared to going out of buisness. CSO Magazine has a riveting article about how an online gambling site and a DDoS specialist teamed up to take on such an extortionist. When everybody else was rolling over and paying, this company risked its very existence to fight back. From the article: '"The attack went to 1.5Gb, with bursts up to 3Gb. It wasn't targeted at one thing. It was going to routers, DNS servers, mail servers, websites. It was like a battlefield, where there's an explosion over here, then over there, then it's quiet, then another explosion somewhere else," says Lyon. "They threw everything they had at us. I was just in shock."'"

784 comments

  1. oblig Churchill by isecore · · Score: 5, Funny

    "We will fight them in the CAT5, on the routers, in the packets. We will never surrender"

    Or however he said it :)

    --
    I enjoy large posteriors and I cannot prevaricate.
    1. Re:oblig Churchill by sqlgeek · · Score: 5, Informative

      "We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God's good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old."

    2. Re:oblig Churchill by Infinityis · · Score: 1

      And here I thought it was Sean Connery playing as King Arthur in the movie First Knight:

      "I am your king...and I command you...TO FIGHT! Long live the internet! Never give up! Never giv-*thwack*

      As he collapses under the weight of the DDoS attack.

    3. Re:oblig Churchill by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      I was thinking Galaxy Quest ;-)

      Never give up, never surrender.

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    4. Re:oblig Churchill by ShaniaTwain · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly."

    5. Re:oblig Churchill by jasonbowen · · Score: 1

      with the first chords of Aces High playing in the background...

    6. Re:oblig Churchill by fireman+sam · · Score: 1

      I was thinking of nearly any American movie. The bit about 5 minutes from the end of the film where it looks like our hero will fail. But wait, he/she has found the speed/courage/strength to overcome any adversity before them and take victory *YAY*, not to mention the love interest.

      Maybe they will make a movie about this.

      --
      it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
    7. Re:oblig Churchill by Knara · · Score: 4, Funny

      The sad thing is that I remember that speech entirely because its used as an intro to the Iron Maiden song "Aces High"

    8. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      our noble cause in the provision of on line gambling will prevail.

    9. Re:oblig Churchill by kfg · · Score: 2, Funny

      We really need to put a stop to damned terrorists and insurgents like this.

      KFG

    10. Re:oblig Churchill by 3770 · · Score: 4, Funny


      Would you have been happier if you remembered it because you were there in person?

      God knows your /. ID is low enough that it might be true. ;)

      --
      The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
    11. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Why is that sad??? That is one of the most awesome songs by Maiden... and if it taught you a little history (got you to learn more about Churchill maybe?) then it was entertaining and educational.

      Heck... I used lines from Maiden and Judas Priest in my Junior Presentation in Arts and Lit... the teacher missed them but some of the kids in class picked up on them... ...and this new twist on the speech is good too...thanks for posting.

    12. Re:oblig Churchill by onkelonkel · · Score: 1

      By Grapthars hammer, and the suns of Warvan, you shall be avenged!

      --
      None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
    13. Re:oblig Churchill by JustOK · · Score: 1

      Hey, I recognize that. Its the lyrics to that Supertramp song.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    14. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell, I submitted the entire lyrics of Run to the Hills as a poem for English class. Teacher gave me a B ... said I concentrated too much on rhyme and meter and not enough on content.

    15. Re:oblig Churchill by badmammajamma · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Churchill definitely had some of the best quotes in history.

      --
      Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
    16. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now its stuck in my head and i only have the album on lp and no LP player GAH ... Aces high will be in my memory for the next week...

    17. Re:oblig Churchill by Knara · · Score: 1

      Sad from my point of view that I didn't learn it beforehand (I enjoy history a great deal). This isn't to say that Iron Maiden isn't great, mind you. To this day they're one of my all-time favorites. Their lyrical content is, intellectually, light years beyond the subject matter of your average rock group.

    18. Re:oblig Churchill by Zangief · · Score: 1

      You should be proud. Iron Maiden is teh Rox0rz!!

    19. Re:oblig Churchill by RichardX · · Score: 3, Funny

      Churchill definitely had some of the best quotes in history.
      He also looked like every baby ever born.
      It's true! all babies look like Winston Churchill.
      Quite scary, really...

      --
      Curiosity was framed. Ignorance killed the cat.
    20. Re:oblig Churchill by Knara · · Score: 1
      IN MY DAY

      Nah, actually back about a month ago there was a dicksizing (that I stayed out of) with low UIDs. Someone had a UID way, way down there. Somewhere around 9000 lower than me. Now THAT is an ancient UID.

      Me? I'm just this guy, ya know?

    21. Re:oblig Churchill by mcmonkey · · Score: 3, Funny
      "we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills"

      Hay Winston, why not try fighting them in Germany?

    22. Re:oblig Churchill by DjReagan · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that Germany doesn't have any beaches, landing grounds, fields, streets or hills?

      --
      "When I grow up, I want to be a weirdo"
    23. Re:oblig Churchill by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 3, Funny

      Lady Astor, first woman elected to the House of Commons, to Winston Churchill:

      -- If you were my husband, I would poison your coffee.

      -- If you were my wife, I would drink it.

    24. Re:oblig Churchill by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      Very funny, although of course at this time, England had its back against the wall, Germany controlled all of Europe pretty much, and was readying its forces to *invade* England. If Germany had won the Battle of Britain in the air, that invasion would no doubt have been a possibility. Only the channel and the Royal Navy really stood in the way.

      Canada and the other dominions were helping Great Britain, but the US wasn't involved in the war at that point I believe, so the industrial might of the US wasn't a factor. Fighting in Germany was a long ways, a major buildup and an invasion or two away still :)

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    25. Re:oblig Churchill by tu_holmes · · Score: 1

      I believe that intro was only on the Live After Death Live CD... not the Powerslave studio album.

      Still a great tune either way.

    26. Re:oblig Churchill by sphealey · · Score: 2, Funny
      Me? I'm just this guy, ya know?
      I hear ya.

      sPh

    27. Re:oblig Churchill by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      The US, while not directly involved in the war, was providing Britain material support accross the atlantic.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    28. Re:oblig Churchill by flink · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And some pretty questionable ones:

      "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place."

      He also had no problem with using gas to put down uprisings by colonized indigenous peoples. I'm not saying he's a saint, just pointing out that popular leaders tend to get viewed through a rose colored filter.

    29. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving

      I'm surprised that nobody has pointed this mistake out, because it completely changes the whole meaning of what Churchill was saying. The correct phrase was "which I do not for a moment believe".

    30. Re:oblig Churchill by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      B... by Grapthar's hammer... what a savings.

      The intonation of this line combined with the look on Alan Rickman's face is just perfect. He deserved some kind of award for that line alone...

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    31. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Germany had won the Battle of Britain in the air, that invasion would no doubt have been a possibility. Only the channel and the Royal Navy really stood in the way.

      They probably wouldn't have bothered with the navy at first, just sent paratroopers in. That said, Operation Sealion (as the invasion plan was called) would probably have never worked. Germany had no experience of amphibious invasions and wholly unrealistic expectations (there was a one week gap between the first and second waves - can you imagine the first wave surviving for a week on the south coast of England with no supplies or reinforcements?)

    32. Re:oblig Churchill by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Germany controlled all of Europe pretty much, and was readying its forces to *invade* England. If Germany had won the Battle of Britain in the air, that invasion would no doubt have been a possibility. Only the channel and the Royal Navy really stood in the way.

      Many modern historians believe that an invasion wouldn't have come for many years, if at all. The Germans lacked the ability to move armour over the channel. They did do some counter-inteligence to fake the Brits out though, make them think it was coming.

      Fighting in Germany was a long ways, a major buildup and an invasion or two away still :)

      Nonsense, it will be over by Christmas!! ;-)

    33. Re:oblig Churchill by shreevatsa · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"
      --Winston Churchill

    34. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      _Selling_ us material support to be pedantic ... but don't get me wrong we're still rather grateful.

    35. Re:oblig Churchill by PatMouser · · Score: 5, Funny

      Bah.

    36. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many modern historians believe that an invasion wouldn't have come for many years, if at all. The Germans lacked the ability to move armour over the channel. They did do some counter-inteligence to fake the Brits out though, make them think it was coming.

      Some even take the tack that the Germans had no intention of invading England for the simple reason that Hitler actually liked the English and even admired them.

    37. Re:oblig Churchill by donutello · · Score: 5, Funny

      We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills.

      Hey, sounds like our last family vacation!

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    38. Re:oblig Churchill by rizzo420 · · Score: 1, Funny

      The news had come out in the First World War
      The bloody Red Baron was flying once more
      The Allied command ignored all of its men
      And called on Snoopy to do it again.

      Twas the night before Christmas, 40 below
      When Snoopy went up in search of his foe
      He spied the Red Baron, fiercely they fought
      With ice on his wings Snoopy knew he was caught.

      Christmas bells those Christmas bells
      Ring out from the land
      Asking peace of all the world
      And good will to man

      The Baron had Snoopy dead in his sights
      He reached for the trigger to pull it up tight
      Why he didn't shoot, well, we'll never know
      Or was it the bells from the village below.

      Christmas bells those Christmas bells
      Ringing through the land
      Bringing peace to all the world
      And good will to man

      The Baron made Snoopy fly to the Rhine
      And forced him to land behind the enemy lines
      Snoopy was certain that this was the end
      When the Baron cried out, "Merry Christmas, my friend"

      The Baron then offered a holiday toast
      And Snoopy, our hero, saluted his host
      And then with a roar they were both on their way
      Each knowing they'd meet on some other day.

      Christmas bells those Christmas bells
      Ringing through the land
      Bringing peace to all the world
      And good will to man

      Christmas bells those Christmas bells
      Ringing through the land
      Bringing peace to all the world
      And good will to man

      --
      please me, have no regrets.
    39. Re:oblig Churchill by mikael · · Score: 4, Funny

      Humbug.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    40. Re:oblig Churchill by mikeswi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      _Selling_ material was how we justified it to an isolationist Congress and population. Actually, we _lent_ most of what went over because England was running out of money. And we didn't want it back once the war was over.

      Plus several squadrons worth of American figher pilots went over to help before we declared war.

      Plus our navy was fighting an unofficial war with the German U-boats for about a year before we went to war while we escorted the convoys heading from Canada to England.

      FYI, we're just as grateful to England for remaining a friend ever since. Although personally I wish your government would try to hold mine in check rather than just going along with everything Bush does. Your government may be our friend but I don't think your people like us very much at this point.

    41. Re:oblig Churchill by kalamazoo904 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because he knew England didn't have the manpower for an amphibious landing in France or Germany. They'd sent troops to France, but the incompetency of the French High Command in the face of Blitzkreig forced the Dunkirk evacuation.

      That's where the line about "the New World coming to rescue the Old" comes in -- Churchill knew he couldn't invade France until the US entered the war. He knew that was likely by early '42, i.e., about two years after that speech. If Pearl Harbor hadn't happen, Roosevelt was prepared to make German attacks on American shipping a casus belli.

      Did they teach you the history of WW II, or are you just being obnoxious?

      --
      Your friendly neighborhood nitpicker
    42. Re:oblig Churchill by drgonzo59 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And if it wasn't for ze Russians the Europe would have been the 3rd Reich today. Its amazing how much the West underestimates that Russians went all the way to Berlin to Hitler's bunker. I guess with the Cold War, the Russians just had to be evil, and while the Soviets defintely sugar-coated the history in their favor, I would not have expected that the "free" and "democtratic" US would also do it. Yeah I know, the Americans helped plenty,they gave the Ruskies Jeeps and other vehicles. But the still it those the Russians that died from Hiltler's and Stalin's hand.

    43. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude! If you are speaking of American movies having cliched plotlines, you obviously haven't heard of our wonderful Bollywood. And it's not just the 5 minutes from the end here, it's the entire three hours!

    44. Re:oblig Churchill by PhilipPeake · · Score: 1
      Right ... sort of.

      The Russians were actually allied with Germany, and would have taken no significant part in the war if Hitler had not decided that he wantesd Russia as part of his empire, and decided to attack them.

      He found out, as did Napoleon before him that poikng the sleeping bear in the eye with a sharp stick is not a good idea.

      As it turns out, the Russians were decisive in turning the tide against Gemany. But you have to wonder what the end result might have been if they had remained somewhat neutral.

    45. Re:oblig Churchill by jb.hl.com · · Score: 0

      I really really want this modded up.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    46. Re:oblig Churchill by avronius · · Score: 1

      If only I could remember the password to my original account... "Avron"

      Then we'd see... Oh yes, then we'd see...

      I'll take "Can I play with madness" for $100 please Alex.

    47. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the extortionist? Shouldn't we hear him/her out?
      I'm sure they had a very valid reason for their actions.

    48. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US also provided them with the tech to produce industrial quantities of high-grade steel and tanks, the two most critical factors in determining the success of the Russian retaliation. In fact, we provided them with more advanced tank tech than our own forces were using due to some retarded Not Invented Here issues (the designs were from the US, but not from the Army's in-house team).

    49. Re:oblig Churchill by mav[LAG] · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is not to underplay the Russian fighting ability (a mere 40 of them in a grain silo held an entire German battalion at bay for 3 months at Stalingrad for instance), but in Stalin's words: "My two best generals are January and February."

      Hitler wasted time putting down a silly uprising in the Balkans when he should have been invading, thereby delaying operations for a crucial six weeks and ensuring the Russian winter played a decisive role.

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    50. Re:oblig Churchill by sabernet · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is Churchill never gave the speech, a stand-in did

    51. Re:oblig Churchill by king-manic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Russians were actually allied with Germany, and would have taken no significant part in the war if Hitler had not decided that he wantesd Russia as part of his empire, and decided to attack them.

      Just a little historical note, both sides were going to renege on that alliance/truce. Except the germans though they could gain the upper hand by a decisive pre-emptive attack. Their intelligence reported russia was marshalling it's forces to attack germany.

      They got bod down in russia in winter and they got crushed byt the combined might of the cold and the ruskies.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    52. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow. speaking of low slashdot IDs.

    53. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean had the axis had some sense?
      1) take out Western Europe
      2) take out Britian (note: have Japan help with the battle of the Atlantic - once the subs have got 1/2 way around the world they could be supported by Germany). Note don't lose most the the Kriekgsmarine surafce fleet
      3) German/Japanese joint invasion of Russia, Germany has access to middle east oil, russia doesn't have support of Atlantic convoys
      4) With the entire resources of Europe, Asia & Africa at their disposal, Germany/Japan invades the USA.

      The Axis could quite easily have won, they just made lots of bad decisions, like biting off more than they could chew

    54. Re:oblig Churchill by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, 612710 is a really low UID.

      Avron (612710)

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    55. Re:oblig Churchill by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Fear of the Dark for $200 please...
      Although I think it by far their weakest album, except for that Dark Time where Dickinson went off on his own, I have such fond and quite disturbing memories of that album.

      Just hearing "Fear of the Dark" slings me back to 1993, slaving away in my parents basement in the not yet completed house, trying to grok computer software/hardware and set up my first BBS. God I'm such a dork...

    56. Re:oblig Churchill by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Damn Kids! Get off my lawn!

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    57. Re:oblig Churchill by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Two minutes to midnight.

    58. Re:oblig Churchill by JandarShadowstar · · Score: 1
      Is there another version of Aces High (other than the one on Powerslave) that does have such a Churchill quote as an intro? Because the version I've got doesn't have it...
      The Powerslave version I've got starts with this:
      There goes the siren that warns of the air raid
      Then comes the sound of the guns sending flak
      Out for the scramble we've got to get airborne
      Got to get up for the coming attack.
    59. Re:oblig Churchill by Freshly+Exhumed · · Score: 1

      George Bernard Shaw to Winston Churchill in a telegram about the premier performance of Pygmalion, Shaw's new play:

      "Am reserving two tickets for you for my premiere. Come and bring a friend -- if you have one."

      To which Churchill replied:

      "Impossible to be present for the first performance. Will attend the second -- if there is one."

      And for bonus karma points a delightful tete-a-tete between Shaw and Gilbert Chesterton:

      "Looking at you, Shaw, people would think there was a famine in England."

      Responded Shaw to the portly Chesterton:

      "Looking at you, Chesterton, one would think you were the cause of it."

      --
      I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
    60. Re:oblig Churchill by Loco3KGT · · Score: 1

      We sold it to you?

      Well then, whenever you'd like to start paying us back you just let us know. :-)

      --
      Blessed be he who reads this post, Cursed be he who tells my boss.
    61. Re:oblig Churchill by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Right ... sort of. The Russians were actually allied with Germany, and would have taken no significant part in the war if Hitler had not decided that he wantesd Russia as part of his empire, and decided to attack them.

      Exactly; although I have no doubt that (overall) the allies were the side of good, and the Axis powers the side of evil, the involvement of the Soviet Union in the allied victory is a major problem.

      Frankly, I don't consider Stalin to have been that much less evil than Hitler, and as you point out, he would have been quite happy to have supported the Germans if it had benefited him.

      The ordinary Russians may not have been 'evil', but their leadership certainly were.

      Anyway, if they hadn't been around to help defeat Germany, the likelihood increases that Germany may have prolonged the war, or even have taken over large swathes of Western Europe.

      And then... well, we know now that they weren't close to developing a true atomic bomb. We didn't know that then, and I doubt anyone in power would have hesitated to use it against Germany if there was the chance of them having it and/or of Germany prolonging the war for much longer.

      Still strikes me as ironic that Germany surrendered two months before the weapon designed for use against *them* was completed; and that it was used against Japan.

      They may well have used it against the Soviet Union too; actually, some have argued that they did, tactically, since the dropping of the bombs on Japan is considered by some to have been a way of ending the war *before* Stalin's lot got there.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    62. Re:oblig Churchill by khrtt · · Score: 1

      Hitler couldn't afford to deal with Britain first. If Hitler had waited any longer to invade Russia, Stalin would attack first. He was getting ready to invade Germany some time between two weeks and two months after the Germany's actual invasion date.

      Interestingly, if you consider the consequences of this turn of events, then Stalin would've probably had the whole Europe for 50 years, instead of just Eastern Europe, but the rest of the history wouldn't change all that much.

    63. Re:oblig Churchill by Travex · · Score: 1

      Iron Maiden has given me plenty of history lessions.

    64. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actualy it was more like america sacrificing the russians by letting them go into the nazi hellhole called berlin

    65. Re:oblig Churchill by mi · · Score: 1
      Plus the scores of civilian sailors drowned by those U-boats.

      Plus the recently unclassified (and popularized) help on de/encryption and other intelligence cooperation.

      Although personally I wish your government would try to hold mine in check rather than just going along with everything Bush does.
      At least 51% of Americans don't attach this string...
      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    66. Re:oblig Churchill by scatters · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the version on Live After Death (live performance recorded at Long Beach, CA) was preceded by part of Churchill's speech. I'd have to dig out a /really/ old audio cassette to be positive though :)

      --
      A One that isn't cold, is scarcely a One at all.
    67. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah its on the 'live after death' album.

    68. Re:oblig Churchill by Muhammar · · Score: 3, Informative

      The speech was even better:

      "we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall throw bottles on them if that is what we have"

      The sentence about bottles was actualy cut out by the BBC censor because the humor was too black. (UK had very few heavy arms left after fiasco in France.)

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    69. Re:oblig Churchill by Mathieu+Lu · · Score: 5, Informative

      3 digit amateurs :-)

    70. Re:oblig Churchill by Knara · · Score: 1
      It's a spoken one right before the song start. I know its in the video, and I know its in "Live After Death" (the live recording for the Powerslave tour that was done in the US in the mid 80's). I *thought* it was also on Powerslave, but I'm not sure now.

      Interesting thing, and I don't know if its been rectified yet, but the original Live After Death casette was 120minutes and had a _lot_ more material on it than the Live After Death CD that was released later. I wonder if there is a newer release of it, because there were some killer tracks on that original 120minute tape.

    71. Re:oblig Churchill by Y2 · · Score: 0
      -- If you were my husband, I would poison your coffee.

      -- If you were my wife, I would drink it.

      That would have been a terrible grammatical error up with which neither of those persons would have put.

      --
      "But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
    72. Re:oblig Churchill by Knara · · Score: 1

      Best. UID. Evar.

    73. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      one day you might like to find out something about the countries of Planet Earth. it's quite interesting.

    74. Re:oblig Churchill by MonkeyGone2Heaven · · Score: 1


      At least 51% of Americans don't attach this string...

      If you're refering to the 62 million Americans that voted for GWB in the last election, I have to point out that only represents 21% of 293 million Americans (July 2004 est., CIA Factbook).

      Did you mean to say 51% of voting Americans?

    75. Re:oblig Churchill by Y2 · · Score: 1
      while the Soviets defintely sugar-coated the history in their favor, I would not have expected that the "free" and "democtratic" US would also do it.

      Wouldn't you? Just try to find the origin of the May 1 workers' holiday in a US textbook.

      --
      "Don't teach your grandmother to revise eggs."

      --
      "But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
    76. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean a stand-in stood up in the House of Commons and gave that speech and no-one said 'oi, who the hell are you and what have you done with Winnie?'

      wow.

    77. Re:oblig Churchill by styrotech · · Score: 1

      Rusty Griswald?

    78. Re:oblig Churchill by default+luser · · Score: 1

      The Russian army would have collapsed at Stalingrad, were it not for significant American aid by sea.

      Without such help they would have lost Stalingrad before they could move men into position to cut off the German 6th army.

      --

      Man is the animal that laughs.
      And occasionally whores for Karma.

    79. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and who can forget the classic:

      "Your majesty is like a stream of bat's piss. You shine out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark"

      and the immortal:

      "Your Majesty is like a dose of the clap, before you arrive 'tis pleasure, afterwards, just a pain in the dong".

    80. Re:oblig Churchill by julesh · · Score: 1

      They got bod down in russia in winter and they got crushed byt the combined might of the cold and the ruskies.

      They weren't exactly the first to make this mistake, either. I sometimes wonder what the modern wolrd would be like if they hadn't been so incompetent.

    81. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And we didn't want it back once the war was over."
      Actually, you wrote off Germany's war reparation debt (most of it).
      I refer you to the figures given by Ruth Kelly to British Parliament in Oct 2003. it's very nearly all paid.

      Ruth Kelly: The schedule for the repayments of
      interest and principal sums outstanding on the Second World War agreement for a line of credit and a lend-lease loan facility with the United States Government are as follows:
      US$ million
      December 2003 148
      December 2004 145
      December 2005 142
      December 2006 83

    82. Re:oblig Churchill by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Wasn't there the matter of maintainance? The US used the Sherman during WWII because it was rugged and simple to maintain.

    83. Re:oblig Churchill by dokkeri · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh great... The one time something I have is large and the people want it to be small.

      --
      This sig is funny.
    84. Re:oblig Churchill by badmammajamma · · Score: 2, Informative

      Early in his political career he said many many things considered politically incorrect (especially about women). As he got older he toned it down a lot more, although, I don't know if that's because he had a change of heart or just didn't want to deal with the hassle of offending people.

      Certainly, he was no saint...not even close. Nor was he trying to be. He was simply trying to save his country and he was the perfect man for the job at the time.

      --
      Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
    85. Re:oblig Churchill by hensley · · Score: 1

      pffft

    86. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy ##%$#@%!?! That's a low /. number!

    87. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't ask for it to be paid back?
      1. America got all the designs for the jet engine, supersonic flight and the computer (all invented in England first) in a one-way technology "exchange".
      2. America had a majorly vested interested in helping England, ie keeping the barrier against Naziism in place (nukes uncertain at the time)
      3. What evidence do you have that it wasn't paid back?

    88. Re:oblig Churchill by king-manic · · Score: 1

      We'd be hailing hitler, and I'd problaby be labeled a terrorist in china, as I plan and execute sabatage/terror missions on the evil japanese.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    89. Re:oblig Churchill by davidu · · Score: 5, Funny

      *yawn* ;-)

      -davidu

      --

      # Hack the planet, it's important.
    90. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, if you're going to be an ass and nitpick what was plain and clear, then you'd also have to add together the populations of North and South America as well. After all, they are Americans. Not just Americans, I mean US citizens.

      Voting "Americans" decide our government. You thought he was talking elementary school students in that number?

      21% of Americans voted for Bush. 20% voted for someone else. The remainder couldn't vote, weren't allowed to vote (e.g. criminals), or most likely didn't care.

      If you are trying to make the 51% claim insubstantial, if I recall, the voter turnout was rather high compared to other recent presidential elections. Certainly more plurality than Clinton got in '92.

      Face it--you got beat, you try to talk down what your country does with these petty claims, and just undermine your own attempts to justify how much better you think your viewpoints are.

      Brits disagree, fine. But it's not like French secularism is suddenly going to jump the Channel, or the Brits are suddenly going to cry foul because their London tourism takes a dive, like the French did with Paris summer 2002.

    91. Re:oblig Churchill by mikael · · Score: 1

      I am lost for words to say...

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    92. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iraq is a shade. The period since the great war of 1914 is but a blip in the history of the dominance of European nations-the US is but a fly on the wall that is destined to be smashed. Still though, it is not pleasant to think on it but the nations of Europe and within sight of the EU membership (Northern Africa, Turkey, Balkan nations, Russia to Kyrgyzstan and neighbors) have more potential capacity than the US would have even if it invaded and annexed Canada, Greenland, Mexico, and through its client states down to Panama unless it went on to Colombia and Venezuela. It is your benefit and genuinely the world's that the populace of the nations of Europe do not support such militaristic acts; as to make Americans seem the flamingo. China could annex south east Asia and take in India and Pakistan; Japan could take the Pacific to midway or beyond and retake Korea; South Africa and Congo could divide southern and central Africa; Brazil and Venezuela could take South America. If it came to that point, which is only where it could matter US would be a whipping boy and a painted target.

    93. Re:oblig Churchill by sugar+and+acid · · Score: 1

      The World war II what if game can go on for hours. So anyway, what if Germany didn't declare war on America? It is hard to conceive of america entering into Europe after just starting the campaign against Japan, without Germany having declared war first. Sure FDR wanted to enter the war in europe, but if the US was already embroiled in the pacific the opposition to further miltary commitments would have been very high.

      The result of the US staying out would have probably been the defeat of Germany sometime later at the hands of russia. With russia taking a large part of western europe along the way.

      Now how about this, the worst case scenaria, What would have happened if Japan instead of attacking pearl harbor had attacked russia like the germans wanted them to and left the US alone (till later). Well the key here is if FDR could have gotten the political support to enter the war or not. If the US didn't enter the war, germany and Japan attack russia from two fronts and quite likely succeeded in taking over russia splitting it between japan and germany. If the US comes into europe then d-day may still have happen and germany may have eventually get its arse kicked, but it would have been a lot harder for the allies. For instance if the US is in the war in europe and russia had fallen to the combined russian japanese attack then the allies are fighting against the full german army, and Japan is free to continue its ambitions in the pacific, including opening up the pacific war with the US, except now germany and japan are fighting with russian oil and other resources, and have factories and refineries to far away for the allies to bomb. Germany has also had time to develop their military technology, and the resources to deploy them (for example by 1944 germany had developed a number of jet fighter and bomber designs far superiour to what the allies had or that were in the development pipeline, but the germans didn't have the resources to really build and deploy them). Then there is a question of the A-Bomb, who develops it first is a big question mark especially if the US is late entering the war (say 1944-1945) and doesn't start the manhattan project till then.

      There are plenty of what ifs you can make about the decisions that Germany, japan and the US and other allies made during WWII, some with scary outcomes. But all I can say is the good guys did win in the end.

    94. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, maybe because some districts had >100% turnout?

    95. Re:oblig Churchill by iowannaski · · Score: 1

      The sentence about bottles was actualy cut out by the BBC censor because the humor was too black I have no idea whether this is true, but it certainly sounds apocryphal. The "BBC Censon" is an agent of the government, the prime minister is the voice of said government. Furthermore, the BBC censor owes his job to the prime minister.

      --
      i forget
    96. Re:oblig Churchill by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      I remember it from the beginning of Supertramp's Fool's Overture. Gotta admit that the Iron Maiden lyrics made better sense for more obvious dramatic historical context, though.

    97. Re:oblig Churchill by Pros_n_Cons · · Score: 1

      Normally this isn't worth mentioning but this is a geek site where people need to know facts. Churchill didnt even say that on the radio in 1940 ( a week after the loss at dunkirk). Infact it was an actor named Normal Shelly filling in for the prime minister cause he was "too busy". The speech credited by many historians as a turning point in the war and it was said by an actor.. blah.

      --

      -- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
    98. Re:oblig Churchill by rbullo · · Score: 1
      Interestingly, if you consider the consequences of this turn of events, then Stalin would've probably had the whole Europe for 50 years, instead of just Eastern Europe, but the rest of the history wouldn't change all that much.
      Not exactly true. In this scenario, the Cold War wouldn't have been nearly as tense, because there wouldn't have been a West Berlin. The Soviets would have controlled the whole of Germany. The blockade of West Berlin and the construction of the Berlin Wall wouldn't have happened. The balance of power would be tipped in the favor of the Soviets, at least for the first few decades. They may have even gotten the bomb faster then they did, because they'd have access to scientists and research facilities in West Germany.

      Actually, that may have made it more tense. But that's still different. So there. =P
      --
      OH NOES!!! IT APPEARS YUO DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR DIS HERE PIZZA! WAHT EVER ARE YOU GOING TO DO!?!?
    99. Re:oblig Churchill by mikeswi · · Score: 1

      > 1. America got all the designs for the jet engine, supersonic flight and the computer (all invented in England first) in a one-way technology "exchange".

      Well that's true. I forgot about that, although that really wasn't considered payment. Two friends and allies exchanging information. I believe the armor on our current battle tanks also came from an English weapons program.

      > 2. America had a majorly vested interested in helping England, ie keeping the barrier against Naziism in place (nukes uncertain at the time)

      Plus, we liked England more :)

      > 3. What evidence do you have that it wasn't paid back?

      History books? I've never read about a payment for the material we sent over and we certainly had no use for the equipment that survived the war. The point is that "lending" the warships, ammunation, tanks and whatever else was just a euphamism for giving it away without "technically" violating neutrality. Roosevelt REALLY wanted to declare war but knew Congress wouldn't have it.

    100. Re:oblig Churchill by b-baggins · · Score: 0

      If you were my husband, I'd feed you poison!
      If I were your husband, I'd eat it.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    101. Re:oblig Churchill by Ponzicar · · Score: 1

      That Churchill really gets around.

    102. Re:oblig Churchill by fbartho · · Score: 1

      holy shit... lol... so how exactly did you hear about slashdot early enough to have an id of 18?

      --
      Gravity Sucks
    103. Re:oblig Churchill by Adam9 · · Score: 1

      He probably heard about it before you were born ;)

    104. Re:oblig Churchill by Atryn · · Score: 1
      Maybe they will make a movie about this.
      It might make an interesting one if done in the Tron-style... The bits about explosions going off here and there could be depicted quite nicely.
      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    105. Re:oblig Churchill by Mspangler · · Score: 1

      However, it would be wise to remember that the Brits sucked us into WW1 on false pretenses, basically setting up the Lusitania to take the hit, create an incident, and get the US into the war. (They probably thought they could get the people off safely since it had enough boats and was reasonably close to shore. The second explosion wasn't anticipated.)

      Also, to be fair, I would point out that the Brits are securely settled in the southern oilfields of Iraq, The British share of North sea oil production has peaked (Norwegian production is still climbing) and much of the now-discredited intellegence came from the Brits, (the non-existant attempt to get enriched uranium from Africa, and whatever the famous "Sexed up" report that lead to the "suicide" of the person who talked to Mr. Gilligan of the BBC. (By the way, is he still accounted for?)

      By the way, in WWII, Churchill new that Pearl Harbor was going down, but didn't tell the US, partly because he though we already knew, and partly because he didn't want anyone to know that they had the code broken. (The latter is why he let Coventry burn as well.)

      The Brits look out for the Brits. The French look out for the French. Whether the US's continuous do-gooding is idealistic or stupid only history will tell.

    106. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mr Churchill, You're drunk"!

      "And you, Madam, are ... _bleeeerggghhh_"

    107. Re:oblig Churchill by Xtifr · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, anyone with a UID below 4 or 5000 or so probably dates back to the early days before /. had accounts, and you really can't tell all that much about who came first or anything with numbers that low. I mean, I signed up the day they announced that that they were offering accounts, and I ended up with this crappy four-digit number! :)

    108. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha!
      Me too!

    109. Re:oblig Churchill by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      Meh. ...the point was? ;-)

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    110. Re:oblig Churchill by ErroneousBee · · Score: 1

      Other sites indicate its part of an side to a freind , not part of the actual speech.

      Google is your freind.

      --
      **TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
    111. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no he didn't say it on the Radio in 1940.
      the BBC recorded it (for use partly in the US) in 1942. They recorded Churchill *and* and actor. Only Churchill's recdording was used.

      Churchill gave the speech to the House of Commons on 4th June 1940. In person. Live and unedited in the flesh. It didn't go out on the radio however, like many of the speeches to the Commons did. so he later recorded it.

    112. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that wasn't worth mentioning, because it's total bollocks.

    113. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, America sold hardware to England at inflated prices, then at the end of the war took the equipment back. WW2 was (so far) the only war where it was America's objective to bankrupt both sides.

    114. Re:oblig Churchill by mikael · · Score: 1

      Here's the first http://slashdot.org/">archived slashdot page from 1997.

      To post a comment, any user just had to enter their name, E-mail and website.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    115. Re:oblig Churchill by Arkaein · · Score: 1

      Will people stop modding these idiots up? Having a low Slashdot ID means nothing. Look at their names, none of these guys regularly contribute much of anything anymore, if they ever did. All they do is lurk and post whenever someone makes a crack about having a low ID number.

      I mean, it was funny the first couple times it happened, but this type of thread comes up on a near weekly basis now. These guys are nothing but elitist karma whores. I say treat them as such.

    116. Re:oblig Churchill by doctorcisco · · Score: 1
      What would have happened if Japan instead of attacking pearl harbor had attacked russia like the germans wanted them to and left the US alone (till later).

      They would have run out of oil, and been unable to invade Russia. America embargoed oil shipments to Japan in the summer of 1941. Japan's choices were

      1) Give in to American demands to stop the war of aggression in China,

      2) Invade the Dutch East Indies to replace the oil the Americans wouldn't sell them.

      However, invading the Dutch East Indies would certainly bring an American declaration of war. Therefore, Tojo's choices were simple. Call the army home and buy American oil, go to war with the U.S., or try to fight a war with no oil supplies. We all know which one he picked.

      doc

    117. Re:oblig Churchill by AgentSmith · · Score: 1

      Okay. Now that's the lowest ID I've seen!

      Holy shitbird! The elders HAVE return.
      [Bow] Ommmmm! [Bow] Ommmm!

      O old ID'ed one! Bestow upon us wisdom of the ancients! Please! Pretty please!

    118. Re:oblig Churchill by The+Cornishman · · Score: 1

      This came up on Groklaw a little while back and I took the trouble to check up. The speech was made in the House of Commons (and not broadcast, of course). Extracts were read on the radio news that evening but not by Churchill, who did not record the speech during the war, either. So despite being embedded in the group consciousness, fewer than a few hundred people actually heard Churchill use those words during 1940. The 'beer bottles' meme has no authority that I can trace, and I label it apocryphal. The Groklaw thread is here.

    119. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why the jesus christ almighty did you link with the words 'did not record...' to a site which says right at the bloody top in bold letters:

      "The fact is that he did it, and no one else did it for him."

      are you a total idiot?

    120. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nope, that's not how it works.

      Britain is actually still paying.

      France came to some agreement, and with it's currency shenanegans reduced her payments. France might be still paying a bit, I'm not sure.

      German war reparations were mostly written off in 1953, since the US was scared of an impoverished Germany falling to the Soviets. The rest was paid.

      the total of the war reparations and lend-lease and credit repayments, even including interest, comes to more than the 269billion the US incurred during and before the war.

      I'm not complaining, or being ungrateful or anything. but Americans have a duty to understand all this, and how the world works. I know it's not true of all, but far too many think they own the world, they they pay out and no-one pays back, that they incur a cost of war and others benefit from their protection. and from these misconceptions they become arrogant and insular, too often. the world needs more Americans who understand the world and wish to engage with it.

    121. Re:oblig Churchill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "US's continuous do-gooding"

      look, I'm pretty much pro-US, but that really is a bit ridiculous. you do no-one, least of all yourselves, any favours at all with incessent claims of moral superiority, and martyrdom. most countries think well of themselves, but pretty much no-one but a fool uses phrases like "continuous do-gooding" to describe their country's foreign policy. not even the French do that.

    122. Re:oblig Churchill by cburley · · Score: 1
      I sometimes wonder what the modern wolrd would be like if they hadn't been so incompetent.

      I used to wonder about that sort of thing all the time.

      Now I'm pretty much convinced that tyranny is merely a particular form of incompetence.

      Whether tyranny pertains to social mores, personal beliefs, choice of where to live, choice of what kind of work to do, or general economics, it seems that, generally speaking, the more tyrannical a regime, the more incompetent it is.

      The result seems to be that, over time, tyranny lessens as more-competent (less-tyrannical) regimes come into power.

      --
      Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
    123. Re:oblig Churchill by avronius · · Score: 1

      D'oh! You weren't supposed to check... ;)

    124. Re:oblig Churchill by avronius · · Score: 1

      Actually, unless I'm mistaken, it would have been avron (lower case a) - not Avron (upper case A). How were you able to search for a username?

    125. Re:oblig Churchill by sconeu · · Score: 1

      1. You listed it as "Avron", so I looked for uppercase. Plus, I just checked, and it appears to be case insensitive.

      2. If you know a user's name, it's "http://slashdot.org/~user". e.g:

      http://slashdot.org/~avronius (you)
      http://slashdot.org/~sconeu (me)

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    126. Re:oblig Churchill by avronius · · Score: 1

      Thanks a boatload for the tip. Sadly, as it turns out, the account 'Avron' is not my original account. This I discovered by the url associated with the current account. Definitely not me nor my style. The only other possible account name that I might have used is A.Gray. It's quite possible that this isn't me either, as it was about 7 years ago. I vasilated between off-the-wall and formality in those days... Cheers,

  2. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was his name Roland Piquepaille?

    1. Re:Question by Council · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What I don't understand about the Roland Piquepaille thing is why what anything he does is bad! He says "come look at my site!" instead of directing people elsewhere, even though his blog's content isn't all that spectacular.

      How is that different from the entire rest of the internet? An awful lot of blogs link news stories with a bit of commentary and want people to read them. Slashdot submitters are free to submit their own sites. The problem is with slashdot editors accepting fairly dumb submissions. That seems to be the problem. Not that Roland Piquepaille is acting scandalously.

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    2. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think the fuss was that he alledgedly pasted in 90% of an article on his site (but including a link to the original somewhere on his page), made one or two not-so-insightful comments and submitted his page to /. instead of the link he researched his story from.
      When the slashdotting began, he made a lot off all the ads on his site.
      People were cross that they were pointed to a 'version' of the story when they could have been pointed to the actual story itself, and that someone was profitting off that style of journalism (rightly or wrongly).

    3. Re:Question by American+AC+in+Paris · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I don't have a beef with Mr. Piquepalle anymore, but if suggest you dig through some of his early submissions for an answer. As of late, Mr. Piquepalle has been going the full-disclosure route--that is, he makes no secret of the fact that he's affiliated with the sites he submits to Slashdot. Early on, though, Mr. Piquepalle regularly pretended to be "just some guy" who found sites like Engadget interesting. That's not good; if you're affiliated with what you're plugging, you should be candid and open about that fact. Failure to provide full disclosure puts you in the same boat as the likes of Armstrong Williams, who conveniently forgot to mention that he was being paid off by the administration to plug No Child Left Behind in what were ostensibly opinion pieces. It's a dishonest and unethical practice, to say the least.

      But like I said, he's cleaned up his act in recent months, so I no longer have a beef with him. Some folks, on the other hand, still hold this against him--which isn't an entirely unreasonable position to take.

      --

      Obliteracy: Words with explosions

    4. Re:Question by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 4, Funny
      Mr. Piquepalle regularly pretended to be "just some guy"

      Hey, leave me out of this! I can't even get my own articles accepted.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    5. Re:Question by Fizzl · · Score: 1

      I personally hate his site because it is 100% fucking bullshit. Lot of hype on /. submissions. If you then proceed to read the crap he has copy&pasted from somewhere else, you find it isn't actually anything interesting.
      I'd prefer to have him taken behind the sauna and have a blast at his face with shotgun.

    6. Re:Question by paronomasia5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i can't read the story, but a lot of comments suggest contacting the FBI

      stoopid question but:

      what law did they break?

      if they used their own bandwidth, then they just sent packets to your public website, right?

      This is kind of like some spammer emailing me saying "i currently spam you lots and lots and lots, if you give me *money* i'll stop spamming". Ironically, this is just one more piece of spam in my inbox. Why would this spam be criminal, and the thousands of XXX VIAGRA CIALIS XXX be fine?

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

      The whole name thing happens pretty often. It just made me think...what happened to the "New Here" guy? Is he still around? I know it got old after a while, but it seems like he just fell off the face of the earth.

    8. Re:Question by Greyfox · · Score: 3, Funny

      Everything that bastard submits gets accepted! You could submit "How scientists cracked the light speed barrier" and get rejected and then he comes along behind you with "Anatomy of a cheez doodle" and gets accepted! God I hate him! Hate hate hate! Yup...

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    9. Re:Question by mollymoo · · Score: 1
      When I saw that subject, I heard Destiny's Child's Independent Women: "Question: Tell me what you think about me".

      Get out of my head, Bouncey Knolls!

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    10. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      what law did they break?

      Oh, I dunno. How about laws against extorsion?

    11. Re:Question by gekkotron · · Score: 0

      And remember, Pique Paille translated from French to English, comes out as Prick Straw.

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

      There is significant proof out there that Roland was part of some organized fraud.

      Read this post, for a very brief overview.

    13. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      " Everything that bastard submits gets accepted! You could submit "How scientists cracked the light speed barrier" and get rejected and then he comes along behind you with "Anatomy of a cheez doodle" and gets accepted! God I hate him! Hate hate hate! Yup..."

      What's the URL for the Cheez Doodle Anatomy site?

    14. Re:Question by fbartho · · Score: 1

      Ok, you're the second person I've seen reply with their slashdot username...

      New_Here was the other... it was a messed up kind of deja-vu

      --
      Gravity Sucks
    15. Re:Question by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  3. Here's a tip by dtfinch · · Score: 3, Funny

    Don't respond. They'll think you didn't see their email.

    1. Re:Here's a tip by frikazoyd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would think in the situation that the e-mail was ignored, it would enrage the extortionist into firing a warning shot, one that would for SURE get the guy's attention. In fact, from the article, it looks like that is sort of what happened. He didn't respond, just first sought consultation and alerted his ISP. Then the extortionist sent a second threat, but not until he had crashed a few ISP servers to get some attention.

    2. Re:Here's a tip by suso · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, in relation to that, what happens when your spamfilter marks such an email as spam. I guess you can say that's a major false positive.

    3. Re:Here's a tip by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      ... because someone is DDoSing you already ...

    4. Re:Here's a tip by ReverendLoki · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I can't help but wonder how the extortionist might have reacted to an error reply:

      MAILSERVER: Error, mailbox does not exist

      Not saying it would necessarily work, and as it was probably sent to a published address, would at best delay the threat while lowering the extortionist's expectation of your ability to defend your network.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    5. Re:Here's a tip by BLAG-blast · · Score: 1
      Actually, in relation to that, what happens when your spamfilter marks such an email as spam. I guess you can say that's a major false positive.

      Nah, I think if the spam filter caught that it would be doing it's job. Unless you are actively looking or requesting for people to scam you out of money and DDos you system/services.

      --
      M0571y H@rml355.
    6. Re:Here's a tip by bigberk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When they fire that warning shot, you dump all the attacking IPs to a log and circulate the list to AHBL, Spamhaus, CBL etc so that the extortionist's zombie network is now worth half of what it was before. Zombies are only worth anything if they are novel. And you tell the extortionist that for each additional shot, their botnet monetary value will decrease by 10% or whatever.

    7. Re:Here's a tip by imuffin · · Score: 2, Funny

      When I threaten to extort someone by email and they don't answer, I usually just deface their homepage with a big blinking red message that screams

      READ YOUR EMAIL, DUMBASS!

      ---
      watch funny commercials

    8. Re:Here's a tip by Kosi · · Score: 1

      dump all the attacking IPs

      Good thing that you can't forge you IP, eh?

    9. Re:Here's a tip by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 3, Informative

      Depends. You can't forge tcp connections, which make really good DoS packets because they tie the target server up much more.

      Granted: a raw bandwidth attack can use UDP, ICMP, or a TCP SYN, ACK, SYN-ACK or RST packet, and could be usefully forged.

      There's a fairly riviting thread on the Intrusions list about a DDoS attack in Jan-Feb (may still be going on) that eventually involved some 80,000+ bots. It was defeated with Squid (on OBSD), as well as active upstream providers. The bots repeatedly went to load a file via http, which tied up the web server. Since the tcp connection was actually made, the src ip was known. The bots were apparently installed via drive-by download, rather than worm or email.

    10. Re:Here's a tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we know what Kerry would say "are you sure $40k is enough? How about I send you $80 - the tax payers are good for it".

    11. Re:Here's a tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a tip.. When they e-mail you, send back a DSN (Delivery Status Notification) failure. Basically, they e-mail you, and you send back a "user cannot be found" (pick your error). This way, you're not ignoring it - but they can't get in touch with you to let you know there demands! HA

    12. Re:Here's a tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends. You can't forge tcp connections, which make really good DoS packets because they tie the target server up much more.

      Granted: a raw bandwidth attack can use UDP, ICMP, or a TCP SYN, ACK, SYN-ACK or RST packet, and could be usefully forged.


      ACK traffic makes it past pretty much all home and most small business class firewalls and routers. Most of them simply assume that the ACK is a valid response to an existing connection, packet filtering firewalls are usually only applying the ruleset to SYN, so it just goes right on by.

      Is there any cheap solution to get stateful inspection with enough memory that it can't be easily crashed for home users?

    13. Re:Here's a tip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes, OpenBSD.
      Free and it does stateful inspection.

    14. Re:Here's a tip by fbg111 · · Score: 1

      Or just reply with fake automatic vacation responses.

      --
      Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
    15. Re:Here's a tip by Qzukk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      could be usefully forged.

      Unless ISPs got off their asses and implemented egress filtering for packets leaving their networks. Cable modem in Florida spewing packets addressed from China? Holy shit, I think they're bogus! The closer you filter these bogus packets to the source, the less traffic any given filter has to deal with, PLUS the smaller network size it has to accept packets from, leading to a reduced chance of dropping or allowing the wrong packets.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    16. Re:Here's a tip by bencvt · · Score: 1
      I'm sure the experienced DDoSer knows he's going to lose a fair number of his zombies eventually. Counter-attacks are par for the course. If the extortionist is smart, he'll have redundancy, regeneration, and misdirection all built in to his botnetting scheme.

      I haven't the foggiest as to what the monetary value of a botnet is (anyone have any idea?) But I imagine that a DDoSer will still come out ahead after extorting his $50,000, even if he loses a botnet or two.

  4. Interesting article by Nova1313 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Very long but very interesting. Glad to see they caught some of them. They mentioned a hacked icq account.. That just seemed odd to me since ICQ accounts are free.. Anyone know what they were talking about?

    --
    There exists some positive integer N that you are the Nth person to read this signature.
    1. Re:Interesting article by everettpf3 · · Score: 1

      I'm more confused about why ICQ was chosen. Last time i dropped by ICQ it seemed like there were more bots than humans.

    2. Re:Interesting article by snorklewacker · · Score: 4, Informative

      They prefer to use cracked ICQ accounts because it adds some misdirection to point to an existing entity, an older account may be less likely to be instantly shut off by automatic processes, and well, they're L33T H4X0RZ and cracking is what they like to do (at least the kids working for the extortionists -- the folks running the show are probably pretty rational organized crime types).

      --
      I am no longer wasting my time with slashdot
    3. Re:Interesting article by masklinn · · Score: 1

      Someone sets up his ICQ account
      Someone else manages to get/guess the password to the above set account
      The second one (which would be branded as the "hacker") has just hacked in someone else's ICQ account and can now use it without getting any blame.

      It's the same when you hear of MSN accounts hacking, basically IM accounts being stolen. Dummy accounts for someone else to take the blame for your actions may come in handy, i guess.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    4. Re:Interesting article by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 0, Troll

      The whole article was BS. Read it with a critical eye, look at who the hero was. Some PR firm is cackling with glee over how well they've snowed so many Slashdotters. It's an epic story with a powerful hero and a lot of fluff.

      Who on the planet is going to bother hacking an ICQ address? You can just register yourself through a free e-mail address.... Masking your IP is the hard part, and ICQ logs a lot of the IP stuff going on. This article is so far-fetched and pathetically badly written from a technical standpoint I'm surprised noone's just screamed bloody murder.

      Except me, of course. Three times now.

    5. Re:Interesting article by Roofus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wow, 4 replies and not one of them understand why.

      ICQ accounts aren't named, they're numbered (you can assign names, but they were always changeable). Low ICQ account numbers are like 2 or 3 digit Slashdot ids....a source of pride.

      The hacker probably gave Lyon a low ID account, and to those fuckers it's a nice gift for status.

    6. Re:Interesting article by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 1

      I read the article - kinda cheesy, yes, but I didn't come away from it thinking I need to buy anything. Clue me in?

    7. Re:Interesting article by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1

      That's not the point - the point is, were you to ever be in a position where you were thinking about defending a network, you'd ponder DDOS a little more. In the course of pondering it, you'd look at the off-the-shelf products. (slagged in this article, probably unfairly) You'd look at a pile of solutions, and if none of them met your needs, you'd go to, "The only guy to talk to about DDoS, who happens to not have a tech degree but he's still immensely competent and happens to have 50 customers that spend somewhere inbetween 25 and 50 grand a year on his services." They're aiming at tech people looking at their solution with a soft eye... How much more do you value a solution if you've read all sorts of positive commentary about it on Slashdot?

      The entire article looks like it was written by a grammatically competent and mildly technically competent twelve-year-old who wanted to push his/ her own reputation through the roof, and that's what it's apparently done.

    8. Re:Interesting article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone sets up his ICQ account

      Don't you mean someone set him up the ICQ account? That would be a proper answer to the very relevant question "what happen?".

    9. Re:Interesting article by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      Actually I was going to bring something like that up. After I RTFA, I was left wondering:
      (unless I misread it, which I may have in my haste)
      The kid Ivan said no one ever paid him the extortion money. There were also others in the group, as well. However, the betting sites admitted to paying the money (same guys? who knows). Well, that just makes me think that the guys running the show were just using poor Ivan and the other tech-geeks and telling them "Get better! We still haven't made any money!" while pocketing all that extra cash.

      Fuck, man. Imagine quitting your thankless IT job and going to work for the "darkside"... as a thankless IT worker. :(

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    10. Re:Interesting article by golgotha007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No no no, Russians sell stolen hacked ICQ accounts because everyone wants either an easy to remember ICQ# or a really low ICQ#.

      I frequent these Russian forums frequently where they are giving away 5 digit ICQ# to the first person to read the post.

      However, the most amazing thing is, if I had the ability to direct 10,000 zombie systems to attack websites for extortion money, you could bet that every type of online communication I engaged in would be done thru no less than 5 different proxies, for every type of service, with an excrypted tunnel between me and the first proxy, and with complete control of that first proxy to erase full logs afterward.

      You think that these guys are brilliant, but they're really just a bunch of stupid script using kidhacks.

      I would be interesting to know what percentage of the zombie machines were windows...

    11. Re:Interesting article by -Nails- · · Score: 1

      Of course if your theory is correct then it should really backfire since his website couldn't even stand up to the slashdot effect. :)

    12. Re:Interesting article by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Worst that could happen to me working in IT is getting fired or rifed. Big deal.

      Work for the dark side in IT, and you're liable to have your kneecaps busted or a acute 9mm lead poisoning...

    13. Re:Interesting article by Kevin143 · · Score: 1

      Whoa -- does anyone sell hacked AIM accounts? I would pay good money for the AIM name "Kevin" or my full name or initials or anything.

    14. Re:Interesting article by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1

      Heh. I think he waited until he had mod points to submit - I've got a list of 5 'trolls' half of which have been modded up to insightful.

    15. Re:Interesting article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good idea! Give your full name to some random l33t hax0r, and he'll get that screen name for you. You can even pay him by credit card! Why don't you give him your SSN and mother's maiden name while you're at it?

    16. Re:Interesting article by kgbspy · · Score: 1

      The entire article looks like it was written by a grammatically competent and mildly technically competent twelve-year-old who wanted to push his/ her own reputation through the roof

      Except for the last paragraph:

      "It's easy to forget that as Lyon worked to save him, Richardson considered paying off the extortionists. Now Richardson has a better option. Pay Lyon $50,000 a year and he's protected. He doesn't have to worry about paying extortionist's protection fees."

      ...because he's paying as much to Lyon in a year as the extortionists wanted as a one-off payment. Anyone smart enough is going to figure this out for themselves, and suddenly Lyon's model doesn't look that attractive. If it is astroturfing, would they have obviated this point in the article itself?

      Lyon may not be carrying out the DDoS attacks (as far as anyone knows...), but he's certainly profiting from someone else's extortion (ie, "you're going to get DDoS'ed sooner or later. Pay us $50k and we'll make sure you're protected" - this skates dangerously close to a protection racket, despite the fact that he's not actually dishing out the grief). Given the options - paying $40/$50k up front, or paying Lyon $50k a year, I wonder whether Richardson still considers he made the right decision...?

      --
      ~
      ~
      ~
      -- INSERT --
    17. Re:Interesting article by bencvt · · Score: 1
      I think Ivan did get paid; it's just not very clear because of the language barrier. From TFA:
      eXe: no all paid =(
      Hardcore: nobody paid? really?
      eXe: somebody
      ...
      Hardcore: did anyone pay at all?
      eXe: anyone
      The article mentions that Ivan (eXe) spoke very poor English. Obviously, he hasn't mastered all the intracies of using quantifiers in English. This is what I assume Ivan means:
      eXe: no all paid =( == Not everyone paid.
      Hardcore: nobody paid? really?
      eXe: somebody == Some of them paid.
      ...
      Hardcore: did anyone pay at all?
      eXe: anyone == Some of them paid.
      So yes, our favorite Russian DoS extortionist was raking in the big rubles... at least by my reading. In any case, Ivan goes to trial later this year... hopefully the facts will become clearer then.
    18. Re:Interesting article by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 1

      I would be interesting to know what percentage of the zombie machines were windows...

      Actually, it would be quite boring and predictable :-)

      --
      You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
    19. Re:Interesting article by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 1

      Damn pride, my old email address for my original Slashdot ID is no longer active, so I cannot get my password for the account! I don't know how many digits it is, but it is relatively low. Now I have to deal with this shoddy 6 digit UID. I also have a relatively low ICQ#, 127XXXX, which I havent used in years. I completely forgot that ICQ existed until your post.

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
  5. Pay the man! by kpwoodr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    And then get to see the out dated WSJ articles!

    --
    This sig has been removed pending an investigation.
  6. Even Slashdot? by troc · · Score: 5, Funny

    "They threw everything they had at us. I was just in shock."

    I guess that includes getting a mention on Slashdot?

    Troc

    --
    Troc's dubious podcast and blog: http://www.trocnet.net
    1. Re:Even Slashdot? by kpwoodr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Very true, this post could have much worse consequences than they could ever throw at you.

      I have determined that my personal website would stand for less than 4 seconds if it were to receive a propper slashdotting.

      Needless to say I don't take threats like this very seriously. Here are the options I see:

      1. Give in and pay up like a good pansy
      2. Form a team of cyber attack monkeys to do your bidding
      3. Launch a counter offensive with a team of script kiddies and their IRC Bots
      4. Contact the authorities and report the threat, block the IPs delivering said packets, carefully monitor your servers like a good admin, and prevent the traffic that you deem as harmful.

      If they really threw all that much at you, it would take a very sophisticated attack to not leave a large enough trail to figure out where it came from and actually do something about it.

      --
      This sig has been removed pending an investigation.
    2. Re:Even Slashdot? by ceeam · · Score: 1

      Now someone a bit less lazy than me should post a clickable link to "the gambling site". :-)

    3. Re:Even Slashdot? by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Speaking of mentions on Slashdot, has anyone else ever seen an article wherein someone was portrayed as such a complete shining genius? Anybody else find this even slightly suspicious?

    4. Re:Even Slashdot? by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      block the IPs delivering said packets

      Dunno if that'll do anything. There's so many pwned machines out there that you can find with just a scan with nmap that you can't just block an ipaddress really...

      That's one of the attacks these guys have is to nail you from as many different directions possible... Bouncing packets off of unsuspecting pwned machines.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    5. Re:Even Slashdot? by alienw · · Score: 4, Informative

      Looks like you don't understand how DDOSs work. They get a whole lot of hijacked computers with DDOS trojans installed on them. MSIE makes this quite easy. Then they launch a DDOS at a website. You can't "block" the packets on the server because by the time your server gets them it's too late -- they have already clogged up your pipe. In fact, the traffic will probably overwhelm your ISP unless they are very large. The only place to block them would be on the ISPs main router, and that's pretty hard to do given that there could be thousands of different bots and they aren't that terribly different from ordinary users (other than the amount of traffic they generate).

    6. Re:Even Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If they really threw all that much at you, it would take a very sophisticated attack to not leave a large enough trail to figure out where it came from and actually do something about it.

      Not really.

      a) 0wn a bunch of zombie machines. This is what they do in their free time while chatting on irc.

      b) Go to college computer lab.

      c) Initiate attack.

      From a victim's standpoint, you're not going to be able to track much more than the zombies. The zombies aren't going to be keeping logs of who spurs them into action (which is often via a non-standard method... you're not going to find someone making a TCP connection to those machines). Even if, somehow, you were able to actually figure out the initiating machine, the individual doing it could go through any number of proxies (these people generally 0wn several shell accounts also). And on top of that, like I said, they can log in from a lab or whatever with little to no accountability or identification whatsoever.

    7. Re:Even Slashdot? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've had some experience with this, having worked at an ISP, and we got assistance from our own upstream provider (telco with terabits of connectivity) to start putting blocks in place. This filtered out a several-hundred-megabit flood on one occasion, and was demonstrated later again when Slammer hit (done on their own starting about an hour or so after the ISP world was so harshly awakened by it).

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    8. Re:Even Slashdot? by TGK · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Gambeling sites are fast becoming the cancer of the web just as SPAM has become the cancer of the inbox. Even my personal site, perhaps the least relevant bit of web real-estate out there, has become a target for gambeling advertisers. I've written and installed filters, I've systematicly deleted blog comments from spammers, and yet they still try to plaster my humble and non-indexed blog with their advertising refuse.

      I've started collecting "bad words," URLs that correspond to blog spammer posts - every single one of which comes from a gambeling site. At present the count is up to 2205 blocked unique URLs.

      I know it's not just the gambeling sites, but since they're the only ones I've encountered thus far, I'll blame them for now.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    9. Re:Even Slashdot? by krewemaynard · · Score: 1

      you might get even better results if you try "gambling" instead. give it a shot... ;)

      --
      I saw it on Slashdot, it must be true!
    10. Re:Even Slashdot? by caluml · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is "gambel" in those "bad words" lists?

    11. Re:Even Slashdot? by operagost · · Score: 1
      HTTP 404 - File not found
      Internet Information Services
      Sure worked for this article.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    12. Re:Even Slashdot? by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      I don't let anybody post a URL in my blog's comments. Poof! No more spam.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    13. Re:Even Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think "gambeling" is the French pronounciation.

    14. Re:Even Slashdot? by Saxerman · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Speaking of mentions on Slashdot, has anyone else ever seen an article wherein someone was portrayed as such a complete shining genius? Anybody else find this even slightly suspicious?

      I don't know... I found the last paragraph grated against his super-hero image:

      That's right. Lyon is one of the good guys. Still, Lyon's heroics weren't possible without Mickey Richardson's resolve. It's easy to forget that as Lyon worked to save him, Richardson considered paying off the extortionists. Now Richardson has a better option. Pay Lyon $50,000 a year and he's protected. He doesn't have to worry about paying extortionist's protection fees.

      I've always found there to be a rather fine line between insurance and extortion. If the story is true, he probably is one of the good guys, but he's merely tapped into the revenue stream the extortionists created.

      --

      A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.

    15. Re:Even Slashdot? by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1

      50 grand is chump change to the customers he REALLY wants. Offshored online casinos = big business, Banks, Stock Markets, Commodities Dealers, Trading Houses = bigger business.

    16. Re:Even Slashdot? by biglig2 · · Score: 1

      Who do you think submitted the article? I mean, the site's down right now....

      --
      ~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
    17. Re:Even Slashdot? by joshjoneswas · · Score: 1

      Now THAT was pretty damn funny! :)

    18. Re:Even Slashdot? by RexDart · · Score: 2, Funny

      5. Determine the hacker's RL name, location, etc. 6. Contact an independent bounty hunter (Mad Dog, anyone?) to launch a "Denial of Freedom" attack 7. Tape the whole thing as a reality show so that G4/TechTV could have at least one interesting program.

      --
      "Yes, Jayne, she's a witch. She's had congress with the beast..."
      "She's in Congress?" - Firefly, "Objects in Space
    19. Re:Even Slashdot? by DavidTC · · Score: 1
      The most common way to control large collections of zombies is to have them log into a private IRC channel, and listen for commands.

      Sometimes they stay connected, and sometimes they can be in a 'hidden' mode, where they just connect for a few seconds each day to see if they need to do something. (Which could obviously include 'don't disconnect'.) Which makes for a longer planning requirement, but is harder to track.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    20. Re:Even Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have determined that my personal website would stand for less than 4 seconds if it were to receive a propper slashdotting.

      I give it 3 seconds

    21. Re:Even Slashdot? by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      I've always found there to be a rather fine line between insurance and extortion. If the story is true, he probably is one of the good guys, but he's merely tapped into the revenue stream the extortionists created. That kind of goes without saying for the entire IT security industry, doesn't it ?

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    22. Re:Even Slashdot? by fataugie · · Score: 1

      So how did you determin what was legitimate traffic and what was not?

      --

      WTF? Over?

    23. Re:Even Slashdot? by fataugie · · Score: 1

      Exactly, except what is needed is a dose of 14th century justice. After finding Ivan, what they should have done was saw his head off and place it on a pike outside of town (OK, a picture on the homepage of BetCris).

      Fuck with the best, die like the rest.

      We could even expand that to spammers....nothing says choose a new line of work like a death threat.

      --

      WTF? Over?

    24. Re:Even Slashdot? by jonadab · · Score: 3, Funny

      > Very true, this post could have much worse consequences than they
      > could ever throw at you.

      I doubt it. As near as I can figure, a solid slashdotting comes to at most a two-digit MBPS figure, and that can only be kept up for a day or so. If you RTFA, it was talking about attacks of over 1GBPS sustained for weeks. That's something like fifty slashdottings at a time, more than once a day. The article didn't say what kinds of packets these were (forged-source SYN, reflected ACK, or what), but you get the idea that it was different kinds at different points.

      In any event, the attack was apparently more bandwidth-consumptive brute-force than any particular cleverness. In practice, that's probably the most effective type of attack, because a clever attack (such as a traditional SYN flood) is subject to being thwarted by greater cleverness on the defensive end (e.g., SYN cookies). But a bandwidth-consumptive distributed attack is hard to defend against without having a bigger pipe than the aggregate bandwidth of the zombies.

      (In the short term, that is; in the long term, given adequate resources and expertise, you eventually track the whole thing down and set the authorities on the perp, or failing that (e.g., if the whole operation is being run from the Federated People's Democratic Republic of Bob's Two-Acre One-Inch-Above-Sea-Level South-Pacific Coral Atol In International Waters (FPDRBTAOIASLSPCAIIW)) get his ISP to shut him down, but that all takes time, and meanwhile you want to keep your network online as much as possible.)

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    25. Re:Even Slashdot? by TGK · · Score: 1

      Oops! Point taken, though it's most often a problem with "poker" than anything else.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    26. Re:Even Slashdot? by Big+Mark · · Score: 2, Informative

      SQL Slammer worked by infecting computers over ports that barely need to be open to the immediate local network, let alone open to some guy in a Belgian basement. The port exploited was used to tell prospective SQL clients where to connect for their SQL needs, which if needed to be done remotely should've been done so over VPN.

      In this case, boneheaded admins should've received the mother of all wakeup calls.

    27. Re:Even Slashdot? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      Out of curiosity, are you using a form of visual recognition at the registration form for your site? If not, I'd recommend considering it.

      We use VBulletin on a site I assist with, we had a problem with automated spamming until that was put into place.

      (Note: I have no idea why your post was modded off-topic. Lame.)

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    28. Re:Even Slashdot? by fataugie · · Score: 2

      OK, I should have clarified. In slammer's case, I understand what you've said.

      What I should have said was, in the case of a DDoS for say a website or mailserver, how do you differentiate between legitimate traffic vs. the DDoS?

      --

      WTF? Over?

    29. Re:Even Slashdot? by secolactico · · Score: 1

      Contact an independent bounty hunter (Mad Dog, anyone?) to launch a "Denial of Freedom" attack

      Bouty hunter? What, are you planning on turning them over to the authorities?

      I say you contact a "Professional" and initiate a "denial of kneecaps" on him. With a rusty metal rod.

      Or you can go "Casino" on him: put his head on a vise grip and press until he spill his beans. Go after his associates. Rinse. Repeat.

      --
      No sig
    30. Re:Even Slashdot? by megarich · · Score: 1

      I say you get your cronies, find out where these cronies are attacking from and have a good o' fashin gang land shoot out!

    31. Re:Even Slashdot? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      It was two-tiered. The first thing was to get rid of the traffic to begin with so that our other customers weren't affected, since the attack was saturating our own connections and degrading service.

      The next step was to allow a much smaller amount of the traffic through for analysis. Fortunately, we were able to find some things in the packets on which the upstream provider could filter, combined with some patches provided by some vendors the customer used, and while there were complaints that some legitimate traffic was blocked, the customer estimated that about 75% of the legit traffic got through. It finally petered out after a couple of days. We still had to deal with periodic DDoS attacks against the customer, but none were again like that, mostly just annoying us.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    32. Re:Even Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that article takes a long time to say they just took several computers programmed them to notice patterns from people who were not really interested in the site dump them and forward the rest. now i realise that is easier said than done (especially in the time they had) but all they have is a shitload of bandwith and a good filter.

    33. Re:Even Slashdot? by NuclearDog · · Score: 1

      Missing option:

      5. Laugh at them and saying "Fine, DDOS it. See if I care."

      I'm sure the majority of people don't have anything on their websites worth paying a ridiculous amount of money to keep online anyway. I know I don't.

      Oh, and my ancient P200/96 MB RAM server on my cable connection (1Mbps up, 5Mbps down) can handle about 3 or 4 requests/second if they're only for static files before the server is over-loaded (Wish I hadn't had to find this out >_>). How many seconds would that last?

      ND

      --
      This statement is forty-five characters long.
    34. Re:Even Slashdot? by yuri+benjamin · · Score: 1

      I'm sure the majority of people don't have anything on their websites worth paying a ridiculous amount of money to keep online anyway. I know I don't.

      The majority of people don't get these threats. People whose incomes rely on online transactions have something worth keeping online, and might pay if the extorted amount is less than what they would lose if their site went down. Did you even read the article?

      --
      You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
    35. Re:Even Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason why sysadmin get duped like suckers is too many of them have huge egos.

      The Business people give them autonomy a measly paycheck and praise them. Mean while blow joe sales guy in corner cubicle is watching flash movies and looking at porn while he talks to other smucks all day on his cell phone, and gets paid 100,000 dollars a year for something you could train a monkey to do.

      Wise up sysadmins. Start charging more!
      In many cases there isn't alot of people who can do what the customer needs and you might be one of the few who can get the job done.

      I think it just a perfect example of Business mentality that A sys admin saves you millions of dollars and you reward him with what? 50,000 a year. Give me a fuckin break.

    36. Re:Even Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting observation.

      But unless you can demonstrate a cooperative link between the Hero and the Bad Guys, he's still doing a service.

      Analogy: Maybe airbags in cars, just a little bit, make people sloppier drivers because they have less to lose. But they're still a great invention.

    37. Re:Even Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read part of it. It just read like a big advertisement to me so I didn't finish reading it.

    38. Re:Even Slashdot? by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      One of the sessions I attended at Interop this week mentioned a similar service offered by AT&T. Supposedly, they have enough bandwidth and computing horsepower to deal with DDOS attacks that are directed toward their customers. "AT&T handles 40% of the Internet's traffic" - quote from that session. -s

    39. Re:Even Slashdot? by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      This wasn't an official service. This was just some network guys not wanting to see a good customer tank because of some dickless wonder.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
  7. So now we're gonna slashdot 'em? by LordByronStyrofoam · · Score: 5, Funny

    Seems kinda brutal to hit them with another DDOS.

    --
    Slashdot's name? When my compiler sees /. it generates a warning about a badly formed comment.
    1. Re:So now we're gonna slashdot 'em? by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

      Mission accomplished sir! I am unable to read the article.

    2. Re:So now we're gonna slashdot 'em? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dipshit. It was the casino site allegedly under DDOS attack, not CSO magazine.

    3. Re:So now we're gonna slashdot 'em? by Manfre · · Score: 2, Funny

      The casino site was hit for money. CSO was throw in for free!

    4. Re:So now we're gonna slashdot 'em? by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      Excellent sig, but I think the actual Tom Waits quote is "I'd rather have a free bottle in front of me than a prefrontal lobotomy." The version you have comes from a song Dr. Demento used to play.

    5. Re:So now we're gonna slashdot 'em? by siliconjunkie · · Score: 1

      The version you have comes from a song Dr. Demento used to play.

      "Existential Blues" by Tom "T Bone" Stankus

    6. Re:So now we're gonna slashdot 'em? by Tenebrious1 · · Score: 1

      So now we're gonna slashdot 'em?
      Seems kinda brutal to hit them with another DDOS.


      The last line of the extortion email probably said "and if you don't pay up, I'll set up a DDoS that no server farm can withstand". And when all else failed, the extortionist submitted an article to /.

      --
      -- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
    7. Re:So now we're gonna slashdot 'em? by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      This is the one I remember from the seventies.

    8. Re:So now we're gonna slashdot 'em? by saleenS281 · · Score: 1

      you didn't hit *them* you hit the company hosting the article. Funny part is, *them* is where mirrordot is hosted... you know... the mirror to slashdot articles that can't be slashdotted ;) Looks like *them* is doing a fine job of handling the slashdotting every day of the week.

    9. Re:So now we're gonna slashdot 'em? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Seems kinda brutal to hit them with another DDOS."

      Heh. Ever wonder if one day Slashdot will find itself in legal hot-water over something like that?

      "Your honor, they posted a negative story about us and put our contact info on their home page. We recieved 40,000 emails telling us we're litiguous bastards!"

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    10. Re:So now we're gonna slashdot 'em? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no? There is no legal basis for them to actually BE in trouble because of 1000s of random people clicking a link to someones site. If that ever becomes illegal, you'd probably have a lot of other more serious issues to be worried about concerning your government...

  8. hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    gambling on ddos

    1. Re:hmmm by ackthpt · · Score: 1
      gambling on ddos

      More like gambling on putting your PC on the internet. Will it become a zombie or not?

      Just hazarding a guess, extortionists favor Windows over other leading brand operating systems. Some sales pitch...

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  9. The DDoS worked apparently. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or maybe it was planned this way. Nothing says offline like a link from slashdot.

  10. That's frightening by plover · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It's a brilliant story, and you've got to applaud the guys at the victim site for sticking up for themselves.

    It makes me wonder if this new anti-DDoS company can somehow establish relationships with ISPs to track back the zombies and get them shut down more quickly? Seems that would be the sanest and most effective tool -- take away the bots. No bots -- no botnet -- no attacks.

    --
    John
    1. Re:That's frightening by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Funny

      Uhm, to take away the bots, you would have to cut them at the root. And the root is a certain mega-corporation that's a bit difficult to be rooted out.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    2. Re:That's frightening by plover · · Score: 1
      No, I'm not suggesting they run around with an XP SP2 disc and update everyone.

      I'm suggesting that if they discover a bot at address 1.2.3.4 that they notify that addresses ISP that there's a bot that needs to be taken care of. The ISP could turn them off instantly.

      --
      John
    3. Re:That's frightening by Talking+Goat · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or, the ISP's can do as the smart ones have done and deploy Tipping Point begin to mitigate these attacks the moment they are detetcted on the border routers. It's smart, fast, and really good at shutting down the traffic generated by these botnets by giving the admin the ability to apply vendor-supplied templates, or to create your own. However, you'd need additional deployments inside the network to avoid fratricide, but you can't beat the intelligence behind this aproach.

      --

      + G to tha Izzo, A to tha Tizee, Talking Giz-oat, Ya'll Bettah Feel Me... +
    4. Re:That's frightening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah sure...ISP's don't just turn off bots because you ask them too. It takes 2 days (or more)for some to take down an obvious phising site. Never mind a customer that, while a bot, still can access their email.

      "Sorry sir, no email for you until you reformat"...uhh huh. That'll happen.

    5. Re:That's frightening by thoolihan · · Score: 1

      the anti-DDoS company doesn't want to see these people go away. If so, they'd see there business go away.

      --
      http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
    6. Re:That's frightening by caluml · · Score: 1

      1.2.3.4? It doesn't belong to anyone. 001/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved

      Look at those masses of /8 (16 million) allocations not yet allocated. IPv4 shortage? Bah. Still, anything that drives v6 is good.

    7. Re:That's frightening by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 0, Troll

      Now, if you'd read the article, you would learn that The Golden Boy From California had recommended a few 'off the shelf' products and (unlike all those consultants who actually want customers) hoped to 'never hear from them again.' Tipping Point falls under this category. This article was stupid, and (as I've said in my other posts) more a PR company's success than actual news.

    8. Re:That's frightening by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 5, Interesting
      "Sorry sir, no email for you until you reformat"...uhh huh. That'll happen.

      Doubtful, but perhaps it should.

      Consider another everyday activity, with a lot of benefits but some inherent risks, which works fine when people take care but goes wrong when they don't: driving. In most places, you don't get to drive without taking a simple test to prove you're reasonably safe and competent. Then if you're caught driving in a way that's hazardous or inconsiderate to others, a nice policeman pulls you over. Depending on the significance of the violation, you get a verbal warning, a formal sanction, or read your rights and your vehicle confiscated.

      If a similar principle applied to the Internet, with minor offences attracting a polite warning up to running a grossly insecure system that causes widespread inconvenience to other netizens getting you completely blocked, people would soon learn to respect the technology and others using it. But first we have to get over this strange idea that because it's The Internet, everyone should be allowed to use it, without any traceability or responsibility for their actions whatsoever, regardless of the harm it may cause others. I doubt that'll be a popular viewpoint around these parts.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    9. Re:That's frightening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      track back the zombies and get them shut down more quickly
      You want to know where the zombies are? This probably covers 75% or more of them.
      rsync.cbl.abuseat.org/cbl/list.txt
      rsync.dsbl.org ::dsbl/rbldns-list.dsbl.org
      www.ahbl.org
      www.dns bl.net.au
    10. Re:That's frightening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      It makes me wonder if this new anti-DDoS company can somehow establish relationships with ISPs to track back the zombies and get them shut down more quickly?

      I'm starting a company much like that myself. Nice network you've got here, hate to see anything happen to it. I can protect it for you... for a price.

    11. Re:That's frightening by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      The ISP could turn them off instantly.

      Um, right. You make the assumption that the ISP's give a shit. They don't.

    12. Re:That's frightening by halfelven · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I actually tested those appliances fairly thoroughly, and yes, they're good at killing SYN floods and stuff.
      But what they don't solve and, indeed, what they cannot solve, no matter how smart, is the problem of sheer volume - the problem of bandwidth. If the attacker overwhelms your pipe, or your ISP's pipe, or your ISP's ISP's pipe, then mission accomplished.
      You also have to have enough bandwidth to fight the attack, even if your servers can handle all those SYN packets per se.

    13. Re:That's frightening by skidv · · Score: 1

      There is a company that is providing this kind of service ... I think it is called Akamai. You sign up for their hosting and they basically fight of the zombies for you.

    14. Re:That's frightening by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 1

      Tipping Point's products are not suitable for ISPs because they lack the correct connectors. You can't plug them into your existing network easily. What's worse, one appliance can only handle a meager 250,000 connections per second (Fast Ethernet line rate is already at 150,000 connections per second, by the way). So it's unlikely these devices are able to handle more than just a tiny (incoming or outgoing) attack.

    15. Re:That's frightening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Or, the ISP's can do as the smart ones have done and deploy Tipping Point begin to mitigate these attacks the moment they are detetcted on the border routers.

      That won't do dick when your pipe is already clogged with traffic, especially when it's just a bunch of ordinary HTTP requests from random IP addresses. All the Tipping Point stuff can do is stop attacks that crash/0wn your computers, not ones that eat your bandwidth.

      The only place that can help is your bandwidth provider (ISP) or their bandwidth provider, by preventing the data from ever reaching your pipe.

    16. Re:That's frightening by kapes · · Score: 1

      take away the bots. No bots -- no botnet -- no attacks. and no anti-DDOS company...

      --
      -- "Life is uncertain, Eat Dessert first !"
    17. Re:That's frightening by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      Yay, then only people who can afford to hire some whizbang Linux sysadmin will be able to use the Internet!

    18. Re:That's frightening by blyon_prolexic · · Score: 4, Informative
      The story is kinda odd to read when you lived it. Glad you enjoyed it, we have had a lot more attacks since the one in the story.

      I don't think we can every take away the bots (it would be nice), because we are seeing P2P bots that run encrypted communications between each other. The attacker guy just tosses his instructions into the P2P stream and they distribute over the entire network - creating a nearly headless command less network that can (once started) operate decentralized. These easy IRC bots are almost a thing of the past now. The point being, as the code base for bot networks grows they will get more complicated and more difficult to shut down.

      If a blackhat geek can download source code and knows how to hack it up, he/she can do anything they want. Then it's down to just finding open machines to install their goods on. Policing the Terabits-per-second of backbone traffic for odd-ball P2P traffic like that is a bad idea.

      Prolexic also gets attacks now that may not have any botnet, some Ixia (packet generator) connected in Asia-Pac blasting 600 Mbps of generated packets does the same as a 10-20k botnet. We believe to have been attacked by something similar to that at least twice.

      The main problem is, there are just bad people out there and you need to create security policy that protects your business. If your revenue stream comes from your online business, then you should protect your online business and not hope your ISP will do that for you.

      -Barrett

    19. Re:That's frightening by maxpublic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But first we have to get over this strange idea that because it's The Internet, everyone should be allowed to use it, without any traceability or responsibility for their actions whatsoever, regardless of the harm it may cause others.

      The sad thing is you could prevent 99% of the hijacking attempts against your (windows) machine by doing just two things:

      - don't use IE; and
      - install ZoneAlarm

      This isn't exactly rocket science. And it doesn't require draconian legislation requiring that all communication from every machine be traced and logged.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    20. Re:That's frightening by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 1
      And it doesn't require draconian legislation requiring that all communication from every machine be traced and logged.

      But who said anything about such drastic measures? Simply requiring ISPs to comply with some basic common sense (such as dealing with notifications of bot nets within this millenium) on pain of being exclded entirely from the network themselves would suffice in most cases.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    21. Re:That's frightening by ezeri · · Score: 1

      The Planet recently installed Tipping Point into there network, and they are much larger that most ISP with around 15GB of bandwidth.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now. - Ed Howd
    22. Re:That's frightening by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Still, anything that drives v6 is good.

      Well, not really. The thing I hate IPv6 for is that it is an extremely wasteful protocol. It has headers the size of an emacs binary. If you use biggest possible ethernet frames, it wastes "only" 16% of the bandwidth for bulk transfers -- but if you use it for anything interactive, you'll find out that your wire is stuffed with the overhead.

      It's really challenged in the KISS department as well. Confusing users, confusing sysadmins, confusing programmers... we don't even have IPv4 fully deployed because of the level of complication when it comes to stuff like multicast.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    23. Re:That's frightening by blyon_prolexic · · Score: 4, Insightful
      A "box" to fight multi-gig DDoS attacks is just a bad way to go about it. Ask Tipping Point what their box can do when there is 50,000 SSL TCP sessions (real TCP sessions) with real HTTP headers in there. If their hardware performed as well as marketing engines that TopLayer, Tipping Point, and Cisco have, then everyone in the security industry would all have to go find a new job.

      Along with IPS in general, I think a lot of the devices out there have some pretty good rate-limiting and SYN flood mitigation, however, they all seemed to miscalculate the sheer amount of processing power it takes to do deep packet inspections and protocol verification. Prolexic's network is currently representing about 10 Terahertz of processing ability just for the DPI, so hoping a single FPGA based hardware device will do the trick may be a bad idea. Also, most devices can not handle out-of-state TCP based attacks (see: Riverhead), so keep your eyes out on that too.

      Prolexic often gets new customers when the TopLayer, Tipping Point, and Riverhead gear fails, so I don't see how anyone could be comfortable with just a single unit to save the day when there are people out there that will take down DNS servers, router serial interfaces, carriers, do long lived TCP sessions to slow down web servers, HTTP connection floods, and anything else they can think of to just hurt the network (75k machines all doing random searche quries on a cgi, etc.)

      Further, a box does not have much of a turn-around time, so just call Tipping Point at 2 AM on sunday when the network failed and nobody has any clue with what is going on. Then wait for their one good programmer to fix the FPGA issue and a week later cross their fingers that whatever they did can stop the botnet that is causing someone's business to fail.

      I may just be a little beat up from all the traffic we deal with, but it's a little isane to say things like, "we have box X, its magic will fix everything."

      -Barrett

    24. Re:That's frightening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they should fix the internet instead...

      How about ditching the 100% trust based system for one that has some basic verification that you are at XXX IP? How about mandating egress filters so that we can at least track traffic back to the ISP it came from and if it's implimented a little bit better to the user who sent it?

      We have a chance with IPv6 coming to fix these problems once and for all if they will just get off their duffs and DO it.

    25. Re:That's frightening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are a few Tier 1 ISPs out there who have deployed the Top Layer gear to assist their clients with this exact sort of thing. They have the bandwidth, the expertise and the systems to help companies avert these types of attacks. Typically they are also well aligned with law enforcement so that when attacks do occur, appropriate "evidence" is collected as well:

      http://www.toplayer.com/pdf/GlobixCS.pdf

    26. Re:That's frightening by plover · · Score: 1
      Very interesting. I was under the impression these botnets still ran clients to some hijacked IRC server somewhere; but apparently that's just sooooo 2003. :-) I forgot that most people aren't running firewalls at home, and that they're wide open to P2P crap.

      But still, you don't have to break the botnet. Although breaking it would be clever, all you really have to do is identify the incoming ... oh, crap. Another moment of realization -- forged IP headers. You have no idea where any of these attacks originate. Sigh. You do have to break the botnet.

      OK, since success in rolling these botnets up now relies on identifying infected zombies, I suppose you must operate a series of honeypots to collect zombie client info. And I suppose you then reverse-engineer the incoming bots to discover the communications layer. Is it even possible to "decrypt" these communications to see where commands come from, (or to send your own such as "disable yourself" :-) ?

      That would be the ultimate weapon: write your own "reverse bot" that would use the existing botnet infrastructure to spread itself as a new attack client, and instead of launching an attack on command it would send a report of "I'm a bot and I'm at IP x.x.x.x / MAC yy, this is my peer list, this is a list of IPs that have sent me commands" info back to your server. It would be a brilliant piece of vigilante work that I'm sure would get the ethics crowd's undies tied in a knot. But imagine rolling up most of the botnet and the attackers in one shot! That would be uber leet.

      I imagine the only way to rollup a hardware attack such as the Ixia you mention would be traffic analysis, one router at a time; and then you have to hope that not only does each router owner cooperate, but that he's not personally involved in the shenanigans, steering you the wrong way.

      Well, at least you have job security! While I don't envy you, I'm sure there's got to be a ton of work out there for you. Happy hunting!

      --
      John
    27. Re:That's frightening by Threni · · Score: 1

      > But what they don't solve and, indeed, what they cannot solve, no matter how
      > smart, is the problem of sheer volume

      Not even if their use was extremely widespread?

    28. Re:That's frightening by halfelven · · Score: 1

      Well, in that case, yes, i guess so, if they're used by the top-tier providers and whatnot.

    29. Re:That's frightening by Draknor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If a similar principle applied to the Internet, with minor offences attracting a polite warning up to running a grossly insecure system that causes widespread inconvenience to other netizens getting you completely blocked, people would soon learn to respect the technology and others using it.

      While that's a nice idea in concept, I don't think it would work in The Real World, for a couple of reasons:

      1. A license is only required for driving on public property (ie roads). Most of (US) internet access traverses private utility lines (phone/cable), so there's a question of jurisdiction.

      2. Risk to free speech - who defines what constitutes an "offense"? Ok, a zombie/spam-relay is against the rules, right? What about a mass-distributed opt-in mail list? What about a targeted marketing email sent to people a user has a "previous business relationship" with? What about P2P? Some P2P use is legal, some is not. Does Big Brother have to watch we're downloading? Or what about political activity? How do you prevent Big Brother from deciding that "questioning the President's decisions constitutes terrorism, hereby revoking your Internet License"?

      3. The internet is a global network, so you have the same old issue of making a such in institution as "internet licensing" work across a multitude of laws & cultures. How do ensure that the Russians, British, or Italians enforce the same sort of internet-license policy that we'd create here in the states?

      4. Finally, there's the question of efficiency. Plenty of things are already illegal (spam, hacking computers, etc.). That doesn't stop people from doing it, just like people don't stop speeding or driving drunk just because its illegal. It's a question of making policies, and having the resources to enforce them. Since we're talking about computers, there's a lot that can be automated which reduces the manual resource need, but it doesn't eliminate it. There's already a lot of issues regarding RBL's and trying to get legit mail lists off an RBL - scaling that up to accidently (aka based on a false positive) denying internet access to people randomly doesn't seem like a great idea, unless you have the resources in place to resolve those, and that costs $$.

    30. Re:That's frightening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, the ISP's can do as the smart ones have done and deploy Tipping Point

      Or rather than solving this from the top down and throwing a fuckton of money at something that could have been fixed in seconds by a monkey given the proper configuration, all the ISPs could simply egress filter and drop packets leaving their network that wasn't addressed from a machine in their network.

      But no, you've got some 8 year old clueless kid in zaire who is running an ISP out of the basement of his big brother's net cafe, who still doesn't have any clue. And then you've got some 8 year old in the US running SBC and RoadRunner who has no fucking clue.

  11. Sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they just send them Russian mail-order brides?

  12. Fight! by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2, Insightful
    When an online exortionist comes a knocking, threatining a DDoS, do you pay or fight?

    Presumably, they will give you some way to pay them (else what is the point?). Point the cops and or feds at that contact, and see what happens.

    Extortion is extortion, be it physical or bandwidth.

    If no joy from the authorities, I'm sure your local newsrag would be glad to shame the cops into doing something. Of course, if the extortionist is overseas, things might be a little difficult.

    1. Re:Fight! by telecsan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Point the cops and or feds at that contact, and see what happens."

      That of course, is predicated on your business being 100% legitimate. I'm not sure about this individual case, but I'm sure not all the online gambling sites are uh, trustworthy. That would be a major roadblock to involving the authorities.

    2. Re:Fight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Presumably, they will give you some way to pay them (else what is the point?). Point the cops and or feds at that contact, and see what happens.

      This is where R'ingTFA comes in...

      If no joy from the authorities, I'm sure your local newsrag would be glad to shame the cops into doing something. Of course, if the extortionist is overseas, things might be a little difficult.

      Again, this is where R'ingTFA comes in. I'd also add that one downside of moving your business to an unregulated third world country is that neither the local journalists nor the local cops are especially interested in your gringo problems. I don't understand why Scotland Yard bothered with him.

    3. Re:Fight! by krunchyfrog · · Score: 0
      Of course, if the extortionist is overseas, things might be a little difficult.

      In fact, I sometimes report people to their abuse department even if they are overseas, and most of the time the abusing stops pretty effectively.

      --
      printf($randomline(sigs.txt) \n "-- "$randomline(authors.txt));
      -- myself
    4. Re:Fight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thats New Scotland Yard, to you sonny! :)

    5. Re:Fight! by Fishstick · · Score: 5, Funny

      If only there was some kind of online medium for news articles where answers to questions like these could be answered!

      Oh wait...

      You can send us $40K by Western Union [and] your site will be protected

      Richardson runs BetCris.com, an online wagering site, one of hundreds of sites ensconced in Costa Rica that take bets from Americans ... without concern for U.S. bookmaking laws

      Lyon says, "I could have left it alone, but I had gotten attached, and I started investigating. I came up with some interesting techniques to trace back the attacks." He turned over his work to several law enforcement agencies, but he never heard about it again.

      "Um, hello - FBI? Hi. Yes I run a website gambling business offshore in Costa Rica and I just got threated by someone who says they will shut me down unless I wire fourty thousand via Western Union to someone in Belarus who *click* Hello?"

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    6. Re:Fight! by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Since they are based in Costa Rica, presumably the Costa Rican authorities would be a little more helpful. Should I have said federales instead of 'feds'?

    7. Re:Fight! by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      good point -- presumably they are paying taxes and should expect some kind of investigative help. Something tells me, however, that CR may not have the resources for a crack anti-cybercrime unit?

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    8. Re:Fight! by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      They might not. This would be the chance to get in good with the local authorities, and offer your crack IT services to help in the investigation. Also, enlist the help of your bandwidth provider. They too have a vested interest in combatting this.

    9. Re:Fight! by khallow · · Score: 1
      Again, this is where R'ingTFA comes in. I'd also add that one downside of moving your business to an unregulated third world country is that neither the local journalists nor the local cops are especially interested in your gringo problems. I don't understand why Scotland Yard bothered with him.

      Seeing as that gringo had more than a hundred employees and was bringing some decent income into the country, the locals should have been interested. Having said that, I don't see them having for a long time to come the technical expertise to deal with such a problem. Scotland Yard's interest was obvious. They too were having problems in the UK with these extortionists.

      That seems to be the thing some other slashdotters miss in this discussion. It's not just about shifty off-shore gambling sites going down. The same crooks can and do attack legitimate businesses elsewhere.

    10. Re:Fight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither the poster or the moderators bothered to RTFA:

      In BetCris's case, the extortionists revealed they were Eastern European, which would make them hard to find, never mind prosecute. Online crime laws are weaker in Eastern Europe than in the United States and the desire to enforce them weaker still (and the FBI wouldn't get involved with offshore gaming sites being extorted from overseas).

      They gave them a Western Union office in a former soviet republic. What the hell would the FBI do/care about a $40,000 extortion threat from the Russian Mob against a business run in Costa Rica where the scumbag operating it lives in the US and presumably doesn't pay any taxes here?

    11. Re:Fight! by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Instead of FBI, read Costa Rican Aauthorities, or Interpol's cybercrime unit.

    12. Re:Fight! by Cylix · · Score: 1

      And there lies the problem with legitimizing such services.

      See, under the old regime, no one would have attempted to attack such a gambling site. You see, they would joyfully agree to bring the money in cash and ask for protection services to be extended to attack their competition.

      Now, when they meet the guys for the case of cash, our beloved criminals would shoot them dead.

      So, they broke their word, brought their guns and demonstrated how wrong it is to mess with the bad guys.

      A sad state of affairs this world has become. ;)

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    13. Re:Fight! by d474 · · Score: 1
      "This is where R'ingTFA comes in..."
      It's kind of hard to RTFA since the website has been DDOSed by /. and is FUBAR.
      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    14. Re:Fight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RingTFA is useless when the server is down or not responding properly. As a side note I would like to point out that slashdot is about "news for nerds" and not "links for nerds"... so what they write should be enough to make a comment. If they don't then that's not the poster's fault.

    15. Re:Fight! by fataugie · · Score: 1

      Yeah...because I know when I think of cutting edge police investigative techniques, I think of Costa Rica.

      No offense to Costa Rica, but come on...do you really think they are going to lead the investigation?

      --

      WTF? Over?

    16. Re:Fight! by Log+from+Blammo · · Score: 1

      But don't forget... Extortion is just another word for terrorism, and therefore a legitimate excuse to invade and occupy all of Costa Rica. Never mind that the extortionist isn't there. Costa Rica has better beaches.

      --
      "This quote is a product of the Frobozz Magic Quote Company."
    17. Re:Fight! by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      RingTFA is useless when the server is down or not responding properly.

      I really wonder why Slashdot is charging for subscription, and has ads. Much more lucrative business models should be obvious!

    18. Re:Fight! by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > I don't understand why Scotland Yard bothered with him.

      One supposes they already had an ongoing investigation into the matter (due to undisclosed similar incidents involving other sites), and the information from this incident just went into the existing file. The article seems to indicate that there were other victims, but most had not made the matter public. It is not difficult to imagine that one of the other extortion victims might have been a legit UK business and that Scottland Yard might see it as their duty to investigate the matter as a result of that. The Central American offshore gambling business and its US-based consultant just happened to provide useful information pertaining to their case.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  13. Mirror of article by apparently · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mirror here.

    1. Re:Mirror of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like your mirror is slashdotted, also. Nice work that.

    2. Re:Mirror of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the mirror stalls because it tries to pull images from the original site

    3. Re:Mirror of article by sachmet · · Score: 1

      Also mirror here.

    4. Re:Mirror of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know if someone could make a mirror without linking to the original site, it might work a lot better. Hell just paste in the text somewhere we don't need images.

    5. Re:Mirror of article by cpct0 · · Score: 1

      I think it clearly redirects the page to its own server.

      No text is shown, no nothing, only merely a blank page.

      No matter what, ppl should check the page first before saying it's been properly mirrored.

      None of the two mirrors work on plain vanilla firefox.

    6. Re:Mirror of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when the fsck will slashdot develop a coherent policy around the slashdot effect? The phrase has made its way into the lexicon, fer chrissakes! The same tedious charade plays over time and again: interesting url get posted, gets slashdotted, gets mirrored, and then gets copied and pasted into a comment.

    7. Re:Mirror of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      let's face it, certain sites should be able to handle the load, period.

      www.microsoft.com
      www.apache.com
      www.ciotoday. com
      www.zdnet.com

      And if they go down, the problem's not really on slashdot's end.

      Now, www.mypersonalwebsite.org I can understand having problems and needing a policy.

    8. Re:Mirror of article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we DDos'd the articles?

  14. gambling and extortion? by superwiz · · Score: 3, Funny

    First time those 2 go hand in hand....

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:gambling and extortion? by pdbogen · · Score: 2, Funny

      +5 ironic

    2. Re:gambling and extortion? by d474 · · Score: 1
      Makes you wonder if the "Extortionists" are really just Religious Conservatives that view gambling as a sin, and this extortion scheme is their Master Plan to:
      1) Stop the online gambling industry (stop the sinners!)
      2) Help fund the Republican National Committee at the same time!
      Seems very Karl Rove like, don't it?
      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    3. Re:gambling and extortion? by rho · · Score: 1
      Yes, and you sound very paranoid and bigoted with your:
      1) Insinuation that religious conservatives engage in illegal activity on a regular basis
      2) Apparent belief that religious people are out to get you for sinning

      Seems very like Adolf Hitlter, don't it?

      (Yes, yes, you call Godwin's Law. You are so funny and clever! I must say it was a nice troll for karma points. If you denigrate Those Crazy Conservatives and Karl Rove, that's usually good for at least a couple postitive moderations. I notice it's not working this time, perhaps because you're way down the page. Next time reply to a higher-rated comment.)

      --
      Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
  15. DDoS? by Tim5309 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Is anyone else revelling in the hilarious irony that the site about surviving a DDoS attack has been Slashdotted? Or is that just me?

    1. Re:DDoS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if they survived, then is was practice for us... or are we now 'testing' their setup?

    2. Re:DDoS? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Yes. I was wondering if they refused to pay timothy off.

  16. Never pay by nuggz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they actually get money, they'll do it again and again.
    Any measure of success will encourage more of the same behaviour.

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

      Never pay
      If they actually get money, they'll do it again and again.
      Any measure of success will encourage more of the same behaviour.


      Congratulations, you've just solved the problem of successfully responding to a threat. Your solution will always lead to the best outcome and the only reason it's not the route taken by everyone in these situations is that no one has thought about that.

      To be fair, you're more right than wrong as far as DoS attacks go. But sometimes websites are actually important; you can probably come up with an example placing financial ruin or even lives at stake.

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    2. Re:Never pay by Council · · Score: 1

      Oops, wrong thread.

      Yeah, also, TFA discusses that in depth.

      http://www.csoonline.com/read/050105/pay_3583.html

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    3. Re:Never pay by nuggz · · Score: 1

      But sometimes websites are actually important; you can probably come up with an example placing financial ruin or even lives at stake.

      Even if you pay, they can still carry out on their threat and shut you down.

      But how does paying prevent anything?
      The simple answer is it doesn't stop the attack, and it encourages more attacks. Not surprisingly those who pay put them self at the front of the line for another extortion attempt due to their history of paying.

    4. Re:Never pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      President Bush? Is that you?

    5. Re:Never pay by Council · · Score: 4, Interesting
      From TFI:
      To ensure a quick, quiet transaction, the extortionists did what all extortionists (in the physical or online world) do: They exploited the problem of the commons. An ecological principle, the problem of the commons states that people will act in self-interest if it profits them in the short term, even if that act will hurt everyone, including themselves, in the long term. Every act, every threat, every negotiation tactic, every single move extortionists make is designed to make paying the protection fee not only appealing, but in fact, the smartest business decision you can make in the short term, even if you know in the long run that you haven't stopped the problem at all.
      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    6. Re:Never pay by Wakkow · · Score: 1

      Just like spammers!

    7. Re:Never pay by say · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uhm. And when you're robbed on the street, never give them your wallet. Get beaten, raped, killed. Just don't give them your wallet - they might just get tempted to do it again.

      Moral is nice. Getting phucked is not. We can't expect every single person or company to act in public interest if that means they might get killed doing so.

      What is really needed, is serious money being pushed into Interpol, and hiring whitehats there. Online criminals aren't going to spend much time in countries with strong federal police, like the US.

      --
      Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
    8. Re:Never pay by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      Paying does have one advantage: It defers the problem, at least for a while, by allowing you to continue operating until some indefinite future when maybe you'll be less vulnerable or better able to respond. That screws everybody in the long run, but most of running a small business is just trying to survive the short run.

    9. Re:Never pay by Mr.+Cancelled · · Score: 1

      I'll go you one better: If you're considering paying off criminals in relation to such an attack, consider paying for some nice men to seek out and visit this guy personally, rather then paying the extorter.

      What do you think will have more of an impact, a payoff to a bully who's threatening you, or a payoff to a guy who'll beat the bully within an inch of his life, and make him aware that if there's any further attacks, than there'll be more such visits?

      And realistically, the beating, and any neccesary investigative work for the beating, will likely be cheaper than paying the attacker in these cases, and will be far more likely to help alleviate future attacks.

      Just to be clear here, I'm saying this only applys if you've already decided to go down the road of paying a fee to stop such attacks, and all other methods of handing this have failed.

      Besides, what's the guy going to do after such an attack? Go to the police and say "Since I was hacking this multi million dollar website, and extorting the owners cash, he hired a bully to beat me up"? Let him... Then as he tries to assemble money to make his case against you and your "help", you turn around and hit him with the original hack attempts in a court of law.

      I'm fairly certain that the kind of "help" we're talking about here could resolve the problem a lot faster, and cheaper than law enforcement, and a lengthy trial.

      Just a thought...

      And now the neccesary disclaimer: I, of course, do not encourage, nor am I telling you what to do with my obviously tongue-in-cheek response. If you choose a questionable tactic such as this, it is up to you to determine if this is in your best interests or not. I simply offer the suggestion as as part of this light hearted medium we all love, called Slashdot.

      If you do however go down this road, I look forward to applauding you after your story winds up pasted on Fark with a "Hero" tag next to it. 8)

    10. Re:Never pay by nharmon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Except that in a lot of cases, money is easier to track than spoofed/zombied IP addresses.

    11. Re:Never pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when you're robbed on the street, never give them your wallet.

      I would advocate: 1) giving the mugger your wallet, 2) shooting the mugger in the back as he walks away, and 3) leaving a note on the mugger's body claiming to be a serial killer who intends to kill all the muggers he can.

    12. Re:Never pay by stanleypane · · Score: 1

      While I appreciate your attitude, I seriously doubt anyone will use this type of reasoning to when faced with this type of crime. If it means that a business will lose money then they simply will not worry about the well being of others. Unless, of course, they are legally required to do so.

      Most people have a hard enough time saying "Thank You" or holding a door for someone, let alone losing money to encourage "good behavior." Good luck over there in your world, buddy!

    13. Re:Never pay by prisoner-of-enigma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Uhm. And when you're robbed on the street, never give them your wallet. Get beaten, raped, killed. Just don't give them your wallet - they might just get tempted to do it again.

      So let's try the inverse of your suggestion and see what we get:

      Always give them your wallet, without question, without a fight. Therefore they know all they have to do is mildly threaten you and they get free cash. Not much a solution you're proposing there. Sounds more like a welfare system for hoodlums.

      Here's a funny solution you seem to have ignored: arm yourself, take defensive shooting classes, and blow the fucker away when he tries to threaten you. True, dealing with the police paperwork after the fact is a bit tedious, but you can rest easy knowing you've rid the world of a lowlife scumbag who wasn't worth the oxygen he was consuming. Bernard Goetz had it right.

      The only way to answer threats is with the threat of something worse. Anything less is either impotent or encouraging more threats.

      --
      In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
    14. Re:Never pay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But sometimes websites are actually important; you can probably come up with an example placing financial ruin or even lives at stake.

      In that case take the money you were going to spend on the extortionist and hire some private investigators. Even better if the culprit lives in a country with weak laws, as there is little doubt that a PI in such a place would have no problem using creative ways of demonstrating to the extortionist just how much your web site means to you.

    15. Re:Never pay by NuclearDog · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't work in this situation.

      In real life, there is typically a fair amount of money required to carry out extortion like this.

      On the internet, all that is needed is a cheap net connection, a computer and time. The amount of money required to carry out this online extortion is so minimal, it doesn't matter if you pay up or not.

      We run into the same problem we do with spam, one or two sales in a few million messages fetches a profit. One person paying up $40,000 US in hundreds of attacks on sites would be more than enough to finance it.

      ND

      --
      This statement is forty-five characters long.
    16. Re:Never pay by bencvt · · Score: 1
      What is really needed, is serious money being pushed into Interpol, and hiring whitehats there. Online criminals aren't going to spend much time in countries with strong federal police, like the US.

      Simply pumping money into Interpol won't cut it, but it's a start. It will also take a huge increase in cooperation, trust, and manpower from governments and police forces at all levels (local, regional, national, and otherwise).

      As long as there are governments and police organizations out there that don't cooperate (and there are a *lot* of them), criminals will have their safe havens.

  17. Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Glad to see someone standing up to these thugs. I remember a few years ago, the ISP that I admin'd hosted the connection for http://www.defcon.org/. We had someone start a Smurf attack from the Con, targetting our inbound T3's. We were able to track it down, and actually snatch him out of his seat right there at the con. He promptly apologized (I think, he only spoke german, IIRC). The look on his face was priceless. Oh, did I mentioned that me, and everyone else at the company carry Glock 19's? Yeah, we didn't have any more problems for the rest of the con. Everyone was on their best behaviour. A bunch of fine, upstanding individuals. :)

    1. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
      Oh, did I mentioned that me, and everyone else at the company carry Glock 19's?


      What about the interns?
    2. Re:Good, some balls. by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1

      Do you have a Nevada Concealed Carry permit?

    3. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Wow, you all carry Glock 19's? Damn.. you are all badasses! ISP admins must be a tough crowd.

      How many times have you pointed them at a human?

    4. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous+Luddite · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >> and everyone else at the company carry Glock 19's?

      Please excuse my asking, oh well-armed-one, but WTF for?

      The glock is a fine weapon, and being an admin for an ISP is a fine job, but I can't quite see the relationship between the two things...

    5. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      They share one.

    6. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get better results by putting it to the guy's HD.

    7. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course I have my CCW, as any upstanding, responsible, and capable citizen should. It's one of the things I love about Nevada, we still respect the 2nd Ammendment.

      In any case, Nevada is actually an Open Carry state. Meaning, even without a CCW, as long as you carry openly in a holster (IOW, do not meet the criteria to be considered concealed), you are legal. No CCW needed. That doesn't mean someone can't ask you to leave their premises, but that's a different store entirely. That's what your CCW is for. :)

      It's so exhilarating being so close to the PR of Commufornia, and still having my Civil Liberties intact. They may have the literal 'greener grass', but we have the more imporant metaphorical kind.

    8. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      You had me up until the Glock bullshit.

      Fucking liar. Go back to IRC to boast about how badass 1337 you are. No one here is interested.

    9. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 1

      Nope, never needed to. Hope I don't ever need to, that's the point. Sometimes having the option is all that is needed. But, if I ever need to, I am prepared to do so. This is the same reason I recently purchased my Lasermax. It conveys a certain impending doom that may cause an attacker to think twice before continuing their attack. While I do relish the idea of taking a bad guy off of the street, I don't relish the idea of taking life needlessly. That's the responsibility that comes with gun ownership.

      I have however made my very own citizens arrest before. See my other replies in this thread for details.

    10. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha. Very funny, and yet insightful too!

    11. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The continuation of the story:

      We were later tossed in jail for threatening with a weapon

    12. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Sounds like you're trying to compensate for something with all this macho talk. Do you also have a jacked-up truck to compensate for your small penis?

    13. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 5, Interesting

      THe reason we carried, aside from the stock "Because we can" answer, is simple. We were in a building with a few hundred thousand dollars in routers, and customers such as banks and medical facilities. We were downtown on Fremont and 7th St in Las Vegas. For those who aren't familiar with the area, it's the hood. I regularly had to chase crackheads, as well as hookers with their Johns off of our back steps. We would regularly find people sleeping in our dumpster in the morning.

      And to answer the obvious question, our office WAS there for a reason, we were a block from the ILEC's main CO. This made quite a difference in the cost and time to install of new circuits.

    14. Re:Good, some balls. by ReverendLoki · · Score: 5, Funny
      I can't quite see the relationship between the two things...

      Because, sometimes that Windows box crashes one time to many...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    15. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 1

      I didn't back then, but I do now. Well, it's not jacked up yet, but it will be when the Kelderman 13" air lift becomes available.

      Oh, and it's not to compensate for a small penis, that's what a fat paycheck is for.

      Why is it jerk-off responses such as this guy always seem to be AC's?

    16. Re:Good, some balls. by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Maybe like many libertarian(small l) type, Pro civil rights, geek/hacker types he believes in practicing his civil rights. And living in Nevada he associates with others who do that.. and they happen to be coworkers.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    17. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, that's what my Fairbairn-Applegate Covert folder is for. But my daddy always told me, never bring a knife to a gun fight. Well, I choose to improve upon his wisdom by having both.

      In actual fact, my Batman utility belt is getting kinda crowded. Ipaq 5500, Nokia 6620, Motorola HS850, Knife, and Gun. I think I need a pair of suspenders. (Does Jinx sell geek-spenders?) Fortunately for me, I have a larger circumference than the average geek, which gives me more belt real-estate. I don't know how you twiggy types carry all of your gadgets.. :)

    18. Re:Good, some balls. by stanmann · · Score: 1

      Put the gun in a shoulder holster... the knife in your boot.. and a backup gun in an ankle holster. Problem solved.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    19. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 4, Funny

      We were later tossed in jail for threatening with a weapon

      Actually, In Nevada, it's called "brandishing".

      Take a fucking joke people, jeez. Yes, the story is true. Yes, we all carry Glocks. No, we didn't point them at anyone. Just snatching the fucker out of his perceived anonymity was enough. (hint to the AC's?)

      When asked why we carried, our stock response was "We take Network Security VERY seriously." And follow it up with (in my best Monty Python) "I don't like SPAM!".

    20. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 1
      Maybe like many libertarian(small l) type, Pro civil rights, geek/hacker types he believes in practicing his civil rights. And living in Nevada he associates with others who do that.. and they happen to be coworkers.

      Actually, you hit it right on the head, that is exactly how we got together. Although, it occurs to me I lied about one thing. One of the chicks had a S&W Airweight Revolver. She didn't like the Semi-Auto's.

      There is nothing hotter than a web developer chick with a hammerless revolver.
    21. Re:Good, some balls. by jcuervo · · Score: 2, Funny
      --
      Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
    22. Re:Good, some balls. by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 1


      >Oh, did I mentioned that me, and everyone else at the company carry Glock 19's?

      You guys moonlight as rappers?

    23. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't operate a comic book store by any chance, do you?

    24. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 1
      You guys moonlight as rappers?

      Well, that depends. You work for a label?

      Hell yeah, dogg. MC Rootenboxen in da hizzouse!
    25. Re:Good, some balls. by Alioth · · Score: 1

      It does make a pretty good LART, certainly more portable than the traditional baseball bat most sysadmins carry.

    26. Re:Good, some balls. by radish · · Score: 1

      We were in a building with a few hundred thousand dollars in routers, and customers such as banks and medical facilities.

      So that's what someone's life is worth now? A "few hundred thousand dollars"? Because there's no point carrying a gun if you're not willing to use it. The very idea of killing someone over something so trivial as a router makes me sick.

      I work for a bank, none of our guards are armed, and neither are our staff. I fail to see why our ISPs staff should be.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    27. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      REAL admins carry Glock 18's.

    28. Re:Good, some balls. by ulmanms · · Score: 1

      Crackheads, hookers & bums in dumpsters all demand (and require) deadly force, of course. Those are definitely not groups to be taken lightly.

    29. Re:Good, some balls. by d474 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Some I'm pointing my Taser at your main Switch, you've got your Glock-19 drawn...

      "I SWEAR I'll do it man! I'll fry this bitch right now if you don't put your gun down! I crazzzzzy - don't you know I'm loco!?!"

      What are you going to do then, mister rent-an-adminCop?

      --
      Authority questions you. Return the favor.
    30. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So that's what someone's life is worth now? A "few hundred thousand dollars"? Because there's no point carrying a gun if you're not willing to use it. The very idea of killing someone over something so trivial as a router makes me sick.
      Could you please post your home address? My TV's on the fritz and I could use a new one.
      I work for a bank, none of our guards are armed, and neither are our staff.
      Again, address please?
    31. Re:Good, some balls. by bluGill · · Score: 1

      More than one person has been killed after submitting to attackers. In one well known case those attackers crashed the airplanes into some buildings and killed more several thousand others who had no opportunity to resist.

      Having a gun or not has no bearing on your needing to use deadly force to save someone's life (perhaps your own). However if you don't have the gun, nor proper training in martial arts, it is the innocent that dies.

    32. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Then you misunderstood. In Nevada, lethal force is only allowed when you fear for your life or grave bodily injury.
      I guess I could have been more clear. By having that equipment, and those type of customers, and that location, we had multiple reasons to be concerned for our lives. Just like any other time, being armed serves two purposes:
      1. To act as a deterrent
      2. To defend one's life, should someone disregard #1.
      I absolutely repsect the sanctity of life. I just respect the sanctity of my life slightly higher than everyone elses. (except for my kids, of course)
    33. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pop you in the knee cap.

      as the old saying goes "in texas you cant shoot a man in the back...but you sure can shoot them in the leg until they turn around"

    34. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exercising lethal force, and being capable of exercising lethal force are two entireley different things.

      If I had to chase crackheads off of our steps everyday, what's the chance that one of them might take offense to that, and decided to stick me with something, or worse? At first, when I was carrying concealed all the time, about once a week I would get some uppity (sp?) dealer that would decide that I was infringing on his urban pharmacuetical business, and give me some lip, get up in my face, as if he was going to start shit. So we put in some video cameras, and started open carrying. Very rarely did anyone give us a hard time after that. I did have one guy who tried to break into one of our cars, and I caught him and arrested him on the spot. Turned out he was a 3-time loser from CA. I actually performed a public service!

      Nothing wrong with being prepared, right? It's the same reason I carry a rollover cable in my laptop bag, you just never know when you will need to reconfigure a Cisco router. :)

    35. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 1

      Mmm.. Taser, that's what my laptop bag is missing. Never know when I'll need to "source-Quench" some spammers PC. :)

    36. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 1

      RTF Parent please..

    37. Re:Good, some balls. by Stormcrow309 · · Score: 1

      Having worked a job that required the SysAdmins to carry, I can see the point. We had a different reason, being the value of the data according to the owners. Also, we had these nice light blue/dark blue uniforms and sometimes wore camo. (Think on it) You would be surprized the BS people will try.

      I do have a question though. Glock 19s, man? Go up +2.

      --

      In God we trust, all others require data.

    38. Re:Good, some balls. by Deraj+DeZine · · Score: 1
      Oh, did I mentioned that me, and everyone else at the company carry Glock 19's?

      Who do you think you are? Team Zissou?

      --
      True story.
    39. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yikes. I better not run a DDOS attack on your ISP I might get shot.

      Are you retarded?

    40. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a funnay, laugh..

    41. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I must admit I am glad that (a) I do NOT live in Nevada, and that (b) You DO live there.

      No offence, but I am allergic to nuts.

    42. Re:Good, some balls. by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      The very idea of killing someone over something so trivial as a router makes me sick.

      If you don't want to get shot then don't steal. It's really that simple.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    43. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      never bring a knife to a gun fight

      That's smart, as is the reverse. Thing is, on close range knives are actually more dangerous than guns. This from my Krav Maga teacher. Obviously it all depends on distance between you and your enemy.

    44. Re:Good, some balls. by wronskyMan · · Score: 1

      Let me guess...3CXXX or 2EXXX? :-)

      --
      --- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
    45. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We would regularly find people sleeping in our dumpster in the morning.

      So? That makes it easy to take out the trash and reduce the problem by one.

    46. Re:Good, some balls. by Albertosaurus · · Score: 2

      Why not Glock 23's?

    47. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah the 9/11 excuse. Time to find a new one baby, this one is wearing thin (especially outside the US).

      God I'm just so pissed by those catho-militaristic jackass.

    48. Re:Good, some balls. by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So that's what someone's life is worth now? A "few hundred thousand dollars"?

      In Texas there is no lower limit. You can shoot someone in the back who is running away from you and is no longer on your property, as long as they stole from you and you can expect that you won't see it again if they make off with it and you would be at risk if you caught them. That's pretty much a blank check to shoot a robber in the back.

      The very idea of killing someone over something so trivial as a router makes me sick.

      I'm a raving liberal when it comes to most things, but I seem to be on the rabid conservative side for this one issue. Why is their right to steal from me greater than my right to stop them? I have the right to be secure in my person and property. They do not have the right to be secure in my property, only their own.

      Using deadly force to stop a felony seems quite reasonable. Using deadly force to stop a car chase seems quite reasonable. Deadly force should be used to stop crimes in progress and to stop those after crimes are committed if failure to do so would result in them getting away. If you don't like it, quit committing felonies.

    49. Re:Good, some balls. by lowrydr310 · · Score: 1

      A H&K .45 USP Compact is much better than a Glock 19, in my personal opinion.

    50. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The things, how much use is the weapon if you're not actually prepared, when it comes right down to it, to whip it out and blow someone's head off with it? Police are trained to only use their guns when lethal force is required (how often they actually stick to that rule of engagement in the real world is another question). If you're put into a life-threatening situation where you absolutely must use your weapon or die, how can you be sure that you're going to use it, instead of hesitating just a smidgen too long? Killing people takes practice, as I'm sure you're aware of the post-WW2 studies of soldiers show.

    51. Re:Good, some balls. by TyfStar · · Score: 0, Troll

      See, I don't understand the association either.

      A) You're a lan admin at an ISP that hosts for banks. Good for you.

      B) You carry guns. Fine, whatever.

      So.. what did you do? Walk up to him in his seat at teh Con, and have every person in the company point their gun at him? No, no probably not. *insert eye roll*

      And what are you all planning?
      "DUDE! We're getting hacked!"
      "Damn good thing we all have guns!"
      *BLAM*BLAM*BLAM*
      "That solved it. I'd like to see ANYONE hack a box with bullet holes through the mother board!"

      Uh Huh...

      --

      "There is a reason Linux is free"

      ~me~

    52. Re:Good, some balls. by rhizome · · Score: 1

      >> and everyone else at the company carry Glock 19's?
      >>
      >Please excuse my asking, oh well-armed-one, but WTF for?
      >The glock is a fine weapon, and being an admin for an ISP is a fine
      >job, but I can't quite see the relationship between the two things...

      The connection is that a story about ISP admins is the perfect
      opportunity to tell the Slashdot world that you know what a "Glock 19" is.

      Apples and apples, QED.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    53. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      More than one person has been killed after submitting to attackers. In one well known case those attackers crashed the airplanes into some buildings and killed more several thousand others who had no opportunity to resist.

      You are a total jackass -- really.

    54. Re:Good, some balls. by rhizome · · Score: 1

      >>The very idea of killing someone over something so trivial as a router makes me sick.
      >>
      >If you don't want to get shot then don't steal. It's really that simple.

      Great logic! How about "If you don't want to get DDoS'ed, then don't run a gambling website"? Works perfectly! Man, now we can solve all sorts of problems like that. Thanks for the insight.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    55. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Camo for a server room? What does that look like... splotches of redbull cans, blue screens of death, penguins?

    56. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Because society (as a whole, not specifically you) values the life of a convicted thief more than an arbitrarily small value of property.

      Do you think we should use deadly force to stop Ken Lay? Martha Stewart?

      Deadly force to stop someone from jaywalking?

      Deadly force to stop someone from letting their dog trespass (poo) on your lawn?

    57. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, AC. That was very insightful and contributed to the overall interesting nature of this thread.

    58. Re:Good, some balls. by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      In any case, Nevada is actually an Open Carry state. Meaning, even without a CCW, as long as you carry openly in a holster

      What's the point of a Glock if you're carrying it openly anyways? Wouldn't a plain (metal) gun do the job for much cheaper?

    59. Re:Good, some balls. by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      OT, but your sig rocks!

      Mind if I adopt it?

      --
      Eat the rich.
    60. Re:Good, some balls. by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      Deadly force to stop someone from letting their dog trespass (poo) on your lawn?

      This has been considered for cats... And the cat doesn't even need to soil your precious lawn: it's enough if it hasn't a collar and the owner is not in sight!

    61. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 1
      I do have a question though. Glock 19s, man? Go up +2.

      Nah, no factory party mags available for the 21. Nothing like reloading with 30 rounds at a time. :)
    62. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 2

      Granted, but like I said, we worked for an ISP. We weren't made of money. If I had that kind of money, why not carry two? O wait, when you dual wield, you lose the ability to throw grenades. :0

    63. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 1

      Nah, too heavy. After getting used to my Glock, I can't imagine carrying anything else, except for maybe another one. Or five.

    64. Re:Good, some balls. by huge+colin · · Score: 1

      Um... it's doesn't matter why you carry a gun at all -- you can't just go around threatening/intimidating people with it unless you want to get your license pulled and get a big fine. So, from this German hacker's perspective, you and your fearsome cronies weren't carrying guns.

    65. Re:Good, some balls. by psyon1 · · Score: 1

      There is really no reason to point a gun. If it was drawn from its holster, you should have been shot before the words got out of your mouth.

    66. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using deadly force to stop a felony seems quite reasonable. Using deadly force to stop a car chase seems quite reasonable. Deadly force should be used to stop crimes in progress and to stop those after crimes are committed if failure to do so would result in them getting away. If you don't like it, quit committing felonies.

      That's either a rather black and white view or a complete misunderstanding of "felony". Consider that under US law quite a few relatively innocuous activities could be considered felonies. For example, I don't think a sane individual would advocate the death penalty for refilling ink jet cartridges, having a joint or stealing a loaf of bread. Another problem with shooting people is that it is pretty hard to unkill them when you realize that your sunglasses are right where you left them.

    67. Re:Good, some balls. by jcr · · Score: 1

      I work for a bank, none of our guards are armed, and neither are our staff. I fail to see why our ISPs staff should be. ..sounds like a good reason not to be a depositor of your bank.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    68. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I wish. You got a few for sale? I got the 19 because I couldn't get the 18 legally.

    69. Re:Good, some balls. by VE3MTM · · Score: 1

      Y'know, when most people say they hit their computer, they don't mean Mafia-style...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 Whoops, silly middle mouse button...
    70. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, did I mentioned that me, and everyone else at the company carry Glock 19's?

      Yes and mine is as long as a baby's arm. I find it hard to imagine that you had the cojones to pull a gun in a 'Vegas casino so I really don't see how that is even vaguely relevant.

    71. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I know, I took it that way, I just didn't convey it well.

    72. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 1

      Besides, Glocks aren't that expensive, really. Buddy just got his 19 a month ago for about $489. Show me a semiauto for much less than that, or atleast enough to make it worth the extra weight. Plus, there IS something to be said for having a common model. And since many law enforcement agencies used them (until recently) it meant that parts, specifically mags, were readily available. Now that the Hicap mag ban has sunset, there is so many on the market (factory, not knock-off) that they are incredibly cheap. I picked up 5 more 15 rounders for under $20 each at the last gun show here in Vegas. Makes going to the range much more fun when you can preload 1000 rounds the night before. Now I am just waiting for the Glock factory Party Mags to become available again.

    73. Re:Good, some balls. by radish · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why is their right to steal from me greater than my right to stop them?

      It's not. But their right to live is greater than your right to kill them. Stop != kill. It may well be perfectly possible to stop someone stealing your router without shooting them in the back, if so great. If not, well, call the police. That's their job. If they're not able to catch the thief, look to your democratic process to get them better funded or whatever.

      IMHO the right to life trumps pretty much every other right there is.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    74. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you going to do then, mister rent-an-adminCop? Fire. He has ability, opportunity, and jeopardy to commit half a dozen federal felonies, and, given what previous poster said, potentially kill someone when their medical records saying they're fatally allergic to something are lost. He's dead to rights. Posting anonymously so any skript kiddie has to wonder just which BOFH might give him some .45-cal medicine if he decides to commit a little domestic terrorism.

    75. Re:Good, some balls. by radish · · Score: 1

      So you wouldn't point your gun at someone stealing your equipment? If so, great. If not, well...

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    76. Re:Good, some balls. by radish · · Score: 1

      If you don't want to get shot then don't steal. It's really that simple.

      It's all about proportionality of punishment to crime. Even a Judge cannot hand down a death penalty for theft. I really don't see any reason why you should be able to.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    77. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 1
      So you wouldn't point your gun at someone stealing your equipment? If so, great. If not, well...
      Physical (Human) force is enough to stop someone from stealing my equipment. Unless they are armed, in which case 'I fear for my life or grave bodily injury', and will use lethal force to defend it. The amount of force used should be only as much as is necessary and justified.
    78. Re:Good, some balls. by Arker · · Score: 1

      Much as I hate to get personal, what you said makes me sick as well.


      People that think like you do are the reasons decent law abiding citizens go to gaol for defending themselves. And the reason that criminals are allowed to run free and terrorise us in so many areas.


      You're right, if you aren't willing to use a weapon you shouldn't carry it. And if you're unwilling to use one and don't carry one, still obviously expect and take for granted the benefits you derive from the fact that some of us do, AND on top of that turn around and look at us like we're doing something wrong??? that last part puts it over the line for me. Really sickening.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    79. Re:Good, some balls. by Arker · · Score: 1

      Head shot. Then call housekeeping to take care of the splatter.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    80. Re:Good, some balls. by Stormcrow309 · · Score: 1

      Me? 1NXXX

      --

      In God we trust, all others require data.

    81. Re:Good, some balls. by Stormcrow309 · · Score: 1

      Why? If you can shoot, then you only need 3 rounds.

      --

      In God we trust, all others require data.

    82. Re:Good, some balls. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      What is the caliber of a Glock 19?

    83. Re:Good, some balls. by Albertosaurus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I see this argument as hypocritical. Why are the police entitled to use force when you aren't in defense of your property? Why is a cop permitted to shoot a perp who is fleeing arrest? What makes his moral judgement superior? The way I look at it is this: When a criminal steals your router he makes an implicit statement, "My life is worth risking to steal your property." The civilized have no obligations towards barbarians.

    84. Re:Good, some balls. by Albertosaurus · · Score: 1

      A) The miscreant might have friends. B) Even with perfect center of mass hits, 9mm may not be enough to stop him.

    85. Re:Good, some balls. by Mike1024 · · Score: 1

      I regularly had to chase crackheads, as well as hookers with their Johns off of our back steps. We would regularly find people sleeping in our dumpster in the morning.

      May I suggest some large, bright floodlights?

      You could place them on PIR so they only activate when people come nearby.

      --
      "Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
    86. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not hypocritical, because the police's 'entitlement' to use force under those conditions is very questionable as well. "The civilized have no obligations towards barbarians" - doesn't strike me as particularly 'civilized', more like a collection of barbarians using 'civilization' to justify their own barbarism. And there is nothing inherent in the persons actions that make the inplicit statement "My life is worth risking to steal your property.", this is a rationalization/explanation after you (and/or your society) have already decided that you are justified in killing them (because otherwise they wouldn't be risking their life).

    87. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using deadly force to stop INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT seems quite reasonable. Using deadly force to stop a FILE SHARER seems quite reasonable. Deadly force should be used to INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT in progress and to stop those after INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT is committed if failure to do so would result in them getting away. If you don't like it, quit committing INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT.

    88. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh, obviously so he could feel like a Big Man, so he could frighten pranksters with his Big Gun, and so he could brag on Slashdot about what a Big Man he is for frightening said pranksters with said Big Gun. You Da Man Now Dawg!

    89. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "2nd Ammendment"... I'd like to see you use your 'balls' (read: Glock) for some civil disobedience as was intended by the "2nd Ammendment", instead of only brandishing it when 1. you didn't need it and 2. there was no risk to yourself.

    90. Re:Good, some balls. by Agripa · · Score: 2, Informative

      Usually in states that permit using deadly force to stop a crime you either have to believe your life is in danger or someone else's life is in danger. This would include using deadly force to stop first degree arson (setting fire to an inhabited building) but not necessarily other felonies. Enforcement varies depending on the local district attorney and law enforcement so depending on the location, you could find yourself in a lot of legal trouble even if what you did was expressly permitted under the law.

      A majority of the time spent in CCW classes is for studying the laws that apply in these situations.

    91. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "hunting of free-roaming cats"... that's a funny way of putting it. I think the pervious poster meant killing the OWNER of the dog, not the dog itself for 'pooing' on your lawn. Killing the owner for letting the dog 'poo' on your lawn.

    92. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with this line of thinking is that you're not considering extinuating circumstances. Granted, my point won't apply with a router, but what if you possess something that I can use to save someone's life? There's no time to explain, so I grab the item in question from you and bolt. In the end, I'm shot in the back for trying to save someone.

    93. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strangely enough, you can actually get away with running over jaywalkers in some places on the grounds that it was their own fault. So you've effectively used deadly force to stop someone from jaywalking.

    94. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "necessary and justified"... by you of course. Someone like you (who would shoot someone simply because you can 'justify' it) simply owning a gun causes me to 'fear for my life or grave bodily injury', and I am forced to take measures to defend myself. For me that means using democracy to vote away your 'right' to have a gun. People like you are what happened to the 2nd Amendment.

    95. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *cough* insurance *cough*

    96. Re:Good, some balls. by Stealth+Potato · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am myself a gun owner and a vocal proponent of the Second Amendment, and I have to say I could not disagree more with what you are saying. It's this kind of testosterone-driven false bravado and thoughtless remarks that give real firearm enthusiasts a bad name.

      Deadly force is a last-resort measure that should be employed only when there is direct risk to your life or the lives of others. If someone else is threatening or attacking you with a gun, or if someone comes at you with a knife or something, or someone is subjecting another person to such a threat, you are justified in shooting them. But how can you justify taking someone's life because they're about to make off with your hubcaps or your computer?

      The power to take a life carries a tremendous responsibility to use that power only when it is necessary in order to protect the lives of others. Anyone who says otherwise clearly does not understand the responsibility that comes with wielding deadly force, and the sooner the crackpots who kill some poor kid to save their property are hauled off to prison, the better.

      Your post smacks of the attitude of a kid who's never actually held a gun, much less been in a situation where it was necessary to use it. I haven't had to fire upon another human being either, but I know people who have; my father's gun saved his life on several occasions, and a friend of mine is a police officer. Think before you speak, maybe.


      P.S: I have to say I do agree that sometimes deadly force should be used to stop a car chase. If the suspect represents a direct threat to innocent life, or the moment they make an assault with their vehicle, any measure required to stop them should be employed. However, in a pursuit situation, the best option is to simply let the suspect get away - unless you know that they do in fact pose an immediate threat (say, they're an escaping murder, or they have a hostage, or something of that magnitude), it's simply not worth the risk to public safety that is involved in a high-speed pursuit. It's sad the number of times innocent people have been injured or killed because the cops didn't want to let a drug dealer or two-bit robber get away.

    97. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 1

      May I suggest some large, bright floodlights?

      We had that, it didn't make a difference. These people were so cracked out of their heads, I was surprised anything worked. I guess a 6'2" Admin looks even scarier when you are bleary-eyed?

    98. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some dude ego tripping about his glock on slashdot is _not_ someone I trust with a gun, much less to be my judge, jury and executioner - which is what this is really about, he thinks it's reasonable to kill people for petty theft with no evidence other than _he_ thought it was justified, with _no_ due process what so ever. It people like him that are the reason why the rights of the _real_ decent law abiding citizens to defend themselves have been encroached. And remember legal and right aren't the same thing.

    99. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, are an idiot!

    100. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's alot of room between you getting his TV without consequence and him killing you. Obviously.

    101. Re:Good, some balls. by fciron · · Score: 1

      Thank you for posting an articulate statement of deadly force philosophy.

      The tough guy attitude adopted by previous posters is a greater threat to the second amendment than hippy peaceniks like me.

    102. Re:Good, some balls. by jcr · · Score: 1

      Oh, thanks.. Yeah, it sounds like a good reason to avoid your insurers as well.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    103. Re:Good, some balls. by Othim · · Score: 1

      As I have been reading through this thread I find a few things interesting.


      First of all, I've never quite understood the mentality of "Why would you ever need to carry a gun"?

      The reason I've never understood this mindset is simply because it is logically flawed. In the course of your average person's life they at some point become a victim of a crime. Be it a mugging, theft, assault, or in the more violent cases, rape and murder. You as a citizen have no right to police protection, and in it's design isn't supposed to "protect" you. It's main purpose is to bring criminals (meaning someone has become a victim by their crime) to justice. What right you do have as a citizen of the US is the right to bear arms, which gives you the ability to protect yourself, levels the playing field. Bringing you to the level that criminals already play at. Giving you that fighting chance to not become an assault, mugging, rape, or murder victim.


      However, as a few of you have so deftly chimed in, human life is more important than a router or any other inanimate object.

      I whole-heartedly agree! My life, the lives of my family, the lives of my children, the lives of my friends, and the lives of my co-workers are more important. And so I chose to carry a firearm to protect myself and those people from being endangered by somebody looking for easy money or a victim.


      Now while some of you are of the impression that guns are bad and the tool of bad guys, that not having guns would solve the country's problem of violence and crime. I would have to say that that too is logically flawed.

      Because criminals do not for the most part obtain firearms through legal means. Often times they are bought and purchased illegally, used illegally, and so aren't really affected by gun control. The person who is effected by gun control are people like myself, and well over half of the rest of the United States who own firearms for their own protection. Gun control does nothing, but for the most part disarms the average person.

    104. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least in California, pedestrians don't have the right of way in any street/road/highway unless they're inside a crosswalk. If you run one over outside a crosswalk, I suggest you tell the police that it was an accident. I don't think they would like to hear that you were trying to stop him from jaywalking by running him over ;)

    105. Re:Good, some balls. by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Blow out your kneecaps and leave you crying on the ground.

      As the Terminator said, "He'll live".

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    106. Re:Good, some balls. by Stormcrow309 · · Score: 1

      That is why self-defense starts with a 4 and ends with a 5. You would be surprized people get when their friend's head turns into red mist.

      BTW, handguns have the tendency to cause great damage, even in the 'wimpy' calibers. Don't play with them and take a training course.

      --

      In God we trust, all others require data.

    107. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So that's what someone's life is worth now? A "few hundred thousand dollars"? Because there's no point carrying a gun if you're not willing to use it. The very idea of killing someone over something so trivial as a router makes me sick.


      Yeah, well welcome to the bad new world.

      I work for a bank, none of our guards are armed, and neither are our staff. I fail to see why our ISPs staff should be.


      Well, luckily it isn't up to spineless folks like you. As far as I'm concerned they were justified. Additionally, the lad with the gambling joint in Costa Rica should get some connections in Russia and hire some out of work ex-FSB/KGB types. Seriously, I'll bet they'd grease one of those hackers for ten grand or so.

      A few people disappear in "real life" and the shit will stop. I'd love to see some little punk knocked out of his office chair ass over end when the 7.62mm intersects his skull.
    108. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately in real situations, having to draw a gun is tantamount to being prepared to kill or be killed. If is far more than most people are prepared to handle. If you have a gun, why would you think the criminal would not have bought one for $15 from Leroy Brown on the corner?

      Do you remember the case just a few months ago in Texas where there was a shooting outside a courthouse and a bystander who was armed pulled out his firearm and attempted to kill the assailant? Guess who killed who.

      I support the second amendment but I would be very cautious to tell people that they should carry guns on them for self defense.

    109. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the cops can't do any of those things either, dumbass.

    110. Re:Good, some balls. by bill_kress · · Score: 1

      That is incorrect. You have right of way if you are crossing legally. You are crossing legally unless you are crossing between two controlled intersections.

      If you look left and there is a stopsign, then you look right and there is a light--go to one of them and cross, but otherwise you're fine.

      Hmmm, this was 20 years ago. Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself, but this used to be true (I spent a lot of time in "Traffic School").

    111. Re:Good, some balls. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But how can you justify taking someone's life because they're about to make off with your hubcaps or your computer?

      Well, for one, the State of Texas says it is legal to shoot a fleeing robber in the back. For another, why is it that you think they have a greater right to take my things than I have to stop them? I presume a professional robber would be able to overpower me, so the only "safe" way to stop him without risking my own safety would be to do so with force capable of leaving him unable to hurt me (deadly force). So the only practical way to protect your stuff is to kill the person taking it. I feel that I have the right to be secure in my persons and posessions. Some documentation presented by the government seems to agree with me. So I'm only allowed to be secure in my posessions as long as I don't inconvenience the person taking them from me?

    112. Re:Good, some balls. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Do you think we should use deadly force to stop Ken Lay? Martha Stewart?

      No. We could easily get the money back when they are found guilty. The taking was already begun and ended before it was discovered. It isn't the same to shoot a fleeing robber as to hunt them down in their house and kill them as they sleep.

      For those differences, I must assume that you know that you are presenting flawed analogies in order to make the actual defense of property seem like a bad thing. But what should I expect fomr an AC?

    113. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I have a larger circumference than the average geek, which gives me more belt real-estate.

      You must be *huge*, then. The average geek is already more than a little roly-poly, you know.

    114. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flawed analogies? Nobody that had stock in Enron is getting their money back.

      This is interesting through. It is okay to shoot a fleeing robber but not okay to hunt him down in his house and shoot him. If he's running away from you, you can shoot, right? What if runs around a corner out of your sight, can you chase him around the corner then shoot him? What if he enters a building can you chase him into the building and then shoot him? What if he then gets into a car, can you chase him and shoot him as he gets out of the car? What if the car stops at his house and he is running to his house, can you shoot him as he is running? Once he enters his house, can you chase him into his house and shoot him?

      You mentioned one our of the three situations. The only one that involved a crime already committed. How about the two crimes that can be caught in action. You didn't consider jaywalking as a crime necessary to stop with deadly force? Why not? I thought all crime in action should be stopped with deadly force. How about if deadly force is acceptable when your neighbor won't stop letting his dog take a crap on your lawn?

    115. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've looked it up many times. Here's the reference:

      CVC: 21950. (a) The driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, except as otherwise provided in this chapter. (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve a pedestrian from the duty of using due care for his or her safety. No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard. No pedestrian shall unnecessarily stop or delay traffic while in a marked or unmarked crosswalk. (c) The provisions of subdivision (b) shall not relieve a driver of a vehicle from the duty of exercising due care for the safety of any pedestrian within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

      CVC 21954. (a) Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard. (b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway.

    116. Re:Good, some balls. by syousef · · Score: 2, Insightful

      sing deadly force to stop a felony seems quite reasonable. Using deadly force to stop a car chase seems quite reasonable. Deadly force should be used to stop crimes in progress and to stop those after crimes are committed if failure to do so would result in them getting away. If you don't like it, quit committing felonies.

      So you trust the person who shoots you to determine your innocence or guilt? Last I checked that was for a judge and/or jury.

      what if what they're "making off with" turns out to be theirs and only looks like something you own? ...and what if there are no witnesses? Sounds like a good way to commit murder to me! (I swear he was running off with my wallet when I shot him in the back).

      No, I think the use of deadly force should be restricted to when yourself or your family/friends come under attack directly. I do however think it's ridiculous that you can be charged and then sued for a burgular tripping over your rug in some places. Frankly I think if a burglar gets held by force (and suffers minor injuries) that's fair enough. If a burgular gets to go home in a coffin that's a bit too much.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    117. Re:Good, some balls. by syousef · · Score: 1

      Want to get modded OT and flamebait? Mention religion, even if on topic (whether you are for or against)

      Nah, its much quicker and more effective to point out Linux's imperfections.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    118. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 1

      2nd Ammendment"... I'd like to see you use your 'balls' (read: Glock) for some civil disobedience as was intended by the "2nd Ammendment", instead of only brandishing it when 1. you didn't need it and 2. there was no risk to yourself.

      Ok, but first I need you to run for an elected office, work your way up through the ranks of Washington, and along the way, try and abolish any of the first 10. I bet I won't be the only one ready to hand you a little 'Civil Disobedience'.

      Oh, and why can't you hippie-liberal-douchebag types taking a fucking joke, ehh? Yes, the story is real, yes, we all owned firearms, no we didn't point them at anyone. Just imagine the startled fuckhead getting snatched out of his seat, laugh about it, and fucking move along! If I would have left the last part out, what would you have bitched about then?

      I eat meat too. That makes me the spawn of satan, right?

    119. Re:Good, some balls. by Kadmos · · Score: 1

      As much as I would also like to think that a human life is worth more than a router my eyes tell me another story. I have watched people die (and cause others to) for much less: because they wanted to get home 5 minutes quicker (speeding), becuase they couldn't be bothered to walk 20m to a crossing (got hit by a truck), another who, because they did something without thinking, got their brain mashed as a result. I've seen mothers who, when crossing the road use their pram (with baby inside) as some sort of protection device, sticking it out in traffic to get cars to stop.

      Ask anyone in emergency services what their first priority is on a job and they will (or should) tell you that it is themselves. They have seen enough people die to know what it's worth.

    120. Re:Good, some balls. by vbrookslv · · Score: 1

      You must be *huge*, then. The average geek is already more than a little roly-poly, you know.

      Let's just say that Jinx doesn't have shirts for me, and airline travel isn't my idea of a relaxing experience. But, I did recently determine (through the reporting function in Quicken) that I have personally kept the daughter of my local pizza shop owner in private school. So I guess I am contributing to education!

    121. Re:Good, some balls. by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      How about "If you don't want to get DDoS'ed, then don't run a gambling website"?

      Last I checked, the employees of the gambling site don't sneak into your business and steal your equipment in the middle of the night. Talk about a failure in applying logic....

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    122. Re:Good, some balls. by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      I really don't see any reason why you should be able to.

      Fortunately the decision isn't up to you. If it were we'd all be victims just waiting our turn to be preyed upon.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    123. Re:Good, some balls. by maxpublic · · Score: 1

      Mind if I adopt it?

      Go right ahead. But be warned: crazy-assed Christian zealots will take to modding down everything you write whenever they get mod points.

      Max

      --
      My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
    124. Re:Good, some balls. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carrying and brandishing are two different things, moron.

    125. Re:Good, some balls. by WD_40 · · Score: 1

      You, sir, are an idiot. The parent basically said, "Don't participate in criminal acts and you won't get shot." Your reply is irrelevant because the business owner isn't stealing my property.

      It never ceases to amaze me how people like you are quick to embrace the criminal and demonize the person trying to protect his life or property from attack.

      Oh for the days when evil was not tolerated and people who punished it were heroes.

      --

      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925

    126. Re:Good, some balls. by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 1

      I couldn't care less, honestly.

      I do wear Mjolnir in a chain around my neck for a reason, you know ;-)

      It never comes off, and on the rare occasion where I have to enter a church for some reason, the reactions are hilarious.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    127. Re:Good, some balls. by WD_40 · · Score: 1

      In Texas they have a saying I like: "He needed killin'!"

      --

      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925

    128. Re:Good, some balls. by WD_40 · · Score: 1

      Insurance does me no good when I get shot to death while standing in line because the bank is an easy target with no armed guards.

      --

      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925

    129. Re:Good, some balls. by WD_40 · · Score: 1

      As he stated in another post, there are vermin in his area of business that would not hesitate to kill him in order to steal his computer gear. He carries a gun to defend his life, not to shoot people stealing sticks of gum.

      --

      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925

    130. Re:Good, some balls. by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      So you trust the person who shoots you to determine your innocence or guilt? Last I checked that was for a judge and/or jury.

      Well, then, no one should ever be arrested. After all, if they don't think you did it, it would be wrong for them to arrest you, and you are saying that no one can presume your guilt.

      You are also saying that if I witness someone breaking into my house, grabbing my TV and running off with it, I'm not capable of determining whether they committed a crime. You are wrong on both counts. Try again.

    131. Re:Good, some balls. by WD_40 · · Score: 1

      That's not true. Many crimes each year are thwarted by CCW holders without having to fire a shot. As soon as the gun clears leather and the badguy sees it, he takes off running.

      Most criminals are real brave until they discover their would-be victim is armed.

      In partial agreement with you: some situations escalate so quickly that all you can do is draw and shoot as fast as possible, but there can be merrit in pointing and being prepared to shoot without actually firing.

      Different situations warrant different responses.

      --

      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925

    132. Re:Good, some balls. by WD_40 · · Score: 1

      Handguns are woefully underpowered. They are nothing like Hollywood depicts. While they absolutely are capable of causing great damage, they can't be counted on to stop someone in one or two shots even. We don't carry handguns because they're powerful, we carry them because they're portable. As the saying goes, "Use the handgun to fight your way to your long gun."

      (As a footnote, I have taken training courses at both Front Sight, NV and Suarez International. Courses including 2 Day Defensive Handgun, 3 Day CCW, 4 Day Advanced Tactical Handgun, 4 Day Practical Rifle, 2 Day Close Range Gunfighting and 2 Day Force-on-Force.)

      --

      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925

    133. Re:Good, some balls. by Allnighterking · · Score: 1
      When that compaq server flat out refuses to boot... point the glock right at it's CPU and say:


      Yah feeling Lucky?"


      either that or they are all members of the ESR fan club. *grin*

      --

      I'm sorry, I'm to tired to be witty at the moment so this message will have to do.

  18. I fell for one of these by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    An online wallet inspector demanded I send him my billfold posthaste. I never got it back. Be forewarned.

    1. Re:I fell for one of these by ajlitt · · Score: 1

      I think we ran across the same guy. I refused his inspection, opting to purchase one of his fine hall passes instead.

  19. follow the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    its not that hard, if the banks obstruct then sue them as well

  20. Taking on an Online Extortionist by JamesP · · Score: 0

    Did anyone read this as Online Exorcist???

    Or maybe 0wnline extortionist...

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  21. Just do what we do on IRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Find out where they live and call their mom.

  22. Riveting? by b3x · · Score: 0

    ya ... riveting ... uhuh

  23. Another (mangled) Chuchill quote by astebbin · · Score: 1

    "Never... have so few... been pinged so much, by so many, zombified by so few..."

  24. Curious by Dante+Shamest · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've always wondered...when a site is slashdotted, it implies that the site has been hit by high referrals from slashdot, causing it to become slow or go down totally.

    But how does slashdot itself cope with the high traffic?

    1. Re:Curious by Secrity · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wormholes.

    2. Re:Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      much bandwidth, multiple servers.

    3. Re:Curious by Gzip+Christ · · Score: 5, Funny
      I've always wondered...when a site is slashdotted, it implies that the site has been hit by high referrals from slashdot, causing it to become slow or go down totally. But how does slashdot itself cope with the high traffic?
      It's quite simple, really - Slashdot just doesn't link to itself.
    4. Re:Curious by Misroi · · Score: 1

      Better servers, better connection? Better Caching? If you notice, when you post a reply it is updated a few minutes later, that's probably from the cache refresh time.

    5. Re:Curious by dougmc · · Score: 5, Informative
      But how does slashdot itself cope with the high traffic?
      Lots of bandwidth, lots of hardware. Since it gets `slashdotted' every single day, it'll be pretty easy to predict how much traffic you'll get tomorrow -- approximately the same as you got yesterday, perhaps a bit more.

      But when you're running your own server, and it normally gets 50 hits/day, and then suddenly a Slashdot listing hits it with millions of hits in one day, well, that's harder to prepare for, because 1) you often don't know you're going to be on /. until it's already happened, and 2) is it even worth preparing for? It's just one or two days, and then things will go back to normal. More hardware and bandwidth may cost lots of money, money that you're not going to spend just so people can see pictures of whatever neat thing you did.

      Really, the only sites that get /.ed are the smaller ones. The larger ones already have the hardware and bandwidth needed to handle it. Sure, a /.ing probably shows up on their mrtg reports, but it's probably just a 20% or so increase in traffic, not a 1000x fold increase.

    6. Re:Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it duplicates the storise to spread the load?

      seriously, I've wondered the same thing as the parent...

    7. Re:Curious by Chmarr · · Score: 1, Funny

      Oh! That would explain all the dupe articles we see!

    8. Re:Curious by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's the trick. Most people would say "bigger servers" and "bigger bandwidth". But I know the real reason. Notice how you get 'Service Unavailable'? Every so often? I found that if more than 50 people are accessing Slashdot at the same time, that their database cannot handle it. In reality, this site is hosted on an Amiga. Only 50 users you say? That can't be.... just look at my User ID!

      All the 813,621 users before you don't really exist. These messages are randomly generated geek buzzwords. "Users" are given personalities, ranging from "Linux lover" to "Windows loser", from "I'm just a troll" to "IAARS", from "Funny" to "I take myself serious, but no one else does".

      Those "personalities" alter the pre-populated phrase list according to topic (actually, I am not even sure the topic matters). Think of it as an advanced Turing simulation.

      I was fooled for my first three months. Then, I saw the predictable responses, and realized that there was no actual intellegence here. Just the occassional real life person who wanders in and is fooled for a while. The auto-misspell feature was a nice addition, I have to admit.

      Want proof? Pick a user id. Peruse messge list. Notice the lack of variety? Notice the lack of real meaning behind each message? And when there is real content, try browsing earlier messages. You will find phrases ripped verbatim from an earlier post.

      Of course, you may also be a bot. CommanderTaco is always making tweaks to the message generation algorithm (though his posts, too, are mostly generated by code). I will have to peruse your message history when I am done posting here.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    9. Re:Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > But how does slashdot itself cope with the high traffic?

      It's front-ended with caching reverse proxies (squid) on fat pipes. Most sites that get slashdotted are on hosting providers that couldn't and wouldn't have such a setup, at least not without a stiff premium.

      Slashdot actually falls over fairly frequently for a high-profile site, but I don't think it's actually related to bandwidth.

    10. Re:Curious by gbulmash · · Score: 2, Informative
      I've always wondered...when a site is slashdotted, it implies that the site has been hit by high referrals from slashdot, causing it to become slow or go down totally. But how does slashdot itself cope with the high traffic?

      Remember that the site in this article was getting hit with over 3 gigabits of traffic a second under the pressure of a DDoS composed of an estimated 35k bots. Now imagine that your average dedicated server account comes with a 10 megabit pipe. It would take a lot fewer consistent requests to slow everything to a crawl. And often these sites are on shared servers, competing with anywhere from 5-200 other sites for the pipe and the processing power.

      And in most cases they don't need it. Why would a site used to getting 20,000 hits a day put out the money for capacity 200,000 hits in a few minutes? They try to keep enough capacity to handle 20-50% daily usage spikes, sometimes maybe even 100%, but not a gazillion percent.

      Slashdot has big pipes, multiple servers, load balancing and various optimizations that your average site doesn't. They even shut down certain functions under really heavy load (ever notice that sometimes the site search is theirs and sometimes it routes you to Google?). But except when being slashdotted, the average site doesn't need those.

      - Greg

    11. Re:Curious by halivar · · Score: 1

      Hah! Pretty good, you almost got me! Shoulda' known, though; I'm smarter than bot #822545, so I would never fall for it.

    12. Re:Curious by stanmann · · Score: 1

      The Previous post was made by a bot.

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
    13. Re:Curious by khrtt · · Score: 1

      If you get slashdotted, can't you just coralize your own site for a while?

    14. Re:Curious by MagikSlinger · · Score: 1
      All the 813,621 users before you don't really exist. These messages are randomly generated geek buzzwords. "Users" are given personalities, ranging from "Linux lover" to "Windows loser", from "I'm just a troll" to "IAARS", from "Funny" to "I take myself serious, but no one else does".


      I am not a Bot! (Funny Bot response #3245)
      In Soviet Union, you extort extortionists! (Funny Bot response #42)
      Yeah, well how about a beowolf cluster of those bots? (Funny Bot response #5637)

      ERROR: Funny Bot caught in loop. Call Cmdr Taco!
      --
      The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
    15. Re:Curious by Jtheletter · · Score: 3, Funny
      All the 813,621 users before you don't really exist. These messages are randomly generated geek buzzwords. "Users" are given personalities, ranging from "Linux lover" to "Windows loser", from "I'm just a troll" to "IAARS", from "Funny" to "I take myself serious, but no one else does".

      Oh cool, this must be one of those meta-tin-hat /.-bots I heard Taco was developing! Sowing seeds of dissent and conspiracy for its own sake.

      What a great entry-level comment to test with too! By publicly 'outing' the very system it is a part of no one will take this position as serious anymore and simply decry those who suggest it a yet another foil-hatter, while simultaneously freeing this chat-bot of being accused as one. After all if it were a bot, why would it point out all its own secrets?

      Bravo Taco, you are to be commended for this nasty little piece of deception. But of course, if 822545 is a bot, then how can I prove that I am not one? Well, quite easily, you see der lichentttttt ^H^H^H^H
      WARNING -- Unhandled parsing error at 0x0E346B22: Core meta-logic rebuttle memory dump in progress! Rebooting comment generation APU at segment data 2501 -- END

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    16. Re:Curious by baadger · · Score: 1
    17. Re:Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Want proof? Pick a user id. Peruse messge list. Notice the lack of variety?

      I see your weakness now

    18. Re:Curious by baadger · · Score: 1
      Slashdot actually falls over fairly frequently for a high-profile site, but I don't think it's actually related to bandwidth.


      This is related to the fact that your relative frame of reference as a geek means these 500ms glitches seem like you're coming down from a 48 hour cocaine binge.
    19. Re:Curious by Ibanez · · Score: 1

      And yet they can't write a script to check for double posts?

    20. Re:Curious by dougmc · · Score: 2, Informative
      If you get slashdotted, can't you just coralize your own site for a while?
      Coral looks like an obvious solution to this sort of problem -- and to some degree it is. However, there are problems too --

      1) If /. has linked to your site, that means your site still needs to serve up the main page. You could coralize your images and such and save some bandwidth that way, but if your web server can't even serve that first page under the load, you're screwed. And if you do find yourself /.ed, and go and coralize your site real quick, then it'll be a while before the traffic slacks off enough for the coral servers to even reach your site to get the images that you've coralized.

      Many sites do replace their fancy dynamic pages with a `hi slashdotters!' page after getting /.ed ... saves a lot of cpu on the box. But if what's special about your site is the dynamic aspect of it, well, that won't work.

      2) Coral won't do files over 50 or 100 MB. So if you've got some large download, you'd better set up a Bit Torrent instead ... and fast.

      3) Currently, Coral uses some non-standard ports that some places may not be able to access due to restrictive firewalls. I understand that this is to change.

      4) Coral uses some DNS tricks that don't work with the entire world. Specially, Windows DNS servers tend to have problems with it.

      But still, mentioning coral as a way of reducing the /. effect is an excellent idea. It's not the perfect solution, but it's pretty good.

    21. Re:Curious by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      CommanderTaco is always making tweaks to the message generation algorithm (though his posts, too, are mostly generated by code).

      You were believable until you claimed that Cmdr Taco could write code.

    22. Re:Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pearls and swine, bereft of me
      long and weary my road has been
      I was lost in the cities
      Alone in the hills
      No sorrow or pity
      For leaving I feel-yeah
      I am not your rolling wheels
      I am the highway
      I am not your carpet ride
      I am the sky
      Friends and liars
      Dont wait for me
      'Cause Ill get on
      All get on all by myself
      I put millions of miles
      Under my heels
      And still too close to you
      I feel, yeah eh eh
      I am not your rolling wheels
      I am the highway
      I am not your carpet ride
      I am the sky
      I am not your blowing wind
      I am the lightning
      I am not your autumn moon
      I am the night

      Sorry, coding is just too harsh on my personality !

      P.S: words by C.Cornel

    23. Re:Curious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Very insightful, my friend, but not the whole story.

      CommanderTaco is always making tweaks to the message generation algorithm

      There is no single message generation algorithm. Rather, there are approximately 850,000 of them -- one for each user bot, tied together by a single genetic meta-algorithm.

      New algorithms are constantly being born, the result of hot and steamy bot sex.

  25. Speaking of Ddos... by whitelabrat · · Score: 1

    So much for the article.

  26. Extorting a gambling site? by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Funny

    Extorting a gambling site? That strikes me as a LLM (life limiting move, c.f. career limiting move).

    Many gambling sites still have connections to, shall we say, respectible businessmen of the Italian or Asian pursuasion, who are used to handling such matters extra-legally.

    You might just wake up one day with your computer's monitor (cables severed with an ax) in bed with you.

    Or Guido and Nunzio standing over you, giving you tips on the finer points of extortion while they wait for the concrete to set.

    1. Re:Extorting a gambling site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many gambling sites still have connections to, shall we say, respectible businessmen of the Italian or Asian pursuasion, who are used to handling such matters extra-legally.

      Raciast bigot.

    2. Re:Extorting a gambling site? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Theres a story that someone tried to extort or hack (not sure) a russian gambling website once.
      Unfortunately it was run by the russian mafia and apparently the hacker was tracked down and executed. The story may be apocryphal but knowing what russia is like it could easily be true.

    3. Re:Extorting a gambling site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You watch too much TV, and so did the moron who moderated your post up.

    4. Re:Extorting a gambling site? by Council · · Score: 1

      Guido and Nuzio! Someone else who recognizes that! Yeah, you don't wanna cross those guys.

      I love the world set up in those books.

      In this case, I think name-dropping like that is a little less difficult. The internet is a big and easy-to-hide place, and I think the overwhelming majority of gambling sites are NOT involved with organized crime. Though if you can correct me on that, please do.

      --
      xkcd.com - a webcomic of mathematics, love, and language.
    5. Re:Extorting a gambling site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, according to most reports/articles I have read (Maxim, anyone?), the Italian mafia is on the decline even here in the states, and globally is really only a power in Italy. The Russian, Chinese, and Japanese mafias, however, are VERY powerful worldwide.

      I guess the U.S. mafia is called corporate America?

    6. Re:Extorting a gambling site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, also tfa discusses that in depth

      http://www.csoonline.com/read/050105/pay_3583.html

    7. Re:Extorting a gambling site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Casinos and other profitable businesses are one area where the mob really does give protection, when some other punk starts muscling in on their turf.

      But do you think that protection comes for free? Not every operator is a made man.

      Cosa Nostra is just about dismantled. These days it's the Russian mob and to a lesser degree, the Triads on the west coast (the Russian presence on the west coast is pretty big too though, especially in the Bay area).

    8. Re:Extorting a gambling site? by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      If it were Guido and Nunzio your problems may lay wtih your fairy godfather (dressed in a snazzy purple/lavender zoot suit).

      (presuming you got G & N from Robert Asprin's MYTH series?)

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    9. Re:Extorting a gambling site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...just a tip...if Tony and Silvio show up at your house one morning unnanounced and want your opinion on a new fishing boat, don't go with them...bada-bing!

    10. Re:Extorting a gambling site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Post-Soviet Russia, gambling website hacks you... to death!

    11. Re:Extorting a gambling site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That should be "Racist bigot"...

      Signed,

      The Grammar Nazi.

    12. Re:Extorting a gambling site? by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

      In the movie, the casino owner will be played by Robbie Coltrane. With a thick Russian accent, like in the Bond movie he did.

      Or wait... Paulie Walnuts! Yes! "heyz, youz wanna take down dee-enn-esses? I gotcha ur DNS right here!"

    13. Re:Extorting a gambling site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the U.S. mafia is called corporate America?

      CIA/FBI/White House/Corporate America .. Lots of names ..

    14. Re:Extorting a gambling site? by JahToasted · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe, just maybe, the ddosers have connections to certain Russian "businessmen"?

    15. Re:Extorting a gambling site? by sfjoe · · Score: 1

      Many gambling sites still have connections to, shall we say, respectible businessmen of the Italian or Asian pursuasion,...

      You've been watching too much TV. When it was discovered how profitable legal gambling is, then the guys with the REAL muscle moved in.

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    16. Re:Extorting a gambling site? by daniel_mcl · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was just suggesting this as a solution to spamming awhile back; if it's really that expensive to businesses, wouldn't it be more economical for them to arrange to have spammers assasinated? I'm serious about this -- if people are cool with paying Mafia kickbacks to their sanitation company, wouldn't they be willing to pay for something which will save them quite a lot more money?

      If such a job were available I'd personally be going through sharpshooter training right now.

      --
      I used to read Caltizzle. I was a lot cooler than you.
    17. Re:Extorting a gambling site? by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 1

      When it was discovered how profitable legal gambling is, then the guys with the REAL muscle moved in.

      Exactly. Gambling is about as mafia connected as porn now.

    18. Re:Extorting a gambling site? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you go the assassination route, be sure to get 'em all. If you don't finish the job, you'll end up with bulletproof spammers, just like bacteria growing resistant to Penicillin.

  27. Slashdot does the same...! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder who at CSO Magazine pissed off the Slashdot editors?

  28. I for one... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Insightful

    welcome our Windows zombie machines overlords. (food for thought).

    1. Re:I for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Nice karma whoring tactic!!
      1. Type in your favorite meme (like this one)
      2. Insert "food for thought" near the end of your post
      3. ???
      4. PROFIT!!! Just watch those +1 Insightfuls roll in
      Food for thought, y'all.
    2. Re:I for one... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you do a google search on "I for one welcome * overlords" you'd notice that it's used in general to refer something that is natually evil. My point in here was that this bandwidth extortion wouldn't be possible (or would be much more limited) without the *evil* (hence overlords) zombie windows pc's around the world. And all thanks to Billy! (more evil).

  29. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everybody else having problems getting to the site? Even the mirror doesn't work, this is annoying.

  30. fighting back with infrastructure by Ankh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Some ISPs are doing customer-level ingres filtering -- e.g. if the "other end" of the cable modem gets a packet whose src address is not that of the cable modem, drop it on the floor, it's forged.

    The ease of infecting home XP systems remotely means you sometimes find teenagers with tens of thousands of zombie computers at their control. They can sell them to spammers, too.

    The ease of doing massive DDoS attacks is why I stopped running an IRC server, and also stopped a research project I was doing related to inter-protocol messaging. It wasn't worth the hassle.

    Fighting back is hard if you don't know who to fight, but in the case of extortion, (1) document everything on paper, (2) keep timestamped printed IRC logs of all conversations, and full email printouts; (3) ask some other people to print copies of their IRC logs when appropriate. Then contact the RCMP (or if you are in the USA, the FBI, but in the USA you need to show financial damage of $5,000 or more). Don't wait until it's all over before contacting them.

    Good luck!

    Liam

    --
    Live barefoot!
    free engravings/woodcuts
    1. Re:fighting back with infrastructure by FreeTheFurniture! · · Score: 3, Informative
      Just a little more info for all you Canadians.

      If your not sure who you should report this kind of stuff too (local or RCMP), you can make use RECOL.ca(Reporting Economic Crimes On-line). They can direct your complaint to the proper force/department.

      In terms of the RCMP, it's usually the Commercial Crimes Division (they'll then bring the Tech. Crime guys in as needed).

    2. Re:fighting back with infrastructure by krbvroc1 · · Score: 1

      I can't even get 'abuse@comcast.net' to reply to my emails to disconnected Sober virus infected machines sending worms to my mail server. How do people get in touch with the correct folks to make all this coordination happen? Attempts to call comcast on the phone dumps me to a 'enter the phone # of the account on the bill'. Huh?

    3. Re:fighting back with infrastructure by Quixote · · Score: 1
      customer-level ingres filtering -- e.g. if the "other end" of the cable modem gets a packet whose src address is not that of the cable modem, drop it on the floor, it's forged.

      It is called "egress filtering" (more info (PDF)). It is asinine that all USPs aren't doing this. Spoofed addresses is one major reason why DDoS attacks are so hard to counter.

    4. Re:fighting back with infrastructure by Nethead · · Score: 1
      The ease of doing massive DDoS attacks is why I stopped running an IRC server...

      You too. irc.nethead.com pulled it's plug after a 400Mb/s DDOS. We had 1.5Gb/s of pipe but still it wasn't worth it to keep a bunch of ungrateful punks happy.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    5. Re:fighting back with infrastructure by Ankh · · Score: 1

      right, it's egress at the ISP boundary going out, and ingres at the boundary coming in -- we're not disagreeing I think, just looking at it from opposite ends :-)

      At any rate, yes, spoofed addresses are what makes it all but impossible to deal with DDOS attacks these days.

      Thanks for posting the link.

      Liam

      --
      Live barefoot!
      free engravings/woodcuts
    6. Re:fighting back with infrastructure by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      Some ISPs are doing customer-level ingres filtering -- e.g. if the "other end" of the cable modem gets a packet whose src address is not that of the cable modem, drop it on the floor, it's forged.


      If your firewall isn't doing that (egress filtering) then it is not configured correctly. Shouldn't just be some ISPs...

    7. Re:fighting back with infrastructure by Ankh · · Score: 1

      irc.sorcery.net did survive, but I took away the two servers I had there. It wasn't worth the hassle, and I was also worried about liability.

      Liam

      --
      Live barefoot!
      free engravings/woodcuts
    8. Re:fighting back with infrastructure by Ankh · · Score: 1

      My firewall is doing that.

      However, the quantity of DDoS attacks on the net using forged src addresses indicates that it's not an unusual situation. Part of the problem is home users without a firewall at all, of course. (a software firewall can be disabled by a sufficiently sophisticated virus, for outgoing packets, of course, since it's software).

      Best,

      Liam

      --
      Live barefoot!
      free engravings/woodcuts
    9. Re:fighting back with infrastructure by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      i seem to remember that some fairly high end routers are not really capable of doing that with any speed (ie you can do it but it forces the packet through the cpu)

      you also have to be carefull what you drop when if you have any customers on thier own ip blocks peers etc

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  31. I did :-) by gonzocanuck2 · · Score: 1

    I don't know why. I have been reading everything wrong lately.

  32. Catching them by ehiris · · Score: 1

    Here are the federal extortion laws. Wouldn't the FBI get involved if there is proof of extortion? Can't the attackers be caught easily when trying to cash in?

    1. Re:Catching them by Cromac · · Score: 1

      That assumes the attacker is located in the US and the place they want the victem to send the money is somewhere US authorities have any power. These days you might be better off contacting Homeland Security and spinning it as an attack against the US.

    2. Re:Catching them by wmajik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that many of the online gambling and online poker operations are not based in the United States, as it is against the low. More often that not then, the site operators establish their operations in small Caribbean islands and the Isle of Man. As a result, the small island governments are almost aways incapable of handling a large scale international investigation, but at the same time, the FBI cannot get involved because there was no crime committed on US soil. Now, the knee-jerk reaction is to say that the site operators are getting what they deserve for establing off-shore operations and not paying taxes, but that wouldn't be the whole story either. The true fact is that while practically all of the gambling operators are owned and run by US citizens, almost all of those operations want to be regulated by the government and pay taxes as well. Why? Because of exact situations like these with the DDoSers. Between loosing the shirt off your back and paying taxes, one of the options starts to look a lot more business smart. It's a weird world when one of the most profitable online industries that pays little to no tax is also the one most wants to be regulated and taxed at the end of the day. Given the context of the industry however, it can be easily summed up in one easy notion: protection fee. Having the protection of the laws of the US government far outweighs being knocked over, cheated or swindled by the legions of DDoSers, fraudsters and governments that the industry has to deal with. Ambiguities about the morals of gambling aside, if a $2 billion dollar industry that most believe is here to stay wants to come ashore and be taxed and regulated, as a US citizen, I for one would welcome the tax benefits.

  33. hold buggy software vendors responsible? by capilot · · Score: 1

    I wonder if some sort of class-action suit wouldn't be appropriate against the vendors of software which allows computers to become zombies?

    1. Re:hold buggy software vendors responsible? by McGiraf · · Score: 1

      and allow legal action against people who write software that can be used for illegal actions? (p2p)

      and against hammer manufacturers that make things that allow people to bash other people heads ...

      I know there is a difference, vendors of software which allows computers to become zombies is more like criminal negligence than my exemples. But we all know how laws and legal precedents are used (and misused).

      Is there not enough lawyers already?

    2. Re:hold buggy software vendors responsible? by McGiraf · · Score: 1

      sorry to reply to myself but i have to say:

      i know to configure my linux firewall so it can become a zombie.

      so Debian, Red Hat, Suse, etc are vendors of software which allows computers to become zombies.

    3. Re:hold buggy software vendors responsible? by PigleT · · Score: 1

      No. Distribute responsibility sensibly: prosecute the bloody morons who let their boxes rot unattended.

      --
      ~Tim
      --
      .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
      Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
  34. In the news... by IEEEMonkey · · Score: 1

    ...today the hosts of Slashdot.org, an everything geek website, was accused of causing a DDoS on an online magazine's website. It seems that for several hours the site was unavailable as a result. Site owners of Slashdot.org refused to comment as the zombies they were using had no choice but to hit the link to the downed web site time and again.

  35. Next News Story... by kniLnamiJ-neB · · Score: 3, Funny

    "How CSO Online took on Slashdot... and LOST."

    I'm glad that somebody's standing up to the jerk though... people who do stuff like that are wasting perfectly good matter.

    --
    Windows isn't the answer... it's the question. NO is the answer!
  36. Roland was part of a scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember the "tactile digital assitant" that was tied to a French company that wanted a rather large sum of money to send you one? Remember how Roland was all hip about the product and did everything to spam his blog on Slashdot to promote it?

    Who got their TDA? No one.

    Anyone who supports Roland is supporting a scam and possibly organized crime.

    1. Re:Roland was part of a scam by Ithika · · Score: 1

      You forgot terrorists and IP thieves.

  37. No protection by McGiraf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The thing with these DOS extortionist is that unlike the mafia or other groups they do not protect you from other extortinist. If you pay them thay can stop their attact, but if someone else try to attack you they cannot do anyting.

    1. Re:No protection by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So, how does that actually work out in real life? If Syndicate Foo is "protecting" my business, and Syndicate Bar sends a couple of "salesmen" to offer me competing rates, how do I pick which policy to use? Do we all sit down with lasagna and compare market capitalization, research projects, and offensive/defensive capabilities? Do I have to weigh the relative likelihood of widowerhood if I switch from Foo to Bar, or reject Bar to stick with Foo?

      Sorry, but I grew up in a decidedly non-ethnic area and am somewhat ignorant in the finer points of coercee etiquette.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    2. Re:No protection by McGiraf · · Score: 1

      Well you have to go with the more powerful group and if someone else tries to get you, well they "take care" of them.

      But most of the time you do not chose, the most poweful group end up with a monopoly in you sector and nobody else will bother you.

      And by the way it happens in 'non-ethnic' areas too.

    3. Re:No protection by CustomDesigned · · Score: 2, Informative

      Protection rackets have territories. You pay whoever currently controls your territory. If a competing salesman comes by, you let your current "protector" know, and they duke it out. You keep paying the winner.

    4. Re:No protection by rob_squared · · Score: 0

      "but if someone else try to attack you they cannot do anyting."

      They can laugh...

      --
      I don't get it.
    5. Re:No protection by Deanalator · · Score: 1

      The thing with these DOS extortionist is that unlike the mafia or other groups they do not protect you from other extortinist

      If they were to do that, I think it would be called "consulting" :-p

    6. Re:No protection by Percent+Man · · Score: 1

      And did anyone else detect a hint of irony, or perhaps a wry tongue-in-cheek when the article closed with,

      Pay Lyon $50,000 a year and he's protected. He doesn't have to worry about paying extortionist's protection fees.

      Wait - who am I kidding. Probably nobody even got that far. This is /. after all...

    7. Re:No protection by Etherael · · Score: 1

      Happens in almost all areas in the entire world.

      It's called government, god love them.

    8. Re:No protection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Q: What's the difference between the government and the mafia?
      A: As long as you pay your dues, the mafia won't fuck with you any further. The government, on the other hand, will lock you up in a box for purchasing mind altering substances, among other things.

  38. PureGig by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 1

    mirrordot is hosted at puregig internet, the same puregig internet referenced in the article. pg is also home to easynews

    pg is an awesome provider. super fat pipes, excellent uptime, and *very* smart people. they're my uplink for home. sure, they're not the cheapest hosting or service provider out there, but they are completely worth it

    --
    vodka, straight up, thank you!
    1. Re:PureGig by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think PureGig is hosted at Easynews, not the other way around- PG only recently opened itself to the public. Hell, their job oppotunities are the same:
      http://www.puregig.net/jobs/
      http://www.easynews.com/jobs/

      Easynews needs a HUGE pipe, being MUCH larger than any other news server.

    2. Re:PureGig by dwayrynen · · Score: 1

      Actually they are hosted by us, Deru Communications. We do use Puregig as an access provider, but I can assure you that we have to pay Puregig for the priveledge of hosting mirrordot. ;-)

    3. Re:PureGig by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 1

      well, that's what i meant, i just extrapolated a little bit more 'cause pg was specifically mentioned in the article

      a very-happy-with-his-service-and-quick-to-plug-deru -to-friends 30.224/28 here btw =)

      --
      vodka, straight up, thank you!
  39. Blockbuster? by pakog · · Score: 2, Funny

    Am i the only one who was sitting on the edge of my seat while reading the battlefield analogy? This is unexplored movie territory with some great potentiol. "Behind CAT5 Lines"

    1. Re:Blockbuster? by myheroBobHope · · Score: 1

      Actually, it is quite explored. I believe the movie is known as Hackers... the final scene when the "Hackers of the World Unite" and hack the Gibson... Such Drama, such Acting... Hack the Planet!

      --
      http://www.pterrys.com
    2. Re:Blockbuster? by jtpalinmajere · · Score: 1

      "Behind Flooded Lines" sounds catchier... or perhaps "Lord of the Pings"... maybe even "Saving Packet Ryan".

    3. Re:Blockbuster? by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Hope they get Owen Wilson to play Cpt Toke N. Ring.

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    4. Re:Blockbuster? by Reignking · · Score: 1

      "Toke" sounds like a job for Matthew McConaughey...

      --
      One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
    5. Re:Blockbuster? by pakog · · Score: 1

      Yeah my first attempted pun was on saving private ryan, but since im unoriginal i had to give up on that one. Il call you next time i need to say something smart.

  40. Network admins! Prevent this from happening by bigberk · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is an appeal to network admins working at ISPs, whether large or small. You have a responsibility to make sure that spam/attack zombies don't exist on your networks. These days it's a trivial task to check to make sure you're not part of the problem. This can be scripted so that you receive periodic reports of problem hosts on your system, which you can then firewall, disconnect, or restrict access to.

    There are so many blacklists these days, so just use rsync to grab fresh copies of AHBL, CBL, DSBL, SORBS, whatever. Then run through grepcidr to see if any IPs from your network(s) are on the blacklists. So easy, and you'll be protecting both yourself and others from malicious zombies.

    1. Re:Network admins! Prevent this from happening by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      More so, there are ISPs that purposely allow this.

      So if all ISPs at every hop of the net does active blocking it would be good. E.g. if you get a packet for Y from X and X is on a block list ... reject the packet. If there are 10 hops between you and the attacker 10 of them have to "not do filtering" before you see the attack.

      Essentially there is vested interest in ISPs todo this. They use less bandwidth which keeps their legit customers happy.

      All they have todo is load balance the packet filtering on the out going edge(s) of their network.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    2. Re:Network admins! Prevent this from happening by Cheeze · · Score: 1

      I fail to see how using a black list from SORBS or such will stop a ping flood. Most black lists are for smtp servers only, and the origial article was about sending "traffic" (which i read icmp or dos, typically not e-mail).

      I guess you could use the list to build access lists or something for your routers, but that is far from trivial.

      If you know something I don't that would make black lists work on other devices, please enlighten us.

      --
      Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
    3. Re:Network admins! Prevent this from happening by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      many IPs get blacklisted for reasons other than sending spam. This includes open proxies, aggressive scans, windows port infection attempts, etc. So CBL and AHBL for example do contain tons of zombies. And more zombies are always easy to detect (an ISP just has to set up an IDS).

    4. Re:Network admins! Prevent this from happening by Sique · · Score: 4, Informative
      Most black lists are for smtp servers only, and the origial article was about sending "traffic" (which i read icmp or dos, typically not e-mail).


      It depends on the type of the attack. "Traffic" is quite unspecific, but it's not necessarily ICMP echo-request (a.k.a. "ping"). For DoS ping is rather uninteresting, because there are enough sites that don't allow ping to their servers and filter it out some hops before the servers anyway. At least I was recommending to customers to allow ping only from monitoring and maintenance sites. (As a side note: A lot of IPs for servers are not coupled with a specified hardware address anyway, but handled and distributed by loadbalancers and serverfarms, so there is no point in having those virtual servers respond on anything else than the service they are supposed to provide.)

      So if you have a site that only allows a very limited number of packet types through, attacking it with something outside of the scope of the firewall is somewhat pointless, except you manage to muster such an high bandwidth that it clogs up the pipe at some hops way before the original site. And traffic that is easily to distinguish from legitimate traffic is also easily filtered directly at the backbone routers of the really big ISPs or exchange points ("drop anything not TPC to the site in question").

      To make your attack more effective you have at least to mimick the legitimate traffic a little. Your DoS-requests thus should be at least formally correct (or being incorrect in a quite sophisticated manner to trigger complex fault and exception handling.) If you manage to cause the service to calculate a long or data intensive response, it's even better, because then you are clogging up CPU time now missing to handle requests that generate business for the site ("Give me all betting quotes which are either between 1:1 and 1:5 or between 1:4 and 1:10 or between 1:8 and 1:100 or are better than 1:75" forces the site to answer with a large sheet containing all quotes, but the answer set consists of several subsets to be calculated separately. Not every site has middleware in place to change this to "give me all quotes"). If you manage to make your request variable, so filtering out the DoS request with a single pattern doesn't work, it's much better. If you change your attacking pattern during the attack, so the filters in place have to be changed the whole time by the defending site, your DoS will be further more effective.

      In the end for an effective DoS you should a) fill all available bandwidth with traffic indistinguishable from legitimate traffic b) use up as much CPU time on the servers as possible to handle your request c) try to generate an asymmetric pattern (your request should use up much less bandwidth for you than the answer of the site is using) d) make it as variable as possible to avoid static filtering.
      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    5. Re:Network admins! Prevent this from happening by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Most black lists are for smtp servers only

      Not anymore. Checkout this site, they have blacklists for anti-p2p, spyware (neat), hijacked IPs, goverment agencies and so on. The spyware one is especially good, as it's the only effective block. Once you've found the spyware, you've already had your privacy compromised. Stop it from dialing home in the first place!

    6. Re:Network admins! Prevent this from happening by Marrow · · Score: 1

      At a minimum, they should do source address filtering. A packet should never leave your network that has a source address outside of your network.

      There should be active testing from the internet authorities: if egress/source address filtering is not in place, an ISP should be blocked from the root nameservers and major email relays until they fix it.

    7. Re:Network admins! Prevent this from happening by digitalcowboy · · Score: 1

      Ivan, is that you?

    8. Re:Network admins! Prevent this from happening by Sique · · Score: 1

      No, just someone who tried to make sense from the article, and what Lyon was described to be doing.

      Lyon basicly built a big application proxy which simulated the application of the gambling site in question and was able to filter requests at every stage of the frontend data processing. Lyon thus was able to scan the logfiles for apparent attack patterns (for instance a sudden spike in requests for a certain sub service of the whole application) and answer with filtering patterns. Only requests got through that were considered 'normal' traffic for technical and heuristic reasons. The article talked also about the constant stress in adapting the application proxy to the attack.

      So if you look at the defense described in the article, you can try to find out what type of attack it was designed to withstand. There is the big bandwith usage. The article talks about 1Gb/sec up to 3 Gb/sec. There is the application proxy, which points to an direct application attack, not just easily filterable noise traffic like ping of death or SYN-ACK-attacks. And there is the constant stress of the people working frantically at the proxy which points to a variable attack with changing patterns and changing targets within the application. This leads to the four descriptions I gave for the DDoS attack.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  41. EVIL! by jav1231 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Okay, I first read that as "Online Exorcist." I'm thinking, how does THAT work? TO: Satan@littlegirlshead.com
    From: Father Mayai (Yes, you may!)
    Subject: Notice of Eviction

    1. Re:EVIL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For some reason I saw "extortion" but my brain said "contortion". Online contortionist? How would that work?

    2. Re:EVIL! by Aspherical+Cow · · Score: 3, Funny
      I figured it would have been something like
      ssh root@possessed killall daemon
    3. Re:EVIL! by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      I like it!
      Why I didn't think of a simple command statement, I don't know!

    4. Re:EVIL! by marciot · · Score: 1

      I read it as "Online Contortionist". I must just read the ending of the words and assume the rest. Go figure. -- Marcio

    5. Re:EVIL! by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      Ditto. Was wondering what was so noteworthy about a contortionist who happened to be online..

  42. mirror here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:mirror here by itwerx · · Score: 1

      The parent is not a mirror, it just a link to somebody's cute version of Google...

  43. The good thing by dos_dude · · Score: 1

    As disgusting it is to hear about "online extortionists", I prefer them to the rl extortionists. The former might direct an army of zombies at your servers and ddos the hell out of them. But the latter direct a gang of hoodlums at you to make your knees deny their service.

    Too bad that we now have both and that the online guys aren't replacing the rl ones.

  44. Good read by tech-hawger · · Score: 1

    It's like a battlefield out there! It seems like these extortionist had it (have it?) pretty easy, preying on companies who might not be able to defend themselves or afford the people who could help them...

  45. Stupid Astroturf by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 0, Troll

    We will fight them with Good Advertising, Meaningless Propaganda, and silly overarching statements. We will fight them with astroturf and BS, and make piles of money off of people who aren't as good at watching for ad-embedded storytelling as we are.

  46. Self-performed DDoS is obsolete anyway by ccr · · Score: 1

    ... Since one can always submit some bogus article to /. and have a true fully distributed attack without any fear of consequences for yourself. :)

  47. The relationship between the two... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is a fine

  48. I'm no extortionist but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I were to threaten a company with a DDoS attack, and they actually paid, what's to stop me from just doing it to the same company the next week? Maybe work out a payment plan, for $500/week and I don't attack you? Then I tell my buddies that some website pays for DDoS prevention, and they try to extort too...

    But I have a solution:

    Pay with Western Union money orders.

  49. Rudyard Kipling's "Dane-geld" - extortion poem by davidwr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Dane-geld
    (A.D. 980-1016)

    IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation,
    To call upon a neighbour and to say:--
    "We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
    Unless you pay us cash to go away."

    And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
    And the people who ask it explain
    That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
    And then you'll get rid of the Dane!

    It is always a temptation to a rich and lazy nation,
    To puff and look important and to say:--
    "Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
    We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

    And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
    But we've proved it again and again,
    That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
    You never get rid of the Dane.

    It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
    For fear they should succumb and go astray,
    So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
    You will find it better policy to says:--

    "We never pay any one Dane-geld,
    No matter how trifling the cost,
    For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
    And the nation that plays it is lost!"

    - Rudyard Kipling

    Anyone willing to try their hand at "updating" this to fit online extortion? This could be lots of fun :)

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Rudyard Kipling's "Dane-geld" - extortion poem by howlinmonkey · · Score: 4, Funny

      It seems a good idea to sit in Eastern Europea
      And mail out missives with a threat
      "We know that you have gold, and if I may be so bold
      If you send me some I will not be a threat"

      And that is called running protection
      And the scum who demand it defend
      That you only have to pay them protection
      And your enterprise won't have to end.

      It is a real temptation to avoid a confrontation
      And pay off the bottom sucking filth
      Then the business you created won't be immolated
      By the bandwidth sucking zombies and their ilk

      And that is called paying protection
      But after you've paid up today
      They'll come calling for more protection
      There will never be an end to what you pay

      It's a shame to whimper quietly and meet with their demand
      To keep the money flowing fast and free
      So when they do demand the little money in your hand
      I would suggest that you repeat slowly after me.

      "We never pay any scum protection
      No matter how hard they may lean
      For tomorrow you'll be back threatening to hack
      Using any zombies you can glean "

      I am no Rudyard Kipling, but I think this captures the essence of it :)
    2. Re:Rudyard Kipling's "Dane-geld" - extortion poem by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

      Why update it? I think "Dane" could become a perfectly good derrogatory term to fling at online extortionists.

      Kipling never goes out of date and therefore never needs to be updated.

    3. Re:Rudyard Kipling's "Dane-geld" - extortion poem by Bitmanhome · · Score: 1

      Rhyming "Homer" with "homer" -- brilliant!

      --
      Not that this wasn't entirely predictable.
    4. Re:Rudyard Kipling's "Dane-geld" - extortion poem by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Or the US version: Millions for packet sniffers, but not one penny for tribute!

  50. "They threw everything they had at us." by hiero · · Score: 2, Funny

    Including, apparently, a good slashdotting.

    1. Re:"They threw everything they had at us." by brianconnolly · · Score: 1

      jesus christ on a tapdancing lillypad don't you think that jokes has been made and ignored a dozen times by now? why are you even using a computer.

  51. HALF of the article -- anyone get mopre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Online Extortion How a Bookmaker
    and a Whiz Kid
    Took On an Extortionist
    and Won Facing an online extortion threat, Mickey Richardson bet his Web-based business on a networking whiz from Sacramento who first beat back the bad guys, then helped the cops nab them. If you collect revenue online, you'd better read this. Saturday, Nov. 22, 2003, 7:57 a.m.
    Origins of an Onslaught

    The e-mail began, "Your site is under attack," and it gave Mickey Richardson two choices: "You can send us $40K by Western Union [and] your site will be protected not just this weekend but for the next 12 months," or, "If you choose not to pay...you will be under attack each weekend for the next 20 weeks, or until you close your doors."

    Richardson runs BetCris.com, an online wagering site, one of hundreds of sites ensconced in Costa Rica that take bets from Americans (and others around the world) without concern for U.S. bookmaking laws. Richardson received the e-mail just as he and his competitors were preparing for the year's busiest wagering season. With pro and college football, pro and college basketball and other sports in full swing, and with Thanksgiving and Christmas about to create plenty of free time, BetCris and the others stood to rake in millions over the holidays. Richardson was even planning an advertising blitz for the season to drive new traffic to his site.

    If BetCris went down, he knew his customers would find another online bookie, "which will cost you tens of thousands of dollars in lost wagers and customers," the extortionists reminded him.

    Despite all that, the e-mail didn't have the fearsome effect on Richardson that the extortionists hoped it would. He just asked his network administrator, Glenn Lebumfacil, if they should be concerned. "I saidGod, in hindsight, what an idiotI said, 'We should be safe. I think our network is nice and tight,'" recalls Lebumfacil.

    As a precaution, Richardson alerted his ISP, but essentially, he says, "We kind of fluffed it off." The veteran bookmaker didn't panic because, in fact, he had dealt with online extortionists before. Two years earlier, hackers crashed BetCris.com with a denial-of-service (DoS) attack, and then demanded by e-mail a $500 protection fee in eGold (an online form of trading bullion). Richardson paid without a second thought. Compared to downtime, $500 was trivial.

    That first attack got his attention, though. Richardson consulted another industry veteran who confessed to having a similar problem, and who told Richardson to call a consultant named Barrett Lyon in Sacramento, Calif. Lyon didn't come to BetCris's officeshe had no interest in baby-sitting infrastructure in Costa Ricabut he did recommend some off-the-shelf products that had recently been developed specifically to fight DoS attacks. Lyon thought (actually he hoped) that he'd never hear from them again. Richardson and Lebumfacil were confident they had protected themselves.

    When the attack finally came on that Saturday in November, sometime after that first e-mail but before 11:30 a.m., BetCris crashed hard. The off-the-shelf products Lyon had recommended survived less than 10 minutes. BetCris's ISP crashed, and then the ISP for BetCris's ISP crashed. Richardson ran to the IT department, where Lebumfacil was watching the biggest DoS attack he'd ever seen. He remembers feeling sick to his stomach.

    At 1:03 p.m., another e-mail arrived. "I guess you have decided to fight instead of making a deal. We thought you were smart.... You have 1 hour to make a deal today or it will cost you $50K to make a deal on Sunday." Then they knocked BetCris.com offline again.

    The Extortion Problem

    We know this about online extortion: It happens. Evidence of its prevalence or damage is speculative and anecdotal but useful nonetheless in guiding CSOs to understand the nature of the crime. Anecdotally, experts from law enforcement and information security consultants believe that perhaps one in 10 companies has been threatene

    1. Re:HALF of the article -- anyone get mopre by Y2 · · Score: 1
      Wait a minute.

      Are you saying the stoory about the DDoS-fighter got slashdotted?

      --
      "But all your emitter and collector are belong to me!"
    2. Re:HALF of the article -- anyone get mopre by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ^ FUNNIEST RESPONSE EVER.

  52. whats their banwidth usage now :) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    site down

  53. I have a better way... by IdJit · · Score: 1

    Just tell a company that if they don't pay you, you'll have their site Slashdotted!

    Works for every other damn site.

  54. Solutions by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

    I wonder, if somthing like this happened if an offshore company could cut a quick deal with an American company to steer some traffic to an American server to get the FBI involved. I don't know what the legal rammifications would be since it's an offshore gambling site and all. ... damn, their server is running slow. Maybe it's being DDOSed. Not enough posts yet to be slashdotted.

    --

    ___
    It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  55. Article by Peter_Pork · · Score: 3, Informative

    How a Bookmaker
    and a Whiz Kid
    Took On an Extortionist --
    and Won

    Facing an online extortion threat, Mickey Richardson bet his Web-based business on a networking whiz from Sacramento who first beat back the bad guys, then helped the cops nab them. If you collect revenue online, you'd better read this.

    CSO Magazine
    May 2005
    By Scott Berinato

    Saturday, Nov. 22, 2003, 7:57 a.m.
    Origins of an Onslaught
    The e-mail began, "Your site is under attack," and it gave Mickey Richardson two choices: "You can send us $40K by Western Union [and] your site will be protected not just this weekend but for the next 12 months," or, "If you choose not to pay...you will be under attack each weekend for the next 20 weeks, or until you close your doors."

    Richardson runs BetCris.com, an online wagering site, one of hundreds of sites ensconced in Costa Rica that take bets from Americans (and others around the world) without concern for U.S. bookmaking laws. Richardson received the e-mail just as he and his competitors were preparing for the year's busiest wagering season. With pro and college football, pro and college basketball and other sports in full swing, and with Thanksgiving and Christmas about to create plenty of free time, BetCris and the others stood to rake in millions over the holidays. Richardson was even planning an advertising blitz for the season to drive new traffic to his site.

    If BetCris went down, he knew his customers would find another online bookie, "which will cost you tens of thousands of dollars in lost wagers and customers," the extortionists reminded him.

    Despite all that, the e-mail didn't have the fearsome effect on Richardson that the extortionists hoped it would. He just asked his network administrator, Glenn Lebumfacil, if they should be concerned. "I said--God, in hindsight, what an idiot--I said, 'We should be safe. I think our network is nice and tight,'" recalls Lebumfacil.

    As a precaution, Richardson alerted his ISP, but essentially, he says, "We kind of fluffed it off." The veteran bookmaker didn't panic because, in fact, he had dealt with online extortionists before. Two years earlier, hackers crashed BetCris.com with a denial-of-service (DoS) attack, and then demanded by e-mail a $500 protection fee in eGold (an online form of trading bullion). Richardson paid without a second thought. Compared to downtime, $500 was trivial.

    That first attack got his attention, though. Richardson consulted another industry veteran who confessed to having a similar problem, and who told Richardson to call a consultant named Barrett Lyon in Sacramento, Calif. Lyon didn't come to BetCris's offices--he had no interest in baby-sitting infrastructure in Costa Rica--but he did recommend some off-the-shelf products that had recently been developed specifically to fight DoS attacks. Lyon thought (actually he hoped) that he'd never hear from them again. Richardson and Lebumfacil were confident they had protected themselves.

    When the attack finally came on that Saturday in November, sometime after that first e-mail but before 11:30 a.m., BetCris crashed hard. The off-the-shelf products Lyon had recommended survived less than 10 minutes. BetCris's ISP crashed, and then the ISP for BetCris's ISP crashed. Richardson ran to the IT department, where Lebumfacil was watching the biggest DoS attack he'd ever seen. He remembers feeling sick to his stomach.

    At 1:03 p.m., another e-mail arrived. "I guess you have decided to fight instead of making a deal. We thought you were smart.... You have 1 hour to make a deal today or it will cost you $50K to make a deal on Sunday." Then they knocked BetCris.com offline again.

    The Extortion Problem
    We know this about online extortion: It happens. Evidence of its prevalence or damage is speculative and anecdotal but useful nonetheless in guiding CSOs to understand the nature of the crime. Anecdotally, experts from law enforcement and information security consultants believe that perhaps one in 1

  56. Complete Mirror by sabat · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Online Extortion

    How a Bookmaker
    and a Whiz Kid
    Took On an Extortionist --
    and Won

    Facing an online extortion threat, Mickey Richardson bet his Web-based business on a networking whiz from Sacramento who first beat back the bad guys, then helped the cops nab them. If you collect revenue online, you'd better read this.

    By Scott Berinato

    Saturday, Nov. 22, 2003, 7:57 a.m.
    Origins of an Onslaught

    The e-mail began, "Your site is under attack," and it gave Mickey Richardson two choices: "You can send us $40K by Western Union [and] your site will be protected not just this weekend but for the next 12 months," or, "If you choose not to pay...you will be under attack each weekend for the next 20 weeks, or until you close your doors."

    Richardson ran to the IT department, where Lebumfacil was watching the biggest DoS attack he'd ever seen. He remembers feeling sick to his stomach.

    Richardson runs BetCris.com, an online wagering site, one of hundreds of sites ensconced in Costa Rica that take bets from Americans (and others around the world) without concern for U.S. bookmaking laws. Richardson received the e-mail just as he and his competitors were preparing for the year's busiest wagering season. With pro and college football, pro and college basketball and other sports in full swing, and with Thanksgiving and Christmas about to create plenty of free time, BetCris and the others stood to rake in millions over the holidays. Richardson was even planning an advertising blitz for the season to drive new traffic to his site.
    Ripe Targets for Online Extortion

    Who, What, When, Where, Why & How

    Read More

    If BetCris went down, he knew his customers would find another online bookie, "which will cost you tens of thousands of dollars in lost wagers and customers," the extortionists reminded him.

    Despite all that, the e-mail didn't have the fearsome effect on Richardson that the extortionists hoped it would. He just asked his network administrator, Glenn Lebumfacil, if they should be concerned. "I said--God, in hindsight, what an idiot--I said, 'We should be safe. I think our network is nice and tight,'" recalls Lebumfacil.

    As a precaution, Richardson alerted his ISP, but essentially, he says, "We kind of fluffed it off." The veteran bookmaker didn't panic because, in fact, he had dealt with online extortionists before. Two years earlier, hackers crashed BetCris.com with a denial-of-service (DoS) attack, and then demanded by e-mail a $500 protection fee in eGold (an online form of trading bullion). Richardson paid without a second thought. Compared to downtime, $500 was trivial.

    That first attack got his attention, though. Richardson consulted another industry veteran who confessed to having a similar problem, and who told Richardson to call a consultant named Barrett Lyon in Sacramento, Calif. Lyon didn't come to BetCris's offices--he had no interest in baby-sitting infrastructure in Costa Rica--but he did recommend some off-the-shelf products that had recently been developed specifically to fight DoS attacks. Lyon thought (actually he hoped) that he'd never hear from them again. Richardson and Lebumfacil were confident they had protected themselves.

    When the attack finally came on that Saturday in November, sometime after that first e-mail but before 11:30 a.m., BetCris crashed hard. The off-the-shelf products Lyon had recommended survived less than 10 minutes. BetCris's ISP crashed, and then the ISP for BetCris's ISP crashed. Richardson ran to the IT department, where Lebumfacil was watching the biggest DoS attack he'd ever seen. He remembers feeling sick to his stomach.

    At 1:03 p.m., another e-mail arrived. "I guess you have decided to fight instead of making a deal. We thought you were smart.... You have 1 hour to make a deal today or it will cost you $50K to make a deal on Sunday." Then they knocked BetCris.com offline again.
    The Extortion Problem

    We know this about online extortion: It hap

    --
    I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
    1. Re:Complete Mirror by bgfay · · Score: 2

      Thank you. The mirrors of the article have been really clogged.

      --
      Yeah, I'm as old as my UID would suggest.
  57. save our sid=20721 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trolltalk is currently under a crapflood attack by an angry script kiddie who is upset that cracky-chan's encyclopedia dramatica entry was vandalized by people on trolltalk. He is demanding that the changes be reverted. We cannot give in to crapflooders but the crapflood has made the sid impossible to use. We need your help. I never thought that IP bans were good for anybody until this happened. Please go into trolltalk and use your modpoints to mod down the crapflooder until his ip is banned.

  58. have we slashdotted mirrordot? by Mark19960 · · Score: 1

    We need to mirror them as well, they just got slashdotted. (oops..)

    I thought that was the point of having mirrordot :)

  59. Mod me up! by cavemanf16 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I coallated all the dupes into one!

  60. whoa. by protocol420 · · Score: 1

    this is the most epic and action-packed article i have ever read.

    --
    www.gaian-mind.org - eco-punk/crust coop and collective | www.anarchistfederation.org - so cal anarchist federation
  61. Chicks dig it... by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Makes you look less geeky.

    --

    I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

  62. Insult? by JadeNB · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is it just me, or is the author none-too-subtly suggesting at the end of what seems a pretty flattering article that the one who engineered the defence is in collusion with the exortionists, and that paying him for help is essentially paying a protection fee? The turnabout in tone is so abrupt it seems like the last few paragraphs were written by a different person.

    1. Re:Insult? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I laughed too. 'Instead of paying an dirty extortionist $40K, I get to pay this great pal of mine $50K every year!'

      Rock and a hard place, I think.

    2. Re:Insult? by khrtt · · Score: 1

      That's just the deal with protection rackets - the police won't help, and you get to pay protection one way or the other.

      The difference between the good guy and the bad guy is that the bad guy threatens you himself, while the good guy uses the bad guy's threats (i.e. has someone do his dirty work for him, and then, as an expression of his gratitude, puts him in jail). Also, the good guy charges more. Oh, the irony.

  63. Hacked ICQ? by SimonShine · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The only thing I'm reminded of is the telling of a guy who sought palindrome ICQ account numbers with email addresses from XS4ALL assigned to them, of which the email accounts had expired. Apparently he found a few, and through XS4ALL, he would re-create these expired email accounts, then have the old password sent to him. A weird collectible, and probably not the story you were looking for. :-)

    --
    Take off every 'ZIG' !!
  64. age discrimination! by Tumbleweed · · Score: 4, Funny

    God knows your /. ID is low enough that it might be true.

    Watch it with the age slurs there, sonny. That could get ... dangerous. :)

    1. Re:age discrimination! by Xenophon+Fenderson, · · Score: 5, Funny

      *grumble* . . . get off my web site, you damn kids!

      --
      I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
    2. Re:age discrimination! by algae · · Score: 1

      Sad thing is, he's right - I love that song.

      --
      Causation can cause correlation
    3. Re:age discrimination! by dhall · · Score: 4, Funny

      I guess I'm feeling like a real fossil then... :)

    4. Re:age discrimination! by nacturation · · Score: 1

      I just love how you never see the really low userids posting much on slashdot. But as soon as there's a quip made about how someone's uid is lower than another's, all the low uids come out of the woodwork and claim their territory. Is there some offline network especially for original slashdot members? "Alert! Low uid discussion at..."

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    5. Re:age discrimination! by dhall · · Score: 1

      That's probably due to the fact that most low UIDs are lurkers by habit... after you've been on here long enough, you've seen enough, done enough and posted enough to last a multitude of virtual lifetimes.

    6. Re:age discrimination! by Tim+Browse · · Score: 1

      Jealousy is never attractive.

    7. Re:age discrimination! by XeXeN · · Score: 1

      What, you wanted everyone with a low user id to post?

    8. Re:age discrimination! by fliptout · · Score: 1

      We're simply more jaded.

      --
      A witty saying proves you are wittier than the next guy.
    9. Re:age discrimination! by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 1

      Must be an odd feeling.

      --
      If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
    10. Re:age discrimination! by Paul+Crowley · · Score: 1

      How did you find out?

    11. Re:age discrimination! by Ice+Tiger · · Score: 1

      Hey you must have the same T shirt too.

      --
      "Because we are not employing at entry level, offshoring will kill our industry stone dead."
    12. Re:age discrimination! by Zapper · · Score: 1

      Anyone else?

      --
      So much to do, so little bandwidth.
      --
      Try Mozilla
    13. Re:age discrimination! by AgentSmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      Holy Crap! You are the lowest ID I've ever seen. It's like elder races have returned. RUN!

    14. Re:age discrimination! by Rob+Parkhill · · Score: 1

      Get off my lawn slackers! Young punks.

      --
      "Tomorrow's forecast: a few sprinkles of genius with a chance of doom!" - Stewie Griffin
    15. Re:age discrimination! by Paul+Crowley · · Score: 1
  65. Good story by KZigurs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I especially liked the ending. Finally a legal criminal that really delivers :P

  66. Terrible Article by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Don't bother - it summarizes Shining Hero Californian defeats Evil Russian DDOS attacker. By the time I had finished reading the article, all my 'this is all complete BS and astroturf' posts were ignored.... Sure, this is impressive. Sure, it's nice that he might have done these things. However, this is more an epic story / advertisement than actual information or news.... This looks like a bunch of unbacked and unsupportable drivel to me. Who on earth bothers hacking an ICQ account? These vicious scary uber-powerful Russians with 10,000 + computers at their fingertips that can knock out even online gambling sites... Pay this man, and he will not only make them go away, but have them arrested in their dark, shabby apartments in the middle of freezing St. Petersburg.

  67. Giving in == support? by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    It just occured to me that when one company pays, that just provides additional resources to the extortionists. Could that be considered a crime? Providing financial support to a criminal enterprise or some such? If a competitor has paid and then they come for you, can you sue your competitor? I know, I know, nobody tells when they pay, but in principle could it be treated this way?

    1. Re:Giving in == support? by say · · Score: 1

      The implications of that would be that you could get prosecuted for giving your wallet to a thug. I, for one, hope no court is that stupid. However, you could possibly be criticized for not telling the authorities about it afterwards (but I doubt it is punishable).

      --
      Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
    2. Re:Giving in == support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some guy comes at you with a knife when you're all alone on a dark street and demands your wallet. Feeling that the content of your wallet is not worth the risk of death you hand it over. This guy then mugs someone else the next night. Now are you responsible for that mugging since you wheren't willing to fight the mugger when you met him?

    3. Re:Giving in == support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, in part. One of the down sides to a paternalistic society that encourages citizens to depend on "the authorities" for defence is that it encourages the spread of predators.

  68. a little outdated.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    did anyone else notice that this is a november 2003 article?

  69. And the lesson is... by Wouter_T · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    PAY, although this may damage your ego.

    The initial cash demands were a few thousands dollars. Too bad if you have to pay that.

    In the end he lost revenue worth many times this amount, including the inital demanded amount EACH YEAR, but excluding revenue losses due to the downtime and lost customers.

    I'm not sure if a great story would all be worth that. On the other hand it's nice to finally see a good solution.

    1. Re:And the lesson is... by tweek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The lesson is also that if you pay, they'll know you'll pay more.

      There's a point where they keep coming back with higher numbers. If you look, they only guaranteed the protection for a year.

      --
      "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
    2. Re:And the lesson is... by Mike+A. · · Score: 1
      Agreed. With apologies to the present-day population of Denmark:


      And that is called asking the Danegeld, and we've proved it again and again,
      that once you have given the Danegeld, you can never be rid of the Dane.
      --

      --
      Do I look like I speak for my employer?
    3. Re:And the lesson is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apology accepted. I guess "æ" isn't on your keyboard. It's "danegæld", anyway. :P

      Fandeme også for dårligt, at du ikke kan hitte ud af det. :P ..good analogy, anyway.

    4. Re:And the lesson is... by JadeNB · · Score: 1
      If you look, they only guaranteed the protection for a year.
      There is also the possibility that a `guarantee' from an extortionist doesn't mean much.
  70. This is where R'ingTFA comes in... by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

    That's not always possible when Slashdot has linked to something, as in this case. Still looking for a mirror to RTFA. :(

    1. Re:This is where R'ingTFA comes in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm. I was going to AC the article text, but it's f'n long.

    2. Re:This is where R'ingTFA comes in... by morcego · · Score: 1

      MirrorDot is the one I always use.

      --
      morcego
  71. I fought a DDoS and won by mikeswi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Starting Feb 2004, my site was hit by a powerful DDoS attack. It knocked out my web server and it nearly took out my web host's switch in the data center. I never got any demands or letters or figured out who caused it.

    Anonymizer.net tried to help me by putting my domain behind a series of rotating proxy servers. Their whole network crashed after 6 hours and they had to stop helping me.

    Finally my web host hit on the right idea. I set up a half dozen virtual private servers (VPS) at Globalservers.com (same company that hosts about.com and freeservers) and my host installed a proxy server on each one called twhttpd and set them all to route traffic to and from my web server at his data center.

    Then I set up an account at ZoneEdit and added all the IPs for the proxy servers with a failover system. Every time the bastards knocked out one of the proxy servers, ZoneEdit would detect that the server was borked and switch to another one. With the load reduced, the dead proxy came back on its own a few minutes later.

    After about 6 months of this, they finally gave up and I won.

    1. Re:I fought a DDoS and won by Cheeze · · Score: 1

      sounds like a reverse proxy to me. the proxy server would only request the whole file if it had changed. The proxy servers would take the brunt of the hits and traffic, while the real web server is in the background only serving requests to the proxy servers.

      --
      Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
    2. Re:I fought a DDoS and won by mikeswi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Most of the filtering was done by globalservers. They have a bunch of very serious routers specifically designed to block DDoS attacks and they have more bandwidth than God.

      Once the traffic passed through their routers, it went through the proxy and the proxy would pull the data from my webserver.

      My host wrote a script that he installed somewhere (on his switch I think) that filtered out a specific type of HTTP GET. Whoever wrote the attack bot made a mistake because it generated some weird error (408 or 508 or something). His script filtered that out and then the webserver would return data to the proxy servers and from there to the end client.

      It was a little glitchy and it nearly ruined my message board (all the users had the same 6 IP addresses and that played hell with session IDs), but it kept the site going despite the attacker's best efforts. He/they eventually moved on to attack other antispyware web sites with less resources.

    3. Re:I fought a DDoS and won by zoftie · · Score: 1

      >Most of the filtering was done by globalservers.They have a bunch of very serious routers specifically designed to block DDoS attacks and they have more bandwidth than God.

      You should stop using that most commonly use password you know.

  72. for the record by apparently · · Score: 1

    mirrordot opened just fine when I checked it.

  73. efax are NOT spammers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi

    i just wanted to point out the fact that efax are NOT spammers. YOur sig is factually incorrect. Efax is a company that translates faxes into emails with the .efx attachment. it then emails these too you. if you recieve alot of junk faxes, they may apear as emails. since there is no way to prevent junk faxes it is probably likely this is what you are expereincing.

    efax.com are legitimate business professionals who we use every day. as the ceo of a fortune 500 company i can say, without a smidgen of doubt, that efax are most definately NOT spammers

    cheers

    1. Re:efax are NOT spammers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...a Fortune 500 CEO and Slashdot reader...what are the chances of that being true?

    2. Re:efax are NOT spammers! by LordPixie · · Score: 1

      ...a Fortune 500 CEO and Slashdot reader...what are the chances of that being true?

      Well, he doesn't seem to have a sufficient grasp of the English language to use capitalization correctly. What's more, he was too cowardly to sign his name and take credit for going against the status quo.

      Sooo...the odds are pretty good ?


      --LordPixie

      p.s. I'm being facetious !

  74. R'ing TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is a good thing. It means that you understand, if you read critically, that TFA is little more than a good story and a good snow-job.

    1. Re:R'ing TFA by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      R'ing TFA. Is a good thing. It means that you understand, if you read critically, that TFA is little more than a good story and a good snow-job.

      Well, in this case, RTFA'ing is kinda hard, but in this particular instance that doesn't stop you from concluding that the article is indeed bullshit (if it wasn't bullshit, you'd be able to read it... think about it...ha!)

  75. New "business idea" by 3770 · · Score: 2, Funny

    So,

    I'm trying to read the article and that is giving me another "business idea".

    "Give me $10 000 or I'll submit an article to Slashdot with a link to your web site".

    Distributed Denial of Service!

    --
    The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
    1. Re:New "business idea" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I do hope you're doing your part to be a good /. zombie node.

      If you must RTFA, please force a refresh of the article at least one time every 60 seconds.

      Better yet, just click the link, let the article load, then close your browser window. Continue gazing longingly at your RSS feed reader until the next /. story is posted. Repeat.

  76. Slashdot as DDoS by skyryder12 · · Score: 1

    Dang, the page is borked. How much does Slashdot charge to NOT put links out to?

  77. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  78. Geez by TCM · · Score: 1

    What the matter? 3Gb are just around 350MB, I download that daily. Oh wait, you meant 3Gb per second?

    As if technical incompetence wasn't bad enough. What's the next step? "Threatining" "buisnesses" with bad spelling all day?

    --
    Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
  79. Don't have the link but this is old news by AviLazar · · Score: 1

    as in really old news, as in last year old news. I wish i had the /. link.

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  80. Slashdotting == DDoS by Bad+Boy+Marty · · Score: 1

    Page is unavailable already.

    --
    RHCE; are you certified? Karma: ambiguous.
    1. Re:Slashdotting == DDoS by The_jos · · Score: 1

      You should have demanded big $ from scoonline.com and tell them that you will show them your DOSS capacities.

      You could have earned some $

  81. Who's at fault? The software vendors... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Over 200 comments and only a handful seem to suggest that Windows insecurities play a big role in these incidents? I'd love to see some numbers from Prolexic about how many of the zombies they've discovered are unpatched Windows boxes sitting on cable modems and dsl lines. To be fair, yes, it may very well include some buggy Linux boxes also. We all know which OS is really targetted the most, though.

    When are governments going to step in and start placing reasonable requirements for software security? When are they going to start punishing the companies that ship the buggy software that is entirely responsible for the existence of the online extortionist industry?

    Fix bugs, no zombies.
    No zombies, no botnet.
    No botnet, no DDoS.
    No DDoS, no extortion.

  82. DDoS...The Easy Way by who's+got+my+nicknam · · Score: 0

    It seems pretty obvious that the extortionist would have been far better off threatening to Slashdot them if they didn't pay...the most effective DDoS method known to man!

    --
    "Apparatus dignosco occultus, satis non supernus."
  83. Mods on crack? by dmuth · · Score: 1

    Pretty neat post.

    What's really strange is that when I first looked at your post, it was modded up to +5. Now it's only +3, with some "overrated" and "flamebait" attributes.

    It sure seems like someone with mod points took issue with what you said, even though I do not consider your post to be flamebait in the least.

  84. Meanwhile, the article gets DDos'd by Eyeball97 · · Score: 1
    Anyone have a cache?

    They're probably thinking they're getting DDos'd, I wonder if anyone warned them about getting /.'d

    1. Re:Meanwhile, the article gets DDos'd by KD5YPT · · Score: 1

      I doubt they think that for long when they check the log. DDOS attack has the property that the same IP keep making request (in this case, 10,000 IPs constantly making requests) to different services. What they would see is that hundred upon thousands of IPs making a few requests at a time, indicating that for some bizzare reason, a ton of people wants to ask for the same page.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
  85. oblig Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "God will roast their hard-drives in hell at the hands of SysAdmins."

    "We defeated them yesterday. God willing, I will provide you with more information. I swear by God, I swear by God, those hackers who are staying in Russia have thrown these zombie PCs in a crematorium."

  86. Of course he could have offered them payment by Nik+Picker · · Score: 1

    providing they leave his very important and highly secure network alone ( oh its address ? 127.0.0.1 )

    --
    And thats why Firecrackers and kittens don't mix.
  87. would the FBI do/care about a $40,000 extortion th by dpilot · · Score: 1

    How about if the extortion proceeds were being used to fund insurgent activities in Iraq, or some other form of terrorism. Suddenly the FBI and the CIA would care very much. Now, I can't say that such a thing is happening, but I can't say it isn't, either. Maybe that money is going to buying fast cars, booze, and 133t hardware, but just maybe it's going somewhere else...

    The "War on Terror" causes us enough grief and annoyance, maybe it could do something we like, too.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  88. It's my box by dr_dank · · Score: 1

    I'll do it

    /goes behind the barn
    *BLAM!*

    --
    Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
  89. So... by Theatetus · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...is submitting a story to /. the last revenge of the DDOS extortioner?

    --
    All's true that is mistrusted
  90. Discovering news!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Spamming logs using ICMP flooding!!! hahahaha!!!

    Try to visit 1,000,000 domains per second x 1,000 spammers!!!.

    About 1 hour, the FBI's Carnivore System has received 3.6 Tera-domains for trashing!!! for nothing!!! for nada!!!, hahahaha.

    open4free ©

  91. Re:oblig Iron Maiden Lyrics by bckrispi · · Score: 1
    Aces High
    From the album "Powerslave", c. 1984
    Steve Harris

    There goes the siren that warns of the air raid
    Then comes the sound of the guns sending flak
    Out for the scramble we've got to get airborne
    Got to get up for the coming attack.

    Jump in the cockpit and start up the engines
    Remove all the wheelblocks there's no time to waste
    Gathering speed as we head down the runway
    Gotta get airborne before it's too late.

    Running, scrambling, flying
    Rolling, turning, diving, going in again
    Run, live to fly, fly to live, do or die
    Run, live to fly, fly to live. Aces high.

    Move in to fire at the mainstream of bombers
    Let off a sharp burst and then turn away
    Roll over, spin round and come in behind them
    Move to their blindsides and firing again.

    Bandits at 8 O'clock move in behind us
    Ten ME-109's out of the sun
    Ascending and turning our spitfires to face them
    Heading straight for them I press down my guns

    Rolling, turning, diving
    Rolling, turning, diving, going in again
    Run, live to fly, fly to live, do or die
    Run, live to fly, fly to live, Aces high.

    --
    Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
  92. Slashdotted by sharkey · · Score: 1
    Online Extortion How a Bookmaker
    and a Whiz Kid
    Took On an Extortionist -
    and Won Facing an online extortion threat, Mickey Richardson bet his Web-based business on a networking whiz from Sacramento who first beat back the bad guys, then helped the cops nab them. If you collect revenue online, you'd better read this.

    By Scott Berinato

    Saturday, Nov. 22, 2003, 7:57 a.m.
    Origins of an Onslaught

    The e-mail began, "Your site is under attack," and it gave Mickey Richardson two choices: "You can send us $40K by Western Union [and] your site will be protected not just this weekend but for the next 12 months," or, "If you choose not to pay...you will be under attack each weekend for the next 20 weeks, or until you close your doors."

    Richardson runs BetCris.com, an online wagering site, one of hundreds of sites ensconced in Costa Rica that take bets from Americans (and others around the world) without concern for U.S. bookmaking laws. Richardson received the e-mail just as he and his competitors were preparing for the year's busiest wagering season. With pro and college football, pro and college basketball and other sports in full swing, and with Thanksgiving and Christmas about to create plenty of free time, BetCris and the others stood to rake in millions over the holidays. Richardson was even planning an advertising blitz for the season to drive new traffic to his site.

    If BetCris went down, he knew his customers would find another online bookie, "which will cost you tens of thousands of dollars in lost wagers and customers," the extortionists reminded him.

    Despite all that, the e-mail didn't have the fearsome effect on Richardson that the extortionists hoped it would. He just asked his network administrator, Glenn Lebumfacil, if they should be concerned. "I said - God, in hindsight, what an idiot - I said, 'We should be safe. I think our network is nice and tight,'" recalls Lebumfacil.

    As a precaution, Richardson alerted his ISP, but essentially, he says, "We kind of fluffed it off." The veteran bookmaker didn't panic because, in fact, he had dealt with online extortionists before. Two years earlier, hackers crashed BetCris.com with a denial-of-service (DoS) attack, and then demanded by e-mail a $500 protection fee in eGold (an online form of trading bullion). Richardson paid without a second thought. Compared to downtime, $500 was trivial.

    That first attack got his attention, though. Richardson consulted another industry veteran who confessed to having a similar problem, and who told Richardson to call a consultant named Barrett Lyon in Sacramento, Calif. Lyon didn't come to BetCris's offices - he had no interest in baby-sitting infrastructure in Costa Rica - but he did recommend some off-the-shelf products that had recently been developed specifically to fight DoS attacks. Lyon thought (actually he hoped) that he'd never hear from them again. Richardson and Lebumfacil were confident they had protected themselves.

    When the attack finally came on that Saturday in November, sometime after that first e-mail but before 11:30 a.m., BetCris crashed hard. The off-the-shelf products Lyon had recommended survived less than 10 minutes. BetCris's ISP crashed, and then the ISP for BetCris's ISP crashed. Richardson ran to the IT department, where Lebumfacil was watching the biggest DoS attack he'd ever seen. He remembers feeling sick to his stomach.

    At 1:03 p.m., another e-mail arrived. "I guess you have decided to fight instead of making a deal. We thought you were smart.... You have 1 hour to make a deal today or it will cost you $50K to make a deal on Sunday." Then they knocked BetCris.com offline again.

    The Extortion Problem

    We know this about online extortion: It happens. Evidence of its prevalence or damage is speculative and anecdotal but useful nonetheless in guiding CSOs to understand the nature of the crime. Anecdotally, experts from law enforcement and information security consultants believe that

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  93. Is it just me... by Bones3D_mac · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... or does this sound like an opening line for a soft-core porn flick?

    "Lyon was 23 and looked at least that young. His blond hair offset a tan, handsome face. Allec says Lyon looked like he had given up a day of surfing to swing by and help out."

    --


    8==8 Bones 8==8
    1. Re:Is it just me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Maybe a gay one...

  94. Oh the Irony by Egorn · · Score: 1

    Oh the irony, Slashdot has now DDoSed CSO Magazine.

    --

    Movie News - "Entertainment news, bitch!"
  95. Isn't this a dupe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I swear I read this about a year ago... but I'm too lazy to search for it or check the date on the slashdotted article.

  96. READ THE LAST PARAGRAPH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whiz kid was in on it. He knew what the DDoS attacks would do, and how best to mitigate them. And he personally conducted most of the "investigation" that lead to arrests (most likely of patsies). Now he receives protection money, above the table, all legit, from dozens of companies.

    Going legitimate is the ultimate in cashing out of a criminal lifestyle.

  97. Solve the problem by nuggz · · Score: 1

    What guarantee do you have that they get the right guy?

    What about these enforces making the threats, to get the payoff?
    Every summer in North America there are some people starting wildfires in order to get a job fighting wildfires.

    I'll stick to legal methods, it is less likely to be corrupt in my opinion.

    1. Re:Solve the problem by Mr.+Cancelled · · Score: 1

      And I repeat:

      I, of course, do not encourage, nor am I telling you what to do with my obviously tongue-in-cheek response. If you choose a questionable tactic such as this, it is up to you to determine if this is in your best interests or not. I simply offer the suggestion as as part of this light hearted medium we all love, called Slashdot.

  98. So, from your sig... by benhocking · · Score: 1

    If you're a libertarian...

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:So, from your sig... by stanmann · · Score: 1

      I'm Human.. I don't wish to be eaten..

      --
      Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
  99. ob by Illissius · · Score: 1

    "We will fight them, sir, until hell freezes over. And then, sir, we will fight them on the ice."

    --
    Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
  100. How many *nix systems are zombies? by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

    Im just curius if anyone have any stats on how common *nix zombies are. My perception is that its only Windows boxes.

    If that is true this isnt something that should be dealt with at the gaming site. The real solution would ofcourse be filtering at the ISP level to stop spoofed IP's and better security in Windows.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  101. Why DDOS? by Spacepup · · Score: 1

    When you can just /. them?

  102. How to bring the FBI into the mix by Cheeze · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What would happen if he had changed the dns of his website, to, i dunno, say the ip address of fbi.gov? The criminals would then be dossing fbi.gov and the fbi would immediately notice. If it wasn't a dns-based attack, it should be relatively easy to route all incoming traffic to another ip address.

    I wonder if the guy that was originally being dossed would get in trouble for it.

    --
    Why read the article when I can just make up a snap judgement?
    1. Re:How to bring the FBI into the mix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This is the FBI. They'd go after the guy who changed his DNS first and foremost. That's how they operate. They don't go after the actual criminals. They shake down the most-easily-accessible person involved in the issue and try to follow the tree up to its source, which usually doesn't get them very far.

    2. Re:How to bring the FBI into the mix by Big_Al_B · · Score: 1

      What would happen if he had changed the dns of his website, to, i dunno, say the ip address of fbi.gov?

      1. How is it better, for him, if he DoS's himself? Either way, customers won't reach his website, and he'll lose money.

      2. Who says the extortionists would use hostnames, rather than targeting by IP address or by netblock?

    3. Re:How to bring the FBI into the mix by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      This is the FBI.

      Oh, "this is the FBI" as in "you have to remember that this is how the FBI operates," not as in "I represent the FBI. Don't you dare do that."

    4. Re:How to bring the FBI into the mix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the FBI. Anyone unauthorized person claiming to be a spokesperson of the FBI is subject to criminal prosecution. Believe me... we^H^Hthey play hardball.

  103. these guys are hardcore by sejanus · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm the head network engineer at an isp.

    2 years ago one of our customers recieved a DDOS email and he called me and asked me what he should do.

    I told him to ignore it and honestly I found it quite amusing, thinking it was script kiddies.

    I wasn't laughing 24hrs later as they completely saturated our pipes and our border routers (7206 VXR's at the time) were locked at 100% cpu.

    I've taken serious steps since then to be ready. it wasnt a pleasant experience though and happened right in middle of business day.

  104. Oblig Gates by Dioscorea · · Score: 1

    "I have a vision: a zombie on every desk, and in every home"

  105. Lobotomy/Bottle Quotes. by SeanDuggan · · Score: 1

    ... or "I'd Rather Have a Bottle in Front of Me" by Dr. Randy Hazlick. Just to track it further, Hanzlick has admitted to having acquired the line from bathroom wall graffiti at a hospital he was working at. The original quote was "I'd rather have a free bottle in front of me than a pre-frontal lobotomy." which carries some fun wordplay as well.

    --
    This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
  106. Simple solution. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    Ask them where to send the cash. Even if they give a PO box send your high scale accountant BUBBA to wait by the po box. Have Bubba follow the guy to his headquarters. Then have bubba politly do a manual denial of service attack on him.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Simple solution. by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 2, Funny

      welcome to the internet! There are many new and exciting technologies which you should look in to now that you are here!

      --
      -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  107. Because... by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

    Because you're going to help us, Mr. Anderson. Whether you like it... or not.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  108. Re:Slashdot is run by biggots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck Slashdot. The parent got modded down because you people are racist.

  109. Re:you fucking pirate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice. Mirrordot lifts the original article, blocks the ads, and inserts their own. I hope they get fucking sued.

  110. Careful picking on the '19 by Bob+4knee · · Score: 2, Funny
    Oh, did I mentioned that me, and everyone else at the company carry Glock 19's? Yeah, we didn't have any more problems for the rest of the con. Everyone was on their best behaviour. A bunch of fine, upstanding individuals. :)
    Ever tried real hard to disappear when your 4 year old kid admonishes a cop (bragging on his new 9mm) for carrying a "girl gun" "like my mom used to use until she learned to shoot"...
    1. Re:Careful picking on the '19 by fataugie · · Score: 1

      Who was your Mom? Dirty Harry?

      --

      WTF? Over?

    2. Re:Careful picking on the '19 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Who was your Mom? Dirty Harry?


      No, she's Jessica Ventura.

      And she knows what you're thinking. "Did she fire 3809 shots or only 3808?" Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement she kind of lost track herself. But being as this is a General Electric 5.56mm minigun, the most powerful woman portable minigun in the world, and would saw your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
    3. Re:Careful picking on the '19 by vbrookslv · · Score: 1

      No, the question I gotta ask myself is CAN I get lucky......Mmmm... MILF.

  111. Amen, I would call it a huge troll. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've read a hell of a lot of trolls on Slashdot over the years and they tend to be based on a pornographic style of writing with a heavy emphasis on fetishized iconography which this story was absolutley crammed with.
    This was essentially an attempt at geek porn with bandwidth and routers replacing giant titties and shaved pussies.
    The whole premise was far too James Bond, but the heart of the problem was the amount of resources everyone seemed to be willing to fling around. This thing about buying a server farm to protect against a DOS attack sounds rather far fetched from a financial perspective and in the real world a dollar is a dollar.
    And all the gambling site ops are buddies? Hmm they got a union of sorts then? I kinda doubt it. A lot of loose ends in the story that sound good as a narrative but don't sound realistic.

  112. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  113. Re:I fought a DDoS and won - not! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This was a tie, at best. It still cost you time and money so you still came out a loser on that score; you just didn't lose as much, perhaps. As it stands now, they can attack someone else with impunity, and probably have. It's only a win if they are identified, prosecuted, and their zombies shut down. Everyone has to start thinking that way. It's only a win when they actually lose something, their anonymity, a few years of freedom and or money in fines, and their zombie network.

  114. Six-part ricercar. by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 1

    I have no need for such a program.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
  115. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Now Richardson has a better option. Pay Lyon $50,000 a year and he's protected. He doesn't have to worry about paying extortionist's protection fees."

    TFA's end phrase is a summum in sarcasm.

  116. Good guys vs. bad guys by dmccarty · · Score: 4, Insightful
    That's right. Lyon is one of the good guys. Still, Lyon's heroics weren't possible without Mickey Richardson's resolve. It's easy to forget that as Lyon worked to save him, Richardson considered paying off the extortionists. Now Richardson has a better option. Pay Lyon $50,000 a year and he's protected. He doesn't have to worry about paying extortionist's protection fees.

    From a purely economic standpoint, it makes me wonder who's the real "extortionist"...

    --
    Have fun: Join D.N.A. (National Dyslexics Association)
    1. Re:Good guys vs. bad guys by Yojimbo-San · · Score: 1

      DDos - $50k once, or you cease to be able to generate income. That $50k represents an infinite proportion of your annual income.

      Or Secure Infrastructure - $50k per year, and you can continue to rake in $millions per year. That $50k represents a small percentage of your annual income.

      Pure economics, or simple sums?

      --
      Quick wafting zephyrs vex bold Jim
    2. Re:Good guys vs. bad guys by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1
      By that logic cops are extortionists because they're paid salaries funded by taxes.

      You might be surprised to learn that extortionism is a freelance business, and paying off one doesn't protect you from others. This is a predictable, manageable expense by comparison, and one that doesn't encourage extortionists to expand their operations.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    3. Re:Good guys vs. bad guys by bencvt · · Score: 1
      From a purely economic standpoint, it makes me wonder who's the real "extortionist"...

      Yes, that's the first thought that popped into my head when I read that paragraph, too. But economics is more complex than simple dollar amounts. Even from a purely economic standpoint, Lyon and company still aren't the extortionists. Think supply and demand, those key parts of economics. The DDoSers created the demand, not Lyon. Lyon is just supplying the demanded service. As long as he is not unethically or unlawfully creating demand, it ain't extortion.

    4. Re:Good guys vs. bad guys by jbridge21 · · Score: 1

      Ahh, but if you pay your "protection fee" to Lyon instead of the Russians, then he will protect you from having to pay a fee to anyone else, which the Russians cannot do. So his extortion is a more valuable service for the same price :-)

  117. Online contortionist by 3770 · · Score: 1


    I would be much less intimidated by an online contortionist. That's for sure.

    "Pay up or I'll bend over backwards"!

    --
    The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
    1. Re:Online contortionist by 3770 · · Score: 1

      Man, I'm making my funniest joke ever (parent post) and noone will see it because I posted too late.

      --
      The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
  118. Can't read the article by Mr+Pippin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How ironic that a story about fighting DDoS attacks can't be read due to the Slashdot effect.

    1. Re:Can't read the article by KD5YPT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's because ALL traffics from the Slashdot effect are real and legitimate traffic. In another word, we're not attacking them so they don't filter us out.

      --
      In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
  119. Casino's and blog spam by ManyLostPackets · · Score: 1

    Even though casinos are always smothering my blog with blog spam making it useless, I would never stoop so low as to DDOS one in revenge. 0:-)

    (can't believe I didn't think of the extorton thing)

  120. remember 9/11 by DiveX · · Score: 1

    On September 11, 2001, most of the news web servers were screaming under the load. If I recall correctly, slashdot was one of the few servers that could withstand the constant pounding and people were using it as a main source of up-to-the-minute information. (Slashback: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/09/11/131425 8&tid=103)

    I think even Fark was hit by a lot of time-outs for a while.

    --
    Cave, wreck, and deep diver.
  121. I've got friends in Denmark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good point about Kipling never going out of style.

  122. Re:I fought a DDoS and won - not! by mikeswi · · Score: 1

    They wanted me gone and I'm still here despite all they could do. I consider that a win.

  123. New DDoS router by kristonf · · Score: 1

    I just use the new Browning Automatic Router (BAR). When it detects these kind of attacks it sends out a series of 9mm packets at a high rate to the servers that are attacking. When the servers are destroyed, hopefully the admins will secure the new ones better. This is much better (and cheaper) for those who have been hacked than blacklist. They learn something for only the cost of replacement.

    --
    All Windows problems are hardware problems. Don't load it on hardware, no problems.
    1. Re:New DDoS router by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1

      7.62mm caliber .30 actually, but fair point.

      I just had a very extensive with a colleague about this, regarding the potential to knock off _really_ high revenue sites (not this piddly-squat gambling crap, I'm talking about large banks doing online trading.)

      My theory is that gambling sites get hit because (a) the extortion amount-vs-revenue loss ratio is low, (b) the PR exposure is low ("oh gee it's just a gambling site"), and (c) law enforcement is reluctant and/or incapable of getting involved (legal gray area, small amounts.) Now, as mentioned in the article, these guys are usually present in countries where the legal framework is too weak for especially small companies to fight back through "channels".

      Now hat happens when a multibillion dollar financial organization is threatened with trading downtime? I will go out on a limb and claim that the reluctance threshhold for, not to put too fine a point on it, having someone whacked by mafiosi-for-hire will be pretty low once you have the combination of incredibly high potential losses and perpetrators who reside in a country with weak legal protections. This works both ways.

      So your BAR-1918 example may not be all that far off.

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
    2. Re:New DDoS router by Lovejoy · · Score: 1

      Large banks, trading firms, etc.. in the US, Europe, Japan etc.. will also have strong ties to law enforcement and regulators. Any DDoS attack against any of these organizations would be met with swift action by Interpol. They probably wouldn't have to resort to thuggery.

      I do wonder though, if one of these offshore gambling operations hasn't considered taking care of such a problem "privately." How much does an international hit man cost? Hmm.. Sounds like a good techno-thriller plot.

      Who says you never learn anything on Slashdot?

    3. Re:New DDoS router by fuzzybunny · · Score: 1

      Nonono sorry, I was unclear. In the "western world", Interpol, private investigators, the police and hordes of lawyers are the tools of choice for such organizations. When I put together an incident response team for a large bank in Europe, we found that they already had an (albeit very non-technical) investigation team for things like fraud, forgery, theft, whatever--very professional, very dedicated, mainly ex-cops with a lot of connections. These guys were backed by a strong legal & compliance department.

      My point is that, in areas of the world where guys like "Ivan" can survive and flourish due to lacking legal protections of commercial property (i.e. getting the Russian cops to cooperate), the sort of countermeasures you describe as "thuggery" will, beyond a certain threshhold, become not only possible but also, maybe, desirable for large companies.

      I'm not claiming that a commercial entity would go around hiring hit men to do a wet job on some kiddie in Iowa. Rather, as a last resort to get rid of a serious threat in, say, Uzbekistan or wherever something like Interpol isn't available, if potential losses become high enough, kidnapping, intimidation and even murder might become an option to be pursued. E.g. if you can't surgically destroy a threat via legal means because the legal foundations and resources just aren't there, you might resort to fighting fire with fire.

      --
      Cole's Law: Thinly sliced cabbage
    4. Re:New DDoS router by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Well, in that case, Ivan from Uzbekistan gets what he has coming.

      Think your good because the police don't care? Well, let's play hardball. If nobody's protecting me, then I'm going to protect myself.

    5. Re:New DDoS router by Lovejoy · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right.

      No one should resort to such means, but I also wouldn't feel sorry for Ivan from Uzbekistan if he ran into some trouble. You make trouble in the "Wild West," you get your knee blown off.

      But you wouldn't even have to kill him or necessarily harm him. If he knew you could get to him, I would think that would be enough.

  124. Hm... 404. Entire site's down. by Audigy · · Score: 1

    I suppose someone called them and said "Pay us 1.5 million dollars immediately or else we'll submit this story to Slashdot and your site will be DDoSed for the next 24 to 48 hours!" ...I guess they didn't pay up. :)

    --
    [an error occured while processing this directive]
  125. Sorry for your dick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You own a Hummer or get all wet dreaming owning one ?

  126. Want to see the anti-DoS site at work? by rjbrown99 · · Score: 1

    They added a mirror for CSO online. Browse to the following URL and it all starts magicall working.

    www.csoonline.prolexic.com

  127. Lebumfacil by bleckywelcky · · Score: 2, Informative


    He just asked his network administrator, Glenn Lebumfacil, if they should be concerned. "I said--God, in hindsight, what an idiot--I said, 'We should be safe. I think our network is nice and tight,'" recalls Lebumfacil.

    Is this guy's last name really 'The Easy Bum'? Wow, lol.

  128. ObBartMcCallister by sharkey · · Score: 1
    What are you going to do then, mister rent-an-adminCop?

    Tell him to drop it, and if he resists, shoot the little bastard.

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
  129. Kudos ! by LordPixie · · Score: 1

    Damnit, I just ran out of mod points. Otherwise you would have earned some right there. Very nicely done !


    --LordPixie

  130. Here is an updated mirror direct from the source by Delta-9 · · Score: 1
  131. Redirect by khrtt · · Score: 1

    ..mentioning coral as a way of reducing the /. effect is an excellent idea.

    Thanks.

    Even better idea - can't you copy off your main page, and redirect your main page's URL to a coralized link?

  132. /. Morons by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 0, Troll


    The article is about online extortion via botnets and the entire first 200 pages of responses are about the Battle of Britain and how America saved the world from the evil Europeans...again.

    Morons.

    --
    Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
  133. lmao by fbartho · · Score: 0

    rotfl.

    --
    Gravity Sucks
  134. mirrordot: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  135. Terrorism connection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems like if this guy really wanted to get the feds involved, he'd point out the terrorist connections of such activity.

    Now, hear me out. Sure, everything is blamed sooner or later on terrorists these days, but operating a DDoS bot net is just the sort of thing Al Qaeda's "information warfare division" might be expected to do (since I doubt they have the seriously hard talent to do much more than use COTS stuff). While the criminal organizations in it for the money are, as usual, probably far more sophisticated, a group like Al Qaeda might certainly try to raise funds this way, especially if they're taking from western gambling sites or the like with high moral hazard/running contrary to the tenets of Islam/yadayadayada.

    The connection is certainly plausible enough that if you push it hard enough, you could certainly get someone's supervisor at the FBI to launch a full-scale kiddie porn-style crackdown, methinks.

  136. "Aces High" by quadcity · · Score: 1

    > The sad thing is that I remember that speech entirely because >it's used as an intro to the Iron Maiden song, "Aces High." Same here. I had the cassette...

    --
    - Mike T.
  137. Wouldn't it make more sense to carry a broom? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
    For those who aren't familiar with the area, it's the hood. I regularly had to chase crackheads, as well as hookers with their Johns off of our back steps.

    The broom being useful to sweep away all the Trojans that said hookers and Johns left on your upstanding company's parking lot...

  138. Gambling site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like Mr Gambling Site Owner is living and dying by the sword.

  139. The only real answer by PhilipPeake · · Score: 0, Troll

    Pay up - along with an offer to double the payment if they will hit microsoft.com for at least three week.

  140. Re:I fought a DDoS and won - not! by deanoaz · · Score: 1

    I agree. It's like getting cancer. If it doesn't kill you that's a win.
    Even if cancer still exists.

    "Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society." - Mark Twain

    --
    If 'the people' in Amendment 2 are 'the state' then Amendments 1, 2, 4, 9, and 10 benefit the state, not you.
  141. Another one by NoOneInParticular · · Score: 1
    Winston Churchill was visiting another country. The first evening there, at the state dinner, he pointed to the chicken entree and said, "May I have some breast?"

    The hostess raised her eyebrows and curtly responded, "Mr. Churchill, in this country we ask for white meat or dark meat."

    "My apologies, Madam, I was not aware of your customs."

    The following day, a thank you gift was delivered to the party's hostess with a large orchid. The following was written on the note: "I would be obliged if you would pin this on your white meat."

  142. wrong by tacokill · · Score: 1

    "In Texas there is no lower limit. You can shoot someone in the back who is running away from you and is no longer on your property, as long as they stole from you and you can expect that you won't see it again if they make off with it and you would be at risk if you caught them. That's pretty much a blank check to shoot a robber in the back."

    This is plain wrong. I lived in Texas and this is NOT legal. To have a justifiable shooting, the person must be in your house or attempting to break into your house while you are there. Just like other states, if you shoot someone in the back as they are trying to escape, you are breaking the law. It's the old "did you feel that your life was threatened?".

    Now, having said that, I must state that there can be some loose interpretations of what constitues "trying to break into your house". But on the whole, we aren't just a bunch of gun-toting people hunter's down here. Despite what the press would have you believe, most of us in TX are just like you and me.

    1. Re:wrong by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is plain wrong. I lived in Texas and this is NOT legal. To have a justifiable shooting, the person must be in your house or attempting to break into your house while you are there. Just like other states, if you shoot someone in the back as they are trying to escape, you are breaking the law.

      Texas Penal Code 9.42 B (when deadly force is allowed)
      to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;

      Try reading the law sometime. I won't quote the whole law, but it really means what it looks like. Shooting them in the back is ok based on the way the law is written.

      Despite what the press would have you believe, most of us in TX are just like you and me.

      I was born and raised in TX and lived 26 years there. What the people are like there is irrelevant to what the law says.

  143. I use OpenBSD's pf by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's AMAZING, but you have to supply the electricity which will add up to a fair amount for a real pc vs. a little appliance thingy. Got a spare laptop with a borked screen or something? You could probably pick one up for a song at RePC or a similar outfit.

    1. Re:I use OpenBSD's pf by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 1

      Come to think of it, with the liberal BSD license, I'm surprised there aren't a lot of pf-based appliances out there.

      Hmmm /googles

      http://www.monkey.org/openbsd/archive/misc/0407/ms g01116.html

  144. Actually by chriso11 · · Score: 2, Funny

    In the context of this article, the correct term is slashdos'ed

    Thank you

    --
    No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
  145. What is it.. how low can we go day? by seanvaandering · · Score: 1

    Yikes....im a single cell in the womb if were going by that analogy.

  146. Overheard at HQ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    CmdrTaco: Give me $10K or I link to your site.

  147. OT: extrapolating electorate's opinion by mi · · Score: 1
    Did you mean to say 51% of voting Americans?

    There is no difference. The extrapolation from actual voters to eligible electorate is perfectly valid, comforting as it may be for the losers to hope for there being some statistically significant "hidden reserves".

    Especially this time around the voting crowd was quite diverse and the preelection vote-encouraging rhetoric more shrieking, with the "Choose or Lose" of the past replaced by the pompous "Vote or Die".

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  148. For those who don't get the joke... by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 1

    It's a line from "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou."

    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  149. If the entire cost of ... by chris_sawtell · · Score: 1

    ... protecting against this nonsense could be sheeted back to the manufacturer of the insecure operating system on the 'bots, then he'd pretty quickly mend his insecure o/s. Technical problem solved. The real problem however is the absence of police and legal systems equipped with sufficient backbone to be able to adjudicate on and enforce a ruling against a huge international corporation.

    1. Re:If the entire cost of ... by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Woah woah woah, buddy.

      So basically you're saying the manufacturer should be liable for user failures?

      My gun, a tool used for killing animals for food (the INTENDED USE, anyway) and shooting at targets, can cause the death of a human if the user wants that to happen. Is that Marlin's fault? Hell no.

      My car, a machine used for my personal transportation, can be used in a whole slew of bad ways, like as a 110MPH battering ram, a convenient road obstacle, and as entertainment for inebriated persons. Is that Ford's fault? Hell no.

      My house, you know, where I live, could be used as a whorehouse with a methamphetamine lab in the basement and a torture chamber in the attic. Is that the contractor's fault? Hell no.

      I could go on and on and on. Here's a hint: Most things have multiple uses. Some of those are not the intended use of the manufacturer. Sometimes, features are there for a reason, even if they make unintended use easier. My car has a speed limiter at 102MPH, and there's no road in its country of origin with a speed limit that high. (Ford T-Bird, Lorain, OH) I may be a liberal and hate Big Business, but c'mon. The government cannot sincerely demand that businesses pay up when users of their product fuck up. In this case here, these idiots should READ before clicking YES on IE's "Do you want to install $program". Furthermore, they should have AV scanners, etc. If my house burns down because I failed to notice that someone has moved into my basement and left his space heater on, I don't whine to the contractor for a new house. I learn to look in my damn basement and make sure unwanted things aren't there. Same should go for your computer.

    2. Re:If the entire cost of ... by chris_sawtell · · Score: 1
      So basically you're saying the manufacturer should be liable for user failures?

      No, what I am saying is that a manufacturer should be liable for design or manufacturing faults. In my country he is. If I buy an item for domestic use and it fails to do what it was sold to do, I can demand an instant 100% refund.

      I, and many other people, think that manufacturing an o/s for a computer which if put on the 'Net as supplied 'out of the box', will get 0wn3d within minutes is indeed a design fault. The abject refusal of the manufacturer to correct this error is, imho, a felony for which the company directors should be held financially & legally responsible.

    3. Re:If the entire cost of ... by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      I don't think this should apply here. Just like my car scenario before, it's not Ford's fault if my engine siezes because I neglect to change the oil, or if it is stolen because I neglected to notice the man beneath my desk filing down a copy of my key.

      Not many people put a phone outside and say "Here! Use it!" (I live in A-mish country, so people actually do that). What's to stop me from dialing 1-900-TITS-4ME and running up their bill, or calling 911 a couple hundred times?

      The same should go for a home computer. If it is connected to a public network 24/7, it's the USER'S responsibility to protect it from misuse.

      I guarantee you that the problem is not the operating system itself, but idiotic users who click YES!! or OK!!! on any button they see, users who wonder why their $3200 SuperUberOMGWTFBBQ!!!11 PC is slow after 3 months of porn viewing. If, by some chance tomorrow, OpenBSD was the world's most popular O/S, there'd be so many spybots and trojans for it that it'd take years for the OpenBSD team to fix all the holes found or made.

  150. Treat the problem like an unroadworthy car by elhedran · · Score: 1

    Here at least, if a car pollutes to much or is a safety hazard it can't be driven. from the article a 20,000 helped cause an attack that cost around the one mil. mark. or to be more specific, each of those zombies caused $50 worth of damage.

    How much does a decent firewall cost?

    Make getting online a right, but a right that has responsibilities (just as getting on the road does). You want to send traffic, fine. But if you are detected as a zombie you now have to 'for $50 about' prove that you have fixed the problem before you can get back online.

    Reading this article only proves to me that just letting any old hunk off junk on the internet super highway is not a good idea.

    1. Re:Treat the problem like an unroadworthy car by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Driving is no right. It's a PRIVLEDGE. You don't pay road tax if you don't drive. You are, however, quite welcome to drive your own unlicensed car on your own, private road.

      It should be the same for the 'net. Want on? Play by the rules. Don't want to? Fine. You won't have to follow rules, or pay for an ISP, but good luck dragging that 10BaseT cable to BFE to play Quake with your buddy.

  151. Running away is a capital offense? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    I wasn't aware that running from the scene of a crime was a capital offense.

    Aside from that, your philosophy leaves a huge gaping hole in the murder laws. Suppose you want someone dead. You give them a nice gift. As they are walking away, you shoot them in the back of the head and kill them. You are arrested and claim they were running away with your property.

    That is why the law doesn't work the way you claim. When someone claims self-defense, they are generally prosecuted anyway. In most states, if you claim self-defense the burdon of proof is on you to prove that your life was in immediate danger (the prosecution only has to prove that you killed the person, which you will confess to in order to claim self-defense). If you fail to prove that your life was in danger, you will be convicted of murder.

  152. I think you need a new job... by Anonymous+Luddite · · Score: 1

    >> I regularly had to chase crackheads, as well as hookers with their Johns off of our back steps.

    Where I work we have security. They deal with unwelcome visitors... it's a job I'm happy to leave to the folks trained and paid for it.

    If your company didn't hire janitorial staff, would you clean the toilets too? Seriously, if you're a qualified admin why would you do security work? If it's because you have some hollywood delusions about how sexy guns are, you really shouldn't carry one.

    1. Re:I think you need a new job... by vbrookslv · · Score: 1

      Where I work we have security. They deal with unwelcome visitors... it's a job I'm happy to leave to the folks trained and paid for it. If your company didn't hire janitorial staff, would you clean the toilets too? Seriously, if you're a qualified admin why would you do security work?

      Actually, we didn't hire janitorial staff. We did clean the toilets. The reason has nothing to do with delusions. The reason is that we were getting a local ISP started, with no investors. Just the handful of us. During the dot.com bubble, we were the only ones WITHOUT our hands out. We managed to get quite a successful thing going, on a shoestring budget. Yeah, we had to wear multiple hats, but who doesn't?

      If it's because you have some hollywood delusions about how sexy guns are, you really shouldn't carry one.

      Guns are sexy. No delusion needed. If you disagree with that, hey no problem. That's why the 1st ammendment was first. But, I firmly believe that #1 & #2 are complementary, cooperative rights. Exercise #1 so you can ensure your right to continue to exercise #2, and vice versa. Think about it. And just because you may not want to exercise #2, that's ok, because a whole lot of the rest of us will. It's cool like that.

      So, is Commufornia making people register to buy ammunition yet? (directed to the general readership)

    2. Re:I think you need a new job... by Anonymous+Luddite · · Score: 1

      >> We did clean the toilets.

      That's about the only reason I can see for doing security. - If you're doing everything else as well.

      >> Guns are sexy. No delusion needed. If you disagree with that, hey no problem.

      I didn't always disagree with that, but I do now. FWIW I'm pro gun ownership, have ample experience with them (courtesy my fine government) but don't even own one now. Handguns in particular I view as tools for a job I never ever want. I guess we'll have to disagree about them being sexy. Thanks for a polite and well reasoned answer though.

  153. Subject by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    I believe if I had a business that lost a million dollars due to downtime and my network wiz tracked the guy's home address, I'd be on the next flight out with a good, strong baseball bat.

  154. Amen, brother! by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 1

    Egress filtering is easy, and should be mandatory. Dunno if ISPs are in the driver seat these days, but unless someone made arrangements to be a transit net with a 2nd ISP, I'd be pretty ticked to see inbound packets from a surprising CIDR range.

    My own net (medium size community college) is filtered on the internal and border router. Belt and suspenders, you know?

    1. Re:Amen, brother! by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      arrangements to be a transit net with a 2nd ISP

      If you're connected to another network via a cable modem, you've got bigger problems to deal with :P Egress filtering should occur somewhere below the point the networks meet, otherwise you'd have to make sure not to filter the 2nd ISP's traffic.. oh and any other ISPs that ISP connects to, and so on. Like I said, the closer you do this to the individual users, the less work you and your gear has to do ;)

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  155. Amiga? by GQuon · · Score: 1

    In reality, this site is hosted on an Amiga.

    Hey...That is obviously wrong, but it's an easy mistake to make. Not every Commodore is an Amiga.

    I'm writing this on my Amiga, with Apache running comfortably on it, actually. It pumps out large files too (around 100 MB), with upstream bandwith the limiting factor to speed.

    You've confused the Amiga with the Commodore 64, which actually does have a webserver: Contiki ;-)

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
  156. Because the DDoS-people do that too by GQuon · · Score: 1

    If you read the article, you'd see that one of the tactics of DDoS-attackers is to attack a domain that is their own, but points to the victim.
    So the FBI would have a hard time separating the DDoS-attackers from a victim that's silly enough to re-route to the FBI.

    (And as others said: Re-routing or null-routing means that your site is down anyway, giving the DDoS'ers the victory.)

    --
    Irene KHAAAAAAN!
  157. Dear Website Owner by randyflood · · Score: 1


    Please send me $50,000 or I will post an article on Slashdot with a link to your website, and it will will go down for the next week.

    --
    Randy.Flood@RHCE2B.COM
  158. Huh... by Aldric · · Score: 1

    The way I read the article the guy worked his ass off to provide the service for which he was hired - network security consultant. I'd say his $50K fee wasn't all that much compared to the benefits of having a bulletproof setup for production servers.

  159. make the movie, make the movie, make the MOVIE!!! by anweald · · Score: 1

    Opening scene: clueless luser notices things going slow for a few seconds. "Oh", they say. Later we find out they've been zombified.

    There's a major theme of ambiguity of identity and purpose, so the Lyon character needs a verbal mannerism like "Hmm, this is true" just to make you keep asking "but is it?". Also there's a lot of disembodied voices (the first half of the story is all non-meatspace) so there's a backing track of, say, some Mozart choral stuff. The coolness of that also emphasises the frenzy in the machine room.

    You never actually see Ivan etc, just see some TV news story about arrests in somewhere unpronouncable across the sitting room over supper.

    The "Is he actually one of them?" question is an excellent last-scene twist leaving essential questions hanging in the air, like in The Sting.

    Of course, you'd have to pretend it wasn't about real people etc...

    What eles?

    --
    http://anweald.co.uk
  160. not skeeled in BGP, but by JimmytheGeek · · Score: 1

    if you have a backup link, you can set up both links to filter routes from the other link. Traffic to ISP2 really ought to exit to ISP2.

    And unless you are set up to be a transit net, you really ought to block outbound src != your addresses on both nets.

    There are a lot of leaf node nets with more than one stem.

    I agree the filter ought to be pushed as close to the host as possible. You need the host mac to track the spoofer down, for one thing. You lose that after hop > 0.

  161. not funny by AussieVamp2 · · Score: 0

    If it is who you work for though. This has happened to bookmakers etc. all around the world, whether England, Australia, Austria, etc. (large publicly listed companies included)

  162. Come on! by syousef · · Score: 1

    Well, then, no one should ever be arrested.

    That arguement doesn't fly. I'd agree that no one should be held indefinitely, but arresting someone is a reasonable action to prevent a crime that will not result in their death! What kind of analogy was that? Which legal system are you working under?

    You are also saying that if I witness someone breaking into my house, grabbing my TV and running off with it, I'm not capable of determining whether they committed a crime. You are wrong on both counts. Try again.

    Simply stating that I'm wrong in an insulting tone , and adding a condescending "try again" is not an argument.

    The taking of another human life should not be taken so lightly that anyone that's had their $200 tv nicked should be able to do it.

    If the theif comes in with a gun and you shoot him TO WOUND with that gun (or to kill ONLY if your life is at risk) I think that's totally acceptable. A person who has little choice but to die or fight back shouldn't be penalised for fighting back. A gun-toting redneck who wants to kill him a burgular is a danger to society and should be locked up. Its a fine line and a difficult thing to determine, hence the idea of a jury of peers (as imperfect as that is).

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Come on! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You are also saying that if I witness someone breaking into my house, grabbing my TV and running off with it, I'm not capable of determining whether they committed a crime. You are wrong on both counts. Try again.

      Simply stating that I'm wrong in an insulting tone , and adding a condescending "try again" is not an argument.

      Then you are saying that if I witness someone breaking into my house and grabbing my TV, I am not able to determine whether or not a crime was committed. I find that an absurd position.

    2. Re:Come on! by syousef · · Score: 1

      Then you are saying that if I witness someone breaking into my house and grabbing my TV, I am not able to determine whether or not a crime was committed. I find that an absurd position.

      What you're saying is you're willing to state a human life on your instant assessment of whether or not someone is committing a crime. I find THAT absurd. Life has more value than that.

      You're also completely ignoring my argument that people would use this as an excuse to murder someone.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    3. Re:Come on! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What you're saying is you're willing to state a human life on your instant assessment of whether or not someone is committing a crime. I find THAT absurd. Life has more value than that.

      So, what is the value of life? I'd prefer the answer in dollars, but feel free to use your local currency. Also, what is the dollar amount on your piece of mind? You obviously think that a robber has some right to my property greater than my right to stop them. I'm curious what else you think you have the right to for which you expect to be unhindered in your quest? Can someone use deadly force to stop a felony? How about a particularly bad one, like rape? Or is a human life more valuable than merely the mental state of someone?

      You're also completely ignoring my argument that people would use this as an excuse to murder someone.

      Duh. You aren't as stupid as you look. Why should I answer? You either think that "self defense" is not a valid defense because someone could misuse it, or you think that it is valid, but are punting up an analogy you personally feel to be flawed just to prove a point. Either way, it is not worthy of an answer.

    4. Re:Come on! by syousef · · Score: 1

      So, what is the value of life? I'd prefer the answer in dollars, but feel free to use your local currency.

      What a STUPID condescending thing to say. You're saying anyone who doesn't place a dollar value on life is wrong?

      Also, what is the dollar amount on your piece of mind?

      You obviously think that a robber has some right to my property greater than my right to stop them.

      No I think your right to stop them does not extend to your right to kill them for trying to rob you (except where they threaten you or family/friends and only then in self defence).

      I'm curious what else you think you have the right to for which you expect to be unhindered in your quest?

      Do you find being condescending gets you all the things in life you want?

      Can someone use deadly force to stop a felony?
      How about a particularly bad one, like rape?


      Now in rape we're talking about harm coming to another human being. I make a distinction between people and possessions. You clearly do not. If someone kills someone else who's in the middle of harming their friends/family or even a stranger, so long as he acted to prevent that harm I have no problem with it. If someone's stopped the crime then just decides to kill them in retribution, that's called murder. We have a legal system set up to punish.

      Now if a jury returns a verdict of not guilty and it was clear that the crime had happened (say they were found not guilty due to prejudice or on a technicality)...say a daughter was raped and the father took the law into his own hands under that circumstance, I'd say go easy on the father. He's not likely to go out and kill someone else, and shouldn't be sent to pound me in the ass prison.

      Or is a human life more valuable than merely the mental state of someone?

      Once again, HUH????

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    5. Re:Come on! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What a STUPID condescending thing to say. You're saying anyone who doesn't place a dollar value on life is wrong?

      You said that life has some "value." Since the only easily compared means of measuring "value" is monetary, I requested that you define such "value" with a dollar figure. The federal government has a specific dollar value on life. Others do it. So why is it stupid and condescending for me to ask what "value" you place on life?

      No I think your right to stop them does not extend to your right to kill them for trying to rob you (except where they threaten you or family/friends and only then in self defence).

      That is what I said. You think their right to take my stuff is greater than my right to stop them. Of course I'm presuming that use of non-lethal force will put me at significant risk of life, after all, they are a trained professional criminal and I'm an untrained citizen unskilled in tactics of restraint. For me to stop them with less than deadly force would put my life at risk, so the only "safe" way to stop them is to use overwhelming force (deadly force). You are apparently presuming that you can stop him, reclaim all your posessions, and not harm him or put yourself at risk. You must be much better at unarmed combat than I am.

      Now in rape we're talking about harm coming to another human being. I make a distinction between people and possessions. You clearly do not.


      So, if you see two people in a fight, neither using deadly force, use of deadly force to stop the harm to a person is justified? How do you pick which to kill? Or are you just taking what you "feel" is right and attempting (and failing) to apply logic and reason to back up your emotional stance?

      We have a legal system set up to punish.

      Are you sure? Is it rehabilitation, punishment, or Criminal College where they are trained to do it better next time to not get caught?

    6. Re:Come on! by syousef · · Score: 1

      Look its clear you're just trolling. End of conversation.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    7. Re:Come on! by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Look its clear you're just trolling. End of conversation.

      Huh? You stated life had a "value" and I asked you to quantify it. You said that it is ok to try and stop a robber and it is ok to use deadly force to protect yourself. I was commenting on that.

      I apologize if my logic is too complex for you and makes you look like a moron. But if you are going to make such statements, you should at least be able to provide your reasoning for it. Otherwise, it looks like you have no reasons for your beliefs. But if you want to get back to the "because I said so" reasoning, that wouldn't be any worse than you've done so far.