Slashdot Mirror
AT&T Blocks Part of 4chan
holdenkarau writes "Several news sources (Mashable, The Inquistr, etc.) are reporting that AT&T is blocking img.4chan.org in the southern United States. That server is used for the infamous /b/ board (the home of anonymous). TechCrunch calls the decision to block 4chan 'stupid,' noting that they may have 'opened perhaps the most vindictive, messy can of worms.' The Inquisitr suggests that 'The global internet censorship debate landed in the home of the free.' moot (who runs 4chan) asks users to call AT&T, while some others suggest more drastic action (like cutting AT&T fiber)." Update: 07/27 09:23 GMT by T : Readers' comments below suggest that a) the purpose of the block was to curtail the effects of a serious DDoS attack and b) that the block has now been lifted, at least for some regions.
http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg19609.html
The president of unWired (a much more reputable ISP) has also blocked the same server. A DDoS was apparently attacking said server which wast travelling over both lines. According to this post, the block was due solely to stop the DDoS.
As of 1am CST, it looks like the block is beginning to be lifted : http://encyclopediadramatica.com/AT%26T_Blocks_4chan#THIS_JUST_IN I can confirm access to img.4chan.org open from the Austin/South Texas area now, whereas it wasn't about an hour ago.
- Aetheral Research -
This is going to be beyond epic. There's going to be movies made about this a hundred years from now. (It'll be a comedy/tragedy either way, or more probably both)
[End Of Line]
The question is whether 4chan is the real problem or the reaction to 4chan is. /b/ is what it is and has been for quite a while. And the American Southern culture also has roots that go back at least 300 years. So in a battle for legitimacy, which one should take precedence over the other?
We can talk about freedom of speech and such, but /b/ is home to content that is occasionally over the line illegal. On the other hand, only those who would actually seek it out would even know about it, so it doesn't make sense to "protect" the fair citizens of Hillbilly Valley by blocking the site.
Raymond Bradbury wrote about this in his seminal work Farenheit 451. Once we start allowing the minority to exert power over the majority in the name of fairness and protection, we lose a critical pillar of our society. Censorship is the first step, but later it will be outright censure.
Let's let that which is illegal stay illegal, and give everyone the benefit of full access, even if they don't want it. But I'm not from the South, so my cultural background doesn't lead me to the conclusion that censorship is better than freedom.
This is about Net Neutrality.
Sure Anonymous is angry about being blocked by 15.5% of internet users, but this is only the first step. Most responses to this blockage are directed toward fighting net neutrality, NOT Anon attacking AT&T because their site was blocked.
Anonymous is trying to fight this peacefully, they're not going to be DDoSing any DNS servers, backbone routers, or the like. They're going to be calling Customer Reps and complaining.
This is a Net Neutrality issue, not a Internet Hate Machine issue.
Thanks,
Smark
http://www.spectralcoding.com/
Why did I get the feeling that this ain't gonna end well for AT&T?
http://amishthrasher.blogspot.com/
The block is gone. It was for 4chans own good. They have been DDoSed for weeks. AT&T just stopped access for a short bit. Settle the heck down.
Maybe it might have been a good idea to wait on posting this until a bit more info came in? Or is this part of the show? I'm preheating the microwave now to prep some popcorn.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
while some others suggest more drastic action (like cutting AT&T fiber)
And eliminate ANY kind of access for themselves, and others who could care less about their problems.. Just as smart as having riots, burning down the grocery stores and then having no place to buy food.. Destruction as a form of protest only hurts themselves and other innocents.
waiting for ad.doubleclick.net
There are smarter ways to disable 4chan, like this one
I guarantee they're going to pull an "operation squirrel." That's where you cut tons of fibre with a dull tool so it looks chewed but you do so much that they know it was on purpose. People do that more than you think.
Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
Someone broke rule 1 and rule 2 here. Slashdot post ending in 69 does rule 34 on timothy NAO!! Ahma chargin my slashdot layzars! CmdrTaco is now a meme. Ummm. Over 9000?
Honestly, was the phrase "and nothing of value was lost" ever more appropriate?
Posting something in the likes of asking your audience to sabotage the network infrastructure.
Funny how some stuff gets rushed to the front page, I don't think Digg was gullible enough to get that even close to front page.
So to stop a DDoS attack on a server, they remove any and all access to that server? Am I the only one seeing the irony here?
The post you responded to is misleading. According to this: http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2523/1248672053880.png, this was an ACK attack, which causes problems not only for the directly attacked host, but for other users as well.
Ordinarily, a TCP connection is set up when you send a SYN packet to a website, such as 4chan, and then 4chan responds with a ACK, and then you respond again with a SYN-ACK.
Here is how an ACK attack works. I, the attacker, will send a SYN packet to 4chan, but I am pretending to be you, or your IP address. 4chan then sends an ACK packet to you, excepting a SYN-ACK in response. However, you did not initiate the connection, so you send a RST back to 4chan (or nothing at all, depending on your firewall settings).
Then I do it again. And again. I effectively flood both you and 4chan with meaningless traffic. Your traffic problems are even worse, because if you have a firewall blocking the RST packets, then 4chan will send you 4 ACK packets (depending on configuration) for every SYN packet I send them.
In this case, AT&T and other ISPs decided that the simplest solution to ending this DOS against their users was to block packets to and from 4chan (or a specific part of 4chan).
Based on what I've been reading about this situation today (was away all of Saturday and most of today) it sounds to me like perhaps someone made what they thought was an insignificant decision to block access to a site they figured nobody really cared about anyway, overstepping their authority I'm sure, and started the shitstorm of the year. Now someone's supervisor has heard about it (probably 3rd hand) and after ripping that person a new asshole, has made them start backing off the blocks. Wouldn't be surprised if someone at AT&T gets fired just to throw some meat to the wolves in the hopes this will all go away. BTW nice ham-fisted attempt to stem the tide of a DDoS botnet, dumbasses.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
"...while some others suggest more drastic action (like cutting AT&T fiber)."
*sniff*wipes tear from eye*
Humanity. You make me so proud.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
"Private corporations deciding for themselves what people should and should not view on the Internet?"
Wow you guys really are that gullible to see the logical explanation behind it, and not see multiple service providers we doing it because and attack..These providers aren't choosing what to and what not to show, they are protecting from attacks. Maybe someone should ship you off to the Communist People's Republic of China so you can really get a view of no rights.
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
Now the whole site seems to be down. Was AT&T's block the only thing preventing the DDoS attack from overwhelming the site? That would be hilariously ironic, considering the tantrum you guys were throwing about it. http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/4chan.org
Damn that ./ community, censoring another web site by sending too many reader to it :-)
In other news: AT&T pokes bees nest while wearing meat suit in hungry tiger cage.
or else!
They have probably blocked the site so they don't need to pay for the bandwidth that is being used to attack it.
There are ways to block DOS attacks other than killing all legitimate website traffic. Alternative scenarios: Skynet? Something went wrong in the Black Mesa Research Facility? Bored at work pranksters in the AT&T central office? Secret CIA plot?
LeoPolus Web Design: http://www.leopolus.com
"That server is used for the infamous /b/ board" ...
What is this "/b/" you speak of?
You have never been punished for exercising your freedom to speak by someone with more money or political clout than you have making you pay for disagreeing with them I see. Being able to be anonymous is basic to free speech.
There are many things in this existence you do not mess with. One of those is the moral-less, ethic-less, MERCILESS B-tards of Anonymous. I can already see the lightning in the distance and the worms are making their way out of the can. I am happy I am not directly involved in any of this. Good luck Intarwebs.
If, as appears to be the case, AT&T are actively censoring a site won't this in effect remove their common carrier status so leaving them open to being liable to be prosecuted for any questionable material of any nature which is carried on their network (either to an end user on their network, from a server on their network or traffic routed over their network to/from non-AT&T network end points)...
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
This is a good point. I think the question before the main discussion is, "Are carriers exempt from liability if they agree to allow any and all traffic through their media without any monitoring or intervention?" It does seem to be black and white. Two sides of the dimensionless line. Either the carrier is responsible for all material or no material existing on its lines.
I will be making a stink about this to the FCC and my Idiot US Senators today.
If you don't like what I write don't be a CS and mod it down. Refute it.
Yea I can't spell. So what is your point?
The "Anonymous" thing on imageboards is more of a historical accident than anything, it was certainly never intended to conceal criminality (and doesn't, logs are kept and mods cooperate with the authorities like every other admin.) It has been retained because, at its best, it produces a unique and positive atmosphere. Posts are judged on CONTENT rather than the user's postcount, how much mod penis they have sucked etc. The very idea of censorship of anything not illegal becomes silly, hence bizarre topics offensive to most "normal" forum users can be discussed. Trolling and abuse of other users is of course rampant, but it's mostly good natured and the users wouldn't want it any other way.
From the myriad of *chans they block the least offensive one. Looks like some CEO just saw his first goatse and raged.
I can confirm that img.4chan.org and www.4chan.org are unreachable from my home DSL (AT&T/Yahoo in Northern California). Everything works fine once I have routed 207.126.64.0/24 through OpenVPN over a non-AT&T network.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Surely if you believe that you have freedom, you don't need to be anonymous when you speak your mind?
You're confusing a RIGHT to free speech with a lack of CONSEQUENCES for speaking your mind.
I can't help feeling that the people who keep propangandising for the right to anonymity in everything they do, have reasons to be ashamed of themselves.
Well, some probably do; others, probably not. Would you consent to having the police search your house now if they came to your door and asked nicely? Probably not; if they didn't have a warrant, you'd tell them to go away. And the fact that you would doesn't have you have "reasons to be ashamed of yourself", or that you have something to hide.
Of course it's not quite the same, but it does illustrate an important point: just like the fact you didn't allow them to search your home on request is not ipso facto evidence you've got something to hide, the fact people don't necessarily want their names on everything they say is not ipso facto evidence they've got reasons to be ashamed of themselves", either.
Looked at objectively, anonymity helps criminals enormously, but it doesn't really make a lot of difference to ordinary people.
That, at the very least, is a claim you'd have to back up with some serious evidence, but I'll go ahead and say it's actually outright wrong.
But beyond that, who are you to tell others that they do or don't need privacy, anyway? Speak for yourself; if you don't need or want any, that's fine, but what right do you have to deny it to others?
So, what about img.4chan.org - is it right or wrong to block them? I don't know - and I don't care, to be honest; there are so many web-sites and forums in the world and I only access a few any way.
Well, that's one way to look at it, but I'm pretty sure that history - and I mean all of history - has shown us that looking the other way when someone's mistreated is bad, even when it doesn't affect you. I really don't want to drag out the whole "first, they came for the jews" thing by Niemöller again, but the gist of that message there seems to apply here.
Finally, if you'll allow me to ask - what is your name? Surely you will have no problem with giving it up, based on what you said above. (And similarly, I hope you'll understand that based on what *I* said above, I am unable to return the favor.)
The issue was reported on Reddit.com 16 hours ago. At no time, apparently, was access to img.4chan.org slow. Also, at present the IP address 207.126.64.181 connects directly to 4chan.org, as it should.
So, AT&T, is not blocking img.4chan.org, the company is only blocking some of its users. Check 4chan status. Quote: "UPDATE: Some coverage on TechCrunch, Digg, reddit, and Google News. Also, note that AT&T has yet to contact us."
like
Turns out that you aren't nearly as "anonymous" as you might think on the Internet, and really not at all in the real world. Also turns out that the FBI doesn't give a shit when you just act like retards on an image board, but they take an interest when you attack national infrastructure. I'd laugh my ass off if a couple of 4chan morons got locked up for something stupid like this.
I'll quote Wikipedia on this one: "Citation needed." You have any evidence at all that this happens? For that matter, do you have any idea how fibre is run in the US? Here's a hint: It isn't on telephone poles, it is under ground. Also, it isn't as though it doesn't have a shield around it. These are not bare wires, they are run in thick bundles, which are then protected. They have to be strong since the term "pulling fibre" is not a casual one. It does actually get pulled through conduit and such and thus needs a good deal of strength.
This idea that "Oh well just make it look like a squirrel," shows an extreme amount of ignorance about the way it is done.
Also I'm going to say between threats online, evidence like people looking for AT&T fibre maps and multiple cuts, if they actually did something like this, it'd be figured out real quick and some people would go to jail.
Is it possible this is just another 4chan prank?
"It's come to our attention that AT&T is filtering/blocking img.4chan.org (/b/ & /r9k/) for many of their customers. There is no remedy at this time.
If you've been affected, I would advise you call or write customer support and corporate immediately.
UPDATE: Some coverage on TechCrunch, Digg, reddit, and Google News. Also, note that AT&T has yet to contact us.
by moot @ 6:41 PM "
As of Monday at 7am here in Key West, it is still blocked. Not that I care, but it is unavailable.
Probable cause is my favorite silver lining here.
Though any government powerful enough to force your anonymity out the window is also strong enough to brand you a criminal if you disagree.
Remember, the government that is strong enough to give you what you want (security) is strong enough to take away everything you have (freedom).
I'm on AT&T (SWbell) in Houston and just checked out /b/ and /r9k/. Acting a bit slow (slashdot effect?) but otherwise available.
YMMV. Maybe somebody is blocked. Maybe its' a nice troll. Expecting the Internet to always work everywhere is to misunderstand the Tao.
Really.
Their community is infected with crap all the time, which in turn attacks /b/. At least it typically only affects their own board.
I think they say its number two, but that doesn't make any sense because the point of DDoS attacks are so you can't access the site, so what does AT&T do? Blocks the site.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
But is it "censoring" if they are blocking it for solely technical reasons? Like a jillion ACK packets coming in from spoofed SYN-floods?
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Questions? Not properly categorized?
I'm sure they're missing a few categories in that list.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
a /b/tard is not created. a /b/tard is made
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Surely if you believe that you have freedom,
Somewhere in between the unwarranted wiretaps and the indefinite detentions without trials, I decided to stop taking that belief for granted.
you don't need to be anonymous when you speak your mind?
My country was literally founded by people anonymously speaking their minds. I would be very wary of anyone who claims we don't need that right anymore.
Where am I supposed to post my funny MEMEs and links to girllookslikeabitch.com now?
I'm not sure, but I do know that an on-topic reply would be less likely to get an offtopic moderation.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
At the time I posted I was going off the following (in this instance the inquisitor but most articles had the same view):- /r9k/ was also blocked and that AT&T users should "call or write [to] customer support and [AT&T] corporate immediately.""
"The censorship was first reported on Reddit, where users confirmed with AT&T that the site had indeed been censored, and was not being blocked due to a technical issue. 4chan owner Moot later confirmed the news, saying that the
If, as it now appears, the block was for technical reasons then that is indeed a different kettle of fish... and would not affect (AFAIK) their common carrier status.
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
And you find this... surprising?!
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Yea, that's a great theory and all, but I have personally been in a situation where my mother's employer was following her, there were cars staked out across the street from our house all day, harrassing phone calls at all hours of the night, etc. We didn't get it as bad as some other people though - luckily my father is a lawyer, and they knew that. And why did all this happen? Because she was exercising her right to free speech, and her right to association. She was trying to unionize the hospital where she worked. And, in the end, she was successful and still works there, but had she made one mistake at work or even at home, she would have been unemployed within hours.
And this is a small hospital in a fairly small rural town, and for trying to unionize. Can you imagine what a large corporation would be willing to do to, say, a whistleblower? If you can't be anonymous, you can't be free. Just because your actions are legal doesn't mean there won't be consequences.
Your argument can be summed up with, "Why do you need privacy and anonymous speech if you have nothing to hide?". There is information all over the web about why this is a naive, poorly thought out argument.
We got my late mother-in-law a computer back in the late 90s, and an AOL account, so she could do email and read her celebrity gossip and such. Unlike my mom, who's moderately tech-savvy and used Macs, my MIL was the type who'd happily click on the "we can make your PC go faster" or "get these cute dancing kitty cursors today!!!" popups, so her machine was generally a wretched hive of villainy and viral scum. On the other hand, she didn't really get the hang of saving things to disk files, so if she wanted to save something, she'd either print it out on dead trees or file it away in AOL. That meant that cleaning her machine was usually easy - wipe out everything, install the OS from scratch, and install the latest AOL coaster, and it was good as new.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
YES. But I'm guessing this is not the whole story:
... Unfortunately, as an unintended consequence of the method used, some Internet users received errant traffic from one of our network switches. A handful happened to be AT&T customers."
But now 4chan's founder, Moot, has admitted the whole thing was kind of his fault.
"For the past three weeks, 4chan has been under a constant DDoS attack," Moot wrote in an afternoon update. "We were able to filter this specific type of attack in a fashion that was more or less transparent to the end user.
...but of course everyone had to immediately jump about three hundred feet vertically to a conclusion. ZOMG TEH SENSORSHOOPZ! BOIKOTTZ NAO!
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. Or in this case, a weekend NOC guy shutting off a network flood. Basically, you're making the assumption that they blocked the site knowing it was 4chan, rather than knowing it as yet another faceless IP address that was the source of a flood. Even if they had done a reverse name lookup, you can't even assume that they would know what 4chan was. It hasn't exactly made the national news. (local news every now and then when a local TV station wants ratings, but not national) Maybe the NOC flunkie knew what it was, but his boss or his boss's boss didn't, and said to cut it off.
Part of the problem is the "Tell us what you did and why RIGHT NOW OR ELSE!" attitude of so many internet users. Sorry, folks, big companies just aren't set up to give you instant answers about what some sub-department did two hours ago, much less on a weekend. That's not "evil", that's just BIG.
As someone on a Digg thread said, the regular 'channers knew the site had been under attack for a couple of weeks. The once-in-a-whilers didn't know anything until they heard it was blocked.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
moot has posted the details on status.4chan.org.
Basically he confirms all the speculation that AT&T blocked 4chan because of ACK bouncebacks from a DDOS. Real /b/tards probably already had off-network proxies at the ready to deal with it.
Also, being on AT&T and unable to access 4chan doesn't necessarily mean that it's been blocked. 4chan is up and down all the time, because they're under constant DDOS attacks, at pretty much all times, from various sources. It seems that DDOSing 4chan is a basic holding pattern for botnets that aren't otherwise occupied.
Here's what happened:
For the past three weeks, 4chan has been under a constant DDoS attack. We were able to filter this specific type of attack in a fashion that was more or less transparent to the end user.
Unfortunately, as an unintended consequence of the method used, some Internet users received errant traffic from one of our network switches. A handful happened to be AT&T customers.
In response, AT&T filtered all traffic to and from our img.4chan.org IPs (which serve /b/ & /r9k/) for their entire network, instead of only the affected customers. AT&T did not contact us prior to implementing the block. Here is their statement regarding the matter.
In the end, this wasn't a sinister act of censorship, but rather a bit of a mistake and a poorly executed, disproportionate response on AT&T's part. Whoever pulled the trigger on blackholing the site probably didn't anticipate [nor intend] the consequences of doing so.
We're glad to see this short-lived debacle has prompted renewed interest and debate over net neutrality and internet censorshipâ"two very important issues that don't get nearly enough attentionâ"so perhaps this was all just a blessing in disguise.
Aside from that, I'll also add that there is some big news due later this week. Keep an eye on the News page, Twitter, and global message for updates.
As always, I can be reached at moot@4chan.org.
---
PS: If any companies would like to hook us up with some better hardware, feel free! The architecture we've got powering this large and influential beast is really quite embarrassing. ( ._.)
Legalize recreational marijuana. Seriously.
Can you imagine being in charge of AT&T's security? I bet they are now having to monitor every post on /b/ for threats against AT&T.
Job description: "Reading posts about testicles and lolcats. Looking at pictures of naked women."
Sent from my iPhone
I'm not offtopic here. Some drug war shill has modded me down because he doesn't like what I have to say, even though it's a very valid point. Smoking marijuana is not wrong. Nobody should go to jail for smoking marijuana. This country is fucked up. Actually, so is the world.