Another 100 Gigabit DDoS Attack Strikes — This Time Unreflected

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Another 100 Gigabit DDoS Attack Strikes — This Time Unreflected

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday October 1, 2013 @06:01PM from the go-big-or-go-home dept.

darthcamaro writes "In March of this year, we saw the first ever 100 Gigabit DDoS attack, which was possible due to a DNS Reflection Amplification attack. Now word is out that a new 100 Gigabit attack has struck using raw bandwidth, without any DNS Reflection. 'The most outstanding thing about this attack is that it did not use any amplification, which means that they had 100 Gigabits of available bandwidth on their own,' Incapsula co-founder Marc Gaffan said. 'The attack lasted nine hours, and that type of bandwidth is not cheap or readily available.'"

93 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Is that all? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 18:05 · Score: 5, Funny

It was probably just one guy in Tokyo using his $9/month internet package ...
1. Re:Is that all? by goddidit · 2013-10-01 18:14 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  On his mobile, to be exact.
  
  --
  This .sig is exactly 120 characters long.
2. Re:Is that all? by Cryacin · 2013-10-01 18:18 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  the guy mistyped the address on the page and hit refresh. Very Very quickly.
  
  --
  Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
3. Re:Is that all? by Yaotzin · 2013-10-01 19:16 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  ...For nine hours.
  
  --
  Error: No error occurred
4. Re:Is that all? by aPoorBoy · 2013-10-01 19:46 · Score: 1
  
  It must be a feature of windows phone
5. Re:Is that all? by behrooz0az · 2013-10-01 19:58 · Score: 0
  
  ... not sending the WM_KEYUP.
  
  --
  Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
6. Re: Is that all? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 23:25 · Score: 0
  
  Well, he is hosting the entire Internet in the palm of his hand.
7. Re:Is that all? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 00:31 · Score: 0
  
  he really wanted that squid/girl porn...
8. Re:Is that all? by wisnoskij · 2013-10-02 01:20 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  It was a Korean professional Starcraft player.
  
  --
  Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
9. Re:Is that all? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 01:32 · Score: 0
  
  Must have been a 30-something live-at-home male trying to refresh the page of the latest popular jailbail girlband
10. Re:Is that all? by saleenS281 · 2013-10-02 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Can you blame him? It wasn't loading.
11. Re:Is that all? by Anubis+IV · 2013-10-02 03:57 · Score: 2
  
  Easily explained by the presence of a sleeping cat and the F5 key (oh, and he had some crazy Japanese phone that has an F5 key...).
12. Re:Is that all? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 04:21 · Score: 0
  
  the guy mistyped the address on the page and hit refresh. Very Very quickly.
  One IE browser would do this to you if your web.config was not set correctly. 50GB of IIS log files per minute.
13. Re:Is that all? by MatthiasF · 2013-10-02 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  kekekekekeke
14. Re:Is that all? by BigLonn · 2013-10-04 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  The irony :P
Incapsula by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 18:10 · Score: 5, Informative

Seriously...this reads like a brochure for Incapsula's services lol
1. Re:Incapsula by Joce640k · 2013-10-01 18:56 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  They don't name the site, they don't name the attacker, the customers were "completely unaffected"....they could be making it up for all we know.
  
  --
  No sig today...
2. Re:Incapsula by Anachragnome · 2013-10-01 20:35 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  "....this reads like a brochure for Incapsula's services..."
  http://bgp.he.net/AS19551#_whois
  Well, I imagine most US server farms are hurting pretty bad right now, what with all the NSA luvin' going around over here. Now imagine a company that has all of it's servers in the US, Israel and Germany (with a few in Japan)--in light of recent revelations regarding NSA spying--and maybe you'll understand why Incapsula is paying for ads/articles all over the damn place, including /.
  They are fucked, and this marketing blitz is a Hail-Mary attempt to save their ass from the fire that Snowden just lit under it. Personally, I love a good BBQ.
3. Re:Incapsula by lazybeam · 2013-10-01 22:16 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  We are an Incapsula customer and I can tell you we were NOT "completely unaffected". We experienced about an hour total of complete down time and several hours of slow response. Our servers were unloaded - no problems when bypassing Incapsula. So I guess they protected us from "that" but in the meantime all sites were unreachable. Though different ISPs had different levels of slowness at different times (trying our two different office connections and three different mobile networks).
  
  --
  -- no sig for you. come back one year.
4. Re:Incapsula by Joce640k · 2013-10-01 23:46 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  We are an Incapsula customer and I can tell you we were NOT "completely unaffected".
  Maybe you could call Sean Michael Kerner at eWeek and tell them Marc Gaffan was lying.
  He's also on twitter: https://www.twitter.com/techjournalist
  
  --
  No sig today...
5. Re:Incapsula by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 02:03 · Score: 0
  
  http://www.esecurityplanet.com/network-security/the-largest-ddos-ever-hits-the-internet.html
  That link is in the referenced eweek article, CloudFlare and SpamHaus withstood 300GBps attacks back in March, so this is nothing more than an ad. Also the spamhaus one lasted for about a week. this was 9 hours.
6. Re:Incapsula by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  I agree. They're in no position to add the most important voice to the news cycle: the fact some websites have to pay someone like Incapsula to stay up while others don't is a free speech issue.
  ISP's tend to blame the victim for DDoS. The exception is big cloud hosters: Google will ward off a DDoS aimed at silencing a free blogspot user without even thinking of connecting the blog's speech with the attack. The stewards of the Internet, like the attendees of NANOG and the cast of #networker, ought to be working on an answer to DDoS that can protect small sites instead of persisting with their current attitude, "they're your bits, so you pay for them." It's an internet architecture issue wallpapered over by opportunist CDN's and an oligarchy of sites that can't be DDoSed just because they're themselves as big as the Internet (of which, by definition, there can only be a few).
7. Re:Incapsula by davewoods · 2013-10-02 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Note: GBps !=Gbps. GB is 8 times larger than Gb.
  You just said they withstood 2400 Gbps, which is incorrect. Also, it should be noted that the 300 Gbps quoted was only the peak, I think the average was only about 120 Gbps.
8. Re:Incapsula by Igal+Zeifman · 2013-10-10 01:04 · Score: 1
  
  Hi I work for Incapsula. This is what happened: On Sep 25 we reported a 100Gbps DDoS attack (https://twitter.com/Incapsula_com/status/382945744593764353), as we often do with large DDoS events. To be perfectly honest, we didn't even know that this was news, until we were contacted by the reporter... Our initial report predates the coverage by almost a week so we couldn't make this up, at least not without planning this for weeks in advance. (we don't have time for such ploys) Also, we NEVER disclose our clients unless we have their permission to do so, which most are reluctant to provide. From security POV, the less information the attacker has - the better. Revealing your mitigation solution is not exactly a best practice.
9. Re:Incapsula by Igal+Zeifman · 2013-10-10 01:13 · Score: 1
  
  Hi, I work for Incapsula. Our service is used by thousands yet - on the day of attack (Sep 25) you`ll find no downtime reports on twitter, facebook or public forums. I can't imagine any scenario in which a 60 minute long downtime of our services would have gone unnoticed yet this is the first time I hear about this... I`m sure that what you describe here is a localized issue, which is *not* Incapsula-related. Please reach out to our support. We will be happy to assist you to investigate further.
Is this an ad? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 18:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

TFA sure reads like one...
I can't get one thing by ruir · 2013-10-01 18:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

If they haven't identified the attacker how can they say with 100% certainty it only came from one source, and was un-reflected? For I all I know, you could have a botnet fabricating packets with the same characteristics simultaneously.
1. Re:I can't get one thing by icebike · 2013-10-01 18:36 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The article suggests it was a "Distributed attack"
  
  the victim of the attack is remaining in the shadows, not wanting to be publicly identified. The target Website is protected by cloud security vendor Incapsula, which was able to withstand the massive distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack and keep the targeted Website up and running.
  which means it must have bounced off of some botnet used some means of amplifying the attack and make it appear to come from different targets. Had it not been so, they would know exactly where it came from.
  Perhaps judging from the number of different sources, and the type of packets, they can calculate the number of control packets needed.
  If they know it required a one-for-one ratio of control packets to target packets, that is what they mean by un-amplified.
  But it doesn't mean they came via the same route.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
2. Re:I can't get one thing by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 21:13 · Score: 0
  
  perhaps the control packets were amplified?
3. Re:I can't get one thing by malacandrian · 2013-10-01 21:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  That is the point of using a botnet to run a DDoS, yes. A single control signal issues a huge surge in traffic. That doesn't make it an amplified attack though. An amplified attack is when the zombies trick a third party (such as a DNS server) to reply to the victim with more information than you sent them. This can up the size of the attack 100-fold.
4. Re:I can't get one thing by skids · 2013-10-02 03:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  This, and you can easily distinguish a reflected attack by the type of packet, which will be an unsolicited reply to an application level request.
  I just wish the stupid script kiddies would realize that not every SNMPv2/SNMPv3 client that responds actually amplifies traffic or gives maybe a 30% gain (because what you're getting back is an "access denied") and so isn't worth it, and stop trying to reflect off the printers here. I'm sick of chasing around the people who are supposed to lock them down, and banning entire protocols that don't really, really deserve it just fills me with ick.
  
  --
  Someone had to do it.
5. Re:I can't get one thing by Igal+Zeifman · 2013-10-10 01:08 · Score: 1
  
  Hi I work for Incapsula. We use uptime monitoring for health checks + our reverse proxy technology ensures that every little bit of traffic comes through our cloud first. As a result we know if we have any downtime/spillage. Having said that, our multi-server data center are build in such a way that - in the even of DDoS - malicious traffic is quarantined and managed by filtered scrubbing servers. (which do not handle regular traffic)
How much bandwidth is that? by mveloso · 2013-10-01 18:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

Is that 100 GB/sec, 100 Gbps/sec, 100 GiB/sec, or 100 GiB over 9 hours?
1. Re:How much bandwidth is that? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 18:24 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It's probably not "100 Gbps/sec" since the seconds cancel out and thus isn't a measure of bandwidth (a 12MB attack would be pretty lame). And since TFS said "bits," not "bytes," all of those options with a capital "B" are also unlikely. So, the answer to your question is "no."
2. Re:How much bandwidth is that? by TubeSteak · 2013-10-01 18:25 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The attack peaked at 100 Gigabits per second
  The webhost (actually a CDN) had 400 Gigabits of total bandwidth available + various DDOS protections in place.
  RTFA
  
  --
  [Fuck Beta]
  o0t!
3. Re:How much bandwidth is that? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 18:25 · Score: 0
  
  Gigabits -> The gigabit has the unit symbol Gbit or Gb
4. Re:How much bandwidth is that? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 18:28 · Score: 0
  
  Obviously 100 Gb/9 hours. Which makes about 3 Mb/s, that is a not too fast DSL connection. It probably ended after 9 hours because the user had reached his data volume cap.
  SCNR
5. Re:How much bandwidth is that? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 18:31 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Seconds don't cancel... it gives you a 100Gbps^2 (aka, 100Gb.s^-2) which is a bandwidth acceleration...
6. Re:How much bandwidth is that? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 18:32 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The "p" in "Gbps" is "per", that is "/". Therefore "Gbps/s" is "Gb/s^2", which would be a data rate acceleration. "100Gbps/s" would mean that every second, another 100 Gb/s were added to the data stream. Doing that for 9 hours would be quite impressive.
7. Re:How much bandwidth is that? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 18:45 · Score: 0
  
  That's 100 Petabits per us, CRAZY!
8. Re:How much bandwidth is that? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 18:56 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Using the perl "english words have lower priority than real operators" convention (see "and" v/s "&&"), the / binds more tightly than the "per" operator, and thus, it's Gb / (s/s). And the seconds therefore cancel. ;)
9. Re:How much bandwidth is that? by AHuxley · 2013-10-01 18:56 · Score: 1
  
  It will be interesting to see how some ISP move from adsl1/2, VDSL2, HFC to optical while considering security challenged consumer operating systems.
  A clause about deep packet inspection, ongoing monitoring and the option for dynamic ISP speed reductions?
  
  --
  Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
10. Re:How much bandwidth is that? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 22:09 · Score: 1
  
  Nowhere in that article is the word seconds, Gbps Gb/s or anything similar.
  I might be sloppy to say Gigiabit without the /s once or twice, but it's almost like a study in avoiding the qualifier.
11. Re:How much bandwidth is that? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 01:09 · Score: 0
  
  But it wasn't "gigabits per second / s", it was "Gbps/s" where the word is "Gbps" as a whole.
12. Re:How much bandwidth is that? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 01:49 · Score: 0
  
  Using the perl "english words have lower priority than real operators" convention (see "and" v/s "&&"), the / binds more tightly than the "per" operator, and thus, it's Gb / (s/s). And the seconds therefore cancel. ;)
  Using perl as a supporting argument... really
13. Re:How much bandwidth is that? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 04:15 · Score: 0
  
  Accelerating at that rate for 9 hours probably the relativistic effects should considered.
14. Re:How much bandwidth is that? by davewoods · 2013-10-02 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Wolfram Alpha says that 100Gb per second per second for 9 hours is about 10 times the estimated global IP data traffic rate in 2015.(1 ZB/year)
15. Re:How much bandwidth is that? by davewoods · 2013-10-02 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  He is right, I checked. For all we know, 100 Gigabits of data was transferred to the target over the course of 9 hours, and for some reason this was considered a DDoS attack. FYI: 100 Gigabits is only 12.5 Gigabytes... Exciting.
16. Re:How much bandwidth is that? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 13:06 · Score: 0
  
  There's more than one way to pretend that what I did wasn't wrong. Or something like that.
100 GBit isn't large by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 18:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

A botnet with 10000 bots, each on a 10 MBit connection, will suffice.
1. Re:100 GBit isn't large by wonkey_monkey · 2013-10-01 19:15 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Thank you Captain Multiplication.
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
2. Re:100 GBit isn't large by thegoldenear · 2013-10-01 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  10 Mb/s upstream that is, not downstream.
3. Re:100 GBit isn't large by tempmpi · 2013-10-01 20:21 · Score: 1
  
  10 Mb/s upstream is not that unusual these days. And many botnets are way bigger than 10000 bots. Even if each bot has just 2 Mb/s upstream, you only need 50000 Bots. And botnets are not limited to infecting computers on home user connections. Infecting 100 servers on 1 Gbit/s connections is also enough.
  
  --
  Jan
4. Re:100 GBit isn't large by isorox · 2013-10-01 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  10 Mb/s upstream is not that unusual these days. And many botnets are way bigger than 10000 bots. Even if each bot has just 2 Mb/s upstream, you only need 50000 Bots. And botnets are not limited to infecting computers on home user connections. Infecting 100 servers on 1 Gbit/s connections is also enough.
  Certainly isn't, I've got that in my office in South Africa, which as far as the internet goes is about as backwater as you can get in a G20.
5. Re:100 GBit isn't large by wvmarle · 2013-10-02 00:33 · Score: 1
  
  The bigger the upload available, the more tightly those servers will be managed. Making not only infection harder, but also detection and losing the bot-server more likely.
  If I were a botnet owner I'd be reluctant to use more than say 10% of available upstream, especially where you're on 1 Gb/s you're sure to be noticed if you're using 1 Gb/s but you may get away with 100 Mb/s for a while (that shouldn't affect other services on that network too much). People that have this much bandwidth have it for a reason, the reason typically being that they want to use it for themselves.
  Home networks are probably still the best target. Easy to get on ((unpatched) Windows), poorly managed ("I run Windows Update now and then, and I have a virus scanner - came with the system when I bought it last year - should be enough!"), so likely to hold on for long time. But upstream bandwidth is often low, and system is not always on.
6. Re:100 GBit isn't large by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 01:47 · Score: 0
  
  Not our fault your office is located in South Africa.
7. Re:100 GBit isn't large by isorox · 2013-10-02 04:24 · Score: 2
  
  Not our fault your office is located in South Africa.
  I have many offices. Some have 100mbit connections coming out their ears (Tokyo, HK, Singapore, Washington). Others struggle to get 10 (Kabul, Nairobi)
  Beiruit is probably the only office which can't get 10mbit connection. The average is far higher.
8. Re:100 GBit isn't large by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 05:15 · Score: 0
  
  10 Mb/s upstream is not that unusual these days. And many botnets are way bigger than 10000 bots. Even if each bot has just 2 Mb/s upstream, you only need 50000 Bots. And botnets are not limited to infecting computers on home user connections. Infecting 100 servers on 1 Gbit/s connections is also enough.
  Certainly isn't, I've got that in my office in South Africa, which as far as the internet goes is about as backwater as you can get in a G20.
  So the USA isn't int he G20 I take it? Sorry for not knowing, I'm an American. We're not a part of the world until the 3000 as our greatest mind, Phillip J Fry, will one day learn.
9. Re:100 GBit isn't large by Flere+Imsaho · 2013-10-02 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Hang on.
  *scribbles on notepad*
  I'm just checking your math on that. Yes, I got the same thing.
  
  --
  It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
no real verifiable info but plenty of product plug by YesIAmAScript · 2013-10-01 18:21 · Score: 5, Informative

The worst example of advertisement through press release in recent memory.
At least on slashdot.

--
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Pff by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 18:27 · Score: 0

Just wait until someone gets their hands on those juicy data center scale 400-500Gbit tubes by infecting servers with internal OS updates. Many use custom kernels, after all, so all it takes is one pissed off employee below the budget cut line. :-)
worst use of a DDoS by muphin · 2013-10-01 18:32 · Score: 1

why not use it ebay for that item you sooo wanted.... get rid of those sniper bids.
i see no profit or gain doing it to a CDN since they tend to have a distributed infrastructure...
possibly a poker/gambling site

--
It's not a typo if you understood the meaning!
1. Re:worst use of a DDoS by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 20:28 · Score: 1
  
  why not use it ebay for that item you sooo wanted.... get rid of those sniper bids.
  i see no profit or gain doing it to a CDN since they tend to have a distributed infrastructure...
  possibly a poker/gambling site
  A) This was a test, and the real attack has yet to come.
  B) This was a test, and the real attack happened while we were staring at this distraction as if it were some kind of voodoo.
  C) All the above.
  Perhaps we should hold judgement on those who can execute something like this until it is determined the purpose or intent. eBay and gambling is chicken shit compared to attacking banking or stock market.
2. Re:worst use of a DDoS by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 20:34 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You missed a possibility:
  D) None of the above, it's just Incapsula's anti-DDoS services ad.
  The article goes all how attack was "unknown to many" and "victim remains in shadows" (read: we can't even know whether it all took place), and then goes into something that reads like sales brochure.
3. Re:worst use of a DDoS by wvmarle · 2013-10-02 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  I too really wonder who that target may have been. It must be a pretty high profile or valuable site, for an attacker to throw that big an attack against them.
Nah not a DDos, just a pirate hosting. by MouseTheLuckyDog · 2013-10-01 19:16 · Score: 0

Some guy broke into the server and placed a copy of the last episode of Breaking Bad in 1040p and all the traffic was just downloaders.
Bitcoins! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 19:32 · Score: 0

They paid in bitcoins!
I know what happened by OhANameWhatName · 2013-10-01 19:58 · Score: 4, Funny

other than Incapsula and its own service providers that were on the receiving end—no one seemed to notice
Thanks a bunch for saving the internets Marc. I'll be sure not to notice again soon.
1. Re:I know what happened by Igal+Zeifman · 2013-10-10 01:18 · Score: 1
  
  :) You are correct. Remind me of a movie quote (not sure which)... "When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all..."
A government playing war games ? by Alain+Williams · 2013-10-01 20:33 · Score: 1

I am not saying that it is what happened this time, but we have to expect that the various governments that are tooling up for ''cyber warfare'' are going to want to try out their toys. A DOS is one of the ''cyber weapons'' that they will use, in addition to cracking web sites, virus infection, ... For a government 100 Gbps is not going to be expensive.
I wonder how far they have progressed on cyber alliances, so, perhaps, 10 NATO countries could each contribute their 10 Gbps DOS asset to create a 100 Gbps DDOS capability.
1. Re:A government playing war games ? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 23:45 · Score: 0
  
  Or someone playing with the government web servers that is in shutdown?
  I guess that's a good reason not to keep them running.
Re:first by oldhack · 2013-10-01 22:47 · Score: 4, Funny

If you were a Japanese dude with $9/month internet package, you could have been the first. Loser.

--
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Entirely Synchronistic by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 23:07 · Score: 0

A problem in an internet cable from Brazil to the US, belonging (supposedly) to GVT, caused access slowdowns over the last couple of days. No relation at all, perhaps?
I can't get one thing !!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-01 23:51 · Score: 0

Using the perl "english words have lower priority than real operators" convention (see "and" v/s "&&"), the / binds more tightly than the "per" operator, and thus, it's Gb / (s/s). And the seconds therefore cancel. ;)
http://www.zdownz.net/2013/09/yahoo-messenger.html
That's nothing by Lieutenant_Dan · 2013-10-02 00:45 · Score: 3, Funny

I once experienced an DoS MitM LTE XSS attack that lasted 42 hours and had a steady stream of 105TB/ms using NetBIOS Saturation over AppleTalk techniques that spread over a redundant cluster of MBR using HPFS. Of course the victim wishes to remain in the shadows as sharing the company's identity would either harm their reputation or allow you to verify the plausibility of the incident.

--
Wearing pants should always be optional.
1. Re:That's nothing by davewoods · 2013-10-02 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  105TB/ms over 42 hours (15.88ZB) Means you could copy the estimated information content of all human knowledge (about 12EB as of mid-1999) in about 2.52 minutes. Source: Wolfram Alpha.
Re:Another site down ... by faffod · 2013-10-02 00:46 · Score: 2

Yes, usda.gov is down because of a DOS attack. But I don't think this attack can be measured in Gbits, GB/sec, GB/sec^2... In this case the attack is coming from a well known zombie botnet called congress. They measure bandwidth in tubes.
Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 01:17 · Score: 1

BULLSHIT!
An unbeknownst 100Gbps DDoS attack from a single source (that is somehow unknown), against an undisclosed target(!), that was miraculously defended against by this unknown company, who would have us believe that they are capable of doing this because of their shear might and use of magical incantations(?).
Bullshit! This entire and UTTERLY FICTITIOUS story is a thoroughly deceitful marketing campaign!
1. Re:Bullshit! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 02:53 · Score: 0
  
  An unbeknownst 100Gbps DDoS attack from a single source (that is somehow unknown),
  A DDoS attack is, by definition, NOT from a single source.
  
  capable of doing this because of their shear might and use of magical incantations
  No, they quite clearly stated it was because they have four times more available bandwidth than the DDoS was throwing at them.
  
  story is a thoroughly deceitful marketing campaign!
  Agreed.
Re:Another site down ... by X0563511 · 2013-10-02 01:49 · Score: 1

You could probably measure congressional (in)activity in bitches per second?

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
What? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 02:05 · Score: 0

I see no product mentioned in the summary, just someone talking about a large DDoS attack.
1. Re:What? by davewoods · 2013-10-02 07:20 · Score: 1
  
  FTFA:
  
  The target Website is protected by cloud security vendor Incapsula, which was able to withstand the massive distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack and keep the targeted Website up and running.
  There are a total of 8 mentions of Incapsula and how fantastic their services are.
2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 11:41 · Score: 0
  
  Who reads the fucking articles?
100Gbit by bored · 2013-10-02 02:30 · Score: 1

Is what, 100 google users in kansas with compromised machines?
Or 1000 FIOS users...
1. Re:100Gbit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 03:37 · Score: 0
  
  It's a few homosexuals in New Jersey.
Re:Another site down ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-02 05:49 · Score: 0

In case someone thinks your humorous comment is completely in jest, the USDA web site (the FNS part anyway) is indeed down, which is why I have time to type this comment -- I upload and download data there (not publically accessible database) as part of my job, and they sent me an email yesterday saying it was going down at 3PM Eastern. So until the government starts back up my job is easier. Of course, I'll be working my ass off when they're back up, there'll be a lot of catching up on stuff that should be done but can't.
Cheap Marketting by Anonymous Coward · 2013-10-04 03:31 · Score: 0

Many companies who selling DDos protection device are doing this to sell their solutions and this kind of fake news are how they are marketing in very cheapest way.