Computer Hope
Other => Computer News => Topic started by: kpac on May 27, 2009, 06:17:36 AM
-
Millions of Chinese Internet users from the Shanxi, Guangxi, Zhejiang, Jiangsu and Hebei provinces had trouble getting online on Tuesday, because of a domain name system (DNS) chain reaction caused by an initial denial of service attack against a single provider.
Link (http://news.softpedia.com/news/DDoS-Attack-Leaves-Five-Chinese-Provinces-Without-Internet-112313.shtml)
-
Hmm pretty interesting and a pretty significant attack. Hate how something as simple as a DoS attack can cause such havoc.
-
Hmm pretty interesting and a pretty significant attack. Hate how something as simple as a DoS attack can cause such havoc.
I wonder if LOIC was used...
-
That sucks, the sad thing is that I have some clue maybe how they done it, not going to say how I came accrossed it since I find it pointless to use something like that. Also, I noticed that when I was shearching for Dos based programs I came accrossed things close but worse then cloner. So that stuff isnt hard to get.
-
DDOS is unrelated to the DOS OS.
-
Its not like the Chinese have many sites to go to anyways. But I cant belive a dos attack did all that! Isnt that when you have a bunch of zombie computers pretty much just pinging a server?
-
Oh okay I was wondering cause you started just talking of Dos. Any how I still know which is pointless, yes it is.
-
squall, can you please use the QUOTE feature in future?
DoS = Denial of Service
-
::) Disk Boot Operating System = DOS
-
Denial-of-Service (DoS) Attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_service)
-
Oh, I was refering to that which can be done in it. Not going to say anymore about it then that. I find that kind of racist.
-
Weird...Wouldn't expect a DoS to do so much damage, but would seem understandable if the servers were already taking a large burden before the attack
-
::) Disk Boot Operating System = DOS
err...
Disk Boot Operating System would be DBOS...
Weird...Wouldn't expect a DoS to do so much damage, but would seem understandable if the servers were already taking a large burden before the attack
take for example, how the ping command sends 32 bytes of data (by default, you can change it, but for the sake of argument let's say the "hackers" have the intellectual capabilities of a water chestnut, and don't know how).
Now, if the botnet consisted of a thosand PCs, all of those sending the ping command (which I believe sends 4 32-byte ICMP packets). that would be, of course, 32000 bytes about 31K, four times, for around 128K of data being sent every few seconds. depending on the server this might not even be noticable.
But botnets are fairly easy to grow- some botnets I believe have grown to hundreds of thousands, even millions of PCs.
In a way, it's kind of like a focusing mirror. by themselves, computers and their users might seem to simply connect, request data, disconnect, semirandomly- however, a botnet can focus say, a million PCs on sending packets to a single router at their target. 32 Million bytes of data- which is 256 megabits, even on a gigabit connection that's a good chunk of bandwidth, and it's enough to bring down any 100mbps connection.
The goal of a DOS or DDOS is simply to deny service to legitimate viewers of a site/subdomain/DNS by constantly hitting a machine with pings from a large number of sources. By essentially drowning out the legitimate traffic with their redundant ping requests, they might cause the server to start throwing up errors for legitimate users.
In other instances the motive is purely for prestige. For example the fact that Microsoft.com simply doesn't respond to ping requests is because the entire "haxor" world of calculator basic programmers just learning the basics of command prompt is constantly trying out their l337 5ki11z by using the ping command on Microsoft.com.
-
err...
Disk Boot Operating System would be DBOS...
take for example, how the ping command sends 32 bytes of data (by default, you can change it, but for the sake of argument let's say the "hackers" have the intellectual capabilities of a water chestnut, and don't know how).
Now, if the botnet consisted of a thosand PCs, all of those sending the ping command (which I believe sends 4 32-byte ICMP packets). that would be, of course, 32000 bytes about 31K, four times, for around 128K of data being sent every few seconds. depending on the server this might not even be noticable.
But botnets are fairly easy to grow- some botnets I believe have grown to hundreds of thousands, even millions of PCs.
In a way, it's kind of like a focusing mirror. by themselves, computers and their users might seem to simply connect, request data, disconnect, semirandomly- however, a botnet can focus say, a million PCs on sending packets to a single router at their target. 32 Million bytes of data- which is 256 megabits, even on a gigabit connection that's a good chunk of bandwidth, and it's enough to bring down any 100mbps connection.
The goal of a DOS or DDOS is simply to deny service to legitimate viewers of a site/subdomain/DNS by constantly hitting a machine with pings from a large number of sources. By essentially drowning out the legitimate traffic with their redundant ping requests, they might cause the server to start throwing up errors for legitimate users.
In other instances the motive is purely for prestige. For example the fact that Microsoft.com simply doesn't respond to ping requests is because the entire "haxor" world of calculator basic programmers just learning the basics of command prompt is constantly trying out their l337 5ki11z by using the ping command on Microsoft.com.
Ahh...so the main purpose of a DoS is to simply focus the pings, which in turn floods the servers from a overload in bandwidth?
-
that's the jist of it, yes. I figure it's an ongoing battle on each side, with the site/domain owner's trying to protect themselves from illegitimate traffic and at the same time let in legitimate connections, while the "hackers" learn about new switches to ping. Or something along those lines. (hey, their not capable of much- they do, after all, only possess the intellectual prowess of a water chestnut ;D).
In order to provide them with a more thorough analysis, some companies specialize in something called "pen-testing" which essentially means that they pretend they are trying to perform a DDOS on the client or hack into their network, or something similar. By doing so, the client can learn a lot about their current security implementation, not just technology-wise, but also personnel training wise. the strongest firewalls don't help you at all if a hacker can simply phone up somebody that works there, say they are hacing login problems, facing a deadline, (throw in a few names that they got through research) and the user gives up their ID and password, giving the hacker access.
But I'm starting to get a teensy bit off-topic.
-
Thanks for clearing that up, and yes...back on topic, shall we.
-
I find that kind of racist.
ok how do you find anything here racist? Anyways, your right! You cant ping microsoft.com! thats wierd. Why cant you ping them?
-
ok how do you find anything here racist? Anyways, your right! You cant ping microsoft.com! thats wierd. Why cant you ping them?
In other instances the motive is purely for prestige. For example the fact that Microsoft.com simply doesn't respond to ping requests is because the entire "haxor" world of calculator basic programmers just learning the basics of command prompt is constantly trying out their l337 5ki11z by using the ping command on Microsoft.com.
That explains it, right?
-
cause it was an attack on the chinese people.
-
ohhhh
-
cause it was an attack on the chinese people.
except it was probably done my chinese people as well.
-
Probably the Government...who are Chinese as well.
Squall your point has no merit.
-
can you back track and tell me that its not someone who is?
-
Can you back track and rephrase your sentence because I cannot understand you.
Anyways, with the way they've set it up on the mainland, it's not surprising they all suffered a DDoS attack.
-
Lets get back on topic before we all get a DoS(or even a BSOD...hehe, jk)
-
::) I ment could you track it back to the sender an tell me.
-
an you back track and tell me that its not someone who is?
Can you backtrack and tell us that it's somebody who is?
-
nope cause I cant hack
-
It doesn't take a genius to set up a fairly good sized DoS botnet.
-
your looking at one person who probably cant :-X
-
AhAaaaaa...
So it was DOS after all...... ::)
-
AhAaaaaa...
So it was DOS after all...... ::)
With its might, fail safe 8/3 Rule! 8)
-
I just can't help observing 1/2 of the comments here are drivel...
Just thought i'd have some fun with it.
OK i'm done.
-
It won't be long before this thread becomes about peanut butter. So before that happens I would like to contribute that there are a number of jams that go wonderfully with peanut butter. The science may not exist to prove why the taste combination of peanuts and smashed berries goes so well together but it appears to be a culinary constant. Now the real question is, while there are a number of different types of jams, going from strawberry, raspberry, blackberries, and any number of combinations with other common drupes, there are some that depend on taste. For example, blueberries. If you don't like blueberries, a blueberry jam and peanut butter sandwich will not be your favourite, regardless of how intense your love for peanut butter is. Also some people who do like blueberries detest the fact that in order to create blueberry jam it is necessary to add synthetic pectin since blueberries don't contain quite enough of their own. But I suppose that depends on their viewpoint on artificial food additives.
Apple jam, on the other hand, while still requiring a proper affection for it's flavour, and while not going with peanut butter quite as well as berries, is one of the highest pectin containing fruits, and thus requires no synthetic pectin.
Bananas, a natural companion with peanut butter, while traditionally simply served via slices on the bread alongside the chosen form of peanut butter, can also be smashed in much the same format as berries to create a gooey yellowish white mass that tastes of bananas and is easily spreadable.
OK. I'm done now too.
-
I roasted a Rainbow Trout ( fresh caught ) on the grill yesterday and stuffed it with 2 sliced bananas ; bread crumbs and a healthy dollop of peanut butter smeared inside...
My strategy worked...i got to eat it all to myself.
-
the science behind culinary art is often both misunderstood and overly contemplative. a prime example being the often disparaged combination of ketchup and chocolate pudding. It sounds unorthodox, and people disparage it before even trying it, with their own biases and filters taking effect, telling them such a combination will fail without actually performing an actual scientific observation, instead lending their opinion to superstition that sweet and savoury only go together in sweet and sour pork. So, I decided to try it myself. I mixed 1/2 ketchup and 1/2 chocolate pudding, and discovered it was horrible. like eating out of a goats *censored*. It also looked like a bloody stool, which didn't really help matters either. However, I was proud to say that I was the first person to come to that conclusion based on the solid evidence of observation, rather then some silly presumption based entirely on traditional culinary knowledge.
The Board says i've exceeded the character limit...so BC's not allowed in my sig
LOL
which one were you trying for?
-
Based on that premise you would have never came up with your cheese drink recipe so i just don't get it...
You know they serve it on the Riviera now ? ?
-
exactly! following "traditional" culinary ideals always results in the same old drab culinary experiences. I kick it up a notch with unexpected twists, like peach marinaded beefsteak, or fruit salad with beef gravy. Or- vodka and cheese.
Why, I guarantee that before the Peanut butter and jam sandwich set the standard for basic nutritional supplements for young and old alike the idea of peanut butter and jam in the same dish was appalling, much in the same way most people produce a contorted facial expression when I tell them of my exploits with my "jolly rancher" turkey recipe.
You know they serve it on the Riviera now
Actually, we're in a legal battle with them, they insist that they invented the drink by accident when a drunkard, who consumed large quantities of both alcohol and cheese, vomited in somebody elses glass when they weren't looking. that lucky person was, according to them "the first person to indulge in the ecstasy of cheese, vodka, and a smattering of gastrointestinal flotsam and jetsam". what a ridiculously unbelievable story! there was no way the drunkard consumed the exact proportions and fermented the cheese further in their stomach before "delivering" it to the eventual recipient. Additionally how does one only vomit a glassful? A ludicrous story at best. But I'll leave it to my well paid lawyers. at least until they realize they aren't getting paid.