It's a logical evolution as botnets became less of a tool for lulz and more of a economic asset to certain segments of the world.
No sense launching an orbital strike where a garden hose will do the job just as well. On Mon, Nov 18, 2019 at 9:05 AM Tom Hill <t...@ninjabadger.net> wrote: > On 18/11/2019 13:50, Mike Hammett wrote: > > I would like the list to know that not all targets attract such large > > attacks. I know many eyeball ISPs that encounter less than 10 gig > > attacks, which can be reasonably absorbed\mitigated. Online gamers > > looking to boot someone else from the game aren't generally committing > >>100 gigs of resources to an attack. > > > There are two very good reasons to use 'surgical' amounts of traffic in > attacks: > > 1. Concealing the size of your botnet > > 2. Reducing the damage to the end user's ISP, and thus reducing the > likelihood that they escalate the attack to the authorities (because > who's got the time to do that for an individual subscriber?) > > The shift to "just enough to knock the customer off without killing the > whole network" happened around ~2015 in my capacity, at least. > > -- > Tom >
