Smells more like a honeypot than anything. Now that this guy's clearly
decided to open his mouth and claim he's got the green light from the Fed,
I wouldn't be surprised if they change their mind.
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Phil Fagan philfa...@gmail.com wrote:
HAH! Thats pretty
On May 20, 2013, at 9:56 PM, Jay Farrell jay...@jayfar.com wrote:
Are you certain it was a DoS attempt?
And if you were certain, are you certain the folks at DHS were aware their
machine(s) were engaged in a DoS attack?
You can find zombies in the oddest places...
Regards,
-drc
Maybe my tinfoil isn't on tight enough, or maybe I give to much credit to a
gov't, or perhaps I'm just feeding the trolls, but I have a very hard time
believing that DHS, launched a DoS from their own machines.
-jim
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:18 PM, David Conrad d...@virtualized.org wrote:
HAH! Thats pretty funnythe tinfoil piece.
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:13 AM, jim deleskie deles...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe my tinfoil isn't on tight enough, or maybe I give to much credit to a
gov't, or perhaps I'm just feeding the trolls, but I have a very hard time
believing that DHS,
On 20 May 2013 01:58, Michael Painter tvhaw...@shaka.com wrote:
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/05/ddos-for-hire-service-works-with-blessing-of-fbi-operator-says/
More on the same topic.
http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/05/ragebooter-legit-ddos-service-or-fed-backdoor/#more-19475
Maybe the
No proxy needed. No need to hide.
While working for a very large hosting company, I once observed DHS hammering
an occupy related website. No attempt to hide the source ip or anything.
What are you going to do? Sue them? If they wish to take a site offline, they
will ddos it or simply seize
Sue them?
Uhm...yes? That's why we have courts that we can sue federal agencies in.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Charles Wyble
charles-li...@knownelement.com wrote:
No proxy needed. No need to hide.
While working for a very large hosting company, I once observed DHS hammering
an occupy
Yes. I'm aware of that. It would be futile in most cases, which is a huge
problem in and of itself, as that's really the only recourse.
I mean they were using a shared hosting plan. Not exactly deep pocketed.
My point is that the abuse of power is blatant and they are unafraid of any
kind of
Would it be futile though? I mean...DHS running a DOS against an
American organization is the kind of stuff that makes Constitutional
lawyers salivate.
I'm not trying to call you out, btw. I'm genuinely curious why the
hosting company itself didn't file suit. You've got a US Government
agency
No attempt to hide the source IP
I mean, they were using a shared hosting plan
What makes you certain it was DHS?
Genuinely curious, because this is a hell of a claim.
--
Jason
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Mike Hale eyeronic.des...@gmail.comwrote:
Would it be futile though? I mean...DHS
Sorry. The occupy site was on a shared hosting plan at the company I worked for.
Source determined via Whois output for the attacking ip found via our analysis.
It was a rather crude dos attack (repeated get requests). At first we figured
they were just mirroring the site for offline analysis
Are you certain it was a DoS attempt? They may have just been running
a surveillance software package such as URLy warning, which GETs the
pages of a site repeatedly and diffs them to watch for updates. In the
case of an (non-)organization like Occupy I can't imagine law
enforcement would neglect
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/05/ddos-for-hire-service-works-with-blessing-of-fbi-operator-says/
Like the comment below the article says, that line about turning off recursive
DNS is pretty lame. Tantamount to saying if you don't want me coming in your
house you shouldn't have used wooden doors n00b!. It's still breaking and
entering.
Call me crazy but I tend to think every service has a
14 matches
Mail list logo
