Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the FBI raided Anonymous

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 168 posts

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#2

Post by jrockway »

It's funny that Mastercard can't defend against an attack that my home router is capable of defending against. (A big limit on connections per /24 per minute should solve this problem. So will using a smart webserver or frontend proxy that doesn't care how many idle connections there are. Then all you have to worry about is bandwidth saturation rather than your servers crashing.)

But the lesson here is, when you visit a web page, a line in a log that identifies you is generated. Generate too many of these lines, and, one line of Perl later, the cops are going to be asking you some questions. Don't participate in a DDoS attack unless you're absolutely sure that nobody is logging your traffic. And that is something that's impossible to be sure of these days.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#4

Post by aphyr »

jrockway wrote: post #2

It's funny that Mastercard can't defend against an attack that my home router is capable of defending against. (A big limit on connections per /24 per minute should solve this problem. So will using a smart webserver or frontend proxy that doesn't care how many idle connections there are. Then all you have to worry about is bandwidth saturation rather than your servers crashing.) But the lesson here is, when you visi…

It seems like it would be trivial to get someone's door busted down by running LOIC aggressively on their computer. I wonder--at what point can the FBI's enthusiastic enforcement be directed, in some sense, as a weapon?

Edit: I've watched Anonymous (insert typical disclaimer about the membership of a heterogenous group of net users) attack more than one of my boxes. DDOS's have been traditionally been the regime of surreptitious botnets, not voluntary ones. I'll bet you some unsuspecting soccer mom (or someone who pisses off Anon) gets nabbed at some point.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#6

Post by epochwolf »

borism wrote: post #3

Let me get this straight. All this fanfare, and all they got was a bunch of teenagers (who most likely are not even legally liable) + their moms?

I would be willing to bet the teenagers are either most of anonymous or anonymous's cannon fodder. I'm leaning towards the second because it's so much cooler. :)

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#7

Post by kotrin »

"We have noted that similar attacks have also been carried out against Wikileaks itself, yet so far, nobody has been arrested in connection with these attacks, nor are there even any signs of an investigation into this issue at all,"

I think that is one of the most important points of this article.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#8

Post by tptacek »

borism wrote: post #3

Let me get this straight. All this fanfare, and all they got was a bunch of teenagers (who most likely are not even legally liable) + their moms?

What does being a teenager have to do with being liable? If they're criminally liable, they'll be tried by a juvenile court. If they're civilly liable, their parents will face civil suits.

Re: How the FBI raided Anonymous

#9

Post by jacquesm »

kotrin wrote: post #7

"We have noted that similar attacks have also been carried out against Wikileaks itself, yet so far, nobody has been arrested in connection with these attacks, nor are there even any signs of an investigation into this issue at all," I think that is one of the most important points of this article.

Somehow I don't think the protection of Wikileaks' servers figured very high on the priority lists.
Post reply on HN