CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility • Hacker News Board

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#21

Post by MatthewPhillips » Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 11:29 PM UTC

AndyJPartridge wrote: post #13

Off topic, sorry, but not sure where I'd ask this. I posted this news 15 minutes before this submission. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2659263 Can someone explain to this newbie why mine disappeared so quickly, but this stayed? I don't have a problem at all, I just wish to understand the system thanks.

Which post "wins" is pretty random, I wouldn't waste any time trying to figure out why. This isn't Digg where certain users get a million upvotes.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#22

Post by madmaze » Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 11:30 PM UTC

AndyJPartridge wrote: post #15

27182818284 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first thought too. I immediately tried to load CIA and then thought, "Maybe they didn't hack it at all but just put out their Twitter message to drive traffic at it?" Or more interestingly, if they were in the process of hacking or something and wanted the cover of a torrent of strangers trying to reach their site.

I just happened to be looking at my Twitter feed the very moment they posted, and clicked the link immediately. No go. Would this effect happen so quick? I guess they do have a lot of followers, but I'd hope that even if all of them did what I did they could survive that amount of hits?

perhaps they were DDOSing it and brought it to a crawl, then all the other visitors streaming in would certainly give it the final blow

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#23

Post by 9999 » Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 11:30 PM UTC

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #6

Is it a (d)dos or an actual hack?

Feels like the former. Were it the latter, they would have probably defaced the page or announced that they'd stolen some data, etc.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#24

Post by zyfo » Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 11:31 PM UTC

The Jester, greyhat patriot who hacked Talibans' websites and forced Wikileaks to change their hosting, is now going after LulzSec. This is a lot more entertaining than TV: https://twitter.com/#!/th3j35t3r

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#25

Post by madmaze » Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 11:31 PM UTC

AndyJPartridge wrote: post #15

27182818284 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My first thought too. I immediately tried to load CIA and then thought, "Maybe they didn't hack it at all but just put out their Twitter message to drive traffic at it?" Or more interestingly, if they were in the process of hacking or something and wanted the cover of a torrent of strangers trying to reach their site.

I just happened to be looking at my Twitter feed the very moment they posted, and clicked the link immediately. No go. Would this effect happen so quick? I guess they do have a lot of followers, but I'd hope that even if all of them did what I did they could survive that amount of hits?

The other thing to keep in mind is that cia.gov is probably not made to handle lots of traffic, since I cant imagine them having a massive day-to-day userbase.. hence I assume it would be rather easy to get them choked up with traffic

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#26

Post by dvdhsu » Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 11:31 PM UTC

AndyJPartridge wrote: post #18

kooshball wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well one reason would be OP linked to an article, you linked to a site that doesnt load...

Ah :-) So I should have used the text option then? A broken link gets it immediately marked down? Makes sense.

> A broken link gets it immediately marked down? Makes sense.

If we can't open the site, we scratch our heads and move on. On the other hand, if we can open the site, we scratch our heads and say: "Yeah right! The site isn't down! No upvote for you!"

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#27

Post by InclinedPlane » Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 11:32 PM UTC

drivebyacct2 wrote: post #6

Is it a (d)dos or an actual hack?

DDOS most likely, lulzsec has being doing a lot of ddos lately so that's the most probable scenario.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#28

Post by gst » Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 11:33 PM UTC

sdoowpilihp wrote: post #12

Are there truly this many servers out there that are so horrendously behind on updates that they can be picked off like this?

This doesn't have to do with security updates. This is most likely a simple ddos/flooding attack and there are not many things you can do against them.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#29

Post by sbierwagen » Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 11:33 PM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #19

What on earth is their plan?

To generate lulz.

Re: CIA.gov Possibly Down, LulzSec Claims Responsibility

#30

Post by AndyJPartridge » Wed, Jun 15, 2011, 11:39 PM UTC

AndyJPartridge wrote: post #13

Off topic, sorry, but not sure where I'd ask this. I posted this news 15 minutes before this submission. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2659263 Can someone explain to this newbie why mine disappeared so quickly, but this stayed? I don't have a problem at all, I just wish to understand the system thanks.

Thanks all for taking the time to clear that up for me.