How I attacked myself using Google and I ramped up a $1000 bandwidth bill
51–60 of 152 posts
Re: How I attacked myself using Google and I ramped up a $1000 bandwidth bill
#52-1 For Google for creating what is the biggest threat to content providers by enabling easy-to-use DDOS attacks across the entire interwebs.
Seriously, is this what we have to look forward to when Google Spreadsheets, and God knows what else, become ever-more popular?
Think about all the additional onerus costs that would be incurred by content providers as more and more Google Spreadsheet users hotlink images, mp3s, videos...
This has to be a bad design decision by Google, there's no need to redownload assets by-the-hour, on-the-hour, regardless of whether the user's spreadsheet is open or not.
Is it time to go back to the days of putting your web assets behind $HTTP_REFERER?
Re: How I attacked myself using Google and I ramped up a $1000 bandwidth bill
#53The result was an email account that got an email message every second or so in a variety of languages.
We quickly realized that you could have some fun by forwarding that address to someone else's email account.
Fast forward a few months, and Gmail smartly requires a confirmation before allowing you to forward.
Re: How I attacked myself using Google and I ramped up a $1000 bandwidth bill
#54Re: How I attacked myself using Google and I ramped up a $1000 bandwidth bill
#55This really underscores Amazon's glaring omission of a billing cutoff on Amazon web services. How hard would it be for them to let me say, cut off my services at $100/month? This is the main reason I'd never use AWS to host anything public.
First, the problem isn't inherent to virtual hosting services, you could just as easily get hit by this on a bare-metal site, though the interplay of S3 and Google Docs is an added dimension.
Cutting off all services opens the door for a class of DoS attacks. Simply direct enough traffic at a single account's assets, and you'll knock them offline for a given billing cycle. If the attack is cheap to launch (botnet, URL referral network, etc.) it's a cheap attack. Different entities would have different cut-off and degradation policies.
Better would be to identify the parameters of a specific anomalous traffic pattern, but this can be hard.
A more general solution is to set asset (server side) and client (remote side) caps in tiers. You'd want generous (but not unlimited) rates for legitimate crawlers, your own infrastructure, and major clients. The rest of the Net generally gets a lower service level. Such rules are not trivial to set up, and assistance through AWS or other cloud hosting providers would be very useful.
Re: How I attacked myself using Google and I ramped up a $1000 bandwidth bill
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could put robots.txt in the bucket if you address it using the http://mybucket.s3.amazonaws.com/ alternative URL scheme - a robots.txt in the root of the bucket would then be available at http://mybucket.s3.amazonaws.com/robots.txt
Yes, that would solve the issue of not being able to have your own robots.txt file and I did not know about that. On the other hand, Feedfetcher would still ignore the robots.txt
Re: How I attacked myself using Google and I ramped up a $1000 bandwidth bill
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just as "legal" does not mean "ethical", "contractually permitted" does not mean "not a jerk move".
just like asking you to pay for the services you used is not a jerk move. Amazon did a nice thing, but the services were used. Asking to user to pay for those services (even if it was a mistake), would not have been a "jerk move"
And it makes good business sense besides. They can let the guy off and eat the probably less than a hundred or so bandwidth this guy actually cost them due to their upstream providers, get a good writeup and look better as a result,
..or kill his account, take him to collections, etc, etc, etc, (which would probably cost them more than $1K anyways), and lose a customer and get a PR black eye while they're at it.
So yeah, it would be a jerk move, and a pretty dumb one at that.
Re: How I attacked myself using Google and I ramped up a $1000 bandwidth bill
#58This really underscores Amazon's glaring omission of a billing cutoff on Amazon web services. How hard would it be for them to let me say, cut off my services at $100/month? This is the main reason I'd never use AWS to host anything public.
quite sad that Amazon still hasn't implemented bill capping yet. A lot of users want this... its been on their TODO list since 2006 https://forums.aws.amazon.com/thread.jspa?threadID=58127&...
I killed my EVDO wireless service based on a similar experience with my cell provider, after requesting multiple times that they provide me capped service. It simply wasn't worth the downside cost risk.
Re: How I attacked myself using Google and I ramped up a $1000 bandwidth bill
#59Re: How I attacked myself using Google and I ramped up a $1000 bandwidth bill
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just as "legal" does not mean "ethical", "contractually permitted" does not mean "not a jerk move".
just like asking you to pay for the services you used is not a jerk move. Amazon did a nice thing, but the services were used. Asking to user to pay for those services (even if it was a mistake), would not have been a "jerk move"