Post the IP addresses from which you're getting attacked. Others can analyze them by ISP, and public pressure on the worst ISPs might help.
The bad ISP in question is the People's Republic of China.
We are under attack
111–120 of 283 posts
Re: We are under attack
#112Contact Akamai who recently bought the DDOS mitigation service Prolexic. They may be able to mitigate the attack and save you bandwidth costs. Alternatively, call CloudFlare. Don't just absorb this through Amazon.
CloudFlare is probably not a good choice. They recently blocked access to a similar service, Lantern, per the linked WSJ article. "CloudFlare, which offers content-delivery network services, said last week it cut off Lantern’s use of the service, saying it was unauthorized. “We don’t do anything to thwart the content restrictions in China or other countries,” said Matthew Prince, chief executive of CloudFlare. “We’re…
> I'm not very impressed. Maybe someone from CloudFlare is around to defend that position further.
That's really rich, considering CloudFlare happily takes money from booter services. These guys are scum, I have no idea why HN fawns over them.
Re: We are under attack
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
CloudFlare is probably not a good choice. They recently blocked access to a similar service, Lantern, per the linked WSJ article. "CloudFlare, which offers content-delivery network services, said last week it cut off Lantern’s use of the service, saying it was unauthorized. “We don’t do anything to thwart the content restrictions in China or other countries,” said Matthew Prince, chief executive of CloudFlare. “We’re…
LOL. Booters (that carry out DDoS attacks which are illegal in CloudFlare's own country)? No problem for CloudFlare. Trying to circumvent Chinese content restrictions? Nope, that's unauthorized!
Yep, it's hilarious. Cue Mr. Prince to come in here and give a half-assed explanation as to why it's not actually a contradiction, even though it clearly is.
Re: We are under attack
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an optimistic view. My take on it is "market share|revenue > human rights". EDIT: It turns out Lantern was using an exploit at Cloudflare [+], and wasn't a customer. My apologies /u/eastdakota. [+] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9234367
More accurately "market share|revenue > political activism"
[deleted]
Re: We are under attack
#115> Because of the number of requests we are receiving, our bandwidth costs have shot up to USD $30,000 per day. Perhaps the US State Department might be inclined to help?
This is the correct answer. Given that this website is part of the 'civil society' sphere, it likely already gets taxpayer money from the State Department. They should go to their funders - be they public or private - and ask for help with their mission - I'm not sure it's appropriate to ask individuals for help.
But the funders won't solve this problem though, only mitigate it. (though I agree it's something they definitely should do ASAP) Putting it out there like this, seems more likely to overcome the technical difficulties of it.
Re: We are under attack
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "We don’t do anything to thwart the content restrictions in China or other countries," said Matthew Prince, chief executive of CloudFlare. "We’re a tech company and we comply with the law." There's a popular idea that businesses (and people) have no responsibilities to anyone but themselves, because what they have is theirs; they built it themselves. But if you think about it a little, it's obviously false. Here's…
That's an optimistic view. My take on it is "market share|revenue > human rights". EDIT: It turns out Lantern was using an exploit at Cloudflare [+], and wasn't a customer. My apologies /u/eastdakota. [+] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9234367
What counts as human rights is subjective. The UN says that it is a human right to receive and express opinions through any medium. Does that mean that we should hold "human rights" to be more important than revenue and forbid service providers from charging for access to information? Like the WSJ who wrote the article that's supposedly to blame here?
Re: We are under attack
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
CloudFlare is probably not a good choice. They recently blocked access to a similar service, Lantern, per the linked WSJ article. "CloudFlare, which offers content-delivery network services, said last week it cut off Lantern’s use of the service, saying it was unauthorized. “We don’t do anything to thwart the content restrictions in China or other countries,” said Matthew Prince, chief executive of CloudFlare. “We’re…
> I'm not very impressed. Maybe someone from CloudFlare is around to defend that position further. That's really rich, considering CloudFlare happily takes money from booter services. These guys are scum, I have no idea why HN fawns over them.
Because they provide a useful service and do it well?
Re: We are under attack
#118State sponsored cyber warfare is something that happens at a scale that normal private companies and organizations are not well equipped to deal with. I wonder if there's someone you can alert in the government who can consider coordinating a counterattack or pass a backchannel note to the right people to cut it out.
Calling a simple DDoS cyber warfare is a bit hyperbolic when we know there are actual sophisticated attacks being carried out against far more important targets.
Re: We are under attack
#119They couldn't wait a day? http://gizmodo.com/china-finally-admits-it-has-an-army-of-ha...
Perhaps next week they'll admit they have a navy.
Re: We are under attack
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an optimistic view. My take on it is "market share|revenue > human rights". EDIT: It turns out Lantern was using an exploit at Cloudflare [+], and wasn't a customer. My apologies /u/eastdakota. [+] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9234367
What counts as human rights is subjective. The UN says that it is a human right to receive and express opinions through any medium. Does that mean that we should hold "human rights" to be more important than revenue and forbid service providers from charging for access to information? Like the WSJ who wrote the article that's supposedly to blame here?
[deleted]