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

We are under attack

en.greatfire.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 283 posts

Re: We are under attack

#231

Post by e12e »

h43k3r wrote: post #222
axaxs wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't need the latest hardware and enterprisey features, give soyoustart.com a look. It's an OVH company on same network with same DDOS protection that uses the 'OVH' brand recycled servers. About half the cost. And if you don't need any support or server hardware, give kimsufi a look. I do not work for OVH, but am so impressed by their automation and value in this field I refuse to use anyone else.

I am just wondering how can one know about such sites. I always thought the DO is one of the cheapest.

Did you recently start looking at hosting? Have a look at:

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=2 (and most of the rest of the site).

Re: We are under attack

#232

Post by e12e »

NegatioN wrote: post #115
xnull6guest wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I nice anti-China spin might be part of the mission...?

Re: We are under attack

#233

Post by fleitz »

1ris wrote: post #136
LLWM wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you don't hold human rights over revenue, what's your view on slavery?

I'm sure whatever country you do live and pay taxes in has at some point in the recent past violated someone's human rights, or at least they have in someone's opinion.

Given that the country you live in has violated human rights to some extent, and that you could reduce your contribution to that by not earning taxable income or purchasing taxable goods, is it not also your defacto position that you value revenue over human rights?

(My apologies in advance if you've ceased paying taxes, or buying anything taxable, or if somehow no one in the world believes your country has violated human rights, or might do so in the future, or your position is that revenue > human rights)

My point is that the world is a lot more grey than you make it out to be, and that you are also in some way likely valuing revenue over some human rights abuses.

Re: We are under attack

#234

Post by lazylizard »

moe wrote: post #24
stevecalifornia wrote: post #11

Contact 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.

Don't call Akamai. Never call Akamai. They are horrible. Try Incapsula, GigENet, Blacklotus, Cloudflare first.

isit possible to combine them? like, would my domain actually resolve if i change my name servers to cloudflare's, then cname it to incapsula? i'm just curious...

Re: We are under attack

#235

Post by mauricemir »

AYBABTME wrote: post #75
diminoten wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forgive my outburst, and maybe this sentiment won't be well received given the context, but I just find it to be downright unpatriotic for a US company like CloudFlare to stand there saying things like what Matt Prince says in your quote, when someone comes under attack by an opposing nation state. Again, I realize this place isn't exactly a bastion for this kind of sentiment, but have some thought for freedom here,…

Not everyone desires to take part in geopolitics and become a tool of diplomacy. Some people just want to do their business and it's perfectly fine in my opinion. You can't force people to be patriotic or to feel a patriotic call.

Ah freeriders

Re: We are under attack

#236

Post by tormeh »

MichaelGG wrote: post #172
JohnHaugeland wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the "he" in question is the relevant standards authority.

The IEEE and/or SI are in charge of language? The same IEEE that sends car insurance offers to its members, just so we're clear. JEDEC is also a standards group, and they disagree. What now, a Wikipedia editing war to determine the victor? Standards bodies aren't anything magical, and I don't get the slavish following they seem to get. So an RFC says something, or another group mandates something. BFD. Unless you're…

Sorry for going all ed on you, but SI is THE standard for measurements and measurement prefixes. And that's the end of the story.

Re: We are under attack

#237

Post by methou »

A number of the DDoSes from China are involuntary induced by DNS Poisoning. When users query a block dns name, they may receive an IP other than the website they want to visit. It may used to redirect traffic to make DDoS without those 'drones' even know about they're involved. Just like for a week long, whenever I try to access Facebook, I got redirected to some german IP, and receive a TLS CN mismatch error.

Re: We are under attack

#238

Post by methou »

latj wrote: post #154
powertower wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't providers just set up a system that creates a country-level null route for a given destination IP? And have a UI with a checkbox for the user to do it, for any selected country. It would mitigate the issue, and once it's over, the user can un-restrict traffic / or just keep blocking if it's a non-valuable source. I know you can do this on the server, using many different techniques. But this does not help a…

The point of their website is to make censored content available to Chinese users. China is attacking them to prevent Chinese people from reading the website. Your suggestion is to make the site unavailable to China. Do you see why it is not a solution? You are basically setting up a market for censorship-- the attack doesnt ever have to end-- depending on how much China is willing to pay to keep the website offline.

Their website alone can't help those Chinese users get rid of GFW, but can provide information to those who already can.

Attacking a single site is like more pro-active movement of the GFW itself, and a sign it can be so much worse.

Re: We are under attack

#239

Post by disjointrevelry »

I hope you keep us up to date. I live in the US and I've had accounts suddenly locked out after their passwords were changed even for criticizing some Chinese issue. Several email accounts, among other sites. With the amount of money the Chinese are spending, I think it's not going to be easy in the US. Maybe you're an American and things will be easier for you, but I've learned not to trust the natives. Not even their law enforcement.

Maybe the corporations might be more stable and have more integrity, but you have to realize that China is the largest economy in the world now, and they can flick Amazon out of their market with their pinky and not even blink.

Re: We are under attack

#240

Post by pi-err »

chralieboy wrote: post #39
pi-err wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure that turning the light off is the first thing you want to do when you're bullied. And pretty certain that there's zero PR value in those stories.

They wouldn't just be giving in, it would take less than a day to get up and running on CloudFlare. That is probably worth avoiding $30k bill, especially for a non-profit. As for PR, there absolutely is good will towards organizations that take on censorship. This is the #1 story on HN, so a company stepping in and saying "we got this covered, free of charge" not only shows they are good people, but also gives would…

My reaction was based on the interview where they say that the 30k$ charge was harming, not killing them. You're more knowledgeable than me on CloudFlare and it may very well be a strong option.

Now in a way their $ penalty with this attack is not unlike growth. To me it sounds like they invested in their branding and will have a name as a company that can sustain damage and keep its ground - important because their goal is to be credible in bringing content in/out China.

What if they had given in? They'd be yet another victim of an attack sort of linked with China.

I do see a business sense behind what I assumed was their moral stance and I definitely stand by it.

Post reply on HN