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

Bluesky has been dealing with a DDoS attack for nearly a full day

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 107 posts

Re: Bluesky has been dealing with a DDoS attack for nearly a full day

#11

Post by cryzinger »

minimaxir wrote: post #2

The prevalent discourse/attempt-at-a-meme-but-people-are-taking-it-seriously saying "Bluesky is down because of AI vibecoding!" is starting to get annoying and unoriginal. Even when Bluesky confirmed it's a DDoS, the line is now "maybe they wouldn't have gotten DDoSed if they didn't vibecode and their code was better."

A week or two ago, when there was a Bluesky outage and a Claude outage at the same time, people were earnestly pointing to that as evidence that Claude was somehow a load-bearing component of Bluesky, or that AI vibecoding had caused the outage... I had to just disengage but I was also very annoyed by it all.

Re: Bluesky has been dealing with a DDoS attack for nearly a full day

#14

Post by OuterVale »

The interface seemed to function as normal, but specifically the API was targeted, which left a lot of confused users who were seeing the interface peppered with errors. Watching as it unfolded, it seems it affected certain regions to begin with and then slowly spread worldwide.

Seems they might have failed to host the status page (https://status.bsky.app) separately as well, because that went down several times throughout the outage. They also weren't very active in updating the status page, and the notice that was there had a typo of 'reginos' and a description of 'null'.

Re: Bluesky has been dealing with a DDoS attack for nearly a full day

#15

Post by LoganDark »

userbinator wrote: post #3

What are the chances some company offers to "save" them with a security service which coincidentally will also require users to use the latest officially-sanctioned browsers, OSes, and "trusted" hardware to pass the "security check"...

At least Apple devices are actually secure and can't really be omitted from things other than gaming and business. Granted, gaming and business are pretty important.

Re: Bluesky has been dealing with a DDoS attack for nearly a full day

#16

Post by eukara »

anon7000 wrote: post #8
bit1993 wrote: post #6

A decentralized protocol by definition should not be vulnerable to DDos attacks.

You’re saying a mastodon instance can’t vet DDosed?

Truth is if mastodon.social gets ddosd the same as Bluesky I can still use the rest of the network fine. Proof is in the pudding. tons of instances that make up the fabric of redundancy. I think most people would be served better if Bluesky acted differently early with their rollout in a sharded manner?

Re: Bluesky has been dealing with a DDoS attack for nearly a full day

#18

Post by snailmailman »

anon7000 wrote: post #8
bit1993 wrote: post #6

A decentralized protocol by definition should not be vulnerable to DDos attacks.

You’re saying a mastodon instance can’t vet DDosed?

The people I follow on mastodon come from a wide variety of instances. While mastodon.social is the largest instance, most of the accounts I follow are elsewhere.

Granted, all the smaller instances are likely easier to DOS as they are small instances. But mastodon is actually decentralized. If any one instance goes down, everything else keeps working. Unlike Bluesky and ATProto which is more of a theoretical “could be” decentralized.

Re: Bluesky has been dealing with a DDoS attack for nearly a full day

#19

Post by Charon77 »

eukara wrote: post #16
anon7000 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re saying a mastodon instance can’t vet DDosed?

Truth is if mastodon.social gets ddosd the same as Bluesky I can still use the rest of the network fine. Proof is in the pudding. tons of instances that make up the fabric of redundancy. I think most people would be served better if Bluesky acted differently early with their rollout in a sharded manner?

True. The only 'distributed' part of bluesky is in the PR. Otherwise there'd be more instances.

My mastodon account is not even on mastodon.social, because why would I, when I could have a home server closer to home

Post reply on HN