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

Basecamp was under network attack

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 194 posts

Re: Basecamp was under network attack

#41

Post by Danieru »

alandarev wrote: post #9
janlukacs wrote: post #4

Although a smaller service, we were in a similar situation a couple of years ago. We assumed it was a competitor because there were not monetary requests, just a massive DDoS via torrents that lasted almost a week. Data center didn't help us in any way... it was crazy. Worst thing is that 90% of customers have no clue what a DDoS is and how hard it is to handle.

How is torrents protocol used to DDoS you? I never came across torrents being used as a DDoS. I would appreciate more details on what sort of torrent attack it was, and whether you found any ways of partially neglecting damage.

A malicious tracker, or a peer if using DHT, can claim an IP, the victim, is active in the swarm and has valuable bits of the torrent. Then torrent clients will try to connect to the victim.

The attack is pretty clever, being indirect it is hard to trace and because bittorrent allows arbitrary ports you can hit a specific ip & port pair.

The one downside is the victims can be sure it is a bittorrent DDOS by checking the attacking connection's requests. The attacker's packets will contain bittorrent's magic connection bits.

Re: Basecamp was under network attack

#42

Post by mikeryan »

jebus989 wrote: post #29
swanson wrote: post #5

Some great language there: framing it as an attack by criminals (gains sympathy from users), explains in plain-terms what a DDOS is (front door analogy), emphasizes (twice!) that user data is safe, apologizes for the likely downtime, informs people where to get updates. Probably worth bookmarking this for when you [hopefully never] have to deal with this same situation.

They use "criminals" 5 times in that short statement. IMO the overuse of emotive language is unnecessary and belies the emotional state of the author. Stay professional and detached—it's a DDoS, I've no doubt it's frustrating but they happen. I prefer Github's recent response [0], clear and helpful but without the rhetoric. [0] https://github.com/blog/1796-denial-of-service-attacks

Github's response would be a whole lot of technical, unhelpful nonsense for most basecamp users.

There's certainly a bit of knowing your audience here.

Re: Basecamp was under network attack

#43

Post by shaneofalltrad »

jebus989 wrote: post #29
swanson wrote: post #5

Some great language there: framing it as an attack by criminals (gains sympathy from users), explains in plain-terms what a DDOS is (front door analogy), emphasizes (twice!) that user data is safe, apologizes for the likely downtime, informs people where to get updates. Probably worth bookmarking this for when you [hopefully never] have to deal with this same situation.

They use "criminals" 5 times in that short statement. IMO the overuse of emotive language is unnecessary and belies the emotional state of the author. Stay professional and detached—it's a DDoS, I've no doubt it's frustrating but they happen. I prefer Github's recent response [0], clear and helpful but without the rhetoric. [0] https://github.com/blog/1796-denial-of-service-attacks

Personally I would rather them show some emotion, as it shares their frustration and anger at these idiots. Also, "criminals" reiterates to the attackers and potential copy-cats, this really is a criminal act and you can be punished.

Re: Basecamp was under network attack

#44

Post by codazoda »

ewillbefull wrote: post #27
janlukacs wrote: post #4

Although a smaller service, we were in a similar situation a couple of years ago. We assumed it was a competitor because there were not monetary requests, just a massive DDoS via torrents that lasted almost a week. Data center didn't help us in any way... it was crazy. Worst thing is that 90% of customers have no clue what a DDoS is and how hard it is to handle.

I used to know people who performed these types of DDoS attacks. Usually it was because they were hired to do so by a competitor. Every time they would claim to demand a ransom, although they didn't expect for it to be paid. It just made people less suspicious.

A competitor using a DDOS against you seems like a very bad idea. A likely outcome, for a popular service, is that you get free press as a result. The news, combined with the way Bootcamp has handled this, will probably increase their business.

Re: Basecamp was under network attack

#46

Post by valarauca1 »

geetee wrote: post #21
[deleted] wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

Explain please.

The problem he may have is its a bit to reassuring. They claim user data is safe while being under attack. This is conceptually very similar to teaching kids that if you duck and cover during an ICBM strike you'll be fine.

>This is like a bunch of people blocking the front door and not letting you into your house. The contents of your house are safe -- you just can’t get in until they get out of the way.

If this is truly 110% true, they couldn't even ssh into their servers (in before, "You don't ssh each into individual shards"). Which I'm betting they can, which means their are still attack vectors to exploit.

Re: Basecamp was under network attack

#47

Post by jebus989 »

Karunamon wrote: post #35
jebus989 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They use "criminals" 5 times in that short statement. IMO the overuse of emotive language is unnecessary and belies the emotional state of the author. Stay professional and detached—it's a DDoS, I've no doubt it's frustrating but they happen. I prefer Github's recent response [0], clear and helpful but without the rhetoric. [0] https://github.com/blog/1796-denial-of-service-attacks

Rhetoric? You've got people who just attempted to blackmail you and then take your service offline when you refuse. The descriptive term "criminal", i.e. one who breaks laws, is perfectly valid IMO.

Of course it's valid, rhetoric != lies.

Re: Basecamp was under network attack

#48

Post by mgorsuch »

joevandyk wrote: post #31

Has anyone defended a DDoS attack on an application hosted on Amazon's AWS/EC2? If so, how did that go? Did Amazon help?

I was involved with a company that received several attacks on AWS. We were premium support customers, and were able to work with our AWS TAM to get a mitigation device in place and turned on. It was a bit shaky at that time, as this was not a common service offering. Things may be better now.

Re: Basecamp was under network attack

#49

Post by mbesto »

jebus989 wrote: post #29
swanson wrote: post #5

Some great language there: framing it as an attack by criminals (gains sympathy from users), explains in plain-terms what a DDOS is (front door analogy), emphasizes (twice!) that user data is safe, apologizes for the likely downtime, informs people where to get updates. Probably worth bookmarking this for when you [hopefully never] have to deal with this same situation.

They use "criminals" 5 times in that short statement. IMO the overuse of emotive language is unnecessary and belies the emotional state of the author. Stay professional and detached—it's a DDoS, I've no doubt it's frustrating but they happen. I prefer Github's recent response [0], clear and helpful but without the rhetoric. [0] https://github.com/blog/1796-denial-of-service-attacks

Except GitHub's audience is very different from Basecamp's. The first rule of any communication is - know your audience. Well played by DHH.

Re: Basecamp was under network attack

#50

Post by mhurron »

belorn wrote: post #37
Karunamon wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rhetoric? You've got people who just attempted to blackmail you and then take your service offline when you refuse. The descriptive term "criminal", i.e. one who breaks laws, is perfectly valid IMO.

While I agree, the term blackmailer or extortionist would had been better.

Which are just specific types of criminals. I don't see the problem.
Post reply on HN