51–60 of 72 posts
Can we please use some of that 100 million investment to buy an infrastructure that is more resilient to these kinds of DDoS attacks? Pretty please? This is a service I pay for and my business relies on. Having it down three times in three days impacts our work.
Who would try to disable github?
It could just be some rogue deployment script running from EC2 that are a little more active that it should be. Imagine someone is deploying their 1GB repo from GitHub to 100 small EC2 instances :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My startup cucumbertown.com is hit with similar issues. Initially we blocked all Ec2[1] & spamhaus ip list. But then realized Flipboard proxies[2], some blog aggregation proxies etc are based on Ec2 machines. What would be a good way to block such rogue machines? Is there a community sponsored list or Ec2/Rackspace ips that are creating issues? https://forums.aws.amazon.com/ann.jspa?annID=1528 http://flipboard.com/br…
Banks were being hit the first week of October, then I know some VoIP servers were being hit such as Callcentric by DDoS. I can see why the banks were hit, but not why so many much smaller businesses are being attacked.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone who wants to test the limits of their botnet and technique. Can you think of a more tech savvy target?
Google. Amazon. Microsoft. Apple. Facebook. Most startups.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding: I thought one goal of DVCS was to remove central points of failure? In that sense, isn't a central "hub" regressive? I wonder if there's a way to host Git repositories with static files, say, on Amazon S3... That would be neat.
This meme is getting really, really tiresome. Github being down is NOT a central point of failure. Most people know that setting up your own git server is trivial, literally a 3-4 step process. We know that we don't lose our files, our history, our working tree, etc.
The "git" in Github is easily replaced. The "hub" part has its own value. The communication tools, the well-presented diffs, the inline-editing capability, issues, wiki, etc. That's the value people are gnashing their teeth over.
Can we please use some of that 100 million investment to buy an infrastructure that is more resilient to these kinds of DDoS attacks? Pretty please? This is a service I pay for and my business relies on. Having it down three times in three days impacts our work.
Just move to bitbucket. You can even pay to them if you want to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If high availability git is so critical then why not run your own git servers instead of or in addition to github? I find it slightly ironic that the entire point of git is that it is distributed version control but 90% of git use seems to be focused around a product from a single company.
Github isn't solely a git server. They also have issues, wikis, etc, that are harder to keep in multiple locations.