Not signed in (Sign In)
    • CommentAuthorMechanist
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009
     (6449.21)
    I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.
    Well this ought to be interesting. Very very interesting.
    • CommentAuthor/
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009
     (6449.22)
    @ Mechanist- Those CO forums get old pretty quick, don't they? :p
    • CommentAuthorMechanist
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009
     (6449.23)
    I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.
    Incredibly so

    Too easy to get under the mods skin but then again what you do expect from drones eh?

    That and the beta of the game was nothing short of horrificly disapointing. We're talking the equivalent of rape in game form.
    •  
      CommentAuthorLBA
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009
     (6449.24)
    this is going to get ugly.

    I'm squarely on the side of net neutrality, even though I have ATT UVerse (it was that or TWC which infinitely more suck than ATT).
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009
     (6449.25)
    > Could 4chan simply set up a mirror site on a different server with a dynamic ISP address?

    If end-users can find it (in order to connect to it), then AT&T too can discover where it is (and block it).

    As an alternative to 4chan's trying to hide, end-users might get around such restrictions by connecting to it through/via anonymizing proxies (so that AT&T sees its users connecting to the various anonymizing proxy services):

    * I doubt that AT&T would block connections through/via anonymizing proxies, however, because that would rile the anti-censorship brigade, a lot.

    * If the reason for blocking 4chan really is that it consumes vast bandwidth (which is what "net neutrality" is about), the anonymizing proxy services too may not be willing to connect people to it (for example, proxify.com will only let paid subscribers, not free subscriber, connect to YouTube).
    • CommentAuthorpi8you
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009
     (6449.26)
    And ATT's caved already. A bit disappointing, but more info is to come. Really though, I just wish the DDoS attacks and AnonTalk spam would stop and we could go back to the lulz. And /co/ never gets old.
  1.  (6449.27)
    Beginning Friday, an AT&T customer was impacted by a denial-of-service attack stemming from IP addresses connected to img.4chan.org. To prevent this attack from disrupting service for the impacted AT&T customer, and to prevent the attack from spreading to impact our other customers, AT&T temporarily blocked access to the IP addresses in question for our customers. This action was in no way related to the content at img.4chan.org; our focus was on protecting our customers from malicious traffic.

    Overnight Sunday, after we determined the denial-of-service threat no longer existed, AT&T removed the block on the IP addresses in question. We will continue to monitor for denial-of-service activity and any malicious traffic to protect our customers.

    http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=26970
  2.  (6449.28)
    Oh please, so the angry internet people get riled up and- why is my iphone full of tentacle porn?

    /b/astards!
    • CommentAuthorpi8you
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009
     (6449.29)
    And would it really have been so hard to put out a statement, oh, when they were doing so? So much fuss could be avoided with a little proactive/preemptive communication. Same goes for the Amazon/1984 fiasco
    •  
      CommentAuthorJack Crowder
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009 edited
     (6449.30)
    It saddens me that any 4chan news or any ilk can be found here at Whitechapel. I believe that forum and its followers have their respective locals. I do not see how it pertains to the Ellis audience save as a censorship issue. Which I did not see any of these responses whole-heartingly taking.
    • CommentAuthorpi8you
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009 edited
     (6449.31)
    While yes, there are places to go that are devoted to it, there are things going on on 4chan in general, and /b/ in particular, that are interesting and relevant to people here(the giant petri dish of internet culture that it is). Thus, when something comes up that moves beyond the scope of just those sites to something broader, it'll often give us reason to talk about it here.
    •  
      CommentAuthorrickiep00h
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009
     (6449.32)
    So they can block a whole range of IPs for their entire customer base just because ONE customer was having "issues"? What sort of precedent does that set? I mean, I don't know the situation personally, but it does conjure up some interesting questions. The biggest one being "Who is so goddamned important that they can have a site shut off for the entire customer base of AT&T?"
  3.  (6449.33)
    im not going to put words in anyones mouth BUT

    this fits on WC because of A) possible issues of ISP-related site block access (relating to the tech side of this board) or B) uh, theres a bunch of different people on here. not everything is of interest to everyone.
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009
     (6449.34)
    > So they can block a whole range of IPs for their entire customer base just because ONE customer was having "issues"?

    It's an odd story: it (i.e. "denial of service") implies that those IPs were bombarding someone (one of AT&T's customers) with unsolicited packets. It's odd, because I wouldn't expect servers to send unsolicited packets.

    Still, if that is what they (i.e. those IPs) were doing, it is pretty appropriate imho to entirely block those IPs as close to the source as possible, i.e. to block all packets from those hosts from entering AT&T's network (arguably more appropriate than AT&T's selectively blocking *some* of those IPs' traffic).
    • CommentAuthorFlabyo
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009
     (6449.35)
    Bear in mind that when they say 'one of our customers' they don't necessarily mean 'Little Billy in downtown Boston', they might actually mean 'Citigroup'. Or something of that magnitude.
    •  
      CommentAuthorrickiep00h
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009
     (6449.36)
    This comes by way of digitalyn on her Twitter:
    Now 4chan’s founder, Moot, has admitted the whole thing was kind of his fault.

    “For the past three weeks, 4chan has been under a constant DDoS attack,” Moot wrote in an afternoon update. “We were able to filter this specific type of attack in a fashion that was more or less transparent to the end user. … Unfortunately, as an unintended consequence of the method used, some Internet users received errant traffic from one of our network switches. A handful happened to be AT&T customers.”


    Link

    It's almost as nebulous as AT&T's response.
    • CommentAuthorFan
    • CommentTimeJul 27th 2009
     (6449.37)
    > ... they might actually mean 'Citigroup'. Or something of that magnitude.

    If it's true that 4chan's image servers were doing a denial of service, those servers are presumably subscribers to enough bandwidth that they're able to deny a lot of service (i.e. saturate the pipes of other hosts which have less bandwidth).

    Asking how important the victim is isn't necessarily the right question: DoS behaviour is against any host's ToS, and liable to get it disconnected; blocking rogue hosts is one of the ways in which a service provider protects their network and subscribers.