RaPle wrote (in a private message, most probably an accident, must have meant it to be in response to my post to the G&K thread, I apologize if not):
I know how the attacks on yhoo, ebay and others was initiatied. My comment on checking out Java chat's flooding was a constructive comment knowing that all intelligent people would realize that they have programmed in limits....all kinds of limits. You can also be kicked on that chat by inactivity, there are limits to the amount of people in one room, and the entire room of people will be kicked if it is full and there are just a little too many posts being made. I was hoping this would be a constructive comment without a bunch of examples to further bloat the post. I did not expect somebody to accuse me of ignoring the obvious! I do realize there were many machines used for the hack. I also know that if there were thousands of machines being used that it would have been very difficult to even do the hack in the first place...not to mention in that case it will be very easy to find out who did it....thousands?...yes.... And I also know the hackers can change their hack programs to appear more normal...thus forcing them to use more computers for their hack...and exposing themselves more easily to being caught. Everything for security is not to stop, but to make it more difficult, until they give up, or get caught.
I only wanted to point out that there can easily be programmed in limits to ensure normal usage. I also gave an example of such a thing. And constant repeated real time requests that aren't given the time to comprehend the answers in any way can be easily programmed as a limit stop.
And yes I do take offense to my short constructive statement being answered publicly as a dumb post. Especially when you used the only 'holes' in my statement that were there to only try to keep the post short.
RaPle, the problem isn't with the programming, the problem is with figuring out what to filter. And as the US govt agencies are saying, "at least dozens ``or probably hundreds' of ``zombie' computers had been marshaled in the blitz, typically from university and corporate networks."
If you have a method of filtering out the good packets from the bad packets, maybe you can create the next Gorilla candidate within computer network security and we can all make money. Sure, constant repeated requests from the same computers can be stopped -- but a distributed, cascading attack of the sort that Yahoo etc were subjected to are not a one line fix on a router's packet classifier.
You seem a little angry, about what I am not sure but I will stop answering your posts obviously. Sorry if I caused offense.
Peace,
-Atin |
