Wikileaks under dos attack

[Obelix]

On a separate network? That way, this type of attack would have had little to zero affect on the back end authentication systems used (I couldn't get a balance yesterday from any of the link machines with my card yesterday).

 

Er no. It would still be an internet facing system wouldn't it - it has to be for it to work.

 

And I can happily say it's not going to be a single box - it'll be a lot more than just a network card extra

[TeaFan]

If you can deliver oil rich countries which aren't corrupt then great. I don't like corruption, in an ideal world it would not exist but we don't live in an ideal world. Are there leaks about bribery of canadian officials to secure oil sand supplies? No, of course not. But will there/have ther been suggestions that third world countries are corrupt and dodgy as hell and that our companies have to operate within that framework or **** off. Yes.

 

The Empire's gone. We can't impose our ideals on them anymore and we're already losing out to china in africa for our moralising. The choice is get or not get. The corruption will still be there, just someone else will win. And it's the likes of wikileaks who bathe in the glorious milk of "exposing" that target the west and know damn well if they tried it with the russians or the chinese secret archives they'd be wearing their scrotum as a hoodie in about 3 hours.

 

We wouldn't know whether governments were corrupt or how corrupt they were unless people told us. If we let governments control information (you said we should have no rights to see information beyond our 'clearance level) how will we know that they are corrupt? They aren't going to volunteer it. You may not like all the info that Wikileaks have put out this time, I might not think all of it is that important, but what is important is that it can and has been put out. If Wikileaks is gagged, what else will we not get to know.

 

Anyhow, it's amusing to see the world's governments try to stamp out this threat to their hegemony using tired old methods. It reminds me of the recording industry's response to Napster. They thought they could close down one site and the problem would go away. How foolish they turned out to be - they lost their entire business model as a result. Close down Wikileaks and several more will spring up, with anonymous founders and servers all over the place.

[spooky3]

Er no. It would still be an internet facing system wouldn't it - it has to be for it to work.

 

And I can happily say it's not going to be a single box - it'll be a lot more than just a network card extra

 

Technically, probably, however I believe sccsux and I are inferring that the publicly used servers are the same as the banks internal system (I know at least one of my banks uses the same domain when I go in to talk to my manager as the one I access form home). Even though yes, it wouldn't be that hard to map anyway. (Hmmm, some interesting thoughts of redundancy use to circumvent attacks temporarily, which would be enough!)

 

Here I go again, do you think they've got the DDoS power to isolate the UK for arresting Assange?

[Obelix]

Technically, probably, however I believe sccsux and I are inferring that the publicly used servers are the same as the banks internal system (I know at least one of my banks uses the same domain when I go in to talk to my manager as the one I access form home). Even though yes, it wouldn't be that hard to map anyway. (Hmmm, some interesting thoughts of redundancy use to circumvent attacks temporarily, which would be enough!)

 

Here I go again, do you think they've got the DDoS power to isolate the UK for arresting Assange?

 

There is going to be more than just one or two servers involved. It doesnt matter one whit what the internal servers are - that's not how a DDoS works. As long as you get flood the internet facing connection you prevent it's use even if they actual servers in question are not actually overloaded.

 

The problem with Mastercard is that they provide a service that the end user has to connect to over the internet. That was targetted and the IP addresses were flooded and made inaccessible. That's all you need to do.

[spooky3]

We wouldn't know whether governments were corrupt or how corrupt they were unless people told us. If we let governments control information (you said we should have no rights to see information beyond our 'clearance level) how will we know that they are corrupt? They aren't going to volunteer it. You may not like all the info that Wikileaks have put out this time, I might not think all of it is that important, but what is important is that it can and has been put out. If Wikileaks is gagged, what else will we not get to know.

 

Anyhow, it's amusing to see the world's governments try to stamp out this threat to their hegemony using tired old methods. It reminds me of the recording industry's response to Napster. They thought they could close down one site and the problem would go away. How foolish they turned out to be - they lost their entire business model as a result. Close down Wikileaks and several more will spring up, with anonymous founders and servers all over the place.

 

How is it going to effect the future of the internet?

 

The people with the power had no interest before, now things may be different! China and other countries do a pretty good job at restricting the internet, will you be happy if it goes the same way elsewhere.

 

There's enough evidence of the internet being a bit of the wild west, full of criminal activity, in what name will the sanctions come. There already have been rules put in for keeping records. What next?

[spooky3]

There is going to be more than just one or two servers involved. It doesnt matter one whit what the internal servers are - that's not how a DDoS works. As long as you get flood the internet facing connection you prevent it's use even if they actual servers in question are not actually overloaded.

 

The problem with Mastercard is that they provide a service that the end user has to connect to over the internet. That was targetted and the IP addresses were flooded and made inaccessible. That's all you need to do.

 

LOL, costly, but I can think of three ways to "probably" prevent too much disruption.

 

But, it seems at the moment the common concept is to put all the eggs in one basket making them an even easier target!

[andygardener]

We wouldn't know whether governments were corrupt or how corrupt they were unless people told us. If we let governments control information (you said we should have no rights to see information beyond our 'clearance level) how will we know that they are corrupt? They aren't going to volunteer it. You may not like all the info that Wikileaks have put out this time, I might not think all of it is that important, but what is important is that it can and has been put out. If Wikileaks is gagged, what else will we not get to know.

 

Anyhow, it's amusing to see the world's governments try to stamp out this threat to their hegemony using tired old methods. It reminds me of the recording industry's response to Napster. They thought they could close down one site and the problem would go away. How foolish they turned out to be - they lost their entire business model as a result. Close down Wikileaks and several more will spring up, with anonymous founders and servers all over the place.

 

Seriously, you didn't know that Nigeria was corrupt before wikileaks told you?

 

C'mon. Live in the real world. We all know the third world are more corrupt than a fifa official.

 

Do you honestly think all these revalations will lead to a less corrupt third world? My personal guess would be it will be a result in the third world turning east damaging jobs in this country and causing poverty among previously employed families in this country and I'm quite open and honest that thats what i care about far more than being "principled" when the end result of being "principled" is not a reduction in corruption but a move in the nation that pays the gold and gets the product from the west to china.

[sccsux]

Er no. It would still be an internet facing system wouldn't it - it has to be for it to work.

 

It would only affect web transactions, the way it is at the moment, it affects all card transactions (ATMS, shops, petrol stations etc). Which is why I said little to 0 effect.

[Obelix]

It would only affect web transactions, the way it is at the moment, it affects all card transactions (ATMS, shops, petrol stations etc). Which is why I said little to 0 effect.

 

It's not affecting all card transactions, not by a long shot. It is affecting those that use Securecode which is a small number, and the merchants that are using it are turning it off in response to the problems as Mastercard are instructiong them to do so.

[spooky3]

Just watching QT...

 

Should all public phone calls, all emails, letters, street conversations, private conversations be recorded and made public. Do we have a right to know, is it ok to do it if we have the capability?