I posted it on Twitter. And I was talking with John at the time.
We're observing the information that is coming in, but it's hard to
verify something like that when:
A) We haven't heard from our contacts at AT&T.
B) The only information we are seeing "confirming" it is on open
mailing lists, and no offense, but given 4chan's proclivity in
spreading disinformation extremely well....
C) I don't know if we want to take the word of moot directly from the
4chan website either.
I've read in a couple places that the connectivity is coming back up,
I have a hard time believing that AT&T would do this, and even if they
did, they did it for a legit reason (maybe a DDOS?)
J
On Jul 27, 2009, at 1:19 AM, John Bambenek wrote:
Someone else posted on twitter, I saw it recently.
To make it even clearer, we'll take your data, sure. Just don't
expect us to jump on it until we verify with something solid.
chris rollin wrote:
Uh.
You posted on Twitter.
The most trusted name in [?]
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:17 AM, John Bambenek <bambe...@gmail.com
<mailto:bambe...@gmail.com>> wrote:
We'll take data from **Trusted** sources.
I'm just not going to take a public open mailing list post as
evidence at this point.
chris rollin wrote:
Shon wrote:
Seth,
I said it could be, not that it is. Thanks for pointing
that out. However,
I
believe the reason they are being blocked at AT&T is the
main reason I
supplied
on my first post. The DDoS attack issue is the main ticket
here.
The ACK storms arent coming from the 4chan servers
It's just like the DNS attack (IN/NS/.). It points to the
stupidity of AT&T
uppers
SANS: Are you or arent you soliciting data? I have some to
confirm also
It's not
because of content, or to piss people off. It's to protect
their network,
as any
of you would do when you got DDoSed on your own networks.
They are going to get some first hand experience in what
Protecting their
Network
involves real soon, now. Blocking 4chan was an exercise in
Stupidity
It's damage control,
It's a damage challenge.
essentially, until they find out who is involved and block
them, then
they'll
likely lift the block.
They don't have the right to do this. Not in their
TOS/EULA/User-Agreement.
Not in any sane legal forum. (I*A*AL)
This ISN'T the first time this has happened.
Exactly.
Now you see the problem ?
--
Joel Esler
http://www.joelesler.net
http://www.twitter.com/joelesler
[m]
