Attack solution donations..

mrsspendalot

Oooh thanks Martin, I think a trip to the shop for chocolate and doritos is in order

sammy115

MSE_Martin wrote: »

Having read the above, and having seen the 'Martin Confessional' booth in the past I would like to formally announce.

"For those paying off their debts, and who are very diligent, and were offering to donate £5 to the site, I hereby give a special dispensation allowing you to spend up to £5, (although diligently ensuring less is sent if possible) on be spent on booze (unless you're also a member of the AA thread), chocolate, crisps (unless you're also a member of the dieting thread) or any other single small pleasure of your choice in order to celebrate the safe return of the site."

Martin

:eek: :eek: :eek: Martin reads the confessional.......:eek: :eek: :eek: oh noooooooooo!

yellowmonkey

As I was grumpy earlier I hearby donate a virtual magnum of Lambrini to you all

Enjoy

ym

Snaggles

Awww, YM, thanks!! :T :T

Larumbelle

You think that's bad, Sammy? Argh I'm so embarrassed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek:

I sent Martin a PM last night suggesting we start a fighting fund or donate that free bandwidth we get free with our broadband. It even started 'this is going to sound really dim, but...'

And I was right. It was. See, moral of this story is that, no matter if you have permission, LAMBRINI and THIS SITE do NOT MIX!

meyore

Yay! Just been down the shop for chocolates and fizzy drinks! Work tomorrow so alcohol not a good plan me thinks
Nice to have permission to treat myself for once, cheers Martin! :beer:

ZTD

Kevicho wrote: »

I think arguing on this point is stupid.

I think that B_S is right, as Martin would not do this site if it didnt
pay for itself, but on the flip side everyone who says that this site is valuable for lots of people are also right.

And on the third hand (;)), the additional expense of equipment and the loss of service can make a formally profitable site unprofitable. I don't think that is the case here, but it is something to bear in mind.

Kevicho wrote: »

Im not sure about donating, as the cause of this was external,

I don't follow the reasoning of that.

Kevicho wrote: »

The sad fact of the matter is people have vested interests in silencing the truth, and someone made a lot of money for this attack,

If what Martin was claiming before, then the banks may have made significant savings. Of course even if the banks were caught red-handed, any fine would have been much smaller than those savings and so of absolutely no deterrence. This seems to happen quite often now - witness the latest TV phone-in scandal.

Kevicho wrote: »

But i think someone will be investigating who did this, everything can be traced eventually no matter how good they are, there is still an originating signal, and the person who set this series of events off, knows this as well.

But no logging of that originating command. So unless they're very careless, it's impossible to trace.

IMHO, what Martin and crew need to do is to go through their logs (in an automated fashion) and complain to those various peoples ISPs. They will be forced to clean up their machines, and that will aid various people in various ways.

1. The end user: No more zombie machine.
2. This site: There will be fewer next time.
3. Martin: The botnet owners will know they will lose a percentage of their botnet when they mess with him, so will charge a higher price to attack him - raising the bar.
4. Us: Less malicious traffic = faster internet.

I know it's a bit of a crap task, but it does work eventually. ISPs do listen *eventually*. :rolleyes:

I'm a bit dubious about the "sadly expensive solution to the DDOS attack". There is no solution to it - you just end up in a "my wall is taller than your ladder" arms race. However there are techniques to fight a bit smarter.

immoral_angeluk

ZTD wrote: »

And on the third hand (;)), the additional expense of equipment and the loss of service can make a formally profitable site unprofitable. I don't think that is the case here, but it is something to bear in mind.



I don't follow the reasoning of that.



If what Martin was claiming before, then the banks may have made significant savings. Of course even if the banks were caught red-handed, any fine would have been much smaller than those savings and so of absolutely no deterrence. This seems to happen quite often now - witness the latest TV phone-in scandal.



But no logging of that originating command. So unless they're very careless, it's impossible to trace.

IMHO, what Martin and crew need to do is to go through their logs (in an automated fashion) and complain to those various peoples ISPs. They will be forced to clean up their machines, and that will aid various people in various ways.

1. The end user: No more zombie machine.
2. This site: There will be fewer next time.
3. Martin: The botnet owners will know they will lose a percentage of their botnet when they mess with him, so will charge a higher price to attack him - raising the bar.
4. Us: Less malicious traffic = faster internet.

I know it's a bit of a crap task, but it does work eventually. ISPs do listen *eventually*. :rolleyes:

I'm a bit dubious about the "sadly expensive solution to the DDOS attack". There is no solution to it - you just end up in a "my wall is taller than your ladder" arms race. However there are techniques to fight a bit smarter.

you lost me on 'the third hand'.. :rotfl:

nearlyrich

immoral_angeluk wrote: »

Oooooh a Free £5 get of out confessional free card... what shall I spend it on??? :beer:

How many times are you going to spend that £5 I_A LOL??:rotfl:

Cheers everyone :beer: Glad to be back and nice to see that the people who can probably least afford it were kind enough to offer a contribution towards the security of the site.

Let's hope the new security keeps us on line;)

ZTD

immoral_angeluk wrote: »

you lost me on 'the third hand'.. :rotfl:

At least you got that far. It always confused me that the second hand on the clock was the third one...