> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 02:33:07 -0500 > From: Jeffrey Walton <noloa...@gmail.com> > > > http://www.redbarn.org/blogs/vixie/rule > > Just to play devil's advocate.... > > In the past few weeks a lot of people have been forcibly denying > Internet service to a lot of other people for political reasons that > each attacker thinks are valid. I don't think there's any possible > moral justification for this behaviour... > > Does that include the US attempting to shut down Wikileaks' Internet > access? It kind of the same thing, isn't it?
not to me. i'm talking distributed denial of service attack, DDoS, which according to me (http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac004.txt) is: 2.1. The most common attack on Internet hosts or infrastructure at the time of this writing is to cause the receipt of too much traffic, consuming all available resources on a victim's host or Internet connection. This is often called a "Denial of Service" (DoS) attack. it may be that governments of countries who claim to want to export freedom to the world should not be trying to kill domain names where no laws are being broken, but that's a separate topic from what i was getting at in my "rule of law" blog post. _______________________________________________ Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts. https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.
