Re: Any technical-network issues? (was Re: Special Counsel Office report web site)

[Roy]

On 4/18/2019 3:44 PM, Sean Donelan wrote:

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Sean Donelan wrote:
The Special Counsel's report is expected to be posted on its website 
sometime between 11 a.m. and noon on Thursday, April 18, 2019.


Its been about 7 hours since the report was released on the SCO web 
site and to the news media.  Ignoring the content of the report, and 
looking only at technical network distribution issues:


1. I did not experience and did not see any reports of network 
distribution problems.


2. I did not experience and did not see any reports of malicious DDOS 
or attempts to disrupt the distribution.





I think every news website had a copy: CNN, Fox, Reuters, US Today, 
MSNBC etc.  Even aljazeera.com and BBC News had copies.  I don't know 
anyone who used a .gov website.

Any technical-network issues? (was Re: Special Counsel Office report web site)

[Sean Donelan]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Sean Donelan wrote:
The Special Counsel's report is expected to be posted on its website sometime 
between 11 a.m. and noon on Thursday, April 18, 2019.


Its been about 7 hours since the report was released on the SCO web site 
and to the news media.  Ignoring the content of the report, and looking 
only at technical network distribution issues:


1. I did not experience and did not see any reports of network 
distribution problems.


2. I did not experience and did not see any reports of malicious DDOS or 
attempts to disrupt the distribution.

Re: We have it here, including the conclusions (was Re: Special Counsel Office report web site)

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

>> Oops..the link would be helpful, sorry!
>> 
>> We have made the full report available here, including conclusions (full 
>> report both embedded by iframe, and linked to the actual report at DOJ).
> 
> The DOJ web site is hosted on Akamai's CDN.  I don't think anyone's
> had trouble getting to it or downloading the report.  I certainly didn't.

However I was responding to someone who couldn't get it from B  That said, 
our reason for making it available at TIP was that a) not everyone knows how to 
find the DOJ site, and more importantly b) to preserve it if/when the DOJ 
buries it.

Anne

Anne P. Mitchell, 
Attorney at Law
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center
California Bar Association
Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee
Colorado Cyber Committee
Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop

Re: We have it here, including the conclusions (was Re: Special Counsel Office report web site)

[John Levine]

In article  you write:
>Oops..the link would be helpful, sorry!
>
>We have made the full report available here, including conclusions (full 
>report both embedded by iframe, and linked to the actual report at DOJ).

The DOJ web site is hosted on Akamai's CDN.  I don't think anyone's
had trouble getting to it or downloading the report.  I certainly didn't.

Re: Special Counsel Office report web site

[Randy Bush]

> If you want NANOG to devolve into a morass of political claptrap

you mean it could improve?

Re: who attacks the weather channel?

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

I not only got it, my best friend in junior high's father was president of SDS. 

Anne

Anne P. Mitchell, 
Attorney at Law
CEO/President, 
SuretyMail Email Reputation Certification and Inbox Delivery Assistance
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consulting
http://www.SuretyMail.com/
http://www.SuretyMail.eu/




> On Apr 18, 2019, at 11:46 AM, John Sage  wrote:
> 
> On 4/18/19 8:26 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 03:16:34PM +,
>>  Kain, Rebecca (.)  wrote
>>  a message of 69 lines which said:
>>> https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/media/weather-channel-hack/index.html
>> May be these people?
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground
> 
> umm...
> 
> Thinking this was a joke that, by the replies I've seen, most people are too 
> young to get the reference to radical 60's politics
> 
> Also it seems no one actually clicked through on the link, which would have 
> suggested this
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> 
> - John
> -- 

Re: who attacks the weather channel?

[Christopher Morrow]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 2:18 PM Lee  wrote:
>
> On 4/18/19, John Sage  wrote:
> > On 4/18/19 8:26 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 03:16:34PM +,
> >>   Kain, Rebecca (.)  wrote
> >>   a message of 69 lines which said:
> >>
> >>> https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/media/weather-channel-hack/index.html
> >>
> >> May be these people?
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground
> >>
> >
> > umm...
> >
> > Thinking this was a joke that, by the replies I've seen, most people are
> > too young to get the reference to radical 60's politics
> >

sure, but is painting an actual org with that brush a good idea?
which was why I pointed out that WU was bought by TWC. (not the other
TWC, of course)

> > Also it seems no one actually clicked through on the link, which would
> > have suggested this
> >
> > *sigh*
> >
> Look on the bright side - if this type of thing still prompts a *sigh*
> you're not all that old.

#getoffamalawn!

Re: who attacks the weather channel?

[Lee]

On 4/18/19, John Sage  wrote:
> On 4/18/19 8:26 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 03:16:34PM +,
>>   Kain, Rebecca (.)  wrote
>>   a message of 69 lines which said:
>>
>>> https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/media/weather-channel-hack/index.html
>>
>> May be these people?
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground
>>
>
> umm...
>
> Thinking this was a joke that, by the replies I've seen, most people are
> too young to get the reference to radical 60's politics
>
> Also it seems no one actually clicked through on the link, which would
> have suggested this
>
> *sigh*
>
Look on the bright side - if this type of thing still prompts a *sigh*
you're not all that old.

Best Regards,
Lee

Re: Special Counsel Office report web site

[Marco Belmonte]

  
  
Exactly. In other words, don't be a social retard.

On 4/18/2019 7:23 AM, Mel Beckman
  wrote:


  Rich,

If you want NANOG to devolve into a morass of political claptrap, keep posting comments like that. Personally, I want NANOG to remain a useful technical resource, and leave the partisan crap to Facebook and its ilk.

 -mel beckman


  
On Apr 18, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:



  On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 09:02:52PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
The Special Counsel's report is expected to be posted [...]



Not quite.  A *version* of the report that has been redacted by
the President's hand-picked obedient lackey will be posted.

I suspect that the full report will find its way to us via other means.

---rsk

  

  

Re: who attacks the weather channel?

[John Sage]

On 4/18/19 8:26 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 03:16:34PM +,
  Kain, Rebecca (.)  wrote
  a message of 69 lines which said:


https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/media/weather-channel-hack/index.html


May be these people?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground



umm...

Thinking this was a joke that, by the replies I've seen, most people are 
too young to get the reference to radical 60's politics


Also it seems no one actually clicked through on the link, which would 
have suggested this


*sigh*


- John
--

We have it here, including the conclusions (was Re: Special Counsel Office report web site)

[Anne P. Mitchell, Esq.]

Oops..the link would be helpful, sorry!

We have made the full report available here, including conclusions (full report 
both embedded by iframe, and linked to the actual report at DOJ).

https://www.theinternetpatrol.com/the-mueller-report-online-text-of-the-mueller-report-and-analysis/

Anne P. Mitchell, 
Attorney at Law
GDPR, CCPA (CA) & CCDPA (CO) Compliance Consultant
Author: Section 6 of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (the Federal anti-spam law)
Legislative Consultant
CEO/President, Institute for Social Internet Public Policy
Board of Directors, Denver Internet Exchange
Board of Directors, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop
Legal Counsel: The CyberGreen Institute
Legal Counsel: The Earth Law Center
California Bar Association
Cal. Bar Cyberspace Law Committee
Colorado Cyber Committee
Ret. Professor of Law, Lincoln Law School of San Jose
Ret. Chair, Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop



> On Apr 18, 2019, at 8:33 AM, Mel Beckman  wrote:
> 
> B just announced that they are offering free downloads via their Nook 
> reader.  I noticed I couldn’t reach B via IPv6, and discovered the cause :
> 
> nslookup
>> set type=
>> barnesandnoble.com
> Server: 4.2.2.1
> Non-authoritative answer:
> *** Can't find barnesandnoble.com: No answer
> 
>> set type=A
>> barnesandnoble.com.
> Server: 4.2.2.1
> Non-authoritative answer:
> Name:   barnesandnoble.com
> Address: 161.221.74.213
> 
> I don’t know if this is a temporary DNS failure, or B really still has no 
> IPv6 hosted web services :)
> 
> 
> -mel 
> 
>> On Apr 18, 2019, at 6:46 AM, Naslund, Steve  wrote:
>> 
>> Agreed, I remember the biggest problem when the Starr Report was released 
>> was that our dial-up PoPs had all lines busy.  It was a different Internet 
>> then.
>> 
>> Steven Naslund
>> Chicago IL
>> 
>>> Hey Mike.
>>> 
>>> Agreed. But the scale of a 400 page document with global interest? 
>>> Should be highly cached with a good ratio of served to pull bits. I'm 
>>> willing to bet you a beer its just another day on the Internet. 
>>> However, I could be wrong. Hope to see you in DC to collect! I already 
>>> know Brett is in. :)
>> 

Re: who attacks the weather channel?

[Mel Beckman]

I mistyped. It's AmbientWeather.com. Here’s the 
Gibraltar Peak weather station link if anyone is interested:

https://dashboard.ambientweather.net/devices/public/143d3d3f9aa00e499954061991374c7b

Ignore the rain data. Something is not mapping correctly from our weather 
station to the Ambient data collection, so it looks like we have many feet of 
rain :) But it’s wind and temperature we’re most concerned with, so I haven’t 
put any time into sorting out the decimal point in the rain gauge, or whatever 
is the cause of crazy rain data.

 -mel


On Apr 18, 2019, at 9:16 AM, Mel Beckman 
mailto:m...@beckman.org>> wrote:

When IBM purchased TWC, IBM summarily cancelled our heretofore free weather 
station monitoring through Wunderground.com. Instead 
IBM offered to “sell” us our own remote data center weather stations 
information back to us at an exorbitant price. No thank you. We switched 
everything to Ambient.com.

The idea of Wunderground.com was free public 
collection and sharing of useful weather data to vastly increase the density of 
coverage over commercial services. It’s a pity IBM, who otherwise supports open 
source through it’s vast Linux contributions, couldn’t see that.

During the Santa Barbara fires last year, our weather station on Gibraltar Peak 
was the one source firefighting helicopter pilots had to obtain ridge wind 
speeds, which was critical to their operation. Neither the NWS nor TWC or IBM 
is willing to invest in critical public information infrastructure. I’m a 
capitalist, but I don’t believe destroying the good works of others is 
ultimately profitable.

 -mel

On Apr 18, 2019, at 8:50 AM, Fred Baker 
mailto:fredbaker.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:

According to this, Weather Underground was purchased by the Weather Channel and 
firmed “The Weather Company”, and that was in turn purchased by IBM last year.

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/weather-underground-bought-by-ibm.html

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...

On Apr 18, 2019, at 8:38 AM, Christopher Morrow 
mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:27 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer 
mailto:bortzme...@nic.fr>> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 03:16:34PM +,
Kain, Rebecca (.) mailto:bka...@ford.com>> wrote
a message of 69 lines which said:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/media/weather-channel-hack/index.html

May be these people?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground

I think WU was actually bought by weatherunderground...

Re: who attacks the weather channel?

[Mel Beckman]

When IBM purchased TWC, IBM summarily cancelled our heretofore free weather 
station monitoring through Wunderground.com. Instead 
IBM offered to “sell” us our own remote data center weather stations 
information back to us at an exorbitant price. No thank you. We switched 
everything to Ambient.com.

The idea of Wunderground.com was free public 
collection and sharing of useful weather data to vastly increase the density of 
coverage over commercial services. It’s a pity IBM, who otherwise supports open 
source through it’s vast Linux contributions, couldn’t see that.

During the Santa Barbara fires last year, our weather station on Gibraltar Peak 
was the one source firefighting helicopter pilots had to obtain ridge wind 
speeds, which was critical to their operation. Neither the NWS nor TWC or IBM 
is willing to invest in critical public information infrastructure. I’m a 
capitalist, but I don’t believe destroying the good works of others is 
ultimately profitable.

 -mel

On Apr 18, 2019, at 8:50 AM, Fred Baker 
mailto:fredbaker.i...@gmail.com>> wrote:

According to this, Weather Underground was purchased by the Weather Channel and 
firmed “The Weather Company”, and that was in turn purchased by IBM last year.

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/weather-underground-bought-by-ibm.html

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...

On Apr 18, 2019, at 8:38 AM, Christopher Morrow 
mailto:morrowc.li...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:27 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer 
mailto:bortzme...@nic.fr>> wrote:

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 03:16:34PM +,
Kain, Rebecca (.) mailto:bka...@ford.com>> wrote
a message of 69 lines which said:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/media/weather-channel-hack/index.html

May be these people?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground

I think WU was actually bought by weatherunderground...

Re: who attacks the weather channel?

[Jonathan Rogers]

The Weather **Channel** is now a separate entity, which is the cable
channel only.

The Weather **Company** is the entity now owned by IBM, and it provides the
web content and apps such as Weather Underground and Weather.com.

I live near their corporate HDQ and interview there for a job, so they
explained all of this to me at the time.

--Jonathan Rogers

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:52 AM Fred Baker 
wrote:

> According to this, Weather Underground was purchased by the Weather
> Channel and firmed “The Weather Company”, and that was in turn purchased by
> IBM last year.
>
>
> https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/weather-underground-bought-by-ibm.html
>
> Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...
>
> On Apr 18, 2019, at 8:38 AM, Christopher Morrow 
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:27 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer 
> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 03:16:34PM +,
>
> Kain, Rebecca (.)  wrote
>
> a message of 69 lines which said:
>
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/media/weather-channel-hack/index.html
>
>
> May be these people?
>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground
>
>
> I think WU was actually bought by weatherunderground...
>
>

Re: who attacks the weather channel?

[Fred Baker]

According to this, Weather Underground was purchased by the Weather Channel and 
firmed “The Weather Company”, and that was in turn purchased by IBM last year.

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/weather-underground-bought-by-ibm.html

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...

> On Apr 18, 2019, at 8:38 AM, Christopher Morrow  
> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:27 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 03:16:34PM +,
>> Kain, Rebecca (.)  wrote
>> a message of 69 lines which said:
>> 
>>> https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/media/weather-channel-hack/index.html
>> 
>> May be these people?
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground
> 
> I think WU was actually bought by weatherunderground...

Re: who attacks the weather channel?

[Christopher Morrow]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 11:27 AM Stephane Bortzmeyer  wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 03:16:34PM +,
>  Kain, Rebecca (.)  wrote
>  a message of 69 lines which said:
>
> > https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/media/weather-channel-hack/index.html
>
> May be these people?
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground

I think WU was actually bought by weatherunderground...

Re: who attacks the weather channel?

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 03:16:34PM +,
 Kain, Rebecca (.)  wrote 
 a message of 69 lines which said:

> https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/media/weather-channel-hack/index.html

May be these people?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground

who attacks the weather channel?

[Kain, Rebecca (.)]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/media/weather-channel-hack/index.html

P2P [was: Special Counsel Office report web site]

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:56:03PM +, Kain, Rebecca (.) wrote:
> I can???t believe p2p isn???t used more, even inside companies.  It does have 
> legit uses

It does, and some of the use cases for it are quite compelling.  However,
there is often deep mistrust associated with it: years of propaganda from
the copyright lobby have fostered the impression that it is inherently
malicious.  That can be very difficult to overcome: it's in the
same class of mythos as "all ICMP traffic is bad", and well, lots of
us have spent lots of time over lots of years trying to get past that one.
Getting P2P accepted looks like a much bigger hill to climb.

---rsk

Re: Special Counsel Office report web site

[Mel Beckman]

B just announced that they are offering free downloads via their Nook reader. 
 I noticed I couldn’t reach B via IPv6, and discovered the cause :

nslookup
> set type=
> barnesandnoble.com
Server: 4.2.2.1
Non-authoritative answer:
*** Can't find barnesandnoble.com: No answer

> set type=A
> barnesandnoble.com.
Server: 4.2.2.1
Non-authoritative answer:
Name:   barnesandnoble.com
Address: 161.221.74.213

I don’t know if this is a temporary DNS failure, or B really still has no 
IPv6 hosted web services :)


 -mel 

> On Apr 18, 2019, at 6:46 AM, Naslund, Steve  wrote:
> 
> Agreed, I remember the biggest problem when the Starr Report was released was 
> that our dial-up PoPs had all lines busy.  It was a different Internet then.
> 
> Steven Naslund
> Chicago IL
> 
>> Hey Mike.
>> 
>> Agreed. But the scale of a 400 page document with global interest? 
>> Should be highly cached with a good ratio of served to pull bits. I'm 
>> willing to bet you a beer its just another day on the Internet. 
>> However, I could be wrong. Hope to see you in DC to collect! I already 
>> know Brett is in. :)
> 

Re: Special Counsel Office report web site

[Mel Beckman]

Rich,

If you want NANOG to devolve into a morass of political claptrap, keep posting 
comments like that. Personally, I want NANOG to remain a useful technical 
resource, and leave the partisan crap to Facebook and its ilk.

 -mel beckman

> On Apr 18, 2019, at 7:18 AM, Rich Kulawiec  wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 09:02:52PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
>> The Special Counsel's report is expected to be posted [...]
> 
> Not quite.  A *version* of the report that has been redacted by
> the President's hand-picked obedient lackey will be posted.
> 
> I suspect that the full report will find its way to us via other means.
> 
> ---rsk

Re: Special Counsel Office report web site

[Rich Kulawiec]

On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 09:02:52PM -0400, Sean Donelan wrote:
> The Special Counsel's report is expected to be posted [...]

Not quite.  A *version* of the report that has been redacted by
the President's hand-picked obedient lackey will be posted.

I suspect that the full report will find its way to us via other means.

---rsk

RE: Special Counsel Office report web site

[Naslund, Steve]

Agreed, I remember the biggest problem when the Starr Report was released was 
that our dial-up PoPs had all lines busy.  It was a different Internet then.

Steven Naslund
Chicago IL

> Hey Mike.
> 
> Agreed. But the scale of a 400 page document with global interest? 
> Should be highly cached with a good ratio of served to pull bits. I'm 
> willing to bet you a beer its just another day on the Internet. 
> However, I could be wrong. Hope to see you in DC to collect! I already 
> know Brett is in. :)

RE: Special Counsel Office report web site

[Kain, Rebecca (.)]

I can’t believe p2p isn’t used more, even inside companies.  It does have legit 
uses


From: NANOG  On Behalf Of Mark Seiden
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 11:27 PM
To: fwessl...@succinctsystems.com; Mark Tinka via NANOG 
Subject: Re: Special Counsel Office report web site

of course p2p is the way to distribute this but i doubt the justice department 
can admit there is any positive legitimate use for p2p.

(i’ve been surprised that it hasn’t made it to wikileaks or bittorrent yet.  
“russiar, are you listening?”)

(i sure hope there’s a signed version or at least a hash.)

i predict there will be versions with fake content, missing content, and 
malware inserted that are distributed as well.




and i’ll bet there will be some infected pdf version as well distributed that 
way.
On Apr 17, 2019, 7:57 PM -0700, fwessling--- via NANOG 
mailto:nanog@nanog.org>>, wrote:

And we may still see the web stack being the ultimate cause of the delay.


Parkinson's law always comes to the rescue:-)
More faster and efficient processing architecture, Hyper transport buses, 
amd-64 Branch prediction.
Massively faster storage subsystems and disk arrays, SSD slab caching for 
hypervisors

And some dude with a AJAX framework to serve a PDF bringging the whole thing to 
a a screeching halt

On April 17, 2019 10:35:29 PM EDT, Sean Donelan 
mailto:s...@donelan.com>> wrote:

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

Things will probably be easier this time. The Internet has evolved
ways

of dealing with exactly this problem. (Avi used to call it “slash-dot


insurance”, but the idea is the same.) Specifically:

Yep, it will be interesting to see where the chokepoints are tommorrow.

In 1998, the bandwidth pipes never filled up. The chokepoint was in the

TCP and Web stacks. Eventually the Associated Press got a copy of the
Starr Report on a CD from a congressional staffer. The press intern
running down the street holding a CD was faster than 1998 internet :-)

We were also lucky in 1998, no one had thought of DDOS yet.

Frederick Wessling (CIO)
Succinct Systems LLC
Cell: +1(561) 571-2799
Office: +1(904) 758-9915 ext. 9925
Fax: +1(904) 758-9987
www.SuccinctSystems.com

Re: Special Counsel Office report web site

[Jared Mauch]

On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 12:25:32AM -0400, Martin Hannigan wrote:
> Hey Mike.
> 
> Agreed. But the scale of a 400 page document with global interest? Should
> be highly cached with a good ratio of served to pull bits. I'm willing to
> bet you a beer its just another day on the Internet. However, I could be
> wrong. Hope to see you in DC to collect! I already know Brett is in. :)

I would expect far more traffic from patch tuesday to exceed the size of
the document.

- Jared

-- 
Jared Mauch  | pgp key available via finger from ja...@puck.nether.net
clue++;  | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/  My statements are only mine.