Lagalizing DDoS Attacks?

Talk about serious issues here!

Legalize DoS / DDoS?

Poll ended at 20 Jan 2013, 15:46

Yes.
3
43%
No.
4
57%
We have internet?
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 7

User avatar
Hitokiri
FWG King
Posts: 744
Joined: 14 Jan 2010, 11:56
Fr00k$: 0.30

Re: Lagalizing DDoS Attacks?

Postby Hitokiri » 17 Jan 2013, 08:45

Again, A DoS attack/DDoS attack is not a sit in.

An online petition, protesting forum posts, blog articles, and quite a few other similar things through the various social media; those are sit-ins.

A DoS/DDoS attack is purposely causing a riot.

People participating/causing riots are usually arrested and trialed.
Those are not the same penalties as manslaughter.
Neither are the penalties for a DoS/DDoS attack.

But in both cases, it is damaging, if not destroying, property.
Image

User avatar
Blood Knight
FWG Minor Noble
Posts: 162
Joined: 26 Oct 2010, 20:20
Fr00k$: 17.30
Location: Ask Frook.
Contact:

Re: Lagalizing DDoS Attacks?

Postby Blood Knight » 17 Jan 2013, 20:34

I re-read the comments and feel I should add a bit of something. Hitokiri, I'm guessing by the way you talk of destruction, etc, that you are thinking of a LOIC type of attack. I guess they didn't really specify of what types of DoS types they wanted... From their IRC, some of them just want the Loris type of attacks allowed only. They do not have any destruction to the servers, only taking up space limiting whom can get on the site. This is more of the "Sit In" I was talking about. No, I don't think LOIC or anything like it should be legal to use on another site but your own. The Loris types? I believe they should be allowed...after all, they do no harm to servers, they only take up space. And even then, they only work on Apache servers...
@echo off
color a
:A
echo %random% %random% %random% %random% %random% %random% %random% %random% %random% %random% %random% %random% %random% %random% %random% %random% %random%
goto :A

User avatar
Hitokiri
FWG King
Posts: 744
Joined: 14 Jan 2010, 11:56
Fr00k$: 0.30

Re: Lagalizing DDoS Attacks?

Postby Hitokiri » 18 Jan 2013, 08:30

Ok blood knight, great clarification.

Lets say that from this point on forward your type of DoS attack is legal:
From now on you are unable to come to this site because someone is doing your type of "sit in" on our servers.
And since it is allowed, that person may keep that up forever.

Effectively shutting this site down as it is after all an internet business.
When no one can reach the site, there is no income, no income = going out of business.

If that is not damaging or destroying property, then by all means, we should do this and destroy every internet business out there, apart from those which run on a server farm and have more than enough bandwith.

I don't know if I could describe it any simpler...
But it is quite obvious that you do not see the great impact and consequences.
Image

User avatar
Dr Frook
FWG Mod
Posts: 9039
Joined: 28 Aug 2009, 05:35
Fr00k$: 3889.70
Location: freaksville
Contact:

Re: Lagalizing DDoS Attacks?

Postby Dr Frook » 18 Jan 2013, 09:27

oh, let's just legalise robbing banks while we're at it.
The BUGBLATTER BEAST HAS SPOKEN, ALL HAIL THE BLATTERER!
Image

User avatar
ghost 9
FWG King
Posts: 824
Joined: 04 Apr 2010, 18:33
Fr00k$: 0.50
Location: In your walls. O-o
Contact:

Re: Lagalizing DDoS Attacks?

Postby ghost 9 » 20 Jan 2013, 03:59

Stopping a DDoS attack is extremely easy. A simple filter and a void server can stop or thwart any and all attacks. I don't think it even costs that much money, but I could be wrong.

Also, a DDoS attack is not really damaging unless it's a LOIC, or it's a financial group. Ontop of that, a Loris type only continues as long as you keep sending the threads. That means eventually your internet/ bandwidth will run out, and it stops. This will cause no permanent damage to the system.

Yeah, at times you wouldn't be able to access a site, but you're allowed to sit in a restaurant and prevent customers from buying products by taking up the space, right? Well, that's all a loris DDoS really does. It allows you to basically sit in, except with the 'force' of a group.
"The costs of action are far less than the costs of inaction."

"If you don't want to be forgotten as soon as you're dead, write something worth reading, or do something worth writing"

User avatar
Hitokiri
FWG King
Posts: 744
Joined: 14 Jan 2010, 11:56
Fr00k$: 0.30

Re: Lagalizing DDoS Attacks?

Postby Hitokiri » 20 Jan 2013, 12:00

ghost, my point still stands as you make the wrong comparison (again).

Let's say you have ONE person doing a sit in in real life.
Let's take it inside the restaurant in fact.
That one person gets a table.
As long as he is there to have the dining experience, he may stay as long as he/she wants to, not to mention the bill afterwards.
If you are there and you don't consume anything, I think the owner/waiting staff will let you for a while, but after a certain time politely ask you to take your leave, after which if you don't it won't be as polite anymore.

Your comparison is wrong however as you would have the one person take up all the room in the restaurant, for as long as he/she wants to.

Which is not a sit in anymore.
Brings economic damage again, which might lead to the end of the business in fact.

And this does not depend on the type of DoS attack, nor if it's easily prevented or not.
It just is not right.
Image

User avatar
ghost 9
FWG King
Posts: 824
Joined: 04 Apr 2010, 18:33
Fr00k$: 0.50
Location: In your walls. O-o
Contact:

Re: Lagalizing DDoS Attacks?

Postby ghost 9 » 20 Jan 2013, 20:00

Hitokiri wrote:ghost, my point still stands as you make the wrong comparison (again).

Let's say you have ONE person doing a sit in in real life.
Let's take it inside the restaurant in fact.
That one person gets a table.
As long as he is there to have the dining experience, he may stay as long as he/she wants to, not to mention the bill afterwards.
If you are there and you don't consume anything, I think the owner/waiting staff will let you for a while, but after a certain time politely ask you to take your leave, after which if you don't it won't be as polite anymore.

Your comparison is wrong however as you would have the one person take up all the room in the restaurant, for as long as he/she wants to.

Which is not a sit in anymore.
Brings economic damage again, which might lead to the end of the business in fact.

And this does not depend on the type of DoS attack, nor if it's easily prevented or not.
It just is not right.

Then you're more against the general idea and purpose of a sit in, rather then specifically a DDoS attack. Again, a Sloris type isn't permanent, which means it only works as long as the person has it up. Also, sitting in front, or in, a diner to protest some point causes a certain amount of economic damage as well. Yet, it's legal to do that. That's basically what a DDoS does. It prevents people from being able to access a site, thus illustrating a point, while not doing any permanent damage.

-Note: Not talking about LOIC, bambam, Hulk, HOIC, etc, I'm taking about Sloris.-
"The costs of action are far less than the costs of inaction."

"If you don't want to be forgotten as soon as you're dead, write something worth reading, or do something worth writing"

User avatar
mmm
FWG Mod
Posts: 2383
Joined: 13 Dec 2010, 23:19
Fr00k$: 24.05
Location: Straight outta Compton

Re: Lagalizing DDoS Attacks?

Postby mmm » 21 Jan 2013, 02:00

Done with this thread. I didn't know Anonymous was so skilled at brainwashing.
Image For trying.

User avatar
Shadowstar1922
I Shall Eatz You
Posts: 5771
Joined: 03 May 2011, 21:51
Fr00k$: 128.20
Location: i don't even know bro
Contact:

Re: Lagalizing DDoS Attacks?

Postby Shadowstar1922 » 21 Jan 2013, 18:09

Ghost, you act like just because you know everything about this computer techy information, like what is a DDoS or DoS or LOIC, and how to stop them, doesn't mean everyone else does.

Not everyone knows what theese things are. And when you tell people what they are, and how to prevent them, or explaining what exactly they are, you act like they're so stupid for not knowing it. You seem to talk down on them for not knowing knowledge that you take as obvious information when in fact, it isn't.

At one point you didn't know any of these things, and I'm sure the people who taught them to you didn't put you down or talk to you like you're stupid.


The only thing I have a problem with, is how you think that just because you know, means that everyone else should know it too, because everyone has to "keep up" with what you're learning because it's always the new thing, the new information, the new events.


You're not very understanding. .-.
Image
Image

User avatar
ghost 9
FWG King
Posts: 824
Joined: 04 Apr 2010, 18:33
Fr00k$: 0.50
Location: In your walls. O-o
Contact:

Re: Lagalizing DDoS Attacks?

Postby ghost 9 » 21 Jan 2013, 20:17

Shadowstar1922 wrote:Ghost, you act like just because you know everything about this computer techy information, like what is a DDoS or DoS or LOIC, and how to stop them, doesn't mean everyone else does.

Not everyone knows what theese things are. And when you tell people what they are, and how to prevent them, or explaining what exactly they are, you act like they're so stupid for not knowing it. You seem to talk down on them for not knowing knowledge that you take as obvious information when in fact, it isn't.

At one point you didn't know any of these things, and I'm sure the people who taught them to you didn't put you down or talk to you like you're stupid.


The only thing I have a problem with, is how you think that just because you know, means that everyone else should know it too, because everyone has to "keep up" with what you're learning because it's always the new thing, the new information, the new events.


You're not very understanding. .-.

A simple googleing will teach you how to stop DDoS attacks. I believe 7 links down it tells you about void servers.

I'm not putting anyone down, or talking to them like they're stupid. Your assumption is incorrect. I'm simplifying it so that someone who knows nothing about DDoS attacks, can understand what it is. Should I apologize for that?

And no, I don't think everyone should automatically know what it is. That's why I explained what it was.
"The costs of action are far less than the costs of inaction."

"If you don't want to be forgotten as soon as you're dead, write something worth reading, or do something worth writing"


Return to “Serious Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests