the source I have seen so far is: http://news.com.com/GoDaddy.com+suffers +outage/2110-7349_3-5977187.html?tag=nefd.hed So I was looking for more details.... On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 23:11 +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Sam Crooks wrote:
Does anybody have information regarding to size and scale of the DDoS attack purported to have happened against GoDaddy today?
nope... but against their: 1) dns servers? 2) web servers? 3) mail servers? 4) networking equipment? 5) none of the above?
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, and any attachments, are intended only for the lawful and specified use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are STRICTLY PROHIBITED from disclosing, printing, storing, disseminating, distributing or copying this communication, or admitting to take any action relying thereon, and doing so may be unlawful. It should be noted that any use of this communication outside of the intended and specified use as designated by the sender, may be unlawful. If you have received this in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail, fax and/or telephone, and destroy this original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Sam Crooks wrote:
the source I have seen so far is:
http://news.com.com/GoDaddy.com+suffers +outage/2110-7349_3-5977187.html?tag=nefd.hed
stuck through tinyurl for those that care: http://tinyurl.com/83hxp
So I was looking for more details....
apparently it affected web and mail, so I'd assume someone targetted their DNS hosts :( bummer for them... if they were a customer we could have helped. They seem to be ATT customers, Tim could probably have helped them as well... perhaps calling their ISP's for assitance would have made the affect less than 65 mins? and thus less press-worthy :(
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 23:11 +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Sam Crooks wrote:
Does anybody have information regarding to size and scale of the DDoS attack purported to have happened against GoDaddy today?
nope... but against their: 1) dns servers? 2) web servers? 3) mail servers? 4) networking equipment? 5) none of the above?
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, and any attachments, are intended only for the lawful and specified use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are STRICTLY PROHIBITED from disclosing, printing, storing, disseminating, distributing or copying this communication, or admitting to take any action relying thereon, and doing so may be unlawful. It should be noted that any use of this communication outside of the intended and specified use as designated by the sender, may be unlawful. If you have received this in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail, fax and/or telephone, and destroy this original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
It could be a DoS that used a software vulnerability though. On 12/1/05, Christopher L. Morrow <christopher.morrow@mci.com> wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Sam Crooks wrote:
the source I have seen so far is:
http://news.com.com/GoDaddy.com+suffers +outage/2110-7349_3-5977187.html?tag=nefd.hed
stuck through tinyurl for those that care: http://tinyurl.com/83hxp
So I was looking for more details....
apparently it affected web and mail, so I'd assume someone targetted their DNS hosts :( bummer for them... if they were a customer we could have helped. They seem to be ATT customers, Tim could probably have helped them as well... perhaps calling their ISP's for assitance would have made the affect less than 65 mins? and thus less press-worthy :(
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 23:11 +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005, Sam Crooks wrote:
Does anybody have information regarding to size and scale of the
DDoS
attack purported to have happened against GoDaddy today?
nope... but against their: 1) dns servers? 2) web servers? 3) mail servers? 4) networking equipment? 5) none of the above?
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, and any attachments, are intended only for the lawful and specified use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are STRICTLY PROHIBITED from disclosing, printing, storing, disseminating, distributing or copying this communication, or admitting to take any action relying thereon, and doing so may be unlawful. It should be noted that any use of this communication outside of the intended and specified use as designated by the sender, may be unlawful. If you have received this in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail, fax and/or telephone, and destroy this original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:18:52 -0700 "Sam Crooks" <scrooks@ebocom.net> wrote: This confidentiality notice almost DoS'd my MUA !
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message, and any attachments, are intended only for the lawful and specified use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you are STRICTLY PROHIBITED from disclosing, printing, storing, disseminating, distributing or copying this communication, or admitting to take any action relying thereon, and doing so may be unlawful. It should be noted that any use of this communication outside of the intended and specified use as designated by the sender, may be unlawful. If you have received this in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail, fax and/or telephone, and destroy this original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.
-- "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert." - Bruce Schneier
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Mark Smith wrote: [Dire threats regarding confidentiality, etc. snipped.]
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:18:52 -0700 "Sam Crooks" <scrooks@ebocom.net> wrote:
This confidentiality notice almost DoS'd my MUA !
One would think that those posting here would have the clue to realize that they are sending mail to a widely read and archived mailing list, making any such confidentiality warning rather ludicrous. One would also hope that most posters here would also have the horsepower within their organization to point out the ridiculousness to whoever implemented such cruft or at least sufficient privileges on the company MTA to strip it from their own postings. This silliness started with fax cover pages before it morphed to email, but it seems to have mostly disappeared from the fax world. Has the validity of such language ever been upheld in court? NOTICE: This communication may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, or believe that you have received this communication in error, you are obligated to kill yourself and anyone else who may have read it, not necessarily in that order. So there. My disclaimer is scarier than yours. Nyaah. You started this silly nonsense. Knock it off and I will too, ok? It is a tragic waste of perfectly good CPU cycles, storage, and bandwidth. Nobody reads it anyway. You're not actually reading this, are you? I didn't think so. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Administration - jay@west.net WestNet: Connecting you to the planet. 805 884-6323 WB6RDV NetLojix Communications, Inc. - http://www.netlojix.com/
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 01:47:17 PST, Jay Hennigan said:
Has the validity of such language ever been upheld in court?
IANAL - but apparently the use of it on *some* faxes has stood up in court, it hasn't been tested on e-mail yet, but a number of people who have written on it think that the indiscriminate use of disclaimers will backfire badly if the opposing legal staff can show the company can't tell the difference between an e-mail discussing strategy for an upcoming trial and a request for help with BGP. URLs I found the last time I researched this: http://www.wendytech.com/articlesemailandprivilege.htm http://www.mcguirewoods.com/news-resources/publications/commercial_litigatio... http://partners.nytimes.com/library/tech/00/03/cyber/cyberlaw/17law.html
Nobody reads it anyway. You're not actually reading this, are you? I didn't think so.
I love the ones that put "please discard without reading" at the *bottom* of the e-mail. Bonus points for having a single unwrapped 3,487 character long line so standard-compliant MUAs that don't flow text unless it *says* text/flowed, so you have to use the horizontal scrollbar to find the "please discard without reading" ;) ObNANOG: The ones that claim you are *required* to destroy *all* copies, including the unlinked-but-not-yet-overwritten data blocks on that RAID you use for a mail store, and the backup tapes. I mean, after all, if they screwed up and they want it *destroyed*, they don't want it *destroyed* in the half-assed, just-get-the-disk-copy way that eventually helped convict Colonel Oliver North partly on the basis of the backup tapes: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/offdocs/reagan/chron.txt Figuring out how to do this right, and then invoice the responsible company for the cost, thus creating a profit center for your company, is left as an excersize for the reader. ;)
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Jay Hennigan wrote:
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 16:18:52 -0700 "Sam Crooks" <scrooks@ebocom.net> wrote: This confidentiality notice almost DoS'd my MUA ! One would think that those posting here would have the clue to realize
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005, Mark Smith wrote: [Dire threats regarding confidentiality, etc. snipped.] that they are sending mail to a widely read and archived mailing list, making any such confidentiality warning rather ludicrous.
IMO, such disclaimers are incompatible with the nanog ml, anyone posting from such disclaimer-encumbered accounts should be forcefully unsubscribed. If you can't post from a disclaimer-free account, you shouldn't be posting to the list, period. -Dan
On 12/2/05, Dan Hollis <goemon@anime.net> wrote:
IMO, such disclaimers are incompatible with the nanog ml, anyone posting from such disclaimer-encumbered accounts should be forcefully unsubscribed. If you can't post from a disclaimer-free account, you shouldn't be posting to the list, period.
That is the policy on a few linux / linux related mailing lists I am on (the sort that are just as eager to chase down people who top post and full quote, for example) Easily ignorable / tune-out-able though, and the discussions about this sort of stuff consume far more bits than the actual disclaimer. -- Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 16:20:28 -0800, Dan Hollis proclaimed...
IMO, such disclaimers are incompatible with the nanog ml, anyone posting from such disclaimer-encumbered accounts should be forcefully unsubscribed. If you can't post from a disclaimer-free account, you shouldn't be posting to the list, period.
You've wasted more of our time by posting this message than by those people who have disclaimers.
participants (9)
-
Christopher L. Morrow -
Dan Hollis -
eric -
Jay Hennigan -
Kim Onnel -
Mark Smith -
Sam Crooks -
Suresh Ramasubramanian -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu