Digg Used To Facilitate DDoS Attack
15 hours ago (at the time of posting) a "story" was submitted to digg.com. But unlike most stories this one didn't intend on providing useful information, Breaking news or a funny video. the intention of this story was to initiate a DDoS attack against the site godhatesfags.com by using the digg comminuty as a botnet.The user egingras posted this story entitled "Make GodHatesFags pay for their bandwidth" with the description "It's time to stop this shit. Feel free to use as much bandwidth as possible. Try downloading a few podcasts."
The story then rapidly received many diggs, 2139 at the time of this post, And soon found it's way onto the front page, At which point digg users started posting links to audio files in comments and soon knocked godhatesfags.com offline.
having a site which gets "slasdotted" or becomes a victim of the "digg effect" is usually a webmasters wet dream. it means a lot of people want to see something you have made or written. But when these usually innocent effects are done to facilitate criminal damage it becomes a different issue. It becomes illegal.
I am surprised, And angry, That digg should allow their site to be used in such a malicious and criminal way. the intent from the very beginning was obviously to knock the website offline by sending it many thousands of visitors, Which is, For all intents and purposes, A DDoS attack.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, December 28, 2006 at 12/28/2006.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
Posted byIt's indeed an unfair way of showing your disagreement with a certain site, but on the other hand; the webpage seems to be very disrespectful towards homosexuals, so I can't say I disagree with it...
Posted by
Evidently Digg didn't like the idea of a DDOS either -- that particular news story has been yanked off of Digg completely, along with all of its comments.
Posted by
you are a fucking moron. so you think it's OKAY for godhatesfags.com to be up and operating? so you agree with them?
Posted by
Nothing wrong with godhatesfags.com that elimination of freedom of speach can't fix. Why not register gothatesgodhatesfags.com and rant there? Me, I don't give a rats ass either way. Now if you were talking about DDOS on a childpr0n site I'd be the first to assist.
Posted by
"you are a fucking moron. so you think it's OKAY for godhatesfags.com to be up and operating? so you agree with them?"
Where did i say i agree with what they say? Their politics and actions are objectionable, But they have as much a right to say stupid things on the internet as you do.
Whatever godhatesfags.com say it's wrong, and illegal, To DDoS them.
Posted by
I posted about Digg recently myself in an open letter to Kevin Rose, see it here:
An Open Letter to Kevin Rose, Founder of Digg.com
The problem as I see it is that the noble idea of digg is gone, while Digg has become more about Digg than the news and links it hosts
-- For the anonymous reply who asks whether I agree with the site in question or not: The point isn't whether we agree with the content of the site, it's whether or not digg.com should allow people to abuse its system to bring a website to its knees intentionally, no matter who owns it, or what it is about. Let's really think about who the moron is.
Posted by
This comment has been removed by the author.
Posted by
"so you think it's OKAY for godhatesfags.com to be up and operating? so you agree with them?"
The issue isn't whether or not Matt agrees with the site. Personally I find the domain objectionable and won't visit the site. And it bothers me that people can still have the attitude that I assume comes along with that domain.
The issue though, is that just because you or I think it's objectionable neither of us has the right to censor them. They still have a right to say what they want regardless of how we feel about it.
Tomorrow someone could decide your site or mine is objectionable and decide to remove it.
If you want the freedom to be able to say or publish what you want then you have to accept that others can say or publish what they want regardless of how objectionable you find it.
As soon as you start censoring one opinion no matter how disgraceful it may seem it sets a precedent to allow anyone to censor any speech for the same reason.
Post a Comment