| Guest | Date: Ceturtdiena, 10.10.2013, 09:09:04 | Message # 1 |
|
Group: Viesis
| Not sure if you're just trying to syliimfping things for general understanding here, but there's some weird understand of network infrastructure going on here and some outright mistakes.Just a few of the major points: Major Internet protocols like TCP/IP and HTTP don’t have any formal mechanism for limiting the amount of server capacity used by any given client Outright wrong. There are a number of ways to throttle/control//balance/shape traffic. Based on port, data type, application type, connections, half-connections, etc, etc. Which can be enforced client side, in transit infrastructure (such as routers or layer 3 switches), firewalls and server side. Local ISP's do this as a pretty common practice across the board right now for certain traffic types (like bittorent) and during peak hours. It's possible for any TCP/IP based connection and HTTP. The closest thing I can think of to this being right, is that it's far more difficult and resource intensive for UTP in certain situations. I’d be willing to bet that at this very moment, a small army of sysadmins at Anonymous’s various targets, and their ISPs, are working around the clock to respond to Anonymous’s attacks. Severely doubt it. The impact on network performance/resources from attempting to monitor DDoS, would cause far more congestion along the connection that the attack itself would on the end ISP side. (So in that way, you could maybe then say there's no viable means of identifying/controlling the traffic) Not to mention you'd need an extensive amount of cooperation between the ISP and target which is also unlikely. And there'd be no reason to implement a system to coordinate that (especially because of how rarely it would come into play). It's far more economical to simply expand/configure the end server side appropriately (there are entire companies based on DDoS absorbing hosting) and ban IP ranges if it persists for any length of time.As for building infrastructure to combat DDoS, there's some of that already present and any host worth anything already has policies/practices in place to curb it. To start eliminating it This I'm not entirely sure of, but I'd think you'd need to have a whole new system in place, don't think it would be reliable enough with the current protocols. And almost certainly not worth the cost/efficiency knock. Also, Anonymous is purported to be only voluntary, you download the LOIC (Low Orbit Ion Cannon) and basically willingly connect to what would be considered the botnet (Hivemind). There's no real way to confirm that all machines involved are through that method though.Think that covers the major points.Interesting argument otherwise.
|
| |
| |
