Twitter & Facebook PROBLEMS LOL

[04Jack04]

Micro-blogging service Twitter and social networking site Facebook have been severely disrupted by hackers.
Twitter was taken offline for more than two hours whilst Facebook's service was "degraded", according to the firms.
The popular sites were subject to so-called denial-of-service attacks on Thursday, the companies believe.
Denial-of-service (DOS) attacks take various forms but often involve a company's servers being flooded with data in an effort to disable them.
"Attacks such as this are malicious efforts orchestrated to disrupt and make unavailable services such as online banks, credit card payment gateways, and in this case, Twitter for intended customers or users," said Twitter co-founder Biz Stone on the company's blog.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8188201.stm

[GommeInc]

That'll explain why both have been acting up. Twitter was the only one reported to have gone down as far as I was aware :S

[Chippiewill]

Uh, no. It was DDoSed, not hacked.

[04Jack04]

Uh, no. It was DDoSed, not hacked.

Micro-blogging service Twitter and social networking site Facebook have been severely disrupted by hackers

Even though it does say about DDoS it did mention hackers {:

[Kardan]

It wasn't hacked. It doesn't even say it got hacked in the bloody article.

'Disrupted by hackers' does not equal 'hacked'.

[Jordy]

First of all it's been posted: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=596168

And no they were not hacked, if you bothered to read anything other than the title of the news report you would realise that.

The 'hackers' send out virus's to numerous people, the virus then takes over their computer. The hacker then has full control of their computer, they'll no doubt make it unusable and steal all things like email and bank details. They control thousands of these computers at a time. A group of these controlled computers is called a "Botnet". The hacker controls the botnet so all the computers within it all go on Twitter continually. This means that many thousands of computers are all trying to repeatedly go on Twitter at the same time, this therefore makes Twitter/Facebook crash and eventually go down. As a result of the servers being overloaded, it means that there is a bit of downtime for everytime.

Pretty much how DDoS works ;)

[04Jack04]

It wasn't hacked. It doesn't even say it got hacked in the bloody article.

'Disrupted by hackers' does not equal 'hacked'.

Alright no need to get stressy yeah.

[Kardan]

Alright no need to get stressy yeah.

I'm not getting stressy :)

It's like saying a known mass murderer robbed a store and automatically saying he killed the shop owners. He didn't, he just robbed the store. :P

[Immenseman]

weird that big sites can be affected by it. i just know it from habbo sites lmao.

[04Jack04]

First of all it's been posted: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=596168

And no they were not hacked, if you bothered to read anything other than the title of the news report you would realise that.


I couldn't actully care less.


I'm not getting stressy :)

It's like saying a known mass murderer robbed a store and automatically saying he killed the shop owners. He didn't, he just robbed the store. :P

You said 'if you actully bothered to read the bloody article' which is basically having a go :LLL

[e5]

Facebook there was problems with posting comments lol

[Kardan]

First of all it's been posted: http://www.habboxforum.com/showthread.php?t=596168

And no they were not hacked, if you bothered to read anything other than the title of the news report you would realise that.



It wasn't hacked. It doesn't even say it got hacked in the bloody article.

'Disrupted by hackers' does not equal 'hacked'.


I couldn't actully care less.



You said 'if you actully bothered to read the bloody article' which is basically having a go :LLL

That was Jordy, not me :/ Anyway, you're the stressed one since you're getting stressed over people correcting you, it's nothing personal, just people want to give out the correct information rather than getting people worrying 'OH NOES, SOME1 HAS MY FB PASS'

[04Jack04]

It wasn't hacked. It doesn't even say it got hacked in the bloody article.

'Disrupted by hackers' does not equal 'hacked'.

thats what I meant. I'm not stupid I know who said it thanks.


That was Jordy, not me :/ Anyway, you're the stressed one since you're getting stressed over people correcting you, it's nothing personal, just people want to give out the correct information rather than getting people worrying 'OH NOES, SOME1 HAS MY FB PASS'

You corrected ONE word in the title? Hardly giving out much incorrect information rly is it.

[Jordy]

thats what I meant. I'm not stupid I know who said it thanks.I'm not sure, is it considered stupid not being able to read? These days I think it's called learning difficulties but anywho.

[04Jack04]

I'm not sure, is it considered stupid not being able to read? These days I think it's called learning difficulties but anywho.

You don't no me, so don't judge, who do you think you are.

[Kardan]

thats what I meant. I'm not stupid I know who said it thanks.



You corrected ONE word in the title? Hardly giving out much incorrect information rly is it.

One word in the title can give out loads of incorrect information?

29 killed after University Massacre.

29 injured after University Massacre.

The world WILL end on December 21st, 2012.

The world COULD end on December 21st, 2012.

So yes, it is giving out incorrect information.

[04Jack04]

One word in the title can give out loads of incorrect information?

29 killed after University Massacre.

29 injured after University Massacre.

The world WILL end on December 21st, 2012.

The world COULD end on December 21st, 2012.

So yes, it is giving out incorrect information.

I don't care? I don't sit there wasting time by reading through the whole thing when the top bit summarises it. It said disrupted by hackers so thats how I interpritated it.

[Kardan]

I don't care? I don't sit there wasting time by reading through the whole thing when the top bit summarises it. It said disrupted by hackers so thats how I interpritated it.

Well, you do care, since you feel the need to reply :P

And yes, we're just simply stating that the fact is, that it wasn't hacked, just to clarify to anyone that thought it was :)

[04Jack04]

Well, you do care, since you feel the need to reply

I don't sit there and read through an article, no and trying to pick people up on one-word issues.

[Kardan]

I don't sit there and read through an article, no and trying to pick people up on one-word issues.

Whatever, you obviously have issues with someone trying to correct a small mistake :/ I'm not going to bother replying now since it's been sorted and there's no point in discussing it much more really.

[GommeInc]

Why are you people arguing? Surely it's BBC who is to blame, for using the word "hackers" to describe an attack on the two websites? I'm assuming Jack doesn't know the difference (or didn't know until now :P).

[04Jack04]

Why are you people arguing? Surely it's BBC who is to blame, for using the word "hackers" to describe an attack on the two websites? I'm assuming Jack doesn't know the difference (or didn't know until now :P).

Excuse me? If someone uses the word 'hackers' it generally means they are going to 'hack', 'hacking' or have had 'hacked' something.

[HotelUser]

To be honest I think the whole social networking thing is overrated (especially Twitter, it's idea is ridiculously simple). Having said that, I am guilty of using Twitter on the occasion.

[Chippiewill]

I just found out that it was a DDoS against one person's account on:

Facebook - Errors Occur
Twitter - Went down
Youtube - It's run by google, as if it would go down :rolleyes:
And that other one I forgot the name of

[N!ck]

Excuse me? If someone uses the word 'hackers' it generally means they are going to 'hack', 'hacking' or have had 'hacked' something.

Do you even know the correct sense of the term "hack"? The media and whatever throw this work around meaning something that it isn't ie cracking in this sense, and why would a person need to be a "hacker" to have a botnet anyway?


I just found out that it was a DDoS against one person's account on:

Facebook - Errors Occur
Twitter - Went down
Youtube - It's run by google, as if it would go down :rolleyes:
And that other one I forgot the name of

Nah, no-one's safe. A big enough botnet could disrupt Google/YouTube. It would have to be extremely huge though.

[Chippiewill]

Do you even know the correct sense of the term "hack"? The media and whatever throw this work around meaning something that it isn't ie cracking in this sense, and why would a person need to be a "hacker" to have a botnet anyway?



Nah, no-one's safe. A big enough botnet could disrupt Google/YouTube. It would have to be extremely huge though.

That's like saying you could take down the root servers. That's all you need to do to kill the entire internet. (Except for IPs thank god. I actually fill my hosts file with domain names that never change ip. E.g. google)

[N!ck]

That's like saying you could take down the root servers. That's all you need to do to kill the entire internet. (Except for IPs thank god. I actually fill my hosts file with domain names that never change ip. E.g. google)

Why would you do that? Google load balance you so you don't go to the same IP every time anyway. Surely any time saved with DNS would be negated by probably not being on the optimal server at that time?

And I'm sorry but if these people "kill" the Internet then they have no internet to go around and be bad-ass on. They probably wouldn't dare go for the root servers anyway.

[Recursion]

People have gone for the root nameservers, I was reading about it yesterday, interesting stuff! LOL

[N!ck]

People have gone for the root nameservers, I was reading about it yesterday, interesting stuff! LOL

From Wikipedia:

"On February 8, 2007 it was announced by Network World that "If the United States found itself under a major cyberattack aimed at undermining the nation’s critical information infrastructure, the Department of Defense is prepared, based on the authority of the president, to launch an actual bombing of an attack source or a cyber counterattack.""

Oh dear.

[efq]

This was posted yesterday?... and it wasn't hacked.

[Recursion]

From Wikipedia:

"On February 8, 2007 it was announced by Network World that "If the United States found itself under a major cyberattack aimed at undermining the nation’s critical information infrastructure, the Department of Defense is prepared, based on the authority of the president, to launch an actual bombing of an attack source or a cyber counterattack.""

Oh dear.

WIN! :P

[efq]

From Wikipedia:

"On February 8, 2007 it was announced by Network World that "If the United States found itself under a major cyberattack aimed at undermining the nation’s critical information infrastructure, the Department of Defense is prepared, based on the authority of the president, to launch an actual bombing of an attack source or a cyber counterattack.""

Oh dear.
Seriously, why not just storm it with police lol? Probably cheaper lmao

[HotelUser]

From Wikipedia:

"On February 8, 2007 it was announced by Network World that "If the United States found itself under a major cyberattack aimed at undermining the nation’s critical information infrastructure, the Department of Defense is prepared, based on the authority of the president, to launch an actual bombing of an attack source or a cyber counterattack.""

Oh dear.

Could be true, but if it's posted on Wikipedia then it's questionable:P.

[efq]

Yeah, you could understand the full extent and severity of a cyberattack into critical information is just as bad as anything else. So to prevent such vital information getting out then you must kill them haha.

[Jordy]

From Wikipedia:

"On February 8, 2007 it was announced by Network World that "If the United States found itself under a major cyberattack aimed at undermining the nation’s critical information infrastructure, the Department of Defense is prepared, based on the authority of the president, to launch an actual bombing of an attack source or a cyber counterattack.""

Oh dear.That's pretty cool but it'd be coming from computers from all over the world so bombing would be useless.

Frankly the best way to kill the internet or cut the US off is to sever all the telephone lines under the sea, I imagine it's quite easy judging by how easy they've severed in the past, they take many weeks to fix usually as well. I do wonder why terrorist groups wanting loads of attention don't actually do this, it's easy and you'll cause an enormous amount of disruption.

[Recursion]

That's pretty cool but it'd be coming from computers from all over the world so bombing would be useless.

Frankly the best way to kill the internet or cut the US off is to sever all the telephone lines under the sea, I imagine it's quite easy judging by how easy they've severed in the past, they take many weeks to fix usually as well. I do wonder why terrorist groups wanting loads of attention don't actually do this, it's easy and you'll cause an enormous amount of disruption.

Satellites?

[N!ck]

US hosted websites would still be available. And there's be too many to break to completely cut them off. Plus those that go through Mexico or Canada then accross the sea.

[Jordy]

You'd still cause downtime in some areas and it would be slower to say the least, I'm not too sure how many telephones lines there is though? And yeah satellites would be used for essential things (Government related activities) but that's not plausible for home users.

[Recursion]

You can get a satellite internet connection, IIRC a few yrs back they were like $50k though lolz

[Mentor]

The root servers of the internet are pretty safe i imagine, since there designed with the capasity to handle more aless every pc with an internet connection at once anyway (so even a bot net of a good % of the planet would not be all that effective)
That said most requests would never get near the root servers, alot of stuff never needs to be forwarded that high, they only resolve the tld's etc :)
Even with tld down, the sites internal to specific countarys would all work normally, many isp equally would likely have a pretty large amount of domain resolutions cached as well :)
The internet still has its roots in technolgy designed to surivive nuclear war, its pretty danm resiliant as a whole :)

[Agnostic Bear]

The root servers of the internet are pretty safe i imagine, since there designed with the capasity to handle more aless every pc with an internet connection at once anyway (so even a bot net of a good % of the planet would not be all that effective)

Ok now you're just talking ****, there's no way to handle every connection in the world at once, and the root nameservers don't handle normal user requests anyway :rolleyes:

They've almost been taken down by a large botnet in the asia-pacific region.

[N!ck]

Ok now you're just talking ****, there's no way to handle every connection in the world at once, and the root nameservers don't handle normal user requests anyway :rolleyes:

They've almost been taken down by a large botnet in the asia-pacific region.

I don't see two of the servers suffering badly as them all being almost taken down?

[GommeInc]

Seriously, why not just storm it with police lol? Probably cheaper lmao
Far too boring, the US love wasting their money and being more and more in debt, not to mention killing loads of harmless people who have the misfortune to be within a mile of the building where these "attackers" are :P

As Jordy pointed out, the attacks would be coming from computers scattered all over the place. I'd be concerned if the US actually bombed every country in the hopes of finding these places, let alone the US going to war with another country just by bombing.

But that is of course, if the wikipedia article is correct :P

[Agnostic Bear]

I don't see two of the servers suffering badly as them all being almost taken down?

Uh I meant a few, sorry. Not been awake all that long :(

[Mentor]

Ok now you're just talking ****, there's no way to handle every connection in the world at once, and the root nameservers don't handle normal user requests anyway :rolleyes:

They've almost been taken down by a large botnet in the asia-pacific region.
I never claimed it would? All they do is resolve tld o.0 Once thats done, the root servers arnt involved in any more of the connection?
Hence handling dns for every request from pc's all over the world aint as huge a job as it sounds, there are billions of pc's yes, but it takes a minute amount of processing for each one and the root servers are pretty danm powerful machines.
They aint exactly going to be involved in streaming you media, serving you webapges or anything else o.0

[Agnostic Bear]

I never claimed it would? All they do is resolve tld o.0 Once thats done, the root servers arnt involved in any more of the connection?
Hence handling dns for every request from pc's all over the world aint as huge a job as it sounds, there are billions of pc's yes, but it takes a minute amount of processing for each one and the root servers are pretty danm powerful machines.
They aint exactly going to be involved in streaming you media, serving you webapges or anything else o.0

They resolve TLDs for the ISP's nameserver if it needs caching, then it's always taken from the ISP's cached copy. I'm pretty certain users never query root nameservers ever, it's all done through the ISP nameserver.

And yes you did claim (or imply) it would

The root servers of the internet are pretty safe i imagine, since there designed with the capasity to handle more aless every pc with an internet connection at once anyway

They're not designed for that at all, and they're not that powerful, they have a lot of mirrors though.

[Mentor]

They resolve TLDs for the ISP's nameserver if it needs caching, then it's always taken from the ISP's cached copy. I'm pretty certain users never query root nameservers ever, it's all done through the ISP nameserver.

And yes you did claim (or imply) it would


They're not designed for that at all, and they're not that powerful, they have a lot of mirrors though.

For simplicity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_nameserver

A root name server is a name server for the Domain Name System's root zone. It directly answers requests for records in the root zone and answers other requests returning a list of the designated authoritative name servers for the appropriate top-level domain (TLD). The root name servers are a critical part of the Internet because they are the first step in translating (resolving) human readable host names into IP addresses that are used in communication between Internet hosts.

[Recursion]

I find it funny how a Twitter and Facebook help thread turned into an argument about root nameservers.

[Mentor]

I find it funny how a Twitter and Facebook help thread turned into an argument about root nameservers.
Lol. True. I think this xkcd may start to explain the phenomena:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

[Agnostic Bear]

For simplicity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_nameserver

A root name server is a name server for the Domain Name System's root zone. It directly answers requests for records in the root zone and answers other requests returning a list of the designated authoritative name servers for the appropriate top-level domain (TLD). The root name servers are a critical part of the Internet because they are the first step in translating (resolving) human readable host names into IP addresses that are used in communication between Internet hosts.

Yes, they don't handle user requests, they handle ISP server requests, the ISP server then caches them and user requests are served from the ISP nameservers. If they were taken directly from the root dns servers, everyone would see updates in real time as they happened and nothing would be cached. Why do you think it takes up to 24 hours for a domain ns change to propagate on the internet?

Caching. That's why.

[N!ck]

Yes, they don't handle user requests, they handle ISP server requests, the ISP server then caches them and user requests are served from the ISP nameservers. If they were taken directly from the root dns servers, everyone would see updates in real time as they happened and nothing would be cached. Why do you think it takes up to 24 hours for a domain ns change to propagate on the internet?

Caching. That's why.

This is true as when (in the caching respect) you update DNS or whois records they go straight to the root servers in seconds, but of course whoever you're using for DNS is likely to have to old records cached for a while.

When you do whois lookups and that sort of thing you go straight to querying the root as far as I know.

[Mentor]

This is true as when (in the caching respect) you update DNS or whois records they go straight to the root servers in seconds, but of course whoever you're using for DNS is likely to have to old records cached for a while.

When you do whois lookups and that sort of thing you go straight to querying the root as far as I know.
Although isp's will cache domain resolutions that are accessed they still have to be able toe resolve the domain to cache it. In this sense its true that requests made from your pc never go directly to the root servers. Your isp's dns server generally just acts as a middle man to ask the root servers what dns server knows about a certain tld, then it asks that server about the domain in question and so on.
Cacheing is done all over the place, even the client pc itself will keep a short term cache of domains :)

http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/tutorials/tutorial28.html - has a nice diagram :p

[Agnostic Bear]

Although isp's will cache domain resolutions that are accessed they still have to be able toe resolve the domain to cache it. In this sense its true that requests made from your pc never go directly to the root servers. Your isp's dns server generally just acts as a middle man to ask the root servers what dns server knows about a certain tld, then it asks that server about the domain in question and so on.
Cacheing is done all over the place, even the client pc itself will keep a short term cache of domains :)

http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/tutorials/tutorial28.html - has a nice diagram :p

??? ISP nameservers cache the domain for several hours, even days in some slow cases. They don't implicitly go to the root nameservers every time you make a request.

[Mentor]

??? ISP nameservers cache the domain for several hours, even days in some slow cases. They don't implicitly go to the root nameservers every time you make a request.
If isp's requested the entire set of resolutions at a set time ever day they probably really would manage to kill a few of the root servers. Requests are made on demand, if an access hasn't been made to a site already for the isp, it'll get queried directly.

[Agnostic Bear]

If isp's requested the entire set of resolutions at a set time ever day they probably really would manage to kill a few of the root servers. Requests are made on demand, if an access hasn't been made to a site already for the isp, it'll get queried directly.

What are you on about? It goes like this:

Me: HELLO WHERE IS GOOGLE.COM
ISP: HOLD ON LET ME CHECK MY CACHE
ISP: OH MAN I HAVE NO CACHE/MY CACHE IS TOO OLD LET ME GO ASK THE D ROOT SERVER
ISP: HEY D, WHERE IS GOOGLE.COM
D: WHATS A GOOGLE.COM, LET ME GO AND ASK X ROOT SERVER
(Recursion until it's found)
D: OH HEY IT'S HERE: GOOGLE NAME SERVER URL
ISP: OK THANKS I WILL KEEP THAT IN MIND FOR OH SAY 12 HOURS
ISP: HEY GOOGLE NAME SERVER WHERE SHOULD I DIRECT THIS PERSON
GOOGLE: SEND THEM HERE: 74.125.127.100
ISP: OK THANKS I WILL REMEMBER THAT IS THAT COOL?
GOOGLE: YES SURE
ISP: HEY YOU HERE IS WHERE TO GO: 74.125.127.100
Me: OK THANKS I WILL GO THERE

hours later

Me: OH MAN I FORGOT WHERE GOOGLE.COM IS HEY ISP CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE GOOGLE.COM IS
ISP: OK HOLD ON
ISP: HEY COOL I HAVE A CACHE AND ITS FRESH SO GO HERE: 74.125.127.100
Me: OK THANKS I WILL GO THERE

hours later

Me: OH MAN I FORGOT WHERE GOOGLE.COM IS HEY ISP CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE GOOGLE.COM IS
ISP: OK HOLD ON
ISP: HEY COOL I HAVE A CACHE BUT I THINK I SHOULD CHECK WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE ITS COOL
ISP: HEY GOOGLE NAME SERVERS WHERE SHOULD I SEND THIS PERSON
GOOGLE: SEND THEM HERE: 74.125.127.100
ISP: OK COOL I WILL REMEMBER THAT FOR A WHILE IS THAT COOL
GOOGLE: YEAH THATS COOL
ISP: HEY YOU GO HERE 74.125.127.10
Me: OK THANKS BYE

hours later

go to start

[Mentor]

What are you on about? It goes like this:

Me: HELLO WHERE IS GOOGLE.COM
ISP: HOLD ON LET ME CHECK MY CACHE
ISP: OH MAN I HAVE NO CACHE/MY CACHE IS TOO OLD LET ME GO ASK THE D ROOT SERVER
ISP: HEY D, WHERE IS GOOGLE.COM
D: WHATS A GOOGLE.COM, LET ME GO AND ASK X ROOT SERVER
(Recursion until it's found)
D: OH HEY IT'S HERE: GOOGLE NAME SERVER URL
ISP: OK THANKS I WILL KEEP THAT IN MIND FOR OH SAY 12 HOURS
ISP: HEY GOOGLE NAME SERVER WHERE SHOULD I DIRECT THIS PERSON
GOOGLE: SEND THEM HERE: 74.125.127.100
ISP: OK THANKS I WILL REMEMBER THAT IS THAT COOL?
GOOGLE: YES SURE
ISP: HEY YOU HERE IS WHERE TO GO: 74.125.127.100
Me: OK THANKS I WILL GO THERE

hours later

Me: OH MAN I FORGOT WHERE GOOGLE.COM IS HEY ISP CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE GOOGLE.COM IS
ISP: OK HOLD ON
ISP: HEY COOL I HAVE A CACHE AND ITS FRESH SO GO HERE: 74.125.127.100
Me: OK THANKS I WILL GO THERE

hours later

Me: OH MAN I FORGOT WHERE GOOGLE.COM IS HEY ISP CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE GOOGLE.COM IS
ISP: OK HOLD ON
ISP: HEY COOL I HAVE A CACHE BUT I THINK I SHOULD CHECK WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE ITS COOL
ISP: HEY GOOGLE NAME SERVERS WHERE SHOULD I SEND THIS PERSON
GOOGLE: SEND THEM HERE: 74.125.127.100
ISP: OK COOL I WILL REMEMBER THAT FOR A WHILE IS THAT COOL
GOOGLE: YEAH THATS COOL
ISP: HEY YOU GO HERE 74.125.127.10
Me: OK THANKS BYE

hours later

go to start
I like the way you rephrased what i was saying and claimed its what you were auguring :) Interesting tactic i must say, but if were on the same page now, debating the point furthers kinda useless.

[Recursion]

Jew Bear you've done it again.

[WizingWiz]

LiveJornal was also attacked,

These DoS attacks are pointless, and they make no profit,

So what is the point?

To show theyre weaknesses?

Thank god no user data was lost :)

Wiz