Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AT&T Blocks Part of 4chan

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the do-you-hear-that-tremendous-whining-noise? dept.

The Internet 342

holdenkarau writes "Several news sources (Mashable, The Inquistr, etc.) are reporting that AT&T is blocking img.4chan.org in the southern United States. That server is used for the infamous /b/ board (the home of anonymous). TechCrunch calls the decision to block 4chan 'stupid,' noting that they may have 'opened perhaps the most vindictive, messy can of worms.' The Inquisitr suggests that 'The global internet censorship debate landed in the home of the free.' moot (who runs 4chan) asks users to call AT&T, while some others suggest more drastic action (like cutting AT&T fiber)." Update: 07/27 09:23 GMT by T : Readers' comments below suggest that a) the purpose of the block was to curtail the effects of a serious DDoS attack and b) that the block has now been lifted, at least for some regions.

cancel ×

342 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

land of the free (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833571)

first!
what a misnomer.

The 1st landing party is 1st to sell at a profit. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833893)

C'mon, don't you love finding somthing behind another's back and selling it at full value despite having paid nothing for it? Or how about how foreigners aren't allowed to die for a landing here, yet a US'ian is allowed to die for America and not branded as a foreigner to the nations among Turtle Island?

Indians already here didn't boast an interest other than mere tenancy under the "great Spirit." When the political refugees arrived from euro-trashland, then it got dicy with the land patents. When that failed, they took their land patents and vested it to the tenancy of a sucessor (1775) called the united States of America which then rolled into another (A. Lincoln 1861) called the United States.

Somehow, the United States has been nothing but a Real Estate fraud, constantly pumping and dumping title deeds and then preventing the heirs from attain the land patent in common law.

Land of the free is right. The United States makes everyone pay for the tenancy many times over, compels and induces the fraud of tenancy and property taxes, then lets the next generation pay again and prevents the heir from inheriting under the guise of subsistency in services coercively rendered despite noncompetitive and obsolete.

Land of the free is right. The United States gets everything for free. For once, I would like to be worth a value that the United States can't afford to buy or rent from me, yet the United States determines on its own in all of its swarms of officers the default value for which it might progress my property from my hands.

Land of the free is right. The United States doesn't need to assure that its paper currency is redeemable, holds any value, or has anybody working for its collection.

Land of the free is right. The United States isolated the brave into debtor prisons, and forced the Brave onto Indian Reservations of the worst quality of land and continue to harass even them in their own isolation and jurisdiction despite the United States unable to maintain said jurisprudence for anything other than tax purposes.

Land of the free is right...

Before we act too hastily.. (5, Informative)

jx100 (453615) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833573)

http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg19609.html [merit.edu]

The president of unWired (a much more reputable ISP) has also blocked the same server. A DDoS was apparently attacking said server which wast travelling over both lines. According to this post, the block was due solely to stop the DDoS.

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (1, Flamebait)

SmarkWoW (1382053) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833583)

You don't haul a girl off to jail if she was raped do you?

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833645)

You do if the girl had a history of claiming she was "raped" for several years despite the fact that hundreds of security cameras caught her on camera getting drunk, attacking guys in the alleyway and raping them every single time.

And the legal system simply never did anything about it because the courts are too scared to deal with rape cases.

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (0, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833923)

When a woman rapes a man, he must be hard, inb4 strapon.

If her victim is aroused, is it rape? If a man rapes a woman and she has an orgasm [google.com] in the process, is it rape?

If a woman is twice as likely [scienceblog.com] to become pregnant if raped, does that make rape immoral?

Finally, ATT sucks. Track their employees leaving the stores and beat the shit out of them, then vandalize their vehicles. Fuck man, it's obvious that they're a front for government spying. When their medical bills are greater than their paychecks and government stipends, the domestic spying will end.

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833693)

You don't haul a girl off to jail if she was raped do you?

Are we talking about the world in general? Or about the shithole known as the Middle East?

If you're talking about the shithole, then yes, you haul the filthy little whore off to jail because she was asking for it.

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (5, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833857)

You don't haul a girl off to jail if she was raped do you?

That's clearly an attempt to draw an analogy, so it really isn't as offtopic as it sounds. And yes, in the case of repeated rape of the same girl by the same person, you might. It's called protective custody [wikipedia.org] .

In this case, though, AT&T almost certainly isn't doing it to protect 4chan's server. I'm sure they couldn't care less about that. They do, however, care about the huge zombie botnet on their network that is probably racking up huge bandwidth bills for them with their upstream providers.

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28834003)

If they REALLY cared about what a zombie botfarm AT&T has become, they'd start cutting the users that allowed their machines to turn into spam- and DDoSbots. Instead they block access to a server. And not to protect this server, because of the very nature of the attack, AT&T bears the same if not the higher load of the DDoS.

They don't give a shit about hosting a zombie botnet. If they did, they'd cut their users, but that in turn would cause angry phone calls to their support center and a lot of canceled contracts. Instead, they block a server to all their customers, along the "can't see it, so it's no problem" theory.

The zombies still exist. And prepare for the next server to attack. *pondering*... Hmmm.... If I wanted to disallow AT&T users into a server, could I order a DDoS attack? I mean, if it was AOLlers it would be a no-brainer...

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833861)

You don't haul a girl off to jail if she was raped do you?

You do if you're a faithful Muslim! Sadly, not joking: look at the horrific punishments given to rape victims in the past few years in e.g. Iran.

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (5, Interesting)

Calydor (739835) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833599)

So to stop a DDoS attack on a server, they remove any and all access to that server?

Am I the only one seeing the irony here?

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (1, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833621)

So to stop a DDoS attack on a server, they remove any and all access to that server?

How else would you do it?

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833675)

Uh, try disconnecting the zombies on your network participating, instead?

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (5, Funny)

dotgain (630123) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833677)

Well, I'd reverse the polarity of the main deflector dish, of course

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (5, Funny)

fireman sam (662213) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833803)

My God man, are you insane? That would be like crossing the streams and I don't mean like Ghostbusters, more like broke back mountain.

Slow day

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (1)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 5 years ago | (#28834013)

The obvious, blocking the zombies. If said zombies are also your customers, send them angry letters and bill them for the privilege. That's At&t standard operating procedure anyway.

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (5, Informative)

KDingo (944605) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833779)

I was confused until I read this.

http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/2009-July/012198.html [nanog.org]

If IP source headers are spoofed to somewhere else, say to AT&T networks, it makes sense to block them

ACK Attack (5, Informative)

iYk6 (1425255) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833855)

So to stop a DDoS attack on a server, they remove any and all access to that server? Am I the only one seeing the irony here?

The post you responded to is misleading. According to this: http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/2523/1248672053880.png [imageshack.us] , this was an ACK attack, which causes problems not only for the directly attacked host, but for other users as well.

Ordinarily, a TCP connection is set up when you send a SYN packet to a website, such as 4chan, and then 4chan responds with a ACK, and then you respond again with a SYN-ACK.

Here is how an ACK attack works. I, the attacker, will send a SYN packet to 4chan, but I am pretending to be you, or your IP address. 4chan then sends an ACK packet to you, excepting a SYN-ACK in response. However, you did not initiate the connection, so you send a RST back to 4chan (or nothing at all, depending on your firewall settings).

Then I do it again. And again. I effectively flood both you and 4chan with meaningless traffic. Your traffic problems are even worse, because if you have a firewall blocking the RST packets, then 4chan will send you 4 ACK packets (depending on configuration) for every SYN packet I send them.

In this case, AT&T and other ISPs decided that the simplest solution to ending this DOS against their users was to block packets to and from 4chan (or a specific part of 4chan).

Re:ACK Attack (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28834089)

SYN
SYN-ACK
ACK

The right 3-way handshake

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833975)

Mission Accomplished!

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (1)

dhammabum (190105) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833995)

"We had to destroy the server to save it."

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (4, Insightful)

toejam13 (958243) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833611)

But, we've already sharpened the pitchforks and lit the torches.

What are we supposed to do now?

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833983)

just wait for further instruction from the groupthink. and remember remember.... --anon

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833843)

Except said DDoS attacks happened und 2 weeks ago. Can't they act in a more timely fashion?

http://status.4chan.org/

See the post below the top one

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28834061)

Before we act too hastily? This sort of thing should not happen in the first place!

AnoNet (http://anonet.org) is a "virtual Internet" that utilizes OpenVPN (http://www.openvpn.net) and Quagga (http://www.quagga.net) to provide a layer of anonymity and deniability on top of the Internet. It uses a chaotic yet cooperative routing scheme which allows anyone to use any IP address while still maintaining their existing Internet connection.

It has everything on it that the Internet does: web servers, FTP servers, DNS infrastructure, PGP keyservers, IM, IRC, streaming audio, game severs, etc. All Internet-aware applications should work fine as AnoNet is simply an addition to your operating system's routing table.

If you are fed up with companies that treat the Internet as their own, fight back!

Re:Before we act too hastily.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28834081)

Hey, if it can be confirmed that this was in response to a DDoS attack, can we please update the title and summary? You know, as an effort to not be manipulated into spreading misinformation (lies) for people's (trolls) agendas?

Editors? Anyone?

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833587)

The question comes down to, 1.) Is AT&T doing it to block /b/? 2.) Is it doing it to help stem the current tide of DDoS of 4chan.

4chan, eh? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833595)

First they came for the pedophiles, and I said nothing, for I was not a pedophile.

Then they came for the USB Mice... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833811)

but I trolled using plain html and wit that RMS can't handle. [freeimagehosting.net]

Then they came for the USB port, but I used a PS/2 bridged Wacom tablet.

Yhen they came for my porn collection, and they haven't stopped cumming.

Score: 0 (Logged-in users start at Score: 1). Create an Account! Confirm your humanity by telling us what you see or hear: mutiny

Aye! Everyone's thinkin' it, I'm just sayin' it. Mutiny is in the wind!

Looks like the block was lifted (4, Informative)

yamamushi (903955) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833605)

As of 1am CST, it looks like the block is beginning to be lifted : http://encyclopediadramatica.com/AT%26T_Blocks_4chan#THIS_JUST_IN [encycloped...matica.com] I can confirm access to img.4chan.org open from the Austin/South Texas area now, whereas it wasn't about an hour ago.

Re:Looks like the block was lifted (2, Insightful)

Venim (846130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833637)

Sounds like they backed out pretty quickly. Probably the best move they could make (aside from not blocking 4chan in the first place).

As for the DDoS claim by them, i say FUD. /b/ was just as slow as it always is.

Re:Looks like the block was lifted (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833815)

You're an idiot... obviously there was a DOS going on. http://status.4chan.org/index.html#1567027617431107851

Re:Looks like the block was lifted (2, Interesting)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 5 years ago | (#28834021)

    Oh my gosh.. Not 4chan... What shall we do?

    Myself, I'm going on with my regular life, since I never went there anyways. :)

    But, since I was curious, I tried to go to their site from a Verizon FiOS line. Dead.

    This almost reminds me of the wonders of folks playing in IRC back in the day. One kid pisses off another kid, and suddenly folks are getting flooded off the network, and other various DoS attacks. SSDD.

Re:Looks like the block was lifted (1)

stox (131684) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833789)

Same here. It was blocked since this afternoon, but is reachable now from AT&T DSL outside of Chicago.

Hooboy... (4, Funny)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833609)

This is going to be beyond epic. There's going to be movies made about this a hundred years from now. (It'll be a comedy/tragedy either way, or more probably both)

Re:Hooboy... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833865)

The movie will be banned in all 63 states for being approximately 2 hours of child porn strung together with scat jokes.

Re:Hooboy... (2, Funny)

anagama (611277) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833931)

100 years from now? should be: "banned in all 6 states"

Re:Hooboy... (1)

tuxicle (996538) | more than 5 years ago | (#28834009)

Will one of them be Iraq?

Re:Hooboy... (1)

anagama (611277) | more than 5 years ago | (#28834111)

Mostly China.

Re:Hooboy... (4, Funny)

JWSmythe (446288) | more than 5 years ago | (#28834099)

    6 states? We have Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia. What are the other three?

    I was completely thrown by that silly concept of 63 states. According to all the history books I've read, there have always been 3. I already verified this with the RecDep of Minitrue.

Re:Hooboy... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28834017)

I already have a title for it: "4 teh lulz".

What is the real problem? (4, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833613)

The question is whether 4chan is the real problem or the reaction to 4chan is. /b/ is what it is and has been for quite a while. And the American Southern culture also has roots that go back at least 300 years. So in a battle for legitimacy, which one should take precedence over the other?

We can talk about freedom of speech and such, but /b/ is home to content that is occasionally over the line illegal. On the other hand, only those who would actually seek it out would even know about it, so it doesn't make sense to "protect" the fair citizens of Hillbilly Valley by blocking the site.

Raymond Bradbury wrote about this in his seminal work Farenheit 451. Once we start allowing the minority to exert power over the majority in the name of fairness and protection, we lose a critical pillar of our society. Censorship is the first step, but later it will be outright censure.

Let's let that which is illegal stay illegal, and give everyone the benefit of full access, even if they don't want it. But I'm not from the South, so my cultural background doesn't lead me to the conclusion that censorship is better than freedom.

That was a truly awful analogy (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833849)

People from the South automatically favor censorship?

Newsflash: Latitude has nothing to do with religion, freedom vs. censorship, nor race.

Re:What is the real problem? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833871)

I have a bad analogy for you regarding the illegal thing.

/b/ is like a convenience store, and some kids come in to start dealing drugs in the corner. Sure, as the owner, you have a good idea what's going on, and if you installed surveillance you could catch them, but you can't be assed. You kick 'em out of the store when you actually see them doing it, but otherwise you're not too concerned unless you get a complaint. Most content deemed questionable in my country (Australia) is removed within a few hours of being posted.

Anyway, tits or gtfo.

Re:What is the real problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28834023)

What the fuck are you trying to imply? The inhabitants of the Southern United States are the ones who pontificate about sin, but they're first to go swill Jim Beam and then fuck their 14 year old cousins.

4chan's /b/ is on the tip of everybody's tongue. Its filthiest content isn't necessarily posted to satisfy sexual perversions, it's merely acknowledging the present state of the human condition. Its collective lies are the unadaulterated truth.

-- Ethanol-fueled, b& from posting more than once per 24 hours because there are a large number of religious pussfucks on Slashdot.

Net Neutrality (2, Insightful)

SmarkWoW (1382053) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833615)

This is about Net Neutrality.

Sure Anonymous is angry about being blocked by 15.5% of internet users, but this is only the first step. Most responses to this blockage are directed toward fighting net neutrality, NOT Anon attacking AT&T because their site was blocked.

Anonymous is trying to fight this peacefully, they're not going to be DDoSing any DNS servers, backbone routers, or the like. They're going to be calling Customer Reps and complaining.

This is a Net Neutrality issue, not a Internet Hate Machine issue.

Thanks,
Smark
http://www.spectralcoding.com/ [spectralcoding.com]

Re:Net Neutrality (0, Flamebait)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833673)

I don't think AT&T would care too much of the opinion of a group of 15 year olds.

Re:Net Neutrality (1)

PrimaryConsult (1546585) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833845)

They'll care if their call center suddenly balloons to queues 30 deep of them. And if they are (as you say) 15 year olds, they most likely have no obligations in the morning to prevent them from calling in all night... But as said elsewhere, this wasn't a censorship issue anyway, so the point is, well, moot.

Re:Net Neutrality (5, Funny)

lgw (121541) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833877)

I don't think AT&T would care too much of the opinion of a group of 15 year olds.

Only a complete moron would sell an entertainment pipeline into American homes and not care about the opinion of a group of 15 year olds! So, yeah, you're probably right.

Re:Net Neutrality (2, Funny)

MaskedSlacker (911878) | more than 5 years ago | (#28834039)

OH GOD HOW DO I MOD THIS? Insightful....or funny...or insightful...or funny...or insightful...DEAR GOD WHAT DO I DO?????????1one

Re:Net Neutrality (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28834029)

If you don't care about the opinion of people who have too much time on their hands, no life and you're the one who just took away the only thing that gave their life something resembling meaning, you have no call center.

Be aware who you're dealing with: People who have time to make you waste time. Time of your employees you have to pay by the hour. That costs money, and a load thereof. Don't underestimate the power of people with more time than you. Especially if being an expensive nuisance doesn't take too much skill.

Re:Net Neutrality (1)

Banzai042 (948220) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833709)

I really hope you're right, if anon responds in a mostly civil manner we could see the govt forced to take a stand on net neutrality. On the other hand if anon goes revenge happy on AT&T we could see this sort of block considered a "justifiable act".

Re:Net Neutrality (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833715)

First they came for the 4chan members, and I did not speak out,

because I did not want to be labeled a child molester.

Then they came for...

Re:Net Neutrality (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833735)

Blocked for a portion (not all markets) of 15.5% of American Internet users

Re:Net Neutrality (2, Informative)

bipbop (1144919) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833777)

I have mod points, but I'm not using them, because there's no "-1 polite but very, very wrong" option.

To be more specific, I laughed pretty hard at "Anonymous is trying to fight this peacefully, they're not going to be DDoSing any DNS servers, backbone routers, or the like." They're not one person, and they're not a body directed by an individual, and no one controls what the assholes do, so the best you can do is "Some people are urging others not to, and they may or may not care". Good luck with that ;-)

Re:Net Neutrality (5, Insightful)

SmarkWoW (1382053) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833831)

I'd just like to point you to a few links explicitly discouraging users from taking illegal actions against this:

ED Article [encycloped...matica.com] Excerpts:
"1. DON'T FUCK WITH THE LAW- We want to first make use of the rights we have, censorship is violating our rights."
"Acting like an idiot and trying to DDoS them will only end with you being persecuted (and/or prosecuted), and your actions being used as a justification."
"This battle is one we have to fight legally..."
"DO NOT RAGE ON THESE PHONE NUMBERS, SIMPLY COMPLAIN ABOUT THE ISSUE!"

Insurgen Article [insurgen.info]
Excepts:
"Acting like a retard and trying to DDoS them will only end in them going [A QUOTE]"
"Don't try to DDoS or do ANYTHING illegal or legally ambiguous to AT&T. This is a corporation with more resources, manpower, and preparation than anything you script kiddies have ever dealt with. You will be caught and prosecuted. Go through legal channels and reverse this using legitimate means."

Those are just the ones in the windows I have open.

Obviously there is no way to force someone not to do something, but the intentions are to solve this without any "damages".

Thanks,
Smark
SpectralCoding [spectralcoding.com]

Re:Net Neutrality (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28834057)

Thinking about all the "internet vigilante groups" that exist, Anonymous is maybe one of the better organized and better "behaved" ones. Actually it surprises me that they haven't been labeled a terrorist group yet, they act coherently and are not under any government's control...

I think one of the reasons why this won't happen is that there's appearantly no "unspoken consensus" that DDoSing would be the right thing. You know, where you essentially say "stay within the law", but secretly everyone wished someone wouldn't. Anonymous is, like most of similar groups, very heavy on peer esteem and peer approval/recognition. Doing what is the general consensus of what's "right" rises your "rank", doing something stupid will lower it, to the point where you will be cast out.

As long as the general population of Anonymous will view it as stupid to launch a full blown DDoS attack against anyone, it will stay calm. Launching a DDoS requires resources the average hotheat might not necessarily have. It takes a wee bit of sophistication (or enough money to buy/rent a botnet), something you won't invest if the chance to piss off the people you want to impress is pretty high.

Once the general consensus changes, take cover.

Re:Net Neutrality (2, Interesting)

Myuu (529245) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833791)

I beg to differ, there is a difference between net neutrality and this, the larger issue of censorship.

When I read the headline... (1)

AJ_Levy (700911) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833619)

Why did I get the feeling that this ain't gonna end well for AT&T?

ITT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833641)

inb4 at&t hack

Simmer Down Now. (5, Informative)

ibaboon (582611) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833643)

The block is gone. It was for 4chans own good. They have been DDoSed for weeks. AT&T just stopped access for a short bit. Settle the heck down.

Re:Simmer Down Now. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833739)

Well it can't be bad if it's for their protection, right?

"Could this all be a hoax...?" (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833687)

Maybe it might have been a good idea to wait on posting this until a bit more info came in? Or is this part of the show? I'm preheating the microwave now to prep some popcorn.

Re:"Could this all be a hoax...?" (2, Funny)

enoz (1181117) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833771)

I'm preheating the microwave now to prep some popcorn.

Preheating the Microwave? Do you use tinfoil or lightbulbs?

Re:"Could this all be a hoax...?" (4, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#28834067)

Uranium rods, like any sane person.

Re:"Could this all be a hoax...?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833817)

Not so much a hoax, I think it's a few AT&T employees trying to curb a DDoS using their best judgement with whatever means they have available. But in a half-assed sort of way that backfires if it pisses people off.

Re:"Could this all be a hoax...?" (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833863)

Well that makes no sense. AT&T should be taking no action unless somebody from 4chan calls them up and asks them to block the perceived source of the DDoS.. if that's what's happening. The whole thing sounds goofy. Maybe somebody at Slashdot is looking for a scoop which might backfire against him if it turns out to be fake. Credibility is a fickle mistress...or something like that...

Idiots (4, Insightful)

dbcad7 (771464) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833697)

while some others suggest more drastic action (like cutting AT&T fiber)

And eliminate ANY kind of access for themselves, and others who could care less about their problems.. Just as smart as having riots, burning down the grocery stores and then having no place to buy food.. Destruction as a form of protest only hurts themselves and other innocents.

Re:Idiots (4, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833827)

Nobody ever claimed the /b/tards were smart. Clever, created, talent, energetic - sure. But not smart.

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833847)

http://www.occupiedlondon.org/20theses [occupiedlondon.org]

Note especially theses 2 - 5.

Re:Idiots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28834033)

I think the point if cutting fibre is simply to send the message "don't fuck with us". To me it sounds effective; ATT will think twice before trying this shit if they lose a few million worth if fibre.

and nothing of value was lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833703)

ITT: an AT&T tech fucks up, /b/ goes down for an hour, and dipshits around the world cry about how the sky is falling

>facepalm.jpg

Obligatory XKCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833741)

AT&T should just hire Stephenie Meyer [xkcd.com] in future to take care of 4chan.

hrm (0, Troll)

Blice (1208832) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833745)

First they came for the pedophiles, and I did not speak out, because I was not a pedophile.

Then, they came for the pirates, and I did not speak out because I was not a pirate.

Then they came for anonymous, and I did not speak out because I was not anonymous.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Wrong way (5, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833749)

There are smarter ways to disable 4chan, like this one [xkcd.com]

this is what's going to happen (2, Interesting)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833757)

I guarantee they're going to pull an "operation squirrel." That's where you cut tons of fibre with a dull tool so it looks chewed but you do so much that they know it was on purpose. People do that more than you think.

Re:this is what's going to happen (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28834051)

Yes, I'm sure "they" will do just that, Mr. Crazy Hobo on the Bus.

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833759)

epic epic for the weeeen lol teh caek iz a lie!11 XD

The Rules? (2, Funny)

Bazman (4849) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833761)

Someone broke rule 1 and rule 2 here. Slashdot post ending in 69 does rule 34 on timothy NAO!! Ahma chargin my slashdot layzars! CmdrTaco is now a meme. Ummm. Over 9000?

Honestly, was the phrase "and nothing of value was lost" ever more appropriate?

Re:The Rules? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833873)

FYI the rules only apply to raids.

Re:The Rules? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833881)

wat

Re:The Rules? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28834143)

Newfags can't triforce.

Ââ-
â-â-

You know what destroys a sites credibility? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28833799)

Posting something in the likes of asking your audience to sabotage the network infrastructure.

Funny how some stuff gets rushed to the front page, I don't think Digg was gullible enough to get that even close to front page.

Re:You know what destroys a sites credibility? (1)

ZiakII (829432) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833955)

Posting something in the likes of asking your audience to sabotage the network infrastructure.

Funny how some stuff gets rushed to the front page, I don't think Digg was gullible enough to get that even close to front page.

http://digg.com/tech_news/AT_T_blocks_4chan [digg.com]

Re:You know what destroys a sites credibility? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28834027)

lulz. datsa smackdown

"Censorship comes to America" (-1, Troll)

Doug52392 (1094585) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833823)

Private corporations deciding for themselves what people should and should not view on the Internet? Wow, it's the Communist People's Republic of China with a slight Capitalist twist!

I, for one, welcome our new Communist overlords.

Re:"Censorship comes to America" (1)

Widowwolf (779548) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833981)

"Private corporations deciding for themselves what people should and should not view on the Internet?"


Wow you guys really are that gullible to see the logical explanation behind it, and not see multiple service providers we doing it because and attack..These providers aren't choosing what to and what not to show, they are protecting from attacks. Maybe someone should ship you off to the Communist People's Republic of China so you can really get a view of no rights.

./ launches DoS attack by posting link (1)

justcauseisjustthat (1150803) | more than 5 years ago | (#28834049)

Damn that ./ community, censoring another web site by sending too many reader to it :-)

Ham-fisted (2, Funny)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833937)

Based on what I've been reading about this situation today (was away all of Saturday and most of today) it sounds to me like perhaps someone made what they thought was an insignificant decision to block access to a site they figured nobody really cared about anyway, overstepping their authority I'm sure, and started the shitstorm of the year. Now someone's supervisor has heard about it (probably 3rd hand) and after ripping that person a new asshole, has made them start backing off the blocks. Wouldn't be surprised if someone at AT&T gets fired just to throw some meat to the wolves in the hopes this will all go away. BTW nice ham-fisted attempt to stem the tide of a DDoS botnet, dumbasses.

Unintelligent Design. (1)

Ostracus (1354233) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833941)

"...while some others suggest more drastic action (like cutting AT&T fiber)."

*sniff*wipes tear from eye*

Humanity. You make me so proud.

I could reply on topic, but... (1)

dvh.tosomja (1235032) | more than 5 years ago | (#28833951)

I could reply on topic in this thread, but the following shitstorm of modfags will flush my karma down the toilet. I wonder, can karma on /. be worse than my current "bad"?

4chan Down (1)

partyguerrilla (1597357) | more than 5 years ago | (#28834001)

Now the whole site seems to be down. Was AT&T's block the only thing preventing the DDoS attack from overwhelming the site? That would be hilariously ironic, considering the tantrum you guys were throwing about it. http://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/4chan.org [downforeve...justme.com]

Re:4chan Down (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28834011)

It's probably DDoS to hell and back again by 4chan's biggest enemy AnonTalk; those two have a history of DDoSing each other.

Re:4chan Down (1)

Venim (846130) | more than 5 years ago | (#28834147)

Really i'd rather let the site go down to ddos than blocking and i think most would agree.

In related news: (4, Funny)

nilbog (732352) | more than 5 years ago | (#28834101)

In other news: AT&T pokes bees nest while wearing meat suit in hungry tiger cage.

Before anyone starts posting about conspiracies... (1)

Dulcise (840718) | more than 5 years ago | (#28834119)

They have probably blocked the site so they don't need to pay for the bandwidth that is being used to attack it.

Not buying the DOS story (2, Interesting)

StreetChip (870758) | more than 5 years ago | (#28834125)

There are ways to block DOS attacks other than killing all legitimate website traffic. Alternative scenarios: Skynet? Something went wrong in the Black Mesa Research Facility? Bored at work pranksters in the AT&T central office? Secret CIA plot?

Freedom and privacy (0, Troll)

jandersen (462034) | more than 5 years ago | (#28834133)

It seems absurd to me that some (almost) equate freedom, privacy and anonymity. Surely if you believe that you have freedom, you don't need to be anonymous when you speak your mind? And if you speak in a public forum, then you have voluntarily given up your claim to privacy, as far as your opinions go, don't you agree? I can't help feeling that the people who keep propangandising for the right to anonymity in everything they do, have reasons to be ashamed of themselves.

Looked at objectively, anonymity helps criminals enormously, but it doesn't really make a lot of difference to ordinary people. If you go shopping it may be annoying that you are recorded on CCTV, but it is a lot more than annoying if you are burgling a house - it could get you caught.

So, what about img.4chan.org - is it right or wrong to block them? I don't know - and I don't care, to be honest; there are so many web-sites and forums in the world and I only access a few any way. If this one served an important purpose for us all, I'm fairly confident I would have known by now. But I am getting a bit fed up with some people's whining over having to speaking out in the open - I just can't respect that kind of attitude. We in the western world have got political and religious freedoms to excess, but it has always been and will always be a freedom with responsibility attached; because freedom will always be abused by those who feel they are entitled to get more than they have earned.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?