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!

The Pirate Bay Starts Using Virtualized Servers

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the they-took-our-media-jerbs dept.

Cloud 186

concealment writes with news of those Swedish pirates improving their infrastructure. From the article: "The Pirate Bay has made an important change to its infrastructure. The world's most famous BitTorrent site has switched its entire operation to the cloud. From now on The Pirate Bay will serve its users from several cloud hosting providers scattered around the world. The move will cut costs, ensure better uptime, and make the site virtually invulnerable to police raids — all while keeping user data secure." They are still running their own dedicated load balancers that forward encrypted traffic to one of their "cloud" providers, rather than dealing with physical colocation. Seems like a sensible decision any IT manager would make.

cancel ×

186 comments

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

TPB owners living the life (-1)

PieOk (2754649) | about 2 years ago | (#41679993)

It seems like the whole TPB operation was fairly successful and the owners got to live the good life in Thailand (Neij) [torrentfreak.com] and Cambodia (Svartholm) [torrentfreak.com] . They got tons of money to use on drugs (Svartholms drug problem was fairly well known in Cambodia) and living in the sun and beside swimming pools.

Re:TPB owners living the life (4, Insightful)

fred911 (83970) | about 2 years ago | (#41680043)

And your point is (besides the one on the top of your head)? Now, go sit in the corner untill you have a topic worthy of discussion. I've had far to much of the "holier then thou", slander them with drug use western attitude.

Re:TPB owners living the life (-1, Flamebait)

AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | about 2 years ago | (#41680545)

If what GP says is true, then TPB is making profits (via ad revnue) by enabling people to steal (yes, steal! I said STEAL when referring to copyright infringement!) the creations of others. They are profiting off of the work of the artists and creators without giving any of that money to the creators themselves. How is this any different than the RIAA or MPAA? Please enlighten me.

If they gave any of that ad money to the creators instead of blowing it on drugs and houses, maybe I'd support them. But I have yet to hear about TPB paying creators any money.

Re:TPB owners living the life (5, Informative)

VMaN (164134) | about 2 years ago | (#41680631)

You can use the word "steal" all you want.

But as long as the artists still have their works, you're using the wrong word.

And when people are using it wrong on purpose, it makes me care just a little bit less every time.

Re:TPB owners living the life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41681459)

While I completely agree with making a strong distinction between depriving someone of their property/work/etc. and copyright infringement, there are still multiple definitions and uses of the word "steal" that still apply. This semantics argument has always been pathetic and uneducated - and to claim that you wouldn't pay attention to an otherwise legitimate argument simply because you disagree with word choice is ridiculously fallacious.

Re:TPB owners living the life (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#41681511)

If you want to make a point use the right words. Semantics are not optional and much less irrelevant. If you are not even able to be precise in your arguments you should and will be ignored.

Re:TPB owners living the life (1)

Shienarier (185368) | about 2 years ago | (#41680849)

Is there an actual source for the claim that money are going to drugs and houses?

Re:TPB owners living the life (2)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 2 years ago | (#41680961)

Hey look, I can STEAL your name by copying it: AcidPenguin9873

How does it feel to have your name stolen?

Re:TPB owners living the life (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#41681045)

You're making the unsubstantiated leap from "TPB had an income" and "they have some money" to "their money came from TPB".

Re:TPB owners living the life (2)

AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | about 2 years ago | (#41681085)

Note I said "If what GP says is true". I obviously have no sources to cite to verify the original post. But the responder asked what his point was (in a rather snarky ill-mannered way) so I responded with the obvious answer.

Re:TPB owners living the life (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#41681307)

GP didn't actually say they got the money from TPB, just implied it.

Re:TPB owners living the life (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41681211)

From here on out I am calling copyright infringement RAPE. Because, after all, that's how I want to frame it. Every time you infringe a copyright, you are raping the artist. And it should carry the same punishment of up to life in prison (or, as has been proposed in some states, death.) Because I say so.

Death to the artist-raping file-sharers!

Re:TPB owners living the life (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680129)

Drugs must be good for innovation!

Re:TPB owners living the life (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41680141)

Well, you earned you paycheck for today, shill. Go take the rest of the day off and rest beside the pool.

Re:TPB owners living the life (1)

jodido (1052890) | about 2 years ago | (#41680149)

You work for the RIAA, right?

Re:TPB owners living the life (1)

Xest (935314) | about 2 years ago | (#41680839)

Jealous much?

Tor (1)

Weezul (52464) | about 2 years ago | (#41680027)

Is there a tor hidden service TPB hosted from an undisclosed location?

Re:Tor (3, Insightful)

PieOk (2754649) | about 2 years ago | (#41680047)

Is there a tor hidden service TPB hosted from an undisclosed location?

Tor hidden service is only secure for end users, not to the service itself. While TOR admins say it should be secure, the attack vectors are fairly well known and USA has the means to discover the real ip behind TOR hidden services.

Re:Tor (0)

PieOk (2754649) | about 2 years ago | (#41680079)

Oh and let me add what TPB is really doing. They are playing with BGP, ASN's and routing tables to "hide" the location of their services. Simple WHOIS data is not enough to disclose their location as it's just made up, but they have to peer with someone at some point and these information are public. They do have a few different ASN of their own (like TPB-NET, PRQ etc), but they can only hide it far enough and everyone familiar with routing knows this.

Re:Tor (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680087)

Silkroad is still operating, therefore I suspect you don't know what you're talking about.

Re:Tor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680275)

They're probably waiting for bigger fishes to come up, so that they can catch them all in one swoop.

Re:Tor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680329)

People are already selling kilogram lots of heavy drugs on Silk road (and have been doing so for some time) so I suspect you're full of it.

Re:Tor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680055)

jntlesnev5o7zysa.onion

you can also use the onion.to service
jntlesnev5o7zysa.onion.to

Invulnerable? (4, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 2 years ago | (#41680035)

The move will cut costs, ensure better uptime, and make the site virtually invulnerable to police raids

Wanna bet on that?

Re:Invulnerable? (4, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 2 years ago | (#41680051)

It's a little sad when you have to write police raids into your disaster recovery policy. Especially when it's one of the more likely disasters.

Re:Invulnerable? (5, Informative)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#41680095)

Quite frankly, anybody not really, really big has to. With "cloud" servers not on your own private cloud, everybody has to.

Re:Invulnerable? (4, Funny)

interval1066 (668936) | about 2 years ago | (#41680763)

Hey. You. Got off of my cloud.

Re:Invulnerable? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41681391)

Or the Scottish version-

Hey, McLeod, get of of my ewe!

Re:Invulnerable? (1)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#41681773)

...But my boss tells me that the cloud is fantastic, and saves everybody so much time and effort, and we never have to worry about things breaking!

Re:Invulnerable? (2, Insightful)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | about 2 years ago | (#41680101)

It's a little sad when you have to write police raids into your disaster recovery policy. Especially when it's one of the more likely disasters.

Come on, that's a bit disingenuous here. It'd be very sad if the concern was fully legit (and actually the problem of police interference isn't new - see the Steve Jackson Games incident [wikipedia.org] , but at best TPB sits in a gray area, to put it kindly.

Re:Invulnerable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680479)

It is sad that gray area have to always live in fear. I think that is the point. And everything is in the gray area, to put it kindly.

Re:Invulnerable? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#41681109)

The problem is that you just need to be on the same blade server to be affected; see Pinboard [pinboard.in] .

Re:Invulnerable? (0, Troll)

fredprado (2569351) | about 2 years ago | (#41681583)

Everything in the face of the planet stands in a "grey area". In today's complex law system there is no person or entity that is totally innocent. Truth is your government, whichever it may be, can put you in jail for something already. It just needs to want to do it badly enough to take the trouble.

Re:Invulnerable? (4, Insightful)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 2 years ago | (#41680487)

It's a little sad when you have to write police raids into your disaster recovery policy. Especially when it's one of the more likely disasters.

Sad, but true. It has already been amply demonstrated that you can end up offline because someone else in the farm got raided and the police simply confiscated things wholesale.

Re:Invulnerable? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41681429)

If you do ANY business with the US at all, then yes, "rise of fascist regimes" should be one of your disaster recovery scenarios.

Re:Invulnerable? (1)

Lennie (16154) | about 2 years ago | (#41681551)

Actually, you should.

An organisation like the FBI just takes a bunch of servers any time they like:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/f-b-i-seizes-web-servers-knocking-sites-offline/ [nytimes.com]

If they are from the right tenant does not really matter to them. It will take many months before your server is returned.

Re:Invulnerable? (1)

cpghost (719344) | about 2 years ago | (#41681749)

Yep. What's really sad is that the police has been pushed by those in power to switch sides: from public servants to enemy of the people whom you have to protect yourself against nowadays. Can't we please get the original police back, you know, the helpful guys you call when you feel threatened by some real robber? Let those parasitic MAFIAA and their ilk employ and pay their own gang to enforce their grip on the populace and leave the regular police do its original job!

Re:Invulnerable? (5, Funny)

helix2301 (1105613) | about 2 years ago | (#41682053)

I think it's funny that pirate bay has better disaster plan then most legitimate businesses I know of in my area.

Re:Invulnerable? (2)

Karzz1 (306015) | about 2 years ago | (#41680061)

Coming from a guy named Roscoe P. Coltrane, I am going to give TPB the benefit of the doubt! :P

Re:Invulnerable? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680073)

Funny part is that any cloud service company that hosts them will be in danger of getting their servers raided.

Not a good proposition for the company and its other clients.

Re:Invulnerable? (2)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 2 years ago | (#41680077)

Yeah I will bet on it. I believe he is saying the site can't be taken down by a police raid, thanks to the distributed setup. He's not saying that any individual instance is invulnerable to a raid. Just that the availability of the site wouldn't be affected by a raid. I guess this is at least one of the reasons they migrated to magnet links.

Re:Invulnerable? (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about 2 years ago | (#41680111)

It will just take more police time to get a whole group of raids going at once.

Re:Invulnerable? (1)

lengau (817416) | about 2 years ago | (#41680195)

More time and lots of international cooperation. Yes, it's doable, but it does make the prospect that much harder.

Re:Invulnerable? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680417)

When it becomes this difficult to take down a site we (pro free-communication types) can re-raise the question of whether or not government (assuming the government where you live is trying to take down the pirate bay internationally) should even attempt it, this time adding "gross waste of the taxpayer's money" to the pile of outrageously unethical acts.

I'm glad to see that there are so many freedom-loving groups of people out there that are actively improving infrastructure like this and offer my support.

Re:Invulnerable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680217)

Arrange a raid on all tpbs host providers around the world as well as the hosts failover sites. Yank all the physical servers that might be hosting tpb VMs. Don't forget to grab all the SANs that might be hosting the VMs disks on the way out the door too! Fun for all the family :)

Re:Invulnerable? (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41680193)

I just want to know where they're going to find cloud services lining up to host TPB. Seems like a sure-fire formula to have the police kicking down your door.

Re:Invulnerable? (4, Interesting)

jbmartin6 (1232050) | about 2 years ago | (#41682157)

They may not even know. Remember when Amazon was hosting Wikileaks? Uh, we are? They said. Setting it up is all pretty automated, it might stay there until someone explicitly looks for it. After all, from the cloud perspective they are just renting an IP and some data storage, they wouldn't necessarily know that it was TPB unless they read the data. Which they aren't supposed to do.

Re:Invulnerable? (1)

olivier69 (1176459) | about 2 years ago | (#41680093)

Wanna bet on that?

Challenge accepted

Oh sorry, this is /., I thought I was on YouTube !

Invulnerable?-TPB giving P2P bad name. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680097)

Now why does a site that is only used for legal purposes (hosting Linux ISOs is the usual excuse) need to be immune from police raids?

Re:Invulnerable?-TPB giving P2P bad name. (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about 2 years ago | (#41680119)

because "legal" means different things out side the USA.

Re:Invulnerable?-TPB giving P2P bad name. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680151)

Now why does a site that is only used for legal purposes (hosting Linux ISOs is the usual excuse) need to be immune from police raids?

In case you haven't got the memo, the police (among others) doesn't give a flying fuck about legality when it comes to all things internet. Witness the Megaupload fiasco, witness the RIAA willingness to put offline through its government bought agencies legal sites for years at a time. Proactive mesures are necessary, lest your online presence be tossed in a moat never to be seen/heard from again. But hey, what's that they say about collateral damage anyway ?

Re:Invulnerable?-TPB giving P2P bad name. (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#41681147)

Because just being on the same rack as a "presumed illegal" website can put you offline. Ask the Pinboard guy when the FBI seized the whole blade, putting dozens of websites offline.

Re:Invulnerable?-TPB giving P2P bad name. (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 2 years ago | (#41681181)

If you've got nothing to hide, you won't mind us strip-searching you.

Re:Invulnerable?-TPB giving P2P bad name. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41681513)

> only used for legal purposes (hosting Linux ISOs...

Bwahahahaha

Re:Invulnerable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680113)

Unlike other people, they won't be using anything located on US territory. So, yeah, I think it's a safe bet.

Re:Invulnerable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680531)

Unlike other people, they won't be using anything located on US territory. So, yeah, I think it's a safe bet.

Riiight... The US have never pressured other nations to do stuff...

Re:Invulnerable? (1)

Sqr(twg) (2126054) | about 2 years ago | (#41680115)

I don't think they mean "immune" in the sense that police raids will never happen. More likely, they mean, when a police raid happens, then a new virtual macine, hosted on a dfferent service provider, and which already holds an encrypted copy of the database, is ready to take over.

Re:Invulnerable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680117)

Yes I do wanna bet on that. You must be dumb as fuck... Take your lame loser ass somewhere else.

Re:Invulnerable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680145)

All that means is that now cloud providers are going to start experiencing massive downtime as police across the globe start raiding the cloud data centers.

Re:Invulnerable? (2)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#41680161)

At the end of the day, you need an IP address, and physical server(s) somewhere. The only way to make yourself invulnerable is to take yourself off the net completely, and that would rather defeat the purpose, no?

Re:Invulnerable? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680411)

At the end of the day, you need an IP address, and physical server(s) somewhere.

You don't really need any specific IP address. All you need is a single archive/zip/whatever file containing Magnet links (essentially just hashes) and text descriptions. It's not even a very big file (less than 1Gb IIRC). All TPB has to do is issue regular new versions of this single file, which then gets passed around by all/any relevant means with 1000's of copies popping up everywhere. The actual 'master server' in this setup can be offline.

Re:Invulnerable? (4, Interesting)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#41681269)

No, you can have many physical servers with many IPs.

Eventually people will start using distributed torrent discovery (see Tribler [wikipedia.org] ), which coupled with integrated torrent signing for the release groups to authenticate theirs, will be invulnerable to such raids.

Re:Invulnerable? (1)

anarcobra (1551067) | about 2 years ago | (#41680207)

The site will be Virtually invulnerable, as in the virtual server may be invulnerable (because they have many copies), but the physical machine it's running on isn't.
What's the difference between having virtual servers with different hosting providers and having actual servers with different hosting providers?
It seems to me both are equally vulnerable to the police, and in any case the load balancers seem like the weak point.

Re:Invulnerable? (1)

xeno314 (661565) | about 2 years ago | (#41680373)

From my perspective, the difference would be that virtual servers are far easier to provision/clone/move between providers than physical machines. Seizing a virtual server leaves the hosting provider out in the cold, not TPB. Setting up a new server just involves uploading/transferring an image/template rather than purchasing/installing a new box. It's easier, more versatile and resilient, and costs them far less when the police come knocking.

(That's not always true with 'cloud' computing, but it seems to be an excellent match for their needs. I'd agree that keeping physical load balancers decreases the effectiveness of the strategy, but virtualizing those could be a good next phase.)

and so the story continues... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680089)

Long live TPB

Wow. (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 2 years ago | (#41680103)

Now the (police,feds,both,etc) are going to shut down multiple cloud-hosting data centers just to prove they are still king. Watch. Just watch.

Re:Wow. (1)

gweihir (88907) | about 2 years ago | (#41680147)

Indeed. The police are still brutes in many countries in most regards. If they really do this (and I expect there will be quite a few in power that are stupid enough", this could change a few things though.

Re:Wow. (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 2 years ago | (#41680215)

Indeed. The police are still brutes in many countries in most regards. If they really do this (and I expect there will be quite a few in power that are stupid enough", this could change a few things though.

That's what I'm a'fearing. Make it more difficult, release testosterone in the opponent, crash, recover, later, rinse, repeat. :-/

Re:Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680199)

Megaupload should have seen this earlier!

Re:Wow. (2)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 2 years ago | (#41680251)

Megaupload should have seen this earlier!

LOL I think they were 'running' before they were walking.

Re:Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680243)

Now the (police,feds,both,etc) are going to shut down multiple cloud-hosting data centers just to prove they are still king. Watch. Just watch.

and watch the whole "CLOUD" thing evaporate.
Hey maybe it's worth the cost. Fuck the CLOUD, bring back local computing.

Re:Wow. (1)

F.Ultra (1673484) | about 2 years ago | (#41680499)

Really? I have a really hard time beleiving that the police would in any way raid the sites of Amazon, Google or Microsoft. It wouldn't happen.

Re:Wow. (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 2 years ago | (#41681565)

Really? I have a really hard time beleiving that the police would in any way raid the sites of Amazon, Google or Microsoft. It wouldn't happen.

Oh, not THOSE ones. :)

The ones with TPB in them.

Now, if TPB could get in the same vm hosting data centers that any of the large corporations are in..... but they can't because they have to stay outside of the U.S. territories. :(

Re:Wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41681193)

But there's an incredibly simple answer to this: TPB simply uses the same cloud providers as thr RIAA, MPAA, TimeWarner, EMI, Sony, UMG etc.

In fact, they could revert to physical servers placed in the same data centre as (for example) UMG's servers. TPB simply places a big "Property of UMG" sticker on the front of it's box, and any police raid would conveniently leave that server still in place! :)

Security by obscurity/deception, FTW!

Re:Wow. (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 2 years ago | (#41681587)

But there's an incredibly simple answer to this: TPB simply uses the same cloud providers as thr RIAA, MPAA, TimeWarner, EMI, Sony, UMG etc.

In fact, they could revert to physical servers placed in the same data centre as (for example) UMG's servers. TPB simply places a big "Property of UMG" sticker on the front of it's box, and any police raid would conveniently leave that server still in place! :)

Security by obscurity/deception, FTW!

Now that's something I would love to watch the security camera footage of. HA! Good one. Good one, indeed. :)

ISP blocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680127)

Does that affect my ISP's government-prescribed Piratebay blocking? I'm sure there are ways around that anyway, and people are likely to educate me about those below, but will this make any difference here (in the UK)?

Re:ISP blocking (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680177)

Does that affect my ISP's government-prescribed Piratebay blocking? I'm sure there are ways around that anyway, and people are likely to educate me about those below, but will this make any difference here (in the UK)?

Use TOR to access the piratebay and download the torrent/magnet files.
Close TOR, fire up bittorrent and you're good to go.
Using Firefox makes it a breeze, using Opera is a little bit more complex but in the end works just as well.

Re:ISP blocking (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680403)

It won't affect the gov-prescribed blocking... about your education: (but I don't know the magic beneath it) you can probably access it through http://tpb.pirateparty.be/ [pirateparty.be]

Re:ISP blocking (1)

hippo (107522) | about 2 years ago | (#41680843)

Well if you look for the IP address of tpb.pirateparty.org.uk and paste that into your browser it may work. I wouldn't know.

re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680209)

One of them is Microsoft Azure

What kind of RAID (4, Funny)

aktiveradio (851043) | about 2 years ago | (#41680213)

You think they are using RAID5 or RAID10 to stop the police?

Re:What kind of RAID (1)

ledow (319597) | about 2 years ago | (#41680261)

Though I suspect you were attempting humour based on the similarity of the word "raid" and the acronym "RAID":

It would be quite easy to "RAID" remote devices, even encrypted ones. The beauty of the Unix "everything is a file" concept. Nothing stopping someone accessing files from remote servers via authenticated and encrypted connections, mounting them as a loopback filesystem, applying RAID to those filesystems, and compensate for any dropping-off that may occur without losing data.

Or, if you could do it properly, you'd have it so that only X% of the data existed on each node and you needed the data from Y nodes to make sense of it or know you had complete logs, ala things like Tahoe-LAFS.

I hope they used similar techniques on their "real" servers as well as their "virtual" ones.

Re:What kind of RAID (1)

aktiveradio (851043) | about 2 years ago | (#41680347)

Your suspicion was correct that was humor.

+1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680287)

upvote

Re:What kind of RAID (1)

poofmeisterp (650750) | about 2 years ago | (#41680337)

You think they are using RAID5 or RAID10 to stop the police?

Geeks. Psh.

Oh, wait. :)

Sounds like foggy thinking to me (1)

whizbang77045 (1342005) | about 2 years ago | (#41680289)

Sounds like foggy thinking to me.

Re:Sounds like foggy thinking to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680555)

no no, that requires a local cloud

i2p ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680333)

OK, maybe tor is not sufficiently secure for this.

How about i2p?

Isn't it time to move some of the torrent traffic to more secure channels? They may keep the site accessible on the normal net and in the same time make it available on i2p with some i2p trackers available only to i2p users. This would give a boost to i2p.

I think somebody has to start doing this. It's about time.

Is there any technical difficulty?

Re:i2p ? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#41680577)

Serious, serious overhead issues. i2p would fall apart under the load mass-torrenting would place upon it.

DNS (1)

miguelzinhow (2478530) | about 2 years ago | (#41680467)

Mostly pointless. Just hijack thepiratebay.org and thepiratebay.se DNS registry and be done with it.

Re:DNS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680567)

Good luck, they're behind 7 proxies.

Re:DNS (1)

Kidbro (80868) | about 2 years ago | (#41681501)

Hardly [pastebin.com]

GET MORE "OH THOSE DIRTY RUSSIANS" INVOLVED !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41680547)

Because if anyone knows how to steal most effectively, it's "oh those dirty russians", as B-M likes to say !! And with this, you can move all torrent servers to russia, because, well, that is obvious !!

Re:GET MORE "OH THOSE DIRTY RUSSIANS" INVOLVED !! (1)

dmacleod808 (729707) | about 2 years ago | (#41681071)

In Soviet Russia, file torrents you!

Good to study (4, Insightful)

onyxruby (118189) | about 2 years ago | (#41680795)

This is actually good area to research for everyday organizations that are not about to be on the receiving end of a police raid. The reason is simple, the most common disaster (not failure) that strikes most servers is the legal subpoena. Can your business survive a legal subpoena that would take a large portion of your data?

This is not an idle consideration, it's actually a very common consideration. Places like OnTrack [krollontrack.com] do far more business recovering data for legal services like subpoenas than they do with disk failures. You usually get a certain amount of time (couple weeks or so) to respond to a subpoena with the requested data. If you don't get the request filled in time, or if the other side convinces the judge you might mess with the data they will simply seize your servers / data by court order?

Can you survive this? If you can survive this scenario, than chances are you can recover from just about any other reasonable disaster you might encounter. The pirate bay scenario is one that should be studied from a disaster recovery standpoint, regardless of your stance on piracy.

Re:Good to study (1)

cpghost (719344) | about 2 years ago | (#41681609)

The Internet was designed with a very specific failure mode in mind: big cities and their switching centers being obliterated, i.e. nuked, and the need to route around the damage. The current failure mode, lawfare by all kinds of pressure and interest groups, is quite different in nature, and much more dangerous, IMHO. The research question is how well does the original design of the Internet adapt to this new kind of threat? TPB is currently testing the limits of hiding behind a distributed non-uniform legal system. As long as we don't have a world government under US, Saudi or whomever's thumb, there's a slim chance that TPB will survive longer by playing mouse against the MAFIAA's fat cats and their governmental peons. But when that happens -- and it's just a matter of time until it does --, will the Internet still be able to adapt to a globally hostile legal environment?

That's your security? (1)

BlueCoder (223005) | about 2 years ago | (#41681185)

It's obvious where your transit router is. They can monitor IP addresses, connection times and bandwidth to determine the load balancer. From the load balancer they can find the virtual machines which you use as muscle for the search engine and backend processing.

Any VM image can be accessed live. They can inject all the Trojans they want and track everything. But most importantly they can monitor where the admin commands come from. Have to assume they/you use tor or a botnet proxy. But everyone slips when it comes to security. Just takes one ping from a non anonymized computer to catch the scent. Then they can piece together all the admins one by one within three months.

Now of course there is more to your security than this. But let's not call your implementation here security.

What I would call it is robust and practical.

What I think would be more impressive is if you implemented your own voluntary cloud with all your willing users out there.

Pirates and Porn (2)

unixhero (1276774) | about 2 years ago | (#41681199)

Pirates and Online Porn has always been at the forefront of internet technologies.

Woo hoo! More software without paying! (3, Insightful)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 2 years ago | (#41681257)

Yeah, you go TPB. That just means more software for the taking without having to pay someone for it. It doesn't matter if it took you 2-3 years to make that new game, my first thought won't be, "How much is it?" but, "Where can I get the torrent?" And you'll help me find it.

To the guy who was asking how to get paid for free software, you want paid for something I can get for free? Hahahaha! Sucker. No one pays for software any more. We just take what we want because we don't care if you get paid or not.

Go TPB! Long live not having to pay someone for their efforts!

Mobile Servers (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41681381)

They need to have servers on the move, in vehicles, and high capacity SD cards, etc.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?