Twitter, Facebook DDoS Attack Targeted One User 205
An anonymous reader writes "A Georgian blogger with accounts on Twitter, Facebook, LiveJournal, and Google's Blogger and YouTube was targeted in a denial of service attack that led to yesterday's site-wide outage at Twitter and problems at the other sites on, according to a Facebook executive. The blogger, who uses the account name 'Cyxymu' (the name of a town in the Republic of Georgia), had accounts on all of the different sites that were attacked at the same time, Max Kelly, chief security officer at Facebook, told CNet News." Here are user Cyxymu's LiveJournal Google cache and LiveJournal account (unreachable at this writing). Larry Magid writes on CNet that this individual blogs about independence of a breakaway region of Georgia. Macworld has some speculation in other directions on the motivations behind the DDoS attack.
Update: 08/07 19:52 GMT by KD : Cyber attacks on Cyxymu are not new. For over a year Evgeny Morozov has been calling attention to him as the first digital refugee.
Update: 08/07 19:52 GMT by KD : Cyber attacks on Cyxymu are not new. For over a year Evgeny Morozov has been calling attention to him as the first digital refugee.
Asymmetrical warfare (Score:5, Insightful)
The only one? (Score:1, Insightful)
Really, he's the only guy with an account on Twitter, Facebook, LiveJournal, Blogger and YouTube?
Re:Asymmetrical warfare (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Just like rs79 said yesterday (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people didn't like what was posted to twitter in the past 24 hours and had other people take it down. It's a distraction. Scrutinize what happened before it down and not the distraction of it going down and you'll have your answer.
Wasn't yesterday the anniversary of the Russian military incursion in South Ossetia in Georgia? Perhaps after Twitter's widespread involvement with the events in Iran, certain political elements didn't want it happening there as well?
No way (Score:2, Insightful)
I smell a rat. Big one, whiskers thick as cat5.
Re:1-Year Anniversay of Russian Invasion of Georgi (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you sure Russia attacked first? According to my own understanding of the situation, it's Georgia that invaded South Ossetia, a territory that declared independence from Georgia since the mid-1990's and has many Russian citizens within its territory. You can understand Russia's interest in those two territories.
So it's not as simple as declaring "Georgia's territory is sacrosanct therefore Georgia should be united".
Oblig (Score:2, Insightful)
$Obligatory comment on the uselessness and irrelevance of Twitter.
Information wants to be free... (Score:3, Insightful)
And tyrants as always don't much like anyone else's freedom.
All the more reason to oppose tyranny. Wherever it is found.
Now to get the Internet to recognize tyranny as damage and route around it...
The Grotesquely Ugly Truth (Score:1, Insightful)
After the Kremlin exited Eastern Europe, the peoples of each nation in Eastern Europe rapidly established a genuine democracy and a free market. Except for Romania (where its people killed their dictator), there was no violence.
In Iran (and many other failed states), no external force is imposing the current brutal government on the Iranians. The folks running the government are Iranian. The president is Iranian. The secret police are Iranian. The thugs who will torture and kill democracy advocates are Iranian.
If the democracy advocates attempt to establish a genuine democracy in Iran, violence will occur. Why? A large percentage of the population supports the brutal government and will kill the democracy advocates.
Let us not merely condemn the Iranian government. We must condemn Iranian culture. Its product is the authoritarian state.
We should not intervene in the current crisis in Iran. If the overwhelming majority of Iranians (like the overwhelming majority of Poles) truly support democracy, human rights, and peace with Israel, then a liberal Western democracy will arise -- without any violence. Right now, the overwhelming majority clearly oppose the creation of a liberal Western democracy. The Iranians love a brutal Islamic theocracy.
The Iranians created this horrible society. It is none of our business unless they attempt to develop nuclear weapons. We in the West are morally justified in destroying the nuclear-weapons facilities.
Note that, 40 years ago, Vietnam suffered a worse fate (than the Iranians) at the hands of the Americans. They doused large areas of Vietnam with agent orange, poisoning both the land and the people. Yet, the Vietnamese do not channel their energies into seeking revenge (by, e. g., building a nuclear bomb) against the West. Rather, the Vietnamese are diligently modernizing their society. They will reach 1st-world status long before the Iranians.
Cultures are different. Vietnamese culture and Iranian culture are different. The Iranians bear 100% of the blame for the existence of a tyrannical government in Iran. We should condemn Iranian culture and its people.
right (Score:4, Insightful)
because pre-soviet history allows for excusing any crimes russia commits
additionally, america does bad things. therefore, its ok for russia to do bad things
your deflections are so typical and predictable (Score:5, Insightful)
"america does bad things. therefore, its ok for russia to do bad things"
assume america is the most bloodthirsty, vile evil empire that ever existed in the history of the world
ok
in what way does this validate anything bad russia does?
"well see my neighbor, he stabbed his wife to death. therefore when i cut your arm off, that's excuseable"
very shallow efforts at rationalization, no?
a strong people are a people who can engage in self-criticism and take criticism from others. in fact, this is probably the most effective metric for true strength in the world, on any issue, from individuals to entire nations
so you have criticisms of the usa? good, fine, lets hear them. i welcome your criticisms. the usa is not perfect. i have plenty of problems with american behavior too. i spit on the gw bush administration. i recognize every subject of american aggression you raise in your comment and a whole bunch more you didn't mention
and now, guess what... its your turn. let us hear YOU criticize russia. let us hear you address my criticisms of russia. directly, rather than deflecting my words back emptily: "well, america is bad too, so you can't criticize"
what is this, kindergarten? are you 5 years old?
is it impossible for a russian to self-criticize or hear criticism of russia?
do you think this is a sign of strength on your part?
Re:right (Score:5, Insightful)
Still to black and white. There isn't a "right" and a "wrong" side in every issue. You can bet your ass though, that there are always multiple political sides to every issue, all of which are probably "wrong".
If you cannot condemn American actions when they are obviously done for selfish reasons (operation Ajax?) then you can't condemn Russian actions when they are done for what you consider to be selfish reasons.
Georgia being under discussion here, it is easy to compare Russian intervention on behalf of ethnic Russians (many of whom carried dual citizenship, by the way) to the United States intervention in Beirut City in 1978 to rescue American nationals. We didn't want to see Americans killed in 78, Russia didn't want to see Russians killed last year. Same-o same-o.
Maybe not pertinent to this conversation, I was awarded my first Humanitarian Service Award for participating in the evacuation of Beirut. Maybe that helps understand my perspective, maybe not. But, I can see right and wrong on the part of the Russians, just as I can see right and wrong on our part. We ain't lily-white, and they ain't deep-space black.
your thinking is so pathetic (Score:2, Insightful)
how does responsibility and accountability work?
you take stock of events, and you admit where you have done wrong
but there is an alternative line of thought, that losers engages in, which is: you take stock of events, and you explain away everything as completely not your fault
"If you cannot condemn American actions when they are obviously done for selfish reasons (operation Ajax?) then you can't condemn Russian actions when they are done for what you consider to be selfish reasons."
what the hell does that have to do with anything? give me a list of every single crime america ever did. i admit to all of them. at this point you can criticize russia? or: give me a list of every single crime america ever did. i admit to none of them. so russia can now commit horrible crimes? what the hell does anything america ever did, whether america is the devil himself or a complete innocent angel, have to do with the evil russia did?
basically what you are saying is "russia doesn't have to be accountable for anything bad it ever did, because somebody, somewhere else, did something bad once"
this is how you think about the world. this is the paraphrasing of your words above
the way you think is the path of ruin for us all. we need people in this world to take MORE responsiblity and accountability, not less. and all your thinking is "this is how you take less responsibility: you observe somebody else did someting bad, so now its ok i did something bad"
no, idiot: america does plenty of bad things. russia does plenty of bad things. you admit to them. that russia did bad things does not excuse the usa. that america did bad things does not excuse russia. get it idiot? you don't read the histories of the world to explain why no one is responsible for anything in this world, you read it to understand the context of certain vile actions and behaviors, but it doesn't excuse ANYONE
here's a random bit of history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katyn_massacre [wikipedia.org]
now, according to you, and the way you think above, this bit of history gives america the right to do evil without explaining itself. why? because russia did something bad once. fucking bullshit, right? well that fucking bullshit is exactly your words above, in reverse
for example, you point out operation ajax. ok, and? this was something evil america did. so now what? now we can't criticize russia? now russia is allowed to do evil things? because operation ajax happened once? wtf?
you don't have any intellectual honesty. we need MORE repsonsibility taking in this world, not less, and your whole way of thinking is all about tearing down accountability and responsibility
you are what's wrong with this world. no, i really mean that. your rationalization is the exact same rationalization that goes through the mind of anyone right before they commit any crime in this world: "well someone else did something bad, so this crime is ok"
i have a job for you to do: criticize russia. criticize something bad it did. you will find out an amazing thing: you can still criticize the usa after you do that. that you can criticize BOTH the usa and russia, and that criticizing russia doesn't mean you're an american neocon, and that criticizing america doesn't mean your a russian apologist
isn't that fucking amazing you moron?
Re:Just like rs79 said yesterday (Score:1, Insightful)
If that's your attitude then I certainly hope that you are in favor of the Taiwanese, Basque, and Tamil Tigers having their independence. South Ossetia was part of Georgia before the Russians went in there and took it away from them.
I'm not the GP, but...
The Taiwanese do have de facto independence. In fact, until in the 70s, Taiwan was a UN member and the PRC was not, until the former was kicked out and the latter invited for political reasons. Maybe Taiwan and mainland China will reunite one day, maybe not, but the idea that Taiwan is a rogue province that decided to just break away from their nation for no reason isn't true. Quite the opposite, it's where the former Chinese government went when Mao did his thing.
The Basque certainly should have their independence, too. Why not, after all? If a people decides it wants to not be ruled by another people, who are you to say "no"?
The same also goes for the Tamils (the Tamil Tigers, BTW, are a specific paramilitary organization; to equate them with the Tamils is like equating the ETA with the Basque.)
Or take the former GDR. Imagine that after its breaking down, East Germans would've demanded to stay a nation of their own (albeit a democratic one) rather than join West Germany. Would you have found it acceptable if West Germany had forced them to join anyway, citing the fact that historically speaking, they were always part of Germany's homeland? I wouldn't.
Or take Texas. Would you consider it OK if Texas seceded from the USA? I would - I'm not saying I'd be in favor of it (although there is a certain something to the idea to getting rid of all the crazies down there), but I recognize it's up to *Texans* to decide, not me.
As for South Ossetia and Georgia and Russia and whatever else you've got there, I have no idea how it should all play out, but I WILL say this: the idea that any nation has a rightful claim to rule over another people is repugnant, and it's pretty much always ignoring the historical development, too: the world didn't come into existence with Georgia ruling South Ossetia.
(And for the record, I'm neither Russian nor Georgian nor involved with or in favor of either side there.)