4chan Has Been DDOSed 710
An anonymous reader writes "According to the 4chan status page all of the 4chan boards have been DDOSed and are down."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
4chan Has Been DDOSed
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
As of next week, passwords will be entered in Morse code.
Don't worry (Score:3, Funny)
Oblig (Score:4, Insightful)
And nothing of value was lost...
Re:Oblig (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody values sewers until they stop working.
Aw thanks... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Aw thanks... (Score:5, Funny)
L. O. Fucking. L.
I don't know if that was meant to be a joke, but you owe me a new keyboard. Now excuse me, I have to go wash coffee out of my eyebrows.
Re:Aw thanks... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Aw thanks... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, at least now we both have sticky keyboards...
Re:Aw thanks... (Score:5, Funny)
L. O. Fucking. L.
I don't know if that was meant to be a joke, but you owe me a new keyboard. Now excuse me, I have to go wash coffee out of my eyebrows.
I'd give you mine but, well, I've spent the last several minutes on 4chan. You probably don't want it now.
You, sir, are a saint, to offer your eyebrows to a stranger like that. Whatever you've got in them will just help them stick better. Kudos to you!
Re: (Score:2)
4chan is also NSFH. Not safe for home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Aw thanks... (Score:5, Funny)
- I looked at this pic and I think a part of me died.
- It was a weak part. Now you are stronger.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe his arrest might also have had something to do with his walking around naked in front of a window in full view of a bus stop full of kids? Just a guess that had something to do with it so you might want to provide that bit of context...
Re:Aw thanks... (Score:5, Informative)
Negative, the woman "cut through" onto his property and saw he was naked inside of his own home. It makes as much sense as the guy who fell through the skylight while he was robbing someone and fell onto the knives upside down on the knife block, sued, and won. I couldn't find a similar story that I believe is different but one woman actually trespassed onto the guys property peeking into his window and had to stand on her tippy toes or get right up to the window to see him, and he was arrested as well. How can someone committing a crime cause someone else to commit a crime? Even if it could, it should be null and the original crime should take precedence and be the focus, for if it had not happened then there wouldn't have been a second.. right?
Re:Aw thanks... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wait commodore64, I am a Christian, and I don't think a person should not have the freedom to smoke cannabis or be naked in his own home. Remember, many people call themselves something they are not with the intention of poisoning the well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Here, any supposed "Christian" only gets to be a card-carrying member if they hate gays, blacks and anyone even slightly left.
That's a pretty severe case of "reading a completely different bible than I do". My bible is all about loving people, including any sinners and enemies. It says stuff like: "Judge not, lest you be judged." And it's pretty radical left with all its giving to those less well-off, sharing with the community (some early churches were pretty communist in that regard), rich people having a pretty hard time getting into heaven, and overthrowing the order of those days. As for hating blacks, I have honestly no idea
Re: (Score:3)
Therefore, Christians also tend to believe that the government should be, generally, more or less staying out if the way, and letting them give their money to charities they personally want to support.
Despite the fact that is explicitly discouraged by the Bible...re 'Good Samaritan'. You are not tol
Re: (Score:3)
No, it comes from the Latin (Latin is the language, Romans were the people) word "maritaticum" which merely means "to give in marriage" or "to wed". To find more insight, I researched "marry" and found that it comes from "maritare", which was used to mean "provided with a young woman". So, I guess gay marriage is OK as long as it's two lesbians-- since we're appealing
Re: (Score:3)
>>>Latin is the language
Latin is also the name of the PEOPLE who lived in central Italy. So you corrected me, but I was not wrong when I said "A word invented by the Latins". I was 100% correct. That was the name of the region and the people who lived there.
Also the claim "marriage" is a Christian word is bullshit. Christianity didn't even exist when the word was invented by non-christian PAGAN speakers who worshipped dozens of gods.
Re:Aw thanks... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure they can. My girlfriend was married to a guy for 14 years before she met me. ^.~ (turned out he was actually a she, and was into guys, though, lol....) Her kids have no problem calling me Mom, either.... Oh the joys of kow-towing to the religious moral authority, and the pain it causes in peoples' lives... my partner and her ex are both much happier now.
I do feel the need to point out, though, that this statement is wrong, and probably somewhat offensive. There's absolutely nothing wrong with choosing to adhere to a faith, or to a religion, as long as you recognize that as a choice. And yes, I do feel that there's a distinction to be made between a Faith and a Religion. The question isn't so much what you believe, it's how you apply those beliefs, and how you treat others. A huge number of people experience a deeply spiritual and religious life without ever foisting those beliefs on those around them. As far as I'm concerned, there is exactly one rule that actually matters: do no harm. As long as you follow that rule, you have a right to believe whatever sits well with your conscience.
(and I should point out that I consider evangelism to be doing harm... if Yahweh wants to send me the word, there's a perfectly good bush in the back yard for him to set on fire... though I'm equally bothered by evangelical atheists, too. Live and let live, yeah?)
Re: (Score:3)
What, in what I said, makes you believe that I follow the Bible? I thought it was pretty clear, actually, that I don't follow the Bible... little quotes like
would, I would think, make that pretty clear....
Re: (Score:3)
'nuf said.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I'd argue that the XKCD comic proves realityimpaired's point. For most of the comic, the message is to just ignore the Young Earth Creationist and let him be with his beliefs. It is only when it is shown that he might impose those beliefs on others ("But he's a US Senator!") that the message changes.
Rules for behavior tend to change when a person acquires power over others. If I believe that the world is 6,000 years old (I don't, but let's say I did for the sake of argument), it wouldn't matter
Re: (Score:3)
They do have to defend it when they start claiming that people who believe otherwise are irrational, stupid, or otherwise impaired because they clearly can't see the light (referring to Plato's allegory of the cave, and the light of knowledge in this case). Making a claim like that puts them in exactly the same camp as the fundamentalist bible thumpers in my book. If you think that having a theistic outlook on the world is irrational, prove it. Show me, point by point, exactly why there can't possibly be go
Re: (Score:3)
(The views stated in this article about women are clearly not my own, and if you think they are, you aren't paying attention.)
Which, by the way, is how the original intent of the laws play out.
Not exactly.
The original intent of the marriage law is to formally declare ownership of a offspring production machine, along with penalties for men who would attempt to use that machine to cuckold the man by having it produce offspring that were not his.
Asserting it was originally about offspring is like asserti
Re: (Score:3)
I always wondered about browser caching and "posession" or online content, i.e. child pornography.
Sometimes you get sites whose advertising servers where compromised or via sql injection serve ...questionable content. Most browsers cache images.
If a piece of child porn gets cached by your browser via such a compromised otherwise legal site can you get in trouble for posessing child porn?
This of course extends to other content that may be cached as well.
Re: (Score:3)
You realize that 'an affirmative defense' actually needs for you to be charged with possessing child porn, and go to court, and have a lawyer competently present that argument, right?
Affirmative defenses don't make things 'stuff you can't be arrested for', they make things 'if you can prove this in court, you're innocent'. Do not ignore the 'if you can prove this in court'.
The question isn't what normally happens, the question is what the police can choose to do.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder... (Score:3)
Quis ddos ipsos ddos'ers?
Re: (Score:3)
The NSA and MasterCard
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Interesting)
Speculation in a comments thread elsewhere that someone put 4chans IP address in the IRC server Anonops were using, calling it Bank of America.
It would be very amusing if 4Chan had managed to DDoS themselves. :)
That said, they've got so many enemies it's impossible to say.
4chan might be down forever. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing was lost? The porn! MY PRECIOUS DEVIANT PORN! Oh how I miss thee, German* midget wrapped in a latex catsuit fighting off naked clowns with an oversized Q-tip!
* How do I know she was German? Well, the only people who create weird shit like that are the Japanese and the Germans. And she wasn't Japanese.
Re:4chan might be down forever. (Score:5, Interesting)
4chan is a fine site if you're on the right boards. /m/ is probably the best Japanese robots resource on the Internet, /tg/ is an excellent resource for DMs to discuss their latest campaigns and have made enough contributions to various games that some of it has even leaked into official canon (Warhammer 40,000 for example).
While I agree -most- of 4chan is a shit hole, don't discount that it's many small communities under one banner. Everyone outside of /b/ hates /b/, people just think /b/ is 4chan, which is like saying the BNP is Britian.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd mod you but I've already posted :-( I knew that 4chan had some interesting boards that weren't full of crap but wasn't aware of the Robotics area. The Goonies in Eve have certainly proven to be entertaining :-)
Re:4chan might be down forever. (Score:5, Interesting)
Partly true. Eventhough I visit lots of other boards and some days really hate /b/ you just gotta love it sometimes. /b/ actually is 4chan for a large part, it's the reason this article even gets posted.
As for being down, I was on there just before it went down and the mods were fucking up /b/ again by adding cotton eye joe music to the page and randomizing the colours making it hard to even view the page and about 10 minutes later the whole site was down.
I know who's to blame (Score:2)
I know who's to blame. Its those anonymous types again!
Re: (Score:2)
If they don’t know how to use AdBlock Plus, I don’t have much sympathy for them.
YOU FOOLS!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:YOU FOOLS!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
They fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The best known is "never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less well known is this: "Never go in against 4chan when LOL's are on the line!"
Re:YOU FOOLS!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Lulz, not "LOL's." They do it for the lulz.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod +1 Inconceivable.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like what happened when segfault.org went down - all the "Nude And Petrified" and "hot grits" crap started there, and when the parasites killed their host on segfault, they came to slashdot.
I can see it now (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I can see it now (Score:4, Funny)
Anonymous v. Cloud...
Round Three...
FIGHT!
Who submitted the story? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who submitted the story? (Score:4, Insightful)
Even better - the "related story" at the bottom says -
Submission: 4chan has been DDOSed by Anonymous Coward
Re: (Score:3)
"An anonymous reader writes" ... Pure gold. I love the irony.
Why is that ironic? Slashdot had anonymous contributors a decade before 4chan came about.
Because Anonymous is the name of the group that is DDOSing sites. Get it?
Maybe not ironic. Maybe just funny.
Or maybe not even that funny.
As apprehended.... (Score:5, Interesting)
One reason i thought those actions against Mastercard etc. to be stupid was, that it established DDOS as method of protest. I am afraid, we will see more of this in the future. In my textbook, DDOS is neiter a legal nor a legitimate form of protest but a criminal act. It doesn't matter wether the target is Wikileaks, Mastercard or 4chan.
CU, Martin
Re: (Score:2)
Denial of Service has been a favored tactic used against the KKK and other undesirable groups for years.
Why can't the same tactic be used against hate-filled corporations? To say "no you can't use the same tactics WE use" is as hypocritical as when cops say "you can't videotape us" while they erect video-cams everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
I also would speak up against DDOS versus the KKK. The reason is, that the end doesn't justify the means. While you may get away with (due to public sympathy or the large number of acomplices), you are setting a bad precedent and moving onto a slippery slope. Being part of public outrage and being right may be two very different things.
CU, Martin
P.S. Concerning the videotaping of cops, i am 100% on your side. It has to be legal and if there were federal laws against it here in my country, i would fight thos
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Civil disobedience does nothing if it's not illegal. Every protest Gandhi did was illegal too. Can't play by the Man's rules if you want to beat him. ;)
Re:As apprehended.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If Gandhi would live today, do you think he would DDOS Mastercard? Even if you are angry you should be able to see, that you have thousand of legal actions available that he never had. They are bothersome, yes, and they will soak up your energy & time and you have to leave snail shell of anonymity, but they are available. Painting DDOS in civil disobedience colours is just a sluggards excuse. One thing Gandhi always did, when he was breaking the law: Saying here i am, i did this, come and arrest me (and they often did). If the DDOS'ler would do that too, we could start talking about civil disobedience. Right at the moment, they are just a lynch mob.
If you want to portest: come, do it, bear the consequences. I have quite some repect for Julian Assange (even if i do not agree in a lot of things with him). He knew what he did and what consequences it might bear. Those DDOS mob is just a disgrace to the IT.
CU, Martin
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, because it's completely different than regular, old fashioned physical protests where a bunch of people march through the street, blocking traffic, the entrances to businesses and inconveniencing lots of other people in order to get attention.
Re:As apprehended.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, because it's completely different than regular, old fashioned physical protests where a bunch of people march through the street, blocking traffic, the entrances to businesses and inconveniencing lots of other people in order to get attention.
That is also illegal, rightfully so, if you are blocking access to a business. That should be common knowledge. The SCOTUS already made that clear, that you can talk to people going in and out of the business, but you can't stop them from exercising their rights. An abortion clinic was the case the SCOTUS decided it on, but it applies to any business or organization.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I keep trying to find a villain in all this, are the banks evil for cutting off Wikileaks from their funding, is Wikileaks evil for indiscriminately publishing sensitive info, is 4chan evil for hammering those who tried to thwart Wikileaks, is Switzerland evil for jailing Julian on what are suspiciously convenient charges?
Then I remember. If Julian worked for the Washington Post, he would be a hero of the Left, and we would have seen cables from the Bush and Reagan administrations published daily for weeks
Re:As apprehended.... (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree with a lot you say, but you cannot make wrong right by doing wrong yourself.
We once hired a former top soccer referee as a guest speaker for an IT conference we organized. At first i was baffled: what could a referee tell us about IT decisions. Then he brought up this: He was a referee in an important match. There was a critical situation (penalty or not) and he decided against it. During the half time break he could see the TV input and learned he had been wrong. During the second half a similar situation appeared, but he thought it to be no penalty. He now could make up his mistake by giving the wrongly denied penalty now. In his speech explained, why this would have been wrong on several levels. In short: He would have rewarded irregular behaviour of the striker (by playing the dying swan) and put pressure on other referees to try also to make up for their mistakes. In the end, the balance would never be perfectly equalised. There would always be more compensation required.
CU, Martin
Re: (Score:3)
As a former soccer referee, I understand that entirely. I didn't get replays of my decisions, but I knew all too often I got it wrong. 'Making it up' was always wrong. As a player before that, I loathed officials that would make up for a call later. Usually, they got it wrong twice anyways, but I wanted the right call the first time. Failing that, I wanted consistency - make the same call again, and we are now on a level playing field.
And that's MY point about Wikileaks. If Julian was working for the e
Re: (Score:2)
Good question, but probably depends on the laws in the country. If the prosecutor can proove that it was coordinated (e.g. someone called for or coordinated it) and it results in a postal service breakdown, the chances are in favor for a criminal offense. In reality this "attack" would already fail due to the costs and the manual labor by the attackers involved.
But in case of DDOS attack on a web site, the laws are quite clear on that issue. Several people already went to jail for that. And deserved to do s
Re: (Score:2)
If the prosecutor can proove that it was coordinated (e.g. someone called for or coordinated it) and it results in a postal service breakdown, the chances are in favor for a criminal offense.
The frequently-used tactic of deliberately flooding congresscritters with explicitly intentioned postcards, letters, faxes and phone calls disagrees with you. Usually form letters, so theoretically sending a single petition signed by as many people would be just as effective, right?
If a comparison was intended by your question, it is deeply flawed.
How so? Apart from the minor detail that a legal distinction has been made where no real distinction exists, I mean.
Re: (Score:2)
Fax, website contact forms, email, and postcards are the connection methods of choice these days.
Re: (Score:2)
How so? Apart from the minor detail that a legal distinction has been made where no real distinction exists, I mean.
Flooding someone with snailmail does not prevent them from receiving more (even if it does make them harder). And it certainly does not prevent them from SENDING mail, while a DDOS affects the target from sending information out. A DDOS is more like dumping a truckload of mail across someone's front door, so they can't even leave the house, or more aptly like redialing someone's phone so they can't call out (which is illegal in some places).
Re: (Score:3)
And it certainly does not prevent them from SENDING mail, while a DDOS affects the target from sending information out.
Only because they’re dumb enough to actually try to reply to all of it.
Good DDoS protection services exist that can filter out the spam so your server isn’t trying to reply to all of it. Your argument is invalid.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why have so many major sites (such as the credit card companies) been DDOSed successfully recently? Are their admins just incompetent?
Here, have a cookie.
You argument is analogous to saying, "It's your fault you got shot in the chest--you should have worn a bulletproof vest" or "Who cares if I poison someone--there's an antidote."
No, it’s analogous to saying “Aww, you pissed off a few million people and now your switchboards are jammed with angry phone calls. Cry me a river. That’s just an occupational hazard, in your line of business.”
Moreover, defenses are expensive and the attack forces the target to bear an unreasonable cost (including extra server capacity).
By that same logic they should fire their entire PR department and instead they should lobby the government to try to have laws passed so that if any significant number of people spoke out against them, they could all be prosecuted. PR departments are expens
Re: (Score:3)
No, it’s analogous to saying “Aww, you pissed off a few million people and now your switchboards are jammed with angry phone calls. Cry me a river. That’s just an occupational hazard, in your line of business.”
A DDOS is not like angry phone calls. Angry phone calls represent people attempting to express an opinion, using their own resources. The resources for a DDOS are typically far beyond the level of individuals' own computers, and involve a botnet or similar distributed collection of machines, many of whose owners are not condoning this use of their resources: the closer telephone analogy would be hacking into an exchange to force all the lines to call the target.
By that same logic they should fire their entire PR department and instead they should lobby the government to try to have laws passed so that if any significant number of people spoke out against them, they could all be prosecuted. PR departments are expensive. Boo hoo.
No, IT security is more like real world securi
Re: (Score:3)
Snail-mail could make a copy at every step of the journey
You are getting absurd. Snail mail is a transportation of a physical object instead of its content. The few uses i still make of snail mail is exactly because of this difference.
If you consider sending xeroxed love letters, your chances of procreation are severely limited and i shell win this argument biologicaly ;-).
CU, Martin
Re: (Score:2)
The people in it were unrelated until they all decided to send you mail.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s not harassing unless you’ve asked them to stop. And then it’s not harassing if they stop but other people start.
Re: (Score:3)
It's harassment if their intent is to cause nuisance.
Like sending a few million form letters, faxes, postcards, e-mails, and phone calls to a congressperson in the month before a vote?
Sure, you think you’re making a political statement, but he thinks it’s a nuisance. He’d greatly prefer you send a single giant petition with a few million signatures so that it could be much more easily ignored.
Re:As apprehended.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I didn't assume that the "you" in the question was a public figure whom civilians might sincerely need to contact in an attempt to participate in the political process.
Corporations are also accountable to the public. They have large PR departments, mailing addresses, and people whose job is to read the mail that people send them (and even reply to some of it), determine and make recommendations of what actions would be most beneficial to their public image, and ideally let the company know quickly if something it did pissed a bunch of people off so that it can decide whether or not it wants to adjust its actions.
Re: (Score:2)
And the real legal question: how does one tell the difference between a DDOS and any of the above?
There are orders of magnitude difference in volume. If one person has a cat sleeping on refresh, that's a load that any of these heavy duty websites could trivially support. And they could temporarily block the client too. I imagine there's also coordination of thousands of machines and other indications that this is not an accident.
As of when? (Score:3)
Its users probably all (well, the dumb ones) got themselves infected with a virus that DDoSed their home turf again. It happens every few months. The main question in my mind is how it spread, this time – reCaptcha cut the head off it last time.
Or maybe it’s just something entirely different this time.
Anyway, returning to the question in my subject, when did it go down? how long has it been down? is it down hard, or is it coming and going?
Quick, change the DNS (Score:5, Funny)
Set the www.4chan.org A record to point to amazon.com .. That will teach them !
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Won't the DDoSers be flooding the IP?
Predicted future news (Score:5, Interesting)
4chan was taken down when a bunch of /b/-tard script kiddies handed over control of their LOIC programs to some Anonymous person on the internet, not realizing that 4chan was the target.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Predicted future news (Score:4, Funny)
Ouch (Score:3)
/b/tards with even more free time on their hands? Not a pretty picture.
I know who did it!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Motive uncovered (Score:2, Funny)
lol (Score:3)
Did moot unplug the servers? (Score:4, Interesting)
We sure it's been DDOS'd? I checked my logs and moot posted late last night with this picture:
http://imgur.com/bY2n4 [imgur.com]
It looks like he unplugged the 4chan servers?
Re:First post (Score:4, Funny)
Hmmm...5-digit Slashdot ID? Been here 10 years? Feh...newbie.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Name one time government did any good"
When it stepped in and established the Social Security system to provide some financial security to our parents and grand parents and great grandparents so they did not starve to death out in the cold. Kind of like a reaction to a sever economic depression. You would think we would learn from history.
As they tell us the only problem with Social Security is that it is not privatized, that means that none of them are making a dime off that business. They see a gold mine
Re: (Score:3)
Calm down man. Little shitheads? I don't think anyone thought you felt self-important until you claimed to be persecuted for it. And I have no idea why you picked such a harmless musing to reply to. Being so sensitive, perhaps you should just go back to not posting.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome.
I do believe you're the first ex-4chan member of what will undoubtedly be an influx of "fun" posters today.
Re:First post (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, dude, you're doing it wrong.
Just donate ~$5 to slashdot, then you get a ~15-minute preview of new posts and the time they are set to go "live".
If you don't use it to turn off banner ads, it apparently never expires. At least mine hasn't for the past 10 years...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have this checkbox labeled “Ads Disabled – Thanks again for helping make Slashdot great!”
Re:First post (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean the days of Something Awful, before it went paywall.
Re: (Score:3)
Better to have someplace for them to be. Now they’ll just flood fark, slashdot, wired, ...
Re:First post (Score:5, Funny)
So now that the asshole of the internet is down, perhaps we can all piece together whatever is left of our lives and move out of the basement.
Sorry to piss on your cornflakes, but Facebook is still up.
Re: (Score:3)
When the asshole is shut down all the shit backs up the line.
Re:Learning about rebellion (Score:4, Informative)
What makes you think Scientology is weak and fang-less? They kill people. They broke into a federal agency and stole documents without repercussion. They blackmailed the IRS into granting them a tax exemption.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're talking about Operation Snow White, a bunch of scientologists went to jail for that. L. Ron Hubbard, himself, went into hiding the rest of his life to avoid getting caught by the US government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White [wikipedia.org]
Do you mean they classified themselves as a religion to get tax exemption status?
Okay.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
12
The amount of awesome in this thread.. (Score:3, Funny)
And the obligatory picture. [memegenerator.net]