Re: Anonymous not freedom fighters

[Paul Vixie <vixie () isc org>]

> Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2011 02:33:07 -0500
> From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader () gmail com>
>
> > http://www.redbarn.org/blogs/vixie/rule
>
> Just to play devil's advocate....
>
>     In the past few weeks a lot of people have been forcibly denying
>     Internet service to a lot of other people for political reasons that
>     each attacker thinks are valid. I don't think there's any possible
>     moral justification for this behaviour...
>
> Does that include the US attempting to shut down Wikileaks' Internet
> access? It kind of the same thing, isn't it?

not to me.  i'm talking distributed denial of service attack, DDoS, which
according to me (http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac004.txt) is:

   2.1. The most common attack on Internet hosts or infrastructure at the
   time of this writing is to cause the receipt of too much traffic,
   consuming all available resources on a victim's host or Internet
   connection.  This is often called a "Denial of Service" (DoS) attack.

it may be that governments of countries who claim to want to export freedom
to the world should not be trying to kill domain names where no laws are
being broken, but that's a separate topic from what i was getting at in my
"rule of law" blog post.
_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.