Print 22 comment(s) - last by mindless1.. on Sep 13 at 12:51 PM

A DDoS attack knocked GoDaddy offline throughout the day

GoDaddy went offline temporarily today due to a distributed denial of service (DDoS) attack by a member of Anonymous. 

Twitter user @AnonymousOwn3r launched the DDoS attack today against GoDaddy, which is an Internet domain registrar and Web hosting company. A DDoS attack is when a server receives an overwhelming amount of communication that it cannot tend to, and it can be carried out using as little as 50 computers. 

Due to the name of the Twitter user, many believed the hacker group Anonymous was collectively to blame. However, Anonymous distanced itself from @AnonymousOwn3r in the following Tweet:

Please redirect your godaddy hate to @AnonymousOwn3r says is the 'leader' of Anonymous. #derp Have #lulz with that. 

GoDaddy, aware of the situation earlier today after receiving floods of messages from users, quickly addressed the situation. It worked on the problem throughout the day, apologizing to customers and offering Twitter updates via @GoDaddy. The most recent Twitter update stated that things were getting back to normal around 4:30 p.m. PST:

We're still working. Getting closer to normal. Thanks for all your patience and understanding. 

Why did @AnonymousOwn3r carry out the attack? The exact reason remains unknown, but a Twitter update from the user reveals a small piece of the puzzle (misspellings kept for authenticity's sake):

I'm taking godaddy down bacause well i'd like to test how the cyber security is safe and for more reasons that i can not talk now.

GoDaddy hosts over 5 million websites. Such a simple attack really shouldn't have knocked it offline so easily, but more details will likely appear as the investigation rolls on.


Source: The Next Web

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Do you support the stifling of free speech?
By hellokeith on 9/10/2012 11:42:35 PM , Rating: 4
If the target were the RIAA, MPAA, the FBI, DHS, or some other unpopular entity, would you applaud the DDoS?

If so, then you support the stifling of free speech. DDoS is wrong , no matter the target.

RE: Do you support the stifling of free speech?
By chµck on 9/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: Do you support the stifling of free speech?
By espaghetti on 9/10/2012 11:54:53 PM , Rating: 2
Are you calling go-daddy North Korea?

By xti on 9/12/2012 12:50:46 AM , Rating: 2
those commercials where it seemed like someone was gonna get naked...and then they made you go to the website...was pretty commie-ish.

RE: Do you support the stifling of free speech?
By Bad-Karma on 9/11/2012 8:00:43 AM , Rating: 3
For a country whose military is barely beyond the 60's, with very little computer technology integration, a DDoS would be barely noticed.

By mindless1 on 9/13/2012 12:51:54 PM , Rating: 2
The fewer the systems and lower the redundancy, the more damaging it is to cripple them with DDOS, though in this case you wouldn't have those systems on the internet at all.

By othercents on 9/11/2012 8:46:31 AM , Rating: 3
Is DDoS actually freedom of speech? Is taking down another website actually stifling freedom of speech?

1. the faculty or power of speaking; oral communication; ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gesture: Losing her speech made her feel isolated from humanity.
2. the act of speaking: He expresses himself better in speech than in writing.
3. something that is spoken; an utterance, remark, or declaration: We waited for some speech that would indicate her true feelings.
4. a form of communication in spoken language, made by a speaker before an audience for a given purpose: a fiery speech.
5. any single utterance of an actor in the course of a play, motion picture, etc.

We should be speaking more and getting our points across. At some point we crossed the line between speaking about things and just being destructive to make our points. DDoS is wrong just like keying a word into the side of someone's car. This is destruction of property and the person harmed has rights too.

BTW. Lookup slander which could cause legal issues even if you don't physically damage someone's property.


RE: Do you support the stifling of free speech?
By arazok on 9/11/2012 12:38:39 PM , Rating: 2
I would not support an attack against the FBI, DHS or any other government agency because those are public institutions whom I can indirectly control via the voting booth.

I do not support an attack against because it is just a private business delivering a service (Although I think they will be better off for this attack once they address the security issue).

I would support an attack against the RIAA, MPAA, because:
1) They are a private institution which does not deliver any services.
2) They exist only to compensate for deficiencies in their parent company’s products and business model.
3) They operate by bribing politicians with high paying “jobs” in exchange for using their influence to manipulate congress for their own purposes.
4) They ruin the lives of people who commit minor crimes.

By WinstonSmith on 9/13/2012 10:13:31 AM , Rating: 2
"I would not support an attack against the FBI, DHS or any other government agency because those are public institutions whom I can indirectly control via the voting booth."

I don't support DDoS attacks in any way either, but that comment is so laughably naive that I just had to comment. The Prez is in control of the executive branch organizations you mention. But since the Prez, whether Dem or Rep, obviously represents not you but the people who fund his campaign(s), you're simply the one who is suckered every four years into voting for him:

"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki