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

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:

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

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