Comments on: Lieberman Camp Takes Denial Of Service Attack To Law Enforcement http://informedspeculation.com/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/ Refunds Cheerfully Given To All Who Disagree Sat, 07 Apr 2012 09:00:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-73350 Mark Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:28:53 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/#comment-73350 Well, maybe so...as I said before, if it is a bandwidth problem, I'll admit my hunch was wrong - but man, if that's so, then the Lieberman camp is really, really gonna have egg on their face. But if it was, don't you think they would just pay the bill and bring it up to date? Their host says it has nothing to do with billing... Well, maybe so…as I said before, if it is a bandwidth problem, I’ll admit my hunch was wrong – but man, if that’s so, then the Lieberman camp is really, really gonna have egg on their face.

But if it was, don’t you think they would just pay the bill and bring it up to date? Their host says it has nothing to do with billing…

]]> By: Jacques Distler http://informedspeculation.com/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-73343 Jacques Distler Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:09:51 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/#comment-73343 As does the URL the Lieberman page redirects to: http://server1.myhostcamp.com/suspended.page/ As does the URL the Lieberman page redirects to:

http://server1.myhostcamp.com/suspended.page/

]]> By: Jacques Distler http://informedspeculation.com/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-73342 Jacques Distler Tue, 08 Aug 2006 22:07:16 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/#comment-73342 No, they don't seem particularly on-the-ball: <blockquote cite="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001301.php">He denied Markos' report that the campaign paid only $15 a month for service. They pay a "bit more," he said; he couldn't say precisely how much, but said he'd have that information if I called back later.</blockquote> And Kos now reports: <blockquote>Update III: From an email: </blockquote><blockquote> http://www.meetned.com/ 69.56.129.130 http://www.joe2006.com/ 69.56.129.130 MeetNed.com - Up. Joe2006.com - Down. </blockquote> DoS attacks don't affect particular accounts on a server. They bring down the whole server. The attack site is up, their campaign site is down. This isn't a DoS attack. which certainly dovetails nicely with the "used up their bandwidth allotment" explanation. No, they don’t seem particularly on-the-ball:

He denied Markos’ report that the campaign paid only $15 a month for service. They pay a “bit more,” he said; he couldn’t say precisely how much, but said he’d have that information if I called back later.

And Kos now reports:

Update III: From an email:

http://www.meetned.com/ 69.56.129.130
http://www.joe2006.com/ 69.56.129.130
MeetNed.com – Up.
Joe2006.com – Down.

DoS attacks don’t affect particular accounts on a server. They bring down the whole server. The attack site is up, their campaign site is down. This isn’t a DoS attack.

which certainly dovetails nicely with the “used up their bandwidth allotment” explanation.

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-73334 Mark Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:46:25 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/#comment-73334 Jacques, two points: one, we only have Kos's word that there's a 10G limit (I'm sure, like most hosting services, they allow more bandwidth for an extra fee). The Lieberman camp has said <a href="http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001301.php" rel="nofollow">they pay more than $15 a month</a>. Two: yeah, it does seem like Lieberman needs to get rid of his Internet folks, pronto (if it's not too late - i.e., if he runs as an Independent or somehow pulls this out). Even if it was a DOS attack, they should have been prepared for that eventuality, I would think... Jacques, two points: one, we only have Kos’s word that there’s a 10G limit (I’m sure, like most hosting services, they allow more bandwidth for an extra fee). The Lieberman camp has said they pay more than $15 a month.

Two: yeah, it does seem like Lieberman needs to get rid of his Internet folks, pronto (if it’s not too late – i.e., if he runs as an Independent or somehow pulls this out). Even if it was a DOS attack, they should have been prepared for that eventuality, I would think…

]]> By: Jacques Distler http://informedspeculation.com/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-73323 Jacques Distler Tue, 08 Aug 2006 21:30:42 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/#comment-73323 A bandwidth limit of 10 GB ?? That's pathetic. Even if the entire MyHostCamp server weren't down (for whatever reason), you'd expect them to run out of their 10 GB allotment before election day. Perhaps it's a little late, but maybe they should talk to Ted Stevens and ask for a bigger tube. A bandwidth limit of 10 GB ??

That’s pathetic.

Even if the entire MyHostCamp server weren’t down (for whatever reason), you’d expect them to run out of their 10 GB allotment before election day.

Perhaps it’s a little late, but maybe they should talk to Ted Stevens and ask for a bigger tube.

]]> By: jwest http://informedspeculation.com/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-73312 jwest Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:38:12 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/#comment-73312 Other sites are saying there were two separate attacks. I’ll go along with TS9 on the lone gunman theory, perhaps with one additional nut up on the grassy knoll. Other sites are saying there were two separate attacks.

I’ll go along with TS9 on the lone gunman theory, perhaps with one additional nut up on the grassy knoll.

]]> By: Fargus http://informedspeculation.com/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-73307 Fargus Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:18:15 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/#comment-73307 I certainly don't discount that possibility. I only say that I've seen enough to make me, in my technological ignorance, doubt that it's necessarily as clear-cut as an attack on the site. I'm not asserting that it wasn't, only saying that I'm not sure. I certainly don’t discount that possibility. I only say that I’ve seen enough to make me, in my technological ignorance, doubt that it’s necessarily as clear-cut as an attack on the site. I’m not asserting that it wasn’t, only saying that I’m not sure.

]]> By: topsecretk9 http://informedspeculation.com/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-73305 topsecretk9 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:15:00 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/#comment-73305 I don't think it was Lamont coordinated at all, but I do think it is an over-zealous undisciplined member of the nutroots. I don’t think it was Lamont coordinated at all, but I do think it is an over-zealous undisciplined member of the nutroots.

]]> By: Mark http://informedspeculation.com/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-73302 Mark Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:00:21 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/#comment-73302 I don't necessarily think it's Lamont's campaign - or even Kos Kidz - but it seems awfully convenient for Lieberman to have technical problems today of all days, does it not? DOS makes the most sense - some progressive nutjob hacker, would be my guess. I've seen the mydd post, though, and you're right, some are saying this is technical, as Markos does - we'll see. But just as it would be really stupid for Lamont to do something like this (almost as stupid as saying he 'knows nothing' about the blogs - whoops! He did that, didn't he?), it would be really stupid for the Lieberman camp to go to law enforcement with a technical glitch, wouldn't it? Ah, well, time will tell, I suppose... I don’t necessarily think it’s Lamont’s campaign – or even Kos Kidz – but it seems awfully convenient for Lieberman to have technical problems today of all days, does it not?

DOS makes the most sense – some progressive nutjob hacker, would be my guess.

I’ve seen the mydd post, though, and you’re right, some are saying this is technical, as Markos does – we’ll see. But just as it would be really stupid for Lamont to do something like this (almost as stupid as saying he ‘knows nothing’ about the blogs – whoops! He did that, didn’t he?), it would be really stupid for the Lieberman camp to go to law enforcement with a technical glitch, wouldn’t it?

Ah, well, time will tell, I suppose…

]]> By: Fargus http://informedspeculation.com/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/comment-page-1/#comment-73299 Fargus Tue, 08 Aug 2006 19:52:54 +0000 http://decision08.net/2006/08/08/lieberman-camp-takes-denial-of-service-attack-to-law-enforcement/#comment-73299 I've seen some posts from both sides of the issue that leave it quite open, to me, what's going on. Mostly, though, what makes me think that Lamont's campaign didn't have anything to do with it is that it would be too mind-numbingly stupid to comprehend. http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/8/141421/9441 I’ve seen some posts from both sides of the issue that leave it quite open, to me, what’s going on. Mostly, though, what makes me think that Lamont’s campaign didn’t have anything to do with it is that it would be too mind-numbingly stupid to comprehend.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/8/8/141421/9441

]]>