|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 293 responses total. |
twill
|
|
response 133 of 293:
| 
Feb 5 23:50 UTC 2002 |
Hi, I'm Twill!
|
bdh3
|
|
response 134 of 293:
|
Feb 6 07:32 UTC 2002 |
yer mother.
|
gull
|
|
response 135 of 293:
|
Feb 6 15:00 UTC 2002 |
Backtalk just stopped accepting my username and password. It keeps spitting
the authorization dialog back at me.
|
vidar
|
|
response 136 of 293:
|
Feb 6 17:03 UTC 2002 |
It did that to me too.
|
gull
|
|
response 137 of 293:
|
Feb 6 17:37 UTC 2002 |
Seems to be working now.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 138 of 293:
|
Feb 6 19:42 UTC 2002 |
Is there any way to protect picospan against denial-of-service attacks,
such as mounted by twill and bdh3?
|
jp2
|
|
response 139 of 293:
|
Feb 6 20:02 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 140 of 293:
|
Feb 6 20:54 UTC 2002 |
Free expression is fine, but one or a few postings of a response is
usually sufficient, and the effect of these denial-of-service attacks is
to cause inconvenience for other users, which may in fact cause an
obstacle, especially to new and less experienced users, and drive them
away from the system.
|
oval
|
|
response 141 of 293:
|
Feb 6 20:58 UTC 2002 |
don't leeron's posts have the same effect? :D
|
gull
|
|
response 142 of 293:
|
Feb 6 21:03 UTC 2002 |
Twill's posts weren't exactly a denial-of-service attack, but the
program that generated them could easily be used to create one.
|
jp2
|
|
response 143 of 293:
|
Feb 6 21:12 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 144 of 293:
|
Feb 6 21:18 UTC 2002 |
I was prevented from reading new meaningful responses in reasonable
rapidity due to the necessity of having to react to hundreds of
items to which the meaningless drivel was attached. I used fixseen,
but new or inexperienced users may not know this, and it may also
have skipped a response that I would have liked to have read. Doing
this was an intentional creation of an obstacle to the convenient
use of the system. It is disrespectful to all users.
|
jep
|
|
response 145 of 293:
|
Feb 6 21:32 UTC 2002 |
I agree with Rane. The system is much less usable after a mass posting
such as this. There's no way to deal with it which isn't worse than
the problem, though.
What would be nice is a "fixseen <user> in which all items would
be "fixed" if the last response in the item was from that user. Or
maybe even:
fixseen -n <number> user
in which the item would be "fixed" if there was a response from the
user in the last <number> responses.
But it would probably be hard to implement this, cause a big drain on
the system, and wouldn't really solve the problem. I don't think there
is a way to solve it.
|
oval
|
|
response 146 of 293:
|
Feb 6 21:45 UTC 2002 |
yea my finger *really* hurts bad from having to press <RETURN> so many goddamn
times. took less time than it does to read some peoples' posting here. it twas
annoying, but giving it this much attention is annoying too.
|
jp2
|
|
response 147 of 293:
|
Feb 6 21:50 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
flem
|
|
response 148 of 293:
|
Feb 6 22:44 UTC 2002 |
(what oval said)
|
remmers
|
|
response 149 of 293:
|
Feb 6 23:23 UTC 2002 |
(what flem said)
|
keesan
|
|
response 150 of 293:
|
Feb 7 00:46 UTC 2002 |
I figure it wasted about 10 minutes total of my time to have to keep hitting
the enter key and then wait 5 sec to get to the next unwanted item, per item.
|
gull
|
|
response 151 of 293:
|
Feb 7 01:43 UTC 2002 |
Couldn't you just 'twit filter' the offender?
|
jhudson
|
|
response 152 of 293:
|
Feb 7 03:54 UTC 2002 |
<g>
Remember: security = 1 / (1.072 * convenience)
|
russ
|
|
response 153 of 293:
|
Feb 7 06:06 UTC 2002 |
twill/polytarp's actions were a crapflood attack, a type of DoS attack.
(I used to do the same thing as a counter-crapflood against the "last
item" crapfloods on M-Net, and oddly enough, some of the people saying
it's not a DoS attack here/now said it was there/then....)
Re #146: Your connection must be really fast, and you must have a lot
of time to spend waiting for the next item to come up. For some people
the extra time can be a large fraction of what they have available.
Those people are effectively denied service.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 154 of 293:
|
Feb 7 13:42 UTC 2002 |
I think what you did was, and what they did was. I'm at least consistent.
|
tpryan
|
|
response 155 of 293:
|
Feb 7 14:17 UTC 2002 |
A solution is Loss of Personality. Not just splatting an
account, but taking the account, locking the password, making the
account only readable to staff/root, redirecting mail to dev/null.
Does not allow account to be re-created. Offender cannot
use old account files easily in new account, mail does not bounce,
it disappears.
|
aruba
|
|
response 156 of 293:
|
Feb 7 14:30 UTC 2002 |
So they just create a new account.
|
slynne
|
|
response 157 of 293:
|
Feb 7 16:48 UTC 2002 |
So tpryan, if someone did that to you would it mean that you would lose
your personality? I like to keep my personality offline.
|
