dcsimg
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 30

Thread: sco.com refusing connections

  1. #11
    We should keep an eye on Microsoft's servers, during blaster they supposedly used linux

    Kinda old but here it is
    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...261127586.html

  2. #12
    Just a Virtualized Geek MrLinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    7,324
    But the platform won't be the issue this time. It's going to be the site itself. Reality is that volume, at some point, can take over any pipe-width since bandwidth is finite.
    Goodbye, Mittens (1992-2008). My pillow will be cold without your purring beside my head
    Extra! Extra! Get your FREE copy of Insight Newsletter||MsMittens' HomePage

  3. #13
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    724
    SCO says they are waiting till monday but surely the people at MS have been working on a solution since they found out they were gonna be underattack.
    When death sleeps it dreams of you...

  4. #14
    Just a Virtualized Geek MrLinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    7,324
    Well, I would have thought SCO would have had something in place as well. They knew about the potential about a week ago.
    Goodbye, Mittens (1992-2008). My pillow will be cold without your purring beside my head
    Extra! Extra! Get your FREE copy of Insight Newsletter||MsMittens' HomePage

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    1,027
    When MS was hit previously (msblast I think), the used the servecies of content distribution networks (ie: akamai (sp?)) which has enough resources spread arround to handle the load. However, akamai(sp?) uses linux, which for microsoft, they were willing to "overlook", but SCO is more in a conflict of interest since I doubt akamai is interested in paying 699$/linux machine...

    As for not flooding the whole internet, they could always redirect sco.com to 127.0.0.1, but it doesn't help the accessibilty of their site...

    Ammo
    Credit travels up, blame travels down -- The Boss

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    4,786
    what was i thinking
    Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.’”

  7. #17
    SCO.COM has removed their WWW A record from DNS to stop the onslaught. Take a look at this article, just posted, on Netcraft:
    http://news.netcraft.com/archives/20...m_the_dns.html

  8. #18
    Just a Virtualized Geek MrLinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Posts
    7,324
    Even if they remove it. So? The site is still unaccessible. All that happens is the packets get sent out. BTW, how long was this attack supposed to be? Single day? If that's the case, they just need to ride it out. If it's longer, then there are serious issues. And IMHO this brings up even more for the Internet as a whole. Perhaps a whole new family of DDoS?
    Goodbye, Mittens (1992-2008). My pillow will be cold without your purring beside my head
    Extra! Extra! Get your FREE copy of Insight Newsletter||MsMittens' HomePage

  9. #19
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    724
    the virus has a trigger to stop on the 12th of february

  10. #20
    This article says Riverhead could have been able to help SCO keep it's website up. Anyone had any experience with Riverhead?
    - Boyam


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •