digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at revision3.com

Inside the Attack that Crippled Revision3

revision3.com — As many of you know, Revision3 ’s servers were brought down over the Memorial Day weekend by a denial of service attack. It’s an all too common occurrence these days. But this one wasn’t your normal cybercrime – there’s a chilling twist at the end. Here’s what happened, and why we’re even more concerned today, after it’s over, than we were on Saturd

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • blake10, on 05/29/2008, -20/+688that's outrageous...how could a company as large and well-known as mediadefender be so negligent and irresponsible?
    • jmreid, on 05/29/2008, -6/+196That sentence doesn't make sense in my brain. Large, well-known company that's negligent and irresponsible? Wow, shocking.
    • longbow486, on 05/29/2008, -0/+132you forget, The MAFIAA pays all their bills
    • stevenbrown, on 05/29/2008, -1/+90Media Defender - The internet's self appointed gestapos
    • Vektuz, on 05/29/2008, -0/+39Because they're not large and not well known, they just present their image that way? And they've been doing things like this for years, and yes, their primary bankroller is the RIAA/MPAA.
    • Idrive, on 05/29/2008, -3/+19Same way Enron was...
      • Enron, on 05/29/2008, -3/+24What are you talking about? I'm responsible.
    • MikeCerm, on 05/29/2008, -3/+138Negligent and irresponsible? I'm not sure those words apply. MediaDefender was just doing what it does. Unfortunately for them, what they do is illegal and totally unethical.

      We don't live in a world where people get to freely see vigilante justice when they feel that their rights are being violated, but that's exactly what MediaDefender attempts to do. Evidently they search for open trackers, start spamming bogus files, and logging connections. In the event that they're discovered, they kill the tracker with a DoS.

      Imagine that you suspect your neighbor was a drug dealer. Rather than calling the cops, which is what you should do so that the proper authorities can deal with any crimes that may have been committed, you decided to take matters into your own hands. You decide to stand on his lawn at night, offering drugs to anyone passing by. Instead of real drugs, you give them fake drugs. Eventually your neighbor figures out that someone's been dealing drugs on his lawn, and builds a fence. You burn down your neighbors house.

      Revision3 wasn't even doing anything wrong, and they were targeted and attacked. Rather than going through proper legal channels, various entities pay MediaDefender to attack people who it believes aren't respecting their copyrights, breaking laws in the process and doing serious damage. Revision3 should be taking legal action, and MediaDefender's customers should be held responsible as well. Prosecuting a hitman is one thing, but what about the mob boss that ordered the hit?
      • longbow486, on 05/29/2008, -0/+16agreed.
        also, Revision3 stated on their site that they have already notified the FBI.
    • Tr3mulant, on 05/29/2008, -0/+62There should be no question about the matter, legal action should be pursued. DoS is illegal uner 12 different stautes according to the article. It doesn't matter why it happened, it's illegal. There's no way in hell such a coordinated attack could have been accidental. Revision3 should push for legal action and the highest punishment allowed.
      • Qeveren, on 05/29/2008, -0/+13I agree. How can you 'accidentally' syn flood someone's server?
        • ronjohnson, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5It was targeted to the torrent port.Someone needs to be made an example of and go to jail.
        • DarknessGP, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5I highly doubt it was an accident, however they could have built their system in a way to do that give a certain situation, obviously this is stupid and negligence. It'd be like setting the Death Star are auto-pilot and whenever it got attacked it would blow up the nearest planet. Yea, it's cool to be able to blow up planets, but you shouldn't do it so aimlessly.
    • Yodacola, on 05/29/2008, -26/+6If Revision3 would have used something like Rackspace or Akamai, this probably wouldn't have happened.

      However, Revision3 never intended for their infrastructure to withstand a 9GBps line attacking their core servers.
      • DarknessGP, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5It's not a matter of the system. I would agree that they should have something in place to fight off DoS attacks, but that doesn't mean that there should be a ***** company that hands out DoS left and right.
      • xino, on 05/30/2008, -1/+5I can just imagine a story about an intruder breaking into someone's house and shooting the owner and then Yodacola would hear about it some where and say "This could have been avoided if the owner would higher some security guards and they would have guns."
        • Yodacola, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1Imagine a digger who tried to reply to an comment and failed miserably at it.

          Oh.
      • netant, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3I don't get why diggers are burying this comment. He's just bluntly saying if companies "leave themselves" vulnerable, ***** happens. I don't agree with it, but I wouldn't bury someone on the basis its the truth. Am I not seeing something here?
        • xino, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1You have a point to some degree, but I dugg him down because he made it sound like he put more blame on Revision 3 than Media Defender. Also, from what I have heard, Akamai is really expensive so that might be some thing that is hard to do from a financial stand point. The same might be true with Rackspace, but I am not familiar with them so I don't know, but the point is he provided 1 (possibly 2) non trivial solutions. If the solution was dirt cheap and easy to implement, I would have dugg him up.
        • Yodacola, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2@xino
          Revison3 is a business. It isn't looking for a consumer solution. If it handles streaming media on the web as it's primary business model, then I would think that they could afford a better solution. Also,Akamai and Rackspace would have saved Revision3 money because they would:

          1. not need the server hardware.
          2. Wouldn't have to pay for the costly server network setup and installation
          3. wouldn't have lost four days of revenue on one of the biggest days of the year.
          4. wouldn't need the it staff to do do all of that

          While Akamai may be a bit costly (I used them when I worked for Media News), Rackspace is very affordable for what they offer, which is zero downtime. That is even better than Digg.
    • temp, on 05/29/2008, -17/+3I'm guessing people are missing the sarcasm.
    • BESTenemy, on 05/29/2008, -1/+39 Seeing how arrogantly and calmly MediaDefender admits involvement hints that they don't really give a damn about possible legal retaliations. Over the course of their existence they have obviously gathered a base of dedicated sponsors, lawyers and judges.

      Affiliated Digg user base, much like any user base, generally oposes MediaDefender practices. We openly bash both RIAA and MPAA alike. Maybe the attack was a stone throw through the window. Who knows.

      Regardless of how much I wish for the Revision3 to get them back, I don't think they can afford better lawyers. Sadly, our justice is just like our election process - the person with the most money wins.
      • WiseWeasel, on 05/29/2008, -0/+15I bet the EFF will pony up some good lawyers...
    • xpose, on 05/29/2008, -13/+1hmm, accidental PWNAGE?
    • wejmahtin, on 05/29/2008, -10/+2They don't say how they tried to shut off their back door access.. Depending on their setup, Revision3 may've induced a syn flood by continuing to allow syn packets in, but for example filtering outbound, causing MD to send a barrage of syns for all of the torrents.
    • dafunkmonster, on 05/29/2008, -0/+19If you had read the entire article, you would have discovered that MediaDefender's army of servers is setup to automatically DoS anyone who shuts them out.
      • wejmahtin, on 05/29/2008, -3/+10He assumes that they're set up to send a DoS... The article never gives any evidence to verify that.
        • phoomp, on 05/29/2008, -0/+11I suspect that the massive attack from MediaDefender is evidence of that.
        • evulhotdog, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5*win*
    • diggmedownmore, on 05/29/2008, -18/+36Digg me down.
    • dalittle, on 05/29/2008, -2/+12Even more than that. This is outright criminal behavior. Where is the FBI and DOJ?
      • EwMo, on 05/29/2008, -1/+7RTFA
        • dalittle, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5I did. There is a hint that the FBI was contact, but wtf. Why is this not getting some high level attention and a press report from the FBI? We got them for that stupid run away bride, and this is a potential threat to people's lives if Media Defender attacks a hospital, etc.
        • netant, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2@dalittle

          The answer is simple. The FBI prioritizes what crimes it goes after based on "1) will it get me (FBI) lots of publicity?" or "2) does the crime threaten the functional existence of the USA?". THEN, if it meets criteria 1 or 2, it must meet the overriding criteria "3) can the US prevail (inexpensively) in court"? If it can't meet criteria 3, the case is dead.

          Get a ***** grip. There is nearly no chance (in hell) that a hospital is going to run a bittorrent server of information that it needs to distribute to the outside. Mediadefender is not going to shut down hospitals or nuclear power plants. (What would be SWEET if they attacked a future FBI bittorrent.) Unfortunately, Mediadefender is more than willing to "attack" companies like Revision3, and they will get away with it, because the FBI will not go after their asses until Rev3 can claim to amass damages over $100,000. That is actually difficult to do, particularly if you don't take in well over $100,000 gross revenue in a fiscal quarter.

          So if the case is "small", don't expect the FBI to go off on their high horse and actually do their job. BUT, there is a silver lining. If you have enough money to hire good lawyers, you can launch a CIVIL suit against Mediadefender. Granted, it may take as much as 10 years before you will get retribution, BUT if a company can stick it out, they can actually wipe Mediadefender from existence (because the joie de vivre of a corporation is to make a profit. If the corporation can't do it consistently enough, the corporation dies. Then again, the F-heads SCO seem to still be slogging along.)

          Personally, there are bigger problems to fry, like the fact that the Chinese have become the new pimp daddies of the hacking world. They're a freaking national threat, and dupes like you are worrying about Mediadefender.
        • ArcticRain, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1My feeling is that Rev 3 could easily show an excess of 100k in damages. Adding up additional bandwidth fees, lost advertising revenue when the site was down, as well as labor costs to get the site back up which are all a direct result of the attack all add up very quickly.
      • Ashcan, on 05/29/2008, -0/+6"...[W]illingly admitted to abusing Revision3’s network, over a period of months...". Time for Revision3 to dig through some old logs. Maybe then the FBI can get multiple charges against Mediadefender.
      • t3rmv3locity, on 05/29/2008, -2/+6You mean the Bush Administration's FBI and DOJ?

        oh right...
    • max420, on 05/29/2008, -3/+5Are you really surprised by any of this? I'm not.
    • phoomp, on 05/29/2008, -0/+12Probably because it was intentional rather than negligent or irresponsible.

      Sounds to me like one of MediaDefender's goals is to kill digital distribution channels, illegal or legal, that threaten their clients' traditional distribution channels.
    • codo678, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3I sent a looping fax(through the internet) and also a fax bitching them out. I really hate Media Defender ***** THEM!
    • RumaruDrathas, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3If my dog got "panicked" and viciously attacked the mailman delivering my mail, I doubt an "oops" and "I promise that will never happen again" would do justice. That dog would be put down and I'll be held responsible for my panicked dog.

      ... I wonder if we can inhumanely euthanize MediaDefender...
      • davidlick, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3That sounds like a great idea. Get started on that, and I want a report on my desk by this afternoon.
    • micromause, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4The point isn't about negligence it's about a company that thinks they can attack ANY and ALL BitTorrent servers they wish. Something has to be done about that. $0.02
    • Floris, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2They can because they have the industry behind them paying the bills, and that creates plausible den.

      They're scammers, nothing more or less.
    • EddieOwns, on 06/03/2008, -0/+0go ask wal-mart
  • iPirate, on 05/29/2008, -310/+11This is a dupe.
    The original is here: http://digg.com/tech_news/Inside_the_Attack_that_C ...
    He beat you by 1 minute.
    • iPirate, on 05/29/2008, -104/+10Why am I being dugg down to hell for pointing out the fact that this submission is a dupe?
      • cawpin, on 05/29/2008, -19/+5Because you posted another dupe?
        • iPirate, on 05/29/2008, -30/+6The other article isn't mine, and it's not a dupe. The only one submitted before it linked to the revision3 blog homepage instead of the article.
      • jkoski, on 05/29/2008, -4/+51Because no one likes a whiner? *Particularly* if it's only by a minute.

        Several versions of a story can get posted and we all pick one to run with. Get over it.
        • iPirate, on 05/29/2008, -34/+3I don't exactly see it as me whining, since it isn't my article anyways. I just think credit should go to the first person that submits the story. Whether it be by a minute or a week.
        • jkoski, on 05/29/2008, -0/+26I agree that the first person *should* get credit but we know that doesn't happen here. It's just the way Digg works. And now people pointing out dupes is more annoying then seeing "First!" at the beginning of a thread.

          That said, people who post dupes on purpose just because they think they have some sort of priveledged status that allows them to ignore the stated rules just because *they* think stories are worth being seen should be taken out behind the chemical shed.
        • adderx99, on 05/29/2008, -4/+20@ iPirate: The submitter (chuck) is a rev3 employee and friend of digg. drop it already.
      • theHM, on 05/29/2008, -8/+39Firstly, the submission you linked to is a dupe of http://digg.com/tech_news/Inside_the_Attack_that_C ...

        And secondly, this submission made frontpage. No one cares that there was another one. Deal with it.
        • iPirate, on 05/29/2008, -24/+4That submission links to the Rev3 blog homepage and both articles were submitted by the same guy. He realized his mistake and then correctly resubmitted, this time linking to the actual blog post.
      • Orion682, on 05/29/2008, -4/+39Because, as you said yourself, it's only a one minute difference, which means this submitter likely never saw the other article.

        Also, no one ***** cares.
      • pathfinder, on 05/29/2008, -6/+11because you're a troll
        • iPirate, on 05/29/2008, -18/+5A troll? wtf...
          I found this story on the Rev3 blog and tried to submit it to Digg. Digg then showed me that somebody else already posted it. So I dugg his story instead and just think he deserves the credit for submitting it first.
        • xEn1gma, on 05/29/2008, -4/+10Boohoo iPirate, shut your face.
      • robthom, on 05/29/2008, -10/+4Woohoo, Digg down party yall!!!
      • kyle212, on 05/29/2008, -4/+3Damnit! Why wont you die?!
    • twiztidsinz, on 05/29/2008, -26/+9***** you
    • Eldoo77, on 05/29/2008, -0/+20Put away your wand Dupe Fairy!
    • fightwithsticks, on 05/29/2008, -0/+13Buried for the awesome amount of buries!
    • mikesbaker, on 05/30/2008, -3/+2that douche bag didn't even make the link go to the right page.
  • shoopdawoop, on 05/29/2008, -71/+364We must never forget how concerned we were on Saturd.
    • MadEnvoy, on 05/29/2008, -5/+61Never joke about Saturd. It's one of the holiest days of the Church of Turdology!
    • beatrixkiddo, on 05/29/2008, -2/+58Is that before or after Turday?
    • Vironex, on 05/29/2008, -6/+37Maybe it's the weed.
      But that is the funniest thing I've read in days.
    • ReyX, on 05/29/2008, -2/+31Is that like caturday but with poop?
    • Reziarfg, on 05/29/2008, -6/+22Oh man, we're not doing another one Candlejack things are w
      • Exbzurq, on 05/29/2008, -1/+9O crap, you mentioned Candlejack. Wait! I mentioned Candlejack. I wonder how long I ha
        • diggjosh, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2lol that ***** never works. Besides, what the ***** is with the obscure memes like ***** Candlejack? are you serious? no one even remembe
        • beatrixkiddo, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2Candlejack? wt
    • spawnfree, on 05/29/2008, -2/+19as long as it is not caturd

      that would be gross.
    • aaabatteries, on 05/29/2008, -2/+10Sounds like a Candlejack ending if yo
      • wastedlife, on 05/29/2008, -7/+3What's all this talk about candlej
        • midjunkie, on 05/29/2008, -1/+7You're doing it wrong, you're supposed to actually say Candlejack befo
    • maj0rm0j0, on 05/29/2008, -3/+1Anonymous could be helpful.
    • BlueLove775, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Thanks grammar gods.
    • therusher, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1I see what you did ther.
  • downlo, on 05/29/2008, -122/+5Lamp means Linux
    Linux has syn cookies to prevent this.
    This is a case of bad administration, nothing more.
    • RungeKutta, on 05/29/2008, -4/+49I would say this is a case of bad administration that allowed it to happen. However it wasn't Revision3 that abused their own BT tracker and it wasn't Revision3 that accidentally (or not) that DoS'd their own servers.
    • Nougat, on 05/29/2008, -3/+44Wow are you stupid.
    • eekfuh, on 05/29/2008, -2/+46Quit pretending like you know jack ***** about linux.
    • gimpbully, on 05/29/2008, -0/+58First off, we don't use linux, we use netBSD.
      Second, all of that is irrelevant if all your traffic flows through a PIX and load balancer (like a great portion of corporations).
      • mephyt, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2Something I hadn't thought about was the PIX...

        Planning on changing up topography a little nowadays? ;)
  • DeadFox1, on 05/29/2008, -9/+276a good read. death to MediaDefender!
    • jawagas, on 05/29/2008, -0/+31Agreed, well written and insightful.
    • unicronband, on 05/29/2008, -0/+14Someone should DoS those *****.
      • yodaj007, on 05/29/2008, -1/+11I would think the Digg effect coupled with the Slashdot effect and, perhaps, the Reddit effect, would carry enough force to take them down. And legally.
      • Paradoxymoron, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Screw DoSing...something IRL would be even better.
    • Exilon, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4Digg's DDoSing them very well at the moment.
    • maj0rm0j0, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2I wish Anonymous would get involved. Going after MediaDefender would serve a better purpose than the Scientology attacks.
    • TheMime, on 05/30/2008, -0/+6CONTACT:

      PHONE: (310) 956-3300
      FAX: (310) 956-3391

      EMAIL
      Sales, Business Development, Partnerships
      sales(at)mediadefender.com

      General Info
      info(at)mediadefender.com

      Jobs
      jobs(at)mediadefender.com
  • owenkun, on 05/29/2008, -486/+39I greatly dislike Revision3. More specifically, I hate the pretentious individuals that make up their pool of talent.
    • max1018, on 05/29/2008, -10/+48No need to be jealous.
    • The2ndAct, on 05/29/2008, -9/+107I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it
    • girldrinkdrunk, on 05/29/2008, -11/+122I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. In the meantime, I'm digging you down.
    • arjie, on 05/29/2008, -0/+40Even if you do, you should be worried. There's some rogue company in your country that just launches DoS attacks at servers (innocent or otherwise), that's simply illegal by your laws. You can't possibly ignore such a threat.

      You have some extra-legal pseudo-police on the internet, that's dangerous. Now they're just malicious, later they may be both malicious and corrupt and then god knows what havoc they can wreak.
      • merlin77077, on 05/29/2008, -3/+7Off topic : Thank you for being one of the very few who can spell "rogue" correctly.
    • sleepwalkers, on 05/29/2008, -0/+8Where's the pretention?
    • keviniskool, on 05/29/2008, -5/+16What is this? Polite responses? You should all be digging him down and flaming him for not loving Kevin Rose.
      • wombat02, on 05/29/2008, -3/+4I'm more an Alex than a Kevin.
        • eliteeggnog, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2I'm more a James than an Alex or Kevin but some people think I'm a Jim.
    • oldhick, on 05/29/2008, -0/+8What does that have to do with a story about DoS attack? I don't like you or your pretentious ***** but is that really relevant to this discussion?
    • saralk, on 05/29/2008, -3/+3I agree, although I really like the company and what they're trying to do, I think a lot of their content is way to ametuer.

      Diggnation gets away with it because thats the style it's going for, Totally Rad Show is pretty well made and entertaining (if a bit too long) and I like Scam School because it's got good production quality, is entertaing and comes in small bite size chunks.

      But all the other shows just seem tacky, unproffesional and poorly made.

      Either way, what MediaDefender did was seriously messed up.
      • FlyingSpaghetti, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2Internet Superstar FTW! Break out the dreamcoat Gator!
    • mateo60, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4Who cares whether or not you like the affected company? It still shouldn't have happened. If it's not stopped, eventually it will happen to someone you like.
    • DougO, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Interesting observation and I would like to reflect on it at length. To put your comments in context however I have two teeny tiny questions: who the ***** are you and what the ***** have you ever done?
    • Volaitle86, on 05/29/2008, -4/+2kunt
    • BiggestofMikes, on 05/30/2008, -1/+3Now you ***** up. You have ***** up now.
      • Volaitle86, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1dude, i have not laughed a comment in a long time. Thank you.
  • ni79, on 05/29/2008, -7/+272Media Defender is just a puppet it sounds like. The RIAA is not a scrupulous bunch. They are a large group of lawyers hell bent on making more money off the artists than the artists make.
    • AlaskaLoneWolf, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Exactly. Cut out the middle-man. Emphasis on the "CUT" part.
    • Suricou, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5Not so much puppet as mercenary. Want a copyright-infringing file or site taken down without having to go through all the hassle of legal action? Pay Mediadefender to do it on your behalf. They posess the skills and the equipment to run DMCA takedown harassment campaigns, mass complaints to ISPs of p2p users, and if that fails to use DDoS, torrent corrupting, fake-speading or any other dirty tricky they know to do what they are paid to do. True mercenarys: They take the money and do the job, and don't ask questions.
    • Paradoxymoron, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1There's an old Japanese proverb "Bend with the storm, and reply in kind." or something of that ilk, now that we've got that first part over with, what to do, what to do...
  • Fordi, on 05/29/2008, -4/+596Anyone have those IP addresses? I'm sure the Peerguardian would like to know them all.
    • felderado, on 05/29/2008, -96/+28Why are you IDIOTS so bent on using PeerGuardian? Is it that hard to get it through your thick skulls?????

      PEER GUARDIAN PROTECTS YOU FROM NOTHING

      They don't have to connect to YOU to find out you're pirating software. They only have to talk to the tracker and get the list of IPs in the swarm. As long as you're on a public tracker you are putting yourself in the open to get caught. Even private trackers aren't secure.

      Protip: BitTorrent will get you busted. Try something a little more anonymous and secure that doesn't have slow downloads and has true end to end encryption. If you don't know what I'm talking about you don't deserve to be using it.

      PS It's faster than torrent and has more content anyway.
      • eekfuh, on 05/29/2008, -6/+91What are you? A newsgroup user?
        • jkoski, on 05/29/2008, -22/+42First rule of usenet: you don't talk about usenet.

          Second rule of usenet: YOU DON'T ***** TALK ABOUT USENET!!!
        • SAOSiN, on 05/29/2008, -2/+36You're kinda breaking the rule jkoski...unless you arent a usenet user.
        • jkoski, on 05/29/2008, -0/+29D'OH!
        • darkamster07, on 05/29/2008, -2/+14third rule of Usenet: it's only for "1337" snobs who think they are better than everyone else, STFU already. and BTW, it's not exactly secret, every single time I search for a torrent I get usenet offers shoved down my ***** throat
      • cawpin, on 05/29/2008, -11/+69BT is faster than most connections can handle and it does have encryption available. Go away.
        • eekfuh, on 05/29/2008, -0/+42Encryption is to protect you from packet sniffing/isp throttling... not from them checking the tracker for connected IPs.
      • neaveru, on 05/29/2008, -4/+47Since when has a file with a bunch of IP addresses been enough to convict someone of doing something illegal?
        • Bradl3y, on 05/29/2008, -2/+37Where have you been?
        • tokyomonster, on 05/29/2008, -0/+42Probably not convict, but the RIAA has built, and won, lawsuits based on less evidence than that..
        • thetanbark, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5"[...] prove beyond the shadow of a doubt [...]"

          Try me.
        • MegaloMatt, on 05/29/2008, -1/+4Beyond reasonable doubt only applies in criminal cases. In civil cases the burden of proof is only to the level of clear and convincing evidence. So then you are trusting that IP addresses aren't clear and convincing to whomever the trier of fact may be.
        • darkamster07, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3you're right, for anyone that has the guts to stand up, and the knowledge, an IP will do nothing for the MAFIAA
      • lowspeedchase, on 05/29/2008, -3/+34Elitists like yourself are always compensating for something. I genuinely feel bad for you, best of luck.
      • oxdeltaxo, on 05/29/2008, -0/+8Well if your not interested in blocking those people you could always just turn it around and throw a couple of DOS attacks against their DOS slave servers.
      • bigfatdummy, on 05/29/2008, -4/+18I ONLY use legal torrents. Linux distros, game downloads & updates, video content, etc. I'm upset about legitimate content being filtered or messed with by MediaDefender & Comcast.
        • xEn1gma, on 05/29/2008, -27/+3By the way you talk, you must be a MAC user...and that's never good.
        • ZigVicious, on 05/29/2008, -2/+19@Xenigma
          doesn't everyone on the intenet use a MAC address?
        • MxM111, on 05/29/2008, -1/+16"By the way you talk, you must be a MAC user"
          Why would MAC user need Linux distros?
        • colklink, on 05/29/2008, -1/+13Considering that he is posting on the internet, it is painfully obvious that he is in fact a Media Access Control (MAC) user. Every network adapter has one.

          Now, for homework, go to wikipedia and educate yourself on the difference between MAC and Mac.
        • mateo60, on 05/29/2008, -0/+8I only download Linux ISOs and public domain .txt versions of the Bible.
        • xEn1gma, on 05/29/2008, -8/+0I meant Macintosh (i.e. Apple), but way to lay down the law fellow Digg users.

          Did I offend you guys? Digg me down more, hahaha, tools.
        • FinalSword22, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4@xEn1gma
          Already did. And thanks for the compliment, since tools help to build the foundation of the world. Most people don't compliment people that digg them down; I'm glad you rose above the standards.
          Douche.
        • xEn1gma, on 05/29/2008, -8/+0"Since tools help to build the foundation of the world"?

          Haha, yeah man, way to "stick it to me" with that insane rebuttal. Please shut your mouth moron.

          As for "complimenting", the concept of sarcasm completely swooshed over your head sometime in your empty life. Obviously, that's the only thing you can cling on to because otherwise, you have nothing else to refute with. But yes stickler, "Douche" I am.
        • darkamster07, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2@xEn1gma

          you didn't exactly dissagree with his claims, sounds like YOU had nothing to refute with -_-
        • sleepwalkers, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2The sign of the Internet troll who has lost an argument, but refuses to accept it: "Hahaha awesome comeback, dickweed."
      • trunkster, on 05/29/2008, -0/+6Oldz Schoolz through the Usenet tubes?
      • spectre_25gt, on 05/29/2008, -0/+56Quoth the douchebag:
        "If you don't know what I'm talking about you don't deserve to be using it."

        For someone that likes information to be free, you certainly don't seem to be willing to share much.
        • Lyk4n, on 05/29/2008, -2/+7That's how they all are.. They need to be pushed down and have their glasses broken..
        • Dhekke, on 05/29/2008, -2/+3Also, how the hell would I be using it, if I don't know what it ***** is?
      • jinxplayer, on 05/29/2008, -0/+15Sofa Kingdom
      • Fordi, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4First, seeing your IP in the swarm is not catching you in the act of uploading (you could have uploading throttled to zero with no ill effects on some trackers); it doesn't hold up in court.

        Second, I was thinking more on the order of using Peerguardian on the tracker.
      • Orsenfelt, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Yeh, Hold on while I go sign up to a usenet service with my full credit cart details...
      • DomZy, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1For anyone who doesn't know what he is talking about, and does:

        http://www.slyck.com/ng.php
    • salomejones, on 05/29/2008, -1/+41http://revision3.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/re ...

      There's your media defender blocks, first column there on the left.
      • blaxbb, on 05/30/2008, -0/+6If your curious that list is a period of 19 thousandths of a second
    • IanPR, on 05/29/2008, -13/+2Didn't they say that they didn't spoof their IP addresses?

      Last time i checked, 38.107.161.75.30342 isn't valid.
      • JSatt, on 05/29/2008, -0/+18but 38.107.161.75 Port 30342 is valid.
      • Vaelkar, on 05/29/2008, -1/+12.... I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here and say you haven't really done alot of networking.

        The last octet is the port.

        38.107.161.75 port 30342
        • hojibuji, on 06/12/2008, -0/+0the last part isn't an octet... but i'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here......
    • cosequin, on 05/29/2008, -6/+1like it's so hard for rich organizations to get new isps/ip addresses or dialup accounts, or set up botnets, retards.
    • daspacepirate, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5they were already in peerguardian, at least in my blocklist.
    • Briii, on 05/30/2008, -1/+5they havent made a peerguardian for vista

      *quietly sobs
      • cmapes2, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1Ouch, me loves my "old" Win XP Pro install.
        *hugs*
      • Trilogy, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2They have, actually. Still in RC state but it works. Some problems still exist. See PG2 forums for more info.

        No official stable release out yet, though.
  • HCviolence, on 05/29/2008, -2/+801mediadefender=corporate terrorists
    • jcaino, on 05/29/2008, -0/+10Has anyone else received baseless claims via email of hosting torrents from MediaDefender? I've seen a few.
    • gernblansted, on 05/29/2008, -0/+44Worse than just that, they're corporate terrorists with backing from wealthy power brokers with tight political connections. Don't be surprised if nothing happens with the FBI investigation.
    • ddfall, on 05/29/2008, -0/+6Why can't they just realize that this is just not the right way of doing business. They've just painted an even bigger target on themselves.
    • hypertension, on 05/29/2008, -2/+2Death by shattered testicles!!!!
  • rafacst, on 05/29/2008, -1/+226I wonder how many times can MediaDefender shoot themselves on the foot.
    • oxdeltaxo, on 05/29/2008, -0/+53They have a seemingly infinite supply of foot bullets.
      • arjung, on 05/29/2008, -0/+12and an infinite supply of feet to shoot... after all, they're still standing.

        enough with the foot analogy?
        • DroppedGT, on 05/29/2008, -1/+10Maybe they are shooting each toe? Ever think of that?
    • sylvok, on 05/29/2008, -2/+1More then Scientology
    • phantasmagorias, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1I honestly don't think they are. Something's weird about all of this. I mean the CEO openly admitted to a crime. Thats two unusually things. First is actually telling the truth, the second being admitting a CRIME.
      • blaxbb, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1They think that they are invincible. They have been getting away with so much crap recently.
  • johnbellone, on 05/29/2008, -1/+420I hope that Revision3 decides to take legal action against this company. I am pretty sure by taking advantage of an exploit that they broke a couple more laws than simply shutting you down this weekend. But companies like this need to understand that simply because they are connected to the Internet, they do not own anything that the touch, and cannot shut down another website simply because it is running a Bittorrent tracker.

    All I have to say is that they better be damn well hoping that when the FBI knocks on their door this wasn't manually added to their system, because if it was, they will have a lot more legal issues to deal with. Now that this was brought up, do they have their hands in the cookie jar on any other corporate trackers? For instance, Blizzard runs a tracker for World of Warcraft patches, is that now illegal too?

    There are many legitimate uses for Bittorrent. This is way out of line.
    • Nougat, on 05/29/2008, -8/+46RTFA: FBI first. I've been in a position to answer questions from an FBI agent about some minor wrongdoing I observed. They don't ***** around.
    • ericrous, on 05/29/2008, -4/+99I hope Revision3 sues them 'til their assholes a spewing blood.
    • jpop, on 05/29/2008, -0/+68I hope they do too. From what the article said, this doesn't sound like a company hitting a bittorrent tracker. It sounds like a company hacking another company's tracker to put up their torrents (probably to hide what they're doing in their other work), then doing a DOS attack when they finally get locked out.
      • ccheath, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1that's exactly what J. Louderback wrote in the article
    • TheRealM3D, on 05/29/2008, -0/+43It's time that MediaDefender's illegal business practices are fully revealed and prosecuted. I sincerely hope that Revision3 doesn't just let this thing slide, because pressure from them will force the FBI to actually do something about this, instead of allowing MediaDefender to say "Honest mistake. We won't do it again!" when we all know they'll continue to break the law under the guidance and on the dime of the RIAA.
    • twiztidsinz, on 05/29/2008, -0/+39I am soooo waiting for Revision3 to take full legal action against this.
    • zer0, on 05/29/2008, -7/+24If Revision3 does not take legal action against MediaDefender for this I am going to stop watching Revision3 shows.
    • formergthing, on 05/29/2008, -0/+11I agree. They should press charges/sue these idiots and put them out of business.

      Not only are they responsible for the direct damages (employee time, lost revenue, etc.), but they are responsible for consequential damages like loss of advertiser confidence, viewer confidence, and the value of any potential lost business deals.

      IANAL, but I think you could take these guys to the cleaners.
    • MavRevMatt, on 05/29/2008, -0/+8They should sue, they would have a legit reason. Loss of revenue from ads in both the site and videos, plus the fact that they took out their entire site and servers. Total ***** if they don't sue.
    • digitalhair, on 05/29/2008, -0/+8did anybody else catch wind of some of the shady entrapment MediaDefender was engaged in when torrentfreak posted the text of some of their leaked in-house emails?

      according to the emails, they had a clandestine program that involved uploading torrents for video files that depicted beastiality/child-pornography/etc in an attempt to poison the content of some unnamed trackers.

      I'm sorry but MediaDefender has absolutely no moral ground to make any kind of legal argument based on standards/ethics after learning that. It's like the GOP's support for tougher IP laws being pushed by the chairman of San Fransico's republican party that recently got busted for being the ringleader of a warez distribution network.

      It really is run like the Mafia... talk about blurring the lines between black and white...right and wrong...
    • delfin1, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3It was most likely an accident that they got Revision3, nevertheless they shouldn't be attacking servers in the first place.

      Revision3 should sue for the downtime; time is money! and for other inconveniences that kept it from providing their services to their customers. Also to make the company change its attitude and illegal activities.

      Media defender has a good cause, but a very bad and irresponsible practice.

  • insanemike, on 05/29/2008, -2/+253I'm just curious as to how many other innocent BT trackers they are slamming.

    I guess in the corporate world "guilty before proven innocent" is an acceptable modus operandi.
    • WiseWeasel, on 05/29/2008, -1/+7"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies to government law enforcement. MediaDefenders is like a mercenary or vigilante group, and they are not bound by that rule. They are legally liable for any damage they cause, but they don't have any kind of due process to follow.
      • dannydyer1000, on 05/29/2008, -3/+1What he was trying to say is that "guilty before proven innocent" seems to be the standard by which they base their attacks. It's a play on words. Don't worry about it if you're too thick to get the irony.
  • adamkmccarthy, on 05/29/2008, -1/+650"Denial of service attacks are illegal in the US under 12 different statutes, including the Economic Espionage Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act."

    I hope media defender get what's coming to them and revision3 are hard enough to follow through.
    • cffury13, on 05/29/2008, -18/+1The real question there is California one of those 12 states?
    • jer2eydevil88, on 05/29/2008, -0/+6This is probably the only time I have actually felt glad that a company got reported to the FBI for internet abuse. I also hope that Media Defender gets whats coming to them, the Media Defender Defenders sure started that trend though.
    • baldboy7, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2i wish i could digg this up more
  • jacko87, on 05/29/2008, -95/+4That article was too dumbed down for me to read, like how they kept comparing SYN packets to toddlers and what not. All your readers don't need to know exactly what a DoS attack is, they just need to know what it did...its like they are trying to explain it to freakin 8 year olds.
    • max1018, on 05/29/2008, -1/+35I thought it was well written. I wasn't exactly sure of what a DoS attack was, I though Jim did a great job at explaining it to people who might not have known.
    • jpop, on 05/29/2008, -2/+8What is the standard Revision3 demographic?
    • Crosshare, on 05/29/2008, -0/+6The 3 year old and a cookie jar analogy wasn't the best, but the article was very well written.
    • EvilBadger, on 05/29/2008, -0/+10You keep saying highly intelligent things like "what not" and then wonder why a DoS needs to be explained in an article.
    • Julik, on 05/29/2008, -0/+9Yeah I thought they did a good job of dumbing it down so anyone can read it and understand what happened.
    • twiztidsinz, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5They only mentioned that in the first section (I'd say maybe 1/10th of the article)... I guess after they dropped that analogy it got too difficult for you to follow.
    • digitalhair, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1it's MOST important for non-industry hacks that don't know how deliberate DoS attacks occur to understand how much this kind of thing is a threat to the free exchange of ideas and information the principles of our Constitution guarantee.

      If you don't understand how it works, it just looks like industry-talk, when EVERYBODY should be outraged that companies like MediaDefender can bully people out of offering better freemarket alternatives -- because laws should serve the interests of the people who live under them instead of serving the fortunes of those that sell those interests off to the highest bidder...
  • TTURabble, on 05/29/2008, -7/+112So the next article is going to be about how Revision3 is suing Media Defender, right?
    • theHM, on 05/29/2008, -0/+36And hopefully some criminal charges being brought against various managers.
      • oxdeltaxo, on 05/29/2008, -0/+26Preferably it would end with Media Defender going bankrupt and ceasing to exist.
        • TheNeptune, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4MediaDefender is merely a puppet of bigger corporations, their wealth is quite enormous -- if MediaDefender falls, another dummy will pop up.
        • dannydyer1000, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1In the best case scenario, then, perhaps some legislation can be introduced that prohibits activities similar to MediaDefender's - but you're right, the wealth and influence of the MAFIAA will probably prevent something like this from happening.
        • boyzo, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2some legislation???

          "Denial of service attacks are illegal in the US under 12 different statutes, including the Economic Espionage Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act."
  • scotishstriker, on 05/29/2008, -57/+5Is that article just huge or am i just lazy
    • insanemike, on 05/29/2008, -1/+12It's huge but it's a good read. Maybe skip over the toddler stuff.
    • jpop, on 05/29/2008, -0/+10Well, in short. MediaDefender was using Revision3's torrent tracker to put it's own torrents up. Revision3 found that out and stopped it. MediaDefender then did a DOS attack on Revision3 and took it down.
  • snapplecap, on 05/29/2008, -11/+68We should flood media defenders ip
    • TheKillDoctor, on 05/29/2008, -0/+30Only if you have a spare botnet not sending out spam.
      • adderx99, on 05/29/2008, -1/+37ya, its called the digg user base.
        • arjung, on 05/29/2008, -0/+6no, spam is about all we send out.

          dugg you up anyway.
    • tokyomonster, on 05/29/2008, -1/+31DDoS'ing MediaDefender >>> WE GIVE YOU ENLARGE PENIS AND WONDERFUL LOVE FOUNTAIN OF MAN JUICE
    • infamousjeff, on 05/29/2008, -0/+10You wouldn't need a botnet. The users of digg participating in it would become the "bots" in this case.


    • Suricou, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3IPs. Plural. Mediadefender rotates - they bulk-buy, often using a front company, and if the ownership becomes public knowledge they move on. They have to do this, otherwise all tracker operators would just blacklist them. This is why Peerguardian needs regular updates, and still can't be sure it catches every IP.

      You could take down their public website, but that wouldn't achieve anything. Just annoy them a little without affecting their operations.
    • sylvok, on 05/29/2008, -6/+3well although I don't recommend it. I just use these for cheating during LAN parties =P

      http://partyvan.info/index.php/Template:Main_Page/ ...
    • sylvok, on 05/29/2008, -8/+2I don't recommend it but here you go

      http://partyvan.info/index.php/Template:Main_Page/ ...

      I just use them to cheat in LAN parties
  • graemee, on 05/29/2008, -3/+1036Sue, for $750 to $150000 per packet.
    • Crosshare, on 05/29/2008, -1/+141Wouldn't that be sweet justice?
    • kamikazecow, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1168,000 packets a second, 60 seconds a minute, 60 minutes in a hour, 24 hours in a day, 3 day weekend = 2,073,600,000, so at the lowest amount per packet (750$), they would owe Rev3 1,555,200,000,000$ That will make ya profitable!!
      • t2t2, on 05/29/2008, -1/+38Sweet. Just sweet.
      • ddfall, on 05/29/2008, -0/+28I would have to vote for the $150,000.00 per packet. This was aggravated and they just deserve it... I'd say, settle for a few billion and shut down media defender for good.
      • tippmann1, on 05/29/2008, -1/+22hell at 50 cents a packet rev3 would be billionaires
      • Me1000, on 05/29/2008, -1/+23just become a publicly traded company right before you sue...
        • boobyman, on 05/29/2008, -0/+7For an ignorant European not know anything about US business,
          how would that benefit them?
        • com2, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Company net worth & profit after the lawsuit (if they won) would increase stock price drastically where a small investment in stock before the lawsuit would be worth much much more afterwards.
        • Lukesed, on 05/29/2008, -0/+6It wouldn't benefit rev3. They'd be much better off getting money straight from the lawsuit. Putting out an IPO (Initial Public Offering, becoming a publicly traded company) would involve selling off a ton of stock right before an enormous windfall, not a great idea since it would dilute said windfall.

          Now, if they currently had any private investors and they were about to have a ton of money fall on them it would be a great time to take out a second mortgage and pay those investors back to regain full ownership.

          None of this matters since we are throwing insanely huge numbers around. Realistically if they won a civil suit against media defender it would likely be for damages amounting to the total revenue lost while the site was down.
        • Paradoxymoron, on 05/30/2008, -0/+4It would benefit Me1000, he wants to buy shares at the Revision3's current net worth, so that when they make an obscene amount of money through the lawsuit, then the stock will explode value-wise.
      • jer2eydevil88, on 05/29/2008, -0/+10They could give everyone who has an account on Digg around $20 worth of revision3 stuff and still be exceedingly rich. Hint, Hint.
      • tikidrummer928, on 05/29/2008, -0/+9sounds like revision 3 would have one hell of a party after they won the case.
      • TomTruelle, on 05/30/2008, -1/+1Only on digg...
    • drjones78, on 05/29/2008, -2/+10Bravo, good sir!
    • sinrtb, on 05/29/2008, -0/+32Hold MPAA and RIAA liable as well for knowingly hiring Media Defender to use such illegal means of shutting down legal trackers.
      • Paradoxymoron, on 05/30/2008, -0/+5Since *crime*-for-hire is illegal IRL, they should definitely gun for the RIAA once MediaDefender is a crippled, bankrupt husk.
    • Balath, on 05/29/2008, -4/+9Put 'em against the wall and shoot the bastards.
    • Oppslagsverk, on 05/29/2008, -3/+11Rape them with a sladgehammer!
    • Hangly, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5That's just elegant.
  • bootle, on 05/29/2008, -38/+14Imagine how much better/shorter that would have been to read without all the goddamn useless analogies!
    • elishagrey, on 05/29/2008, -0/+18Yeah, that article was like a petulant Oreo cookie was getting between me and a toddler with a broken slinky! ...or something.
    • desiv, on 05/29/2008, -0/+9Actually, I think it depends on their customers. I know nothing about their business, but if their customers are largely non-technical, that was a very good description of the event. I was going to pass it on to our security people, so they can use it as a guide for describing DOS attacks to managers. :-)
      desiv
    • MisterRik, on 05/29/2008, -0/+7Yes! Purge this world of unnecessary prose and eloquent writing. Reduce everything to a bullets on a powerpoint slide.

      Or, y'know, don't.
    • dignation, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3Yeah, too much oldspeak.
    • oldhick, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Hmmm... Useless defined is not able to give service or aid. Analogy defined is resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike. - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy
      Analogy plays a significant role in problem solving, decision making, perception, memory, creativity, emotion, explanation and communication. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

      So I would argue that the analogy was not useless. Maybe you just didn't appreciate it which is quite different then useless.
  • doctorcaligari, on 05/29/2008, -2/+129The best way to get an apology from a company: litigation. MediaDefender will not be truly sorry until they have lost a case or twelve. Use the same fuzzy laws that they "defend" against them. If the roles were reversed, they would be all over it.
    • mblitch, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1That is actually the least effective means of getting an apology. No lawyer worth his retainer would allow a client to 'apologize' when there is any potential to of litigation. Otherwise an apology can be construed as a sign of guilt and used in court.
    • Paradoxymoron, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Screw apologies, have the legal system rip every single penny the company has from their dastardly fingers.
  • orlyfactor, on 05/29/2008, -14/+106MediaDefender = Skynet.
    • tokyomonster, on 05/29/2008, -1/+19MediaDefender is sentient AI that is hellbent on destroying man kind? Hardly. More like a bunch of jackasses that are getting their pockets filled by corporate fat cats for gathering evidence used to sue innocent people into oblivion.
    • Aerandir, on 05/29/2008, -1/+14Skynet? Not a bit close. Skynet has A.I. MediaDefender? Not so much I.
  • falafelkiosken, on 05/29/2008, -13/+211***** THE MEDIADEFENDER
    • amadeusdemarzi, on 05/29/2008, -3/+48WE'LL DO IT LIVE!
      • Gene04, on 05/29/2008, -3/+3Lmfao, I would give you two diggs for that if I could. Although I should have seen it coming, I didn't :P.
    • omgitsmit, on 05/29/2008, -1/+9I see what you did there..
    • ledguitar, on 05/30/2008, -0/+2I usually bury the ***** the RIAA and ***** the MPAA stuff. But this ***** just pisses me off, so I'm digging this.
  • whereiseljefe, on 05/29/2008, -6/+59MediaDefender ***** up bad this time...
    • phantasmagorias, on 05/30/2008, -0/+0No--Something isn't quite right with this. The article claims the CEO himself admitted to having abusing their networks over a series of months, yet has no proper explanation or apology for doing so.

      Then the Vice CEO confirms it was their computers sending SYN packets in "attempting to reconnect to the files stored on our server." every 3 hours when its a blank lie.


      Something hasn't surfaced yet MediaDefenders is hiding from Revision3 thats probably incredibly crucial to their case. The thing is- is what?
  • imabot, on 05/29/2008, -2/+100Now this will be entertaining..
  • rjwisniewski, on 05/29/2008, -4/+57MediaDefender is going down. It may not be today or tomorrow, but it will happen.
    • mmmmmmmchips, on 05/30/2008, -0/+3Isn't that what we all said when their e-mails got leaked?
  • seanieb, on 05/29/2008, -5/+295Holy ***** this is big.....sue their asses back to the stone age!
  • Flatlineskillz, on 05/29/2008, -2/+143MediaDefender has made the mistake of thinking that more people are on their side then Revision3's. I really hope someone is getting sued otherwise Cue Mick Dundee...

    "That's not a DOS attack, THIS is a DOS attack."
    • cawpin, on 05/29/2008, -5/+46THAN dude, THAN.
      • lowspeedchase, on 05/29/2008, -25/+7This just in: Grammar Nazi's have been spotted trolling digg. Protect your families and stay indoors.
    • BlackTye, on 05/29/2008, -2/+5Oooh, I'm excited!
    • yoris, on 05/29/2008, -6/+1MediaDefender IS PROBABLY RIGHT IN thinking that more POWERFUL people are on their side then Revision3's


      There, fixed that for ya.
      • kingmanic, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Politicians switch sides at the drop of a hat. Corporations as well. So MediaDefender assumes the people on their side will still stick with them. They are probably wrong. If public opinion shifts, MediaDefender will be hung out to dry.
    • Hangly, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Expect us.
    • akira117, on 05/29/2008, -2/+1http://duggmirror.com
      (down for me)
  • AnimeCwboy, on 05/29/2008, -2/+101Seriously, sue these guys into oblivion. I'm just as concerned who commissioned the attack.
  • TheHayze, on 05/29/2008, -33/+12Jim mentions in the blog post that the FBI are looking into it, which is quite excellent; Media Defender has obviously chosen to pick on the wrong target.. No doubt that, since Cnet owns Revision3, Cnet in all of its' might, and power, will be tossing their army of lawyers at Media Defender. As they should. Hell, they even admitted using a DOS attack, which is illegal in the United States. The Federal government should be urged to press either sanctions, or official charges against Media Defender for this outrageous, and obvious, corporate level sabotage.
    • iPirate, on 05/29/2008, -2/+20... I don't know where you got your information, but Cnet doesn't own Revision3.
    • steevo, on 05/29/2008, -3/+13ummm...Rev3 is not owned by CNET
    • gimpbully, on 05/29/2008, -2/+6wait what? Cnet doesn't own revision3...
    • RudeTurnip, on 05/29/2008, -2/+5I don't think Cnet owns Rev3.
    • adderx99, on 05/29/2008, -3/+5wait. rev3 is owned by cnet? you might want to look into checking that.
    • TokenUser, on 05/29/2008, -2/+4C|Net does NOT own Revision3. There is a distribution partnership, but that is all.
    • diggdong, on 05/29/2008, -1/+8It was only a one night stand. No babies were made. Some hearts were broken.
    • TheHayze, on 05/29/2008, -2/+4Oh. Well I stand corrected. I just remember seeing Revision3/TekZilla content on Cnet TV.
    • Logicexe, on 05/29/2008, -1/+11How many diggers does it take to tell someone that Cnet doesn't own Revision3?
      • TheHayze, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2Apparently, i've angered 19 people, while 9 agree with me. Jeeez, I had no clue there was so much anti-Cnet, pro-Revision3 sentiment going on here.
        • Logicexe, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5But you do know that Cnet doesn't own Revision3 though, right?



          :p
    • tokyomonster, on 05/29/2008, -1/+6In case it hasn't been made clear, Revision 3 is not owned by Cnet
    • Wintermute426, on 05/29/2008, -1/+3So what everyone's saying is that Revision 3 is owned by Cnet? Interesting, I never knew that.
      • gutistg, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1... I don't know where you got your information, but Cnet doesn't own Revision3.
    • fuzed, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2I heard somewhere...not sure where, that Rev3 isn't actually owned by CNet...hmmm....
    • bs0l, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2As far as I know, Rev3 isn't owned by CNET.

      But that's just me.
    • Orsenfelt, on 05/29/2008, -1/+4So to recap.. Does Cnet own Rev3?
  • Anim8ir, on 05/29/2008, -2/+23Wow, that's horrible. I hope you are able to sue the ***** out of them
  • neio, on 05/29/2008, -2/+18Show me the money, biatch
  • oddworld19, on 05/29/2008, -3/+1579GBps internet line attacking Rev3.
    Thats why diggnation wouldnt download....
    • sexybobo, on 05/29/2008, -0/+17Actually if you were lucky enough to get through the download speeds weren't affected that badly. Since none of the files are hosted on Rev3 servers. (took me 10 minutes to get to the diggnation page Saturday with it constantly timing out but download maxed my connection)
      • omgitsmit, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4I did have issues with the RSS feed. Amarok failed to download the diggnation podcast due to RSS feed not responding because of the DOS attack.
  • eekfuh, on 05/29/2008, -25/+8I hope to God you guys are sueing them. If you dont, your a pussy and NOBODY wants to be a pussy.
  • pxlpshr, on 09/04/2008, -13/+190MAILING ADDRESS:
    2461 Santa Monica Blvd., D-520
    Santa Monica, CA 90404

    PHONE: (310) 956-3300
    FAX: (310) 956-3391

    EMAIL
    Sales, Business Development, Partnerships
    sales@mediadefender.com

    General Info
    info@mediadefender.com

    Jobs
    jobs@mediadefender.com
    • allyant, on 05/29/2008, -0/+73Now why would we want the email address for jobs?
    • marx2k, on 05/29/2008, -1/+123To: jobs@mediadefender.com
      From: marx2k

      Dear MediaDefender,

      I hate you. I also require $65,000 first year along with the standard full range of benefits for a mid-level Java architect. Oh. And I hate you.

      Thank you.
      • Flatlineskillz, on 05/29/2008, -0/+9Thank you Marx2k that comment was the funniest thing I have read all day
    • twiztidsinz, on 05/29/2008, -5/+11Too bad Ted Kaczynski's in jail :-/
      • netant, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1Ted Kaczynski hated technological progress. That was his whole motivation for killing professors. If Ted was out of jail, he'd be killing useful people on behalf of Mediadefender.
    • tokyomonster, on 05/29/2008, -2/+109I'm going to mail the 8,000,000,000 postcards that say "hi".

      Old-school syn flood ftw.
      • jserio, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5Brings back memories of Real Genius.
      • shirtninjay, on 05/29/2008, -1/+10I'm not sure how much postcards cost, so I googled "purchase a postcard" and saw an ad that said 5000 postcards for 5¢.

        *calculating*

        Tokyomonster, it would cost you at least $80,000 to purchase 8 billion postcards...
        • tuartboy, on 05/29/2008, -0/+9I'm sure that means 5¢ a piece. In other words, $400,000,000 of postcards.
        • farfegnugen, on 05/29/2008, -1/+8Don't forget about postage, at $0.42 a piece.
        • shirtninjay, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4Tuartboy,

          Ha! You're right. I was trying to calculate that as fast as I could while at work.

          ...good thing I'm not in accounting! Go ahead and digg down my previous message.

          Good work btw.
        • manoftheisland, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2postage for post cards is only 27 cents
        • bwa236, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1just bill it to the Pentagon
        • netant, on 05/30/2008, -0/+1@bwa236

          ...in care of the "Iraq Reconstruction fund".
      • twiztidsinz, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4Shirtninjay, you forgot to add the 8billion stamps at $0.41 each.
        So add $3.280bil to the $80k, though I do believe that there is a cheaper rate for Post Cards, but that'd still be a lot of money. And im sure you could have them sent bulk, but that'd defeat the whole purpose of sending 8billion post cards as they'd all arrive in one lump, though the USPS would be happy to take your money.
        • sexybobo, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4Post card stamps cost $0.27 so it would only be $2.4bil
        • twiztidsinz, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2"only" lol
        • kingmanic, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1mail 8,000,000,000 with the return address being media defender the to address being the RIAA and have no postage.
        • shirtninjay, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1My calculations were wrong, go off of Tuartboy's $400M... ($80K for 8B postcards? What was I thinking?)

          Also, I only mentioned "purchasing" the postcards, I was too busy to calculate the shipping.

          But someone else should do it, b/c my math game is off today.
      • bs0l, on 05/29/2008, -0/+8Order them 100s of free boxes from USPS!

        http://shop.usps.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Pro ...
        • poordavey, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1The boxes may be free, but flat rate postage is not free.

        • tuckerleary, on 05/29/2008, -0/+6ordering the free boxes from usps is entirely free.
          trust me, i distributed a good 700 priority mail stickers to my high school. its 100% free.
    • huertanix, on 05/29/2008, -3/+3Is this Battletoads?
    • heyitstval, on 05/29/2008, -0/+4not your personal army!

      but we are that of Revision3.

      8000 mail packets a second! gogogogogogogo!
    • justinmorley, on 05/29/2008, -2/+2I was just about to post this, ha!
    • Dhekke, on 05/29/2008, -0/+5Someone should fax them Crime and Punishment, in a really big font size
    • jer2eydevil88, on 05/29/2008, -1/+6Can Anon go to war with Scientology and Media Defender without spreading itself to thinly? Oh of course it can because everyone is Anon.
    • higgs, on 05/29/2008, -0/+9Next time you pass a magazine rack shake out all the mailing fliers (don't use ones mailed to you) and put mediadefenders address on it.
      Pop it in the post * 10000. Lovely jubly.

      • rutherfoord, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2i wonder if the post office will charge them a hefty packet if they start receiving like 12k letters a week? maybe we should spam them the traditional way, as these days they block the emails....
    • Hangly, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Here come the meatspace search engines.
    • Voide, on 05/30/2008, -1/+2To info@mediadefender.com

      I'm glad MediaDefender doesn't look like a bunch of douche bags, because that would really suck. Bringing/crippling down Revision3's server because they hosted a LEGAL torrent file.

      Face the ***** facts, you guys are spineless bitches, who are legally and morally no different then the people downloading 50 Cents ***** album or Universal Studios "box office loser".

      Go choke on a ***** chode.
  • jpop, on 05/29/2008, -2/+230So anyone else curious as to what torrents MediaDefender was illegally putting on the Revision3 servers using a backdoor or exploit? This doesn't sound like an "oops" we made a mistake. It sounds like a deliberate use of Revision3's resources without their permission for MediaDefender's gain. Although, I imagine MediaDefender will come back and say "everyone was doing it", so it might be wise to check the other torrents listed.
    • gimpbully, on 05/29/2008, -0/+83luckily, "everyone was doing it" is not a legally viable defense.
      • rcook, on 05/29/2008, -0/+26Neither is, "we were doing it to everyone."
      • jpop, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2The track I was thinking was that "everyone was doing it because Revision3 didn't close off all the vulnerabilities. Since they didn't close off the vulnerabilities, they were actually tacitly allowing it" blah blah blah. Stupid I know, but then, this is the same court system that brought us Kelo...
    • ElectroBot, on 05/29/2008, -0/+16Rev3 should sue/try to get convictions for:
      1) hacking rev3
      2) posting illegal material on rev3's site (the RIAA uses the same argument against the original Napster, Grokster, etc.)
      3) using rev3's resources (bandwidth, cpu cycles, etc.)
      4) DDOS'ing rev3 (whether intentionally or because of a script/set of rules the apps follow)

      And that's just the stuff that we publicly know about.
  • eshirt, on 05/29/2008, -1/+132Dugg in hopes this is the straw that breaks Media Defender's back.
  • BurtBoon, on 05/29/2008, -4/+27I would just like to go to their offices and kick the ***** out of them, ol' school style!
  • jcaino, on 05/29/2008, -3/+20Man thats ***** up, I hope MediaDefender gets burned.
  • creep303, on 05/29/2008, -2/+19That was an interesting and scary read.

  • Mier, on 05/29/2008, -16/+4Rev3 needs to run PeerGuardian so that they can automatically kick any mediadefender traffic
    • gimpbully, on 05/29/2008, -0/+13That's the thing, no corporation (or private entity for that matter) should even have to consider blocking what claims to be a professional business.
    • Mier, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3agreed but until mediadefender dies in a fire, you have to do something to shut them up.
    • fLUx1337, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1PeerGuardian wouldn't work on this level. Please learn about high demand networking! ;)
  • mluu921, on 05/29/2008, -4/+31***** MediaDefender!
  • jcaino, on 05/29/2008, -14/+12Man thats ***** up, I hope MediaDefender gets burned.
  • madwaxer, on 05/29/2008, -2/+24this is what it will look like one morning in the US when we wake and and find out all US businesses have crashed thanks to some stupid bot net went wrong and begun sending an unstoppable volume of reset packets to every IP around them. this is why i think the use of XP in any form on the OLPC machine is a VERY bad idea. the hardware or firmware of all firewalls need to be able to filter out those kinds of false packets. if teens can administer bot nets i hate to think what a pissed off nation like China could do with the right (bad) incentives?
    • romman00, on 05/29/2008, -1/+1sounds like that one south park episode...
    • ThreeDee912, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3Mostly all routers and firewalls CAN block bad packets. Except usually the packets either end up coming in faster than the router can handle, or eat up all incoming bandwidth so nothing else gets through (or goes through extremely slow) even if the firewall is dropping the packets.
  • metro7i, on 05/29/2008, -4/+24I hope it gets Dugg, Twittered or whatever social media you use to the max till it hits mainstream media! MediaDefender crossed the line, by a mile!
  • makenshin, on 05/29/2008, -2/+23Well, if it was intentional, my only guess is that good legitimate uses of BT makes it more difficult for MD's clients to legally eliminate BT/other P2P.
    Either way, this is so messed up, I do hope this finally destroys MD's. Regardless of the attack being intentional or not, using Revision3's resources without their permission is messed up and illegal. Just because someone has unsecured wireless network, doesn't mean you can legally access it without permission.
    • higgs, on 05/29/2008, -1/+2It was intentional. MD intentionally ***** with R3's tracker. MD's software was intentionally designed to respond that way.
  • delhokie, on 05/29/2008, -1/+25This needs to hit mainstream media, to see how one company's ill conceived actions and supposed authority can negatively affect a legitimate company's income.
  • TheLD, on 05/29/2008, -1/+60Sue them and give any profit to the EFF. That's the best thing to do IMHO
  • Big_Poppa_K, on 05/29/2008, -1/+51Sue them-their clients sue people for far less
  • donkeySays, on 05/29/2008, -2/+52Sue the ***** bitches! We are with you.
    • Hangly, on 05/29/2008, -0/+3You have my sword!
    • phoomp, on 05/29/2008, -0/+1Where can I send money to help Revision3 sue MediaDefender?
  • HomieG6189, on 05/29/2008, -2/+101So this is how low MediaDefender has gone to fight piracy? THEY deserved to be shutdown.
    • LuxFX, on 05/29/2008, -0/+14They're not fighting AGAINST piracy. They're fighting FOR the MPAA/RIAA. Big difference.
      • phoomp, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2Agreed, this has gone beyond protecting intellectual property and into protecting market share and distribution channels.
    • lucian303, on 05/29/2008, -0/+2if by they you mean mediadefender, I agree ... I'd add the MPAA, RIAA, and everyone else who is their client
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 257 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.