Anonymous Takes Aim at Google+

jynxycat said:
So how large of a ddos attack do you need to hamper a site that probably has a gazillion hits a minute anyhow? :p
Click to expand...
probably not much. it's not like they (or anyone) has the resources to handle much projected overload.
 
if anyone can take down anon with all its might its google, they own the internet, they were probably being nice before by not exposing them. if anon goes after them, wow, mass arrests will follow. Google has experience with these things they are always being hacked by chinese.
 
Go for it Anonymous. Google can suck it. They want to keep people from being anything but anonymous.
 
dioxholster said:
best they can do is phish out the passwords. thats about it and that wouldnt affect google itself.
Click to expand...
I believe the context I was responding to was whether anyone could actually bring down Google's servers with a DDoS attack under the belief that Google has tons of resources to take the load.

My point is that a substantial DDoS attack can bring Google's servers down because they don't have enough resources online to take that kind of overload. If they had those kinds of resources that'd mean the rest of the time their servers were sitting unused, wasting energy and money.
 
Oh great. More news about the nerdgasm story of the month, Google+.

Sick of hearing about it already and now an unlikely source brings G+ to the top again.
 
mope54 said:
My point is that a substantial DDoS attack can bring Google's servers down because they don't have enough resources online to take that kind of overload.
Click to expand...

Do you want to bet on that? Anon thought the same with Amazon. They were, as usual, wrong. Google does not actually have the amount of resources as Amazon, but they are not too far behind and an Anon DDoS would be a fart in the wind.
 
Paul_Johnson said:
Do you want to bet on that? Anon thought the same with Amazon. They were, as usual, wrong. Google does not actually have the amount of resources as Amazon, but they are not too far behind and an Anon DDoS would be a fart in the wind.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm willing to bet that no one, not even Google, has servers idling in a farm somewhere to handle the theoretical threat of a substantial DDoS attack. If you've got information refuting that business reality beyond mere speculation by all means post it up for everyone here to consume.
 
mope54 said:
Yes, I'm willing to bet that no one, not even Google, has servers idling in a farm somewhere to handle the theoretical threat of a substantial DDoS attack. If you've got information refuting that business reality beyond mere speculation by all means post it up for everyone here to consume.
Click to expand...

Simply having "spare servers idling in a farm" is not the only, nor necessarily, the most effective way of mitigating a DDoS attack that Google could/would/does employ. Amazon survived Anon's "substantial DDoS" that we are discussing, so you already are incorrect on "anyone".
 
Paul_Johnson said:
Simply having "spare servers idling in a farm" is not the only, nor necessarily, the most effective way of mitigating a DDoS attack that Google could/would/does employ. Amazon survived Anon's "substantial DDoS" that we are discussing, so you already are incorrect on "anyone".
Click to expand...

I believe we call that winning.
 
Under the terms of "Fair Use", is it legit for an ISP to cut off a client that it detects to be doing a DDOS attack?
 
Paul_Johnson said:
Simply having "spare servers idling in a farm" is not the only, nor necessarily, the most effective way of mitigating a DDoS attack that Google could/would/does employ. Amazon survived Anon's "substantial DDoS" that we are discussing, so you already are incorrect on "anyone".
Click to expand...
well perhaps instead of trying to get into a pissing match with me over this you'd instead scroll up and read my response and the question that elicited it as neither have anything to do with anonymous specifically.

and secondly, this isn't a proposed attack on "google's" servers. If anything, and it's pure speculation from the article's author, it'd be an attack on google+ servers. unless I'm incorrect, and I don't think I am in this, google services are segmented. currently their google+ servers can't even handle their own invites, so I hardly think your "analysis" comparing them to amazon's unsegmented and long-established service is meaningful.

in any case, the way it reads (assuming you actually bothered to read the article) is that anonymous is staking out their own social networking cite. It's not inconceivable that this is all the "attacking" they plan on doing. It's certainly no different from Google's assailment of Facebook's current entrenchment...nor of FB's toward Myspace.
 
mope54 said:
well perhaps instead of trying to get into a pissing match with me over this you'd instead scroll up and read my response and the question that elicited it as neither have anything to do with anonymous specifically.
Click to expand...

Google's "theoretical" and Amazon's proven ability to respond to large DDoS attacks have nothing to do with Anon specifically either, they simply exist as part of their business and run counter to your assertion. So don't worry it's not a pissing match, just a correction to an incorrect supposition that you presented. Peace, love, dope my friend.
 
Paul_Johnson said:
Google's "theoretical" and Amazon's proven ability to respond to large DDoS attacks have nothing to do with Anon specifically either, they simply exist as part of their business and run counter to your assertion. So don't worry it's not a pissing match, just a correction to an incorrect supposition that you presented. Peace, love, dope my friend.
Click to expand...
No, you're incorrect. Google already succumbed to DDoS in 2009. Their Google+ servers are nowhere near established enough to handle a substantial DDoS attack.

You incorrectly attributed my statement to mean that anonymous could launch such an attack when in fact I made no such assertion. Then you attempted to use their failed attack on Amazon as evidence of your assumption that Google has the same capacity.

The only conclusion you can draw from your evidence is that anonymous did not have enough resources to launch a substantial enough attack on Amazon. That has no relevance to Google's servers.

Furthermore, your responses don't even address my claim that Google isn't impervious to a substantial amount of traffic. What I said is absolute fact--even Google doesn't have the resources to handle a substantial enough attack. You can try and "correct" me all you want about whether anonymous would be able to launch such an attack but the point you seem to be missing is that I never claimed they did so kindly move along.
 
Free security R&D.
Raises the profile of Google+.
Puts National/internation enforcement agencies on Google's shoulder.

It's a win/win here.
 
Google plus seems very slow and boring compared to FaceBook - they have to work hard to get there. One way is - FREE PUBLICITY!
I'm betting they can handle Anno,... well enough. They're [H] coders over there....
 
mope54 said:
No, you're incorrect. Google already succumbed to DDoS in 2009. Their Google+ servers are nowhere near established enough to handle a substantial DDoS attack.

You incorrectly attributed my statement to mean that anonymous could launch such an attack when in fact I made no such assertion. Then you attempted to use their failed attack on Amazon as evidence of your assumption that Google has the same capacity.

The only conclusion you can draw from your evidence is that anonymous did not have enough resources to launch a substantial enough attack on Amazon. That has no relevance to Google's servers.

Furthermore, your responses don't even address my claim that Google isn't impervious to a substantial amount of traffic. What I said is absolute fact--even Google doesn't have the resources to handle a substantial enough attack. You can try and "correct" me all you want about whether anonymous would be able to launch such an attack but the point you seem to be missing is that I never claimed they did so kindly move along.
Click to expand...

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037526951&postcount=41

You may wish to read your own posts before continuing this line of responses.
 
mope54 said:
No, you're incorrect. Google already succumbed to DDoS in 2009.
Click to expand...

Google never succumbed to a DDoS attack in 2009. Source required, please.

Their Google+ servers are nowhere near established enough to handle a substantial DDoS attack.
Click to expand...

You don't seriously think Google+ has it's own dedicated servers completely isolated from the rest of Google's servers, do you? Come on now.

Furthermore, your responses don't even address my claim that Google isn't impervious to a substantial amount of traffic. What I said is absolute fact--even Google doesn't have the resources to handle a substantial enough attack. You can try and "correct" me all you want about whether anonymous would be able to launch such an attack but the point you seem to be missing is that I never claimed they did so kindly move along.
Click to expand...

Prove it. If that really is a fact, that should be easy to do.

mope54 said:
Yes, I'm willing to bet that no one, not even Google, has servers idling in a farm somewhere to handle the theoretical threat of a substantial DDoS attack. If you've got information refuting that business reality beyond mere speculation by all means post it up for everyone here to consume.
Click to expand...

Yes, they absolutely do. Network load is not constant. Traffic rises and falls all the time, and there are huge peaks for random events that Google has to be prepared to handle. Moreover, Google has data centers around the world. Even if you hit in the US at peak US traffic, they could still route to other data centers in other countries. You will more likely DDoS the backbone connections before you could DDoS Google. They can also adjust priorities of other services to handle a sudden spike in one service (for example, if Chrome stops syncing for an hour you probably won't notice compared to if GMail dies for an hour).

This is also making the assumption that Google doesn't have any DDoS protections whatsoever, which is completely ridiculous.
 
This anon vs. google this certainly will be entertaining. Not because I want to see anon 'stick it to the man' but because anon might be biting off more than they can chew. Especially since google has their fingers in everything and are keen on working with government authorities. Time will tell, this could get quite interesting.
 
@kllrnohj,
your assumptions about google's capacity to withstand a substantial DDoS are undermined by the crippling they experienced due to worldwide demand on their servers in 2009.

network load is relatively constant in the long term. to argue against that is to argue against statistical data, google's bread and butter. I can't understand some of your reasoning. google isn't going to waste money on bandwidth they aren't going to use, just like any other company and person. given that their profession is collecting and analyzing our movement through their servers, how do you come to the conclusion that they wouldn't be better at it than any other service-oriented sector.

none of what I wrote assumes Google doesn't have defenses, if you inferred that you inferred incorrectly. what is your motivation to argue that Google is impervious to DDoS attacks?
 
@mope54

How do you know what their network capabilities are half-way through 2011 are? Or how much they have invested in security? One specific event over 2 years ago isn't worth a crap.

I am sure they have more than a few network engineers that have figured out how to manage peak demand across X number of global data centres.
 
friedchicken said:
@mope54

How do you know what their network capabilities are half-way through 2011 are? Or how much they have invested in security? One specific event over 2 years ago isn't worth a crap.
Click to expand...

Not Agreeing or Disagreeing with either of you two, but just three weeks ago Google+ closed invitations to their service due to "insane demand."
 
krogen said:
Publicity stunt.

People want things they can't have.
Click to expand...

Well, considering they ran out of space on one of their google+ servers, I'd say it was more like "shit, this took off faster than we thought, lets cool it off for a bit while we prepare for more users"
 
Also, you're all saying 'anonymous' is/was banned. Don't you think they'd be a little bit smarter than to post their actual identities, IPs, etc? Sounds like either scape goats or some 'followers' of Anonymous. I think they're trying to scare 'new' members away/people from joining. Gonna be interesting to see this one play out.
 
I hope google curbs stomps them. (Gives all their personal data to the feds.)
 
Lycidas said:
It also doesn't help your case when they've admitted to running out of space on their servers before...

evidence.
Click to expand...

Wow...the system setup to handle notifications ran out of space faster than Google calculated for early beta testing of Google+.
It does not show that they would fall to an attack by an outside source attacking. Honestly, the worse I see happening to Google if anyone did try to attack them would be slow connectivity to Google services.
 
theDreamer said:
Wow...the system setup to handle notifications ran out of space faster than Google calculated for early beta testing of Google+.
It does not show that they would fall to an attack by an outside source attacking. Honestly, the worse I see happening to Google if anyone did try to attack them would be slow connectivity to Google services.
Click to expand...

Hi there. The follow up article was with respect to the accusation that Google's Stop-Invite activity was not likely a publicity stunt, but rather due to actual technical reasons. I am, and certainly was not, implying anything about Google's ability to handle traffic, as that tends not to be even remotely close to disc space management. The two are completely unrelated (Network traffic =/= ROM).

I do however have an article pertaining to their ability to handle incoming Google+ accounts within a period of time cited earlier than the post you are referring to. Feel free to contest me on that.
 
ShadowStriker said:
Google teamed up with NSA
Click to expand...
Does any company encrypt anything on their servers? ...what the heck is wrong with these corporations :( does it take an insane amount of overhead to encrypt our gmail and other services?

so far Google's servers DDoS'ed in '09
hacked, proprietary source code stolen '09/'10
unencrypted gmail and "other cloud services"

but apparently none of those facts should alarm anyone...riiiiight
 
Lycidas said:
Hi there. The follow up article was with respect to the accusation that Google's Stop-Invite activity was not likely a publicity stunt, but rather due to actual technical reasons. I am, and certainly was not, implying anything about Google's ability to handle traffic, as that tends not to be even remotely close to disc space management. The two are completely unrelated (Network traffic =/= ROM).

I do however have an article pertaining to their ability to handle incoming Google+ accounts within a period of time cited earlier than the post you are referring to. Feel free to contest me on that.
Click to expand...

Google wants Google+ to look important, are they ready to support 700 million or more accounts on a new service? I doubt it, neither was Facebook. They are slowly rolling it out to work on the bugs, user suggestions, etc. Is the lock out a publicity stunt? I have no idea, nor do I care. I was referring to the question that Google had issues with Google+ already when in fact it was just hard drive space on notifications which was minor.
 
theDreamer said:
Is the lock out a publicity stunt? I have no idea, nor do I care.
Click to expand...

That was the issue being discussed that you hopped into.

theDreamer said:
I was referring to the question that Google had issues with Google+ already when in fact it was just hard drive space on notifications which was minor.
Click to expand...

There was no "question that Google had issues with Google+ already".

theDreamer said:
It does not show that they would fall to an attack by an outside source attacking.
Click to expand...

This claim was never made. The post you're addressing was an argument against the claim of a publicity stunt, not against Google+'s ability to handle DDoS. As you already know, when anything is in beta, things are generally changed/fixed/etc. So, as to their servers' abilities to handle a DDoS, I doubt anyone will really be able to say yes or no, but I'd shy to the 'yes' side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top