Re: [Full-Disclosure] Akamai

["james edwards" <hackerwacker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Keep in mind that the term 'DOS' doesn't necessarily mean 'flood of
> traffic'.  A denial of service is just that......a _denial of service_
> by any means, and I'd say that there was definitlely some service being
> denied.  Don't think so?.....ask Google or Yahoo.
>
> - --Ben


Actually I did not sat this part:

>
> james edwards wrote:
> |>I've just been told that it was a DoS.  No details.

I would agree that a DoS can be many things. But if you are able to read for
context
it is clear the below is speaking of a DoS in the flood of traffic context.


This part is me:


> |
> |
> | Unlikely, Akamai is an overlay network & the root content node is not
> | reachable.
> | Akamai can in real time spread web traffic through out their global
> network
> | of
> | servers, diluting a DoS to the point it is not significant. It is more
> | likely that the
> | complexity of the overlay network was the cause. Last week it was a DNS
> | issue
> | and it seemed much the same this week. Provided you know the IP's of the
> | content servers
> | you would find they were still up. At least that was what I as seeing.
> |
> | Here is some info on Overlay Networks:
> | http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/ron/
> | http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/ron/#papers
> |
> | Dr. Andersons "Mayday: Distributed Filtering for Internet Services "
> | is quite interesting.
> | http://nms.lcs.mit.edu/papers/mayday-usits2003/paper.html
> |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFAz2293cL8qXKvzcwRAljLAJ9cRyIW3pK0pGgjwVjkO8RXhztMwwCg8ql6
> hqZiM20cOQ6cdosafHeexic=
> =YmGu
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html