251 réponses à ce sujet

[Baaleos]

TSMDude wrote...

Quilver wrote...

DDoS does indeed require many, many attackers. To bring down a standard game server would take a minimum of 50 different network connections sending pings. You certainly can't do it with one person, or even 10. If it's one person, then it's not DDoS. Then again, TSMDude tells us that it is not hard to do. Got something to confess?

Unture again Quill...man you must get tired of being wrong. With one computer you can easily do it.

This technically wouldnt eat up much bandwidth of a targetted victim.

Because the 'Multiple' machines are on the local side of the internet connection, you are still only using a single machine/ISP External IP Address, and limited to the bandwidth of a single host.

The more effective DDOS which are harder to trace too, are when you have multiple external IP's converging on a single internet node or server.

eg
PC -> Internet ->
PC -> Internet -> Target
PC -> Internet ->

eg - 3 Internet Connections draining the bandwidth of a single Internet Connection.
The Diagram posted earlier, sort of implies that the Compromized machines are all on a local network, behind an internet connection/firewall.

(Most Single People, can do DDOS, all it requires is more than one computer, but ideally, more than one Connection)



Also - it should be noted, that DDOS' definition in the legal sense was redefined a few years ago to include any form of attack that intentionally brings down a server.
It came after a court case where someone bought down a company server by sending Millions of e-mails to the mail server.
He got off scott free, because at the time, the law said
"It was an e-mail server, it was designed to accept e-mails, all he did, was send e-mails...."


Also - in terms of DDOS,
Most modern routers can block the common forms of TCP DDOS - TCP is a connection requiring socket type, without an accepting host on the destination side, the DDOS wont send.

UDP on the otherhand, is a Connectionless Socket Type, allowing you to broadcast raw data at any destination you want.... the data either gets there or it doesnt, in either case, it will travel as far as it can, and congest networks along the way.
UDP is limited in packet size though, making it not very feasible for DOS attacks.

[Eradrain]

I thought it was common knowledge now that Quilver is the guy who's been griefing various servers. Kind of surprised that people on this thread, of all places, are actually humoring the guy with serious debate, given that he's trolling the lot of you.

Modifié par Eradrain, 02 juin 2011 - 11:27 .

[Fellanor]

Eradrain wrote...

I thought it was common knowledge now that Quilver is the guy who's been griefing various servers. Kind of surprised that people on this thread, of all places, are actually humoring the guy with serious debate, given that he's trolling the lot of you.

Quilver is respected member of the community. His posts are always reasonable and factual. You, on the other hand, have a reputation which precedes you; as a poster who flames threads and trolls posters, being contrary for the sake of argument and often lying to try to back up your point.

I know that others here agree with me, because you have been steadily making a nuisance of yourself on these forums for the past few months. I strongly suggest that you leave now before you dig yourself into such a deep hole that you cannot climb out.

[TSMDude]

Eradrain wrote...

I thought it was common knowledge now that Quilver is the guy who's been griefing various servers. Kind of surprised that people on this thread, of all places, are actually humoring the guy with serious debate, given that he's trolling the lot of you.

LOL...none of us are taking him very serious and hence the laughing sarcasm we have been doing on Skype.

[Jenna WSI]

NWN DM wrote...

Why is it when an man talks dirty to a woman, it's called sexual harassment, but when a woman talks dirty to a man it's $19.95/minute?

We're just smarter than you

Modifié par Jenna WSI, 02 juin 2011 - 06:19 .

[TSMDude]

Jenna WSI wrote...

NWN DM wrote...

Why is it when an man talks dirty to a woman, it's called sexual harassment, but when a woman talks dirty to a man it's $19.95/minute?

We're just smarter than you

After being married formany years I can attest tothe fact that women are not only smarter they kill us off at a younger age as well.

[Sona_]

Fellanor wrote...

Eradrain wrote...

I thought it was common knowledge now that Quilver is the guy who's been griefing various servers. Kind of surprised that people on this thread, of all places, are actually humoring the guy with serious debate, given that he's trolling the lot of you.

Quilver is respected member of the community. His posts are always reasonable and factual. You, on the other hand, have a reputation which precedes you; as a poster who flames threads and trolls posters, being contrary for the sake of argument and often lying to try to back up your point.

I know that others here agree with me, because you have been steadily making a nuisance of yourself on these forums for the past few months. I strongly suggest that you leave now before you dig yourself into such a deep hole that you cannot climb out.

Because forum reputations are srs bsns.

Frankly, this thread isn't actually going to do much more from here on. I think it's been established what the Greifers do and who they target, and how they target. Merselpath will continue to happily fan any flames and get his pair of buddies to back him up. Posting here attached to a persistant world will only make that world a bigger target from here on out. Yes, what they're doing reveals a pretty pathetic nature, but going on with uber-buffed characters and killing your mans isn't illegal. If there is solid evidence of DDOS or sexual harassment, then seriously follow it up. If not? This is only going to make any server your account is attached to more of a target.

Modifié par Sona_, 02 juin 2011 - 07:50 .

[PurpleDragonKnight]

Eradrain wrote...

I thought it was common knowledge now that Quilver is the guy who's been griefing various servers. Kind of surprised that people on this thread, of all places, are actually humoring the guy with serious debate, given that he's trolling the lot of you.

I would say that you have just made the most trollish post of this thread, Eradrain.

The weird thing about you is that you contradict yourself repeatedly. One minute you are defending griefers. Then you are complaining about Bioware and Gamespy (whilst playing their game). Then you are whining about griefers.

I have learned to read your posts with a malt shovel full of salt, and I thoroughly recommend others to do the same.

[Quilver]

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

[Shadooow]

Baaleos wrote...


Also - it should be noted, that DDOS' definition in the legal sense was redefined a few years ago to include any form of attack that intentionally brings down a server.
It came after a court case where someone bought down a company server by sending Millions of e-mails to the mail server.
He got off scott free, because at the time, the law said
"It was an e-mail server, it was designed to accept e-mails, all he did, was send e-mails...."

Yes but they dont bring the actual server down, only one software on it which is running thats the main difference

I dont say its right, but its not illegal.

[FunkySwerve]

Quilver wrote...
Edited to add: If you have proof that he has hacked the server rather than exploited the game, then you aren't necessarily in the wrong. But if you don't have proof, you're actually breaking the law by accusing another of criminal activity.

No, he isn't. At most he might be civilly liable in tort, but even that is extremely unlikely, given the anonymous nature of the internet - to say nothing of jurisdictional problems. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Funky

[Azador]

The sad thing is, just the existence of this thread probably makes their antics all the sweeter to them. I think we roleplayers, as a stereotype, have a reputation of being LOLcows, which makes us easy targets. Threatening legal action/etc just gives them the attention and satisfaction that drives griefing in the first place.  That's right - it isn't child abuse, bad parenting, psychological disorders, criminal records... it's simply just the satisfaction of the attention garnered from trolling.

No need to point fingers and fight amongst ourselves, I've already seen three threads spawned from in-fighting about the group. Best thing to do is, quite literally, deal with them on a case by case basis. Yes, it's frustrating, but it's not the end of the world, and is often a very short-term nuisance. Best treat it as such.

Modifié par Azador, 03 juin 2011 - 12:08 .

[FunkySwerve]

ShaDoOoW wrote...

Baaleos wrote...


Also - it should be noted, that DDOS' definition in the legal sense was redefined a few years ago to include any form of attack that intentionally brings down a server.
It came after a court case where someone bought down a company server by sending Millions of e-mails to the mail server.
He got off scott free, because at the time, the law said
"It was an e-mail server, it was designed to accept e-mails, all he did, was send e-mails...."

Yes but they dont bring the actual server down, only one software on it which is running thats the main difference

I dont say its right, but its not illegal.

You're wrong. It is in fact illegal, whether or not it is a DDoS attack. I suggest you read FCR 18 section 1030, which was mentioned already in this thread, albeit by a layman with no real notion of its scope. It was originally enacted to prevent electronic espionage in the 1980s, when people were afraid of Russians and Commies attepting to sabotage US government computers, but its broad terms have lead it to cover a great deal more ground. You can, for example, be prosecuted under this section, simply for accessing someone else's computer without their permission, or even just their internet connection (all you people getting free internets, beware!). In our case, a 'protected computer' is any involved in interstate commerce. Those of your familiar with the commerce clause will understand just how broad a penumbra is cast by that phrase. HG's servers, for example, definitely fall under that penumbra, as we're paying for hosting in another state. Internet providers ALL fall under that penumbra as well, to the best of my knowledge. They wrote the law in a time when no one really compassed the scope that inter-computer communications would grow to, such that the plain language of the law far exceeds its original scope.

On a tangent, why on earth do you feel the need to speak out in defense of these malicious idiots? I'm halfass tempted to test your security, given your earlier remarks in this thread, as I know of a few unresolved crash issues that would light your hair on fire. I won't, however, not only because it'd be illegal, but also because it's the ultimate in douchebaggery. Figure out who's side you're on, already.

Funky

[Baaleos]

Lets not get overly excited about anyones posts here....

Lets just sum it up to...
If someone intentionally initiates any action which has adverse effects on a computer system or software contained on that system, then it constitutes a cyber attack.

eg - The result is not really as important as the intent.
If you send a million e-mails to a mail server, hoping to bring it down, its an attack.
If you send a million e-mails to a mail server, oblivious to the fact that it might bring it down, may be ignorant, but not necessarily illegal, and could be argued to be a mistake or lapse in judgement. For the Courts to decide I guess.

Intent is one of the things that is always considered in legal proceedings. Did the offender intend to do harm etc.

People dont tend to get in huge amounts of trouble, over genuine mistakes, unless they were found to be neglegent in duties which they are obligated to do, eg - System Admin should be diligent enough to protect networks, if data was stolen, due to his incompetence, then he could be sacked, and or be sued. (most likely the company sued, the admin being the Liability)

(Note - I just read that Sony got Hacked again....
Im soooo losing faith in them_)

[Quilver]

FunkySwerve wrote...

Quilver wrote...
Edited to add: If you have proof that he has hacked the server rather than exploited the game, then you aren't necessarily in the wrong. But if you don't have proof, you're actually breaking the law by accusing another of criminal activity.

No, he isn't. At most he might be civilly liable in tort, but even that is extremely unlikely, given the anonymous nature of the internet - to say nothing of jurisdictional problems. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Funky

I absolutely know what I'm talking about - I studied Law at University. Making public accusations of criminal activity when you do not have full evidence is one of the most stupid acts a person can commit.

You're also wrong about DDoS...

A couple of you seem confused about this issue. DDoS is 'Distributed Denial of Service' attack. What this kid is doing is still a form of DoS attack, but not a DDoS. I am not sure why you have gotten confused over such a simple matter. There is no 'distributed' aspect to it if it is one person on one computer, on one connection.

By the sounds of things, he is exploiting a bug in NWN. He is attacking the module, not the server. The server itself is not crashing. As ShaDoOoW correctly said, it is a piece of software on it. It is a bit like when you're on Yahoo Messenger and someone suddenly uses that exploit to 'boot' you. Both are lame, and annoying. But they are just client-side exploits, and not 'hacking'. They exist because of bad program design. The fault, I'm afraid, lies with Bioware on this issue, because robust module stability is their duty.

To make that clear to you: DDoS requires multiple outlets. Hence 'Distributed'. This is still a form of DoS, but because it's attacking a computer game, rather than a server, nothing is going to happen.

I'm just telling you so that you don't get all worked up trying to pursue this. The authorities have more important things to worry about, and this kid's ISP are unlikely to shut him down. Every ISP needs their customers, and they don't generally shut them out for exploiting a Dungeons & Dragons computer game.

[A_Julian]

Eh, was gonna type out a really long post on security, because some people seem really befuddled on this, but...

^ What Quilver said.

DDoS > Distributed Denial of Service Attack. Multiple attackers.

DoS > Denial of Service Attack. Single attacker.

I mean, that's just semantics really. DDoS attacks are more powerful. That's all there is to it, really.

[Eradrain]

Fellanor wrote...

Quilver is respected member of the community. His posts are always reasonable and factual. You, on the other hand, have a reputation which precedes you; as a poster who flames threads and trolls posters, being contrary for the sake of argument and often lying to try to back up your point.

I know that others here agree with me, because you have been steadily making a nuisance of yourself on these forums for the past few months. I strongly suggest that you leave now before you dig yourself into such a deep hole that you cannot climb out.

Aw, shucks.  My reputation on the Bioware Social Forums is ruined.  I guess it's the end of life as I know it.

But really, I've heard from a bunch of folks that Quilver very much IS the griefer.  For all I know you're a sockpuppet, though maybe you're just somebody who doesn't like me.  Either way, I'm flattered that you took the time to form an opinion.  I'm gonna assume sockpuppet, because I don't think anyone else would call the guy who made this insult thread and this troll post a "respected member of the community."

Honestly, I don't have as huge a problem with someone griefing NWN servers as most here - I genuinely do believe that as a group, we NWN roleplayers all take ourselves way too seriously.  Criminal charges?  Reporting him to his ISP?  Jeez, just write an OnEntry script that wipes a new player's items and move on.  That said, it IS painful to watch him sockpuppet around in this same discussion, leading people around in circles.  Let's all just live and let live.

Modifié par Eradrain, 03 juin 2011 - 11:24 .

[Baaleos]

Eradrain wrote...

Fellanor wrote...

Quilver is respected member of the community. His posts are always reasonable and factual. You, on the other hand, have a reputation which precedes you; as a poster who flames threads and trolls posters, being contrary for the sake of argument and often lying to try to back up your point.

I know that others here agree with me, because you have been steadily making a nuisance of yourself on these forums for the past few months. I strongly suggest that you leave now before you dig yourself into such a deep hole that you cannot climb out.

Aw, shucks.  My reputation on the Bioware Social Forums is ruined.  I guess it's the end of life as I know it.

But really, I've heard from a bunch of folks that Quilver very much IS the griefer.  For all I know you're a sockpuppet, though maybe you're just somebody who doesn't like me.  Either way, I'm flattered that you took the time to form an opinion.  I'm gonna assume sockpuppet, because I don't think anyone else would call the guy who made this insult thread and this troll post a "respected member of the community."

Honestly, I don't have as huge a problem with someone griefing NWN servers as most here - I genuinely do believe that as a group, we NWN roleplayers all take ourselves way too seriously.  Criminal charges?  Reporting him to his ISP?  Jeez, just write an OnEntry script that wipes a new player's items and move on.  That said, it IS painful to watch him sockpuppet around in this same discussion, leading people around in circles.  Let's all just live and let live.

Writing an onEntry script does not resolve anything if the perp is attacking the server in an out of the game sense.
eg - DOS attacks.


Some people are getting confused here.
Alot of you are saying that a DOS attack isnt a DOS attack if it only affects the nwn server process, and not the 'server' machine.

This is utter crap.
In the old days, of Windows 95 or 98, DOS attacks could cause Blue Screens of death, in these circumstances, yes... the machine effectively died, and fried, and required a reboot.

Since the time of 2000, and XP onwards,
Windows OS has been more robust, and is no longer rendered inert by DOS Attacks,
Connectivity may be disconnected, but the machine itself remains intact.

Does this mean that it isnt a DOS attack - course not.
A DOS attack, or DDOS attack is considered illegal, and it only needs to cause intentional disruption of normal activity for it to be considered malicous and illegal.

eg - Spamming a Mail server with millions of e-mail, it doesnt crash the machine, it overloads the application on the machine... THIS IS A DOS. And is equally illegal.

I would advise that before anyone pretends they know about the subject, they read Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia....-service_attack

It lists examples of where seemingly normal operations, such as registering a domain name, or sending an e-mail, were constituted DOS attacks, because of the numeracy, and the intent, and the result.

Any activity that denies service to the applications intended audience, could be constituted DOS.

If someone is spamming you with Packets of data, and it causes lag, or your players to disconnect, this is DOS, and is illegal.

Now, I wish everyone would stop trying to argue that it is legal, just because its a game being targetted.
Its a GAME SERVER, Servers are called Servers, because they try to SERVE the Clients, anything that prevents them from doing that, if caused by an outside attacker, is DOS.

[Eradrain]

Baaleos wrote...

Writing an onEntry script does not resolve anything if the perp is attacking the server in an out of the game sense.
eg - DOS attacks.

That's true, my mistake for not paying better attention to what the griefer's been doing.

[TSMDude]

Eradrain wrote...

Baaleos wrote...

Writing an onEntry script does not resolve anything if the perp is attacking the server in an out of the game sense.
eg - DOS attacks.

That's true, my mistake for not paying better attention to what the griefer's been doing.

Honestly most players and people do not anymore either. We just shrug and fix it and move on. Do they annoy people? Kinda.

I liken it to that big smelly kid in grade school who picks on the smaller kids because he got no love at home. It is not that they deserve our hate but more our pity. The people that honestly bother me at all is players/scripters here who defend them.

When you make a patch or script something and put it on the Vault you are trying to contrubite to peoples fun I would think. When you defend a group who's sole purpose is to disrupt other peoples fun or cheat a game server because you do not like that playing style then it kinda makes you look...for lack of the better word...douchbagery.

Does it bother me that sometimes they attack me? Not really. Go ahead as I got big boy pants on.
Does it bother me they attack our server? Kinda like when the neighbors dog poops in my yard and the dude does not pick it up.
Does it bother me to the end I sit around and vent? Nope as I have a beautiful wife, 3 wonderful kids, an awesome house on the beach, a Keg-a-rator, a bumper pool table,  and players who just chuckle at thier antics.

This thread has in itself become endlessly amusing with how many lawyers that are part of the griefers. I know there is some really good lawyer joke in there....

[Thayan]

TSMDude wrote...
This thread has in itself become endlessly amusing with how many lawyers that are part of the griefers. I know there is some really good lawyer joke in there....

Hmmm....I propose:

What do you call 10,000 of these lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

[Baaleos]

Thayan wrote...

TSMDude wrote...
This thread has in itself become endlessly amusing with how many lawyers that are part of the griefers. I know there is some really good lawyer joke in there....

Hmmm....I propose:

What do you call 10,000 of these lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

I admit that yes, its basically a small thing that causes a nuisence when someone attacks your server.

But if you take into consideration that many of us are paying 'real' money to host a game server off shore 24/7, then it becomes more serious.

Any Downtime caused by an outside person, or persons becomes criminal, and effectively is money out of our own pockets.

Its like you paying for a pint, and someone goes and spits in it, just for a laugh.

[TSMDude]

Baaleos wrote...

Thayan wrote...

TSMDude wrote...
This thread has in itself become endlessly amusing with how many lawyers that are part of the griefers. I know there is some really good lawyer joke in there....

Hmmm....I propose:

What do you call 10,000 of these lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

I admit that yes, its basically a small thing that causes a nuisence when someone attacks your server.

But if you take into consideration that many of us are paying 'real' money to host a game server off shore 24/7, then it becomes more serious.

Any Downtime caused by an outside person, or persons becomes criminal, and effectively is money out of our own pockets.

Its like you paying for a pint, and someone goes and spits in it, just for a laugh.

Oh I firmly belive they are doing something illegal and craptastic when they do the DDoS attacks and even just crash the server with hacked pcs.

The logging in to kill folks is just juvenile evidenced by the contuinal pleas for Cyber Sex. What I am saying is basically they matter little in the scheme of life and we have found it so easy to marginalize them now.

[kalbaern]

Thayan wrote...

What do you call 10,000 of these lawyers at the bottom of the sea?

A: A darned good start.

[FunkySwerve]

Quilver wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...

Quilver wrote...
Edited to add: If you have proof that he has hacked the server rather than exploited the game, then you aren't necessarily in the wrong. But if you don't have proof, you're actually breaking the law by accusing another of criminal activity.

No, he isn't. At most he might be civilly liable in tort, but even that is extremely unlikely, given the anonymous nature of the internet - to say nothing of jurisdictional problems. You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

Funky

I absolutely know what I'm talking about - I studied Law at University. Making public accusations of criminal activity when you do not have full evidence is one of the most stupid acts a person can commit.

Oooh, you studied law at a UNIVERSITY! Well then, you MUST be right. I'm an attorney, having passed the bar in two states. I studied law at a LAW school. And I'm telling you you are 100% incorrect when you claim that someone is breaking the law by accusing someone of criminal activity. What you are very incompletely trying to describe is libel/slander, and that is NOT 'breaking the law'. You are making the common layman's mistake of confusing criminal liability with civil liability. Or, more succinctly, as I already said, you've no clue what you're talking about.

You're also wrong about DDoS...

A couple of you seem confused about this issue. DDoS is 'Distributed Denial of Service' attack. What this kid is doing is still a form of DoS attack, but not a DDoS. I am not sure why you have gotten confused over such a simple matter. There is no 'distributed' aspect to it if it is one person on one computer, on one connection.
*snip*

Oh, yes, clearly I'm the confused one.   I never claimed there was a 'distributed' aspect to an attack originating from a single person/computer/connection. That was another poster. I am not sure why you have gotten confused over such a simple matter.

What I did say, and was again completely correct about, was that the activities you describe are in fact illegal, whether or not they are technically DDoS's. You will see this if you refer to the section of the Federal Code of Regulations I cited. Again, you are completely clueless as to the law. People have been prosecuted under 1030 for things as minor as accessing someone else's wireless router. Any computer connected to the internet is a 'protected computer'. See, e.g., U.S. v. Trotter, 478 F.3d 918 (8th Cir. 2007). Trotter was a disgruntled employee who accessed his former employer's computers, deleted a few files,shut down a system, and dropped a few obscenity-laced files. He was convicted, and his conviction was upheld on appeal. See also U.S. v. Phillips, 477 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2007) (university student convicted for hacking a university's network).

I'm just telling you so that you don't get all worked up trying to pursue this. The authorities have more important things to worry about, and this kid's ISP are unlikely to shut him down. Every ISP needs their customers, and they don't generally shut them out for exploiting a Dungeons & Dragons computer game.

Riiiight. So when you called out another poster for your imaginary understanding of libel as criminal, you thought that 'authorities' WOULD be interested in pursuing a CIVIL case for libel (itself a hopelessly ignorant notion), but you don't think that they have any interest in enforcing actual criminal statutes? Oh teh lulz.

*I* am just telling *you* this so that you and other people perusing this thread think twice before engaging in this type of activity. You can be prosecuted for it, and, if you manage to make an irritant of yourself wtih a server admin, they do have the recourse of going to the authorities, who are taking an increasing interest in this still-growing field of law. If you live in the US, and engage in this kind of behavior, you're playing with fire, as there aren't even any jurisdictional tangles to sort out, as the crimes are federal.

Funky

Modifié par FunkySwerve, 04 juin 2011 - 03:14 .