New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
100TB GVH? You mean 1.66TB
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Maybe ColoCrossing shouldn't get involved with morons who offer 100TB plans that they refuse to deliver/support. The third party site has a right to be upset with what he did. You, however, sold him the goddamn resources and flipped when he used them in what is ultimately probably the least stressful way someone could use 100TB on Colocrossing's end.
I'm siding with GVH on this one, it's a dick move especially to use 100tb of bandwidth then get your money back. Anyways, by definition it is a DoS attack:
Bringing network to knees? Check.
Useless traffic? Check.
Therefor, DoS attack. Not very malicious, but still a DoS attack.
@greenvaluehost
you better start getting realistic.
We didn't flip. We didn't even know what he was doing until we were notified. Our hands were tied behind our backs. Any datacenter would take the same action ColoCrossing did. Our hands were basically tied behind our backs as it was either terminate him and send him a notice or face consequences. Terminating him was our only choice. You can't blame us for that.
Why didn't you buy a VPS on another one of their nodes and put a 100GB test file on there?
Then just use the same script to download that..
No way that could be classed as a DoS. Ever.
Ehhh if a provider offers up 100TB a bandwidth a month then 100TB a month of traffic probably shouldn't bring the network to its knees
I do agree with @GreenValueHost on this one. Regardless of if this actually fits the definition of a DoS, the point is that the owner of the speedtest file filed a complaint with ColoCrossing due to an IP continually downloading a speedtest file, costing them in bandwidth and more than likely breaking the TOS that comes with the use of that speedtest file. Both ColoCrossing and GreenValueHost complied the request to stop the action that the owner of the speedtest file considered abusive.
Had shovenose used a test file from his own server then I doubt that this would have been an issue.
It looks like you have no clue about what a DoS attack actually is..
@texteditor - We're talking about the network that hosted the file he was downloading, not OUR network.
Well we all kinda assumed this one...
Well, wasn't the DoS notification delivered by host who was hosting the test file? I think they were the ones being brought to their knees.
I know, that's what I said
To the owner of the test file it looked malicious.
I thought you were with HVH, so did HVH tell you terminate him or CC > HVH > You?
I'm starting to think that @texteditor works for Shovehost
It looks like you have no clue about what a DoS attack actually is..
lol, It's true, he pays me with half his weekly allowance money to do PR
You're a joke.
Key word is "used." When a client is trying to "use" your resources solely to prove they can, to accomplish absolutely no beneficial task, when you make it very apparent that resources are shared and being an unfriendly neighbor is discouraged, that is abuse. Any reasonable provider would and should terminate a client who tries to be a problem just because they can. Such abusive relationships should be severed.
Huh, he told me he was paying me two thirds to do nothing. He must be lying.
@Mark_R - And you are the one whom asked for help writing a Terms of Service document on this forum because you had no idea how to write one, right?
Alright, can we shift the framing of these abusive relationships from
GVH -> shovenose
to
ColoCrossing -> provider that offers unreasonable $5/100TB plans well beyond their network capacity (GVH)
as well?
I was basing my information off of this. I'm going by the books, not my personal experiences or views. What he did meets the criteria of a DoS attack.
GVH was providing a service with 100TB of data, they could probably keep up. The real issue it seems is could the host of the test file keep up? I highly doubt they could keep up with downloading a xyz file every minute.
At the end of the day, CC/GVH were both informed of what appeared to be a DoS attack. They compiled. The end.
Hey, just my thoughts.
A DoS can be anything that denies service. In this case, the file was being continually downloaded and using bandwidth. The continuous download of that file could result in the saturation of the hosts connection or the use of their own bandwidth allotment resulting in them getting shut off or causing overages or causing a higher-than-average bandwidth bill due to a higher percentage being calculated when using 95% billing.
In other words, while it may have not caused service denial immediately, it was most likely causing a situation which would cause service to be unavailable later in the manner I have described, thus could be considered a denial of service.
The real issue here is that ColoCrossing automatic DoS monitor thought that wget was an attack
One can of worms at a time, ha
Can you not use 100TB on their network? I'm not sure this proves that at all. Run a website and get 100TB of traffic. Use it to host your large, downloadable, legal content maybe. Maybe stream something that doesn't use a ton of pps. I'm sure there's only a handful of reasons to terminate and an unknown wealth of reasons to justify use of it.
I find it quite funny that you're stomping the thin ice on which you stand on here.
Bringing in more dirt only makes you dirtier and heavier. And you know that ice is gonna break!
@texteditor - We have the capacity to handle 100TB plans. The host in which shovenose was constantly downloading that file from did not have the capacity and was 'brought to its knees' as a result of shovenose's actions, and thus filed a complaint with ColoCrossing claiming that they have been DoS attacked.
The end.
If it was a real DoS attack it would be illegal
but it wasn't.. a real DoS attack would be a nonstop flood of UDP or TCP traffic without intervals
the purpose of a DoS attack would be causing a downtime to its target, i believe that Shovenose didn't had such purpose in mind.