100TB GVH? You mean 1.66TB

Mark_R

@0xdragon said:
Bringing in more dirt only makes you dirtier and heavier. And you know that ice is gonna break!

I'm not even going to reply on that guy (GVH), its a waste of bandwidth.

jar

@Mark_R said:
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.

Sounds like he had in mind abuse of GVHs network and finances by his actions and words. So maybe you can split hairs all you want but it is what it is. He intended to prove he couldn't use what they sold and then demand a refund. He said it himself. That's a relationship any provider should cut off.

fapvps

@GreenValueHost said:
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.

I don't know if GVH would want to deliver the actual 100TB for $5 but if I was the owner of the server where the test file was hosted I would do the same thing so this makes sense.

Mark_R

@jarland said:
Sounds like he had in mind abuse of GVHs network and finances by his actions and words. So maybe you can split hairs all you want but it is what it is. He intended to prove he couldn't use what they sold and then demand a refund. He said it himself. That's a relationship any provider should cut off.

Probably, but it still is not a real DoS attack.

jnguyen

@Mark_R said:
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.

So if I stole a penny from a bank, would that still not be stealing? It's only just very minor cash, but that's still stealing, right?

Same case here. If you send useless traffic to a server, it's a DoS no matter how large or small.

And also, it's not the INTENT. It's the ACTION.

Lee

@jarland - Fair point in normal circumstances, but when you challenge people to use the 100TB with a reward of an Ipad Mini then you are leading yourself down that dark alley you and your BF go down on a Sat night.

Now whether it's right or not is largely inconsequential, when you bait people some will do stupid things like Shove has here.

texteditor

@GreenValueHost said:
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.

Did you not read that post of your I quoted and responded to, I literally acknowledged both these points, goddamn

@texteditor said:
The third party site has a right to be upset with what he did.

Mun

@W1V_Lee said:
jarland - Fair point in normal circumstances, but when you challenge people to use the 100TB with a reward of an Ipad Mini then you are leading yourself down that dark alley you and your BF go down on a Sat night.

Now whether it's right or not is largely inconsequential, when you bait people some will do stupid things like Shove has here.

He did state that downloading a file over and over again wasn't a proper test and wouldn't win the iPad.

jnguyen

@Mark_R - Just a little while ago you didn't know how server name indication worked and now you're here pretending to be an expert on server administration telling a lot of people here with years and years of experience that they're wrong.

itrmike

Not sure if this applies or not but thought this phrase from Wikipedia was fairly good: "efforts to temporarily or indefinitely interrupt or suspend services of a host connected to the Internet."
Repeatedly grabbing a speedtest file from a server equating to 1.66TB of bandwidth is 1. limiting the ability of others to achieve accurate results and 2. possibly denying another connection from the load.

jar

@W1V_Lee said:
jarland - Fair point in normal circumstances, but when you challenge people to use the 100TB with a reward of an Ipad Mini then you are leading yourself down that dark alley you and your BF go down on a Sat night.

Now whether it's right or not is largely inconsequential, when you bait people some will do stupid things like Shove has here.

Damn I missed that post. BRB starting cron.

texteditor

@jarland said:
Can you not use 100TB on their network?

If they are sticking to 3(+/- 300% to account for normal overselling) VPSs per server then of course

AutoSnipe

Ok so is this deal still going?
I OWN my own server and will do the exact same thing.
And see at what point gvh/cc decided that I have contacted them to tell them that I have DoS'd myself.

Mark_R

@GreenValueHost said:
Mark_R - Just a little while ago you didn't know how server name indication worked and now you're here pretending to be an expert on server administration telling a lot of people here with years and years of experience that they're wrong.

trust me, i know what a (D)DoS is about, I did run a booter @ HF for a while and i really dont care about what people think about that, if you wanna get personal use the PM system [Offensive content removed. S.].

texteditor

GreenValueHost said: So if I stole a penny from a bank, would that still not be stealing? It's only just very minor cash, but that's still stealing, right?

Same case here. If you send useless traffic to a server, it's a DoS no matter how large or small.

And also, it's not the INTENT. It's the ACTION.

Uh oh, no one send this guy a wayward UDP packet, it's the same thing as a 20Gbps flood

jnguyen

@AutoSnipe said:
Ok so is this deal still going?
I OWN my own server and will do the exact same thing.
And see at what point gvh/cc decided that I have contacted them to tell them that I have DoS'd myself.

DoSing yourself is legal BUT sending outbound DoS attacks to ANYONE, including yourself, is against our Terms of Service.

jnguyen

@Mark_R said:
trust me, i know what a (D)DoS is about, i've been running a booter @ HF for a while and i really dont care about what people think about that, if you wanna get personal use the PM system smartass.

And your responses are in absolutely no way bias because you run a botnet and are 100% not for DoS attacks, right? Your attitude is just like every other person engaging in illegal activities at HF. It's a shame, sadly.

jar

@Mark_R said:
trust me, i know what a (D)DoS is about, i've been running a booter @ HF for a while and i really dont care about what people think about that, if you wanna get personal use the PM system smartass.

wat

Mark_R

@GreenValueHost said:
And your responses are in absolutely no way bias because you run a botnet and are 100% not for DoS attacks, right?

botnet, funny guy. thats such an old way.

Chumbi

@texteditor said:
no, it really isn't. one thread pulling the same speedtest file in succession? dick move, yes, DoS, no

Agreed. So... given the generous 100TB bandwidth allowance... I assume it would be OK if I ordered a handful of these VPS and used them as mirrors for let's say the most popular free ISOs and other big files that would quickly amass these 100TB per instance. Would that be OK in terms of use of services, GVH? Just trying to understand what has happened here. Perhaps if the other end had not considered it a DoS, colo & co. would have been OK with everything.

Lee

Mun said: He did state that downloading a file over and over again wasn't a proper test and wouldn't win the iPad.

I am sure he did, my point is that in this market, as you know, telling people not to do something is like baiting many of them to do it regardless.

jnguyen

So @Mark_R just admitted that his responses to this thread are bias because he is the owner of a botnet and is selling booter accounts on hack forums for the purpose of sending legitimately illegal DDoS attacks ...

jnguyen

@Chumbi said:
Agreed. So... given the generous 100TB bandwidth allowance... I assume it would be OK if I ordered a handful of these VPS and used them as mirrors for let's say the most popular free ISOs and other big files that would quickly amass these 100TB. Would that be OK in terms of use of services, GVH? Just trying to understand what has happened here. Perhaps if the other end had not considered a DoS, colo & co. would have been OK with everything.

Yep! This is 100% allowed. In fact we have @Mun doing that right now.

@W1V_Lee

So you mean that people under 21 in the United States shouldn't be punished for drinking alcohol underage because they were "baited" to do it because of all the social pressure and advertising by beer companies? That's not an excuse.

Lee

@GreenValueHost said:
So Mark_R just admitted that his responses to this thread are bias because he is the owner of a botnet and is selling booter accounts on hack forums for the purpose of sending legitimately illegal DDoS attacks ...

I imagine he is only one of very many on here tbh.

itrmike

@Mark_R said:
trust me, i know what a (D)DoS is about, i've been running a booter @ HF for a while and i really dont care about what people think about that, if you wanna get personal use the PM system smartass.

Ok, great. You know how to download a php script and beg for shells.
Want a medal?

jnguyen

Also @Mark_R before you attempt to DDoS us, we're protected up to 10Gbps.

Virtovo

@GreenValueHost said:
Also Mark_R before you attempt to DDoS us, we're protected up to 10Gbps.

To be fair. That's nothing.

Mun

@Virtovo said:
To be fair. That's nothing.

Sadly I have to agree, if you see in my links (gaming-servers.net) I have been hit by a 21 Gbps attack

Lee

GreenValueHost said: So you mean that people under 21 in the United States shouldn't be punished for drinking alcohol underage because they were "baited" to do it because of all the social pressure and advertising by beer companies? That's not an excuse.

Don't waste your incomparable analogies on me.

Chumbi

@GreenValueHost said:
Yep! This is 100% allowed. In fact we have @Mun doing that right now.

Fair enough!