Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links


Categories

In this Discussion

› › 100TB GVH? You mean 1.66TB - Page 12
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.

100TB GVH? You mean 1.66TB

1…89101214

Comments

  • texteditortexteditor Member

    @GreenValueHost said:
    by definition,

    your personal post-mortem definition....

  • shovenoseshovenose Member, Host Rep

    @darkshire said:

    I'd love to see the abuse complaint they can share it here no problem.

  • shovenoseshovenose Member, Host Rep
    edited January 2014

    @GreenValueHost said:

    Admitting to download a speedtest file and admitting to a DoS attach is NOT the same. I admit to the former and not the latter.

  • MunMun Member

    Hey shovey, can I download your speed test file multiple times over and over and over and over again?

    Thanked by 1Dylan
  • InfinityInfinity Member, Host Rep

    As much as shovenose is a massive dick for that, it is NOT 'by definition' or not by definition a DoS attack.

    Thanked by 4Grimmy2 Epidrive chrisp deejay31
  • PcJamesyPcJamesy Member

    @shovenose said:
    Admitting to download a speedtest file and admitting to a DoS attach is NOT the same. I admit to the former and not the latter.

    You have to remember the host on the other end has bandwidth costs as well as GVH does. You were hurting both providers even if you didn't cause what I consider to be a denial of service attack; you did needlessly waste away resources.

  • DylanDylan Member

    Mun said: Hey shovey, can I download your speed test file multiple times over and over and over and over again?

    Yeah: if I use my GVH plan to do that, will you file a complaint (DoS or otherwise)?

  • jnguyenjnguyen Member

    @shovenose said:
    Admitting to download a speedtest file and admitting to a DoS attach is NOT the same. I admit to the former and not the latter.

    ColoCrossing considered your actions to be a DoS attack and thus they were the ones that requested for us to take action. I don't know how many times I have to say this.

  • darkshiredarkshire Member
    edited January 2014

    @shovenose said:
    I'd love to see the abuse complaint they can share it here no problem.

    @GreenValueHost
    shovenose has given permission to you to share this complaint.

    please do your part and get us a copy of this abuse complaint, post it here, and maybe we can put this to rest.

  • jnguyenjnguyen Member

    @darkshire - I think I have said this OVER A HUNDRED TIMES ALREADY.

    I DO NOT HAVE A COPY OF THE ABUSE COMPLAINT. WE WERE NOT GIVEN A COPY. All we got was an abuse notification in a TEMPLATE. @jbiloh and @SysAdmin has them.

  • jnguyenjnguyen Member

    @Jack said:
    If it was large enough for CC to see it and null, it must of been saturating the port ... Why didn't you pick up on it?

    Please read the thread. Jon Biloh stated that the abuse notification they gave us is a template that is only used when they receive a report from a 3rd party. We were not given a copy of the report.

  • jnguyenjnguyen Member

    We just simply did what we were told what to do by our datacenter which was take action or face consequences as per the notification ...

    I don't understand what you guys want us to do? I am saying the same thing over and over and over again ...

  • MunMun Member

    @Infinity said:
    As much as shovenose is a massive dick for that, it is NOT 'by definition' or not by definition a DoS attack.

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial-of-service_attack

    "... it generally consists of efforts to temporarily or indefinitely interrupt or suspend services of a host connected to the Internet." So if the company ran out of available bandwidth, wouldn't that classify as "interupt[ing]" a service?

    "...or responds so slowly as to be rendered essentially unavailable. " This could also be the case, I mean he is slowly down a service by pulling large quantities of bandwidth that could be used elsewhere?

    "... or consuming its resources so that it can no longer provide its intended service or obstructing the communication media between the intended users and the victim so that they can no longer communicate adequately." He was clearing making the speed test file "slow" thus obstructing its "intended service".

    Asymmetry of resource utilization in starvation attacks

    An attack which is successful in consuming resources on the victim computer must be either:

    carried out by an attacker with greater resources, by either:
    controlling a computer with greater computation power or, more commonly, large network bandwidth
    controlling a large number of computers and directing them to attack as a group. A DDoS attack is the primary example of this.
taking advantage of a property of the operating system or applications on the victim system which enables an attack consuming vastly more of the victim's resources than the attacker's (an asymmetric attack). Smurf attack, SYN flood, Sockstress and NAPTHA attack are all asymmetric attacks.

    An attack may utilize a combination of these methods in order to magnify its power.

    Wouldn't he have greater resources "100tb"? He is "starving" there service?

  • AlexanderMAlexanderM Member, Top Host, Host Rep

    @shovenose give it a rest kid, your not getting anywhere in this.

  • VPNVPN Member

    @PcJamesy said:
    You have to remember the host on the other end has bandwidth costs as well as GVH does. You were hurting both providers even if you didn't cause what I consider to be a denial of service attack; you did needlessly waste away resources.

    I've said this several times, don't put something on the internet and invite people to download it if you're concerned about the bandwidth.

    Too many downloads? Take it down. Don't bitch to your host about it and get other people terminated.

    Yeah fair enough this time shovenose was the victim but next time it could easily be someone innocent.

    Guys, it's obvious there was no abuse notice. CC have given no comment, shovenose hasn't seen the notice and GVH refuse to show it.

    GVH couldn't handle the thought that someone might actually use their impossible to deliver 100TB of bandwidth and cut him before he could cause any problems.

    I implore you to show us this notice GVH.

  • GoodHostingGoodHosting Member
    edited January 2014

    @GreenValueHost said:
    ColoCrossing nulled the IP. We of course have no access to control nullroutes.
    We were sent an abuse notification. jbiloh stated that the template they used for the abuse notification is used when they receive a report from a 3rd party. We were not provided with that report, however we were asked to take action.

    What did you guys want us to do? His IP was nullrouted.

    That's five levels of bullshit, I can manage my nullroutes just fine in ColoCrossing, why can't you?

    @GreenValueHost said:
    ColoCrossing considered your actions to be a DoS attack and thus they were the ones that requested for us to take action. I don't know how many times I have to say this.

    I can manage my abuse complaints just fine in ColoCrossing as well..... what?

    Thanked by 1iKeyZ
  • Grimmy2Grimmy2 Member

    @HardCloud said:
    I can manage my abuse complaints just fine in ColoCrossing as well..... what?

    Because they deal with HVH therefor wouldn't have direct access to CC CP/s etc...?

  • jnguyenjnguyen Member

    @OkieDoke said:
    I implore you to show us this notice GVH.

    I said that we were not given a copy of the report.

    Thanked by 1AlexanderM
  • jnguyenjnguyen Member

    @HardCloud said:
    I can manage my abuse complaints just fine in ColoCrossing as well..... what?

    You can't manage nullroutes.

  • GoodHostingGoodHosting Member

    @Grimmy2 said:

    So the issue is not that CC nulled the IPs, but that GVH resells HVH resells CC ?

    IE: Something completely different is the real issue here?

  • jnguyenjnguyen Member

    @Grimmy2 - That's irrelevant if we have CC panel access.

  • AlexanderMAlexanderM Member, Top Host, Host Rep

    HardCloud said: So the issue is not that CC nulled the IPs, but that GVH resells HVH resells CC ?

    IE: Something completely different is the real issue here?

    Are you seriously that stupid? -_-

    Thanked by 1Grimmy2
  • GoodHostingGoodHosting Member

    @GreenValueHost said:

    Yes, I can:

    https://db.tt/XeZGwn59

    I can also remove them.

  • Grimmy2Grimmy2 Member

    @HardCloud said:
    IE: Something completely different is the real issue here?

    For some reason, this forum software used the wrong quote after you edited your post.

    This is what I did originally quote "That's five levels of bullshit, I can manage my nullroutes just fine in ColoCrossing, why can't you?"

  • GoodHostingGoodHosting Member

    @Grimmy2 said:

    Fair enough the quotes, it messed up frequently. See the screenshot about nulls above though, for some laughter.

  • GoodHostingGoodHosting Member

    Suddenly... silence.

  • VPNVPN Member

    @GreenValueHost said:
    I said that we were not given a copy of the report.

    So I refer back to my earlier comment where it seems you got told of potential abuse and used it as a reason to cut one of your 100TB users.

    CC must of given you something to prompt the termination.

    If CC emailed you tomorrow and said that an account had illegal porn but didn't give you any info about it you'd just think what the hell and terminate and then move on to the next victim?

  • jbilohjbiloh Administrator, Veteran

    Why doesn't GVH just give the customer their service back? It seems like his intention was not to maliciously attack anyone.

    Though the whole "I'm going to use 100 TB and then request my money back" routine doesn't seem so nice.

    Thanked by 4Dylan vRozenSch00n Inglar nocom
  • jnguyenjnguyen Member

    @OkieDoke said:
    If CC emailed you tomorrow and said that an account had illegal porn but didn't give you any info about it you'd just think what the hell and terminate and then move on to the next victim?

    shovenose admitted to the action publicly on VPSB prior to the termination. The action in which we admitted to was considered a DoS by ColoCrossing. His willing admission to the act prompted the termination.

    And yes I would terminate them, because porn of ANY KIND, legal OR illegal, is not allowed to be hosted on our network.

  • GoodHostingGoodHosting Member

    Look, for all the hilarity in this thread, let's set out some things:

    1) ColoCrossing will tell you when they nullroute any IP, and you can remove the nullroute yourself; unless it was an incoming DDoS, in which case a simple reply to the ticket that they open will remove the nullroute.

    See my above screenshot (four posts up) for the nice nullroute management interface they give you.

    2) ColoCrossing will tell you WHY they nullroute or block traffic from any IP address, by opening a ticket.

    3) Could someone please pass me more popcorn?

This discussion has been closed.