Re: AT&T. Layer 6-8 needed.

[chris rollin <2600hz () gmail com>]

Uh.
  You posted on Twitter.

  The most trusted name in [?]

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 12:17 AM, John Bambenek <bambenek () gmail com> wrote:

> We'll take data from **Trusted** sources.
>
> I'm just not going to take a public open mailing list post as evidence at
> this point.
>
>
> chris rollin wrote:
>
> > Shon wrote:
> >
> > Seth,
> >
> >
> >
> > > I said it could be, not that it is. Thanks for pointing that out.
> > > However,
> > I
> >
> >
> > > believe the reason they are being blocked at AT&T is the main reason I
> > supplied
> >
> >
> > > on my first post. The DDoS attack issue is the main ticket here.
> >
> > The ACK storms arent coming from the 4chan servers
> > It's just like the DNS attack (IN/NS/.).  It points to the stupidity of
> > AT&T
> > uppers
> > SANS: Are you or arent you soliciting data?  I have some to confirm also
> >
> >
> >
> > > It's not
> > > because of content, or to piss people off. It's to protect their network,
> > as any
> >
> >
> > > of you would do when you got DDoSed on your own networks.
> >
> > They are going to get some first hand experience in what Protecting their
> > Network
> > involves real soon, now.  Blocking 4chan was an exercise in Stupidity
> >
> >
> >
> > > It's damage control,
> >
> > It's a damage challenge.
> >
> >
> >
> > > essentially, until they find out who is involved and block them, then
> > they'll
> >
> >
> > > likely lift the block.
> >
> > They don't have the right to do this.  Not in their
> > TOS/EULA/User-Agreement.
> >  Not in any sane legal forum.  (I*A*AL)
> >
> >
> >
> > > This ISN'T the first time this has happened.
> >
> > Exactly.
> >
> > Now you see the problem ?