Well, the thing is they don't say 'How' they're going to do it. Which means there is nearly nothing that can be done to prevent it. For all we know, they've got vans parked across the street from each one loaded with a HERF weapon. (which would make sense given the name)Worgen said:Ultimately I think this is a bad idea. I mean we know about it now and why they want to but unless people can easily understand why it happens then they will just assume the worst and treat it as such, the reason the website blackouts were effective is they told people why it was happening and gave them an easy link to their reps.
First, they would be shutting down the HTTP aspect of the internet, there's more to it than just the websites most people are familiar with see. If they are tech savy enough to do what they say they will, they will know how to communicate through the other channels.TitanAura said:I am seriously doubting the authenticity of this threat. Seeing as how ANYONE can claim to be anonymous, it doesn't mean the entire collective is for shutting THEMSELVES down. Why in the hell would you attempt to shut down the collective's ability to communicate with one another? How would they know when Operation Blackout is over if there is no set date?
Not only that, but anonymous usually has a habit of claiming credit for an attack *after they've already done it.*
weirdguy said:my god, we'll have to resort to ip addresses
actually i don't really know how this thing works anyway
Simply entering IP addresses may work for some websites, but will not work for all. Many websites do not have a dedicated IP to call their own. Instead, they share that IP with other sites--or even subdomains of the same site. In this case, entering the IP address will either get you an error or a generic page that is none of these sites, or forwarded to whatever is the default site on that server.Kapol said:In theory, it should be possible to connect to a website via entering their IP address instead of the domain name. That should create a direct connection if I'm not mistaken, bypassing the DNS altogether and allowing you to connect. But I'm not entirely sure.
Right, I was actually looking into that and just found the fact IP addresses are often shared out. But I was actually looking into finding out all the IPs of websites I would want to visit, just in case, when I found that out. I'm actually studying CNS right now, but most of what I'm doing is with setting up the routers and routes, not dealing with the DNS quite yet.evilneko said:weirdguy said:my god, we'll have to resort to ip addresses
actually i don't really know how this thing works anywaySimply entering IP addresses may work for some websites, but will not work for all. Many websites do not have a dedicated IP to call their own. Instead, they share that IP with other sites--or even subdomains of the same site. In this case, entering the IP address will either get you an error or a generic page that is none of these sites, or forwarded to whatever is the default site on that server.Kapol said:In theory, it should be possible to connect to a website via entering their IP address instead of the domain name. That should create a direct connection if I'm not mistaken, bypassing the DNS altogether and allowing you to connect. But I'm not entirely sure.
Besides, you gonna remember to go note down the IPs of all the sites you visit? ;p
There is however a way ISPs could make such a short attack meaningless: increase the cache and TTL values on their own DNS, so that they don't have to go to the root servers.
You too can run your own DNS server, or just a plain DNS cache. Look up TreeWalk or AnalogX FastCache for Windows. If you run linux, you probably already know what to look up.
Bob_F_It said:And the people of Anonymous shoot themselves in the foot AGAIN, because quite frankly this doesn't spread a message; quite the opposite - it stems the flow of information, and people will not know what the fuss is about unless the news tells them.
I've had bind running on my linux box for a few years now.Kapol said:Might have to look into the running my own DNS server just a precaution though.
Yeah, it did, and was originally put forward by the NSA, not anonymous, but I'm dying to see if someone does it anyway.wintercoat said:Didn't this already get denied on Twitter and Facebook by Anonymous? Coulda sworn this first came out last month or so, and they already said it's just some fuckwit using the name Anonymous to get more attention.
100% this. If (and I doubt they will anyway) do this, it will just provide as much ammo as angry middle-aged politicians need to ensure that the internet turns into some police enforced hell-hole. They seem to forgot that if it was Al-Queda or Iran threatening to do this, people WOULD be calling it terrorism, yet they want us to label them as crusaders for internet freedom.Bobic said:That's it, they have officially moved into the realms of internet terrorism. We don't like what a specific group is doing so we're going to attack everyone regardless of how related to the offending party they are or even if they are against them.
Of course, saying that would make them feel good, so I'll go back to referring to them as being on the same level as angsty teenagers breaking glass windows and tearing down posters thinking that makes them 'hardcore'.