Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Botnet Communications Security IT

Massive DDoS Cuts Myanmar Off From Net 149

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the haven't-they-suffered-enough dept.
Trailrunner7 writes "The nation of Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, found its access to the Internet severed by a massive denial of service attack, according to a report by Arbor Networks. The source or motivation of the attack isn't known, but it is believed that the distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks have targeted the country's Ministry of Post and Telecommunication (or PTT), the main conduit for Internet traffic in and out of the authoritarian nation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Massive DDoS Cuts Myanmar Off From Net

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 04, 2010 @01:01PM (#34126140)

    both of them.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by devbox (1919724)
      Ah, the usual ignorance. Like every other Asian nation, Myanmar too has a lot net cafes people go to. I'm currently traveling between Thailand, Cambodia, Myanmar and Laos and it's the same everywhere. And since one hour of computer use is usually charged less than half a dollar, it works great and if you want to you also have the usual multiplayer games you can play (along with cheap beer). It might actually be even better computer culture, since it's social activity and not just sitting alone at home.
      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        It might actually be even better computer culture, since it's social activity and not just sitting alone at home.

        Computer use in the presence of other people isn't any more social than reading a book in a room full of people. I take my netbook to the bar once in a while, and people are a distraction. If you want social interaction, go to a bar, church, or coffeehouse and leave the computer at home.

      • I am only 12 years old. What is this "social activity" you speak of?
  • I suspect Rambo.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by durrr (1316311)
      If the statistics from the latest rambo movie could be applied over a longer period of time it would take 38 years for rambo to kill the entire current population of Burma.
  • by ewhenn (647989) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @01:09PM (#34126222)
    ... will help them out.

    clever attempt at social engneering for more /dot effect! :P
  • by digitaldc (879047) * on Thursday November 04, 2010 @01:09PM (#34126226)
    Myanmar is what now?
  • Burma (Score:5, Informative)

    by owlnation (858981) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @01:10PM (#34126240)
    Since the U.S. (and many other countries) uses the name "Burma", due to not recognizing the Military Junta that currently rules this country, should /. not follow suit?

    Seems to me that if your country is ruled by a military junta, having your internet cut off is only to be expected. Being next door to China probably doesn't help.
    • Re:Burma (Score:5, Informative)

      by Canazza (1428553) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @01:13PM (#34126282)

      It's not based on country, merely the leanings of the people you work for that decide which name you give it. Yes, the UK and US generally go for Burma, but even in the UK some call it Myanmar.

      • Re:Burma (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ElectricTurtle (1171201) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @01:41PM (#34126704)
        As far as I'm concerned, Burma is simply the English name. Just like English speakers say 'France' or formally 'French Republic' instead of 'Republique Francaise', and the Germans call it 'Frankreich'. If people want to read a bunch of chauvinism into it that's their problem, but be sure to wag your finger at every other language that has different names for countries. And I expect you to start calling Norway 'Norge', Greece 'Hellas', Sweden 'Sverige', etc. etc. you politically correct twit.
        • by Timex (11710)

          In the same vein, "Germany" has no name (that I am aware of) in English that is remotely close to what the natives call it: Deutchland.

          So... Yeah. "Burma is the English name for that patch of land" works for me.

          • by takowl (905807)
            Well, we do refer to the Dutch. We just got a bit confused about where they come from. The people we call the Dutch call themselves Nederlanders.
            • To finish off that hopelessly confusing statement, the Dutch (who call themselves Nederlanders) come from a country which English-speaking people call the Netherlands, while the Pennsylvania Dutch (deutsch) actually came from Germany (Deutschland).

              • by vux984 (928602)

                To finish off that hopelessly confusing statement, the Dutch (who call themselves Nederlanders) come from a country which English-speaking people call the Netherlands

                Nope the confusion isn't remotely finished yet:

                Most of the english speaking people I know call the country the Dutch come from Holland.
                To ratchet up the confusion even further, Holland is a province in the Netherlands.

                • by mooingyak (720677)

                  And the Holland tunnel connects NYC to New Jersey.

                  • by PCM2 (4486)

                    And NYC was once called New Amsterdam, which is derived from the name of a Dutch city in Holland, the Netherlands. QED.

                    (BTW, the Dutch people I know refer to their home country as Holland; calling it the Netherlands is more formal, while if you're talking about your homeland it's Holland.)

                    • by vux984 (928602)

                      (BTW, the Dutch people I know refer to their home country as Holland; calling it the Netherlands is more formal, while if you're talking about your homeland it's Holland.)

                      Yes, but is that because the Dutch people you know are from the province Holland in the Netherlands? Or do -all- Dutch people tend to refer to the country as Holland even if they aren't from the Holland part?

                    • Technically speaking, Holland is a part of the Netherlands. The other parts actually don't care much for Holland being identified with the whole Netherlands.

                    • And NYC was once called New Amsterdam, which is derived from the name of a Dutch city in Holland, the Netherlands. QED.

                      (BTW, the Dutch people I know refer to their home country as Holland; calling it the Netherlands is more formal, while if you're talking about your homeland it's Holland.)

                      Seriously I think my head just exploded.

                    • by PCM2 (4486)

                      No, the friend I see most often is from Zeist, east of the city of Utrecht, and he most definitely calls the country Holland, all the time.

                    • by PCM2 (4486)

                      As I just replied to a previous poster, the friend I see most often is from Zeist, which is technically in the province of Utrecht, but he refers to the country as a whole as Holland, almost universally. Maybe that's because he learned English in schools that had a UK-centric view of Europe, but I dunno.

              • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

                by Anonymous Coward

                which English-speaking people call the Netherlands

                Either the Netherlands, or Holland, which just adds to the confusion, since two of the eleven provinces are called Noord Holland and Zuid Holland (north and south), and in general people from the other 9 provinces dont consider themselves hollanders, some will even take offence to the term...

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by bmo (77928)

                Actually, the Pennsylvania Dutch came from both the Low Countries (BENELUX) and Germany.

                "Even old New York was once New Amsterdam. Why they changed it I can't say. People just liked it better that way!" - TMBG

                --
                BMO

            • by sjames (1099)

              Except for the Pennsylvania Dutch whose ancestors came from Deutschland (Germany).

    • Since the U.S. (and many other countries) uses the name "Burma", due to not recognizing the Military Junta that currently rules this country, should /. not follow suit?

      Should the US government dictate what countries are called? Maybe we should ask the residents of Chinese Taipei.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by bhcompy (1877290)
        Who put "Made in Taiwan" on all their goods. Taipei is merely used so the Chinese won't have any more reason than they already have to take it back in to its busom, and nations go with it because China can fuck all your shit up no matter who you are.
    • Since the U.S. (and many other countries) uses the name "Burma", due to not recognizing the Military Junta that currently rules this country, should /. not follow suit?

      They decided to cave in just this once to everyone's demands about Slashdot users not being US centric.

      Don't worry, your polls will still be in inches and pounds.

    • Re:Burma (Score:5, Funny)

      by Orga (1720130) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @01:16PM (#34126332)
      The U.S.? You yourself use outdated names for nations. Please refer to the United Federation of Conglomerated Corporations properly.
    • by HiggsBison (678319)

      Q: Why did you say "Burma"?

      A: I panicked.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by e4g4 (533831)

      Since the U.S. (and many other countries) uses the name "Burma",
      due to not recognizing the Military Junta that currently rules this country,
      should /. not follow suit?

      Burma shave.

    • the trend is of countries previously under the thumb of european powers to reject their colonial names. for example, madras is now chennai, rhodesia is now zimbabwe, northwest territories is now nunavut, etc.

      it's a healthy trend, but in burma/ myanmar's specific case the renaming happened under a regime which can fairly be called more brutal than anything that happened under colonialism there. many burmese themselves reject the renaming for this very reason

      therefore you have the healthy desire to reject col

      • Re:Burma (Score:5, Informative)

        by clarkkent09 (1104833) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @01:31PM (#34126558)

        regime which can fairly be called more brutal than anything that happened under colonialism there.
         
        That's an understatement. From Wikipedia:
         
        Under British administration, Burma was the second-wealthiest country in South-East Asia. It had been the world's largest exporter of rice. During British administration, Burma supplied oil through the Burmah Oil Company. Burma also had a wealth of natural and labor resources. It produced 75% of the world's teak and had a highly literate population. The country was believed to be on the fast track to development.
        ...
        After a parliamentary government was formed in 1948, Prime Minister U Nu disastrously attempted to make Burma a welfare state and adopted central planning. Rice exports fell by two thirds and mineral exports by over 96%. Plans were partly financed by printing money, which led to inflation. The 1962 coup d'état was followed by an economic scheme called the Burmese Way to Socialism, a plan to nationalize all industries, with the exception of agriculture. The catastrophic program turned Burma into one of the world's most impoverished countries. Burma's admittance to Least Developed Country status by the UN in 1987 highlighted its economic bankruptcy.
        ...
        The economy is still rated as the least free in Asia (tied with North Korea). All fundamental market institutions are suppressed. Private enterprises are often co-owned or indirectly owned by state. The corruption watchdog organisation Transparency International in its 2007 Corruption Perceptions Index released on 26 September 2007 ranked Burma the most corrupt country in the world, tied with Somalia.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Kittenman (971447)

          Under British administration, Burma was the second-wealthiest country in South-East Asia. It had been the world's largest exporter of rice. During British administration, Burma supplied oil through the Burmah Oil Company. Burma also had a wealth of natural and labor resources. It produced 75% of the world's teak and had a highly literate population. The country was believed to be on the fast track to development. ... After a parliamentary government was formed in 1948, Prime Minister U Nu disastrously attempted to make Burma a welfare state and adopted central planning. Rice exports fell by two thirds and mineral exports by over 96%. Plans were partly financed by printing money, which led to inflation. The 1962 coup d'état was followed by an economic scheme called the Burmese Way to Socialism, a plan to nationalize all industries, with the exception of agriculture. The catastrophic program turned Burma into one of the world's most impoverished countries. Burma's admittance to Least Developed Country status by the UN in 1987 highlighted its economic bankruptcy. ... The economy is still rated as the least free in Asia (tied with North Korea). All fundamental market institutions are suppressed. Private enterprises are often co-owned or indirectly owned by state. The corruption watchdog organisation Transparency International in its 2007 Corruption Perceptions Index released on 26 September 2007 ranked Burma the most corrupt country in the world, tied with Somalia.

          Dare I say - an example of benevolent colonialism? It's not always bad, y'know. Check out Zimbabwe for another example of a country that's gone down the toilet since the Brits moved out.

      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        Is the brutal military junta not made out of former Burmese?

        I do not respect most of the US government, but I do not refer to it as the thirteen colonies.

    • by h4rr4r (612664)

      Or we could face reality and call it what it is, Myanmar.

      Claiming it ain't so is childish and does not change reality.

      • by mcgrew (92797) *

        It was called "Burma" when I was in Thailand in 1974. How about we stop calling cars "cars" and start calling them "franlobs"? It's the same damned thing. Burma isn't the new name, Myanmar is.

        • by mirix (1649853)

          You mean when you were in Siam? ;-)

          • by mcgrew (92797) *

            Oddly, the natives of Thailand call their country "Bangkok". So I have no idea why it was ever called "Siam" or "Thailand".

    • Re:Burma (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BrianRoach (614397) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @01:45PM (#34126760)

      Not to mention that it's amazingly coincidental that the internet goes away days before the first elections in 20 years.

      No election observers, no foreign journalists, no connection with internet. All signs point to the junta cutting off its people from the rest of the world.

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      US ignores
      Their new name
      Parent wants Slashdot
      To do the same.

      BURMA SHAVE!

    • As I understand it, the social/political situation is complicated, but you can view it as "Burma" refers to the people (and overthrown democratic government, long disappeared in practice), and "Myanmar" refers to the military rulers and government, and supporters. "Myanmar" is essentially still at war with "Burma" (most of the people still consider themselves Burmese) but it has stopped short of genocide.

      After the Boxing Day tsunami, Myanmar used soldiers to prevent aid workers from even attempting to he

  • "The source or motivation of the attack isn't known" ... "authoritarian nation." Take a wild guess for the motivation.
    • Anonymous: Operation BURMA SHAVE

      (hehehe)
      • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Ad campaign ... For users of razors ... You won't need to shave ... When I'M FIRIN' MAH LAZ0RZ ... /b/urma Shave

  • by Frosty Piss (770223) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @01:13PM (#34126290)

    Myanmar...

    According to Wikipedia, it's still called "Burma", not Myanmar.

    • by rakuen (1230808) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @01:17PM (#34126356) Homepage
      Yes, it says Burma for the article title. Then directly after it, on the first line, it says it is officially the "Republic of the Union of Myanmar." Not to mention Myanmar redirects to the article.
      • Yes, it says Burma for the article title. Then directly after it...

        Read the discussion of the name issue on the article's discussion page, and you'll see the point I didn't make too well...

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Attacks sent / to Myanmar / Have no internet / Near and far / Burma-Shave

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by corbettw (214229)

      Why'd they change it? Did people just like it better that way?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by coolsnowmen (695297)

      USA, in a pro-democracy stance, still officially recognize it as Burma because ruling military of Burma declared it Myanmar and refused to allow the democratically elected government to take power (1989).

      • by h4rr4r (612664)

        You call it pro-democracy I call it anti-reality. Pretending it never happened is not a way to solve anything.

        • by timster (32400)

          "Reality"? That's a bit of a stretch. Who decides what a country is "really" called? You're just going to accept the decisions of whoever has the most guns?

          • by blair1q (305137)

            Who decides what a country is "really" called? You're just going to accept the decisions of whoever has the most guns?

            That's usually how it's done.

          • by h4rr4r (612664)

            Yeah, that is the traditional method.

  • by Thaxll (1934874)
    15Gps takes down a 48M country. Impressive.
  • Burma? (Score:5, Funny)

    by CompMD (522020) on Thursday November 04, 2010 @01:25PM (#34126480)

    DDoS
    Problems?

    Script
    Kiddies

    Punch 'em
    Out

    Burma
    Shave

    • by d474 (695126)
      Yeah, it just wouldn't sound the same if it ended with "Myanmar Shave".
    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      In Myanmar
      through nerd's obsession
      DDoS hits
      gone are your sessions
      Burma-Shave.

  • I guess now we wont know when the end of the world will be,
    as we no longer have online access to the Myanmarian calendar.....
    or was that mayan, i get those 2 confused all the time....

  • Brilliant (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    "Hey guys, I just got a great idea. How about we make a statement to the most authoritarian and oppressive government on the face of the Earth?"

    "I like it. What do you have in mind?"

    "Here's what we're going to do. We're going to cut off the entire country from the most democratic medium on the planet and the best source for the free flow of information. We'll kill their internet connection!"

    "Kill the free flow of information to an authoritarian nation? Brilliant! I'm sure the people of Burma will really app

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Tr3vin (1220548)
      In a place like Burma, the normal citizens are not accessing any form of the Internet. The people of Burma would really appreciate having control of their own country, or maybe food. The Internet is pretty far down on the list.
  • (there should be a ? at the end; why are Slashdot subjects so short?)

    Maybe the Burmese junta had some deal with the Chinese military and/or Chinese organized crime and stiffed them?

    Is it opium extract season?

  • Maybe its a test run before they strike second or first world countries.
  • Seriously. /. is supposed to be full of net wonks and we get this pissy pile of subthreads about the name of the place?

    There were 71 posts when I came in. You all should have found the h4xx0rz by now.

  • In related news, the junta uses the DDOS as an excuse to extend Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest by another decade.

You are in a maze of UUCP connections, all alike.

Working...