Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Security

QAnon/8Chan Sites Back Online After Being Ousted By DDoS-Protection Vendor (arstechnica.com) 211

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: A few dozen QAnon and 8chan-related sites were knocked offline temporarily yesterday when a DDoS-protection vendor disabled their access, according to an article by security reporter Brian Krebs. The websites [...] are connected to the Internet via the US-based ISP VanwaTech, which in turn "had a single point of failure on its end," Krebs wrote. "The swath of Internet addresses serving the various 8kun/QAnon sites were being protected from otherwise crippling and incessant distributed-denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks by Hillsboro, Ore. based CNServers LLC."

That changed yesterday when security researcher Ron Guilmette called CNServers, which apparently didn't realize it was providing security protection to the websites. "Within minutes of that call, CNServers told its customer -- Spartan Host Ltd., which is registered in Belfast, Northern Ireland -- that it would no longer be providing DDoS protection for the set of 254 Internet addresses that Spartan Host was routing on behalf of VanwaTech," Krebs wrote. Those 254 addresses included the few dozen related to QAnon and 8chan, which is now known as 8kun. The websites didn't remain offline for long because Spartan Host quickly "changed its settings so that VanwaTech's Internet addresses were protected from attacks by ddos-guard[.]net, a company based in St. Petersburg, Russia," Krebs wrote.
"VanwaTech CEO Nick Lim in November 2019 defended his company's role in keeping 8kun websites online, writing on Twitter, 'I do what I do because I truly believe in free speech and I believe in protecting people from cyber security attacks,'" adds Ars Technica.

Spartan Host founder Ryan McCully told Krebs yesterday that he intends to keep VanwaTech as a customer. "We follow the 'law of the land' when deciding what we allow to be hosted with us, with some exceptions to things that may cause resource issues etc.," McCully told Krebs. "Just because we host something, it doesn't say anything about [what] we do and don't support; our opinions don't come into hosted content decisions."

Further reading: Is QAnon an 8Chan Game Gone Wrong?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

QAnon/8Chan Sites Back Online After Being Ousted By DDoS-Protection Vendor

Comments Filter:
  • by t00le ( 136364 ) on Monday October 19, 2020 @10:58PM (#60627100)

    Seems like a pretty good match. Now Russia can have direct access to the adrenochrome factory conspiracy mill to feed our textbook example of a collapsed education system some new things to worry about.... film at eleven?

  • by GustovVonSteinberg ( 6461488 ) on Monday October 19, 2020 @11:36PM (#60627160)
    It's about the underlying fundamental principals. Are you for free speech, or against it. People who are against the principals of free speech need to be aggressively stamped out. They can be shipped off to whatever authoritarian shithole they feel suits them best, they simply do not belong in America. Or really any western democracy for that matter. It's sad that there's people who think like Ron Guilmette apparently does, people who throw away their entire system of values because they hear frightening propaganda about the horrible posts of qanon. Qanon is the least of our worries. This new age of censorship and what will likely be an americanized corporate version of the Chinese social credit system is the brave new world we should be watching out for.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      We'll see what you think about this particular kind of free speech the next time you're at a crowded theater and someone decides, for fun, to start shouting "RUN! HE'S GOT A GUN!!!". Bastards are killing more people than swatters, and not being held accountable for it.
    • You know how political campaigns ask if they can put a sign up in your front lawn? Can the KKK put their sign in your front lawn?

      Jackasses can say jackass stuff and it shouldn't be up to Washington politicians to decide what's okay for you to say.

      It is, however, up to you which messages you host on your lawn. It's up to me what I host. It was also my decision what to host on my servers when I had my hosting companies. David Duke and Malik Zulu Shabazz can say what they will; I'm not going to help them, t

      • A front lawn can be bought by a vast amount of people though, internet expression in the modern day can only be bought from a tiny amount of CDNs which costs billions to erect thanks to the Built for DDOS nature of the internet.

        When speech costs billions freedom is a bit of a misnomer.

        • I think you are going to be very surprised when you learn what free speech actually is.

        • A front lawn can be bought by a vast amount of people though, internet expression in the modern day can only be bought from a tiny amount of CDNs which costs billions to erect thanks to the Built for DDOS nature of the internet.

          Your right to free speech does not include mandatory protection from some private 3rd party (there are other laws for that)
          Your request for protection services does not impinge the service owner's right to decide whether they want to do business with you (the exception being protected classes).

          The same goes anywhere. Your right to free speech does not prevent someone from coming up and breaking your jaw because you spouted hateful bullshit while standing on the street. There are other laws for that. Speech

          • I'm not talking about laws and rights. I'm simply pointing out that the internet in practice has become broken, there is a very small oligopoly gate keeping the modern internet.

            Not as much freedom any more as in the past, it ain't what she used to be.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        I think more and more the internet is getting politically entrenched into little corners, little groups in their own bubbles of groupthink that rarely interact with each other in any meaningful way, and are increasing radicalized and aggressive towards each other, and it's not just the internet, it's journalism, and the whole media in general which is falling into this. And the thing is no one even realizes their in a bubble, or that they've been radicalized. The guy who wants to take down 8kun can see th
        • it's journalism, and the whole media in general which is falling into this.

          Yep. I forget if it was Stephen Colbert or John Oliver who demonstrated the issue very clearly.

          They had someone giving a climate change denial, then invited in 100 scientists to talk over him.

          The point was that when the media gives fringe beliefs equal footing with facts at a table during a broadcast, they create an equality where there isn't one. Most of the media is guilty of this. They want to seem fair and impartial, so they let each side have equal time and equal representation. But that's not being fa

      • It is, however, up to you which messages you host on your lawn. It's up to me what I host. It was also my decision what to host on my servers when I had my hosting companies.

        Sure that's fair as long as you are taking legal responsibility for all of the messages you are hosting on your lawn.

        The problem is that web hosts and site operators are not held liable for the messages on their platform due to section 230 of the CDA. They have legal protection from those messages and with that comes the duty not to exercise editorial control of the messages in that space.

        • Let me see if I understand you correctly:
          If you can't go to jail for the message, you can't stop the KKK from putting it there. Correct?

          Because we have the first amendment, you can't be jailed for the sign in your yard.
          Therefore you have no right to keep your yard free of KKK signs.

          I disagree.

          I don't think that "you won't be held legally culpable for the message" necessarily means "you should be forced to assist in spreading the message".

          • You missed the whole point of my post. A website isn't like your yard at all. Your yard doesn't have the same legal protections and you don't advertise that anyone can go post signs there.

            On top of that, the analogy of your yard is flawed in that the landscape is different between physical real estate and the internet. The internet is multiple layers of privately owned spaces and services with no equivalent to public roads and town squares. So there is no open forum for free speech on the internet unles

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Kisai ( 213879 )

      The thing is Qanon was entirely fictitious, but people started taking it seriously. It's like how all cults start. First it's a joke, then people start believing the poison they've been drinking is good for them.

      Like I'm all for free-speech except when the line between fiction and fact is blurred. We all think Flat-earther's are a joke, yet they exist, and not in the jokey-joke way that the media thinks they are.

      Entertainment media exists to "take down a notch" stupid ideas, politicians and politics. There

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Kiuas ( 1084567 )

        It's like how all cults start. First it's a joke, then people start believing the poison they've been drinking is good for them.

        That's the really scary part of all of this. Trump is a cult leader: he's an egomaniacal narcissist that lies pathologically and openly about verifiable facts, discredits and disputes experts and calls everyone else a liar while doing nothing to actually help or lead. He's just i it for himself.

        Like he has done nothing but downplay the virus, blame its spread on everyone else, whil

        • If one made a movie with a Trump-like president leading the US 10 or 20 years ago and told people 'this will be the situation in 2020' nearly no-one would have believed it.

          Someone did [imdb.com].

        • Biden's first order of business should be to reinstate the individual mandate fines and tell all the people who don't get a subsidized gold plan they are much better off and that disagreeing means they are stupid.

          It will work out well this time, promise.

          • PS. I know his own plan actually intends to provide gold plans with percentage of income caps for everyone, which I think is a good idea. Reinstating the fines before that plan is in place is however a really good way to throw away congress majorities and not because republicans vote against their own interests.

        • All that theoretical bs and not a sentence to say about the role of so called 'working class party'.

        • Horrible as the guy is, he's a symptom, not a cause.

          He's both. It's like when one illness depresses your immune system and makes you vulnerable to other illnesses. People who believe Trump's bullshit become more vulnerable to believing bullshit, because they've become used to it.

          • Trump's opposition can stand in front of a burning building and tell us it's a "mostly peaceful protest", that riots are "just a myth", that noone is identifying as Antifa and burning flags and destroying statues and trying to burn down courthouses.

            The left will deny that their own shit even stinks. They're even less trustworthy than Trump is, and we're supposed to believe them when they say the censorship is for our own good.

        • Dang, now I'm voting for him twice.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        The problem with the US, and other countries gripped by populism, is that people have abandoned the very concept of truth and evaluating arguments on their merits.

        Take today's statement from the Trump Campaign:

        President Trump is committed to debating Joe Biden regardless of last-minute rule changes from the biased commission in their latest attempt to provide advantage to their favored candidate

        They are talking about the Commission for Presidential Debates deciding to mute the candidate's mics when it's not their turn to speak. They avoid addressing the issue and instead spin a conspiracy theory about the Commission being biased against them and helping Biden. That's how they want people to

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Entrope ( 68843 )

          The guy who was supposed to be the last moderator was an intern for Biden before going into journalism, who lied about seeking anti-Trump advice on Twitter and got suspended over it. The upcoming moderator tipped off Hillary's campaign about an interview question in 2016, after celebrating Christmas with the Obamas in 2012, and comes from a family that has given buckets of money to Democrats.

          That committee decided to delegate the choice of debate topics to the moderators. The debate moderators broke with

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            I'm sure whoever they selected you could dig up some dirt on. More interested to know if you have any specific complaints about their performance on the night.

            • by Entrope ( 68843 )

              The first debate moderator was supposedly not biased, but interrupted Trump five times as often as Biden -- and allowed Biden to interrupt Trump, while not vice versa. When one of the debaters has to tell the moderator "I guess I am debating you, not him, but thatâ(TM)s okay Iâ(TM)m not surprised", that indicates a real problem with the moderation.

              Team Biden ran away from the second debate, and the moderator for that one disqualified himself on Twitter and then transparently lied about it.

              What ki

          • You're arguing that a dumpster fire didn't get fair treatment?

            God, what did they feed you folks. At some point you just need to accept reality and call a spade a spade.

          • it is a pathetic attempt to dodge responsibility.

            Boy you must really hate Trump if those minor Biden issues got you so worked up. Or ... I'm just guessing ... you have double standards?

      • by schwit1 ( 797399 )

        QANON a cult?
        It has no leader
        Asks you to make up your own mind on facts
        Wants you to interact with the outside world to do research
        You can leave any time without penalty

        Isn't that the exact opposite of a cult?

        • QANON a cult?

          The campaign for censorship is being ratcheted up, and "white supremacists" was already played on the Proud Boys, the other pro-Trump crowd. "Cult" is as good an excuse for deplatforming by their standards as any.

      • Then Jeffrey Epstein happened, with pictures of 2 of our last 4 presidents, 1 of whom flew multiple times on the Lolita express. But if you thought that was weird, it only gets worse from there. After getting taken into custody, he winds up dead in a maximum security cell block with non-functioning cameras.

        It's like that time a guy who worked in the White House ends up committing suicide in a park but the FLOTAS is allowed to clean up his office. You think to yourself surely there was somebody else

    • Yes by all means let's protect disinformation. Give me a fucking break.
      • Yes by all means let's protect disinformation. Give me a fucking break.

        Which is it? Do you want to censor obvious disinformation on internet sites? If so, why don't we start with this shit?

        Don't forget to vote for Biden on Nov 3, or Trump on Nov 4.

        Oh. That's different.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The guy says he believes in protecting people from cyberattacks, but hosts the site where many cyberattacks are organized and controlled from.

      If he really cared about free speech he wouldn't be helping them supress it.

    • by serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @04:22AM (#60627512) Journal

      It's about the underlying fundamental principals. Are you for free speech, or against it. People who are against the principals of free speech need to be aggressively stamped out.

      You're saying that people who say the wrong free speech things need to be aggressively stamped out.

      Free speech cuts both ways, people can use it to say things YOU find harmful, including criticising free speech.

      They can be shipped off to whatever authoritarian shithole they feel suits them best, they simply do not belong in America.

      So what you're saying is you need to repeal the first amendment so anyone using their free speech wrong can be arrested and exiled. Do you not see the irony there?

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Using free speech to undermine free speech is not free speech.

          It is absolutely free speech. Dangerous speech, but then again so is advocating genocide. Do you count the latter as free speech?

      • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @09:52AM (#60628292)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

          Free speech is more than "say whatever you want", it's a value system that includes it's defense in it.

          Yes, it's defense from government-imposed controls upon speech. Freedom of speech was never freedom from private consequences [brookings.edu]. That's why freedom of speech includes editorial control over what speech is expressed through your private outlet. That's why freedom of speech includes the freedom to engage in sometimes scathing criticism of others' speech.

          Freedom of speech is freedom from the government dicta

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
            • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

              No, don't confuse the first amendment and freedom of speech (the idea). Freedom of speech was so important for the founding fathers that they made it into the first amendment as a safety net against government censorship.

              I'm not confusing the two. I've made a clear distinction between them. The former is broader than the latter, but not nearly so much broader as you think.

              They could not envision big corporations owning our communications,

              But they could envision presses, which were rare, and for hire, and

            • by ChoGGi ( 522069 )

              They could not envision big corporations owning our communications, along with governments colliding with them for censorship

              We've had newspapers long before the first amendment, one of the first newspapers was shutdown by the government of the time.

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
            • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

              About abolishing democracy, I was talking about voting to abolish the right to vote.

              Show me a right to vote apart from the ones that I mentioned in connection with Federal elections. Then tell me how they can't be amended out of the Constitution. Hell, the only right to vote in the original constitution was for landowning white males for U.S. Representatives.

              Of course you can, but it's self defeating to be SO pro democracy, that you support using democracy to abolish itself, isn't it?

              Who said anything abo

    • by truedfx ( 802492 )

      People who are against the principals of free speech need to be aggressively stamped out.

      That is pretty clearly denying them their freedom of speech.

    • Perhaps you should actually read the bill of rights and constitution. I'll get you started with how freedom of speech works.

      Congress shall make no law...

    • people go out looking for more stuff they can find that's offensive to them. We should be taking the opposite approach. Instead of trying to be less offensive we should try to be more offenseive.

      Quoting something you said not long ago, seems fitting now that the subject is free speech.

      Stop being too sensitive about being called racist. Quit looking for more stuff that offends you, like bigot, because you're one of those too. Don't be offended. #freespeech

    • People who are against the principals of free speech need to be aggressively stamped out

      I really think that stamping down N4zis or violent people is a higher priority, even if it causes some violations of freedom of speech.

  • by illafam ( 2946401 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @12:14AM (#60627216)
    ISPâ(TM)s.. Social Media Companies.. DDOS providers should not be catching flack for this. What if qanon was to rebrand itself as satire news like the onion? Every time I read a comment saying this is a good thing I get a creepy feeling up my spine.. like we need isps and Twitter fact checking information.. Twitter needs to be the judge of what clime change science is correct? Sounds like a bad precedent to be setting. We the people are losing out freedom of speech/expression because politicians and governments can not behave.
    • What if qanon was to rebrand itself as satire news like the onion?

      Wait what? They are serious?

      Sounds like a bad precedent to be setting. We the people are losing out freedom of speech/expression because politicians and governments can not behave.

      Not really, your right to free speech extends only as far as someone else's. Be that online or in the street. I'm reminded of a funny youtube video from Scotland where street preacher was spouting hate and bullshit. So some kid got out some bagpipes, sat down next to him and played until the preacher left the square. That's not censorship, that's free speech.

      No one should be forced to host or support speech they don't agree with, be that actually publicly support it, offer servic

    • If corporations spending dollars is a valid form of political speech, then so is users sending packets.

  • McCully told Krebs. "Just because we host something, it doesn't say anything about [what] we do and don't support; our opinions don't come into hosted content decisions."

    It absolutely does say what you do and don't support - your clients matter and what they do matters as well. If you are willing to work with conspiracy theorists in the vapid name of "free speech" then I can see your company has no moral compass, ethics, or values - only a focus on profit. You are not a public gas station, or grocery st

    • > You are not a public gas station, or grocery store - you have contracts, meaning you choose who you work with. I suggest you choose better.

      Web hosting/ddos is certainly a public accommodation. As soon as you start making editorial decisions, you lose S.230.

      You'd be a fool to drop people on political grounds. Who cares what kinds of fanfic they like or religious ideas they have. It's America.

      Also, Krebs just lost most of his credibility in my mind.

      • Web hosting/ddos is certainly a public accommodation. As soon as you start making editorial decisions, you lose S.230.

        No, you explicitly do not. That was a lie, and you are a liar. There is NO PROVISION for losing protections under S.230 of the CDA.

        You'd be a fool to drop people on political grounds.

        I'd be a fool to believe anything you say.

    • by Saffaya ( 702234 ) on Tuesday October 20, 2020 @07:17AM (#60627810)

      If you believe in free speech only when it suits you, then it is you who are totally devoid of a moral compass.

      " I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" Voltaire.

      I myself have a scientific background and I cannot even entertain the idea of restricting the speech of earthflaters.
      Suppression of dissent is totally alien to the scientific method.

      • I'm guessing you know this, since it's impossible to make it to adulthood without hearing the classic "Fire in a crowded theater" example. Free speech does not mean consequence free speech and it doesn't mean unlimited access to other people's property for your shit posts.
        • "Fire in a crowded theater" example. Free speech does not mean consequence free speech

          Which has less to do about Voltaire's expressed desire to defend the marketplace of ideas, and more with leftists abandoning the principles of liberalism in favor of enforcing their own ideology at the expense of all others.

      • I myself have a scientific background and I cannot even entertain the idea of restricting the speech of earthflaters.

        But I guess you would defend the freedom of others to chose not to associate with earthflaters by providing them DDoS protection for some private tussle between the earthflatters and the earthrounders?

        Free speech includes freedom of association. You can be in favour of free speech while being completely against promoting the speech you disagree with.

        Suppression of dissent is totally alien to the scientific method.

        This isn't a scientific question, it's societal. Science's abstinence in this field can be considered as a contributing factor to kids actually dying of measles

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • If you believe in free speech, then you should defend the rights of people who advocate in abolishing it!

      Yes. Because if force can be used to muzzle them, then force can in turn be used to muzzle me. The playing field should be kept level, and ideas will stand on their own merits.

      If you believe in democracy, then you should allow a referendum to abolish democracy!

      Because it would be tyranny otherwise.

      Free speech is a critical tenet of democracy, as well as an informed electorate. Undermining free speech ultimately undermines democracy.

      The corporate class and authoritarians alike fully realize now that they must act as gatekeepers to the online public square, in order to preserve their own power and influence and protection for being able to commit injustice.

      Eventually after all the low hanging fruit is plucked, their shills wil

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Working...