Most Popular
| Top Stories | Commented | Featured |
ATI Radeon HD 5570 Review featured
AMD's six-core Thuban to have feature like Turbo Boost?
Google to launch Twitter-like service for Gmail
Intel unveils Itanium 9300 series enterprise processors
Netflix to roll out 1080p streaming later this year
China closes major hacker ring, arrests three members
Sharp and Samsung end LCD patent suits with cross-licensing agreement
Industry News
MediaDefender attacks Revision3 with DoS attack
I read this story today and was almost taken aback. After reading through the entire article it seemed too good (or bad) to be true, but apparently MediaDefender, who has been covered here multiple times, has recently been caught doing some very naughty (and downright illegal) things. Revision3 suffered a massive denial of service attack over the Memorial Day weekend, one that was targeted at their Bittorrent tracking service. While the attack was focused on Bittorrent, it ended up depriving Revision3 of effectively all their services – including email.
After some investigations on their part, Revision3 discovered that the culprit was MediaDefender, who had initiated a SYN flood attack on their servers after Revision3 patched up a security hole. The hole was being exploited by MediaDefender to inject bad torrents into their system. What makes the story especially interesting is that Revision3 is not a haven for pirates – they use their torrent system to distribute their own, very much legal, content. So what, exactly, was MediaDefender “Defending” people from?
Good question – MediaDefender claims that it was more or less Revision3's fault for patching the security hole, which made their own “automated systems” go berserk. Intentional or not, a company that is already known for using sleazy tactics to achieve their goals has now been caught doing something that is usually affiliated with scum anyway. It's a great read.
After some investigations on their part, Revision3 discovered that the culprit was MediaDefender, who had initiated a SYN flood attack on their servers after Revision3 patched up a security hole. The hole was being exploited by MediaDefender to inject bad torrents into their system. What makes the story especially interesting is that Revision3 is not a haven for pirates – they use their torrent system to distribute their own, very much legal, content. So what, exactly, was MediaDefender “Defending” people from?
Good question – MediaDefender claims that it was more or less Revision3's fault for patching the security hole, which made their own “automated systems” go berserk. Intentional or not, a company that is already known for using sleazy tactics to achieve their goals has now been caught doing something that is usually affiliated with scum anyway. It's a great read.
Related Stories
User Comments (3)
Post a comment| phantasm66 on May 30, 2008 1:56 AM | ...and yet when 22 kids are arrested for "vandalism"
motivated hacking they face potential jail
time? [link] Med iaDefender are taking the law into their own hands. Thats a very dangerous game to start playing.
|
| phantasm66 on May 30, 2008 1:57 AM | You may remember a couple of months ago anti-piracy
group MediaDefender was caught working (possibly alongside
the MPAA) on a secret website, called Miivi.com, with the
sole purpose of tricking people into uploading and
downloading copyrighted material, and busting them for it.
While downloaded files were real, a program said to "speed"
downloads would secretly track people's activity and report
back to MediaDefender.
[link] That's entrapment. Is that even legal?
|
| Loquacious1 on May 30, 2008 3:52 PM | Let the games begin! Hope Revision3 sues the pants off them
for this blunder because they more than deserve it. The
nerve of some people. They dare blame Revision3 for patching
a security hole in their own system! Wonder how berserk
their so called 'automated system' went and how many will
now locate their sneaking into places they have no right
thanks to this discovery. Great wake up call
folks. BTW, entrapment is done by police not private citizens. What I'd question is if they could use such tactics to prove intent on the part of the down loader to obtain copyrighted content and/or prior knowledge/understanding that it was. Think this might depend on language used on the secret site for the most part.
|
TechSpot RSS



