Richard Irving wrote:
Hrmm.. This sunday am I logged into www.nytimes.com,
and got an unusual front page. Someone may want to take
a look......
Looks like the classical underconfigured/overloaded server to me. They were
probably running with not much spare capacity before, or didn't configure the
correct number of listening processes (or enough RAM to handle them).
Possibly a SYN attack. But on this date, more likely a demand "attack".
This is not unusual when you consider the total capacity is ultimately
determined by the suits.
FYI, I had no trouble pulling it from icreport.loc.gov. I got it in the
evening, which would have been the 2nd demand curve for the day. So server
capacity there was enough to deliver it in that probably broader hump. But
maybe the masses, who normally go checking news sites and wouldn't recognize
a .gov site as even being an Internet thing, were clobbering places like
www.nytimes.com. Even www.cnn.com seemed kinda slow to me.
Actually they were hacked by a group calling themselves HFG. The correct
website was restored several times only to be overwritten by the hacked
version minutes later. The hacked page talked about cron jobs, I imagine
they hacked one in to keep putting the hacked web page up.
Looks like they finally gave up and took down the server to fix it.
What I think you missed is that shortly after I received this post (and
looked at the NYTimes web site) they corrected the problem which caused the
original post.
www.nytimes.com got hacked. If you missed it, and feel the urge to check it
out, I made a mirror of it at http://www.megacity.org/hacked_nytimes/ ... I
don't plan to keep it more than a few days I suspect (I'm not one of those
hacked-website collectors like some places *grin*), but I kept it for
posterity of those who might want to check it out.
D
Richard Irving wrote:
Hrmm.. This sunday am I logged into www.nytimes.com,
and got an unusual front page. Someone may want to take
a look......
Looks like the classical underconfigured/overloaded server to me. They were
probably running with not much spare capacity before, or didn't configure the
correct number of listening processes (or enough RAM to handle them).
Possibly a SYN attack. But on this date, more likely a demand "attack".
This is not unusual when you consider the total capacity is ultimately
determined by the suits.
FYI, I had no trouble pulling it from icreport.loc.gov. I got it in the
evening, which would have been the 2nd demand curve for the day. So server
capacity there was enough to deliver it in that probably broader hump. But
maybe the masses, who normally go checking news sites and wouldn't recognize
a .gov site as even being an Internet thing, were clobbering places like
www.nytimes.com. Even www.cnn.com seemed kinda slow to me.
--
Phil Howard | stop7it2@anyplace.edu die7spam@spammer0.com
stop0ads@spammer5.org
phil | a2b8c2d0@s1p8a2m2.edu stop9it3@anyplace.com
stop8303@spam4mer.org
at | no45ads1@lame3ads.org eat2this@dumbads5.net
stop6629@anywhere.net
ipal | end1ads8@s2p4a6m3.edu ads8suck@anyplace.com
stop0549@no9place.com
dot | blow3me9@anyplace.com no29ads0@anywhere.net
stop1694@no71ads2.net
net | stop4688@s5p9a1m1.net end0it82@no2where.com
end1it08@no0place.edu
For HFG always check document source for previous hacked sites and their
"hidden" agenda. Also it gives a clue that they are not 15 year old high
school kids as their CAPs and number/character alterations attempt to
deceive. -Hank
What I think you missed is that shortly after I received this post (and
looked at the NYTimes web site) they corrected the problem which caused the
original post.
www.nytimes.com got hacked. If you missed it, and feel the urge to check it
out, I made a mirror of it at http://www.megacity.org/hacked_nytimes/ ... I
don't plan to keep it more than a few days I suspect (I'm not one of those
hacked-website collectors like some places *grin*), but I kept it for
posterity of those who might want to check it out.
D
>Richard Irving wrote:
>
>> Hrmm.. This sunday am I logged into www.nytimes.com,
>> and got an unusual front page. Someone may want to take
>> a look......
>
>Looks like the classicalunderconfigured/overloaded server to me. They were
>probably running with not much spare capacity before, or didn't configure the
>correct number of listening processes (or enough RAM to handle them).
>
>Possibly a SYN attack. But on this date, more likely a demand "attack".
>
>This is not unusual when you consider the total capacity is ultimately
>determined by the suits.
>
>FYI, I had no trouble pulling it from icreport.loc.gov. I got it in the
>evening, which would have been the 2nd demand curve for the day. So server
>capacity there was enough to deliver it in that probably broader hump. But
>maybe the masses, who normally go checking news sites and wouldn't recognize
>a .gov site as even being an Internet thing, were clobbering places like
>www.nytimes.com. Even www.cnn.com seemed kinda slow to me.
>
>--
>Phil Howard | stop7it2@anyplace.edu die7spam@spammer0.com
stop0ads@spammer5.org
> phil | a2b8c2d0@s1p8a2m2.edu stop9it3@anyplace.com
stop8303@spam4mer.org
> at | no45ads1@lame3ads.org eat2this@dumbads5.net
stop6629@anywhere.net
> ipal | end1ads8@s2p4a6m3.edu ads8suck@anyplace.com
stop0549@no9place.com
> dot | blow3me9@anyplace.com no29ads0@anywhere.net
stop1694@no71ads2.net
> net |stop4688@s5p9a1m1.net end0it82@no2where.com
end1it08@no0place.edu
Hank Nussbacher