Talk:Artists Against 419

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Flash Mob attacks are DDoS attacks.

This should be rewritten since a flash mob going to the site for no reason other than to consume bandwidth and quota limits is a form of denial of service since they are not "legitimate users". The differences between this and most DDoS attacks are that they are doing it manually and that they are doing it for "a good cause." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.212.30.130 (talk • contribs).

It is not a denial of service attack. A denial of service attack attempts to crash the server and all sites hosted on it. A flash mob consumes a single site's monthly bandwidth quota and does not affect any other websites. Mahahahaneapneap 17:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

From Denial of service -

DoS attacks have two general forms:

• Force the victim computer(s) to reset or consume its resources such that it can no longer provide its intended service.
• Obstruct the communication media between the intended users and the victim in such that they can no longer communicate adequately. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.212.30.130 (talk • contribs).

http://wiki.aa419.org/index.php/DDoS_disclaimer Mahahahaneapneap 09:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

From a SearchSecurity link to a DoS definition: http://searchappsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid92_gci213591,00.html - "On the Internet, a denial of service (DoS) attack is an incident in which a user or organization is deprived of the services of a resource they would normally expect to have." Later clarification does not qualify that it is required for a webserver to stop responding for it to be a DoS, only that typically this is the result. Despite what the group claims, from the definition of DoS listed on Wiki and at this other security website, AA419 commits a DoS when it causes the site to consume its resources such that it can no longer provide its intended service, Obstruct the communication media and the criminal is deprived of the services of a resource they would normally expect to have. AA419 is not the law and it is not a web host. Therefore, its actions are a form of vigilante action, despite their belief it is for the greater good. I'm not defending 419 perpetrators and I believe they should be shut down. However, taking the law into your own hands is not something that should be suggested when there are legal channels otherwise. At the least I would claim that statement is not NPOV since it does not clearly state why it could be considered that the flash mob action is a form of DoS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.212.30.130 (talk • contribs)

I removed the note relating to DoS since it's not NPOV and/or debatable. Also, I removed the word "fake" because though the sites are scams, they are real sites, not "fakes" like fake bank login would be.

• Begging to differ but the action improperly termed "flash mobbing" is a DDoS attack, but more accurately, it is a form of electronic civil disobedience known as a virtual sit-in. This differs from the computer related flash-mobbing (which is properly called slashdot-ting or the slashdot effect) in that it is intentional, while "flash mobbing" a site stems from the sudden popularity of that site causing an unintentional DDoS by viewers accessing it. -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 23:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Also, the line stating that AA419 hosted the "first interntational" act ever in 2003, is incorrect as hacktivists have been performing international virtual sit-ins long before that: minor example -- Kerowren (talk • contribs • count) 23:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The statement above is categorically untrue: "A denial of service attack attempts to crash the server and all sites hosted on it. A flash mob consumes a single site's monthly bandwidth quota and does not affect any other websites". My ISP was attacked by aa419 and it certainly did affect hundreds of innocent people. It brought down my system. Further, there is evidence on their own site showing that they were, in fact, aware that they were causing outages of innocent web sites. The wiki article is clearly written by a member of aa419 and is not a balanced piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.85.151 (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)