Linked by David Adams on Tue 28th Jun 2011 15:35 UTC, submitted by HAL2001
Privacy, Security, Encryption In an unexpected move for a security company, SecurEnvoy today said that cyber break-ins and advanced malware incidents, such as the recent DDoS attack by LulzSec, should actually be welcomed and their initiators applauded. The company's CTO Andy Kemshall said: "I firmly believe that the media attention LulzSec’s DDoS attack has recently received is deserving. It’s thanks to these guys, who’re exposing the blase attitudes of government and businesses without any personal financial gain, that will make a difference in the long term to the security being put in place to protect our own personal data!"
Thread beginning with comment 478965
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by MORB
by Alfman on Tue 28th Jun 2011 20:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MORB"
Alfman
Member since:
2011-01-28

sagum,

"If you look at the LOIC that the anonymous group use, they target a website to request pages that take up vast amounts of resources, be it memory, server side scripting or database load."

"In this instance, just a few people (sometimes even 1 person) can take down a website simply because of bad code."

Believe me when I say that I'm a huge advocate of running efficient code. However you have to admit that depleting the server of resources by running useless (yet valid+legal) queries is not nearly the same thing as taking over the server through a security vulnerability.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by MORB
by Neolander on Wed 29th Jun 2011 07:39 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MORB"
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

It's certainly not the same, but if there's a way to take a server down with a small amount of organization/friends, due to the way the software running on this server works, it's another form of security vulnerability.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by MORB
by Alfman on Wed 29th Jun 2011 12:45 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MORB"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Neolander,

"It's certainly not the same, but if there's a way to take a server down with a small amount of organization/friends, due to the way the software running on this server works, it's another form of security vulnerability."

This speaks to unscalable designs and systems, however a company can find itself in a situation where systems can handle the legitimate load of X customers, but not X + Y attackers. I'm uncomfortable with the conclusion that a company out to design the infrastructure to handle X customers + Y attacks.


Edit: Although, what choice is there?

Edited 2011-06-29 12:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by MORB
by Soulbender on Wed 29th Jun 2011 14:58 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MORB"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Availability != security.
The fact that a site wasn't designed to withstand a DDoS does not mean it suffers from a security problem and neither is inefficient code a security problem.
It's usually not feasible to start out with a site and infrastructure designed to handle the volume of YouTube or Facebook or a DDoS.
Deploy now, get customers and worry about scalability when the need arises. Even a DDoS once or twice is not a cause for concern unless it has a major impact on your bottom line and/or is caused by a security problem.
Some wise guy said something about premature optimization a long time ago and it's still true.

Reply Parent Score: 2