Tale of a D.O.S. Attack and its Aftermath

June 27, 2001 10:35 AM

Tale of a D.O.S. Attack and its Aftermath from All Things Considered. I like to think that I'm fairly computer savvy, but I'd never have the guts that this guy did to track down the person who shut down his business for a day.
posted by Pinwiz (10 comments total)

See comments here, though this doesn't really qualify as a double-post.
posted by MrMoonPie at 10:54 AM on June 27, 2001

Unless you'd like to devote this thread to NPR's treatment of the subject matter, I'd say this certainly does qualify as a double-post. (I know, I know, take it to MetaTalk.)
posted by jjg at 10:57 AM on June 27, 2001

I'm all for proactive responses to DoS attacks, but Steve Gibson (the guy) is an annoying publicity hound. He employs his penchant for hyperbole quite effectively as a tool of self-promotion. He's always trumpeting a new discovery or grave threat in InfoSec. I have to give it to him, he's relatively bright and has made some nice contributions to the community, but he consistently goes too far, squawks too loud in order to maintain his visibility and therefore his position of pundit.

As for why this latest thing should set off your bs detector, The Register said it best.
posted by brantstrand at 11:10 AM on June 27, 2001

I read this on MeFi when it was posted.... and how Gibson was always seeming to beg for attention. I was surprised to hear it on NPR yesterday, but it kind of solidified what brantstrand mentioned. He sounds like a bright gent, but one who has a lot of ulterior motives or other agendas involved with what he's trying to talk about.
posted by Hankins at 12:05 PM on June 27, 2001

Perhaps you'd like to start a new "The Register Slings Bullshit" thread with a link to some supporting material.

The Reg certainly has attitude in spades, but is surely as factual as any other tech news site. More plainly so and less prone to sucking up to the big players, in my book.

In any case, the article I linked to is right on the money w/r/t Gibson's Chicken Little routine on Win XP. (Just so you know, skallas, I say so not because I dig the author's irreverent jibes and dry Brit wit, rather because his analysis agreed nicely with my own. =)
posted by brantstrand at 1:34 PM on June 27, 2001

These seem to be a lot of free-floating "technical experts" like Gibson that never appear to do anything except provide sound bites for the news. Kevin Warwick is another such publicity hound and preferred Register target, and I'd be tempted to include Cliff "Cuckoo's Egg" Stoll (even if the Klein Bottles are cool).
posted by harmful at 2:06 PM on June 27, 2001

I'm still waiting for you to link to one of these awful stories you're so worked up about, skallas. As for vapor, the careful reader will note that the majority of their pieces are not product announcements. Whatever... don't read the Reg. I don't care. (I am wondering where you get all your insider information that lets you spot the vapor so adeptly, since if all the tech news sites suck so bad.)

My original point was simple that there was--available on the Register--a concise, well-enough written explanation of why Gibson is full of it when he goes on about the great internet apocalypse that Windows XP will be. If you have some worthwhile counter-arguments to any of the points made in that article, I'd be delighted to hear them. Thus far you've only evidenced some kind of personal grudge against the publication. I'm not choosing sides in a popularity contest, I'm saying which technical argument I find valid.

You're right, Gibson has contributed some good stuff for which he deserves to be lauded. As I said in my original post, he "has made some nice contributions to the community." Not the least of which is simply raising internet users' awareness of their vulnerability. I'd much rather have him around than not. But his hype-filled diatribes, penchant for inventing his own weird buzzwords, and relentless self-promotion I find annoying.
posted by brantstrand at 6:37 PM on June 27, 2001

What technical argument??? The one in the article. It's a refutation of the assertions Gibson makes in his account of the events which are the subject of the NPR story (which is the topic here. Am I going too fast?) Read it if you can overcome your revulsion for The Register long enough.

Its called name calling.
You can think of it as "name calling" if you like; I prefer
"discussing an individual's character". Or "putting into context the news item which is the topic of this thread".
posted by brantstrand at 10:23 PM on June 27, 2001

You've been practicing your hypnotism in front of the mirror again, haven't you???
posted by brantstrand at 10:23 PM on June 27, 2001

The Reg rant about Gibson's rant is so on target because The Reg sees in Gibson what it cannot see in itself, extreme spazmosity.

If Gibson hadn't blown his cover in the IRC chat room, he could have had a much better long term story about DDoS attacks and the likes of the parties involved. But as is the case with Gibson he has a low tolerance for excitability.

If you read the NPR transcript you'll notice it isn't written in a direct interview format. The report seems to be an extrapolation of a conversation between the reporter and Gibson...shades of Cliff Stoll indeed.
posted by yonderboy at 5:40 AM on June 30, 2001