It looks to me like Voat's admins wanted all of us to read that page for some reason. Possible disinfo, I don't know. I doubt the one page was attacked specifically - that makes no sense. Anyone who understands web servers would realize that fetching one specific URL as a DDOS is neither going to make the one page "break" any more than the rest of the site, nor is it even going to hurt the server as much as other tactics. Not to mention, if they are trying to get us not to look at that page why would they draw attention to that page.
If you wanted to DDOS a server you probably wouldn't hit one page over and over again (unless it were a special page that you know is especially computationally expensive to load). Rather, you would crawl it, or hit thousands of pages, hit the login page, search functions etc in order to generate more database work, and as much cpu load, memory usage, database load, and cache misses as possible.
Stopping a DDOS is not easy. What I'm question here is whether this was a bona fide attack, or instead if it could the admins at Voat throwing us a red herring. Essentially a false flag.
What, faking a header? That is no more "effort" than putting the real data in it.
Why go to the effort of 9/11? So that the people who run things can tell you OH NOES you are under attack, here are the bad guys let's get THEM. Don't look over here look over there.
Well if the data is fake, then it’s fake. Doesn’t stop the admins from inspecting it and seeing where it came from. Either the attackers wanted to draw attention to that page or they were too stupid to fake their target. Take your pick.
Look if you want to break a web server you attack the server, you don't download one specific page because you don't like that page. What Voat is saying, and what people are believing, is absolute nonsense.
For a DDOS you would hit pages that are expensive to display and/or you attack at the TCP level with SYN flooding or such methods. And/or you simulate the behavior of a large number of real users to make it harder to filter (That's the first D in DDOS, makes it hard to block).
What you put in the HTTP headers is neither here nor there. If you think you can identify a DDOS that way, you might as well expect to identify spammers by telling them to set a flag in the SMTP header that says they're a spammer. Don't be an idiot.
And you can also break a web server in less sophisticated ways. Your making a lot of assumptions can’t that be confirmed, but I guess calling me an idiot covers that.
I’m saying there’s other ways to destroy a web server with a ddos in less sophisticated ways than you mentioned, and that it’s easy to identify what pages were being attacked. There is no one way to carry out a ddos.
Stop this retarded hand-waving. You don't know anything about web servers. A DDOS by definition means using large numbers of malicious clients to overload the server. If you know how TCP/HTTP works, then you know what that entails.
Are there other ways to take down a web server? Sure, you could trip over the power cord. You could cut the optical fiber outside the building. But that is not what was reported.
If you want to take down a web server you would surely run a script that is made to do that, not to do something that the web server is highly optimized to perform with minimal effort.
But even if I grant you that this attacker was as feeble minded as you, to think that such a trivial tactic would be in order, you still haven't answer this:
If you believe the official story as to what happened, can you imagine why would the attacker draw my attention this one page that they supposedly don't want people to see?
Do you think attacking a specific page makes that page in particular go away?
That is what might be implied if the reader has no understanding of how a web server functions.
You are taking the official statement at face value here and not even noticing the absurdity of it.
No one came to those conclusions except you. You assume because you instantly reject the official story, and you replace it with your own, one that fits your narrative.
You don’t even know how they came to the conclusion that a specific page was targeted. You just instantly reject the idea that what they say is even possible because you find it absurd while ignoring the fact that it’s plausible.
You don’t even know how they came to the conclusion that a specific page was targeted.
If you are the party that is running the web server, then you know what page is being fetched because that is what the client is requesting. I don't know how to reduce that for you any further... this is essentially a tautology. The client asks for it and then you serve them that thing. Here is what that request looks like: https://www.tutorialspoint.com/http/http_requests
If you do not understand that much, then you are miles deep over your head here. You do not even have the most rudimentary understanding of what HTTP is at all, and you are proposing to understand how a DDOS works.
? Dude I'm that same person I just wrote another comment because I realized I had skipped over something.
What I told you is the REFERRER can contain any nonsense the client wants to put.
That field you were talking about is HTTP_REFERER.
Not GET. Get is what you are GETTING. The first line (GET, POST etc) is what determines the object that the server retrieves.
HTTP_REFERER is basically just a comment, as is USER_AGENT. you were suggesting the referrer tells you anything about a DDOS. It's just a comment. The client can put anything, or nothing at all in there.
That would be the ad populum fallacy. I don't give a flying fuck what everyone else thinks!
You assume because you instantly reject the official story, and you replace it with your own, one that fits your narrative.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm applying my knowledge as someone who has developed operating systems, IP stacks, and web servers, including specifically working with the problems of scalability and performance. I know the nature of a DDOS, it's not a mystery. These things are known to people who know about them. Of course there are not a lot of us.
You could learn about them too, if you wanted to. It is by applying direct experience, knowledge of how a server works, and reasoning in general, that I can be quite certain that the official explanation is false.
If you were open to thinking about things I could explain it all to you. But you're not. And I don't have time anyway. So you are welcome stick with your spoon-fed view of things. The one everyone but me has accepted because it's just what they were told.
Oh, and you still haven't answered the questions in my previous comment. Pondering those questions will FORCE you to think.
Have a good night.
>Decide for yourself (be free from outside opinion).
>Decide for yourself (be objective in your conclusions).
>Decide for yourself (be true in your own beliefs).
>Decide for yourself (be open to following the facts).
>Decide for yourself (be strong in defending your beliefs).
>Decide for yourself (be resistant to blindly accepting fact-less statements).
>Decide for yourself (be free)
Those who attack you.
Those who mock you.
Those who cull you.
Those who control you.
Those who label you.
Do they represent you?
Or, do they represent themselves (in some form)?
Mental Enslavement.
The Great Awakening ('Freedom of Thought’), was designed and created not only as a backchannel to the public (away from the longstanding ‘mind’ control of the corrupt & heavily biased media) to endure future events through transparency and regeneration of individual thought (breaking the chains of ‘group-think’), but, more importantly, aid in the construction of a vehicle (a ‘ship’) that provides the scattered (‘free thinkers’) with a ‘starter’ new social-networking platform which allows for freedom of thought, expression, and patriotism or national pride (the feeling of love, devotion and sense of attachment to a homeland and alliance with other citizens who share the same sentiment).
When ‘non-dogmatic’ information becomes FREE & TRANSPARENT it becomes a threat to those who attempt to control the narrative and/or the stable.
When you are awake, you stand on the outside of the stable (‘group-think’ collective), and have ‘free thought’.
"Free thought" is a philosophical viewpoint which holds that positions regarding truth should be formed on the basis of logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma.
When you are awake, you are able to clearly see.
The choice is yours, and yours alone.
Trust and put faith in yourself.
You are not alone and you are not in the minority.
Difficult truths will soon see the light of day.
WWG1WGA!!!
Q
Nice to see someone else thinking this through. Remember that by it's own admission, NOTHING and NO ONE on Voat is who they seem to be or claim they are. Just something to think about.
19927336? ago
Mannn. We are all famous now. That shit sucks.
19927720? ago
Here come the refugees. Prep the gore.
19928256? ago
Ahhhh its back!
19927141? ago
Thanks for the explanation. Been wondering why all the trouble getting things posted recently.
19926848? ago
Ray Chandler, Satanic Ritual Abuse and VOAT survivor https://voat.co/v/QRV/3356458
Ray Chandler connections with MAFIA / Deep state / CABAL / Vatican Mafia https://voat.co/v/QRV/3353805
19926587? ago
It has appeared to me that for weeks VOAT has been censoring us, or someone has been censoring VOAT.
19926800? ago
I couldn't get on VOAT period, so it wasn't VOAT censoring.
19928129? ago
Me either - was getting message saying our Goats were being attacked.
19926706? ago
Why do you think voat is censoring you?
19926581? ago
"Seems they don't like this post" https://voat.co/v/PizzaGate/3346357
19928178? ago
Something does not add up.
It looks to me like Voat's admins wanted all of us to read that page for some reason. Possible disinfo, I don't know. I doubt the one page was attacked specifically - that makes no sense. Anyone who understands web servers would realize that fetching one specific URL as a DDOS is neither going to make the one page "break" any more than the rest of the site, nor is it even going to hurt the server as much as other tactics. Not to mention, if they are trying to get us not to look at that page why would they draw attention to that page.
If you wanted to DDOS a server you probably wouldn't hit one page over and over again (unless it were a special page that you know is especially computationally expensive to load). Rather, you would crawl it, or hit thousands of pages, hit the login page, search functions etc in order to generate more database work, and as much cpu load, memory usage, database load, and cache misses as possible.
19935830? ago
You can always inspect http headers and see where the referrer is coming from. And that’s just one way to identify it.
19935893? ago
The client can put anything it wants in there.
Stopping a DDOS is not easy. What I'm question here is whether this was a bona fide attack, or instead if it could the admins at Voat throwing us a red herring. Essentially a false flag.
19935926? ago
Why go through the effort of faking it? Whether it was “/“ or “ /v/PizzaGate/3346357” it’s the same effect in a ddos.
19935948? ago
What, faking a header? That is no more "effort" than putting the real data in it.
Why go to the effort of 9/11? So that the people who run things can tell you OH NOES you are under attack, here are the bad guys let's get THEM. Don't look over here look over there.
19935993? ago
Well if the data is fake, then it’s fake. Doesn’t stop the admins from inspecting it and seeing where it came from. Either the attackers wanted to draw attention to that page or they were too stupid to fake their target. Take your pick.
19936067? ago
Look if you want to break a web server you attack the server, you don't download one specific page because you don't like that page. What Voat is saying, and what people are believing, is absolute nonsense.
For a DDOS you would hit pages that are expensive to display and/or you attack at the TCP level with SYN flooding or such methods. And/or you simulate the behavior of a large number of real users to make it harder to filter (That's the first D in DDOS, makes it hard to block).
What you put in the HTTP headers is neither here nor there. If you think you can identify a DDOS that way, you might as well expect to identify spammers by telling them to set a flag in the SMTP header that says they're a spammer. Don't be an idiot.
19936120? ago
And you can also break a web server in less sophisticated ways. Your making a lot of assumptions can’t that be confirmed, but I guess calling me an idiot covers that.
19936177? ago
They told you it was a DDOS. If you don't believe their story, then that's something we might agree on. QED.
19936242? ago
I’m saying there’s other ways to destroy a web server with a ddos in less sophisticated ways than you mentioned, and that it’s easy to identify what pages were being attacked. There is no one way to carry out a ddos.
19936282? ago
Stop this retarded hand-waving. You don't know anything about web servers. A DDOS by definition means using large numbers of malicious clients to overload the server. If you know how TCP/HTTP works, then you know what that entails.
Are there other ways to take down a web server? Sure, you could trip over the power cord. You could cut the optical fiber outside the building. But that is not what was reported.
19936335? ago
I guess I have to spell it out.
With a large enough botnet, you can bring down a network with a simple one target, the root page, or a specific page.
There wouldn’t be a need to target heavy cpu-bound tasks, though hitting them does help.
19936551? ago
If you want to take down a web server you would surely run a script that is made to do that, not to do something that the web server is highly optimized to perform with minimal effort.
But even if I grant you that this attacker was as feeble minded as you, to think that such a trivial tactic would be in order, you still haven't answer this:
If you believe the official story as to what happened, can you imagine why would the attacker draw my attention this one page that they supposedly don't want people to see?
Do you think attacking a specific page makes that page in particular go away?
That is what might be implied if the reader has no understanding of how a web server functions.
You are taking the official statement at face value here and not even noticing the absurdity of it.
19939085? ago
No one came to those conclusions except you. You assume because you instantly reject the official story, and you replace it with your own, one that fits your narrative.
You don’t even know how they came to the conclusion that a specific page was targeted. You just instantly reject the idea that what they say is even possible because you find it absurd while ignoring the fact that it’s plausible.
19940277? ago
If you are the party that is running the web server, then you know what page is being fetched because that is what the client is requesting. I don't know how to reduce that for you any further... this is essentially a tautology. The client asks for it and then you serve them that thing. Here is what that request looks like: https://www.tutorialspoint.com/http/http_requests
If you do not understand that much, then you are miles deep over your head here. You do not even have the most rudimentary understanding of what HTTP is at all, and you are proposing to understand how a DDOS works.
19940663? ago
Exactly. The guy I’m replying to seems to think they are faked.
19940795? ago
? Dude I'm that same person I just wrote another comment because I realized I had skipped over something.
What I told you is the REFERRER can contain any nonsense the client wants to put.
That field you were talking about is HTTP_REFERER.
Not GET. Get is what you are GETTING. The first line (GET, POST etc) is what determines the object that the server retrieves.
HTTP_REFERER is basically just a comment, as is USER_AGENT. you were suggesting the referrer tells you anything about a DDOS. It's just a comment. The client can put anything, or nothing at all in there.
The object that is requested is the GET.
With that, we are done here my friend.
19939927? ago
That would be the ad populum fallacy. I don't give a flying fuck what everyone else thinks!
I'm not assuming anything. I'm applying my knowledge as someone who has developed operating systems, IP stacks, and web servers, including specifically working with the problems of scalability and performance. I know the nature of a DDOS, it's not a mystery. These things are known to people who know about them. Of course there are not a lot of us.
You could learn about them too, if you wanted to. It is by applying direct experience, knowledge of how a server works, and reasoning in general, that I can be quite certain that the official explanation is false.
If you were open to thinking about things I could explain it all to you. But you're not. And I don't have time anyway. So you are welcome stick with your spoon-fed view of things. The one everyone but me has accepted because it's just what they were told.
Oh, and you still haven't answered the questions in my previous comment. Pondering those questions will FORCE you to think.
Have a good night.
19928445? ago
anon is a webfag.....GOOD FUCKING POINT anon
19928383? ago
Nice to see someone else thinking this through. Remember that by it's own admission, NOTHING and NO ONE on Voat is who they seem to be or claim they are. Just something to think about.
19926665? ago
Thanks for that. Apparently, they don't like pizza.