DoubleClick Hit by DDoS Attack 531
YetAnotherName writes "The Washington Times is reporting that everyone's most beloved online advertising distributor, DoubleClick, was subject to a DoS attack crippling the company's DNS servers, and preventing up to 75% of advertising from making it to web pages and surfers' eyes."
Sad news (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait. It was DoubleClick [doubleclick.com]?
Can I donate some computer time?
Re:Sad news (Score:3, Informative)
I used IE the other day for the first time in ages, and was surprised by a popup.
Re:Sad news (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sad news (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sad news (Score:3, Interesting)
It also adds a little unicode email character next to email links, and colors java or javascript links green.
Re:Sad news (Score:3, Informative)
127.0.0.1 ads.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad2.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad3.doubleclick.net
127.0.0.1 ad4.doubleclick.net
except I DO allow ads.osdn.net because im a nice guy and dont mind looking at the purdy pictures from them (and they are not usually popups). I found the hosts file here on
Re:Sad news (Score:3, Informative)
1.primaryads.com
a.tribalfusion.com
ad.double c lick.net
ad.aboutwebservices.com
adlog.com.com
ads.accelerator-media.com
ads.ebaumsworld.com
ad s.nwsource.com
ads.vnuemedia.com
ads.weather.com
ads.webtender.com
ads.x10.com
ar.atwola.com
a sg01.casalemedia.com
c.casalemedia.com
c4.maxser ving.com
clk.admt.com
g.msn.com
isg01.casalemed ia.com
isg02.casalemedia.com
isg03.casalemedia.c om
isg04.casalemedia.com
isg05.casalemedia.com
media.fastclick.net
medi
Re:Sad news (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sad news (Score:4, Informative)
I have it installed on this box, along with IE. I still use IE half the time. I use mozilla on my linux boxes, but (i hate to say it) there are are certain aspects of IE that are more comfortable, or at least more familiar. Keep in mind, im an old geek, not a hobbiest. Been using Linux and GNU software for years and it is catching up very fast, but I still use the tools that make me more productive, and IE fits that bill at least half the time. The pops ups don't annoy me as bad as they used to, now that they are all blank pages.
Oh, i found that hosts file address here [everythingisnt.com]. I chang a few lines for my uses (travelocity.com and osdn.com for instance) because it may break a few things, like Pogo, but its a great template for a hosts file if you customize it a bit for yourself.
Re:Sad news (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, try it.
Believe it or not, it usually gets a faster response than "I just wish linux did... windows does it".
Re:Sad news (Score:3, Informative)
[Adblock]
Quick refresher on how the "FREE" sites work... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to get all MPAA on you, but when you block the ads, you're hurting the site. Not only that, but you're encouraging "innovation" on the advertisers side to keep you from blocking the ads. This leads to a mixing of advertising and content, so that the web pages start becoming all flash or all pictures so you can't filter out certain images without breaking the whole site for yourself.
Want to keep the subscription sites down and keep the free web up? Leave the banner ads be. Hell, click on them once in a while. If the advertisers and website are satisfied with how their ads are doing, they'll be less aggressive and less likely to piss you off.
Re:Quick refresher on how the "FREE" sites work... (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolute bollocks. As a rule, I NEVER click on a banner ad. When they're visible, I don't look at them. The only difference between a blocked ad and an unblocked ad coming into my browser is the blocked ad (white box) renders faster. I am not cost advertisers on cent.
Re:Quick refresher on how the "FREE" sites work... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know you are, but what am I?
All childishness aside, think about this rationally, please. The original assertion was that blocking ads results in lower ad revenue. This is incorrect. It's not the blocking, but the not clicking that reduces revenue. Whether I see the ad or not, I am not clicking. Advertisers always assume that a certain percentage of people will not be affected by the ads. I represent part of that percentage. Feel free to call me an asshole for not doing what they already know I'm not going to do, but think about the alternative. Are you saying that everyonbe ahould click every ad that comes up? Don't you think the ad company is going to get suspicious when a grossly abnormal percentage of people are clicking through? I understand your knee-jerk, but you have to understand that "freeloaders" like me have already been accounted for.
Re:Quick refresher on how the "FREE" sites work... (Score:4, Interesting)
"just do it."
"takes a licking and keeps on ticking."
if any of these phrases bring a companies name to mind, and any ideas about that company, then youve been affected by advertising more than you think. its branding, and you dont have to interact with an ad to be affected by it. a big part of marketing is just letting people know a company exists, not making you buy a product then and there. :-P
Well (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case ads don't need to be clicked.
Re:Quick refresher on how the "FREE" sites work... (Score:3, Informative)
Five people listening to you isn't going to save the web advertising industry any more than me convincing (at great personal effort, mind you) five people to stop pirating Photoshop is going to see a noticeable increase in revenues for Adobe. It is not a statistically significant number, and all it ends up do
OSDN ads (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Quick refresher on how the "FREE" sites work... (Score:3, Insightful)
JM
Re:Quick refresher on how the "FREE" sites work... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Quick refresher on how the "FREE" sites work... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Quick refresher on how the "FREE" sites work... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sad news (Score:5, Funny)
Heh (Score:3, Funny)
On the record, Punch the Monkey and Win $20!
Re:Sad news (Score:5, Funny)
enough joking; this is a real tragedy! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sad news (Score:3, Insightful)
You're either a troll, or just stupid.
Re:Sad news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sad news (Score:5, Informative)
you are joking
alexa is crap
but doubleclick doesn't give a flying fuck [alexa.com] about slashdot.
Re:Sad news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad news (Score:2, Insightful)
Wait I thought doubleclick was one the thirtieth most visited site on the internet, how could they only have 900 customers? It's almost as if they don't think of the people visiting their site as customers, as if they're only there to be bent over and take it in the behind.
Re:Sad news (Score:3, Funny)
It's almost as if they don't think of the people visiting their site as customers
That's because they don't. They were referring to the people who pay them to place their ads; the people who click on the ads would be Doubleclick's customers' customers.
Re:Sad news (Score:5, Insightful)
The people who click on the ads are Doubleclick's product.
Re:Sad news (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sad news (Score:5, Informative)
ns1.doubleclick.net
ns2.doubleclick.net
ns3.doubleclick.net
ns4.doubleclick.net
This way you can check your networks to see if any machines are hitting these DNS server. I am going to keep my ping going to make sure ns1 stays online. j/k
You can do your part to reduce the load by adding doubleclicks ad-servers to your /etc/hosts file as 127.0.0.1 (this can be done in windows too).
Re:Sad news (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sad news (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sad news (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sad news (Score:5, Insightful)
You can argue all you want, it is a matter of personal belief. I consider it to be something that should not be made illegal, but also something that is terribly impolite to do and does have a negative effect upon something that you like enough to patronize.
It's kind of like when the cool coffee house with all the great local bands closes down because nobody bought any coffee. Everybody bitches how much it sucks, but never connects that they were taking up a chair for four hours without buying a drink.
If you like the site, how about some respect for the people who work on it? Common decency appears to be growing much less common.
--
Evan
Probably (Score:5, Insightful)
In all these cases, you are ignoring/blocking ads. Sites have a right to try and advertise, but it's your computer, and you have a right to change the presentation to meet your needs.
Also if the advertisers learned a little something form successful advertising, such as Google and newspapers, they would have a much better chance of not getting blocked:
1) Be less obtrusive. The web is a random access media. Interrupting people with full screen or popup ads is annoying and counter the operation of the web. Thus people hate them and want them gone.
2) Be relivant. Do nto slather your ad over ever site on the internet. Target your ad at sites that attract people that care.
3) Be honest. A large number of ads are highly deceptive in their nature.
Double click violates all of these their ads are a pain, they advertise whatever, wherever and most of them are "Punch the monkey and win" or "You have a message" or "Your computer is broadcasting an Internet IP address".
I LIKE Google ads, since they relate to what I search for. Thus, if I want to buy something, I search and then look in the right hand column since the ads are unobtrusive, relivant to what I want, and honestly trying to sell me it.
Re:Probably (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, where am I wrong?
Here's where you are wrong: Bob picked a business model to make sure he could continue to give out those pictures. He could have picked many, but he picked advertising. That may or may not work: perhaps it earns him enough money to continue doing it this way, perhaps it doesn't. It is not relevant wether people actually view the advertising, buy something based on the advertising, etc, because it's clearly a deal between the advertiser and bob. Not between me and bob. I have no responsibility to make his business model work for him. Suppose he signed a contract that doesn't make him enough money - he just needs 5% more. Would it be an ethical requirement for me to visit his site 5% more to make up for his bad decision? No? How about 50%? I have no ethical requirement to make any business model at all work. I am not ethically required to make the store at the corner profitable, and I'm not ethically required to make Bob profitable. It's his gamble that advertising is a way to get money from my visits to his site.
-John
Re:Sad news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sad news (Score:5, Interesting)
I have an urge to give a snotty "you block a whole site because of their ads? Isn't that excessive"?
But that is kind of the point - I am sure that you can justify using the site without the ads. Justification is the parlor game of most internet power users. I just don't see it that way. If I walk into a bar with a two drink minimum, even if it is not enforced, the right thing to do is order two drinks. I'll sit at a diner for hours with a cup of coffee, but I won't do it during a mealtime rush. These are things that aren't illegal, but are merely rude; you are taking advantage of the proprietor.
How is blocking the ads but using the site not an immoral act? Not a terrible one like cheating on your wife, but mild one like skipping on the two drink minimum or leaving a lousy tip?
I tip well, I follow the rules, both official and unspoken of an establishment that I enjoy, and I leave the ads on if I read the site. The glee of saving a few bucks by not leaving a tip is tempered by recognizing that there's a waitress who you just screwed. Is it because you can't see the work that the author put into the site? Is it moral because you don't see the website employees you've (mildly) screwed over?
--
Evan
Re:Sad news (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure I can justify it - I'm not going to eat a bowl of shit just to get to the cherry.
Abusive ads are ignored in any way possible (adblock, making a note to never buy anything from that company, never visiting the site again, whatever) by everyone who visits a site in some way, either mentally or physically. If it blinks, wiggles, flashes, has sound, pops up, pops under, moves around, or is just plain ugly it gets ignored from then on - forever if it has any moving parts. Sites that elect to serve such abusive ads will eventually go out of business. Sites that make an effort to serve relevant and simple ads will still be around - some of them that make a serious effort to "do no evil", such as google, will even make money.
Re:Sad news (Score:3)
Flash ads are still around, as are interstials, but they are often for day passes at sites like Salon, which gives you the choice to pay or watch an ad. Makes sense to me.
--
Evan
Site clearly still broken (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, what did you say? "The leader in network advertising" only has tasteful advertisements on their own site?
Isn't that a tad hypocritical?
Shouldn't the people advocating annoying, bouncing, animated, rollover tripe beleive in their own products and techniques enough to use it on their own pages?
Clearly they don't, and they don't.
One could only dream of the day when all the advertisers who patronize DoubleClick ask them selves why DoubleClick doesn't use their own service to advertise their own service...
Perhaps because their customers would realize how much such techniques annoy and drive off potential clients....?
Nah, marketeers (as in mouse, not misspelling 8-) will never get wise to their own lack of wisdom.
OSDN uses doubleclick. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Devil's Advocate (Score:4, Insightful)
False.
If DoubleClick went away so would a lot of that content.
True.
Gotta watch out for "all" and "never"...
The devil doesn't really need an advocate, eh?
<grrr>
DoubleClick is still around? (Score:4, Informative)
Cry me a river. (Score:2)
Good or bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good or bad? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good or bad? (Score:2)
All hacking is terrible. Don't encourage it just because it happened to hurt someone you don't like.
Re:Good or bad? (Score:2)
Re:Good or bad? (Score:4, Interesting)
poetic justice.... (Score:3, Interesting)
ogg
On behalf.. (Score:5, Funny)
I hope that whoever did this terrible act is brought to justice, as such a horrible thing cannot go unpunished!
Re:On behalf.. (Score:2)
Re:On behalf.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:On behalf.. (Score:2)
Re:On behalf.. (Score:5, Funny)
Let us have a moment of silence, and then I shall buy an X10 camera in their memory.
darn. (Score:2)
well, actually, according to Slashdot I do. So here:
darn.
double click blocked anyway (Score:2)
Damn (Score:3, Funny)
time to kill myself (Score:2)
Seriously, I didn't notice. There's so many ads (and I use pop-up blockers and hosts) that they're all just lost in the noise. Which is a really sad commentary on the state of the Internet when you think about it.
Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
The attacks had more far-reaching effects. Pages would take forever to load for me (certain pages, not all), if they used doubleclick ads, simply because the browser was waiting for the final item (the ad) to load.
Whether or not you like doubleclick, their widespread adoption made this a productivity hit for those of us who frequent pages w/ doubleclick content (even if we never notice it).
Old News for Nerds, Stuff that's Days Old (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Old News for Nerds, Stuff that's Days Old (Score:2)
Re:Old News for Nerds, Stuff that's Days Old (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, 'cause there's no bastion of journalistic potency like Fark.
Granted this story broke yesterday, but since you obviously already knew about it from *some* source, I don't see what the problem is. Now we get to discuss it on
Uppins Have Come.. (Score:2)
I didn't notice (Score:5, Informative)
I've had the following in my HOSTS file for a while now
0.0.0.0 ad.doubleclick.com
0.0.0.0 ads.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad2.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad3.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad4.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad5.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad6.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad7.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad8.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad9.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad10.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad11.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad12.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad13.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad14.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad15.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad16.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad17.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad18.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad19.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad20.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad.ch.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad.ca.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad.de.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad.fr.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad.jp.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad.nl.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad.no.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ad.uk.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ln.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 m.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 m2.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 iv.doubleclick.net
0.0.0.0 ebay.doubleclick.net
Lameness filter randomness: eed d ed wdwe de ff g v fdovk fok fb f osvi jfvioj asv d vp vv jspavj spav dsv aspdvj ede oijf o greg ewrg
Re:I didn't notice (Score:2)
Re:I didn't notice (Score:5, Informative)
>
> 0.0.0.0 ad.doubleclick.com
> 0.0.0.0 ads.doubleclick.net
>
Some alternatives that are fun:
1. Install privoxy from sourceforge.net. This is a local http proxy that allows you to filter out web content using regular expressions. So you can easily blank out any URL that contains the string "doubleclick." This is easier and more complete than trying to enumerate all the hostnames that Doubleclick Inc. uses. Privoxy is multi-platform; you can use it under Linux, Windows, etc.
2. Install posadis from sourceforge.net. This is a caching DNS server that you can install on your computer. It allows you to control how domain names (like *.doubleclick.net) get resolved by ALL the programs on your computer. I use it to essentially blackhole domains that I don't like. Once again, this is a multi-platform project. In particular, under Windoze, it runs as a service. It has an irritating bug: under Windoze, it will occasionally start using 100% CPU. When this happens, you have to restart the posadis service. A hassle, verily. But I enjoy having the control that derives from running my own DNS server.
3. Use a firewall (hardware or software) to block out numeric IP addresses. For example, 216.73.92.112 is www.doubleclick.net, so it should be blocked. I used to use this approach. I liked the idea of absolutely blocking any packets going to or from the bad guys, regardless of the DNS name used. The problem with this approach is that outfits like doubleclick.net will use a ton of different numeric IP addresses, and it's difficult to keep up with them.
Re:I didn't notice (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I didn't notice (Score:3, Informative)
Problem with infrastructure companies (Score:5, Interesting)
Until the basic routing infrastructure of the net changes, this is going to be a common issue anytime a number of big sites all require another organization to serve up their pages (e.g. Akamai).
Re:Problem with infrastructure companies (Score:3, Interesting)
Part of a contract to use DoubleClick ought to be a server-flag. They send you a packet every 30 seconds that says their servers are operational and a flag is set on your machine. If more than 30 seconds goes by, the flag is automatically set to "off". Their scripts [which run on your machine] check that flag before they serve up ad content, otherwise, the scripts print out either white-space or a set of pre-loaded advertisements (that they don't have to find on double-click servers).
Dou
Re:Problem with infrastructure companies (Score:3, Interesting)
It's still a very competitive market.
You know, I never noticed. (Score:4, Informative)
I rarely see ads in either IE or Mozilla.
Oh the horror! (Score:2)
Heh. I know I always get upset when I'm not being bombarded by advertisements.
Anarchy in the TCP/IP (Score:3, Insightful)
It keeps commercialism in check. And that is a Good Thing (TM).
Don't tolerate them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't tolerate them (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry man, in the days of the DMCA, INDUCE, and PATRIOT acts, I'll take my poetic justice wherever I can get it. I applaud this for the same reason I applaud thieves getting their asses hauled into prison, because they damn well deserve it, regardless of whether forced confinement is "wrong" or not.
Good? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Good? (Score:5, Insightful)
What advertising? (Score:2)
You're saying there's still advertising out there on the web? Whoda thunk it.
I had no problems (Score:2)
www.doubleclick.net A 192.168.1.1
scrub:/#
Of course having this in my named.conf helps...
zone "doubleclick.net" {
type master;
file "/etc/bind/db.vermin";
};
Where do I go... (Score:2)
Old news (Score:5, Informative)
127.0.0.1 (Score:3, Funny)
Oh boy... (Score:5, Funny)
But I wanted... (Score:5, Funny)
doubleclicked (Score:4, Funny)
DoubleClick DDoSed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now if only there were some way to legally drive spyware / malware companies out of business. That would be an effort that I could endorse 100%. The problem with this is, well, it's still a DDoS, even if it is against a company that's pretty thoroughly reviled. I doubt that the owners of the participating computers agreed to help with the project. /., but it's likely that the number of late-bloomer techies far outnumbers the ranks of the lifelong geeks. Not everybody discovers their inner geek at the same point in life - but that's another rant.) Aunt Claire, who just wants to upload new photos to the family webpage, doesn't deserve to be pop-upped and spywared to tears, but neither does she - or anyone else - deserve to get caught in the middle of an online piss war. Poetic justice or not, this event is a Bad Thing.
Plus, there are hundreds of thousands of people out there who still haven't figured out that the big blue "e" isn't the Internet. Their day got totally hosed by web pages that refused to load, "server not found" issues, and assorted other garbage. They got hit by the "shrapnel", but were innocent bystanders. And no, using IE doesn't mean that "they got what they deserved." (We tend to be rather elitest here on
Still, it does warm the cockles of my black little heart, thinking of DoubleClick getting served a heaping helping of the kind of crap that they've dished out over the years.
legal DDOS of doubleclick here... (Score:4, Interesting)
a nifty plugin for squid. does more than just remove ads, it replaces them with a 'this ad zapped' image / swf, so pages don't render weird.
it's written in perl so it's easy to hack and is easily configurable.
Webmasters: Host your (text) ads yourself! (Score:4, Interesting)
My firewall program cannot detect deliberately broken up 'SCRIPT' tags via the document.write Javascript function--otherwise Google's AdSense advertising would be blocked too. If I didn't need Javascript, I could turn it off at the browser level and kill these ads as well.
Simple, HTML-only, text-based ads for me, thank you very much (works for Google)--I am on 'sessioned', time-limited dailup and cannot waste time downloading an (animated) ad banner image, or an (obnoxious, animated) shockwave ad.
wow, does anyone actually care? (Score:3, Funny)
I wanna buy the parties responsable a beer.
Re:3rd worst servers in existence ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:3rd worst servers in existence ? (Score:4, Funny)
Must use preview button
Must use preview button
Must use preview button
What I tried to say, was "Don't forget one of the most agressive advertisers in time, X10", but the spontanity is somewhat gone now.
Oh well.
Re:I've wondered about a grass roots anti-spam bom (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the actual number of physical systems is even lower than that.
I wrote my own spam filter. One of things it does is decode the message body, isolate those web addresses, then perform a simple blacklist/whitelist check on both the web server name and IP address. It turned out that, on average, every IP address was the home o