Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

How Not To Run a Campaign Website 114

Soong writes "The blogsphere has been going crazy today about the technical difficulties being experienced by the Joe Lieberman for CT Senator web site, joe2006.com. MyDD outlines the story so far and has continuing updates. A reader at DailyKos digs deeper and finds some shamefully exposed ports. A front page story there has the money quote: 'Joe's site shares one server with 73 other sites. They pay $15/month for an overcrowded server, and then they blame others when it goes down?' kos also mentions that 'My hosting bill is now over $7K per month.' While this has immediate consequences for Joe Lieberman's campaign since his site went down Sunday night/Monday morning and the election is today, it makes me curious to see an expose on what exactly we're getting from various vendors when we buy into sub $100/month hosting plans."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Not To Run a Campaign Website

Comments Filter:
  • A quick look at this from a semi-competent admin (myself) brings me to one of two conclusions. 1) The admin(s) of this site are TOTALLY incompetent, or 2) this server was made vulnerable on purpose, in order to attract or make possible a DoS attack, which could then be used to generate negative publicity and sympathy.

    I don't know any admins stupid enough to fall into category #1, so I'm tending to believe it's #2.


    Please.
    • Indeed. We just signed up with a pretty big net backup service that runs tape backups in data centers. They run a patch cable straight to your cabinet, give you some backup software like veritas or what-not. These jokers hand me a non routable IP address that is something like 192.168.1.53. I'm no master network admin but I'm thinking, "hmmmm, .53? Why .53? Have they used up .1 to .52?" So I port scan 192.168.1.0/24 and find all kinds of "shamefully exposed ports" on dozens of servers, linux, unix, wi
      • hey atleast it wasn't routable .. got to give them a little credit.. that and i am sure the cable was made right... right?

        yea all too often they have true idiots running things like that..

        i was colocating with a place in DC.. good bandwith and good price.. but i left after two years because they had the dirtiest network i had ever seen...
    • by FlyByPC ( 841016 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2006 @12:54AM (#15871821) Homepage
      No -- it really doesn't take a lot to put up a website. It doesn't even take any kind of admin at all -- competent or no. Just like they'll let anyone with a basic driver's license rent and drive a 26' cargo truck, they'll let anyone with a credit card buy a domain name and rent server space. Is it a good idea? No. Does it happen? Constantly.

      $15 is high-budget stuff for a lot of these folks. (Heck, I have several domains sitting on an old Pentium Pro box on a friend's static-IP DSL connection. Websites can be -- and are -- done on the cheap all the time.)

      I find it quite easy to believe that using such a low-end server was an oversight by an underpaid or volunteer staffer who just didn't know better -- or didn't think.

      ...of course, blaming these problems on the opposition is SOP for any politician's minions these days, it would seem.
      • That was my point. I was quoting from the story - basically the guy was saying that it was either A: bad admins, or B: a conspiracy. He concluded that since he personally didn't know any bad admins, that it had to be conspiracy. I can't say if it was one or the other, but his logic is bullshit.

        • Didn't think much of what he had to say, after describing himself as "semi-competent".
          • You know, some folks may set the bar for competancy differently than where you do.

            For system administration, for instance, I tend to set it quite high: Any system adminstrator worthy of the name should be able to do system-level development as well -- debugging everything from applications to drivers and other kernel-level code as necessary. The poster may set their standards similarly, in which case semi-competance is likely to be more than enough for the kind of evaluation being made.

            So -- completely disc
            • Any system adminstrator worthy of the name should be able to do system-level development as well -- debugging everything from applications to drivers and other kernel-level code as necessary.

              You're right. That is setting the bar pretty high.

              • Any system adminstrator worthy of the name should be able to do system-level development as well -- debugging everything from applications to drivers and other kernel-level code as necessary.

                You're right. That is setting the bar pretty high.

                It's high, yes -- but I don't think unreasonably so. System administration involves taking potentially complex pieces -- both hardware and software -- and making them work together as a complete system. Making things work, the job of a sysadmin, is arguably harder than

      • Just like they'll let anyone with a basic driver's license rent and drive a 26' cargo truck, they'll let anyone with a credit card buy a domain name and rent server space. Is it a good idea? No. Does it happen? Constantly.

        You need one more part to that analogy- If you were in charge of moving something very valuble across the country VIA that cargo truck, would you get some idiot off the street to do it? No, you'd probably go with an experienced trucker or company, and that's what Lieberman should have
    • by spagetti_code ( 773137 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2006 @03:25AM (#15872091)
      Given the choice between incompetence and conspiracy/enemy action,
      99% of the time its going to be incompetence.

      I vote incompetence.

    • by megaditto ( 982598 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2006 @04:56AM (#15872298)
      So here are a bunch of loyal Democrats that turn to Sen. Lieberman's website in order to show their support, get tips on registering/voting, donate some time or money, even. The site is 'friend-dotted', and what does Joe do?

      Does he move site to a better server? Does he upgrade the hosting plan? No, he turns to his base and says (paraphrasing here) Fuck you assholes for crashing my website; you all hate me; the other guy is a jerk that sicced yall on my tubes. Then he demands Lamont cry 'I am not a thief' over the incident.

      I am not a Democrat, but I am amazed at how Sen. Lieberman keeps biting the Koolaid base hand that feeds him.

      I guess if you give fuck you to your base, the base lobs that fuck you right back at ya. Hence his loss today.
    • Look at what you REALLY get with a lot of these hosted sites... A friend of mine had me look over one such hosting company. They were a plesk/virtuozzo shop, and the virtuals were FedoraCore 2 with NO PATCHES. Stock FC2. Not only was the software so old (php, mysql, etc.) that many modern CMS systems won't run, they were vulnerable to countless exploits. It's no wonder that so much spam comes from these cheap hosting companies. I'm more apt to believe #1.

      That hosting company is not alone - I've seen the sam
  • by HMC CS Major ( 540987 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2006 @12:31AM (#15871766) Homepage
    The "shamefully exposed ports" sounds a lot like portsentry, an IDS-type app that listens on ports even if no service is running.

    As for cheap hosting plans - we host clients anywhere from $12.75/month to 100 times that - some sites need a lot of capacity, most don't. But, virtually across the board, many people have no idea how much bandwidth they really need until it's too late.

    Any reasonable hosting company should have noticed the domain name and made arrangements for such a high profile site. Of course, this assumes that the engineers at the hosting provider were neutral...
    • Any reasonable hosting company should have noticed the domain name and made arrangements for such a high profile site. Of course, this assumes that the engineers at the hosting provider were neutral...

      AFAIK, for most of these places it's almost, if not totally, completely automated.

      Fact of the matter is that, vulernarable or not, hacking someone elses site is BS and only a complete d1ck would do it.

      It comes down to a first ammendment right. When you hack, deface, or DOS someone's site because you disagree

    • I somehow doubt that IDSs are as sophisticated as these transcripts show. Everthing that follows is from http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/8/8/181016 / 9275/ [dailykos.com]:

      #telnet mail.joe2006.com 25
      Trying 69.56.129.130...
      Connected to mail.joe2006.com.
      Escape character is '^]'.
      220-server1.myhostcamp.com ESMTP Exim 4.52 #1 Tue, 08 Aug 2006 15:08:14 -0700
      220-We do not authorize the use of this system to transport unsolicited, 220 and/or bulk e-mail.
      helo server1.myhostcamp.com Hello [65.96.230.83]
      mail from:anonymous@an

  • No! (Score:5, Funny)

    by lymond01 ( 314120 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2006 @12:34AM (#15871768)
    It's a series of tubes. Tangled up tubes. Those democrats went and treated it like a truck...you can't do that! It's not something you can just dump things into. It's just tubes.
  • Swamped (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grcumb ( 781340 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2006 @12:36AM (#15871773) Homepage Journal

    The fact that Joe Lieberman couldn't keep his website running is a good metaphor for why he lost this challenge by someone who even a few months ago was a nobody.

    I think it's particularly interesting that political websites all across the US have been sluggish and crash-happy for most of the day. The amount of interest in this single campaign (a primary, ffs!) crashed not only Joe Lieberman's site, but forced Kos to run a stripped down front page, completely b0rked the official results page, and has slowed down just about any place with breaking news about this race.

    I know it's inane to speak of the Power of the Web. The web's not doing anything; it's just people doing what they've always done - showing curiousity whenever something catches their interest. The difference here is that the medium has changed, and this particular medium has created the ability to generate political clout for those who know how to use it. I don't mean that in the Goebbels 'Big Lie' sense - quite the opposite. This campaign in particular has shown that on the Internet, all lies are shallow. And that's a direct challenge to American Politics as it's practised today.

    • Re: Swamped (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2006 @12:41AM (#15871784)
      > The fact that Joe Lieberman couldn't keep his website running is a good metaphor for why he lost this challenge by someone who even a few months ago was a nobody.

      Such a metaphor would seem to imply that his loss was due to cluelessness. AFAICT it's actually because >0.5 of the Democratic voters in CT think he's a Republican in all but name, and wanted a change more than they wanted the perks of having a senior legislator.
      • Re: Swamped (Score:5, Informative)

        by Ray Radlein ( 711289 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2006 @12:57AM (#15871831) Homepage
        I dunno -- it seems to that me not just holding opinions with which the overwhelming majority of your constituents disagree (not only about the war, either, of course -- for instance, his statement that Catholic hospitals should be allowed to refuse emergency treatment to rape victims was even disagreed with by something like 3/4 of the Catholics in Connecticut), but loudly and publically announcing those opinions on national television as often as humanly possible, might begin to fall under the umbrella of "cluelessness."
        • Re: Swamped (Score:3, Insightful)

          by phlinn ( 819946 )
          It was emercency contraceptives, not emergency treatment. There is a distinction there. I'd have to take the same stance, although not for anything like the reason he stated. If any emergency medical provider has moral objections to some procedure/drug/activity, they ought not be forced to either provide said procedure or to not treat anyone at all. It doesn't really make sense to tell a hospital that since it won't provide a morning after pill, that it can't legally provide emergency care for a gun shot
          • Re: Swamped (Score:4, Insightful)

            by John Miles ( 108215 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2006 @11:52AM (#15874781) Homepage Journal
            If any emergency medical provider has moral objections to some procedure/drug/activity, they ought not be forced to either provide said procedure or to not treat anyone at all.

            No, they ought to go flip burgers or write AJAX code or do something besides work in the medical field under a professional oath and state-sanctioned license.
            • >> ... they ought not be forced to either provide said procedure or to not treat anyone at all.

              > No, they ought to go flip burgers or write AJAX code or do something besides work in the medical field under a professional oath and state-sanctioned license.

              You really don't get this whole freedom thing, do you?

              • You really don't get this whole freedom thing, do you?

                If your religion is really that important to you, are you really going to be happy with a career that conflicts with it so frequently? Geez, first they shove that evil-ution stuff down your throat in pre-med, then, before you know it, you're being asked to help rape victims.

                Should you be "free" to drown your kids in the bathtub, if the Invisible Sky Fairy tells you to? No? Gee, maybe there really ought to be limits to freedom.
                • If your religion is really that important to you, are you really going to be happy with a career that conflicts with it so frequently? Geez, first they shove that evil-ution stuff down your throat in pre-med, then, before you know it, you're being asked to help rape victims.

                  Should you be "free" to drown your kids in the bathtub, if the Invisible Sky Fairy tells you to? No? Gee, maybe there really ought to be limits to freedom.

                  Wow, you really don't get the freedom thing. Do people really need you to te

          • Re: Swamped (Score:5, Insightful)

            by rthille ( 8526 ) <web-slashdot.rangat@org> on Wednesday August 09, 2006 @12:07PM (#15874917) Homepage Journal
            If I force fed you in a particularly humilitating and degrading way a virus or bacterium which would incubate in you for 40 weeks, causing you health issues, loss of work, even death and a hospital refused to give you a known 'cure', you'd call it a 'treatment' too, rather than just a contraceptive.
        • I have to agree. Throw in his Republican-style "We have to censor everyone for the sake of the children" rhetoric and you have some who appears to be genuinely clueless.
      • by DeadPrez ( 129998 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2006 @01:30AM (#15871898) Homepage
        Democrats saw Leiberman as too close to President George W. Bush, not necessarily the Republican party. Realize this election is all about the lack of _faith_ this country has for Mr. Bush and friends right now. If you are seen as an enabler of this administration's policies, you are vulnerable. This pro-Lamont outcome is striking fear into certain Republicans who don't sit in clearly gerrymandered districts (which is a serious cancer on democracy spreading throughout this nation so _wake up_). Don't expect a large volume of changes in either house of Congress due this incumbency stranglehold/advantage, but perhaps enough to wrestle control of the direction of the country from the President back to Congress. As the founders intended (very slowly/deliberately).
        • by poot_rootbeer ( 188613 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2006 @09:50AM (#15873738)
          Democrats saw Leiberman as too close to President George W. Bush, not necessarily the Republican party.

          Yes, but Democrats tend to see the entire Republican Party as too close to President Bush, also.

          gerrymandered districts (which is a serious cancer on democracy spreading throughout this nation so _wake up_)

          Oh, I'm awake. But as long as the power to define districts belongs to the people who have the most to lose or gain from redistricting -- and also the power to change the laws that say who has the power to define districts -- how is anything going to change?

          • Yes, but Democrats tend to see the entire Republican Party as too close to President Bush, also.

            Does that surprise you? Have they done something I'm unaware of which would make that belief incorrect? Like Lieberman, the Republican's have almost entirely abandoned their duties to oversee the executive branch. The congress during Clinton's years spent hundreds of hours investigating Clinton's Christmas card list while they don't spend more than two days worth of effort to investigate the startlingly serious a
        • Republicans who don't sit in clearly gerrymandered districts (which is a serious cancer on democracy spreading throughout this nation so _wake up_). Don't expect a large volume of changes in either house of Congress due this incumbency stranglehold/advantage

          Gerrymandering can definitely backfire, though, especially in an environment of shifting and/or unpredictable voting patterns.

          Gerrymandering works by concentrating your opponents' voters together in as few districts as possible, and distributing your v

      • Re: Swamped (Score:2, Informative)

        by fl!ptop ( 902193 )
        it's actually because >0.5 of the Democratic voters in CT think he's a Republican in all but name

        actually, just a cursory glance [washingtonpost.com] at his voting record for the past couple of months indicate lieberman has sided with the GOP on just 2 issues: the war in iraq and illegal immigration. everything else has been a lock-step march with the democrat party. btw, hillary clinton [washingtonpost.com] also voted with the GOP on the illegal immigration ammendment (S 2611), and also supported the war in iraq. would you also consider

        • Re: Swamped (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          "make no mistake he's a liberal" ooo all wrong.

          "George Bush's favourite Democrat" The kissing video from the floor of congress, I don't know of any other Senator that has been favoured in that manner. Lieberman's opposition to the democrtic parties attempt's to stop Bush's nominees to the Supreme court, not his words - his votes, which actually matter.

          His directive to Democrats to stop criticizing the president "cause we're at war."

          Geez and sheesh if maybe we had all been encouraged to look closely and crit
        • Re: Swamped (Score:4, Interesting)

          by AuMatar ( 183847 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2006 @12:06PM (#15874900)
          Noone who consistantly votes yes to bills that are blantantly against the first ammendment can be considered a liberal.
      • Well, many of the complaints I've heard from CT are about his refusal to acknowledge that things aren't going well in Iraq, instead saying "they're having elections, they've got cell phones, things are great et cetera," which makes him either 1) clueless, or 2) a liar.

        Of course, he's a career politician, so it's probably both.
      • No, no, no - it was a LIBERAL PURGE!

        Angry liberals forced out the only good man in the whole Democratic party because he didn't walk in lock step with their angry liberal commie plans. Sean Hannity told me.

        This idea that Joementum lost through the standard democratic primary process is just liberal spin. Angry liberal spin.
    • I wonder if there's some kind of law/rule against campaign websites using a free mirroring service like Coral CDN [coralcdn.org]

      I only ask because:
      A. It would solve some of their bandwidth problems
      B. There are lots of rules against valuable freebies when it comes to politiking
  • Netcraft reveals that the site is running Linux with Apache 1.3.37 - which was only recently updated from 1.3.36. (Based on that, my guess is that the "crash" was actually them upgrading the webserver.)

    There's not a whole lot of other information. It was paid for by the "Friends of Joe Lieberman" (so he didn't even use his own funds for it), and the hosting company was The Planet Internet Services. Anyone buying the services of a company with a name that pretentious almost deserves problems. Oh, the ISP is

    • Is the name of his campaign committee - see FEC filing at http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/can_detail/S8CT0 0022/ [sdrdc.com]
    • by robdavy ( 850571 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2006 @01:01AM (#15871845) Homepage
      The Planet is actually one of the largest providers of dedicated servers in the world and has quite a reputation for quality. They're not cheap either - no sub-$100 dedicated boxes from them...
      • At least not any more. I still know someone with an $89/month dedicated server through Server Matrix, which is part of The Planet (for all purposes except the name on the bill, they are The Planet). (They haven't sold any plans that cheap in quite a long time, he's had it a while...)

        And they definitely deserve their reputation. Their technicians are helpful, their connection reliability is great and overall I've only had good experiences with them.

        Cheers,
        ND
    • by stry_cat ( 558859 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2006 @08:36AM (#15873104) Journal
      Once upon a time, I got my own website. After months of searching and trying a bunch of discount hosts that gave me less than I paid for, I came across phpwebhosting.com and all was good. While only $10 a month, it provide me with great reliable hosting and even better tech support. That was in 1998. By 2003 I had moved all of my client's sites to phpwebhosting.com and everything was still good. Of course there were now cheaper discount hosts (some for as low as $4 a month!), but I stayed with phpwebhosting.com b/c of the great past and present service.

      Then 2004 arrived. AOL and other ISPs started blocking email sent from phpwebhosting.com servers. I managed to work around the problem, but I had no idea what had happened in the background. Then one day, I noticed that instead of one of my domains going to phpwebhosting.com's server, it was going to theplanet.com's. After more research it appeared that theplanet.com had taken over phpwebhosting.com, or at the very least phpwebhosting.com was just reselling theplanet.com's stuff.

      At the end of 2004 things started to turn bad. One client's site was down for 5-6 hours a day for an entire week. No warning, no appology, and no responce to the trouble ticket. Then all of the clients started to be blocked again by AOL. Then worse my personal account could not recieve email. Since all of this started just before X-mas, I gave them a week to reply to the trouble ticket (in the past it was normally only 24hr or less). Then I raised the level of the ticket and asked for an update. Since New Years was just around the corner, I gave them another week to do something. Nothing happened. At this point, I started to get phone calls from people asking why my email was bouncing. The ticket was already at the emergency level, so I again asked for an update. Still nothing by the end of the first week in Jan.

      I began the really annoying task of seeking out a new webhost. Meanwhile the clock was ticking on the trouble ticket. The 2nd week in Jan was gone and I had found the place I would move some of my clients (other's I decided to set up on their own servers). The end of Jan, I finally moved the last of my domains from phpwebhosting.com (which I think is now controlled by theplanet.com). Over a month had gone by and there was still no answer to the trouble ticket.

      I can only say that for many years phpwebhosting.com was great and that only after theplanet.com somehow became involved with them did the server go down hill. It must be theplanet.com's fault. Had the Friends of Joe Lieberman knew about this, I'm sure they would have chosen a better discount webhost.
  • I would basically tell them to fuck off. what can they do, make a stink about how they are trying to rip you off (because any hosting plan like that is simply a scam)

  • buncha saps (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DeadPrez ( 129998 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2006 @12:56AM (#15871827) Homepage
    Personally, I have to poo-poo the media on this. The Leiberman's website goes down, the liberal blogosphere takes notice and investigates almost in real time. One notable fact uncovered was other domains on the same box were serving pages just fine. This more or less rules out a denial of service which would have brought down the entire machine.

    Hours later CNN and others are running stories with the Leiberman campaign accusing Lamont of unethical behavior. Give me a break! What a free pass CNN gives to Lieberman for a late smear. Two sides to a story (i'll accept the premise) perhaps, but one is obviously using the chance (perhaps a 'wired' one at that) for a cheapshot with no time on the clock. Reporters and editors should check with their local geek before becoming such avoidable pawns in a serious contest about the future of the USA.

    Fortunately, it appears this didn't push the election.
    • Reporters and editors should check with their local geek before becoming such avoidable pawns in a serious contest about the future of the USA.

      Unless their local greek writes press releases, it's just too much work for them to bother.
  • kos also mentions that 'My hosting bill is now over $7K per month.'
    Holy cow. Talk about getting screwed. You could get a cage and and an unmetered 100Mbps hookup at a decent colo facility for half of that, easy.
    • 100Mbps?? Yeah, like that'd hold up. DKos got almost a million hits today alone--maybe more.
      • I didn't know it was a popular site. It looked like some guys personal blog.
      • Re:$7k hosting bill? (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It would hold up. 1 million hits in a day is around 11 users per second. Multiply by 5 since user visits aren't equally distributed during the day and you have to support 55 users/sec. A look at the size of the linked DKos page shows it is 155KB (124,000 bits). 100,000,000 / 124,0000 = approx 80 users/sec.

        What's interesting is that of the 155KB page size, 125KB of that was javascript. Ouch!

  • by Anonymous Coward
    with shared hosting. They just need to contact their cpanel admin, the person reselling the planet's services and have them take a look at (either whm or mb) their billing software and override that they have gone over bandwidth. Yes, they've paid their bill, but if you go over bandwidth, you still run into trouble.

    That's what happens when you use cheap services.

    This is all obvious because cpanel is the only crappy control panel I know with their own distro of roothat linux that runs the melange chat serv
  • Not true! (Score:3, Informative)

    by bmarklein ( 24314 ) on Wednesday August 09, 2006 @01:28AM (#15871893)
    It was not a $15/mo. account. Markos of Daily Kos was making the assumption that the Liberman campaign used the cheapest possible account, but according to http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001304.php [slashdot.org]">t his article, which includes an interview with the ISP, this wasn't the case:
    I asked Hubbell what kind of account the Lieberman campaign was paying for, and if earlier accounts were accurate that the senator's camp had taken only a minimal $15-a-month contract. "They were actually paying quite a bit more, with over 400 gigs of bandwidth a month," Hubbell said. Hubbell declined to give an exact figure, but Geary said the campaign had been paying around $150 a month for the hosting service. (Earlier, Geary told Paul Kiel the campaign paid "a bit more" than the reported $15 monthly fee.) "We have a range" of account types, myhostcamp.com's Hubbell said. "We do smaller ones, we do some larger ones."
    Not that it's relevant, but I'm glad Lamont won (I contributed to his campaign), but I think that unsubstantiated BS is always worth correcting.
    • Argh, the one time I don't hit "preview"...

      Here's the link to the story:

      http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001304.php [tpmmuckraker.com]

    • Reputable hosting companies / colo's don't sell bandwidth by the MB / GB. They sell bandwidth based on 95th percentile of sustained throughput (5 min averages). Based on the quality of the connection and quanity (CIR) you buy, this can be anywhere from $100/Mbps to $1000/Mbps. Bandwidth is generally burstable to the limit of your pipe (10/100M in most cases.)

      One colo company I work with sells 512Kbps (100M burst) 1U colo hosting (your server) with 5 IP's for $99/mo.
  • So instead of an "effect" we now have a Slashdot "Attack" which has been apparently aimed at taking down their website. What a joke. Someone at Slashdot may want to send these guys an email letting them know that this isn't a DDoS!
  • Have they not heard the old saying .....

    If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys!

    I tried to develop a shopping site for a friend to host on a similarly cheap server. I tested it on my "Internet Connection Sharer", an old K6/1 running at 200MHz with just 48MB of RAM {and still able to run Apache, Perl, PHP and MySQL}. I swear that little machine was faster and more reliable than the hosted server.

    The also made some really awful mistakes. Like using the same password for FTP {which, of course, is your u
  • REAL attack (Score:2, Interesting)

    by foQ ( 551575 )
    Alright, so now we have an admin who blames all his problems on being hacked, and the story is posted on /. I wonder how many script kiddies are running their proggies against the site right now. I give it another hour or two before that page gets replaced with "I pwzn j00!" or some other unintelligible leet speek.
  • An expose on what people get for buying a sub-$100 shared-hosting account? Here's a clue, not only can't you handle the Slashdot effect, you'll probably have a hard time handling the "Mable-the-town-gossip-told-her-inner-circle" effect. That isn't an expose, that is a "I didn't read the contract which has no true SLA in it" moment.

      Charles
  • At myHOSTCAMP.com the reliablility of our servers is unmatched (99.9% uptime), the expertise of our staff is second to none and our online support team is always ready to help.
    • 99.9 (AKA 3 nines) means that your stated level of service allows for an interruption of 8.76 hours. Which is great in the abstract. But on Primary Day of a hotly contested race being battled out on all media fronts including the internet, not so good....
  • Lost in the noise (Score:2, Interesting)

    by stoutstreet ( 95533 )
    Why in the WORLD would the host provider (myhostcamp.com) disclose ANY CLIENT INFO to a third party?!? This includes what type of account the customer has.
  • Lieberman said Wednesday that he fired his campaign manager and spokesman, and asked for the resignations of his campaign staff.
    Just wondering if that includes the sysadmin? [stamfordadvocate.com]

What is now proved was once only imagin'd. -- William Blake

Working...