[156207] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Heads-Up: GoDaddy Broke the Interwebs...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Tue Sep 11 17:35:57 2012
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAK_-TSapJKyF6u6EK9PTyCfoQPstsWAZnAF2zknXjcdffqNYfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 17:34:57 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 11, 2012, at 17:04 , ryanL <ryan.landry@gmail.com> wrote:
> when patrick is referring to "taking their word for it", he's =
referring to a post on outages@ by godaddy's network engineering manager =
that stated "bgp, and more details to follow".
Well, mostly I'm taking GoDaddy at their word that this was not a DoS =
attack.
I also believe it was related to BGP, and am happy to get more info. =
But we are discussing Anonymous vs. Self-inflicted wound here.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
> i tend to align with patrick's thought. i'm also interested to see the =
details, which they are really under no obligation to provide.
>=20
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> =
wrote:
> > No large flows reported to the affected NSes, tweets were suspicious =
at best, other anon-ops denied the attack was them, and GoDaddy admitted =
internal error.
> >
> > I'm going to take GoDaddy at their word, and give them major kudos =
for owning up to the mistake - in public.
>=20
> That doesn't mean that their description of the internal error fits
> what happened. Not to say that there were an attack, just that there
> can be more internal failures, including processes, to be accounted
> for. Whether they will publish a root-cause analysis/swiss chesse
> model/<insert your preferred methodology> or not is up to them, but to
> tech-savvy stakeholders I think they are still in debt.
>=20
>=20
> Rubens
>=20
>=20
