| |
In lugnet.market.theory, Frank Filz writes:
> The car analogy isn't perfect. One thing they can do is not respond to
> more than one query per second or some such from a given IP address,
> though that would screw companies with firewalls.
Well, assuming the theory works, yes, you could say no more than 10 calls per
second or something, but perhaps a better approach would be to make it
smarter-- if someone makes 10 calls per second or something, their IP gets put
on a "watch out" list-- and if they keep it up for more than 5 minutes or
something, you can be pretty sure that it's some sort of automated thing
calling pages, and prevent connections from that site...
Of course, that brings up my question on this issue-- wouldn't that method
still not work? In order to reject the query at all, you'd need to know
something about the query itself (the IP address or cookie data or something),
so you need to examine each query... hence, making 1,000 calls a second, you
still need to examine each call, meaning you're still getting your CPU pinned,
just not as much as if you accepting and performing each call... But then
again, this would all probably be a webserver issue, and I'm not too sure about
how much they can take in that regard... anyway, that's my uniformed concern...
> What we need to do very soon is start charging per packet. It could be
> kept very cheap, but that would trim SPAM and most of these denial of
> service activities.
Eww! I wouldn't want to pay for HTTP requests I send out, etc... perhaps I
would suggest paying on excessive packets (if your packets exceed X per day,
you pay for 'em or something) But then you'd have to work that out with ISP's
etc...
$.02,
DaveE
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: eBay nailed?
|
| (...) Well, it could be handled on a very gross basis by the router/firewall. If it keeps track of the top IP sources of packets, it can just start discarding packets from certain IP addresses. It could also recognize large company firewalls to (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: eBay nailed?
|
| (...) Yep, that sounds like exactly what I'd want to do-- keep tabs on who's sending the most requests and if they look suspicious, deny them access, rather than have a flat "no more than X transactions per Y time", seeing as how you might get (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: eBay nailed?
|
| (...) The car analogy isn't perfect. One thing they can do is not respond to more than one query per second or some such from a given IP address, though that would screw companies with firewalls. Also, in the case of people driving cars to block (...) (25 years ago, 9-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
