Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

MediaDefender's BitTorrent-Based DOS Takes Down Revision3

Posted by timothy on Thu May 29, 2008 04:03 PM
from the well-that's-certainly-reasonable dept.
Sandman1971 writes "Over the long Memorial Day weekend, Revision3 was the target of a malicious Denial Of Service Attack which brought R3 to its knees. After investigating the matter, it was discovered that the source of the attacks came from MediaDefender, the famed company hired by the MPAA and RIAA to try and stop the spread of illegal file sharing. The kicker? Revision3 was taken down for running a bittorent tracker to distribute its own legal content."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] MediaDefender Denies Entrapment Accusations 104 comments
Ortega-Starfire writes "We've previously discussed the subject of MediaDefender setting up a site to catch movie pirates. Ars Technica covers the response from MediaDefender, which basically states the entire thing was a mistake and was only an internal site they forgot to password protect, and that they were not using this with the MPAA. The article asks: 'If this is true, why did MediaDefender immediately remove all contact information from the whois registry for the domain? Saaf said that after everything hit the fan, the company decided to take everything on the site down because it was afraid of a hacker attack or "people sending us spam." Yes, spam. The MPAA's Elizabeth Kaltman also chimed in to say that they had no involvement with MiiVi: "The MediaDefender story is false. We have no relationship with that company at all," she told Ars.'"
[+] IT: Internal Emails of An RIAA Attack Dog Leaked 427 comments
qubezz writes "The company MediaDefender works with the RIAA and MPAA against piracy, setting up fake torrents and trackers and disrupting p2p traffic. Previously, the TorrentFreak site accused them of setting up a fake internet video download site designed to catch and bust users. MediaDefender denied the entrapment charges. Now 700MB of MediaDefender's internal emails from the last 6 months have been leaked onto BitTorrent trackers. The emails detail their entire plan, including how they intended to distance themselves from the fake company they set up and future strategies. Other pieces of company information were included in the emails such as logins and passwords, wage negotiations, and numerous other aspect of their internal business."
[+] Leaks Prove MediaDefender's Deception 230 comments
Who will defend the defenders? writes "Ars Technica has posted the first installment in their analysis of the leaked MediaDefender emails and found some very interesting things. Apparently, the New York Attorney General's office is working on a big anti-piracy sting and they were working on finding viable targets. It also discusses how some of the emails show MediaDefender trying to spy on their competitors, sanitize their own Wikipedia entry, deal with the hackers targeting their systems, and to quash the MiiVi story even while they were rebuilding it as Viide. Oh yes, they definitely read "techie, geek web sites where everybody already hates us" like Slashdot, too."
[+] MediaDefender and the Streisand Effect 206 comments
Foldarn writes "It looks like MediaDefender, in an effort to quell the explosion of negative publicity over its leaked email archive, has instead done the opposite (also known as the Streisand Effect) and spread it even more widely. Ars Technica is reporting that MediaDefender has sent scary-lawyer letters to two popular BitTorrent sites, MegaNova and IsoHunt, demanding that they remove the offending content. Both sites have responded with derision. Also, Ars notes that MediaDefender seems to be behind a DDoS attack against the site that originally leaked its email." Final word to Ars's Ryan Paul: "MediaDefender's entire business model has been based on recognition of the inescapable fact that litigation cannot stop the spread of content on the Internet, so it is ironic that the company has turned to legal threats."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by mrbah (844007) on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:03PM (#23592117)
    Looks to me like MediaDefender is in clear violation of at least two subsections of 18 USC 1030 [cornell.edu]. Where is the federal criminal investigation?
    • by SpooForBrains (771537) on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:06PM (#23592171)
      Exactly. If a normal member of the public did something like this, they'd be facing jail time.
      • by HalAtWork (926717) on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:11PM (#23592213)
        Corporations aren't normal members of the public. Except they're treated as such in court. So that the people who run them don't get treated like normal members of the public.
        • Your argument contains one common fallacy. Corporate executives aren't even remotely normal.
          • by ePhil_One (634771) on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:58PM (#23592813) Journal

            Your argument contains one common fallacy. Corporate executives aren't even remotely normal.
            The executives aren't being sued, the company is. This sort of "Take-down" company is treading on thin ice legally, one such misfire as this and they can lose the company.

            Trick is, they are well aware and have likely structured the company to allow a simple simple collapse w/ minimal loss, after which MediaProtector will be reborn from the ashes, a completely different company w/ the exact same staff and an identical client list.

            Best bet is to go after the company that hired them; prove they paid this company to break the law for them. The RIAA/MPAA will have a harder time collapsing and reforming...

            • Good point. (Score:5, Interesting)

              by jd (1658) <[moc.oohay] [ta] [kapimi]> on Thursday May 29 2008, @05:10PM (#23592955) Homepage Journal
              Although not a similar case, Clive Sinclair structured his company with an eye to surviving collapse. He split it into "Sinclair" (which carried all of the losses) and "Sinclair Research" (which carried all of the profits, intellectual property, et al). After the Sinclair C5 fiasco, "Sinclair" was sold to Amstrad for a small fortune (ie: he sold off the debt) and "Sinclair Research" (which had all the useful stuff and was now considerably richer) remained in his hands.

              The idea MediaDefender is nothing more than a disposable front-end, therefore, is entirely possible and would make a lot of sense.

            • by Chris Burke (6130) on Thursday May 29 2008, @05:28PM (#23593191) Homepage
              Trick is, they are well aware and have likely structured the company to allow a simple simple collapse w/ minimal loss, after which MediaProtector will be reborn from the ashes

              Well that seems perfectly normal to me. Don't you do that when you're caught doing something you're not? Why I had to collapse and reform the other day to get out of a reckless driving charge. The cop did seem pretty surprised, though. Hm.
    • I take it you didn't RTFA; the FBI is currently investigating the issue with R3's assistance.
      • by Penguinisto (415985) on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:20PM (#23592351) Journal
        Hella nice! (TFA is 404'd here too).


        So... how long until we see MediaDefender's board get perp-walked? (too much to hope for seeing the RIAA board getting arrested, but hey...)


        *sigh*... I know, I know. MediaDefender will likely claim that some poor (scapegoated) bastard employee of theirs did it without authorization, yadda yadda... then said poor bastard will get to watch in horror as his entire life goes down the toilet.


        Then again, if it does go down like that, it would stand as a prime example of how one should always give priority to personal ethics before accepting a job offer...

        /P

        • Here's the blog post (Score:5, Informative)

          by eddan (903540) on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:40PM (#23592613) Homepage
          I was able to grab the blog post:

          As many of you know, Revision3's servers were brought down over the Memorial Day weekend by a denial of service attack. It's an all too common occurrence these days. But this one wasn't your normal cybercrime - there's a chilling twist at the end. Here's what happened, and why we're even more concerned today, after it's over, than we were on Saturday when it started.

          It all started with just a simple "hi". Now "hi" can be the sweetest word in the world, breathlessly whispered into your ear by a long-lost lover, or squealed out by your bouncy toddler at the end of the day. But taken to excess - like by a cranky 3-year old-it gets downright annoying. Now imagine a room full of hyperactive toddlers, hot off of a three hour Juicy-Juice bender, incessantly shrieking "hi" over and over again, and you begin to understand what our poor servers went through this past weekend.

          On the internet, computers say hi with a special type of packet, called "SYN". A conversation between devices typically requires just one short SYN packet exchange, before moving on to larger messages containing real data. And most of the traffic cops on the internet - routers, firewalls and load balancers - are designed to mostly handle those larger messages. So a flood of SYN packets, just like a room full of hyperactive screaming toddlers, can cause all sorts of problems.

          For adults, it's typically an inability to cope, followed either by quickly fleeing the room, or orchestrating a massive Teletubbies intervention. Since they lack both legs and a ready supply of plushies, internet devices usually just shut down.

          That's what happened to us. Another device on the internet flooded one of our servers with an overdose of SYN packets, and it shut down - bringing the rest of Revision3 with it. In webspeak it's called a Denial of Service attack - aka DoS - and it happens when one machine overwhelms another with too many packets, or messages, too quickly. The receiving machine attempts to deal with all that traffic, but in the end just gives up. (Note the photo of our server equipment responding to the DoS Attack)

          In its coverage Tuesday CNet asked the question, "Now who would want to attack Revision3?" Who indeed? So we set out to find out. Internet attacks leave lots of evidence. In this case it was pretty easy to see exactly what our shadowy attacker was so upset about. It turns out that those zillions of SYN packets were addressed to one particular port, or doorway, on one of our web servers: 20000. Interestingly enough, that's the port we use for our Bittorrent tracking server. It seems that someone was trying to destroy our bittorrent distribution network.

          Let me take a step back and describe how Revision3 uses Bittorrent, aka BT. The BT protocol is a peer to peer scheme for sharing large files like music, programs and video. By harnessing the peer power of many computers, we can easily and cheaply distribute our huge HD-quality video shows for a lot less money. To get started, the person sharing that large file first creates a small file called a "torrent", which contains metadata, along with which server will act as the conductor, coordinating the sharing. That server is called the tracking server, or "tracker". You can read much more about Bittorrent at Wikipedia, if you really want to understand how it works.

          Revision3 runs a tracker expressly designed to coordinate the sharing and downloading of our shows. It's a completely legitimate business practice, similar to how ESPN puts out a guide that tells viewers how to tune into its network on DirecTV, Dish, Comcast and Time Warner, or a mall might publish a map of its stores.

          But someone, or some company, apparently took offense to Revision3 using Bittorrent to distribute its own slate of shows. Who could that be?

          Along with where it's bound, every internet packet has a return address. Often, particularly in cases like this, it's forged - or spoofed. But interestingly enough, whoev
          • by ChuckSchwab (813568) on Thursday May 29 2008, @05:16PM (#23593019) Journal
            hi
          • First WTF (Score:5, Insightful)

            by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Thursday May 29 2008, @05:18PM (#23593043) Journal
            MediaDefender claims that they have taken steps to ensure this won't happen again. "We've added a policy that will investigate open public trackers to see if they are associated with other companies", promised Grodsky, "and first will make a communication that says, hey are you aware of this." Since when is being a "company" required to legally run a BitTorrent tracker?

            Try this instead: Determine if the tracker belongs to you. No? Then you don't have the right to abuse it in this way.
        • by JK_the_Slacker (1175625) on Thursday May 29 2008, @05:08PM (#23592933) Homepage

          "(Mirrordot seems to have died and the wayback machine doesn't have it.)"

          The wayback machine doesn't have it? You mean this is fresh news!?!?

        • by blhack (921171) on Thursday May 29 2008, @05:16PM (#23593011)

          And what's the betting the FBI's interest is more in obtaining a copy of the DDoS attack software, rather than prosecuting?
          If the FBI is so incompetent that they actually would need to raid a company to find software capable of a syn flood....well then I'm pretty sure most of us can stop using strong encryption and just start hiding all of our files on floppy disks in the air conditioning vents behind the couch.
    • by ozamosi (615254) on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:19PM (#23592343) Homepage
      According to this [readwriteweb.com], it's on the way.
    • by s4m7 (519684) on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:24PM (#23592393) Homepage
      This appears to fall under the definition of cyberterrorism under the same section, as proscribed by the USA PATRIOT ACT as well.
      • by Bourbonium (454366) on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:22PM (#23592371)
        Again, please RTFA Coward. The torrents on Revision3's servers were their own content, but one R3 member found a torrent named something like RAMBO_axxo on their tracker on May 25 and reported it to the admins. They immediately took it down and then found the backdoor that MediaDefender had been using to post fake torrent hashes on their servers. Once the backdoor was closed, MediaDefender's servers began the DOS attack as an automatic response. Louderback says that the FBI is already investigating. I expect the EFF will get involved as well as this story develops.
      • by zantolak (701554) <zantolak.comcast@net> on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:22PM (#23592381)

        How do we know that the Revision3 content was legal? Because they (Revision3) say it was? I don't buy it. MediaDefender isn't stupid; they found illegal content and shut it down. The reason there will not be any investigation is because Revision3 cannot allow an investigation to occur, lest they be found guilty of hosting illegal torrents.
        Here in the US we have one little legal principle known as "innocent until proven guilty". Perhaps you've heard of it, perhaps not. Essentially, it's what keeps the justice system from being a Jump to Conclusions mat.
      • by Fastolfe (1470) <david@fastolfe.net> on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:29PM (#23592463) Homepage
        1. Copyright infringement isn't normally a crime. You're using the word "illegal" and "guilty" carelessly here.
        2. Committing a crime to retaliate in response to another crime is still wrong, and committing a crime in retaliation for a mere civil infraction doubly so.
        • by provigilman (1044114) on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:32PM (#23592505) Homepage Journal
          Even worse though, Media Defender allegedly committed a crime in response to a perfectly legal activity. The only thing on that torrent tracker, prior to Media Defender injecting all sorts of nastiness into it, was just their own videos and podcasts. Basically, it's no different than an RSS feed you'd get from some place like /., they just used BitTorrent to do it.
      • by AK Marc (707885) on Thursday May 29 2008, @05:25PM (#23593137)
        MediaDefender isn't stupid; they found illegal content and shut it down.

        Shutting down illegal content with an illegal attack is still illegal. Also, the only evidence of illegal content is the content MediaDefender was trying to put there. They are apparently going to all open BT servers they can find, serving up illegal content generated by them, then shutting them down. That's not looking for problems to address, that's planting evidence and then attacking them claiming vigilante justice. The only ones slinking away will be MediaOffender
        • by beef curtains (792692) * on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:39PM (#23592607)

          I salute for having the courage to voice your opposing viewpoint in the face of such adversity, O anonymous Totally-Not-A-MediaSentry-Employee contributer.

          So tell me, how did you set up this DOS?

          Did I say "you"? I meant to say "they", of course. Apologies.

        • by shasbot (1181627) on Thursday May 29 2008, @05:08PM (#23592939)
          I hate to feed the trolls, but just felt someone should point out for those who don't use Revision3 that this is incorrect, they produce original shows, such as Diggnation. (as far as i am aware, they do not have any user uploaded content or any non-original content at all)
  • by scubamage (727538) on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:06PM (#23592169)
    OMGLAWYERSUESUESUE!
    Seriously, I hope they get even more crucified because of this. Performing a DOS is a clear violation of law in all states, and since it crosses the borders, its a clear felony.
  • by Nerdposeur (910128) on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:08PM (#23592191) Journal
    Looks like they're also the target of a vicious Slashdotting. ;)
  • by jesdynf (42915) on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:09PM (#23592193) Homepage
    I look forward to the indictment, conviction, and imprisonment of the executives of their operation.

    Failure to achieve these things will not reflect well on the fitness of the rulers to rule.
  • by Trails (629752) on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:17PM (#23592311)
    and then slashdot linked to them.
  • by petes_PoV (912422) on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:17PM (#23592315)
    ... you can hear is R3's lawyers leafing through the 2008 Mercedes catalog.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:30PM (#23592483)
    Hard.

    "Move it's own media files" means they were probably using it for jamming operations against other trackers. Meaning they hacked the server, went to other bittorent sites, said "hey, we've got tasty files here, but only 91% of complete garbage", used revision3 as their server so everyone thought it was kosher instead of, say, Media defenders IP range, and when revision3 kicked them off their servers decided to reconnect and DDOS'd them. Because the input bandwidth was intense for the fubar'd uploads and they had just been cut off of their primary source, they used all available bandwidth to reconnect and DDOS'd.

    What's going to happen here is a combination between defamation of character suites and hacking lawsuits. Those are the kinds of suites that put people out of business and in jail.

    The RIAA and MPAA just shot themselves in the head on this one and their shell company is going to go tits up due to it. That's going to have a concussive effect on the other shell companies which will have a bad effect on their anti-piracy campaign.

  • And yes I know it's expensive, but I could find an attorney to take it on spec.

    I operate a tracker to distribute my music [geometricvisions.com]. It's more efficient than direct HTTP downloads, so it saves on my hosting bill.

    The point really needs to be rammed home to law enforcement and elected officials that there are many perfectly legitimate, and in fact socially beneficial uses for peer-to-peer file sharing.

  • by phoomp (1098855) on Thursday May 29 2008, @05:06PM (#23592915)
    Sounds like MediaDefender wants to take down *any* competition to their clients, illegal or otherwise.
    • by RichMan (8097) on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:18PM (#23592319)
      >>Revision 3 should have just sued, and sued BIG. By discussing it so glibly, and in such detail, on their blog they're jeopardizing their case. A huge financial hit would hurt the RIAA's cronies a LOT more than a little negative publicity from a blogger

      Except then RIAA could have just paid up and fixed their scripts and moved on.

      The FBI investigation is going to turn up more dirt and likely will lead to lots of discovery. Imagine the connections between organizations proper discovery could come up with. Also imagine the work needed to comply. "Ok, RIAA turn over all correspondence you have had concerning enforcement for the last 3 years".

      This does not mean Revision 3 can't sue for damages. But letting the FBI get the ball rolling is the first step. And if the FBI do lay charges then the money part gets a lot easier.
    • That 'huge financial hit' would be years off at best. R3 is trying to hurt them now while they can. They know that with deep enough pockets, the RIAA & friends can keep justice at bay almost forever. Contrary to their public boo-hooing over the cost of "piracy", the RIAA and MPAA are full of money.

      What they need is public opinion. In order for them to be successful in curtailing "piracy", they need to convince a large percentage of the public of 2 things - 1) that they are in a morally superior position compared to those sharing files, and 2) that bad things happen to those who share files.

      R3 is taking this opportunity to show that 1) the RIAA is a morally bankrupt group of thugs in 3-piece suits, and 2) the RIAA makes bad things happen to good and bad people indiscriminately.

      I'd be surprised if a whopping big lawsuit didn't follow this, but I haven't been able to RTFA.
    • by scubamage (727538) on Thursday May 29 2008, @04:44PM (#23592667)
      Its doubtful that anyone will hack into any of those closed systems for the most part. However, I wouldn't be surprised to see mediadefender start getting nailed VERY hard bandwidth wise. I wonder how many syn packets or christmas tree packets it takes to fill up a 9gbps pipe?