New vs. Old Media

Revision3 CEO: Blackout caused by MediaDefender attack — ars tech­nica:

Revision3, the Internet tele­vi­sion net­work behind pop­u­lar shows like Diggnation, expe­ri­enced a seri­ous net­work fail­ure over Memorial Day week­end. CEO Jim Louderback revealed today that the out­age was caused by a mas­sive denial of ser­vice attack that he says was per­pe­trated by MediaDefender, a file-​​sharing mit­i­ga­tion firm that gets paid by Big Content to dis­rupt peer-​​to-​​peer networks.

Jim Louderback, the CEO of Revision3, dis­cussing the denial of ser­vice attack, writes:

A bit of address trans­la­tion, and we’d dis­cov­ered our neme­sis. But instead of some shad­owy under­ground crim­i­nal syn­di­cate, the pack­ets were com­ing from right in our home state of California. In fact, we traced the vast major­ity of those pack­ets to a pub­lic com­pany called Artistdirect (ARTD.OB). Once we were able to get their inter­net provider on the line, they ver­i­fied that yes, indeed, that inter­net address belonged to a sub­sidiary of Artist Direct, called MediaDefender.

So I picked up the phone and tried to get in touch with ArtistDirect interim CEO Dimitri Villard. I even­tu­ally had a fas­ci­nat­ing phone call with both Dimitri Villard and Ben Grodsky, Vice President of Operations at Media Defender.

First, they will­ingly admit­ted to abus­ing Revision’s net­work, over a period of months, by inject­ing a broad array of tor­rents into our track­ing server. They were able to do this because we con­fig­ured the server to track hashes only — to improve per­for­mance and sta­bil­ity. That, in turn, opened up a back door which allowed their net­work­ing experts to exploit its capa­bil­i­ties for their own per­sonal profit.

Second, and here’s where the chain of events come into focus, although not the motive. We’d noticed some unau­tho­rized use of our track­ing server, and took steps to de-​​authorize tor­rents point­ing to non-​​Revision3 files. That, as it turns out, was exactly the wrong thing to do. MediaDefender’s servers, at that point, ini­ti­ated a flood of SYN pack­ets attempt­ing to recon­nect to the files stored on our server. And that tor­ren­tial cas­cade … brought down our network.

Grodsky admits that his com­put­ers sent those SYN pack­ets to Revision3, but claims that their servers were each only try­ing to con­tact us every three hours. Our own logs show upwards of 8,000 pack­ets a second.

Mr. Louderback notes, “Denial of ser­vice attacks are ille­gal in the US under 12 dif­fer­ent statutes, includ­ing the Economic Espionage Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.”

While var­i­ous defenses may exist, as they do for crimes sim­i­lar to this (think self defense, defense of oth­ers, defense of prop­erty, etc. in regards to old-​​school assault, tres­pass­ing, or false impris­on­ment), such defenses tend to have fairly high stan­dards, and often require that the vic­tim actu­ally have com­mit­ted a crime (which is why a “citizen’s arrest” is risky, since it could quickly become a charge of false impris­on­ment against you if you’re wrong…).

In short, we dis­cour­age vig­i­lanteism and “self help,” believ­ing instead that law & order are best pre­served when the state con­trols the process. MediaDefender’s proac­tive approach is dis­turbingly close to vig­i­lan­tism at the best of times, and when they get it wrong (like this), one can see one clear rea­son why we dis­cour­age such approaches: inno­cents suf­fer, inno­va­tion suf­fers, inno­vat­ing new busi­ness suf­fer – and, from a public-​​policy per­spec­tive, soci­ety suf­fers too. (As a counter-​​argument, how­ever, con­sider bounty hunters and their cousins, those brave souls in the vehi­cle repos­ses­sion busi­ness. They can get away with a lot, even if they make a mis­take. Is that the model we want for copy­right enforcement?

Related articles