By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
ssj12 said:
LivingMetal said:
ssj12 said:
Jordahn said:
ethomaz said:

Why pay so much attention to that shit "anonymous"?


Simply put, anonymous FAILED, and now they are trying to save face.  And you have those who were hoping for some unjustifiable harm to SONY, looking towards anonymous to do that harm. Since anonymous FAILED, those rooting for them have to sugar coat those failings to justify their support of them.

when did they fail? the just changed tactic... they brought down the PSN three days in a row... as well as playstation.com and Sony's official website. I mean are you saying they should continue to bring down the PSN? I'm sure they will change back if enough people ask them too because of their apparent failure to continue to do so..............


Personally, I wouldn't change tactics if it were working.  What's the point in taking something down if it goes back up again?  Sounds like they could not keep it down so they had to try again.  Just like the old say, "If you don't success, try again."  They tried two more times because they didn't succeed to keep the network down.  So they stopped.  Makes perfect sense.

DDoS attacks are never permanently sustaining as it requires every user or PC to constantly use LOIC and clog-up the networks. Also IPs can easily be blocked which reduces the effect. Even when banned, an DDoS attack can slow down a server as it takes a process away from the CPU to deny access, Its just not as effective.

Plus all a downed server needs to do is be rebooted as its back up again. Then process starts all over again with overloading it.

It seems that many users asked them to stop so they can play online. The iirc channels that anon uses are typically public so people could have logged on and asked them to stop.


So it was fail from the start.  Didn't Sony hire some program firm that stopped the hacking?  And since "many users asked them to stop so they can play online," isn't that suppose to mean that they did NOT fight for consumers' right to play online?  Shouldn't they have been smart enough to have foreseen this to begin with?  It's pretty obvious they were thinking only of themselves and not the "rights of consumers."  Therefore, you "change tactics."