No, I’m not serious.
I don’t really think that North Korea has a grudge against Dilbert.
But it’s clear that someone isn’t a fan of the long-running Scott Adams cartoon strip, whose website has recently suffered a DDoS (distributed denial-of-service) attack.
Adams blogged about it, asking whoever was responsible to come forward (anonymously if they wished) and explain what motivated them to take what is, after all, a criminal action:
Okay, whoever launched the DDoS attack on the Dilbert.com servers this morning has to come forward, anonymously if you prefer, and tell me your motives. Just leave a comment here if you feel that is safe enough.
I’m hoping the attack came from female hackers because of my blog post yesterday on the lack of women in tech jobs. That would be perfect. If so, you made your point. Nicely done.
Yes, it cost me money.
If it was someone else, what is your point?
Plenty of people have left waggish comments in response (some have even suggested it might be a counterattack in response to a change in the design layout of the website), but none appear to be seriously claiming responsibility.
If you’re upset with Dilbert or Scott Adams, do the right thing and let them know by dropping them a line or leaving them a message.
Don’t DDoS their site. That’s just not nice.
While DDoS (and his lesser evil cousin) attacks are serious, certainly they affect much more than the intended victim (and that is bad enough and certainly a form of censorship which makes it more ironic when people use it to defend freedom of expression)… I find this rather hilarious. To be fair I find humour in near everything but the way you word it and the way he words things, is brilliant. I especially love this:
"Okay, whoever launched the DDoS attack on the Dilbert.com servers this morning has to come forward, anonymously if you prefer, and tell me your motives. Just leave a comment here if you feel that is safe enough."
…as if that is how it would work… anonymous, if you prefer. To think it gets better with his suggestion of who it might be and how it would have been well played. Yet if that isn't the case, he asks what is [your] point? All the while he seems to be taking the light side of it and equally curious of the motive (though maybe a guise). It is certainly something that resonates well with me (and I certainly have the same curiosity).
Of course, his last question is what most would ask and it is certainly the thought I have when thinking of rationale (behind it): what IS the point of DDoS attacks? There isn't a real point aside from 'because we can' or 'the thrill' (I seem to recall Mafiaboy was in this category but that is very vague to me and might be me imagining that part of it). On the other hand, DoS attacks did ('do') have a use – albeit not excusable – but DDoS attacks are way overkill for what I refer to (might seem absurd to some but denying service can make certain impossibilities possible and is consequently part of certain attacks).
As for this:
"Don't DDoS their site. That's just not nice."
An amusing story with much irony and a great ending too.
If it was North Korea, it may have something to do with the haircut, there is a certain similarity there…
Otherwise we might look toward Elbonian hackers and a plot launched by Dogbert.
I'm willing to violate anyone's bandwidth for my personal gain and then claim with a straight face that I had nothing to do with it.