Wikileaks DNS killed | Hacker News Reader

Wikileaks DNS killed

guardian.co.uk

33 pointsadam-_-14 comments

I don't understand. The site is visible via http://wikileaks.ch (announced by Wikileaks via Twitter) and according to whois the NS for that is provided by EveryDNS.

Meanwhile, http://wikileaks.com is pointing to a Godaddy blank page and whois reports that the name being provided by DomainControl.

This seems to contradict the Guardian article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/blog/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-k... which says that EveryDNS has dropped them.

The .ch site is probably not being DDoS'ed.

Update: the ".com" was probably always parked - Wikileaks is a ".org" (sorry).

WTF? EveryDNS killed the WikiLeaks site? David, where you subpoenaed?

http://twitter.com/wikileaks/statuses/10567274838622208

Funny to see a government running scared. Open government is so much of a threat?

Wikileaks can still be accessed via its IP addresses:

http://213.251.145.96/ http://88.80.13.160/

What does DNS have to do with a DDoS? Are the bots doing a dns lookup before every SYN? It doesn't make sense.

And what about these supposed hackers that are generating the DDoS, what are the chances that it's actually the CIA, NSA or other evil 3 letter org.

"The first serious infowar is now engaged. The field of battle is WikiLeaks. You are the troops. " https://twitter.com/#!/JPBarlow/status/10627544017534976

"only accessible through a string of digits known as a DNS address"

"wikileaks.ch [...] still only points to an IP address, suggesting WikiLeaks has been unable to quickly find a new hosting provider"

Both those statements made me question the level of knowledge required to write this kind of article...

I don't see any evidence presented backing up the notion that the US government "killed" wikileaks' DNS. What I see is that their DNS provider discontinued service due to wanting to avoid fallout of the continuing DDoS attack on their other customers.

At this point I assume that the implication is that the US government is behind the DDoS attack, which is at best speculation without evidence.

This whole wikileaks spectacle has led to a whole hell of a lot of emotional foofaraw, considering the actual "revelations" from anything that wikileaks has done to date have been rather underwhelming (mostly confirming what had been widely speculated before, typically).

Really?

For one, I'd never have imagined that the CIA would employ the US diplomatic service, via the The Sec of State! to spy on Ban Ki-moon.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/02/wikileaks-cables...)

Similarly, the extent to which the Russian federal government is (allegedly) beholden to the the biggest organised crime network on Earth, well - that was news to me too.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-02/russia-is-a-mafia-s...

Underwhelming to you, but I'm flabbergasted.

Also,

(1) the U.S. military formally adopted a policy of turning a blind eye to systematic, pervasive torture and other abuses by Iraqi forces;

(2) the State Department threatened Germany not to criminally investigate the CIA's kidnapping of one of its citizens who turned out to be completely innocent;

(3) the State Department under Bush and Obama applied continuous pressure on the Spanish Government to suppress investigations of the CIA's torture of its citizens and the 2003 killing of a Spanish photojournalist when the U.S. military fired on the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad (see The Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch today about this: "The day Barack Obama Lied to me");

(4) the British Government privately promised to shield Bush officials from embarrassment as part of its Iraq War "investigation";

(5) there were at least 15,000 people killed in Iraq that were previously uncounted;

(6) "American leaders lied, knowingly, to the American public, to American troops, and to the world" about the Iraq war as it was prosecuted, a conclusion the Post's own former Baghdad Bureau Chief wrote was proven by the WikiLeaks documents;

(7) the U.S.'s own Ambassador concluded that the July, 2009 removal of the Honduran President was illegal -- a coup -- but the State Department did not want to conclude that and thus ignored it until it was too late to matter;

(8) U.S. and British officials colluded to allow the U.S. to keep cluster bombs on British soil even though Britain had signed the treaty banning such weapons, and,

(9) Hillary Clinton's State Department ordered diplomats to collect passwords, emails, and biometric data on U.N. and other foreign officials, almost certainly in violation of the Vienna Treaty of 1961.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/01...

The fact that these things happened can not be undone.

However, I am __certain__ that the world is a better place now that these things are out in the open.

"Nothing to see here" is the first thing they would tell you to make you stop paying attention. You bought it hook line and sinker.

You can use that line of reasoning to believe in anything.

I haven't stopped paying attention, I'd like to know who's responsible for the DDoS attacks against wikileaks, but I don't see any evidence that the US government is responsible. Nor has DDoS ever been the modus operandi of government agents in the US.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com