When you exceed bandwidth on a website, this is the message you get

[trumad]

One of the the first excuses I heard for Joe's site going down was that Ned supporters were purposely flooding his site to exceed bandwidth, and crash it.

If bandwidth was exceeded, you wouldn't get a message like this.



You'd get a message like the one on top.

AND another thing---If Joe's techs didn't account for the extra traffic on election day----then me thinks that blaming a hacker is nothing more than CYA by their head tech guy.

[Swamp Rat]

1. Ta da!

Thank you.

[wicket]

5. Awesome work as always, Swamp Rat

:thumbsup:

[Kadie]

51. ack!

More nightmares!

LOL

Great stuff Swamp Rat.

[Caution]

2. This is user configurable.

and has in fact been modified on lieberman's site. the URL still says account "suspended" but the banner now says "site under construction"

[trumad]

3. OK--maybe...

but I'd want people to knwo that I exceeded bandwidth---not that I didn't pay my bill.

[Cocoa]

7. but would the Lieberman campaign be able to control that?

[greyl]

9. No. But, they can control whether not they lie about Ned's campaign.

Correct? ;)

[Caution]

12. Absolutely!

Though I still haven't seen a citation of the Lieberman campaign accusing the Lamont campaign directly. I have seen them ask Lamont to denounce the "attack" and to call for whoever is doing it to stop. Which he *should* do, while at the same time disavowing any knowledge of where the attack originated from.

[greyl]

Didn't Skinner get a screencap of the accusation?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1847974&mesg_id=1847974

[Caution]

32. Please show me where in that notice Lieberman blames Lamont

directly? He intimates that a Lamont supporter is responsible and demands that Lamont denounce the action and ask that it be stopped.

Nowhere does he say "Ned Lamont has directed hackers to take down my site in violation of federal computer intrusion laws, federal election laws and other state laws and we demand that he give himself up to the authorities immediately"

[greyl]

39. It says "coordinated attack by our political opponents"

then calls on Lamont to call on whoever is responsible. Weasel words there at the end, but even though not technically direct blame of Lamont, it could hardly be less clear, could it?

[Caution]

43. *I'm* a political opponent.

So is any other Lamont supporter. Sorry but you are reading too much into that.

[greyl]

45. I think you've made a good point. I changed my mind.

But only about 40%. ;)
I still think it's possible the message was created with the intention of smearing the Lamont campaign.

[Caution]

50. Oh I'd go further. I'd say it was DEFINITELY created with that intention

But it's very carefully worded and in politics, words matter.

[greyl]

54. Where's your evidence? ;)

Yes, weasel words matter plenty in politics.

btw, local NBC just said Lamont is up 51 to 45 percent!

[Beetwasher]

55. WHOA! No Shit!

Woo Hooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Post this in a CT update thread!

[Cocoa]

17. I'm not following

:shrug:

[Caution]

35. The message from the server is controlled by the provider

If the site goes down due to an attack which overwhelms the server with traffic (commonly known as a type of a Denial of Service attack) the server spits out a message saying bandwidth usage has been exceeded. That message though is configurable by the company hosting the site (not lieberman's staff).

There was, for a short while, a statement from the lieberman campaign demanding that Lamont denounce the attack and the site. (the statement did not directly accuse Lamont of being involved, but rather made the assumption that a Lamont supporter was involved).

[Caution]

10. No they wouldn't. This is a user configurable system message.

It's a system file.

[lapfog_1]

11. The "user" in this case is the ISP

and yes, it's completely configurable.

Seeing various messages in place of your homepage (even including ones like what Skinner reported seeing), do not, per se, indicate that the web site was hacked, over bandwidth limits or "inside job" (fake hack to get sympathy).

We can't say right this instant what happened. All that can be said at the moment is that the website does not have the previous content.
It *may* have the content that the site administrator wants, it may have the content that the ISP wants, or it may have the content some hacker wants.

I don't think this is all that important a deal either way. I doubt many voters are just now looking to the website to find out what Joe stands for and whether or not they should vote for him.

[Caution]

13. Well stated.

Thanks for being the voice of reason here.

[Junkdrawer]

4. Wouldn't the message be dependent on the provider?

And since the message looks exactly like the "under construction" message, I think that's confirmation that that's the style of the provider.

[trumad]

8. I've seen dozens of sites go down because of too much bandwidth usage

and they all have the same message...

[lapfog_1]

16. Most web server software (like Apache)

have a "default" message for any given situation (DNS resolves but there is no index.html file for example). ISP's that run the web server can pretty much configure this to some other page. The web site admin could also create a simple page to make it LOOK like the site is down... and, of course, a hacker can do the same thing.

[LoZoccolo]

65. Here's a page about how to modify the bandwidth exceeded page for Apache.

http://forums.burst.net/archive/index.php/t-3294.html

From the original post and the one I'm replying to it's evident that this whole conversation might start to be like arguing with the "series of tubes" guy, but I figure it's worth a shot.

[greyl]

6. Well, it depends on how the hosting is set up really.

The second pic in your post comes with cpanel hosting software, and the host can redirect to that page for whatever reason. So, it is possible that the "account suspended" page showed up because the package joe's site was paid up for didn't have enough alloted bandwidth.
In other words, Joe owed the host money.

[greyl]

15. For example, here's the same page in its default location on my server:

http://www.zinzang.com/suspended.page/index.html

It's there as a default for me to redirect the sites I host for whatever reason.
As I can create webpackages with all manner of limits, if any of the limits are exceeded and I can choose to redirect site I host to that page in order to encourage them to cough up some money.

[Subdivisions]

14. All of this energy over ...

... a stupid fucking website.

And not a single person on this board knows what they are talking about when it comes to answering the question: "What happened to joe2006.com?".

You all are not any better or any more reliable for information than CNN or Fox News is. Stop speculating.

[Swamp Rat]

18. LOL! Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[Tempest]

19. So you tell us, oh knowledgeable one

You posted:

And not a single person on this board knows what they are talking about when it comes to answering the question: "What happened to joe2006.com?".


Actually, there have been several people who have explained the reasons. Including in this thread.


But it's easier just to accuse everyone of not knowing what they are talking about instead of taking the time to understand them, isn't it?


Let's hear your theory. Or are you one of those who doesn't know what they're talking about?

[Swamp Rat]

22. LOL!!!!! Don't mind us stoopid spekulaters!

:rofl:

[Subdivisions]

23. Excuse me, but I've read the threads and so far...

not one person has given us the answer to the question: "What happened to joe2006.com?"

Not even you. You can speculate all fucking day long and long after the election is over, but there is noone on this board who actually KNOWS what the fuck happened.

Any more questions?

[trumad]

25. So you want us to keep our mouths shut...

or try to figure it out smart guy..

What a douche!

[Subdivisions]

28. I didn't realize how many

name callers there were here on this site. Very mature.

[Swamp Rat]

27. Yeah, from under what rock did you crawl out of?

:D

[Subdivisions]

31. So, apparently I don't have

the right to say what I want to say, eh? Funny, since you seem to be able to.

[Swamp Rat]

37. Please review DU rules on posting as you may be breaking some:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

Civility

Personal Attacks, Civility and Respect

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.

Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.

Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion. Do not post topics that arouse suspicion against new members, or members with low post counts.

Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member. You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so.

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.

You are permitted to post polite behavioral corrections to other members of the message board, in direct response to specific instances of incivility, provided that your comments are narrowly focused on the behavior. But you are not permitted to make broad statements about another person's behavior in general, and you are not permitted to post repeated reminders about another person's mistakes.

You are permitted to criticize public figures, who are not protected under our rules against personal attacks. However, if a public figure is a member of our community, that person is protected by our rules and you are not permitted to personally attack that person. (You are permitted to offer constructive criticism of their activities as a public figure.)

If you do not like someone, please be aware that you have the option of putting that person on your ignore list. Just click the ignore icon on one of their posts.

There are no exceptions to these civility rules. You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person "deserved it," or because you think someone is a disruptor. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk.

(snip)

Bigotry and Broad-Brush Smears

When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.

(snip)

Have a thick skin. Please be aware that just because you consider a post to be offensive does not mean that it is against the rules or bigoted. As a general rule of thumb, posts about ideas are generally okay, but posts about groups of people are often inappropriate.

(snip)

[Tempest]

58. Yeah, one more question

Who shit in your Corn Flakes this morning?

You're apparently still harboring resentment for it.


The fact of the matter is, you're throwing out accusations and insults at the same time you're unwilling to put forth any of your own theories on what happened.

That makes you a bleeding idiot.

[blonndee]

59. Hey, the poster apologized. n/t

[Subdivisions]

60. I don't really have a theory...

but, as a webmaster, I can tell you this. Let's say that a lot of voters were doing some last-minute soul-searching and decided to visit the joe2006.com site to get information.

Now, let's say that their account is hosted on a shared server, rather than a dedicated server, as most temporary sites are. And, let's assume that they got a hosting account they felt reasonably sure would provide adequate bandwidth. Now, let's just say that the person in charge of finding hosting for joe2006.com knows all about politics and campaigning but doesn't know diddly-squat about bandwidth limitations.

Having supposed and assumed all of that, it is quite possible that last-minute traffic either tripped the bandwidth limit (which could trip the suspended page and the need to call billing to buy more bandwidth) or overloaded the "shared" server, which could trip the suspended page to keep Lieberman's site from taking down all the other sites on the "shared" server. Also, a DOS attack could do the same thing, running out the bandwidth or tripping server security to suspend the site in order to protect other customers' sites.

I really don't know what happened. I'll wait to make any additional comments on this matter only if it proves to be the shady underdoings of a corrupt campaign and not some server/hosting issue.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

62. As another webmaster... Your site is down as of 4:12PM CST

Nope... It finally loaded after 3 minutes (on a T1).

Is that one of those Vic 20 servers? Timex Sinclair?

[Subdivisions]

63. And your point is?

That's funny because it only takes 3 seconds on my cable connection and less than three minutes on dial-up. Besides, I thought we were talking about something else in this thread.

Since we're on the subject then, if anyone else has issues with my site's load-time or anything else, please let me know. Knowing these things will help me improve the site for those who actually want to see it. Thank you.

[lapfog_1]

20. You are correct... but the media should ALSO

quit speculating as well. Especially with accusations aimed at Ned Lamont or his supporters. And we can, and should, complain about that.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swamp Rat]

24. LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!

Why do you hate Murika trumad?

[Subdivisions]

26. Oh, so this isn't a board that encourages

free speech?

You seem to have perfected it here for yourself. Why can't I?

And, what do you have against Texas and horses anyway?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Swamp Rat]

30. Since when does 'free speech' include you coming here, calling people

names and questioning our collective intelligence?

Huh? Answer me that Einstein.

[Subdivisions]

34. Ummm...

show me the quote where I called you a name...

Also, if I am not allowed to be here and speak my mind, just say so.

[Swamp Rat]

38. Please review DU rules on posting as you may be breaking some:

Civility

Personal Attacks, Civility and Respect

The administrators of Democratic Underground are working to provide a place where progressives can share ideas and debate in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Despite our best efforts, some of our members often stray from this ideal and cheapen the quality of discourse for everyone else. Unfortunately, it is simply impossible to write a comprehensive set of rules forbidding every type of antisocial behavior. The fact that the rules do not forbid a certain type of post does not automatically make an uncivil post appropriate, nor does it imply that the administrators approve of disrespectful behavior. Every member of this community has a responsibility to participate in a respectful manner, and to help foster an atmosphere of thoughtful discussion. In this regard, we strongly advise that our members exercise a little common decency, rather than trying to parse the message board rules to figure out what type of antisocial behavior is not forbidden.

Do not post personal attacks or engage in name-calling against other individual members of this discussion board. Even very mild personal attacks are forbidden.

Do not hurl insults at other individual members of this message board. Do not tell someone, "shut up," "screw you," "fuck off," "in your face," or some other insult.

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.

Do not publicly accuse another member of this message board of being a disruptor, conservative, Republican, FReeper, or troll, or do not otherwise imply they are not welcome on Democratic Underground. If you think someone is a disruptor, click the "Alert" link below their post to let the moderators know.

Do not draw negative attention to the fact that someone is new, has a low post count, or recently became a member of Democratic Underground. Do not insinuate that because someone is new, they are a troll or disruptor.

Do not accuse entire groups of people on Democratic Underground of being conservative disruptors, or post messages which spread this type of suspicion. Do not post topics that arouse suspicion against new members, or members with low post counts.

Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member. You are permitted to tell someone that you are adding them to your ignore list, provided that you actually do so.

Do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere. Do not talk negatively about an individual in a thread where they are not participating. Do not post messages with the purpose of "calling out" another member or picking a fight with another member. Do not use your signature line to draw negative attention to another member of the board.

You are permitted to post polite behavioral corrections to other members of the message board, in direct response to specific instances of incivility, provided that your comments are narrowly focused on the behavior. But you are not permitted to make broad statements about another person's behavior in general, and you are not permitted to post repeated reminders about another person's mistakes.

You are permitted to criticize public figures, who are not protected under our rules against personal attacks. However, if a public figure is a member of our community, that person is protected by our rules and you are not permitted to personally attack that person. (You are permitted to offer constructive criticism of their activities as a public figure.)

If you do not like someone, please be aware that you have the option of putting that person on your ignore list. Just click the ignore icon on one of their posts.

There are no exceptions to these civility rules. You cannot attack someone because they attacked you first, or because that person "deserved it," or because you think someone is a disruptor. We consider it a personal attack to call a liar a liar, to call a moron a moron, or to call a jerk a jerk.

(snip)

Bigotry and Broad-Brush Smears

When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion, or other highly-sensitive personal issues, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view.

(snip)

Have a thick skin. Please be aware that just because you consider a post to be offensive does not mean that it is against the rules or bigoted. As a general rule of thumb, posts about ideas are generally okay, but posts about groups of people are often inappropriate.

(snip)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[Subdivisions]

41. If the statement...

"from under what rock did you crawl out of?" or "Fuck you" didn't break any rules, neither did I by saying that no one knows what happened to Lieberman's site and that everyone is just speculating.

[Swamp Rat]

42. What did you expect after insinuting we're all stupid? Hugs and kisses?

I welcomed you, even though you were rude, but you didn't even respond.

Grow a thicker skin or be more polite.

Again, welcome to DU.

[Subdivisions]

47. Thank you for the welcome...

My original post was not meant to insinuate anything negative about DUers. I did not post it with the intent on being rude. It's just that I've been reading all these threads about Lieberman's website being down and everyone's just spinning their wheels because noone knows for sure what happened...yet.

I don't want to get off on the wrong foot around here and if you, Swamp Rat, feel that I called you stupid, I apologize. I don't even know you and I assure you that I don't make it a part of my life to insult people. However, it seems like I'm suffering from credibility problems here simply because I'm a new member with only a scant 100+ posts. That is insulting. That's ok. I'll just donate and then at least I'll feel like me and my opinions belong here and are just as valid as yours.

[Swamp Rat]

49. Thank you

I appreciate your reasoned reply.

You are absolutely right that it is rude to treat someone poorly because of a low post count, AND it is against the rules.

Thank you for donating to DU. :hi:

[tbyg52]

44. The part that set me off was

"Stop speculating." That went from your expressing your opinion into your telling me (us) what to do. I'll speculate as much as I please, thank you. And you may certainly do the same.

[Subdivisions]

48. I apologize...

Would it have been better if I had said "Please, stop speculating."?

You know, I've seen so much said here about how people wish today's journalists would do their jobs and expose the crimes being perpetrated by the current administration. I've seen complaints about how all they do anymore is speculate on developing news, rather than reporting the story. Instead, what do CNN and MSNBC and Fox News do all day long? They speculate.

Don't we have so much more to discuss than expending our energies doing exactly the thing which we can watch on TV simply by switching to CNN or Fox?

[trumad]

52. They speculate?

Dude--- they're already saying they may try to invalidate the results because of this...

You just want us to turn a blind eye instead of getting to the bottom of it....

You have no idea how DU works do you?

[tbyg52]

53. No, the "please" would have made no difference whatsoever

But I know you know that.... ;)

Again, express your opinion all you like, but *please* stop telling me what to do. (And that's my last word on the topic, even if this one is deleted.)

[Subdivisions]

57. Perhaps I should refrain...

from posting when I am frustrated. Again, my comment was a plea, not an insult or a demand. I apologize for any ill feelings resulting from it.

[Wheezy]

64. I accept your apology.

But I'm just a spectator :)

Welcome to DU.

[slackmaster]

36. That's only the default page, it can be configured to look like anything

:nuke:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

40. I don't think so. When I exceed my bandwith,

I get a whole different kind of message.
AND I have to go shopping for a new pair of trousers and a belt.

[Kire]

46. That's what it looks like with IE

What does it look like on Firefox?

I'm not sure, but I'm betting it doesn't say 'under construction'.

[tbyg52]

56. It looks the same on Firefox

[longship]

61. You can configure the server to display *any* page.

I run Apache. Like many Web servers you can make it display any damned thing under any number of error conditions. What you've screen clipped there is Apache's *default* message.