E-Mails Show FCC Made Up DDOS Attack To Downplay The 'John Oliver Effect'

from the disinformation-nation dept

You might remember that when HBO comedian John Oliver originally tackled net neutrality on his show in 2014, the FCC website crashed under the load of concerned consumers eager to support the creation of net neutrality rules. When Oliver revisited the topic last May to discuss Trump FCC boss Ajit Pai’s myopic plan to kill those same rules, the FCC website crashed under the load a second time. That’s not a particular shock; the FCC’s website has long been seen as an outdated relic from the wayback times of Netscape, hit counters, and awful MIDI music.

But then something weird happened. In the midst of all the media attention Oliver was receiving for his segment, the FCC issued a statement (pdf) by former FCC Chief Information Officer David Bray, claiming that comprehensive FCC “analysis” indicated that it was a malicious DDoS attack, not angry net neutrality supporters, that brought the agency’s website to its knees:

“Beginning on Sunday night at midnight, our analysis reveals that the FCC was subject to multiple distributed denial-of-service attacks (DDos). These were deliberate attempts by external actors to bombard the FCC?s comment system with a high amount of traffic to our commercial cloud host. These actors were not attempting to file comments themselves; rather they made it difficult for legitimate commenters to access and file with the FCC.”

But the FCC’s claims were seen as suspect by numerous security experts, who say the crash showed none of the usual telltale signs of an actual DDOS. And reports subsequently emerged indicating that the “analysis” the FCC supposedly conducted never actually occurred. When media outlets began noticing that something fishy was going on, the Trump FCC issued a punchy statement accusing the media of being “completely irresponsible.” No evidence was ever provided to journalists or lawmakers that pressured the agency for hard data proving the claims.

Fast forward to this week, and new internal FCC e-mails obtained via FOIA request show that yes, the FCC did routinely try to mislead the public and the press with repeated claims of DDOS attacks that never actually happened:

“The FCC has been unwilling or unable to produce any evidence an attack occurred?not to the reporters who?ve requested and even sued over it, and not to U.S. lawmakers who?ve demanded to see it. Instead, the agency conducted a quiet campaign to bolster its cyberattack story with the aid of friendly and easily duped reporters, chiefly by spreading word of an earlier cyberattack that its own security staff say never happened.”

The story is worth a read, and highlights how former FCC CIO David Bray and FCC media relations head Mark Wigfield repeatedly fed false information about the nonexistent attack to reporters, then used those (incorrect) stories to further prop up their flimsy claims about the DDOS:

“Bray is not the only FCC official last year to push dubious accounts to reporters. Mark Wigfield, the FCC?s deputy director of media relations, told Politico: ?there were similar DDoS attacks back in 2014 right after the Jon Oliver [sic] episode.? According to emails between Bray and FedScoop, the FCC?s Office of Media Relations likewise fed cooked-up details about an unverified cyberattack to the Wall Street Journal.

The Journal apparently swallowed the FCC?s revised history of the incident, reporting that the agency ?also revealed that the 2014 show had been followed by DDoS attacks too,? as if it were a fact that had been concealed for several years. After it was published, the Journal?s article, authored by tech reporter John McKinnon, was forwarded by Bray to reporters at other outlets and portrayed as a factual telling of events. Bray also emailed the story to several private citizens who had contacted the FCC with questions and concerns about the comment system?s issues.”

The story isn’t going to get much mainstream traction thanks to numerous other instances of cultural idiocy we’re all currently soaking in, but it’s fairly amazing all the same. In short, the FCC appears to have completely concocted a fake DDOS attack in a ham-fisted effort to try and downplay the massive public opposition to its extremely-unpopular policies.

Of course that’s pretty standard behavior for an agency that also blocked a law enforcement inquiry into fraud during the public comment period, likely also an effort to downplay massive public opposition to the repeal. It’s also pretty standard behavior from a Trump administration that enjoys using bullshit to distract from the fact that countless policies (like repealing net neutrality) run in stark, violent contrast to the admin’s “populist” election message.

This isn’t likely to be the end of this story, and more details are likely to surface in the looming lawsuits against the FCC attempting to restore net neutrality.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “E-Mails Show FCC Made Up DDOS Attack To Downplay The 'John Oliver Effect'”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

Real Story

The well-established fact that gov’ts, especially the Executive Branch of our current one, lie is dog-bites-man. The man-bites-dog part is that the “John Oliver Effect” is now indisputable. Makes no difference that the gov’t denies it – Johnny-me-boyo-Oliver has the power to splash gov’t websites.

A left-wing comic has achieved offhand what foreign powers have failed to accomplish with concerted intent funded by nation-state resources.

Crack a bottle and raise a toast.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Real Story

Got proof Ammori gave the story to Oliver? Cause I don’t see any.

And even if that is true, so what? Net Neutrality still matters, the public overwhelmingly supports it, and Pai wanted to get rid of it. These are all indisputable facts. And I watched Oliver’s piece (both actually) on NN, nowhere in there did I see any factual errors.

So, once again that leaves you with a big fat nothing burger of a statement.

Try again Richard.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: political will

First, hi there, “thebruce”. Your first comment and first reply! Red letter day.

You should be informed before wasting time that your efforts here will be futile. The minion even writes: “The story isn’t going to get much mainstream traction”. Techdirt’s niche is the irrelevant, and often already over by time re-written.

But enjoy, while it lasts. — Just watch out for zombies! About half of “accounts” here have highly ODD gaps of three to seven years, so you may well be responding to astro-turfing.

Anonymous Coward says:

NOT probative: "agency conducted a quiet campaign to bolster"

SO? Neither re-writer nor source have ANY evidence that was not DDOS, only at most that high-level execs repeated a story they didn’t care whether was true.

**AND SO? Was ZERO effect on the “net neutrality” decision in any event!** — As I wrote way back, even assuming all you say is true, comments still were / are not binding on decisions!

But, hey, if makes you ‘dirters happy to re-hash this yet again, must be literally twenty pieces by now, that’s FINE with me! It’s just Typical Techdirt: LAME.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Neither re-writer nor source have ANY evidence that was not DDOS, only at most that high-level execs repeated a story they didn’t care whether was true.

That fact pushes the argument in favor of “the DDOS never happened”. Why openly lie about facts that other people could verify?

Was ZERO effect on the "net neutrality" decision in any event!

You can go on believing that a fake DDOS cooked up by the FCC to undercut the public opposition to the repeal of Network Neutrality had “no effect” on either the vote to repeal or the discussion surrounding that vote. You’d be wrong, but hey, it’s your right to be wrong.

Typical Techdirt: LAME.

Do better. Go get a WordPress blog and do Techdirt better than Techdirt does. If you hate Techdirt this much and you know it will not change to suit your sensibilities and politics and high standards, go outdo it and show them how the fuck things should be done. But for your own sake, stop coming here if you hate the site that much; your posts come off as a form of self-harm akin to wrist-cutting or alcoholism or watching reality TV all day. Get yourself some professional help, man.

JMT (profile) says:

Re: NOT probative: "agency conducted a quiet campaign to bolster"

"Neither re-writer nor source have ANY evidence that was not DDOS…"

That’s the whole point, there’s no evidence that anything happened. Are you seriously suggesting it’s up to everyone else to disprove the FCC’s DDOS claim? Do you not understand how the burden of proof works?

Thad (user link) says:

This was blisteringly obvious from the get-go, but it’s nice to get confirmation.

So what are the legal ramifications of this? The FCC lied about a DDoS attack to downplay the size of the public response, kept records proving that it lied, and then fought FOIA requests for said records.

There are numerous court challenges to the Title II repeal. These emails look an awful lot like the sort of thing that will appear with the word "Exhibit" on them.

Richard Bennett (profile) says:

How about a little fact-checking

This is a typical Bode troll, all spew and no facts. Go read David Bray’s Medium post, “On People and Service in Turbulent Environments.”

A couple of key points: Dell Cameron, the Gizmodo troll who manufactured the story, lied when he claimed to have reached out to Bray.

There as either a DDoS attack or such incompetent use of the comment system API as to mimic one.

Taking Gigi Sohn’s technical analysis of the 2014 DDoS attack as gospel is about as absurd as counting on Bode to deliver something like straight reporting; just not in the person’s skill set.

But keep on nurturing your conspiracy theories, that’s what Techdirt is for.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 How about a little fact-checking

You can even use preview to check formating and that the link works as expected.

Works as expected? You know, there’s a Rick Astley YouTube video, “Never Gonna Give You Up”. Awhile ago I discovered that linking to that video will put your post straight into the automod queue. Not that surprising, if you think about it.

So how do you check whether direct-to-the-automod-queue works as expected — on preview?

The url is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: How about a little fact-checking

No, it doesn’t.

What it does do is hold some links in a spam filter, especially from users who have been reported for either spamming or trolling a number of times. If you’re not doing either, the link will usually be approved. It’s happened to me sometimes, I just don’t whine like an idiot when I’m informed it’s being held for review.

I’d go back to some of those “censored” links you’ve posted in the past. I’d be willing to bet they’re visible now. But, hey, if you want to claim a working spam filter is deliberate censorship, you’ve confirmed you have the same knowledge of running a web forum as you do about NN.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: How about a little fact-checking

That’s not proof. He didn’t provide one single verifiable statement in the entire post. It was a bunch of he said/she said crap.

Also, you can’t offer as proof more statements from the guy we all think is lying and claim it proves him right. You have to have evidence to back up his claims, and you both have none.

Try again Richard.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: How about a little fact-checking

” Go read David Bray’s Medium post”

or: “I don’t like this blog post. Go read another blog post I happen to agree with! (but won’t link to because I don’t know how the internet works).” You’re really desperate to not get refuted with facts to disprove your ideas yet again, aren’t you?

“There as either a DDoS attack or such incompetent use of the comment system API as to mimic one.”

Can you rewrite that in legible English, please?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: How about a little fact-checking

Go read David Bray’s Medium post

You mean the one written by the guy we are all accusing of lying to us? Oh yeah, we’ll absolutely believe what he says, because that makes sense. Why would I believe someone who I believe to be lying who can’t even provide proof that he isn’t lying? Talk about circular reasoning.

Regardless of that, I did read it. Nowhere in there does he actually say it was "absolutely, 100% a DDoS attack, and here’s the proof". In actuality he said this:

whether the correct phrase is denial of service or “bot swarm” or “something hammering the Application Programming Interface” (API) of the commenting system

Oh, you mean like form letters people can fill out and have one organization submit them via API on their behalf, which is completely legal and valid? That kind of "odd" behavior?

So basically Bray is admitting that it very well could have been a bunch of people filling out form letters and those organizations trying to submit them all at once. Your argument is evaporating like mist in sunshine.

There as either a DDoS attack or such incompetent use of the comment system API as to mimic one.

So basically what you’re saying is the FCC’s comment system is so borked that it can’t handle a paltry flood of comments, compared to the traffic that a lot of other similarly sized websites get. Because, let’s be clear here, 1) there was no DDoS attack, 2) the onus of using an API correctly is not on the user, it is on the developer of the API to make sure it’s designed in such a way that it either can’t be used incompetently or can do some basic error catching/correction. Congratulations, you just called Bray and the FCC incompetent.

Taking Gigi Sohn’s technical analysis of the 2014 DDoS attack as gospel is about as absurd as counting on Bode to deliver something like straight reporting; just not in the person’s skill set.

Ad hom attack, no facts to support either assertion. But for the sake of argument, since you’re saying we shouldn’t believe an adviser to the FCC, I guess that means we shouldn’t believe a word you say either, doesn’t it Richard?

But keep on nurturing your conspiracy theories, that’s what Techdirt is for.

Well, considering you can’t do anything but lie, the truth must seem like a conspiracy theory to you.

Try again Richard.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: How about a little fact-checking

What’s that again Richard? Definitely a DDoS was it?

Oh wait, what’s this?


Oh my stars and garters! You mean the FCC actually and deliberately lied and there was NO DDoS attack? I’m shocked! (Not really)

Once again you prove to everyone you are nothing but a liar and industry shill. It would seem you no longer have any viable legs to stand on. Which, it seems you realize given your lack of posts recently. Either that or you are far too busy trying to damage control for the flaming mess that is Pai’s FCC.

Do try again Richard.

Richard Bennett (profile) says:

Bray's post

If you actually read the Gizmodo blog by Dell Cameron that Bodey McBodeface cribs, you’ll see a link to Bray’s post.

It looks something like this: medium[dot]com/@davidbray/while-i-am-currently-executive-director-for-the-people-centered-internet-coalition-previously-four-93ce38f272e

The Gizmodo post is quite long and very confused, as one would expect.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Bray's post

“Bodey McBodeface”

Sorry, I don’t read things that people with such playground mindsets take as fact.

“The Gizmodo post is quite long and very confused, as one would expect.”

But, you won’t detail why nor refute any point here, just enlessly demand someone reads another person’s words while participating in kindergarten name-calling that would embarrass my girlfriend’s 6 year old daughter.

Are you really stupid enough to think that this is a compelling debate tactic? Once again, no wonder you fail at NN arguments here, you’re not ever capable of presenting yourself as an adult with original thoughts, let alone access to facts.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Bray's post

If you actually read the Gizmodo blog

I did.

you’ll see a link to Bray’s post.

Saw that and read it too.

The Gizmodo post is quite long and very confused, as one would expect.

Actually, the Gizmodo story is a total of 2005 words in length. Bray’s Medium post 2229 words in length. But I would absolutely agree with you that Bray’s post is very long winded and confused as he can’t even seem to get his own story straight and has to assure the readers multiple times that he is "just as concerned" about NN and people being able to have their voice heard as the rest of us. Still want to say the Gizmodo story is "quite long and confused"?

Try again Richard.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Government lies to public… story appears on page 72k in 2 pt font because it’s as shocking as water being wet.

They will not be held accountable, they will do it again, they might run some idiot out as the fall guy & he’ll probably land at Sinclair in a nice cushy job.

They lie to us so often, they have started to believe the lies & support others lies as long as it helps them ‘win’. Pity they don’t give a shit about the losers… who end up paying the bills.

Ryunosuke (profile) says:

okay so here’s the million dollar set of questions.

  1. How legal is it to purposely, willfully, and blatantly mislead not only the public, but also lawmakers, and the DoJ on such a bi-partisan issue?

  2. How can the FCC actually defend against this?

  3. What are now the chances of a legal restoration of Net Neutrality or can Ajit Pai be legally removed from office due to gross negligence?
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Here's a run down

I’ve noticed him on both sites, though I’m a far less frequent comments on Ars so I let others take care of him for me there. I wonder how many other sites that dare discuss actual facts on the subject he’s been polluting? I’m sure these can’t be the only ones. I do also wonder how he deals with sites that actually censor comments, if he can’t handle the ones that generally don’t.

Oh well, at least if he’s trolling for clicks it would explain his behaviour and ignorance to some degree, unlike the anonymous ones who don’t even have that bare excuse.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Here's a run down

I’ve noticed that either Dick doesn’t post on Ars, or his posts get very quickly hidden. It’s one thing I’m not fond of Ars for; you don’t get to see others pick apart his rigmarole.

Makes you wonder why he bothers here. One common part of the Techdirt troll screed is that Techdirt is a “libtard” site with, if out_of_the_blue is to be trusted, only 27 visitors from Bangladesh. If so, it begs the question why the fact Techdirt exists puts such a twist in Dick’s pantyhose.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Here's a run down

Presumably because both the site and regular commenters can be relied upon to pick apart and dispel misinformation about net neutrality. The guy seems to be intent on spreading bad info, so it must annoy him to be so regularly and thoroughly contradicted. Especially since, unlike Ars, comments aren’t actually removed here so the full conversation is always visible, and it should be clear to any casual reader where the facts lie.

Amusingly, I did a quick search to see if he’s been commenting on other sites I visit semi-regularly. I didn’t find much (assuming he always uses the same handle), but I do see him being cited as a “reliable” source occasionally on The Register by none other than Andrew Orlowski, possibly the most openly trolling tech “journalist” I’ve ever had the misfortune of reading. If that doesn’t tell you everything, I’m not sure what can.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Here's a run down

Trying to do some damage control for your ISP masters, eh Richard?

Your entire "article" doesn’t say anything that TD’s, Gizmodo’s, or Bray’s articles don’t already say, in fact, most of it is copied and pasted from those articles (and you harp on TD for re-hashing old news). And your "proof" is to quote Bray’s post (the guy everyone thinks is lying) who doesn’t give any evidence or proof other than to say "I did a quick analysis". Ok, where’s the official documents, logs, records, ANYTHING that proves him right. What’s that? None? Huh, go figure.

Try again Richard.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Here's a run down

Oh and here’s an official story showing the FCC lied till the cows came home and there was no DDoS.


But you know, these are just boring facts. Something you obviously can’t be bothered with.

Nice try but no cigar.

Try again Richard.

Anonymous Coward says:

Come on Karl, just say it -- "the Obama FCC"

I’m waiting for Karl Bode to utter the phrase “the Obama FCC” — just to be consistent with “the Trump FCC” as he now so frequently refers to the current agency. As this article was about a 2014 incident, this would have been another excellent opportunity to demonstrate some grammatical consistency (as well as non-partisanship).

But no such luck. Karl Bode’s record of grammatical inconsistency remains … consistent.

GEMont (profile) says:

Gov's Playbook, Chapter 3: The distraction of destruction.

“This isn’t likely to be the end of this story, and more details are likely to surface in the looming lawsuits against the FCC attempting to restore net neutrality.”

Hmmmmm…. sounds like its time for a national crisis, or a declaration of war, or a terrorist attack on a public space, once again.

Gotta derail these looming investigations somehow …

Amazing how easy it is to distract the public inquiry into government misdeeds by simply blowing up a few buildings, killing a few hundred civilians, or sending troops off to some tiny third world country for a highly televised war-show.

Wonder what kind of false crisis they’ll use this time …. they’ll need a biggie – this criminal administration has a ton of illegal shit to sweep under the public rug and needs to do a massive “look over there” scam real soon.

Gary Mont (profile) says:


“…this betrayal of citizens by government at all levels is happening way too frequently for my tastes.”

Hell mon, you aint seen nothing yet.

This situation cannot get any better until the public realizes the US has been conquered by its own wealthiest citizens, and demands a return to the rule of honest law, or revolts and puts the tyrants to the stake.

It will however continue to get worse. That is guaranteed by the simple fact that the billionaires in power have gotten away with every scam they’ve tried so far. There is no reason for these Fascists to consider anything but escalation of the program.

The beauty of being super rich is that, should your home nation become bankrupt due to your machinations, every other nation on earth is still eager to invite you over to stay as long as you like.

Toom1275 (profile) says:

Reposting repost re: DDOS proof

ecafsub wrote:
reddit user /u/MNGrrl posted a very thorough breakdown of how we know the FCC is/was lying. Go read it.

Reposting in full:

We caught them red handed — they claimed ‘cyber attack’ but we have the uptime reports. We have the connectivity reports (their CDN is Akamai – you can view real time attack data for their network — if the FCC site was down, a big chunk of the web would have been too). It would have made big news in the IT/networking world if Akamai hiccup’d… since they were able to handle the world’s largest DDoS last fall. That got noticed… by, erm, everyone. Network Operations Centers all over the world saw it. Did anyone see the FCC DDoS? crickets

There’s evidence that the bot is being run on an API — in other words someone inside the FCC specifically gave access. They have to issue special keys (just like with Reddit!) — and they’re rate limited. They would know who’s doing it instantly, because that API isn’t available for just anyone: You have to ask for it — click on the link, it’ll show you the form; It asks for name and e-mail. Someone from the FCC said as much — it was API accesses, not public-facing. If there was a connectivity issue it wasn’t external, it was internal, preventable, and that’s why they won’t give out the server logs. Because they knew who was doing it, could have stopped it, didn’t, and are letting it continue to happen as we speak. They know exactly which comments are being submitted by bots, and who owns them. Purely for my own amusement, I went looking for the Terms of Service for accessing the API. Click. Click. Aaaand here we are: "FCC computer systems employ software to monitor network traffic to identify unauthorized attempts…" :snip: "If such monitoring reveals evidence of possible abuse or criminal activity" :snip: cough Fraud cough "Unauthorized attempts to upload or change information on this server are strictly prohibited". Not going to do anything, FCC? Says what they did is "strictly prohibited"… soooooooo…. crickets

The previous link provides evidence it’s a grand total of… five. Five different copy pasta text; And all sourced from the same stolen identity databases. And the submission times are painfully obvious that it was automated: The number of submissions per second was nearly constant too, like clockwork. And submitted alphabetically. What’s more… They prepared for this years ago. You can say, unironically, "Thanks Obama" for that one. They specifically upgraded the public comments after the last network neutrality comment crush. Rather a lot (footnote: ECFS is the comment system — and it was specifically targeted for a revamp and big bump to system capacity). That capacity wasn’t exceeded — not by the general public anyway. The inflow rate of submissions from John Oliver’s gofccyourself.com came in well under — 150k versus 1.1 million? It’s hard to imagine how they’d add all that extra capacity only to have it fall over dead under a fraction of the load. Someone was even nice enough to make a map of who’s submitting the comments. Look at the first time this happened. Then look at that one. Notice anything? This time around, the map looks like a mirror of the population distribution of the entire country. By the numbers, the whole nation knows about Network Neutrality, across every demographic… equally. Including the deceased.

Oh, they never filed a report with the Department of Homeland Security, which is what every government agency is supposed to do if they experience a cyber attack. Double bonus round, Here’s the FCC’s own page on cybersecurity preparedness and response. And what do they say? "The FCC, because of its relationship with the nation’s communications network service providers, is particularly well positioned to work with industry to secure the networks upon which the Internet depends." Sounds like someone who’d have a plan, you’d think.They claimed to the media something their own policies dictate what the response should be — and they didn’t do those things. It’s right there for anyone who cares to go hunting for the data and published documents. They didn’t file the report because it wasn’t a DDoS: It was access approved by them.

The FCC may be run now by a corrupt chairman but the institution itself was built on transparency and this guy sits in his office with an oversized coffee mug and posts Youtubes about how tech savvy he is. Behold, he can Twitter. Well, he isn’t, actually. His pants are down and his ass is hanging out if you know where to look. Rome wasn’t built in a day and neither was the FCC. No matter how much him and the rest of the Trump administration tries to silence, coerce, replace, and otherwise generally screw with freedom of information and transparency… those institutions are staffed by tens of thousands of people operating under policies and rules enacted over decades. The FCC doesn’t operate in a vaccum either: It’s part of the internet. An internet catalogued and backed up by the NSA no less. Anyone remember Snowden and metadata? We log the shit out of all internet traffic. There are no logs. That’s damning enough evidence all by itself.

You can’t CTRL-Z that. We have all the proof we need; We don’t need server logs. We don’t need confirmation from them. They can throw up a wall of silence and deny all they want — we have them dead to rights and it amazes me that nobody in the media has come out and flatly said these guys are full of shit beyond any reasonable doubt. This isn’t accusation, it’s not supposition, it’s hard fact. The. End.

Here’s a parting thought: How about we all hit up the FTC and report identity theft? About, erm, what, a million or so cases so far? Let’s subpoena the shit out of the FCC and unmask our identity thieves. While we’re at it, let’s grab their e-mail server too. Something something but her e-mails. I, for one, find it materially relevant how my identity was stolen, and some of that evidence is in the FCC’s possession. That chairman’s a lawyer right? Surely he wouldn’t begrudge us lawyering up.


EDITs: Added links and some extra details.

EDIT: Press refresh after the edits and… Oh. For those wanting to go to the press: You have my permission to copy pasta this in whole or in part to anyone you want — just link back to this comment or credit me. Thanks.

EDIT: Several users pinged WaPo here; They’re investigating. #WeDidItReddit

EDIT: Gizmodo is too.

EDIT: Hello El Reg! They were nice enough to post the FCC’s statement regarding the DDoS. I’ll save you the trouble of reading it: "We were DDoS’d and the evidence is ███████, using ████ ███████, and we’re ███████. Thanks. "

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...