Talk:Hackers attack Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting website

OR

There are a few IRC channels devoted to creating open proxies to bypass Iranian internet blockage: #irantech and #iranelection. Both are on freenode.

Here is a screen shot of the IRIB website before it went totally offline: http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/7452/iribwebsitehackedddos.gif 'server too busy'. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There's also Anonnet with #iran, #iran.analysis and #iran.proxies Anonymous (Talk to the Anonymous) 12:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.158.235 (talk)

Accessed, or tried to access IRIB website: Connection timed out at 3:41 p.m. eastern time. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Link to some blocked websites in Iran. Not sure how long it will be around: http://95.211.92.83/banned.html DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Add that to the article. That might be very important in the future if their are other websites affected by a DDoS. Also what is the time of the "Server too busy" error? Irunongames (talk) 19:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A DDoS attack will produce an error such as that: Website times out, server too busy or connection cannot be established. The messages all depend on your browser and such. This is not the first time a major internet site has been hacked/attacked. The Scientology website was a while back. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 21:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Point of interest - the banned list is being hosted in the netherlands (by a company called leaseweb) as far as i can tell. Although the person updating it is probably in iran and might "go away" I think the list is here for a little bit. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Review

Revision 837019 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Kinda hard to fully varify, but that's a problem with all OR. Also, I'm assuming that either more details will be added as they become available, or that there will be followup articles. Gopher65talk 21:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 837019 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Kinda hard to fully varify, but that's a problem with all OR. Also, I'm assuming that either more details will be added as they become available, or that there will be followup articles. Gopher65talk 21:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC) The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Unsourced claim of responsibility for attack

Hi, could you please cite the source for this claim: "On further investigation, it was discovered that an individual or group claims responsibility for attacking the website on an Iranian internet forum."

You should be detailing who made that claim, as well as what website the claim was made on, as well as the actual URL link to the conversation where responsibility is claimed.

I argue this should prevent the "passed" rating for "verifiability".

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.115.64.151 (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)