Talk:Low Orbit Ion Cannon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computer Security / Computing  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Software / Computing  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Computing (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Notable Uses[edit]

The 'Notable Uses' section has wording that seems less than neutral... I'm not anti-anon or pro-anon or anything however, it reads more like a guide on how to use LOIC than an wiki article explaining what it is. -71.195.12.111 (talk) 19:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm I'm not entirely convinced. It was me that added the information about people being arrested for using it, which is certainly not likely to encourage people to use it. The section is perhaps undue weight to some extent (i.e. too much coverage of this aspect given its significance), but in practice the notable uses are what most secondary sources will cover the tool for. What parts of this section could be removed or re-worded? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"LOIC was utilized by Project Chanology, a project by the Anonymous group, to attack websites from the Church of Scientology,[9]" I read that article, Hackers Hit Scientology With Online Attack By Robert McMillan, and didn't find any assertion that LOIC was the tool used to ddos the Church of Scientology website. Perhaps another reference source can be found to substantiate the claim. Cheers ArishiaNishi (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I've found a replacement link, which IMHO looks better; thanks for the heads-up. Ipsign (talk) 05:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Possible Problem with the image[edit]

Isn't LOIC public domain? Why does the picture say it is from copyrighted software? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.66.226 (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hivemind[edit]

I think the hivemind is an un-official LOIC version, so better change that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.94.244.195 (talkcontribs)

Etymology[edit]

I think it is worth pointing out that, on its own, LOIC is a DoS program, not a DDoS program. LOIC has been used in DDoS attacks, but only because groups of willing participants colluded to attack the same domain at the same time. Implying that LOIC is a DDoS system on its own could be interpreted to mean something similar to a botnet, where multiple computers are compromised in order to execute a DDoS attack, usually via viruses or trojans. In the case of LOIC, the target is user defined, and the program must be invoked as an administrator in the first place. Human communication via the internet is what caused LOIC to be used in a distributed fashion. 174.0.118.76 (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)bitbytethecompsciguy

I agree. LOIC on it's own should not be represented as a DDoS tool. Hivemode allows makes it a DDoS tool, though, or damn close? DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Could someone who knows add a section explaining *why* a piece of DDoS software is named after a space-weapon? I'm sure it's a reference to a particular game or sci-fi universe but other than that it appears as a random choice. Witty Lama 22:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I search but couldn't find that info. There is info about the program in Encyclopedia Dramatica LOIC article --Neo139 (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The software's image of the space cannnon is taken from Command and Conquer 202.78.240.7 (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
"They had given their digital weapons geek names like the Low Orbit Ion Cannon (LOIC, named after a laser in Star Wars)"(ref) --Neo139 (talk) 14:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
C&C LOIC is displayed in the application, so the article you mentioned is wrong. SW IC, C&C IC, LOIC IC Abatishchev (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Other versions[edit]

There's a C++/QT port of Loic called "LOIQ" available on Sourceforge here: [1] . Does not support "Hivemode" yet but should be mentioned as it is a truly compatible linux variant. Disclaimer: I have not tested this.

When I will rework the article to list all currently maintained versions, I'll mention LOIQ too. Abatishchev (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Under PythonLOIC it states there are versions for ALL platforms. This wording is a bit misleading as it's simply not true. A better word would be "many" or even possibly "most" instead of "all". There is no version for gaming consoles, Web OS, or Symbian to name a few. Also in the small list of platforms given it makes it seem that "iPhone OS" (which is no longer the correct name) and iPod Touch are separate platforms which they aren't. They both are part of the "iOS" platform that also includes the iPad. I realize these mistakes are also on the source page, but that doesn't make them correct. --Rlsaine (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Juridical point of view[edit]

Might be interesting to add something about if using this program is actually legal? Anorionil (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I've used it to stress test my own applications and so I would hope so. I presume that the software is completely legal and that it's the act of DDoSing that's illegal. 202.78.240.7 (talk) 20:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes and how most ISP bans its use in their customer aggreements and how it can easily be traced. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
That could fit better in DDoS article instead of here--Neo139 (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, this stuff belongs in DoS/DDoS articles, not here. The action is criminal and/or a TOS violation, not the software. We don't include warnings against the illegality of murder or bank heists at gun, do we? DigitalHoodoo (talk) 19:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Edits[edit]

Resolved: Typos fixed. wjematherbigissue 02:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

compatability -> compatibility --134.130.183.101 (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

NewEraCracker[edit]

http://github.com/NewEraCracker/LOIC/ can't be referenced as the official web site:

Any information concerning NewEraCracker LOIC should be moved to another article. Or SourceForge version should be mentioned in the current article on an equality. I will do it soon if will not get any response from stakeholders. Abatishchev (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

We should not be creating fork articles for minor variations. They should be dealt with together here. wjematherbigissue 16:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that all variants of LOIC should be covered on this article for the moment. - Shiftchange (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, sure. Glad not to hear any objections concerning all variants mentioning. I think versions information (web site as well, if multiple links are not supported) should be removed from the brief caption. Wikipedia is a not a place for apps changelogs, etc; but the place for apps brief info telling that such apps even exists, etc. I'll rework the article soon with further actions to take coordination here. Abatishchev (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I've removed a lot of the text because it wasn't sourced by reliable sources, including the LOIQ program links - it doesn't seem to have been mentioned in the news, so I'm not sure that we can include it. Including all variants of LOIC is a big no-no, but including the versions that have been mentioned in the press is something we should definitely be aiming for. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
What kind of press are you talking about? Regular? Regular computer? For hackers? The distros I mentioned are used by thousands of people! LOIC on SF has 70k[2] of total downloads, LOIC on GH - 50k[3] (the source said about the latest, today release), LOIQ - 1k[4]. The regular press is wrong (see the disclaimer[5] ) saying that SF project is Praetox project! Even LOIC on GH[6] is wrong in this. So why such press should be a measure? Abatishchev (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Because we rely on the reliable sources policy to tell us what is a reliable source and what isn't. Sourceforge and github aren't reliable sources. Wikipedia relies on verifiability, not truth. As such, we should be relying on what the most reliable secondary sources say: In this case, that'd be tech magazines with a decent readership and good editorial oversight. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I think reading Wikipedia:Verifiability would also help shed some light. wjematherbigissue 22:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Why SF and GH aren't reliable sources for open-source application article on Wikipedia while they are one of most reliable sources for open-source software? Probably because Wikipedia rules stinks. [7] Abatishchev (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
They are also, in general, not an independent (3rd party) source. A read through the major policies, guidelines and related essays (starting from those listed in the welcome notice on your talk page) should give you a clear idea as to why they exist. wjematherbigissue 17:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Countermeasures[edit]

This wikipage says: Countermeasures

Security experts quoted by the BBC indicated that well-written firewall rules can filter out most traffic from DDoS attacks by LOIC, thus preventing the attacks from being fully effective.[9]


But if I read the source, there is only a "some suggest". It's not clear in the BBC article that it involves Security Experts nor that it's a certain fact.


BBC article: Criminal chain

Defences against the attacks are being drawn up as security firms scrutinise the code behind LOIC to work out how attacks happen. Some suggest that well-written firewall rules would be able to filter out most of the harmful traffic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.244.33.47 (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's saying "Some security firms suggest that..." Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

RMS says not open source[edit]

Stallman warns would-be hackers not to download the LOIC software being pushed as a method of expressing anger with sites that have acted against Wikileaks [...] because the tool's code is not visible to the user. [...] "if users can't recompile it, users should not trust it."[8] What makes him say that? The source is available. Doesn't it compile?--92.78.97.159 (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

He got it wrong. Can happen. I just emailed him telling him that LOIC is open source.--Neo139 (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
He said that yesterday he emailed The Guardian to correct that.--Neo139 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Awesome. In the meantime, we should probably remove the sentence. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Last Sentence of Article[edit]

I found this sentence at the end of this article, last sentence. "On the other hand, experts agree that if you're not a total dumbass, you'd use LOIC from a coffee shop, and thus be behind someone else's IP." I think we could all agree that this sentence is using a type of language that is inappropriate for Wikipedia (For example: the tone and the use of the word, dumbass). Could this sentence possibly be revised or rectified such that it's in a quotation, if there is indeed such a similar quotation in the article that it cites? Thanks. -Jsybird2532 (talk) 6:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

TCP packets and HTTP request[edit]

The article states that LOIC uses TCP and UDP packets and HTTP requests to DoS. Technically, HTTP relies most commonly upon TCP. The article should decide upon a level of abstraction and stick to it; why mention its choice of application protocol when discussing its method of data delivery?

PythonLOIC[edit]

LOIC article is not a place for PythonLOIC or any other, non-C# versions. Create a new, separate article for any of them and add a link. --Abatishchev (talk) 16:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


What in the world?[edit]

Ever since FOX News scrapped together a report about some kid who gave his password out like it was candy only to have his myspace page appropriately vandalized and a group of anti-scientology protesters hi-jacked a meme, there are all these stories about "Anonymous". This "group" does not exist. It really doesn't. There are no members, there is no leadership, there are no gathering places, and there is no group. Hey look, my IP. 126.209.106.245 (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

True. SF.net LOIC maintainer from time to time receives a proposition for an interview regarding LOIC. After answering that there is no such group as Anonymous, the potential reporter loses his interest - there is no hot topic without such group. --Abatishchev (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Low Orbit Ion Cannon. Favonian (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


LOICLow Orbit Ion Cannon – This is the full name of the program. The article for, say, Team Fortress 2, isn't just called TF2, even though almost everyone on the Internet knows what you mean when you say it. flarn2006 [u t c] time: 06:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment I am indifferent. The BBC reference uses the name LOIC without saying what it means. Some other sources spell it out. I have no doubt that the letters stand for "low orbit ion cannon" but the developers' intended name for the program is unclear. At sourceforge both names are used. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support – we avoid naming articles with obscure acronyms. Dicklyon (talk) 01:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: If "LOIC" isn't used almost exclusively, then the acronym should be avoided. — Bility (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support; I think the full name is preferable here. bobrayner (talk) 23:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: the name "Low Orbit Ion Cannon is as known as LOIC, so it should be used per WP:TITLEFORMAT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:LoicNewEraCracker.png[edit]

The file File:LoicNewEraCracker.png, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:LoicNewEraCracker.png. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Authorship[edit]

The statements in this make it sound like a company developed LOIC for legitimate uses. From what I have seen, I do not believe that is the case. I think "Praetox Technologies" is just the alias of a single person. (http://ptech.50webs.com/index.html) I suspect he wrote LOIC specifically for those on 4chan since when he declared it public he categorized it under "chan". (http://web.archive.org/web/20100921205654/http://praetox.com/n.php/sw/sauce)

Lastly, Praetox has disappeared with only a few vague comments such as " I probably won't update this site ever again; you don't need to be a genius to guess why." Since this is not the place for original research we either need better sources or we need to update the article to address the lack of definitive information.

TXAggie (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I could change all instances of "Praetox Technologies" to simply "Praetox"? Would that be desirable? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Naming[edit]

Is it notable that the name refers to Command & Conquer? Magic9mushroom (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel this should be put in. My main concern here is that, even in Ion cannon, there is no info that directly states that the GDI ion cannon superweapon is the basis for the name of LOIC. While it is technically a "low orbit ion cannon," the only form of 'proof' currently on this page is the fact that the picture used on the left side of the LOIC UI is the C&C3 ion cannon. Also, if this is the only piece of trivia right now, I don't see a good place where this can be added anyway. --Lordhood117 (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)