Talk:Low Orbit Ion Cannon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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. - (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 (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)


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


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. (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 (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. (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 -- (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

NewEraCracker[edit] 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)


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 (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?-- (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?


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. (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

True. 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)


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. ( I suspect he wrote LOIC specifically for those on 4chan since when he declared it public he categorized it under "chan". (

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)


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)

Section that lists derivative works?[edit]

I think they should be a section that lists the derivative works made by others

it could read something like this

LOIC++ a version made to run on linux

JS LOIC a version made in javascript that allows dos attacks to be made from a web browser

LOWC (LOW ORBITAL WEB CANNON) allows dos attacks to be made from a web browser

JAVA LOIC a version programmed in JAVA that is OS independent.

that way when the article is read you would not have the all the derivative works spread around the main page of the article.

then the article would be simpler to navigate.

Thank you for your time FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@FockeWulf FW 190: Thanks for working to improve the article. When covering a given subject on Wikipedia, aspects should be covered with proper weight to their coverage in reliable secondary sources. If something is discussed in most of the articles about LOIC, it should be given a prominent place here. If something is discussed in only a couple places, at most it should have a brief mention. In this case, there were no reliable secondary sources cited at all, so I've removed the section. You might want to check out the Wikipedia policy on identifying reliable sources. Have you seen these derivatives talked about in places other than on their respective home/project pages? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Follow-up: It looks like there was a reliable [enough] source for a couple of the derivatives prior to moving them to their own section. I've restored that one in the "Use" section. I think creating a separate section for derivatives given just the one source seems like undue weight, but maybe there are more sources? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


Sorry for the long reply But I have to agree with you about having a reliable source. and there are reliable resources from well reputed corporations. but sadly they are copyrighted and thus cannot be used by Wikipedia

I have yet to find one that is freely licensed FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Website link unverifiable[edit]

It looks like the original site is down. Seems that there is a link to SourceForge, but this does not mean it is the original site. This link should be deleted since there is no proof that this is the original site. And replaced by a link that states where the files may be found.FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Low Orbit Ion Cannon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)