Talk:Ping flood

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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).

This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security (assessed as Mid-importance).

Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with:

Article alerts will be generated shortly by AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information...

Answer question about Same-origin_policy
Review importance and quality of existing articles
Identify categories related to Computer Security
Tag related articles
Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests)
Identify articles for improvement
Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc.
Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

Line speeds[edit]

Attacker on a T1 line and victim on a dial-up modem seems a bit too disproportionate.... 68.168.80.4 16:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Updated to DSL and Dial-Up --88.110.126.38 20:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modern DSL lines are much faster than T1 (I'm on 17Mbps myself), so what's the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.177.144.49 (talk) 18:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batch file description[edit]

Should we really tell people how a ping flood attack batch file looks like? Won't that encourage people to send this type of cyberattack? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.143.120.140 (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since those most likely to need us to write the batch file for them are possibly still on dial-up, or at least not on a very fat pipe, we probably could have one without increasing the number of successful attacks. On the other hand, this is an encyclopedia, not a how-to. I'm just going to wipe the section instead of leaving an ugly asdjnajdkgbl thing there. 68.57.72.229 (talk) 02:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Print reference needed[edit]

If this subject is written about in a computer book, a reference to it would be nice. im not an expert, but i could not find any decent online references, oddly enough.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not always an attack?[edit]

Isn't a ping flood a valid (though questionably useful) diagnostic tool when used in short durations? Unix-derived OSes contain the ping -f option which makes it literally that simple (as long as you have su privileges) to start sending the "flood". If ABUSED it's an "attack", but need every use of the command be automatically given that label? I don't personally believe so.

Some reference may also be wanted as to the fact that *nix systems allow the ping -f command but the Windows ping utility includes no such function. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.93.67 (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Batch - Yura87 (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[edit]

On WIndows it is a dumb looper: Entry point, ping command, redirect to entry point. VERY simply done - and it could be part of DDoS attacks. @echo off&:1&ping 192.168.1.1&goto 1 - expressed in one line.

Not an attack![edit]

Ping flood is not an attack!

I use ping flood every day to somehow simulate more traffic than simple ping does make. That makes it a quick way to approximate packet loss on wifi for example. So it's actually pretty handy tool. It's bit of a shame it's described as "cyber attack", when it's a rather handy tool that can be misused. 195.14.156.35 (talk) 19:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is an attack but it can also be a diagnostic. I have added a brief discussion with ref. -—Kvng 14:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]