[serf]

>You are very insistent that people are doing "defending" wrong, and I can see how someone could read victim blaming into it

that's so absolutely ridiculous.

"Hey bud, you're wearing your helmet backwards." "Oh, so it's MY fault when I run into something on my motorcycle, HUH?!"

"Oh ok, well, have fun. I'll be safely over here. "

a zip bomb will only serve to hinder teenage/kid 'hackers' -- next you're going to tell me if I don't implement a zip bomb somewhere that it'll deprive the next generation of hackers of a valuable life lesson -- please.

At what point can we point out a flawed methodology without being accused of being 'the bad guys' ourselves? It gets to be that when you see someone making a mistake you feel like just letting them dive in and do it ; otherwise you'll be labeled the worlds' worst victim-blaming monster -- eh, easier to keep your mouth shut at some point .. that's a dangerous condition.

[ivancho]

> a zip bomb will only serve to hinder teenage/kid 'hackers'

And that is literally what the blog post says - it will mess with script kiddies who don't change their user agent. Author acknowledges that it is not an actual methodology to protect their server, so pointing out that it's a flawed methodology is a weird flex. I have not seen anyone suggest using zip bombs instead of hardening the server.

[c2lsZW50]

From the article: "This script obviously is not - as we say in Austria - the yellow of the egg, but it can defend from script kiddies I mentioned earlier who have no idea that all these tools have parameters to change the user agent.".

Perhaps consider reading the article thoroughly before you start claiming it to be more than what it is.