• Howdy! Welcome to our community of more than 130.000 members devoted to web hosting. This is a great place to get special offers from web hosts and post your own requests or ads. To start posting sign up here. Cheers! /Peo, FreeWebSpace.net
managed wordpress hosting

Mwzaf has been hacked

Tyler

Well-Known Member
NLC


I really do want to know the reason behind this - if it was just someone hacking for the hell of it or if there is a story behind it.

Hopefully they weren't stupid enough to not take backups. Otherwise, they are probably screwed.

Anyway, just posting this here to let everyone in the know. I don't care for mwzaf, but I do want to hear why it happened if anyone knows ;)
 
Hey that page is still displaying that same thing as the pic .
Maybe it's a twitter style dns hack...

M.c they do ban many users . They claim to support and allow everything but when you're using everything , they bring out new rules .

And these are never mentioned even in further advertisements .
Though , i have no grudge against them but i don't consider them very reliable .


Anyways , maybe this silver hacker is a person who they had banned and he's avenging that .
He says on the page "Fu__ you admin"
So he might be mad at mwzaf .
Who knows ...
 
this is not a new news for them, in fact they already got hacked once.
i do check around those free hosting sites from time to time, to see wat specs those free hosting provide and how reliable they are, coz free hostings do effect paid hosting businesses

the most shocking thing is, there was once a person said in their forum that he has bring down their server and ask if they want to have another down time or not.

it seems like until now they are still not secure their server yet.
 
sad to hear. why would such thing happens. why ppl do such activities its not a good act at all. my sympathy with poor host
 
Why hasnt he explained the situation? I would think that if a host was hacked, that owner would say something about it.
 
if there is a host that is not securing their server and get hack, then i wouldn't say it is totally that hacker's fault.
coz the insecurity of the server did makes them fell like wanted to attack the host
:)
 
Hopefully they weren't stupid enough to not take backups. Otherwise, they are probably screwed.

Backups (beyond raid) are an expensive cost which inadvertantly has to pass down to customers and hurts business overall.

When it's impossible to pass down the cost (ie. free hosting), you really can't complain about the lack of backups.
 
Backups (beyond raid) are an expensive cost which inadvertantly has to pass down to customers and hurts business overall.

When it's impossible to pass down the cost (ie. free hosting), you really can't complain about the lack of backups.

*Sigh*

Raid is not a backup, its a redundancy. Please read up on something before talking.

I run a free host and do backups twice a week usually. I also fail to see how backups are "expensive" as the cost of HDD's have gone down significantly over the years. You can get a 2TB HDD for around $180 now - very, very cheap.

And in the long run, taking backups is one of the wisest things a host can do. The majority of the hosts out there that fail to take backups and have data loss almost never come back.

Now, if I am going to spend 6-12+ months of my life running a host, and I failed to take backups and lost all/most of the data I would view that entirely as a waste of my time, because even though I gained experience in the area I just lost everything and starting over would not be something I would want to do.

I'm also still confused on why people think RAID is means of backing up data. All RAID does is provide protection from a HDD failure and if your using the right RAID increase transfer speed.
 
Raid is not a backup, its a redundancy. Please read up on something before talking.

I run a free host and do backups twice a week usually. I also fail to see how backups are "expensive" as the cost of HDD's have gone down significantly over the years. You can get a 2TB HDD for around $180 now - very, very cheap.

I find this somewhat hypocritical...depending on how you do it.

Where do you house the HDDs? If it's inside the server, then they can be accessed, then it's not a true backup. If it's elsewhere (in the DC), then you have to pay for extra colo space and power. If it's at your house, then you have to pay for massive amounts of bandwidth used frequently in backups.

In addition, any server HD has to be made especially for 24x7 use and is quite expensive. You don't use your typical consumer level SATA HDs in servers (unless you are very silly).


And in the long run, taking backups is one of the wisest things a host can do. The majority of the hosts out there that fail to take backups and have data loss almost never come back.

Now, if I am going to spend 6-12+ months of my life running a host, and I failed to take backups and lost all/most of the data I would view that entirely as a waste of my time, because even though I gained experience in the area I just lost everything and starting over would not be something I would want to do.

I'm also still confused on why people think RAID is means of backing up data. All RAID does is provide protection from a HDD failure and if your using the right RAID increase transfer speed.

I didn't mean to imply that raid = backups, I just thought it was what was meant.

At the end of the day, backups = higher cost = higher prices = less customers.

It is best to make sure you don't have any data loss. Backups are still important, but IMO it should be the client's responsibility to do backups and not the host's.

Of course again, this is to do with price.
 
I find this somewhat hypocritical...depending on how you do it.

Where do you house the HDDs? If it's inside the server, then they can be accessed, then it's not a true backup. If it's elsewhere (in the DC), then you have to pay for extra colo space and power. If it's at your house, then you have to pay for massive amounts of bandwidth used frequently in backups.

In addition, any server HD has to be made especially for 24x7 use and is quite expensive. You don't use your typical consumer level SATA HDs in servers (unless you are very silly).




I didn't mean to imply that raid = backups, I just thought it was what was meant.

At the end of the day, backups = higher cost = higher prices = less customers.

It is best to make sure you don't have any data loss. Backups are still important, but IMO it should be the client's responsibility to do backups and not the host's.

Of course again, this is to do with price.

Lets go about this in the order above.

I'm confused about what you said. Backing up data to another HDD inside of the server is actually a very good idea. The reason for this is if (in the case of a RAID array) some data got corrupted, the backups are protected.

The only reason I can come up with on why you believe the backups should be inside of another server, is in the event of someone hacking into the server and deleting the data or in the event of a power surge that kills the HDD. Unfortunately, this can also happen in another server so lets go back to the hacker.

Now, I have to admit you are correct. If a hacker did gain access to the server through - say ssh - and it was root, he could easily erase the data.

There are however other means to protect against this - including physically unplugging the drive after backups are done.

So, I suppose we are back to my original statement: I'm confused.

In addition, any server HD has to be made especially for 24x7 use and is quite expensive. You don't use your typical consumer level SATA HDs in servers (unless you are very silly).

Elaborate. What type of HDD are you talking about here?. All HDD's are designed for 24x7 use today making your statement invalid.

I didn't mean to imply that raid = backups, I just thought it was what was meant.

Nope!. RAID is a form of redundancy. Like I said previously, you should probably read before saying something.

backups are still important, but IMO it should be the client's responsibility to do backups and not the host's.

I disagree.
 
There are however other means to protect against this - including physically unplugging the drive after backups are done.

That would mean every time you wanted to do backups, you would have to pay for DC to do server management...on every server. The bills would be massive.

In addition, any server HD has to be made especially for 24x7 use and is quite expensive. You don't use your typical consumer level SATA HDs in servers (unless you are very silly).

Elaborate. What type of HDD are you talking about here?. All HDD's are designed for 24x7 use today making your statement invalid.

Actually they are not. That is to say, yes they will not stop working if you use them 24x7 in the same sense that a computer will shut down if you try and use the CPU without a cooler or anything.

However, all normal hard drives are not designed specifically for 24x7 use, and using them as such will significantly shorten their lifespan. Companies like Seagate and WD design and build special hard drives that are rated for 24x7 use. Only these hard drives should ever be used in servers - and they are not as cheap as their normal quality counterparts.

For instance, compare a normal desktop HD from Seagate:
http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/desktops/barracuda_hard_drives/barracuda_7200.12/

To a seagate HD specifically designed for servers:
http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/barracuda_es/
Notice this: "24x7 operation and 1.2 M hrs. MTBF".

Now compare their prices on newegg, same capacity:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148433
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148278

The server one is almost twice as much. And unless you want to build the rack yourself, companies who sell them charge massive markups as well.
 
That would mean every time you wanted to do backups, you would have to pay for DC to do server management...on every server. The bills would be massive.

Not really. Especially if you colocate - just pop in and do it yourself.

As for the HDD's, I actually don't see any real difference. The seagate server page also allows you to pick HDD's with the SATA interface and it is still classified as a server HDD.

The only thing that actually does tell is that they are rated 24x7 for x hours.

So, yes. While one of those HDD's might be better for a server, I still don't see what is wrong with a "consumer" level SATA HDD.
 
Not really. Especially if you colocate - just pop in and do it yourself.

That may be easy for you - if you are lucky enough as to live so close to the DC where you colo, but some of us live on an entirely different continent :auflag:

As for the HDD's, I actually don't see any real difference. The seagate server page also allows you to pick HDD's with the SATA interface and it is still classified as a server HDD.

Of course a server HDD is classified as a server HDD.

The only thing that actually does tell is that they are rated 24x7 for x hours.

So, yes. While one of those HDD's might be better for a server, I still don't see what is wrong with a "consumer" level SATA HDD.

You will after one fails on you after a few mere years of use.
 
Back
Top