domain 'killed' is currently dead, and the organization claims the U.S.-based service which provides domain name service "killed" it due to attacks, presumably of the denial of service variety. I wonder if that would be a TOS violation, technically? (Note that this doesn't mean wikileaks has actually lost its domain: they lost DNS service, but EveryDNS isn't the managing authority of the .org TLD. So Wikileaks should be back as soon as new DNS records propogate)



  1. It seems to me like Wikileaks is suffering from its own anarchistic “freedom at all costs” mission statement. One which should account for a world in which the “no rules” freedom statement applies on a grand scale. Do-gooder hackers and states are attacking the site. Surprise, surprise.

    1. These aren’t “do-gooder hackers” attacking WikiLeaks with the DDoS they are, to coin a phrase, do-badder hackers because they’re trying to silence free speech.

  2. Well, what does Wikileaks expect from a free dns service provider? Hell, with the donations they get, why the hell are they using a free dns service provider anyways?

    I understand that people want to smell a conspiracy everywhere, but I can see why a free service might bump them to mitigate load issues relating to DDOS attacks.

    1. Free services or paid services seems to be irrelevant in this case. They were paying for Amazon’s hosting and still got terminated. A DNS service would likely do the same.

    2. I’d be incredibly surprised if the free service didn’t boot them for being DDOSed. Attacks like that can be expensive to work with, and frankly, having a free service probably makes it more cost effective to simply boot people who attract trouble.

    3. that’s because the DNS provider is from New Hampshire and their motto is “live free or die”.I think their motto has been only words on a car’s (or wagon)licence plate for the last 234 years.

  3. DDoS attack doesn’t really need to be a TOS violation, since everydns AUP clearly states: “3.1 Termination of Service. We reserve the right to terminate or “hold” service at anytime for any reason.”

  4. By the way, a great way to help (relatively anonymously) fund this fight against corporatist tyranny and hypocrisy is by paying cash for a credit card you can pick up at a convenience store and sending money to wikileaks.

    If you’ve never done anything remotely rebellious in your life, here’s your chance.

    1. Yeah, until the government leans on the credit card companies to stop accepting credit card donations for them, the same way they have with internet gambling.

      In fact, once the leaks for the banks come out (or get closer) I suspect they may do it on their own.

  5. At any rate, as Rob wrote in the addendum to his post above, they probably already have another DNS service that will propogate throughout the internet soon. There’s no shortage of these services out there, whether it be with their hosting company or an outside service. If I’m not mistaken, most domain registrars allow multiple nameservers from multiple locations. Their biggest worry now is to hang onto their domain. It’s registered at dynadot I believe.

  6. “Only weeks ago the US Federal Government introduced the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) which essentially prevents users across the world from accessing websites banned under US law by forcing the nation’s powerful domain registrars to withdraw the domain registrations they control.” quoted from this article

    Somehow I doubt that Wikileaks will get their domain names back in a hurry. But the numbers still work. To get to Wikileaks, visit For the leaked State Department cables visit http://

  7. Even if they loose their domain, that wouldn’t stop the sunshine press from leaking information directly to media outlets or setting up a new domain…. it’s silly to think even if the US took control of the domain name, that would stop wikileaks from releasing their material. I must say I was amused that people are bothering to DoS the site.. I mean really, are we back in 1996? it seems petty and childish. I have no doubt that amazon and this ‘free’ dns service provider were approached by the US authorities to take the actions they have. Feeble, desperate attempts by the US administration to attempt to censor what is essentially already out there. Damage control fail anyone? heh

  8. Why the heck were they depending on only one DNS provider? For as well configured as they seem to be otherwise that’s a pretty big oops. They should have as many DNS providers as they can, and a selection of other TLDs as well. Still vulnerable at the root level of course but a whole host of names with short DNS TTLs and some creative CNAMEing, page redirects, URL shortening, hard-coded IPs, etc could at least make it more of a moving target and require a far more concerted (and possibly more visible) effort to bring them down.

  9.’s IP,, is up but reports an “Overload” error page today.

    Aren’t the Pirate Party thinking about some sort of clever P2P DNS that’ll imunize against providers having their spines redacted?

    1. Yes, because of the DOJ and ICE seizure of 82 domains as part of Operation in Our Sites 2. The authorities claim the actions were targeted at websites that were involved in the illegal sale and distribution of counterfeit and copyrighted goods.

      Now, with the DNS take down of Wikileaks, the push for p2p based DNS should grow stronger. Looks like they’re at a Swiss Pirate Party domain now, but how long will that last? (esp. if they piss off a Big Bank)

      I liked the article TorrentFreak ran:
      BitTorrent Based DNS To Counter US Domain Seizures

  10. On Linux, edit the file:
    and add a row:

    On Windows XP, the file is:
    and add the same row.

  11. I wonder if the US government will be able to lean on the .ORG people to have the domain seized or revoked? WikiLeaks has its mirror at, but they’re headquartered in Ireland and I’d imagine the authorities there are susceptible to US pressure. So what TLD do you choose if you want robust domain registration?

  12. Now they’re tweeting they have another domain name:

    A Swiss TLD which resolves to a Swedish IP:, which redirects to a French IP:

    And yet they’re still using as the NS for their new Swiss TLD.

    It’s a little sad, really.

  13. “What? You mean you can’t kick someone off the internet by banning their name?” It’s not like having your network show canceled or even being banned from radio.

    I wanna see a Gopher site. It’s about time people realized there are loads of steam tunnels, catacombs, sewers and service tunnels under the Web.

  14. If it’s just the DNS that removed them, why doesn’t OpenDNS or Google Public DNS resolve them? I set my machine to use both of those after Comcast’s DNS went down briefly the other night, but I’m still not getting

    Clearly, I’m not understanding how DNS works.

    1. As a surfer, your DNS provider (OpenDNS, etc.) provides you the service of looking up domain names in the lists that are shared and ‘propagated’ among DNS servers, and then returning to you with a number.

      As a server, WikiLeaks’s DNS provider does the opposite: it provides WikiLeaks with the service of keeping its domain name AND IP number properly reserved and updated in the lists that are shared and pragated among DNS servers.

      So, once WikiLeaks’s provider cancels its DNS entry, that cancellation automatically propagates throughout all the other servers, including to your own DNS provider (i.e. OpenDNS). Thus, you changing providers is not going to solve anything. The only solution is for WikiLeaks to change providers to have a new updated entry for itself added to the lists and repropagated through the DNS server ‘community’.

  15. In related news, Google News has a link to an article by Chris O’Brien in the San Jose Mercury News entitled: “Why we should applaud WikiLeaks”.

    However, if you got to the Merc, the article is gone, as it was not two hours after it was posted last night. The link is still on Google News:

    I wonder if this was an “inappropriate” topic, or if I am just reading into the whole thing too much…

  16. The interesting question (for me) is: Who is behind the DDOS attacks?

    The US government is the obvious suspect, and the US military probably has the capabilities.

    I haven’t seen anything pointing towards involvement of any particular government or group. But I hope someone who knows more about this stuff than I do is investigating.

    If nothing else, this was a high profile cyberatack against a US company. So, I’d normally expect the FBI to investigate it.

      1. He was clearly reffering to whome the attack was actually made against; the DNS company. Not wikileaks.

  17. I still find it hilarious in all of this that people who argue against the root of what Wikileaks is trying to do, are once again fighting their own interests.

    The same people who are so very vocal about the idea that innocent people may be outed by the leaks, are the exact same ones defending our government when they send in a strike that wipes out 90% civilian targets and 10% terrorist camps.

    None of the leaked cables, as far as I know, have been Top Secret.

    There were more top secret leaks in the Nixon Watergate Scandal. Do the idiots arguing against wikileaks honestly believe that Journalism and citizens of the united states would have been better off not knowing what was going on with Nixon’s re-election, simply because “DA GUVMENT HAS SECRETS WE SHOULD NOT KNOW!”.

    Ugh, it makes me sick.

  18. said it before. say it again: if WikiLeaks wasn’t run by such a control freak egomaniac maybe they would look at distribution channels that are less subject to denial of service attacks. BitTorrent strikes me as a fantastic protocol for sharing large quantities of information. While Assange may think he’s safe and may think his data is safe, he makes the same mistake as those whose data he leaks. I, once again, propose some new server/client protocol that both allows the curious to view pieces of the overall data store, but also spreads the data around to all who participate so that there become fewer points of failure.

    1. Uh… where have you been? All of ‘cablegate’ is on torrents easily accessible from either wikileak’s IRC channel or just a simple google search.

    2. And before I go shooting my mouth I should my homework. Turns out they do provide some torrents, although their own torrent link doesn’t work so well when accessing pages by IP. :)

      1. In fact, Assange essentially said last night that that they deliberately used a US host, so that they could reveal the limits of free speech here. (Ironically, I can’t get on the swiss site to get the exact quote.)

        The strategy wouldn’t surprise me. The vast majority of their donations come in when the site is down. Making US censorship widely apparent is a good strategy for their messaging and for their fundraising. They have shown before that they are reasonably well prepared for contingencies. I sure hope so, because I think the powers that be are going to test all of their contingency plans one by one.

        As they keep releasing information – even after an Assange arrest – my guess is that the Empire will start shutting down sites, freezing funds, and going after volunteers. I’m personally surprised that there aren’t multiple insurance files. I would hope there are multiple packets in the one they put out there, so that they have a staged defense.

    3. ISTR that there’s also a protocol called Blacknet, or something similar, with distributed, encrypted, redundant, storage.

      You put the data in, (and I think renew it every now and then), and it’s out there somewhere, but nobody, not even the people whose computers it’s on, knows where it actually is; it’s just somewhere on the network.

      You then have a tag or URL type locator to access / update it, and one that you pass out for people to read it.

      Who knows, maybe there are copies of Wikileaks stuff on Blacknet already.

        1. One well developed darknet is Freenet, which is probably the one of which I was thinking: there’s a good Wikipedia article here.

  19. I can’t remember where I found this IP address earlier today, but it seems to work just fine.

    The Internet is a big gnarly place with lots of protocols. I’d love to see a thousand mirrors bloom, not to mention torrents, ftp sites, and (heart pinging) gopher sites.

    To get the ball rolling, change to your preferred directory and type: wget -mirror

  20. I think that Wikileaks is doing a good job though I’m not 100% certain I support their methods. There needs to be a lot more transparency when it comes to the Government so I agree with their aims in that department.

    One thing I don’t understand though is the huge amount of bias they seem to have against the US. Julian Assange has claimed to be a journalist and support a ‘scientific’ and ‘transparent’ style of journalism (according to interviews and his Wiki page.

    They naming of their video “Collateral Murder” to me show a political spin rather than a journalistic non-bias. They same with the naming of their releases as “Cablegate”. Their whole tone is one of trying to do whatever they can to cause as much damage as possible to the US Government.

    I would much prefer they stuck to being a neutral, non-political whistle-blowing organisation rather than what they seem to be now – a crusading, anti-US political group with a shadowy agenda.

  21. They naming of their video “Collateral Murder” to me show a political spin rather than a journalistic non-bias.

    While I do think that was proper labeling, I also do agree with you that it would have been better if they hadn’t labeled anything and let the video do the talking.

    what they seem to be now – a crusading, anti-US political group with a shadowy agenda.

    That’s funny. They seem to be pro-US (people) with a clear agenda to me. I think you’re mixing up the corporatist machine with the American people. Two very different entities. Anti-corporatist? Yes, indeed. Anti-American-People? Hell, No.

Comments are closed.