| ▲ | Bluesky has been dealing with a DDoS attack for nearly a full day(theverge.com) |
| 74 points by dotmanish 5 hours ago | 23 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | minimaxir 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| The prevalent discourse/attempt-at-a-meme-but-people-are-taking-it-seriously saying "Bluesky is down because of AI vibecoding!" is starting to get annoying and unoriginal. Even when Bluesky confirmed it's a DDoS, the line is now "maybe they wouldn't have gotten DDoSed if they didn't vibecode and their code was better." |
| |
| ▲ | cryzinger 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | A week or two ago, when there was a Bluesky outage and a Claude outage at the same time, people were earnestly pointing to that as evidence that Claude was somehow a load-bearing component of Bluesky, or that AI vibecoding had caused the outage... I had to just disengage but I was also very annoyed by it all. | |
| ▲ | boring-human an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't have any anecdotal data, just detecting a whiff of a possible pattern in your statement. DDoS is bots. Any chance the prevalent discourse is bots? "I ain't saying she a gold digger..." | |
| ▲ | pjc50 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Perhaps underestimating how much the bsky audience absolutely hate AI. It's funny how closely bsky has replicated the dynamic of old Twitter where the people who run it and the people who use it have completely different priorities and loathe each other. |
|
|
| ▲ | OuterVale 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The interface seemed to function as normal, but specifically the API was targeted, which left a lot of confused users who were seeing the interface peppered with errors. Watching as it unfolded, it seems it affected certain regions to begin with and then slowly spread worldwide. Seems they might have failed to host the status page (https://status.bsky.app) separately as well, because that went down several times throughout the outage. They also weren't very active in updating the status page, and the notice that was there had a typo of 'reginos' and a description of 'null'. |
|
| ▲ | userbinator 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| What are the chances some company offers to "save" them with a security service which coincidentally will also require users to use the latest officially-sanctioned browsers, OSes, and "trusted" hardware to pass the "security check"... |
| |
| ▲ | sammy2255 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If you're referring to Cloudflare, the "security check" is not a default setting. For some reason administrators love to use Under attack mode as a band-aid measure to reduce load on the host. | | |
| ▲ | rezonant 41 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Or they'll (the site operators using Cloudflare proxy) make ill considered firewall rules like "If not Chrome, require security check". |
| |
| ▲ | LoganDark 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | At least Apple devices are actually secure and can't really be omitted from things other than gaming and business. Granted, gaming and business are pretty important. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | tasuki 10 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I thought it was distributed/decentralised? |
|
| ▲ | mrweasel 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Hopefully there will be some post-mortem. It seems like we're don't really see that many deliberate DDoS attack anymore. Not that it doesn't happen, but they really don't provide that much value against a target like Bluesky (unless you really hate them). I'd be interested in how the attack manifests. Is it an actual DDoS? Is it highly aggressive scraping? We should be able to see this in how the attack manifests itself. What is the sources? That's a little harder, but it would be interesting to know if it's compromised devices, residential proxies, rented cloud capacity or something else. |
|
| ▲ | ChrisArchitect 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Source: https://bsky.social/about/blog/04-16-2026-bluesky-service-in... |
|
| ▲ | adrithmetiqa 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Is this just for fun or is there some underlying purpose to those type of attack? Is it possible to have any certainty when answering that question? |
|
| ▲ | bit1993 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| A decentralized protocol by definition should not be vulnerable to DDos attacks. |
| |
| ▲ | minimaxir 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Bluesky isn't ATProto. | | | |
| ▲ | anon7000 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You’re saying a mastodon instance can’t vet DDosed? | | |
| ▲ | eukara 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Truth is if mastodon.social gets ddosd the same as Bluesky I can still use the rest of the network fine. Proof is in the pudding. tons of instances that make up the fabric of redundancy. I think most people would be served better if Bluesky acted differently early with their rollout in a sharded manner? | | |
| ▲ | Charon77 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | True. The only 'distributed' part of bluesky is in the PR. Otherwise there'd be more instances. My mastodon account is not even on mastodon.social, because why would I, when I could have a home server closer to home |
| |
| ▲ | snailmailman 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The people I follow on mastodon come from a wide variety of instances. While mastodon.social is the largest instance, most of the accounts I follow are elsewhere. Granted, all the smaller instances are likely easier to DOS as they are small instances. But mastodon is actually decentralized. If any one instance goes down, everything else keeps working. Unlike Bluesky and ATProto which is more of a theoretical “could be” decentralized. |
|
|
