News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Gmail Denial of Service Attack by sschueller on Thursday October 05, 2017 @10:13AM (#15409313)
I don't have access to Google's internal issue tracker... I don't think anyone on HN who doesn't work at Google has access.
Re:Gmail Denial of Service Attack by deckar01 on Thursday October 05, 2017 @10:27AM (#15409435)
I though it just required you to be logged in. I apologize.

Summary:

This was reported as a security vulnerability, moved to a Gmail bug report, then closed with the status "Won't Fix (Intended Behavior)". [0]

Anyone can DoS any gmail inbox by exceeding the incoming email limit. Gmail just starts rejecting emails to the target account. They have known about it for years, but don't seem to care.

Edit: The most frustrating part is that I have stopped receiving email for 6 days now. I was told second hand that an employee at google was also affected and the spam team was going to deploy a fix. There was about a 12 hour window yesterday when the email started arriving again. It is frustrating that their bug tracker contradicts what is actually going on inside their organization.

[0]: https://imgur.com/ksYbkEv

Re:Gmail Denial of Service Attack by tux3 on Thursday October 05, 2017 @10:18AM (#15409356)
Interestingly, other issues seem to be visible [0], but not this one in particular.

0: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues?q=status:open

Re:Gmail Denial of Service Attack by deckar01 on Thursday October 05, 2017 @12:04PM (#15410244)
Apparently it was set to hidden before it was triaged, but left hidden after it was closed and the status was changed.

There is nothing in the UI that indicates it is hidden. They said it was a known issue and they won't fix it, so it doesn't make much sense to keep it hidden.

Re:Gmail Denial of Service Attack by dheelus on Thursday October 05, 2017 @10:19AM (#15409357)
Seconded. I also (dumb, I know) agreed to some ToS but have no access.
Re:Gmail Denial of Service Attack by touhonoob on Thursday October 05, 2017 @10:19AM (#15409359)
it was public when the post was created, otherwise hackernews couldn't crawl the title