I did not expect to write this post. I expected the big-name CDN to dominate the bypass-resistance scoring across our scans. It does not.
ddactic.net?ref=bsky
Traditional DDoS tests have a fixed shape. Push volumetric load at the target, verify the scrubbing center absorbs it, produce a report that says the test completed successfully.
ddactic.net?ref=bsky
Not all security findings are equal in scope. Application vulnerabilities are usually scoped to one target: fix the input validation on this endpoint, rotate this credential, patch this library version. The blast radius is bounded by the organization that owns the code.
ddactic.net?ref=bsky
The thing that surprised me most when I started running DDoS tests professionally was how rarely the failure was at the volumetric layer.
ddactic.net?ref=bsky
A lot of security research ends as a blog post. You find something interesting, write it up, get credit at a conference, move on. That is a legitimate path. The knowledge is public and the community benefits.
ddactic.net?ref=bsky
A side effect of building a DDoS resilience testing platform is that we spend a lot of time probing the infrastructure vendors our customers sit behind. To measure whether a protection stack holds, you have to understand how it actually behaves, not how the documentation says it behaves.
Every recommendation our hardening engine ships carries a strategic doctrine label, and the doctrine matters more than the rule itself. We tag each one with one of four:
ddactic.net?ref=bsky
The login endpoint is the most consistently under-protected attack surface we see in customer scans. Most teams know it is a target. Few teams know how to enumerate the specific ways attackers hit it.
ddactic.net?ref=bsky
Most rate limits I see in the field are scoped wrong. They limit by source IP. The attacker rotates source IPs. The limit becomes decorative within thirty seconds.
ddactic.net?ref=bsky
"Supports HTTP/2" and "inspects HTTP/2 frames" are not the same sentence. We probed 16 major vendors. The result is uncomfortable.
ddactic.net?ref=bsky
I did not expect to write this post. I expected the big-name CDN to dominate the bypass-resistance scoring across our scans. It does not.
ddactic.net?ref=bsky
Every major application-layer attack class has an HTTP version equivalent. Most defenses are written for HTTP/1.1. The gap is not theoretical.
ddactic.net?ref=bsky
Every vendor has a different way to tell you you're "protected." None of them give you a number you can compare across vendors, track over time, or use to justify budget.
ddactic.net?ref=bsky
You configured a rate limit: 100 requests per 10 seconds. You tested it from your office. It works. An attacker sends 90 requests per 10 seconds from each of 10 different countries. Your CDN sees 900 requests per 10 seconds total but triggers nothing.
ddactic.net?ref=bsky
3 years inside Israeli enterprise DDoS readiness taught me one thing: the internal dashboards almost never match what an outside attacker actually sees. So I went and looked from the outside.
ddactic.net?ref=bsky
Every major application-layer attack class has an HTTP version equivalent. Most defenses are written for HTTP/1.1. The gap is not theoretical.
ddactic.net?ref=bsky
For a few years I ran DDoS tests. Different vendor environments, different architectures. I would help companies understand their attack surface and tune their defenses.
ddactic.net?ref=bsky