back to article UK lotto players quids in: Website knocked offline by DDoS attack

The UK National Lottery has apologised for a website outage that left money in the pockets of punters unable to play games on Saturday evening. “We're very sorry that many players are currently unable to access The National Lottery website or app. Our 46,000 retailers are unaffected,” it said on Twitter before adding “please …

  1. Lee D Silver badge

    I'm fairly sure that if there's one organisation with the money to buy enough bandwidth and filtering to handle a DDoS, then it's going to be Camelot Group. Especially as it would just be filed under "operational expenses".

    1. Anonymous Custard Silver badge

      Maybe they just like to gamble and risk it?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        They, gamble?

        You should know, the real Casinos only ever back a sure winner!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      More like Petty Cash.

  2. Alister Silver badge

    It could be you

    No, no it really couldn't.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It could be you

      That's not technically correct and we all know that that is the best type of correct....

  3. adam payne Silver badge

    An interesting and strange thought popped into my head as I read this.

    Would the chance of your your own personal website being DDOSed be higher than your chance of winning the lottery?

  4. Redstone
    IT Angle

    It would be interesting to know

    how big this DDoS attack was. I mean, you would have thought that the National Frottery would have some serious digital seige mitigation in place; so to knock the site out, there must have been a good few hundred Gbps traffic behind it, suggesting a pretty substantial botnet.

    I'm guessing that this is unlikely to be a competitor (those postcode lottery people seem too nice ;)), so a reasonable assumption is that this is one of those botnet-for-hire attacks. I'm also guessing that this didn't cost the instigator that much either, so it is a bit concerning to anyone running a site that may be viewed as controversial - which is pretty much any site with content on it, these days.

    1. Lee D Silver badge

      Re: It would be interesting to know

      The problem with DDoS is that you can only combat it from one step higher.

      If you're DDoS'd, you need to implement a filter on the data coming in BEFORE it comes down the line. And with Distributed, those filters are more complex than you might think (i.e. millions of random web requests from random IPs would do it, but how do you distinguish real users?).

      Pretty much, that's your first port-of-call, and the end of your worrying. The upstream then has to work out where it's coming from and try to filter from source, if that's possible, or just swallow the traffic for you. It matters not what YOU have in-house, that's always capable of being overwhelmed. It's what your upstream partners have, as they are the ones collating packets from millions of smaller connections into one big bundle for you, and they have to fix it there, not just blindly send it to you.

      No amount of technology can really solve that issue, while it's still possible to generate a genuine web request from a genuine user's compromised PC, as that genuine user, it's impossible to distinguish no matter you put in the way of cookies, authentication, behaviour-tracking, etc.

      It's cheap to tell 1,000,000 computers that you don't own, to all access a website at the same time. The people who own the computers are paying for the resources. It's not cheap to run a website capable of dealing with 1,000,000 extra visitors without noticing.

      As time goes on, the problem isn't going to change much except in scope. We can only hope that backhaul transit increases in sizes proportional to the average home broadband user. While it takes, what? 10-30 compromised home fibre connections to flood a 1Gbit leased line now, if that scale doesn't increase at the same rate at both ends then it becomes even easier to swamp a connection.

      (it's wishful thinking that larger connections would grow at a faster rate than home ones, however).

      What happens when every user has uncontended gigabit? You better hope that every ISP becomes good at filtering, or that every backhaul and datacenter start offering 100Gbit as the basic business leased line / the interface to the cheapest server they rent out.

      To be honest, servers in datacentres would be my worry. It's pretty standard to get only 100Mbit or 1Gbit networking. Most servers running in datacentres, therefore, could be taken down by a single fibre home-user with a grudge quite quickly if there was no mitigation. And paying to have every single blade / VM / whatever to have 100Gbit connectivity and necessary switching/upstream for that sounds expensive

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It would be interesting to know

      888 perhaps?

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Its those Lotto louts again

    always causing trouble...

  6. breakfast

    Oh well

    I sometimes feel that no matter how hard I work at it, I'm never going to win the lottery.

    1. handleoclast

      Re: Oh well

      Cheer up and take heed of this excellent advice.

    2. disgustedoftunbridgewells Silver badge

      Re: Oh well

      i buy a euromillions ticket ( by direct debit ) every week because I like to dream that maybe, just maybe I'll be able to retire before I'm 120.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Oh well

      I'm never going to win the lottery either, because I won't waste my money on a ticket with such low a probability of return

    4. MyffyW Silver badge

      Re: Oh well

      It's an investment: Low stake (a quid or two), high risk (you're likely to lose the principal), high reward (it could be you)

      And if you play every week for 50 years you'll be down no more than the cost of a second-hand Nissan Micra.

      1. DJO Silver badge

        Re: Oh well

        Ignore the top prize, you'll never win that and even if you do it's just a statistical anomaly but the odds of winning any prize are about 20:1 which while bad is not very bad.

        Another view is that according to the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics every ticket you buy will win the jackpot, the problem is being in the right universe. It could be argued that when you buy a ticket a version of you will become rich, let's hope it's the version here.

        1. Martin an gof Silver badge

          Re: Oh well

          Or then there's the case of my wife who was given a handful of Premium Bonds as a birthday present 50 years ago, and has never, ever had a single payout.

          At least the capital is safe, all (I dunno) ten Shillings of it :-)


          1. paulf Silver badge

            Re: Oh well

            @ Martin an gof "Premium Bonds...At least the capital is safe"

            Only if you exclude inflation. While you can get back the investment capital you lose the stake which is the investment income that capital generates.

            Mines the one with Martin Lewis's PB analysis in it.

    5. paulf Silver badge

      Re: Oh well

      @ breakfast.

      The odds of winning the lottery (I assume you mean the jackpot, rather than winning any prize) may be pretty long; but those odds are much longer if you don't buy a ticket.

      1. Allan George Dyer Silver badge

        Re: Oh well

        @paulf - "those odds are much longer if you don't buy a ticket"

        Oh, I don't know. I regularly win Microsoft and Google lotteries that I never entered.

      2. breakfast

        Re: Oh well

        I think the odds of winning a EuroMillions jackpot ( and lets face it, we don't really care about the chump change smaller prizes ) are so slim that one probably has as much chance of finding a winning ticket lying in the street as buying one.

        In fact I think I'm more likely to be crushed by a meteorite than win that Jackpot, although I bet if either of those happened they would happen on the same day. Typical.

        1. FlamingDeath

          Re: Oh well

          This is of course assuming that it's not all a confidence trick. I mean those adjudicators, you know, the ones with the clipboard and name badge, who would oversee the machines and tick their little clipboard when a ball popped out, all to give the impression it's all legit.

          Honestly people are so gullible and have a naive childlike sense of fairplay.

          Guess what folks, as an example, do you think the Royal familys of this world got to where they are by "fair play" ?

  7. alain williams Silver badge

    'Gamble' not 'play'

    Please do not use the Camelot marketing department's word 'play' - which implies that the lottery is a bit of fun, not serious. For many, reasonably well off, el-reg readers that might be true, but I have seen people at my local newsagent gambling money that it was plain that they could not afford -- it is harmful.

    People are taken in by the con that they will get rich - the adverts try to convince people that they will be more lucky than their neighbour - clearly that cannot be true.

    Would you make an investment that returned 25% of your original stake ? That is what you are likely to get when gambling on the lottery.

    This DDOS has saved many people money that they could not afford to loose.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 'Gamble' not 'play'

      Hopefully the poor sods can't afford an internet connection either.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 'Gamble' not 'play'

      You have to be 18 to play it therefore that makes you an adult, and as an adult you have the right to make your own decisions. The major part of being an adult is learning to make your own decisions and taking the consequences of those decisions. It wouldn't matter if you banned the lottery tomorrow, the sort of people pissing money up the wall on scratch cards would simply go play the "fruities" up the arcade or in the pub. Or worse, they'd get seriously into booze or drugs and screw themselves up that way. You can't save everyone, sure you can tell them their stupid or confused but when the craving strikes, nothing stops it and it needs feeding.

      You can scream at a heroin addict all you like that they're f**king stupid to pump that sh*t into their veins but when the craving strikes no amount of shouting or advice will stop the horrendous craving that will drive them to rob, steal or kill to supply the addiction, they're no longer addicted to the drug, they're addicted to the addiction. Same with the "lottery junkies", it wouldn't matter if they won £10,000 tomorrow, they'd simply head to a casino as opposed to the corner shop to play the "scratchies".

      You can't help some people, no matter how hard to want to or how hard you try, some people are destined to screw themselves up. What you can do though is to remove those they are hurting from them, take them somewhere safe and teach them that addiction is a bad thing, the kids or dependants, offer them a chance at a decent life.

      Trust me. Once a junkie ( of anything ) always a junkie. It never stops 'til the day they pop their clogs.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 'Gamble' not 'play'

        You clearly haven't got a clue what you are talking about and I find mindless rants from mindless users like you particularly offensive.

        I hate posting anonymously like you have done as I believe if you have something to say, you should have the balls to own it.

        However in this instance I wish to maintain the anonymity of my son.

        Who is currently in a gambling clinic.

  8. Doctor_Wibble

    No spam over the weekend, coincidence?

    Over the weekend I had wondered if there was some kind of problem that I hadn't figured out, because the volume of spam attempts* dropped to almost zero. May sound weird but it can be a sort of barometer for overall net status. Normal Service resumed shortly after 7pm on Sunday.

    Hence the possibly brief existence of a theory, plus correlation, causation, and musings thereof, that it's (part of?) the same botnet.


    * not counting the solo compute instance thing hosted in France repeatedly trying smtp 'auth login' regardless of the server response. I suppose I could block it but the futility is just so cute, I'm keeping it as a pet.

  9. eJ2095

    Prolly the uk govermemnt buying tickets as they need to grow the magic money tree

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "It's an idiot tax"

    So. It's my money, I'm an idiot, if I choose to do it once a week then that's my problem not yours.

    What does bug me is how insecure their site have been for years. For a long time their password policy was just numbers and letters (because they didn't want to have the hassle of supporting account lock outs). Now you can use special characters yet they STILL don't have Two-Step verification available.

    1. Tom 7 Silver badge

      Re: "It's an idiot tax"

      I'm not really sure there's much to be gained from trying to hack passwords on the lottery site - hacking peoples accounts is going to give less return than buying a ticket shirley.

    2. Cynic_999 Silver badge

      Re: "It's an idiot tax"


      Now you can use special characters yet they STILL don't have Two-Step verification available.


      I don't see why that's necessary. AFAICS there's no money to be made by hacking into your lottery account, so why should it be a target? There's no more need for 2 factor verification than your El-Reg account

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "It's an idiot tax"

        But, but, I use my El Reg password for all my banking.

    3. handleoclast

      Re: "It's an idiot tax"

      It's an idiot tax in more ways than one. Because there's more than one type of idiot.

      In theory I have no problem with a non-profit lottery for people who want to dream of winning. You're buying the dream of what you'd do if you won the big one. Fine. Except that the national lottery pays back 50%. So scale back your dreams.

      The rest of the money, after Camelot has taken its big cut,* goes to "good causes." Some of which occasionally actually do some beneficial things. But mostly they pay for giant statues made of dog turds or something like that. These were the sort of projects, pre-Thatcher, that were funded by the gov't via an arts council or some such. Things that, if they turned out to be a massive waste of money, caused the responsible minister to get pilloried (and maybe voted out at the next election).

      In pre-Thatcher days, the money for "good causes" came out of taxes, which meant the rich paid some of it (relative proportion depending on the flavour of gov't in power). But the rich don't play the lottery to any great degree. If they do, it's a far lower proportion of disposable income than the poor: the rich are already living their dream, the poor are buying lottery tickets so they can dream about becoming rich. Essentially, we've shifted a large proportion of the burden of paying for "good causes" onto the poor. Tax cuts for the rich made possible by an idiot tax on the poor.

      It's also allowed government ministers to evade all criticism for the shitty "good causes" that do get funded, because it's now the lottery commission's fault and nothing to do with gov't. Of course, that didn't stop Tony Fucking B-liar from ramming his thumb on the scale to get the Millennium Dome so he could bask in the glory (and instead was deservedly shamed).

      So it's a double con. It's shifted more of the cost of these "good causes" onto the poor and allowed gov't ministers to avoid criticism for the shitty ones whilst still being able to fraudulently claim credit for any good ones.

      *Camelot takes a big cut. Remember when Branson offered to run the lottery as a non-profit? He was turned down but no real reasons were ever given. If the gov't had secret evidence that he was too risky to run the lottery they should also have prevented him running his other businesses, so they didn't have any. That decision stinks of bribery and corruption. Backhanders from Camelot are the only real explanation for not letting Branson take over.

      But hey, if you want to be an idiot, go for it. It might be you that's an idiot.

      1. Mark 110

        Re: "It's an idiot tax"

        "But mostly they pay for giant statues made of dog turds or something like that."

        Can you stop reading the sodding Daily Mail. Please. Its unhealthy and means you regurgitate utter bilge.

        1. handleoclast

          Re: "It's an idiot tax"

          @Mark 110

          I never read the Daily Mail.

          I exaggerated for comedic effect.

          Obviously, they only fund small statues made of dog turds.

      2. tfewster Silver badge

        Re: "It's an idiot tax"

        @handleoclast re: "Remember when Branson offered to run the lottery as a non-profit? He was turned down but no real reasons were ever given."

        ISTR Branson's proposal to take over the Lottery was trumped by Camelots contract renewal bid to generate much more revenue and, after their cut, still hand over more (than Branson would have managed) to the Lottery Fund.

        But I upvoted the rest of your post.

  11. muddysteve

    Buying the dream

    To me, playing the lottery is not really about winning - it is buying the dream. I can't fantasise about what I would do with the money if I don't buy a ticket.

    1. sabroni Silver badge

      Re: I can't fantasise about what I would do with the money if I don't buy a ticket.

      You can. If you restrict your fantasies to the possible you're kind of missing the point....

    2. ravenviz

      Re: Buying the dream

      I justify it as a contribution to charity. And if I win, there may well be more!

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Buying the dream

        I justify it by figuring that, as long as I spend less than the £40M-odd that Sustrans got from the National Lottery for the National Cycle Network (insert your own preferred charity), then I’m still a winner, of sorts.

        And I do win the occasional tenner or so, although I’m pretty sure that I’m “down” on my personal investment overall! At £1 a week, it was a harmless flutter, but now that tickets are more expensive, it is a bit less so.

  12. Cynic_999 Silver badge

    DDos prevention

    ISTM that DDos attacks could be prevented by ISPs, either at the exchange or even in the customer's WAN router. It is not difficult to recognize DDos packets and block or throttle at the *originating* end.

    It would also be possible to send letters to subscribers of infected systems which if ignored will result in a fine or termination of service.

    1. activereachmax

      Re: DDos prevention

      Firstly I would challenge the assertion that "It is not difficult to recognise DDoS packets" which is not true of all DDoS attack techniques. Secondly, ISPs are more likely to blacklist a target of a DDoS if it threatens their other customers rather than mitigating DDoS attacks for their customers - particularly if the customer has not specifically paid for DDoS protection. Most would be unwilling to put filters on routers at their end for the duration of an attack (which can be quite short) and putting it on a customer's device does nothing to stop volumetric attacks. Cloud mitigation can be effective, but is expensive "always-on." Trying to notify those responsible for the millions of compromised devices used in botnets and then fining them if they don't fix it is... ambitious.

      1. Mark 110

        Re: DDos prevention

        "Trying to notify those responsible for the millions of compromised devices used in botnets and then fining them if they don't fix it is... ambitious."

        So back in my Telewest days we got blacklisted for being a source of Spam. Our SMTP servers got blacklisted because we weren't conforming to some RFCs. Why can't a similar principle work with botnets. Make ISPs responsible for keeping their networks clean (i.e. cutting off customers with unsecured devices being used for bad things) and if they don't then all their traffic gets blacklisted.

        I do realise the internet is much bigger and more difficult to control then 20 years ago but the principle seems good to me.

  13. noddybollock

    Maybe the DDos'ers bought a big shed load of tickets and wanted to improve their odds of winning by DDosing the site - stopping others from buying tickets online ?

    How much would it cost to DDoS it for a whole week - preferably after a roll-over draw ?

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      I wonder how many use the website to buy tickets in the final hours before the draw compared to those who buy from shops through the week? I suspect it'd not do all that much to the odds.

  14. unwarranted triumphalism

    How awful

    Whatever will the saddo gambling addicts do to get their fix? Never mind, I'm sure that a fine upstanding comany such as Ladbrokes can help them piss away their families' rent/mortgage/groceries money.

    Don't forget folks, it's not your fault for pissing away all your money on this bullshit, it's everyone else's fault for not stopping you!

    1. BongoJoe

      Re: How awful

      Well, perhaps the punters can use the money to buy a simple book on 'Value Betting' then after they have read the basics then they can perhaps visit your afore-mentioned Ladbrokes until they get closed down for being a successful punter.

    2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: How awful

      Whatever will the saddo gambling addicts do to get their fix?

      Oh, do grow up!

      1. unwarranted triumphalism

        Re: How awful

        'grow up'

        I'm not the one condoning pissing away money on gambling. Take a look in the mirror.

        1. BongoJoe

          Re: How awful

          Pissing away money? Sorry, to rain on your parade but some of us actually do make money or a living out of punting.

          Like I said in a post just higher up: "value betting". That's all one needs to understand.

          So stop being so bloody puritanical and closed minded.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    DDOS? more like


    (gets coat)

  16. The Dogs Meevonks

    I only play the lottery when it's a guaranteed jackpot win of more than 24 million... Once it passes that mark, it has to be won the following draw.. so even if no one gets all 6, it gets shared between 5+ Bonus and so forth.

    You might get a smaller amount, but the chances drop from 45 million to 1, down to around 15 million to 1... or roughly what it was before they added an extra 10 numbers to make it harder.

  17. Galahad the Chaste

    On second thoughts....

    Let's not DDOS Camelot, tis a silly place

  18. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken


    the stock photo of a German Lottoschein, though?

  19. ukgnome

    What is they say about a fool and his money?

    Oh yeah, a fool and his money sits in my chair frittering it away on Greggs pasties, scratch cards and weird items from Wish.

  20. FlamingDeath

    Nation states, at it again

    Interesting that there was a mass shooting by an alleged madman, in Vegas, next to a giant pyramid, on the 32nd floor where 23 guns were found, the very next day. Looks to me like a coded message, "join us, or else"

    But then again, what do I know

    "Remember, you don't believe in false flag terrorism, you're in control of your own destiny"

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020