Ataque masivo reportado contra el portal de Armando.info

What this source supports

• Scharfenberg reported that Armando.info had been under a massive electronic attack since the prior day
• he said a new investigation was being published through Facebook instead
• the post does not characterize the traffic as DDoS, identify an actor or provide telemetry

Evidence limits

First-party contemporaneous report by the outlet cofounder. It establishes the public claim and timing, not the technical mechanism, actor, traffic origin or complete duration.

Relevance to this case

Strongest direct source for Armando.info\u0027s own report that the attack began on 2 March.

What this source supports

• Scharfenberg said a massive electronic attack still had the Armando.info site basically blocked
• he said La Patilla had republished the full investigation
• the post does not identify the attack method or actor

Evidence limits

First-party contemporaneous availability statement. It does not establish exact downtime, recovery, method, request volume or attribution.

Relevance to this case

Direct support for the reported public-site availability impact on 3 March.

What this source supports

• TalCual reproduced Scharfenberg's report that Armando.info had been under a massive electronic attack since 2 March
• the report says the outlet distributed its investigation through Facebook and La Patilla because the site was unavailable
• the article does not itself identify DDoS, Russia, a request count or an actor

Evidence limits

Contemporaneous secondary reporting that depends on Scharfenberg\u0027s first-party posts. It supplies no independent technical evidence or actor attribution.

Relevance to this case

Corroborates the first-party public report and contemporaneous availability impact.

What this source supports

• The reproduced IPYS report says attacks against Armando.info's server had occurred since February 2019
• it describes an intense period from 9 p.m. on 2 March until 9 a.m. on 3 March and up to nine million requests in one hour
• the report attributes the geographic origin of most requests to Russia; this is not actor attribution
• the page does not publish raw server logs, a packet capture or evidence about data compromise

Evidence limits

Accessible reproduction of IPYS\u0027s annual report rather than independently published telemetry. Request origin does not identify the operator, and the nine-million figure cannot be reproduced from raw logs in the public source.

Relevance to this case

Best detailed public account of the reported request volume and overnight timeline, used with medium confidence and explicit attribution to IPYS.

What this source supports

• CPJ reported IPYS's account that the attacks may have originated in Russia and exceeded nine million attempts in one hour on 3 March
• Armando.info editor Roberto Deniz told CPJ that the attacks affected site traffic
• CPJ does not publish raw telemetry and its technical details depend on IPYS

Evidence limits

Independent international reporting with a direct editor quotation, but the request-volume and geographic-origin details depend on IPYS and do not identify the actor.

Relevance to this case

Independent corroboration of the target, availability effect and IPYS-described traffic claim.