Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

krebsonsecurity.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 549 posts

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#391

Post by jacobgold »

some_random wrote: post #376
jacobgold wrote: post #369

US residential proxies are the bane of the internet. They're the major source of social media manipulation and spam. Services can dramatically reduce abuse by blocking entire IP ranges based on country of origin, organization, or type (hosting providers). But a company can't block US residential IPs if it would also cut off many of their real customers. The US government (probably the NSA) should be cracking down har…

A crackdown would probably be an FBI responsibility, the NSA is not a law enforcement agency and absolutely does not have the authority.

In terms of law enforcement, sure. But what we really need is competent white hat hackers doing battle with the black hats.

Even if no one goes to jail, the NSA could make residential proxies much harder to operate in the US simply by detecting them and reporting them to ISPs. It would be good for ISPs to then validate the reports properly, give warnings, etc.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#392

Post by Retr0id »

wnevets wrote: post #385
jacobgold wrote: post #369

US residential proxies are the bane of the internet. They're the major source of social media manipulation and spam. Services can dramatically reduce abuse by blocking entire IP ranges based on country of origin, organization, or type (hosting providers). But a company can't block US residential IPs if it would also cut off many of their real customers. The US government (probably the NSA) should be cracking down har…

> Major US ISPs (Comcast, AT&T) should detect clearly suspicious activity coming from customer IPs and warn them to scan their computers, check their TV apps, and find whatever is turning their internet into a proxy. It's very bad for the customers too (slows things down, gets their IP banned, etc) Does having TLS everywhere make this much harder?

Until DoH and ECH are commonplace, DNS lookups and SNI probably leak enough for statistical analysis.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#393

Post by [deleted] »

kyriakos wrote: post #226
Tor3 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From previous discussions there are apparently TVs which will connect to any open network nearby, if it can find one. I got myself a normal, non-smart Philips 49" TV some ten years ago, it's good, but I don't expect to be able to find something similar anymore.

Who runs open WiFi networks in 2026?

[deleted]

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#394

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Mindwipe wrote: post #381
tjoff wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airgapped is harder than you might think. If your TV finds an open network (neigbours?) it will use that one. And it is only a matter of time before they have cellular capabilities too.

When was the last time you saw a completely open residential wifi access point in the wild? This seems a little like worrying about getting Dodo poisoning.

> When was the last time you saw a completely open residential wifi access point in the wild?

I have family who get frustrated with their home Wi-fi and about every other year conclude the solution is to unsecure the connection.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#395

Post by jacobgold »

pudgywalsh wrote: post #389
jacobgold wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no spying required. The NSA and ISPs can find open proxies through infiltration and report them to (e.g. abuse@comcast.com), then Comcast simply has to act on it robustly. ISPs already deal with abuse reports like this, the system just isn't being operated comptently.

What are you talking about? These are not open proxies. You actually think the actors that went to the trouble to surreptitiously set this infrastructure up are going to share it with everyone for free? They are intentionally made hard to detect and access is sold to the highest bidder. Most ISP abuse reports are routinely ignored. They might as well be a dead letter box.

> These are not open proxies.

Okay, I was being imprecise. These residential proxies aren't "open proxies" in the traditional sense, but they're usually "open" to anyone willing to pay a small amount of money to use them.

> Most ISP abuse reports are routinely ignored. They might as well be a dead letter box.

This is where regulation might play a role, or at least a change in attitude. Companies shouldn't be allowed to pollute the internet in this way when they can easily prevent it.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#396

Post by jacobgold »

wnevets wrote: post #385
jacobgold wrote: post #369

US residential proxies are the bane of the internet. They're the major source of social media manipulation and spam. Services can dramatically reduce abuse by blocking entire IP ranges based on country of origin, organization, or type (hosting providers). But a company can't block US residential IPs if it would also cut off many of their real customers. The US government (probably the NSA) should be cracking down har…

> Major US ISPs (Comcast, AT&T) should detect clearly suspicious activity coming from customer IPs and warn them to scan their computers, check their TV apps, and find whatever is turning their internet into a proxy. It's very bad for the customers too (slows things down, gets their IP banned, etc) Does having TLS everywhere make this much harder?

Not sure how it would? Because the bad actors are remotely instructing infected computers/devices to make HTTP/TLS requests for them, so they appear totally normal to the other side.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#397

Post by preg_match »

ChocolateGod wrote: post #243
drnick1 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another win for the Linux security model (software installed and updated manually from vetted repos only).

> software installed and updated manually from vetted repos only So something most desktop Linux users don't do.

I would say 95%+ do just this. The Debian, Ubuntu, and even Fedora repos are very large and include all the software you could ever want. And then flathub takes the rest.

It’s really only arch with the AUR and some others where completely untrusted packages are used. This is legitimately a better model than what windows does, although Microsoft has been trying to change this with winget.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#398

Post by preg_match »

voidUpdate wrote: post #183
drnick1 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another win for the Linux security model (software installed and updated manually from vetted repos only).

sudo dkpg -i FileYouDownloadedFromAnywhere.deb

Almost never occurs as the repos contain a ton of software.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#399

Post by wmf »

amiga386 wrote: post #318
quotemstr wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is clear that LG is talking about banning all proxies, even voluntarily installed ones. A smart TV is a computer. Why should the owner of a computer not be allowed to run any program he wants?

That is not the case. The article is quite clear that LG runs an "app store" where 42% of the "apps" likely contain residential proxies, and LG is going to make its "app store" developers stop doing that. From TFA: > “A residential proxy network is not an intended use for LG smart TVs, and LG Electronics is working with developers to remove the residential proxy option from their apps on the webOS platform,” Taylor s…

Some people do run Tailscale proxies in their home, and an always-on device like a TV is a good place to run it.

Re: LG to ban residential proxies from smart TV apps

#400

Post by preg_match »

iso1631 wrote: post #199
drnick1 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another win for the Linux security model (software installed and updated manually from vetted repos only).

most of my machines use unnatended-upgrades Increasingly software is distributed by "curl dodgysite.com/get.sh|sudo bash -", no different to running "install.exe" on windows Surely Windows Update is a vetted repo as much as arch or debian

There is one major difference: those install under your users. I haven’t seen a windows installer that didn’t require admin. Some older Linux apps require sudo. They don’t need to do that anymore, not for a while. We have xdg standards of where to install stuff in a users home directory.
Post reply on HN