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

Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

boston.conman.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 516 posts

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#341

Post by p3rls »

wraptile wrote: post #174
phito wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My friend has a small public gitea instance, only use by him a a few friends. He's getting thousounds of requests an hour from bots. I'm sorry but even if it does not impact his service, at the very least it feels like harassment

> thousounds of requests an hour from bots That's not much for any modern server so I genuinely don't understand the frustration. I'm pretty certain gitea should be able to handle thousands of read requests per minute (not per hour) without even breaking a sweat.

and this is how the entire web was turned into wordpress slop and cryptoscams

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#343

Post by dom-whg »

johnklos wrote: post #323

This is a problem. There's a recent phishing campaign with sites hosted by Cloudflare and spam sent through either "noobtech.in" (103.173.40.0/24) or through "worldhost.group" (many, many networks). "noobtech.in" has no web site, can't accept abuse complaints (their email has spam filters), and they don't respond at all to email asking them for better communication methods. The phishing domains have "mail.(phishing d…

Could you drop a message to dom@ with more details and I'll get this stopped from the WHG side - and find out what happened. Thanks!

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#344

Post by rglullis »

latexr wrote: post #336
rglullis wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Curious that what is probably the most corrupt administration in the history of the USA, the one actively taking away their citizens’ freedoms as we speak, is the one embracing cryptocurrency to the max. Your memory is quite selective. El Salvador has been pushing for Bitcoin way before that, so we already have our share of Banana Republic (which is the US is becoming) promoting cryptocurrencies. Second, the US is…

That read like a bizarre tangent, because it didn’t at all address the argument. To make it clear I’ll repeat the crux of my point, the conclusion that the other arguments lead up to, which you skipped entirely in your reply: > They’re far from impervious to corruption. That’s it. That’s the point. You brought up corruption, and I pointed out blockchains don’t actually prevent that. Which you seem to agree with, so I…

> You brought up corruption, and I pointed out blockchains don’t actually prevent that.

No. Let's not talk past each other. My point is not about "preventing corruption". My point is that the citizens can not rely on the current web as an system that works in their favor. My point is that corporations and governments both are using the current web to take away our freedoms, and that we will need systems that do not require trust and/or functional institutions to enforce the rules.

> They are being used almost exclusively for grifts, scams, and hoarding.

"If by whiskey" arguments are really annoying. I am talking about the people doing research in trustless systems. Zero-knowledge proofs. Anonymous transactions. Fraud-proof advertisement impressions.

Scammers, grifters have always existed. Money laundering always existed. And they still happen far more often in the "current" web. There will always be bad actors in any large scale system. My argument is not about "preventing corruption", but to have a system where good actors can act independently even if corruption is prevalent.

> That is not a problem blockchains solve.

Go ahead and try to build a system that keeps access to online resources available to everyone while ensuring that it is cheap for good actors and expensive for bad ones. If you don't want to have any type of blockchain, you will either have to create a whitelist-first network or you will have to rely on an all-powerful entity with policing powers.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#346

Post by ryantgtg »

nojs wrote: post #291

> Here's how it identifies itself: “Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; Thinkbot/0.5.8; +In­_the­_test­_phase,­_if­_the­_Thinkbot­_brings­_you­_trouble,­_please­_block­_its_IP_address._Thank_you.)”. I mean you could just ban the user agent? The real issue is with bots pretending not to be bots.

This one was funny because I checked a day’s log and it was using at least 15 different IPs. Much easier to just ban or rate limit “Thinkbot”

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#347

Post by BizarroLand »

I feel like one annoying solution to bots would be putting your pages behind a simple account creation & logon screen.

Maybe it could be for your archive files or something.

Still a hassle but if 95% of your blog requires a login to view that would decrease the load quite a bit, right?

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#348

Post by immibis »

ygritte wrote: post #6
Etheryte wrote: post #3

One starts to wonder, at what point might it be actually feasible to do it the other way around, by whitelisting IP ranges. I could see this happening as a community effort, similar to adblocker list curation etc.

Came here to say something similar. The sheer amount of IP addresses one has to block to keep malware and bots at bay is becoming unmanageable.

Can you explain more about blocking malware as opposed to bots?

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#349

Post by immibis »

Arnavion wrote: post #315
recursive wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hapless end user won't blame the ISP first.

One of them won't, but enough of them getting blocked would. People do absolutely notice ISP-level blocks when they happen. We're currently seeing it play out in the UK. But my main point was in the second paragraph, that "enough of them would" will never happen anyway when the only ones doing the blocking are small websites.

The end user will find out whether their ISP is blocking them or Netflix is blocking them. Usually by asking one of them or by talking to someone who already knows the situation. They will find out Netflix is blocking them, not their ISP.

What, exactly, do you want ISPs to do to police their users from earning $10 of cryptocurrency a month, or even worse, from playing free mobile games? Neither one breaks the law btw. Neither one is even detectable. (Not even by the target website! They're just guessing too)

There are also enough websites that nobody is quitting the internet just because they can't get Netflix. They might subscribe to a different steaming service, or take up torrenting. They'll still keep the internet because it has enough other uses, like Facebook. Switching to a different ISP won't help because it will be every ISP because, as I already said, there's nothing the ISP can do about it. Which, on the other hand, means Netflix would ban every ISP and have zero customers left. Probably not a good business decision.

Re: Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

#350

Post by zelphirkalt »

themafia wrote: post #163
bob1029 wrote: post #132

I think a lot of really smart people are letting themselves get taken for a ride by the web scraping thing. Unless the bot activity is legitimately hammering your site and causing issues (not saying this isn't happening in some cases), then this mostly amounts to an ideological game of capture the flag. The difference being that you'll never find their flag. The only thing you win by playing is lost time. The best wa…

The way I get a fast web product is to pay a premium for data. So, no, it's not "lost time" by banning these entities, it's actual saved costs on my bandwidth and compute bills. The bonus is my actual customers get the same benefits and don't notice any material loss from my content _not_ being scraped. How you see this as me being secretly taken advantage of is completely beyond me.

You are paying premium for data? Do you mean for traffic? Sounds like a bad deal to me. The tiniest Hetzner servers give you 20TB included per month. Either you really have lots of traffic, or you are paying for bad hosting deals.
Post reply on HN