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

IP address blocking banned after anti-piracy court order hit Cloudflare

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 92 posts

Re: IP address blocking banned after anti-piracy court order hit Cloudflare

#41

Post by fake-name »

jrockway wrote: post #36
fake-name wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That wouldn't do anything, since CF's CDN connects to the backends directly. As such, any CF server not within the nation in question would effectively be a circumvention tool.

These are BGP blocks, right? If Cloudflare's ISP doesn't have a route to the system in question, then it can't proxy the site anymore. Maybe Cloudflare has an Ethernet cable between the server in question and itself, but that seems unlikely to me. There is probably some ISP in the middle that will play ball, right?

You seem to be assuming that cloudflare's CDN is located in the country doing the blocking.

I'd imagine that CF's first act would be to remove any of the "offending" content from the country, at which point BGP blocking would no longer do anything.

Re: IP address blocking banned after anti-piracy court order hit Cloudflare

#42

Post by ternaus »

techdragon wrote: post #25
worewood wrote: post #16

Looks like my job. The best way to change stupid procedures is following them to the letter and watch the world burn.

This is one of the useful tactics that unions will use when they aren’t legally allowed to strike for one reason or another, they will engage in large scale “work to rule”, which is pretty much what it sounds like, you do your work following the rules to the letter and no further, stubbornly by the book no matter how inconvenient or unproductive or disruptive the rules are when you suddenly start following them exact…

Called "Italian strike"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule

Re: IP address blocking banned after anti-piracy court order hit Cloudflare

#43

Post by ZeroZeroOneZero »

chaxor wrote: post #34
hutzlibu wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google should run Tor? Yeah, that's an interesting idea, if you want to get rid of that annoying build in anonymity in tor which is its main purpose?

It's mostly navy run right now is my understanding, and used by journalists, so I don't see how it's that much of a downgrade.

It was started by the Navy way back in the '90s for secure communication online. Then the source was released like a year after being made public and development was funded by the EFF until the Tor Project itself was officially founded.

They still do (or did?) get grants from a few federal agencies though. But they had no strings attached. This is probably what you're thinking of.

Source: Hung out with a few Tor devs in Berlin a few years back. Including He Who Shall Not Be Named.

Re: IP address blocking banned after anti-piracy court order hit Cloudflare

#45

Post by badsectoracula »

esrauch wrote: post #39
veave wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I understand. A court orders you to block certain IP addresses: you have no options. If that block disallows access to unrelated pages there's nothing either the engineer or the boss can do. Should the engineer lose any sleep over this? Am I missing something?

Courts don't work like computer programs, if the court order would have clearly unintended outcomes then you have some option to in good faith not comply with the order, have your lawyers raise it with the right politicians or courts, and not end up in legal trouble. The job if the engineer who notices this is to raise it to their boss and legal counsel and let them decide whether you should still execute the planned…

> The job if the engineer who notices this is to raise it to their boss and legal counsel...

...shouldn't the legal department be involved way before the issue reaches the engineer? Why should the engineer ever care about it in the first place? Chances are these orders do not come directly to their email.

Re: IP address blocking banned after anti-piracy court order hit Cloudflare

#46

Post by ars »

getcrunk wrote: post #7

> According to reviews conducted by local telecoms regulator TKK, the IP address blocking violated net neutrality regulations and will no longer be allowed. Thank god for net neutrality. We of course have that here in America right? Cus freedom!

And despite not having net neutrality in the US not a single one of the fears came true.

Which is what I said way back then: There's nothing wrong with net neutrality but it's simply not necessary.

Re: IP address blocking banned after anti-piracy court order hit Cloudflare

#48

Post by kstrauser »

johndhi wrote: post #44

Can someone explain to me why cloudflare shares IPs across customers? Why not just give one to each?

That would be incredibly wasteful. It can use many IPs per host when using geographically local endpoints, and relatively few customers are large enough to need IPs to themselves.

Re: IP address blocking banned after anti-piracy court order hit Cloudflare

#49

Post by Atotalnoob »

gerdesj wrote: post #27
tuetuopay wrote: post #3

> When the ISPs discovered that the IP addresses belonged to Cloudflare, arms were thrown up in despair. The level of desperation the ISP’s engineers have felt in front of such incompetence must have been through the roof. I am getting tired of our politics here in europe: tech literate people in governments are put to work on surveilance stuff, never for actual policymaking. The shit show continues.

Surely they should have contacted Cloudflare and asked them to sort out the issue with their network ... CF will probably retort {common carrier, we are American and you are not etc}. Austrian policy makers get upset and ... THIS NONSENSE IS STILL NOT SORTED. The internets are somewhat broken, quite badly. We all allow ourselves to end up in a series of virtual walled off silos - Facebook, Twitter etc, run by some pr…

401 then 200 is part of kerberos/ntlm. You can watch it if you use curl -v

401 indicates it should send it's kerberos ticket.

Kerberos verifies it should send a ticket, then sends it.

200 cause you are now authenticated.

Re: IP address blocking banned after anti-piracy court order hit Cloudflare

#50

Post by Daneel_ »

mike_d wrote: post #21

Plenty of corporate web filtering solutions block on IPs, and the adoption of ESNI will only make it worse. If you manage an important website, moving out of a bad neighborhood (Cloudflare) before you end up the victim of blocking is probably a good idea.

Layer 7 gear has been around for a long time. At an ISP level I’d be shocked if they weren’t running big F5s or something similar that can handle this properly. Actually do so is another matter entirely though, and I’m not even considering throughput.
Post reply on HN