51–60 of 78 posts
This is what I get for a public IP used for some of my websites: Threats: 0 Trust score: 0 - High risk I'm confused why it's considered high risk if no threats were detected. Maybe unknown IPs are considered high risk until proven otherwise?
"Threats" is based on static blocklists. "Trust Score" is generated by a model. So what this means is, "even though this IP hasn't been reported anywhere we still think it's high risk".
Humph. My home IP address which is shared by thousands of random people behind two layers of NAT, in Brazil, gets a score of "63, low risk". My mail server, on Linode in the US, which has had the same IP# for about 20 years and sends mail to GMail and Microsoft without problems (and only from a small group of people who never send spam) gets a score of "0, high risk". This is useless garbage, and dangerous to boot. T…
This is actually proof that it works as intended. Our scores are made to be consumed by web applications. In that context it makes sense that a cloud IP that's used to send mail would be treated with suspicion if it's seen trying to make a purchase on an e-commerce site.
When web sites increase the amount of hassling (and make no mistake about it, garbage like this, CAPTCHAs, nonconsensual "SMS 2FA" etc are all just hassles to customers), I file support tickets about their broken website. If a website continues down the path of snake oil to the point of becoming unusable, I generally end up no longer being a customer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is actually proof that it works as intended. Our scores are made to be consumed by web applications. In that context it makes sense that a cloud IP that's used to send mail would be treated with suspicion if it's seen trying to make a purchase on an e-commerce site.
Please stop making the world a worse place. Every online purchase I make comes from a datacenter IP with resistFingerprinting = true. I've got a good ISP that probably isn't selling surveillance about me, but websites themselves certainly abuse IP addresses (as you're doing here), and I see no reason to browse like some naive jamoke - datacenter IPs are easy to rotate, and fine-grained wireguard is already integrated…
Most bots originate from cloud IPs or hide behind proxies and VPN services. Our scores ensure that the majority of legitimate users i.e. those coming from residential IPs are left alone, with captchas and other verification mechanisms shown to "high risk" users, that is, users visiting from a cloud provider's networks or a known proxy/vpn provider. This can be verified by the number of comments on this thread by users whose home internet IPs showed a high "Trust Score".
So if anything our scores help reduce the hassle or friction that legitimate users are subjected to by the fraud-fighting tactics employed by different websites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please stop making the world a worse place. Every online purchase I make comes from a datacenter IP with resistFingerprinting = true. I've got a good ISP that probably isn't selling surveillance about me, but websites themselves certainly abuse IP addresses (as you're doing here), and I see no reason to browse like some naive jamoke - datacenter IPs are easy to rotate, and fine-grained wireguard is already integrated…
Fraudulent activity by bots is a problem that everyone who's managed a large enough website is familiar with. Most bots originate from cloud IPs or hide behind proxies and VPN services. Our scores ensure that the majority of legitimate users i.e. those coming from residential IPs are left alone, with captchas and other verification mechanisms shown to "high risk" users, that is, users visiting from a cloud provider's…
> our scores help reduce the hassle or friction that legitimate users are subjected to
I'm telling you right here, I am a legitimate user and when businesses fall for the garbage story you're pushing, it makes me less likely to remain their customer. Hassling customers with repeated rounds of "click on all the cars" "no you're wrong" is terrible UX. It could be understandable if it popped up after a few failed logins in a row, but putting the nagwall front and center is appalling design.
I look forward to Apple's VPN increasingly demonstrating just how wrong your marginalizing surveillance mindset is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fraudulent activity by bots is a problem that everyone who's managed a large enough website is familiar with. Most bots originate from cloud IPs or hide behind proxies and VPN services. Our scores ensure that the majority of legitimate users i.e. those coming from residential IPs are left alone, with captchas and other verification mechanisms shown to "high risk" users, that is, users visiting from a cloud provider's…
"Fraudulent activity by bots" is a contradiction in terms that sounds like you've just mashed distinct issues together to create an emotionally manipulative phrase. Bots are bots, fraud is fraud. "Bots" are an overstated problem - websites should want to publish their information for every type of consumption. If serving some types of consumers causes too high of a load, then the inefficient code is what needs to be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is actually proof that it works as intended. Our scores are made to be consumed by web applications. In that context it makes sense that a cloud IP that's used to send mail would be treated with suspicion if it's seen trying to make a purchase on an e-commerce site.
Please stop making the world a worse place. Every online purchase I make comes from a datacenter IP with resistFingerprinting = true. I've got a good ISP that probably isn't selling surveillance about me, but websites themselves certainly abuse IP addresses (as you're doing here), and I see no reason to browse like some naive jamoke - datacenter IPs are easy to rotate, and fine-grained wireguard is already integrated…
This company is providing a horrible anti-service! Random company website you are visiting: "We're sorry, we can't offer you access to our service today, as you IP score was below our required threshold. Please try again later and have a nice day."
No, if your reputation is really bad you'll probably just be shown a captcha.
These services make it impossible to participate online without giving big tech your identity. IMO they’re worse than everyone else combined because they play a critical role in helping all tech companies discriminate against people that want privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's your problem with VPN users? Are you some kind of voyeur that likes to snoop in other people's private business? Where I go in the internet is my business alone, just like were I go outside my house. And having an online version of China's social credit tracking me online to see if I behave is not a good thing. You are providing a service that is actively diminishing (already brittle) internet privacy and I ha…
IMO VPN services that don't defeat geolocation like Apple's Private Relay, the Google One VPN service and Cloudflare Warp are a good compromise for privacy. This is because they allow businesses to provide their services without breaking the law eg. gambling is legal in some states and illegal in others, betting services need to distinguish/target users accordingly. Insurance providers might only be licensed in certa…