Live data from Hacker News

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

boston.conman.org

91–100 of 516 posts

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

#91
post #83

Wouldn't it be better, if there's an easy way, to just feed such bots shit data instead of blocking them. I know it's easier to block and saves compute and bandwidth, but perhaps feeding them shit data at scale would be a much better longer term solution.

    if ($http_user_agent ~* "BadBot") {
        limit_rate 1k;
        default_type application/octet-stream;
        proxy_buffering off;
        alias /dev/zero;
        return 200;
    }

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

#92
post #33
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.

Many US companies do it already. It should be illegal, at least for companies that still charge me while I’m abroad and don’t offer me any other way of canceling service or getting support.

This! Dealing with European services from China is also terrible. As is the other way around. Welcome to the intranet!

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

#93
post #79

I feel like people seem to forget that an HTTP request is, after all, a request . When you serve a webpage to a client, you are consenting to that interaction with a voluntary response. You can blunt instrument 403 geoblock entire countries if you want, or any user agent, or any netblock or ASN. It’s entirely up to you and it’s your own server and nobody will be legitimately mad at you. You can rate limit IPs to x re…

> This whole AI scraper panic is so incredibly overblown.

The problem is that its eating into peoples costs, and if you're not concerned with money, I'm just asking, can you send me $50.00 USD ?

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

#94
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.

Unfortunately, well-behaved bots often have more stable IPs, while bad actors are happy to use residential proxies. If you ban a residential proxy IP you're likely to impact real users while the bad actor simply switches. Personally I don't think IP level network information will ever be effective without combining with other factors. Source: stopping attacks that involve thousands of IPs at my work.

> If you ban a residential proxy IP you're likely to impact real users while the bad actor simply switches.

Are you really? How likely do you think is a legit customer/user to be on the same IP as a residential proxy? Sure residential IPS get reused, but you can handle that by making the block last 6-8 hours, or a day or two.

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

#95
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Do some people just mentally insert the word “people” after every occurrence of the words “black” or “white” they happen across in their daily lives? And then decide whoever used them had malicious intent?

I doubt it, on both accounts. Neither is needed to prefer allow/deny list though. Malicious intent was not ascribed by the comment you're replying to.

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

#96
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.

Unfortunately, well-behaved bots often have more stable IPs, while bad actors are happy to use residential proxies. If you ban a residential proxy IP you're likely to impact real users while the bad actor simply switches. Personally I don't think IP level network information will ever be effective without combining with other factors. Source: stopping attacks that involve thousands of IPs at my work.

Blocking a residential proxy doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.

My single-layer thought process:

If they're knowingly running a residential proxy then they'll likely know "the cost of doing business". If they're unknowingly running a residential proxy then blocking them might be a good way for them to find out they're unknowingly running a residential proxy and get their systems deloused.

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

#97
"I'm seriously thinking that the CCP encourage this with maybe the hope of externalizing the cost of the Great Firewall to the rest of the world. If China scrapes content, that's fine as far as the CCP goes; If it's blocked, that's fine by the CCP too (I say, as I adjust my tin foil hat)."

Then turn the tables on them and make the Great Firewall do your job! Just choose a random snippet about illegal Chinese occupation of Tibet or human rights abuses of Uyghur people each time you generate a page and insert it as a breaker between paragraphs. This should get you blocked in no time :)

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

#98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's some weird ones you'd never think of that originate an inordinate amount of bad traffic. Like Seychelles. A tiny little island nation in the middle of the ocean inhabited by... bots apparently? Cyprus is another one. Re: China, their cloud services seem to stretch to Singapore and beyond. I had to blacklist all of Alibaba Cloud and Tencent and the ASNs stretched well beyond PRC borders.

There is a Chinese player that has taken effective control of various internet-related entities in the Seychelles. Various ongoing court-cases currently. So the seychelles traffic is likely really disguised chinese traffic.

I don't think these are "Chinese players" and is linked to [1], although it may be that the hands changed many times that the IP addresses have been leased or bought by Chinese entities.

[1] https://mybroadband.co.za/news/internet/350973-man-connected...

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

#100
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's really the same thing with just different (and more structured) prefix lengths. In IPv4 you usually block a single /32 address first, then a /24 block, etc. In IPv6 you start with a single /128 address, a single LAN is /64, an entire site is usually /56 (residential) or /48 (company), etc.

Hmmm... that isn't my experience: /128: single application /64: single computer /56: entire building /48: entire (digital) neighborhood

A /64 is the smallest network on which you can run SLAAC, so almost all VLANs should use this. /56 and /48 for end users is what RIRs are recommending, in reality the prefixes are longer, because ISPs and hosting providers wants you to pay like IPv6 space is some scarse resource.

[1]: https://www.ripe.net/publications/docs/ripe-690/

Post reply on HN