[aur-dev] [PATCH] Add an IP ban list
agrsbm at gmail.com
Sat Mar 23 12:41:41 EDT 2013
On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Lukas Fleischer
<archlinux at cryptocrack.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 08:30:38PM +0000, Xyne wrote:
>> Lukas Fleischer wrote:
>> >> Do the IPs need to be visible? In the case of a single IP a simple ban button
>> >> will suffice. A proxied IP will be completely different every time so
>> >> subsequent addresses are unrelated. That only leaves netmasked dynamic IPs. It
>> >> would be enough to have an interface button connected to a query that returns
>> >> all users with an IP in the netmasked range (/24?). You could even
>> >> automatically flag user accounts that share a range with banned IPs, again
>> >> without divulging the IP address.
>> >This is not the whole truth. To stop the latest spam attack, we had a
>> >look at the web server logs, noticed that the spammer was using Tor,
>> >generated a list of Tor exit nodes and added that to the IP ban list.
>> >How would you do that without seeing any IP addresses? How would you
>> >figure out if a spammer is just controlling 4-5 small subnets or using
>> >proxies at all?
>> Fair enough.
>> Incidentally, can a banned IP address still be used to browse the site and
>> download packages? There are many people who use Tor and other proxies for
>> various reasons and it would be a shame if they have to suffer due to one
>> basement-dwelling troll. Essentially only the login and post forms would need
>> to respect the ban.
> We only block account creation and login. If a spammer still has a valid
> session, we can clear all active sessions to enforce a logout.
It does also affect account modification, doesn't it?
I didn't see any differentiation in process_account_form().
>> Sorry if this has been addressed already. I haven't read through the patches.
>> >If you feel strongly about not showing IP addresses, we could hide IP
>> >addresses for TUs and only show them to the AUR administrator(s) who can
>> >skim through the logs anyway.
>> Please do. Thanks.
>> >Yes, they can. I did not mean to allege anything here -- I just wanted
>> >to make sure that banning a range of IP addresses doesn't
>> >(unintentionally) block any Trusted Users or developers.
>> That would make for a great post in the stupid computer mistakes thread... it
>> would be on the same level as ssh'ing into a box and killing the network.
More information about the aur-dev