6 ms·
Verizon AS701 blocking Tor consensus server tor26 (86.59.21.38)
- schoen 8y agoHmmmm, maybe ask on NANOG or something? Unfortunately there's apparently no AS701 looking glass.
- dogecoinbase 8y agoYeah, getting a contact via NANOG or Outages is the right venue for this. There are a lot of automated/low-level paths to these kinds of blockages that have nothing to do with elaborate hypothesized malice (of course, once that has been eliminated, then you can start hypothesizing all you like).
- floatingatoll 8y agoAntispam responses are one such automated path.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- lsiebert 8y agoI don't believe Verizon would "discourage" Tor. It would either block it completely, or continue to allow it. The tiny percentage of Tor users don't concern Verizon. The miniscule loss of advertising revenue isn't as big of an issue as the bad publicity that messing with TOR would get them from media. VPN users might be a thing they get concerned about, at some point, but I'd expect them to come out with a VPN service if that was the case. So I expect this will be traced to some kind of incompetence or error, not a deliberate effort.
- GauntletWizard 8y agoIt's probably a bad DOS protection mechanism, that has either the inbound or outbound net set too wide. Not uncommon, though a PITA and hard to distinguish from censorship (and why botnet blocklists should be public)
- djsumdog 8y agoHanlon's razor
- gricardo99 8y agoGrey’s law [1]: “Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice” 1- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
- MikeTaylor 8y agoThis should be Elsevier's corporate motto.
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoThe reason Cloudflare originally flagged Tor nodes was because 99% of the traffic over them was malicious. Cloudflare cared to make an alternative solution to it, but most presumably would just let a perceived malicious IP remain blocked.
- jiveturkey 8y agobad publicity? i can’t see there being any bad publicity. otherwise i agree with you. probably not intentional.
- chriscappuccio 8y agoWithout return traceroutes from tor26 this guy can't prove his claim at all. No proof that the problem is even within 701.
- KerrickStaley 8y agoFor what it's worth, I can ping 86.59.21.38 when tethered on my Verizon phone.
- acct1771 8y agoVia Tor?
- ryanlol 8y agoPfft. This was almost certainly blocked because someone thought it was a malware C&C. The indicator lists released by DHS and various snake oil peddlers regularly contain IP addresses like this because they observed malware samples connecting to the IP. This isn't a new thing and has precisely nothing to do with net neutrality, you could probably get this fixed in a couple of hours with a NANOG post.
- kodablah 8y ago> This isn't a new thing and has precisely nothing to do with net neutrality Wouldn't a net neutrality proponent say that blocking traffic to/from an IP is non-neutral regardless of reason?
- kelnage 8y agoI hope most net neutrality proponents would not say that it implies that all providers must allow all traffic through their network, regardless of whether it is malicious or not. If they do believe that then it turns out I’m against net neutrality.
- kodablah 8y ago> malicious Careful, that's a subjective term. Not that I disagree w/ ISPs protecting their own networks, but we often can't have it both ways unless it's more clear what malicious means. Tor traffic can appear malicious as was probably the case here.
- kelnage 8y agoOf course it is - unless we’re going by the relevant RFC, in which case we can simply define it as traffic with the evil bit set ;) But net neutrality is, in its essence, a subjective term. At the end of the day, it would be down to the courts as the final arbiters of what is malicious or not, should it come to that.
- sandworm101 8y ago