4 ms·

This targeting of the infrastructure layer is leaving a really bad taste in mouth. I agree with the EFFs conclusion for most part here. https://www.eff.org/dee

by anfilt 6y ago

This targeting of the infrastructure layer is leaving a really bad taste in mouth. I agree with the EFFs conclusion for most part here. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/beyond-platforms-private-censorship-parler-and-stack https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/01/beyond-platforms-priva... Like sure this DDOS provider may not have enough of a presence in belize anymore to hold those IPs, but it's an IP block, probably more than just Parler is using them. Also tons of companies open shell offices for domain names and IPs. Heck there are even services that will provide just that for you. So it's pretty common, so this seems like pretty selective enforcement.

tptacek 6y ago
This doesn't look like targeting of Parler; it looks instead like Parler further raised the notoriety of DDoS-Guard, who was improperly claiming IPv4 space from LACNIC.
- gundmc 6y ago
  Yes, according to the article the complaint was lodged before Parler moved to DDoS-Guard.
  - ikiris 6y ago
    And it was due to hosting well known terrorist organizations was my understanding.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- suifbwish 6y ago
  Wouldn’t Parler just be able to setup reverse proxies to conceal the true location of their hosting? All they would need is about 15 proxies throughout the world and then they could reverse proxy their network obviously latency would suffer. I find the witch hunt a little ridiculous and kind of disturbing since Google/aws/fb are basically choosing to destroy a company in front of the world.
  - tptacek 6y ago
    Are you responding to the wrong comment? I do that every once in awhile. The whole point of my comment is that this isn't part of an effort to take Parler down.
dwild 6y ago
> This targeting of the infrastructure layer is leaving a really bad taste in mouth. The complained raised to LACNIC was a real one and once they investigated, it was no longer in relation to the content, but to their policies. You may be in disagreement with that policy, but I personally believe it does make sense. There's a big shortage of IPV4, so it does makes sense that if you find out that they aren't used in your region, that you takes them out. Imagine how you would feel to be in the LACNIC region struggling to get a few IP to find out that Russian company got thousands of them from your region... The strange thing though, is that they don't mentions anything about the actual infrastructure. Do they have the IP but used them in others regions? Or the mere fact that they weren't used locally was the issue? If I was LACNIC, I would have just required them to use local infrastructure, which I'm sure DDOS-Guard can do.

by anfilt 6y ago

tptacek 6y ago

This doesn't look like targeting of Parler; it looks instead like Parler further raised the notoriety of DDoS-Guard, who was improperly claiming IPv4 space from LACNIC.

gundmc 6y ago
Yes, according to the article the complaint was lodged before Parler moved to DDoS-Guard.
- ikiris 6y ago
  And it was due to hosting well known terrorist organizations was my understanding.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
suifbwish 6y ago
Wouldn’t Parler just be able to setup reverse proxies to conceal the true location of their hosting? All they would need is about 15 proxies throughout the world and then they could reverse proxy their network obviously latency would suffer. I find the witch hunt a little ridiculous and kind of disturbing since Google/aws/fb are basically choosing to destroy a company in front of the world.
- tptacek 6y ago
  Are you responding to the wrong comment? I do that every once in awhile. The whole point of my comment is that this isn't part of an effort to take Parler down.

dwild 6y ago

> This targeting of the infrastructure layer is leaving a really bad taste in mouth. The complained raised to LACNIC was a real one and once they investigated, it was no longer in relation to the content, but to their policies. You may be in disagreement with that policy, but I personally believe it does make sense. There's a big shortage of IPV4, so it does makes sense that if you find out that they aren't used in your region, that you takes them out. Imagine how you would feel to be in the LACNIC region struggling to get a few IP to find out that Russian company got thousands of them from your region... The strange thing though, is that they don't mentions anything about the actual infrastructure. Do they have the IP but used them in others regions? Or the mere fact that they weren't used locally was the issue? If I was LACNIC, I would have just required them to use local infrastructure, which I'm sure DDOS-Guard can do.