3 ms·
> if the ip address that created the link shortener accesses the link, they get the real redirect, and if a different ip address accesses it If there’s anythin
by xyst 3y ago
> if the ip address that created the link shortener accesses the link, they get the real redirect, and if a different ip address accesses it
If there’s anything I have learned about IP based blocking, it’s very unreliable. Especially in a NAT’d world.
Great you “shadowbanned” an IP, but you also impacted many other people and devices behind that public IP including the bad actor.
IPv6 is supposed to make NAT irrelevant but adoption is still very low despite IPv4 deprecated more than 2 decades ago.
- speedgoose 3y agoIs IPv4 actually deprecated? And IMHO, NAT won the fight against IPv6 because it’s backward compatible.
- baq 3y agoIPv6 doesn’t solve this really. You’ll still ban at least /64 and you’ll switch to /48 for the particularly nasty ones. There’s zero reason to ban a specific ipv6 address.
- zrm 3y ago> You’ll still ban at least /64 and you’ll switch to /48 for the particularly nasty ones. The entire /64 will nearly always be a single ISP customer, not thousands of customers behind one address as it can be for IPv4. And you can start by banning the /64 and then widen the mask, say, 4 bits at a time if abusive traffic continues from an adjacent range. It's not that hard to automate this. Then the /48 gets blocked only if you see abusive traffic from multiple ranges within it, implying that the whole range is controlled by the attacker, or that ISP does nothing about abusive customers, which is nearly the same thing.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- geon 3y ago> Great you “shadowbanned” an IP, but you also impacted many other people and devices behind that public IP In this scenario it doesn't matter. Some user might be able to access the malware still, but that's better than not blocking it at all.
- 99catmaster 3y agoSorry for noob question but what does NAT and NAT’d mean in this context?