> Some users may knowingly install this software on their devices, lured by the promise of “monetizing” their spare bandwidth.
Sounds like they’re targeting networks even if the users are ok participating in, precisely what you’re saying is ok.
As for malware enrolling people into the network, it depends if the operator is doing it or if the malware is 3rd parties trying to get a portion of the cash flow. In the latter case the network would be the victim that’s double victimized by Google also attacking them.
Users are OK with acting as proxies because they don't understand all the shady stuff their proxy is being used for. Also consumer ISPs generally ban this.
> These SDKs, which are offered to developers across multiple mobile and desktop platforms, surreptitiously enroll user devices into the IPIDEA network.
Am I the only one cynically thinking that "Russia, Iran, DPRK, PRC, etc" is the "But think of the chiiildren!!!" excuse for doing this?
And when Google say
"IPIDEA’s proxy infrastructure is a little-known component of the digital ecosystem leveraged by a wide array of bad actors."
What they really mean is " ... leveraged by actors indiscriminately scraping the web and ignoring copyright - that are not us."
I can't help but feel this is just Google trying to pull the ladder up behind then and make it more difficult for other companies to collect training data.
Getting rid of malware is good. A private for-profit company exercising its power over the Internet, not so much. We should have appropriate organizations for this.
The proxies is the reason why you get spam in your Google search result, spam in your Play store (by means of fake good reviews), basically spam in anything user generated.
It directly affects Google and you, I don’t see why they should not do this.
Many are "compensated" (in the way of software they didn't pay for), so the real question is that of disclosure (in which case many software vendors check the box in the most minimal way possible by including it as fine print during the install)
No, the question is not just disclosure. People have their bandwidth stolen, and sometimes internet access revoked due to this kind of fraud and misuse - disclosure wouldn’t solve that
> Ones which you pay for and which are running legitimately, with the knowledge (and compensation) of those who run them.
The problem is, it is by default unethical to have residential users be exit nodes for VPNs - unless these users are lawyers or technical experts.
No matter what you do as a "residential proxy" company - you cannot prevent your service being used by CSAM peddlers, and thus you cannot prevent that your exit nodes aren't the ones whose IP addresses show up when the FBI comes knocking.
I learn: proxy networks run by large corps are good. True internet is bad. While I understand that often we are talking about Malware/Worms etc that enable this. However, i find it often disturbing to here often a lot of libertarian speech from the tech scene, while on the other hand are feeling themselves very comfortable to take over state power like policing efforts to save the world.
> These efforts to help keep the broader digital ecosystem safe supplement the protections we have to safeguard Android users on certified devices. We ensured Google Play Protect, Android’s built-in security protection, automatically warns users and removes applications known to incorporate IPIDEA SDKs, and blocks any future install attempts.
Nice to see Google Play Protect actually serving a purpose for once.
If I'm not mistaken, the plaintiffs in the US v Google antitrust litigation in the DC Circuit tried to argue that website operators are biased toward allowing Google to crawl and against allowing other search engines to do the same
The Court rejected this argument because the plaintiffs did not present any evidence to support it
For someone who does not follow the web's history, how would one produce direct evidence that the bias exists
Yup exactly. Google must be the only one allowed to scrape the web. Google can't have any other competition. Calling it in "user's best interest" is just like their other marketing cons: "play integrity for user's security" etc
This does nothing against your ability to scrape the web the Google way, AKA from your own assigned IP range, obeying robots.txt, and with an user agent that explicitly says what you're doing and gives website owners a way to opt out.
What Google doesn't want (and I don't think that's a bad thing) is competitors scraping the web in bad faith, without disclosing what they're doing to site owners and without giving them the ability to opt out.
If Google doesn't stop these proxies, unscrupulous parties will have a competitive advantage over Google, it's that simple. Then Google will have to decide between just giving up (unlikely) or becoming unscrupulous themselves.
Have you got any proof of Google scraping from residential proxies users don't know about, rather than from their clearly labelled AS? Otherwise you're mixing entirely different things into one claim.
Play Protect blocks malicious apps, not network traffic, so no, it obviously doesn't interfere with Google's apps.
AFAIK it also left SmartTube (an alternative YouTube client) alone until the developer got pwned and the app trojanized with this kind of SDK, and the clean versions are AFAIK again being left alone. No guarantee that it won't change in the future, of course, but so far they seem to not be abusing it.
Residential proxies are the only way to crawl and scrape. It's ironic for this article to come from the biggest scraping company that ever existed!
If you crawl at 1Hz per crawled IP, no reasonable server would suffer from this. It's the few bad apples (impatient people who don't rate limit) who ruin the internet for both users and hosters alike. And then there's Google.
First of: Google has not once crashed one of our sites with GoogleBot. They have never tried to by-pass our caching and they are open and honest about their IP ranges, allowing us to rate-limit if needed.
The residential proxies are not needed, if you behave. My take is that you want to scrape stuff that site owners do not want to give you and you don't want to be told no or perhaps pay a license. That is the only case where I can see you needing a residential proxies.
>The residential proxies are not needed, if you behave
I'm starting to think that somee users in hackernews do not 'behave' or at least they think they do not 'behave' and provide an alibi for those that do not 'behave'.
That the hacker in hackernews does not attract just hackers as in 'hacking together features' but also hackers as in 'illegitimately gaining access to servers/data'
As far as I can tell, as a hacker that hacks features together, resi proxies are something the enemy uses. Whenever I boot up a server and get 1000 log in requests per second and requests for commonly exploited files from russian and chinese IPs, those come from resi IPs no doubt. There's 2 sides to this match, no more.
One thing about Google is that many anti-scraping services explicitly allow access to Google and maybe couple of other search engines. Everybody else gets to enjoy CloudFlare captcha, even when doing crawling at reasonable speeds.
I'd still like the ability to just block a crawler by its IP range, but these days nope.
1 Hz is 86400 hits per day, or 600k hits per week. That's just one crawler.
Just checked my access log... 958k hits in a week from 622k unique addresses.
95% is fetching random links from u-boot repository that I host, which is completely random. I blocked all of the GCP/AWS/Alibaba and of course Azure cloud IP ranges.
It's almost all now just comming of a "residential" and "mobile" IP address space from completely random places all around the world. I'm pretty sure my u-boot fork is not that popular. :-D
Every request is a new IP address, and available IP space of the crawler(s) is millions of addresses.
I don't host a popular repo. I host a bot attraction.
In addition to a rate limit, a page limit per IP is needed; this is specifically for things like source code repos (with massive commit histories), mailing archives, etc.
A whitelist would be needed for sites where getting all the pages make sense. And probably in addition to the 1Hz, an additional limit of 1k/day would be needed.
I can see now why Google has not much solid competition (Yandex/Baidu arguably don't compete due to network segmentation).
Scraping reliably is hard, and the chance of kicking Google off their throne may be even further reduced due to AI crawler abuse.
PS 958k hits is a lot! Even if your pages were a tiny 7.8k each (HN front page minus assets), that would be about 7G of data (about 4.6 Bee Movies in 720p h256).
do we think a scraper should be allowed to take whatever means necessary to scrape a site if that site explicitly denies that scraper access?
if someone is abusing my site, and i block them in an attempt to stop that abuse, do we think that they are correct to tell me it doesn’t matter what i think and to use any methods they want to keep abusing it?
My understanding is that routing through residential IPs is a part of the business of some VPN providers. I don't know how above board they are on this (as in notifying customers that this may happen, however buried in the usage agreement, or even allowing them to opt out).
But, my main point, is that the whole business is "on the up and up" vs some dark botnet.
> While operators of residential proxies often extol the privacy and freedom of expression benefits of residential proxies, Google Threat Intelligence Group’s (GTIG) research shows that these proxies are overwhelmingly misused by bad actors
Mullvad seems to be one of those VPN providers. [1] Though I very much doubt they would sneakily make end-users devices exit nodes. Though, as a historical side note, let's not forget Skype used to make users computers act as a relay as well during its more decentralized days.
Anyone could scrape the net, then modern scrapes came along with their shitty code and absolutely no respect. The reason why so many of us block or throttle scrapers is because they miss behave. They don't back off, they try to by-pass caches and if they crash a site they don't adjust, they will just pound it the ground again when it's back. We managed to talk to one large AI company would didn't really want to fix anything, but told us that they'd be fine with us just rate limiting them, as if we somehow owed them anything. They just get a stupid low rps now, even if we'd let them go faster, if they'd just fix they bot.
Some sites don't want you scraping, but it's their content, their rules. We don't really care, but we have to due to the number and quality of the bots we're seeing. This is in my mind a 100% self-imposed problem from the scrapers.
I'm actually a little shocked seeing that there was a WebOS variant of the residential proxying SDK endpoint. Does that mean there might be a bit more unchecked malware lurking behind the scenes in the LG ecosystem?
Personally I'm surprised they didn't have a Samsung option.
I keep my brand new LG C5 totally disconnected from the internet and use my Apple TV for movie watching. I’m not going to trust a company like LG to secure their devices.
Google shows a samaple of the IOCs but Google Trust Services have issued a number of the SSL certs for those domains that have not been revoked (yet?).
Only looking at the:
- a8d3b9e1f5c7024d6e0b7a2c9f1d83e5.com
- af4760df2c08896a9638e26e7dd20aae.com
- cfe47df26c8eaf0a7c136b50c703e173.com
Looks like a standard MD5 hash domain pattern of which currently there are:
They have a robust KYC that appears to serve, at least in large part, as a way to stay off the shit list of companies with the resources to pursue recourse.
Source: went through that process, ended up going a different route. The rep was refreshingly transparent about where they get the data, why the have the kyc process (aside from regulatory compliance).
Ended up going with a different provider who has been cheaper and very reliable, so no complaints.
Yeah, they make you do a Skype interview (or probably Zoom interview nowadays). You could call this KYC or collateral, depending on your view of the company. It does limit the nefariousness of their clientele but I doubt they do much, or any, monitoring of actual traffic after onboarding (not for compliance reasons, anyway).
I've helped multiple people remove residential proxy malware that was turning their network into a brightdata exit node and they had no idea / did not consent to it. Why is google selectively targeting one provider while letting others operate freely?
I've had enough of companies saying "you're connecting from an AWS IP address, therefore you aren't allowed in, or must buy enterprise licensing". Reddit is an example which totally blocks all data to non-residential IP's.
I want exactly the same content visible no matter who you are or where you are connecting from, and a robust network of residential proxies is a stepping stone to achieving that.
If you look at the article, the network they disrupted pays software vendors per-download to sneakily turn their users into residential proxy endpoints. I'm sure that at least some of the time the user is technically agreeing to some wording buried in the ToS saying they consent to this, but it's certainly unethical. I wouldn't want to proxy traffic from random people through my home network, that's how you get legal threats from media companies or the police called to your house.
> that's how you get legal threats from media companies or the police called to your house.
Or residential proxies get so widespread that almost every house has a proxy in, and it becomes the new way the internet works - "for privacy, your data has been routed through someone else's connection at random".
I live in the UK and can't view a large portion of the internet without having to submit my ID to _every_ site serving anything deemed "not safe the for the children". I had a question about a new piercing and couldn't get info on it from Reddit because of that. I try using a VPN and they're blocked too. Luckily, I work at a copmany selling proxies so I've got free proxies whenever I want, but I shouldn't _need_ to use them.
I find it funny that companies like Reddit, who make their money entirely from content produced by users for free (which is also often sourced from other parts of the internet without permission), are so against their site being scraped that they have to objectively ruin the site for everyone using it. See the API changes and killing off of third party apps.
Obviously, it's mostly for advertising purposes, but they love to talk about the load scraping puts on their site, even suing AI companies and SerpApi for it. If it's truly that bad, just offer a free API for the scrapers to use - or even an API that works out just slightly cheaper than using proxies...
My ideal internet would look something like that, all content free and accessible to everyone.
> that they have to objectively ruin the site for everyone using it. See the API changes and killing off of third party apps.
Third party app users were a very small but vocal minority. The API changes didn't drop their traffic at all. In fact, it's only gone up since then.
The datacenter IP address blocks aren't just for scrapers, it's an anti-bot measure across the board. I don't spend much time on Reddit but even the few subreddits I visited were starting to become infiltrated by obvious bot accounts doing weird karma farming operations.
Even HN routinely gets AI posting bots. It's a common technique to generate upvote rings - Make the accounts post comments so they look real enough, have the bots randomly upvote things to hide activity, and then when someone buys upvotes you have a selection of the puppet accounts upvote the targeted story. Having a lot of IP addresses and generating fake activity is key to making this work, so there's a lot of incentive to do it.
Have you considered that it’s because a new industry popped up that decided it was okay to slurp up the entire internet, repackage it, and resell it? Surely that couldn’t be why sites are trying to keep non humans out.
> I live in the UK and can't view a large portion of the internet without having to submit my ID to _every_ site serving anything deemed "not safe the for the children".
Really? Because I live in the UK and I've never been asked for my ID for anything.
> I want exactly the same content visible no matter who you are or where you are connecting from
The reason those IP addresses get blocked is not because of "who" is connecting, but "what"
Traffic from datacenter address ranges to sites like Reddit is almost entirely bots and scrapers. They can put a tremendous load on your site because many will try to run their queries as fast as they can with as many IPs as they can get.
Blocking these IP addresses catches a few false positives, but it's an easy step to make botting and scraping a little more expensive. Residential proxies aren't all that expensive, but now there's a little line item bill that comes with their request volume that makes them think twice.
> We need more residential proxies, not less
Great, you can always volunteer your home IP address as a start. There are services that will pay you a nominal amount for it, even.
That's already the case (irrespective of residential proxies) because content only serves as bait for someone to hand over personal information (during signup/login) and then engage with ads.
Proxies actually help with that by facilitating mass account registration and scraping of the content without wasting a human's time "engaging" with ads.
Amazon.com now only shows you a few reviews. To see the rest you must login. Social media websites have long gated the carrots behind a login. Anandtech just took their ball and went home by going offline.
There's a company that pays you to keep their box connected to your residential router. I assume it sells residential proxy services, maybe also DDoS services, I don't know. It's aptly named Absurd Computing.
Agreed. With things people paid for and using our wifi data to build their "positioning dbs" that you can't block or turn off on your phone, without "rooting" your own device.
I still "run" a small ISP with a few thousand residential ips from my scraping days. The requirements are laughable and costs were negligible in the early 2000s.
This blog post from the company that used promise "don't be evil", one that steals water for data centers from vilages and towns via shady deals, whose whole premise it stealing other people's stuff and claiming it as their own and locking them out and selling their data.. Who made them the arbiter of the internet? No one!!!
They just stole this and get on their high horse to tell people how to use internet? You can eff right off Google.
Have you tried it? Every new account will be shadowbanned and if it's shared you often get blank page 429. None of this was true before the API shutdown.
Private VPS for personal VPN in Netherlands (digital ocean), then Hungary (some small local DC) — both are blocked from day one.
> You've been blocked by network security. To continue, log in to your Reddit account or use your developer token. If you think you've been blocked by mistake, file a ticket below and we'll look into it.
I have never interacted with a reddit employee who wasn't actively gaslighting me about the platform. Do you even use the site? I talked to a PM recently who genuinely thought the phone app was something people liked.
everything on Reddit is so locked down it’s useless. even if you do get to post something useful some basement dwelling mod will block it for an arcane interpretation of one of the subreddits 14 rules.
I haven't looked at any court documents, but the WSJ article from Wednesday reported that "Last year, Google sued the anonymous operators of a network of more than 10 million internet-connected televisions, tablets and projectors, saying they had secretly pre-installed residential proxy software on them... an Ipidea spokeswoman acknowledged in an email that the company and its partners had engaged in “relatively aggressive market expansion strategies” and “conducted promotional activities in inappropriate venues (e.g., hacker forums)...”"
There was also a botnet, Kimwolf, that apparently leveraged an exploit to use the residential proxy service, so it may be related to Ipidea not shutting them down.
No, he is referencing Google going after the Chinese company, not the Israel based one. That does not mean there is bias with the commenter at all, just that the companies operate differently and are treated differently. The country of origin is important as Israel based companies are more integrated into the western business world, and tend to at least try to show an effort in keeping spam and other things off their platforms.
Now I do agree that they are both bad companies that should not be allowed to operate the way they do. I would say the same thing about the other 1000 scrapers hitting websites everyday as well (including Google).
What they did not comment directly on, is how many apps / games they might have actually removed from the Playstore with the removal of the SDKs, which would be the actual interesting data.
Personally, I don’t think either of them are actually meaningfully bad. A bit naughty, maybe?
I do think the disparity in attention is fascinating. These new Chinese players have been getting nonstop press while everyone ignores the established giant.
The need for proxies in any legitimate context became obsolete with starlink being so widespread. Throw up a few terminals and you have about 500-2k cgnat IP addresses to do whatever you like.
The actual secret is to use IPv6 with varied source IPs in the same subnet, you get an insane number of IPs and 90% of anti-scraping software is not specialized enough to realize that any IP in a /64 is the same as a single IP in a /32 in IPv4.
If they're CGNAT then unless Starlink actively provides assistance to block them it won't matter.
As someone who wants the internet to maintain as much anarchy as possible I think it would be nice to see a large ISP that actively rotated its customer IPv6 assignments on a tight schedule.
I'm surprised by the negative takes...
Yes, proxies are good. Ones which you pay for and which are running legitimately, with the knowledge (and compensation) of those who run them.
Malware in random apps running on your device without your knowledge is bad.
> Some users may knowingly install this software on their devices, lured by the promise of “monetizing” their spare bandwidth.
Sounds like they’re targeting networks even if the users are ok participating in, precisely what you’re saying is ok.
As for malware enrolling people into the network, it depends if the operator is doing it or if the malware is 3rd parties trying to get a portion of the cash flow. In the latter case the network would be the victim that’s double victimized by Google also attacking them.
Users are OK with acting as proxies because they don't understand all the shady stuff their proxy is being used for. Also consumer ISPs generally ban this.
11 replies →
> These SDKs, which are offered to developers across multiple mobile and desktop platforms, surreptitiously enroll user devices into the IPIDEA network.
?
1 reply →
> Malware in random apps running on your device without your knowledge is bad.
And ones that have all the indicators of compromise of Russia, Iran, DPRK, PRC, etc
Am I the only one cynically thinking that "Russia, Iran, DPRK, PRC, etc" is the "But think of the chiiildren!!!" excuse for doing this?
And when Google say
"IPIDEA’s proxy infrastructure is a little-known component of the digital ecosystem leveraged by a wide array of bad actors."
What they really mean is " ... leveraged by actors indiscriminately scraping the web and ignoring copyright - that are not us."
I can't help but feel this is just Google trying to pull the ladder up behind then and make it more difficult for other companies to collect training data.
10 replies →
Getting rid of malware is good. A private for-profit company exercising its power over the Internet, not so much. We should have appropriate organizations for this.
The proxies is the reason why you get spam in your Google search result, spam in your Play store (by means of fake good reviews), basically spam in anything user generated.
It directly affects Google and you, I don’t see why they should not do this.
4 replies →
Okay. You get right on that. In the meantime, would you rather they did nothing? What do you actually want, in concrete terms?
Many are "compensated" (in the way of software they didn't pay for), so the real question is that of disclosure (in which case many software vendors check the box in the most minimal way possible by including it as fine print during the install)
No, the question is not just disclosure. People have their bandwidth stolen, and sometimes internet access revoked due to this kind of fraud and misuse - disclosure wouldn’t solve that
3 replies →
> Ones which you pay for and which are running legitimately, with the knowledge (and compensation) of those who run them.
The problem is, it is by default unethical to have residential users be exit nodes for VPNs - unless these users are lawyers or technical experts.
No matter what you do as a "residential proxy" company - you cannot prevent your service being used by CSAM peddlers, and thus you cannot prevent that your exit nodes aren't the ones whose IP addresses show up when the FBI comes knocking.
I learn: proxy networks run by large corps are good. True internet is bad. While I understand that often we are talking about Malware/Worms etc that enable this. However, i find it often disturbing to here often a lot of libertarian speech from the tech scene, while on the other hand are feeling themselves very comfortable to take over state power like policing efforts to save the world.
[dead]
> These efforts to help keep the broader digital ecosystem safe supplement the protections we have to safeguard Android users on certified devices. We ensured Google Play Protect, Android’s built-in security protection, automatically warns users and removes applications known to incorporate IPIDEA SDKs, and blocks any future install attempts.
Nice to see Google Play Protect actually serving a purpose for once.
Yeah, it serves the purpose of blocking this kind of proxy traffic that isn't in Google's personal best interests.
Only Google is allowed to scrape the web.
"Only Google is allowed to scrape the web."
If I'm not mistaken, the plaintiffs in the US v Google antitrust litigation in the DC Circuit tried to argue that website operators are biased toward allowing Google to crawl and against allowing other search engines to do the same
The Court rejected this argument because the plaintiffs did not present any evidence to support it
For someone who does not follow the web's history, how would one produce direct evidence that the bias exists
2 replies →
Yup exactly. Google must be the only one allowed to scrape the web. Google can't have any other competition. Calling it in "user's best interest" is just like their other marketing cons: "play integrity for user's security" etc
Google does not use residential proxies.
This does nothing against your ability to scrape the web the Google way, AKA from your own assigned IP range, obeying robots.txt, and with an user agent that explicitly says what you're doing and gives website owners a way to opt out.
What Google doesn't want (and I don't think that's a bad thing) is competitors scraping the web in bad faith, without disclosing what they're doing to site owners and without giving them the ability to opt out.
If Google doesn't stop these proxies, unscrupulous parties will have a competitive advantage over Google, it's that simple. Then Google will have to decide between just giving up (unlikely) or becoming unscrupulous themselves.
2 replies →
This is demonstrably false by the success of many scrapers from AI companies.
1 reply →
Have you got any proof of Google scraping from residential proxies users don't know about, rather than from their clearly labelled AS? Otherwise you're mixing entirely different things into one claim.
3 replies →
Does it also block unwanted traffic from Google apps or does it have a particular hatred for companies that interfere with Google's business model?
Play Protect blocks malicious apps, not network traffic, so no, it obviously doesn't interfere with Google's apps.
AFAIK it also left SmartTube (an alternative YouTube client) alone until the developer got pwned and the app trojanized with this kind of SDK, and the clean versions are AFAIK again being left alone. No guarantee that it won't change in the future, of course, but so far they seem to not be abusing it.
5 replies →
Residential proxies are the only way to crawl and scrape. It's ironic for this article to come from the biggest scraping company that ever existed!
If you crawl at 1Hz per crawled IP, no reasonable server would suffer from this. It's the few bad apples (impatient people who don't rate limit) who ruin the internet for both users and hosters alike. And then there's Google.
First of: Google has not once crashed one of our sites with GoogleBot. They have never tried to by-pass our caching and they are open and honest about their IP ranges, allowing us to rate-limit if needed.
The residential proxies are not needed, if you behave. My take is that you want to scrape stuff that site owners do not want to give you and you don't want to be told no or perhaps pay a license. That is the only case where I can see you needing a residential proxies.
>The residential proxies are not needed, if you behave
I'm starting to think that somee users in hackernews do not 'behave' or at least they think they do not 'behave' and provide an alibi for those that do not 'behave'.
That the hacker in hackernews does not attract just hackers as in 'hacking together features' but also hackers as in 'illegitimately gaining access to servers/data'
As far as I can tell, as a hacker that hacks features together, resi proxies are something the enemy uses. Whenever I boot up a server and get 1000 log in requests per second and requests for commonly exploited files from russian and chinese IPs, those come from resi IPs no doubt. There's 2 sides to this match, no more.
You can’t get much crawling done from published cloud IPs. Residential proxies are the only way to do most crawls today.
That said, I support Google working to shut these networks down, since they are almost universally bad.
It’s just a shame that there’s no where to go for legitimate crawling activities.
7 replies →
One thing about Google is that many anti-scraping services explicitly allow access to Google and maybe couple of other search engines. Everybody else gets to enjoy CloudFlare captcha, even when doing crawling at reasonable speeds.
Rules For Thee but Not for Me
> many anti-scraping services explicitly allow access to Google and maybe couple of other search engines.
because google (and the couple of other search engines) provide enough value that offset the crawler's resource consumption.
1 reply →
You say this like robots.txt doesn't exist.
2 replies →
Why are you scraping sites in the first place? What legitimate reason is there for you doing that?
5 replies →
I'd still like the ability to just block a crawler by its IP range, but these days nope.
1 Hz is 86400 hits per day, or 600k hits per week. That's just one crawler.
Just checked my access log... 958k hits in a week from 622k unique addresses.
95% is fetching random links from u-boot repository that I host, which is completely random. I blocked all of the GCP/AWS/Alibaba and of course Azure cloud IP ranges.
It's almost all now just comming of a "residential" and "mobile" IP address space from completely random places all around the world. I'm pretty sure my u-boot fork is not that popular. :-D
Every request is a new IP address, and available IP space of the crawler(s) is millions of addresses.
I don't host a popular repo. I host a bot attraction.
In addition to a rate limit, a page limit per IP is needed; this is specifically for things like source code repos (with massive commit histories), mailing archives, etc.
A whitelist would be needed for sites where getting all the pages make sense. And probably in addition to the 1Hz, an additional limit of 1k/day would be needed.
I can see now why Google has not much solid competition (Yandex/Baidu arguably don't compete due to network segmentation).
Scraping reliably is hard, and the chance of kicking Google off their throne may be even further reduced due to AI crawler abuse.
PS 958k hits is a lot! Even if your pages were a tiny 7.8k each (HN front page minus assets), that would be about 7G of data (about 4.6 Bee Movies in 720p h256).
I’ve been enduring that exact same traffic pattern.
I used Anubis and a cookie redirect to cut the load on my Forgejo server by around 3 orders of magnitude: https://honeypot.net/2025/12/22/i-read-yann-espositos-blog.h...
2 replies →
do we think a scraper should be allowed to take whatever means necessary to scrape a site if that site explicitly denies that scraper access?
if someone is abusing my site, and i block them in an attempt to stop that abuse, do we think that they are correct to tell me it doesn’t matter what i think and to use any methods they want to keep abusing it?
that seems wrong to me.
Saying the quiet part out loud...Shhhs
My understanding is that routing through residential IPs is a part of the business of some VPN providers. I don't know how above board they are on this (as in notifying customers that this may happen, however buried in the usage agreement, or even allowing them to opt out).
But, my main point, is that the whole business is "on the up and up" vs some dark botnet.
Oxylabs sells proxies for scrapers, I suppose you can use the socks-proxy as a VPN, and they claim to use Honeygain.
Honeygain is a platform where people sell their residential internet connection and bandwidth to these companies for money.
For comparison Honeygain pays someone 10 cents per GB, and Oxylabs sells it for $8/GB.
That takes buying low and selling high to a whole new level
We need a better market. I'd sell for $7/GB.
FTA
> While operators of residential proxies often extol the privacy and freedom of expression benefits of residential proxies, Google Threat Intelligence Group’s (GTIG) research shows that these proxies are overwhelmingly misused by bad actors
Google's definition of a "bad actor" is someone who wants to use Google without seeing the ads. Or Kagi. Or an AI other than Gemini.
Mullvad seems to be one of those VPN providers. [1] Though I very much doubt they would sneakily make end-users devices exit nodes. Though, as a historical side note, let's not forget Skype used to make users computers act as a relay as well during its more decentralized days.
[1] Using the website mentioned by user Rasbora https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46837806
> I don't know how above board they are on this
Saying you don't know something in the comments of an article that explains that thing is a bold strategy
so that only google and anthropic are allowed to scrape the web. No one else may have workarounds
Anyone could scrape the net, then modern scrapes came along with their shitty code and absolutely no respect. The reason why so many of us block or throttle scrapers is because they miss behave. They don't back off, they try to by-pass caches and if they crash a site they don't adjust, they will just pound it the ground again when it's back. We managed to talk to one large AI company would didn't really want to fix anything, but told us that they'd be fine with us just rate limiting them, as if we somehow owed them anything. They just get a stupid low rps now, even if we'd let them go faster, if they'd just fix they bot.
Some sites don't want you scraping, but it's their content, their rules. We don't really care, but we have to due to the number and quality of the bots we're seeing. This is in my mind a 100% self-imposed problem from the scrapers.
Exactly. This is just google building a "moat" around their shady business.
100%
I'm actually a little shocked seeing that there was a WebOS variant of the residential proxying SDK endpoint. Does that mean there might be a bit more unchecked malware lurking behind the scenes in the LG ecosystem?
Personally I'm surprised they didn't have a Samsung option.
I keep my brand new LG C5 totally disconnected from the internet and use my Apple TV for movie watching. I’m not going to trust a company like LG to secure their devices.
> trust a company like LG to secure their devices.
They have an interest in securing their devices so they can sell proxy service themselves.
Why would webOS App Store be any different than the iOS or Android App Store which also have monetization frameworks for bandwidth sharing.
Google shows a samaple of the IOCs but Google Trust Services have issued a number of the SSL certs for those domains that have not been revoked (yet?).
Only looking at the:
- a8d3b9e1f5c7024d6e0b7a2c9f1d83e5.com
- af4760df2c08896a9638e26e7dd20aae.com
- cfe47df26c8eaf0a7c136b50c703e173.com
Looks like a standard MD5 hash domain pattern of which currently there are:
If you look at some of the others (not listed in Google's IOC), they tend to have a pattern with their SSL certs e.g.:
- 0e6f931862947ad58bf3d1a0c5a6f91f.com
- 17e4435ad10c15887d1faea64ee7eac4.com
would there be any reason any of these would be legitimate?
This was easy because it's a Chinese company.
The largest companies in this space that do similar this (oxylabs, brighdata,etc) have similar tactics but are based in a different location.
brighdata = Israel i think oxylabs = Lithuanian, child of NordVPN
Why are they leaving Bright Data (aka Illuminati aka Hola VPN) untouched? They are doing this exact scheme on an industrial scale.
They have a robust KYC that appears to serve, at least in large part, as a way to stay off the shit list of companies with the resources to pursue recourse.
Source: went through that process, ended up going a different route. The rep was refreshingly transparent about where they get the data, why the have the kyc process (aside from regulatory compliance).
Ended up going with a different provider who has been cheaper and very reliable, so no complaints.
Yeah, they make you do a Skype interview (or probably Zoom interview nowadays). You could call this KYC or collateral, depending on your view of the company. It does limit the nefariousness of their clientele but I doubt they do much, or any, monitoring of actual traffic after onboarding (not for compliance reasons, anyway).
I’ve certainly never been asked to do KYC with Luminati after using them for hundreds of terabytes over the years.
It’s not like I’m using some bigco email address or given them any other reason to skip KYC either.
5 replies →
[flagged]
Since I was also tracking this proxy network as part of my side project, I wrote a short blog post + give access to 16m+ proxy IPs IoCs that belong to this proxy network: https://deviceandbrowserinfo.com/learning_zone/articles/insi...
Note that even after the disruption, I'm still able to route millions of requests/day through IP IDEA's network
I've helped multiple people remove residential proxy malware that was turning their network into a brightdata exit node and they had no idea / did not consent to it. Why is google selectively targeting one provider while letting others operate freely?
You can check if your network is infected here: https://layer3intel.com/is-my-network-a-residential-proxy
Thanks google for saving us. I guess this is the equivalent of rival narcos fighting each other.
But would make for a much less interesting dramatic series. I bookmarked that link for the next time I have insomnia.
We need more residential proxies, not less.
I've had enough of companies saying "you're connecting from an AWS IP address, therefore you aren't allowed in, or must buy enterprise licensing". Reddit is an example which totally blocks all data to non-residential IP's.
I want exactly the same content visible no matter who you are or where you are connecting from, and a robust network of residential proxies is a stepping stone to achieving that.
If you look at the article, the network they disrupted pays software vendors per-download to sneakily turn their users into residential proxy endpoints. I'm sure that at least some of the time the user is technically agreeing to some wording buried in the ToS saying they consent to this, but it's certainly unethical. I wouldn't want to proxy traffic from random people through my home network, that's how you get legal threats from media companies or the police called to your house.
> that's how you get legal threats from media companies or the police called to your house.
Or residential proxies get so widespread that almost every house has a proxy in, and it becomes the new way the internet works - "for privacy, your data has been routed through someone else's connection at random".
4 replies →
They provide an SDK for mobile developers. Here is a video of how it works. [0] They don't even hide it.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a9HLrwvUO4&t=15s
3 replies →
I live in the UK and can't view a large portion of the internet without having to submit my ID to _every_ site serving anything deemed "not safe the for the children". I had a question about a new piercing and couldn't get info on it from Reddit because of that. I try using a VPN and they're blocked too. Luckily, I work at a copmany selling proxies so I've got free proxies whenever I want, but I shouldn't _need_ to use them.
I find it funny that companies like Reddit, who make their money entirely from content produced by users for free (which is also often sourced from other parts of the internet without permission), are so against their site being scraped that they have to objectively ruin the site for everyone using it. See the API changes and killing off of third party apps.
Obviously, it's mostly for advertising purposes, but they love to talk about the load scraping puts on their site, even suing AI companies and SerpApi for it. If it's truly that bad, just offer a free API for the scrapers to use - or even an API that works out just slightly cheaper than using proxies...
My ideal internet would look something like that, all content free and accessible to everyone.
> that they have to objectively ruin the site for everyone using it. See the API changes and killing off of third party apps.
Third party app users were a very small but vocal minority. The API changes didn't drop their traffic at all. In fact, it's only gone up since then.
The datacenter IP address blocks aren't just for scrapers, it's an anti-bot measure across the board. I don't spend much time on Reddit but even the few subreddits I visited were starting to become infiltrated by obvious bot accounts doing weird karma farming operations.
Even HN routinely gets AI posting bots. It's a common technique to generate upvote rings - Make the accounts post comments so they look real enough, have the bots randomly upvote things to hide activity, and then when someone buys upvotes you have a selection of the puppet accounts upvote the targeted story. Having a lot of IP addresses and generating fake activity is key to making this work, so there's a lot of incentive to do it.
2 replies →
Have you considered that it’s because a new industry popped up that decided it was okay to slurp up the entire internet, repackage it, and resell it? Surely that couldn’t be why sites are trying to keep non humans out.
> I live in the UK and can't view a large portion of the internet without having to submit my ID to _every_ site serving anything deemed "not safe the for the children".
Really? Because I live in the UK and I've never been asked for my ID for anything.
[flagged]
2 replies →
> I want exactly the same content visible no matter who you are or where you are connecting from
The reason those IP addresses get blocked is not because of "who" is connecting, but "what"
Traffic from datacenter address ranges to sites like Reddit is almost entirely bots and scrapers. They can put a tremendous load on your site because many will try to run their queries as fast as they can with as many IPs as they can get.
Blocking these IP addresses catches a few false positives, but it's an easy step to make botting and scraping a little more expensive. Residential proxies aren't all that expensive, but now there's a little line item bill that comes with their request volume that makes them think twice.
> We need more residential proxies, not less
Great, you can always volunteer your home IP address as a start. There are services that will pay you a nominal amount for it, even.
Okay. So what does ten million requests cost, then? Like... a dollar? Is it a dollar? Is it two dollars if they splurge?
Because if the deterrent here is a line item so small it shows up as 'miscellaneous vibes' on a balance sheet, that's not a barrier. That's a tip jar.
1 reply →
You can run one, something like ByteLixir, Traffmonetizer, Honeygain, Pawns, there are lots more, just google "share my internet for money"
What will you be proxying? Nobody knows! I haven't had the police at my house yet.
Seems a great way to say "fuck you" to companies that block IP addresses.
You may see a few more CAPTCHAs. If you have a dynamic IP address, not many.
How much can you make if you run all of them at the same time?
Doesn't the ISP detect them?
1 reply →
> I've had enough of companies saying "you're connecting from an AWS IP address
I run a honeypot and the amount of bot traffic coming from AWS is insane. It's like 80% before filtering, and it's 100% illegitimate.
> it's 100% illegitimate.
Based on what?
I think perhaps you merely meant to say that more than 99% of it is illegitimate?
Most of them abuse the ip pool attached to lambda from my experience.
The end game of that is no useful content being accessible without login, or needing some sort of other proof-of-legitimacy.
That's already the case (irrespective of residential proxies) because content only serves as bait for someone to hand over personal information (during signup/login) and then engage with ads.
Proxies actually help with that by facilitating mass account registration and scraping of the content without wasting a human's time "engaging" with ads.
Amazon.com now only shows you a few reviews. To see the rest you must login. Social media websites have long gated the carrots behind a login. Anandtech just took their ball and went home by going offline.
There's a company that pays you to keep their box connected to your residential router. I assume it sells residential proxy services, maybe also DDoS services, I don't know. It's aptly named Absurd Computing.
I'm reading reddit.com from a Tor node, they also have a .onion domain you could use.
Anyone know how to create a usable reddit account from the .onion domain?
3 replies →
Also, nevermind the tech companies building their own proxy networks, such as Find My or Amazon Sidewalk.
Agreed. With things people paid for and using our wifi data to build their "positioning dbs" that you can't block or turn off on your phone, without "rooting" your own device.
How is Find My a proxy network?
7 replies →
I still "run" a small ISP with a few thousand residential ips from my scraping days. The requirements are laughable and costs were negligible in the early 2000s.
This blog post from the company that used promise "don't be evil", one that steals water for data centers from vilages and towns via shady deals, whose whole premise it stealing other people's stuff and claiming it as their own and locking them out and selling their data.. Who made them the arbiter of the internet? No one!!!
They just stole this and get on their high horse to tell people how to use internet? You can eff right off Google.
[flagged]
Have you tried it? Every new account will be shadowbanned and if it's shared you often get blank page 429. None of this was true before the API shutdown.
3 replies →
Yes you do.
Private VPS for personal VPN in Netherlands (digital ocean), then Hungary (some small local DC) — both are blocked from day one.
> You've been blocked by network security. To continue, log in to your Reddit account or use your developer token. If you think you've been blocked by mistake, file a ticket below and we'll look into it.
3 replies →
Try browsing from any Mullvad vpn. You will be "blocked by network security"
3 replies →
I have never interacted with a reddit employee who wasn't actively gaslighting me about the platform. Do you even use the site? I talked to a PM recently who genuinely thought the phone app was something people liked.
2 replies →
everything on Reddit is so locked down it’s useless. even if you do get to post something useful some basement dwelling mod will block it for an arcane interpretation of one of the subreddits 14 rules.
Have you tried using it logged out on a vpn? It is impossible.
there are several times where I've had to disable PIA to access reddit's login page
[flagged]
All of this sounds legal, so on what basis did they get them shut down?
I haven't looked at any court documents, but the WSJ article from Wednesday reported that "Last year, Google sued the anonymous operators of a network of more than 10 million internet-connected televisions, tablets and projectors, saying they had secretly pre-installed residential proxy software on them... an Ipidea spokeswoman acknowledged in an email that the company and its partners had engaged in “relatively aggressive market expansion strategies” and “conducted promotional activities in inappropriate venues (e.g., hacker forums)...”"
There was also a botnet, Kimwolf, that apparently leveraged an exploit to use the residential proxy service, so it may be related to Ipidea not shutting them down.
Google does much worse in Google–branded devices and apps, like the wifi location data harvesting.
1 reply →
Since I was also tracking this proxy network as part of my side project, I wrote a short blog post + give access to 16m+ proxy IPs IoCs that belong to this proxy network: https://deviceandbrowserinfo.com/learning_zone/articles/insi...
I'll betcha Google uses a lot of residential proxies themselves to scrape data and don't want competitors doing it.
I'll betcha your scraping for google simply by using Chrome
The big players are not taken out. This is sand thrown at our faces.
> attackers can mask their malicious activity by hijacking these IP addresses.
Sounds like "malicious activity" == "scraping activities that don't come from Google"
I couldn't help but notice that they didn't list the affected apps, other than a couple domains for shady VPN providers...
This problem isn't going until we find a better solution to scraping than using your IP address as a passport.
I see Google is doing their best to stamp out the competition.
How much will it affect the other residential proxy providers?
Of course brightdata doesn't get touched.
objectively good news. thanks, google.
It’s interesting that when Luminati, an Israeli company, does this, it’s fine.
When the Chinese do this? Very bad.
They are both bad. You are showing your own bias.
No, he is referencing Google going after the Chinese company, not the Israel based one. That does not mean there is bias with the commenter at all, just that the companies operate differently and are treated differently. The country of origin is important as Israel based companies are more integrated into the western business world, and tend to at least try to show an effort in keeping spam and other things off their platforms. Now I do agree that they are both bad companies that should not be allowed to operate the way they do. I would say the same thing about the other 1000 scrapers hitting websites everyday as well (including Google).
What they did not comment directly on, is how many apps / games they might have actually removed from the Playstore with the removal of the SDKs, which would be the actual interesting data.
1 reply →
Personally, I don’t think either of them are actually meaningfully bad. A bit naughty, maybe?
I do think the disparity in attention is fascinating. These new Chinese players have been getting nonstop press while everyone ignores the established giant.
How do you stop mobile proxies operating through similar nefarious business models... CGNAT prevents you from easily identifying the exit nodes.
Working with network operators.
Network operators have zero reason to care, they get paid per the GB for the bandwidth.
1 reply →
[dead]
[flagged]
The need for proxies in any legitimate context became obsolete with starlink being so widespread. Throw up a few terminals and you have about 500-2k cgnat IP addresses to do whatever you like.
2k IPs is not enough to do most enterprise scale scraping. Starlink's entire ASN doesn't seem to have enough V4 addresses to handle it even.
The actual secret is to use IPv6 with varied source IPs in the same subnet, you get an insane number of IPs and 90% of anti-scraping software is not specialized enough to realize that any IP in a /64 is the same as a single IP in a /32 in IPv4.
1 reply →
If they're CGNAT then unless Starlink actively provides assistance to block them it won't matter.
As someone who wants the internet to maintain as much anarchy as possible I think it would be nice to see a large ISP that actively rotated its customer IPv6 assignments on a tight schedule.