← Back to context

Comment by Latty

11 hours ago

My first thought is that with CGNAT ever more present, this kind of approach seems like it'll have a lot of collateral damage.

Yeah, my setup is purely for my own security reasons and interests, so there's very little downside to my scorched earth approach.

I do, however, think that if there was a more widespread scorched earth approach then the issues like those mentioned in the article would be much less common.

  • Haha, nice, I run something similar.. But more manualy managed and I put those bans pernametly. Currneltly, there are 1360 blocks in drop list and growing. I never really remove them, because even those leased blocks move from one spam/abuse operator to another, so no big loss.

    And indeed, if people would fight w/ spam/abuse better and more aggresivly, the problem would be much smaller. I dont care anymore, In my opinion Internet is done. Time to start building overlay networks with services for good guys...

  • In such a world you can say goodbye to any kind of free Wi-Fi, anonymous proxy etc., since all it would take to burn an IP for a year is to run a port scan from it, so nobody would risk letting you use theirs.

    Fortunately, real network admins are smarter than that.

    • Pretty much. I think there's also a responsibility on the part of the network owner to restrict obviously malicious traffic. Allow anonymous people to connect to your network and then perform port scans? I don't really want any traffic from your network then.

      Yes, there are less scorched-earth ways of looking at this, but this works for me.

      As always, any of this stuff is heavily context specific. Like you said: network admins need to be smart, need to adapt, need to know their own contexts.

      7 replies →

For people that implement it there's less than three people who use it, or agencies supporting it

  • CGNAT? That's definitely not true. There are whole towns that have to share one IP address. They're mostly in the third world.