Wild indeed, and potentially horrific for the owners of the affected devices also! Any corroboration for that out there?
Recently I filed an abuse complaint directly with brightdata because I was getting hit with 1000s of requests from their bots. The funny part is the didn’t even stop, after acknowledging the complaint.
https://lobste.rs/s/pmfuza/bro_ban_me_at_ip_level_if_you_don...
> How is it free? > > In return for free usage of Hola Free VPN Proxy, Hola Fake GPS location and Hola Video Accelerator, you may be a peer on the Bright Data network. By doing so you agree to have read and accepted the terms of service of the Bright Data SDK SLA (https://bright-sdk.com/eula). You may opt out by becoming a Premium user.
This "VPN" is what powers these residential proxies: https://brightdata.com/
I'm sure there are many other companies like this.
On top of that - lots of free tv/movie streaming stuff that also makes yourself a proxy/egress node. Sometimes you find it on tv/movie streaming devices sold online where it's already loaded on when it arrives.
they use a mixture of colo (M247, Datacamp, HostRoyale, Oxylabs, etc) and international residential. I suspect the latter are where those residential app proxies come into play (bright SDK, etc). Oxylabs is also a well known proxy provider, which makes me think they're the gateway into all of these IPs.
Definitely interesting times to try and host a web server!
edit: Actually this is what I'm getting increasingly angry about: providers and platforms not doing anything against bots or low value stuff (think Amazon dropshippers too) because any usage of their service, bots or otherwise, are metrics going up and metrics going brrt means profit and shareholder interest.
I then read something about a guy who deliberately put a honeypot in his robots.txt file. It was pointing to a completely bogus endpoint. Now, the theory was, humans won't read robots.txt so there's no danger, but bots and the like will often read robots.txt (at least to figure out what you have... they'll ignore the "deny" for the most part!) and if they try and go to that fake endpoint you can be 100% sure (well, as close as possible) that it's not a human and you can ban them.
So I tried that.
I auto-generated a robots.txt file on the fly. It was cached for 60 seconds or so as I didn't want to expend too many resource on it. When you asked for it, you either got the cached one or I created a new one. The CPU-usage was negligible.
However, I changed the "deny" endpoint each time I built the file in case the baddies cached it, however, it still went to the same ASP.NET controller method. By hitting it, I sent a 10GB zip bomb and your IP was automatically added to the FW block list.
It was quite simple: anyone that hit that endpoint MUST be dodgy... I believe I even had comments for the humans that stumbled across it letting them know that if they went to this endpoint in their browser it was an automatic addition to the firewall blocklist.
Anyway... at first I caught a shit load of bad guys. There were thousands at first and then the numbers dropped and dropped to only tens per day.
Anyway, this is a single data point but for me, it worked... I have no regrets about the zip bomb either :)
I have another site that I'm working on so I may evolve it a bit so that you are banned for a short time and if you come back to the dodgy endpoint then I know you're a bot so into the abyss with you!
It's not perfect but it worked for me anyway.
This is approximately my approach minus the zip bomb. I use a piece of middleware in my AspNetCore pipeline that tracks logical resource consumption rates per IPv4. If a client trips any of the limits, their IP goes into a HashSet for a period of time. If a client has an IP in this set, they get a simple UTF8 constant string in the response body "You have exceeded resource limits, please try again later".
The other aspect of my strategy is to use AspNetCore (Kestrel). It is so fast that you can mostly ignore the noise as long as things are configured properly and you make reasonable attempts to address the edge case of an asshole trying to break your particular system on purpose. A HashSet<int> as the very first piece of middleware rejecting bad clients is exceedingly efficient. We aren't even into URL routing at this point.
I have found that attempting to catalog and record all of the naughty behavior my web server sees is the highest risk to DDOS so far. Logging lines like "banned client rejected" every time they try to come in the door is shooting yourself in the foot with regard to disk wear, IO utilization, et. al. There is no reason you should be logging all of that background radiation to disk or even thinking about it. If your web server cant handle direct exposure to the hard vacuum of space, it can be placed behind a proxy/CDN (i.e., another web server that doesn't suck).
I imagine they get a 429 response code, but if they don't, you may want to change that.
I do think you are on the right place in that it's important to let those requests get the correct error, so if innocent people are affected, they at least get to see there's something wrong.
Would a simple 429 not do the same thing? You could log repeated 429's and banish accordingly.
Fun fact: Some people learn about new exploits by watching their incoming requests.
Definitely! I wasn't experiencing any issues, hell it wasn't even for public consumption at that time so no great loss to me but I found a few things fascinating (and somewhat stupid!) about it:
1. The sheer number of automated requests to scrape my content
2. That a massive number of the bots openly had "bot" or some derivative in the user agent and they were accessing a page I'd explicitly denied! :D
3. That an equally large number were faking their user agents to look like regular users and still hitting a page that a regular user couldn't possibly ever hit!
Something I did notice but it was towards the end and I didn't pursue it (I should log it better the next time for analysis!) was that the endpoint was dynamically generated and only existed in the robots.txt for a short time but there were bots I caught later on, long after that auto-generated page was created (and after the IP was banned) that still went for that same page: clearly the same entities!
My spidey senses are tingling. Next time, I'm going to log the shit out of these requests and publish as much as I can for others to analyse and dissect... might be interesting.
I think an evolution would be to use some sort of exponential backoff, e.g. first time offenders get banned for an hour, second time is 4 hours, third time and you're sent into the abyss!
Still crude but fun to play about with.
1. It's become commonplace to not respect rate limits
2. Bots no longer identify themselves by UA
3. Bots use VPNs or similar tech to bypass ip rate limiting
4. Bots use tools like NobleTLS or JA3Cloak to go around ja3 rate limiting
5. Some valid LLM companies seem to also follow the above to gather training data. We want them to know about our company, so we don't necessarily want to block them
I'm close to giving up on this front tbh. There's no longer safe methods of identifying malignant traffic at scale, and with the variations we have available we can't statically generate these. Even with a CDN cache (shoutout fastly) our catalog is simply too broad to fully saturate the cache while still allowing pages to be updated in a timely manner.
I guess the solution is to just scale up the origin servers... /shrug
In all seriousness, i'd love if we somehow could tell the bots about more efficient ways of fetching the data. Use our open api for fetching book informations instead of causing all that overhead by going to marketing pages please.
Any halfway modern LLM could probably code the backend for this in a day or two and it'd run on a RasPi. Some org just has to take charge and provide the infra and advertisement.
It's mathematically similar to the "Shinigami Eyes" browser plug-in and database, which has been found to have unreliable data
As talked about elsewhere in this thread, residential devices being used as proxies behind CGNAT ruins this. Not getting rid of IPv4 years ago is finally coming to bite us in the ass in a big way.
The facet links already had “nofollow” on them, now I’m just enforcing it.
Fake the data! Tell them Neil44 is a three-time Nobel prize winner, etc. But only when the client is detected to be an AI crawler.
I only protect certain 'dangerous/expensive' (accidentally honeypot-like) paths in my app, and can leave the stuff I actually want crawlers to get, and in my app that's sufficient.
It's a tension because yeah I want crawlers to get much of my stuff for SEO (and don't want to give a monopoly to Google on it either, i want well-behaved crawlers I've never heard of to have access to it too. But not at the cost of resources i can't afford).
It's understandable in your case as you have traffic coming in constantly, but first thing that came to my mind is a loop of contant reboots - again, very unlikely in your case. Sometimes such blanket rules hit me due to most unexpected reasons, like the proxy somehow failed to start serving traffic in the given timeframe.
Though I completely appreciate and agree with the 'ship now something that works now' approach!
Every open port of every IP is continuously scanned for exploits.
I run an e-commerce-specific scraping API that helps developers access SERP, PDP, and reviews data. I've noticed the web already has unsaid balances: certain traffic patterns and techniques are tolerated, others clearly aren’t. Most sites handle reasonable, well-behaved crawlers just fine.
Platforms claim ownership of UGC and public data through dark patterns and narrative control. The current guidelines are a result of supplier convenience, and there are several cases where absolutely fundamental web services run by the largest companies in the world themselves breach those guidelines (including those funded by the fund running this site). We need standards that treat public data as a shared resource with predictable, ethical access for everyone, not just for those with scale or lobbying power.
Even if there is legislation or whatever, you can sue an OpenAI or a Microsoft, but starting a new company that does scraping and sells it on to the highest bidder is trivial.
And for the record, large companies regularly ignore robots.txt themselves: LinkedIn, Google, OpenAI, and plenty of others.
The reality is that it’s the big players who behave like the aggressors, shaping the rules and breaking them when convenient. Smaller developers aren’t the problem, they’re just easier to punish.
Today there are far too many people scraping stuff that isn't intended to be scraped, for profit, and doing it in a heavy-handed way that actually does have a negative and continuous effect on the victim's capacity.
Everyone from AI services too lazy or otherwise unwilling to cache to companies exfiltrating some kind of data for their own commercial purposes.
I bet it’s free VPN apps
In general, you can ask a lawyer for your options. Chances are good there are more than zero. But only if you can afford a lawyer.
If you're getting scraped from a country where you don't do business, you can block the country. It's not good to block a country, but it works as a temporary measure. If they really want your data, they will move to a country where you do business, which means a country where you can get a lawyer. Assuming you can afford a lawyer. If they're using rotating IPs, likely some of them are from your country. You might show a judge: "Hey, look, we're getting so much traffic, from a wide variety of IP addresses but it all seems to be the same person on the other end, which would make it illegal DDoS. Can we trace back some of these?" and if you're lucky, the judge might say yes.
DDoS is not a relatively trivial matter.
If you have an axe to grind with CF you can take it up with them, but it’s an option. Feel free to suggest others.
Indie blog businesses are great for the health of the human internet, and I don't think surrendering preemptively will help things get better.
It could be like staying on Twitter and Reddit after their respective declines. You're only suffering an opportunity cost for your own time and preventing the internet from evolving better alternatives.
That's the battle, and expression, people, their interests, and their communities are worth fighting for. _ESPECIALLY_ in this day and age where botnets/scrapers are using things such as Infatica to mask themselves as residential IP addresses, and mimicking human behaviors to better avoid bot detection.
There's a war on authenticity, people's authentic works, and the reverse: determining if a user is authentic now adays.
