LinuxQuestions.org
Support LQ: Use code LQ3 and save $3 on Domain Registration
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > LinuxQuestions.org > Linux - News
User Name
Password
Linux - News This forum is for original Linux News. If you'd like to write content for LQ, feel free to contact us.
All threads in the forum need to be approved before they will appear.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 08-03-2012, 12:05 PM   #76
rknichols
Senior Member
 
Registered: Aug 2009
Distribution: CentOS
Posts: 1,421

Rep: Reputation: 597Reputation: 597Reputation: 597Reputation: 597Reputation: 597Reputation: 597

Whenever I see this thread subject appear, I first think of this "turning" as meaning vampires or werewolves.
 
Old 08-03-2012, 12:08 PM   #77
schneidz
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2005
Location: boston, usa
Distribution: fc-15/ fc-20-live-usb/ aix
Posts: 3,958

Rep: Reputation: 604Reputation: 604Reputation: 604Reputation: 604Reputation: 604Reputation: 604
or worse: www.linuxquestions.org turns into www.windowsquestions.org
 
Old 08-08-2012, 08:35 AM   #78
bharathkumar.damuluri
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Feb 2012
Posts: 1

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Happy birthday LQ
 
Old 08-15-2012, 08:52 PM   #79
renthemighty
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Posts: 3

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Happy birthday LQ
 
Old 08-21-2012, 03:26 AM   #80
resolv_25
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2011
Location: Croatia
Distribution: Debian 6/Ubuntu 11.04
Posts: 56

Rep: Reputation: 9
Happy birthday, great work, LQ is great source of information and valuable people.
All the best
 
Old 08-22-2012, 05:53 PM   #81
chrism01
Guru
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Sydney
Distribution: Centos 6.5, Centos 5.10
Posts: 16,261

Rep: Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028Reputation: 2028
I've just come across this post.
Definitely belated Happy Birthday.
It's definitely my Linux go to site and the one I recommend to others
 
Old 08-23-2012, 11:50 AM   #82
procfs
Member
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Sri Lanka
Posts: 487

Rep: Reputation: 34
many more years to come !!!!!!!!!
 
Old 10-03-2012, 07:35 AM   #83
pppaaarrrkkk
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2005
Location: Aylesbury UK
Distribution: Red Hat enterprise linux 6
Posts: 101

Rep: Reputation: 15
Thanks Jeremy and all moderators/ commentators

LQ is great. Really helpful. Best Linux forum I know.
 
Old 10-05-2012, 01:57 AM   #84
heyubob
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jan 2005
Location: Portland, Oregon (baja Canada)
Distribution: Fiesty Fawn-Meets-Brunching-Bear
Posts: 10

Rep: Reputation: 0
Congrats and a plug...

I have loved LQ for years and have admired all the genius behind the idea, of LQ. Thank you and yours and me. Here is the Plug... FREEGEEK. Help and get helped computing. Portland Oregon. Thank you, them, and us.
 
Old 10-05-2012, 12:59 PM   #85
User\ Name=`echo $USER`
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Oct 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Distribution: Red Hat, Ubuntu, Mac OS X
Posts: 25

Rep: Reputation: 4
Well we thank you for creating the site! This site has helped me in too many instances to even count! *tips hat*
 
Old 10-09-2012, 07:18 AM   #86
mark_peters
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2012
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I know this is a bit of a gravedig, but I have some feedback for LQ.

Most Tor users cannot use LQ, even in a readonly capacity. If there's any way for this to be changed, I would really appreciate it. As it stands, I have specific firewall rules in place so my machine routes LQ traffic directly (not through Tor), which I feel should be unnecessary.

Ideally service providers wouldn't use services like Project Honeypot until they agree to set up their blacklists to ignore submission of the IPs of Tor exit nodes. Tor should be blocked using the methods the Tor project makes available. They're made available to reduce or remove incentive to ban individual exit nodes.

Project Honeypot blacklists IPs for 90 days after a complaint is submitted, and Tor users only use exit nodes for 30 seconds at a time. I just want to stress the massive difference and futility of blocking individual exit nodes vs. blocking some open HTTP proxy or VPN- which have a small number of IPs which are used for extended amounts of time, if not per-subscriber. It's extra work for service providers, extra work for pleasant Tor users, and does not stop the unpleasant ones.

I'd complain to Project Honeypot, but that would be like calling the complaint department of an airline for a refund. Who wants to talk to someone whos job it is to (blacklist)placate people who are (using anonymity networks)upset while doing nothing to (prevent innocent users from being affected)solve their problem?

I like LQ, and I like Tor. I hope someday I don't have to choose between the two anymore. It's the only site I currently make this concession for.

Last edited by mark_peters; 10-09-2012 at 07:22 AM.
 
Old 10-09-2012, 09:49 AM   #87
jeremy
root
 
Registered: Jun 2000
Distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu
Posts: 10,356

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616
Thanks for the feedback. The topic of TOR and LQ has come up a couple times recently. As I have mentioned, we do not explicitly block TOR (and have no plans to). We do use multiple tools to assess the traffic we do allow for members who are not logged into the site. While at times we may use Project Honeypot data as part of this, their API allows us to choose the threat level and time period since last activity, so I am not sure where the persistent "90 day blacklist" perception is coming from. That said, we'll continue to monitor the situation and if I better way to allow legitimate TOR traffic can be reasonably implemented, we'll look into doing so.

--jeremy
 
Old 10-10-2012, 07:02 AM   #88
mark_peters
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2012
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy View Post
As I have mentioned, we do not explicitly block TOR (and have no plans to).
Which I have been made aware of, and happy to hear.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy View Post
We do use multiple tools to assess the traffic we do allow for members who are not logged into the site.
If an IP is being blocked because of the http:BL they get a 403 when viewing pages on LQ. This behavior is completely unrelated to whether or not logon session cookies are present in the user's browser. I just tested this myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy View Post
While at times we may use Project Honeypot data as part of this, their API allows us to choose the threat level and time period since last activity, so I am not sure where the persistent "90 day blacklist" perception is coming from.
If you manually select a less-than-90 day threshold, this problem is avoided to an extent. Of course, the fact remains that you are not going to block the abusive Tor user and you ARE going to block innocent bystanders for however long your threshold is.

This is why blocking a Tor user via IP-based blocklists or APIs will never work. More so than on any other network subsytem, a IP is not a person. Nothing done to that IP will even be noticed by the person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy View Post
That said, we'll continue to monitor the situation and if I better way to allow legitimate TOR traffic can be reasonably implemented, we'll look into doing so.
Finally, my persistence in this is massively related to your last statement expressing a "better way to allow legitimate Tor traffic." You are not disallowing illegitimate Tor traffic to begin with.

You are completely misinterpreting the problems and attempting to take an approach suited for completely different socio-technological issues:
  • Abusive Account - Block the Account
  • Abusive IP Address - Block the IP Address
  • Abusive ISP - Block the ISP
  • Abusive User, Using a Tor Exit node, on the Tor network - ? (Hint: A perfect solution not already on this list, but an interim one and two useless ones are.)

I am not one of "Those complaining users that don't understand the kind of work they're expecting from us." I know work needs done, and that it's not some SMF plugin or configuration option. Until OSPs realize this need, it will never be filled. I certainly ain't sure how to fill it and I know it's there.
 
Old 10-10-2012, 11:10 AM   #89
jeremy
root
 
Registered: Jun 2000
Distribution: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, Fedora, Ubuntu
Posts: 10,356

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616Reputation: 2616
Quote:
If an IP is being blocked because of the http:BL they get a 403 when viewing pages on LQ. This behavior is completely unrelated to whether or not logon session cookies are present in the user's browser. I just tested this myself.
Members who are browsing with an active session do not have these checks run in any way.

Quote:
Finally, my persistence in this is massively related to your last statement expressing a "better way to allow legitimate Tor traffic." You are not disallowing illegitimate Tor traffic to begin with.
Nor are we attempting to block "illegitimate Tor traffic", we're trying to block "illegitimate traffic". FWIW, I made a small adjustment, fired up Tor and was able to browse LQ fine for an extended amount of time.

--jeremy
 
Old 10-12-2012, 08:41 AM   #90
mark_peters
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Sep 2012
Posts: 6

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy View Post
Members who are browsing with an active session do not have these checks run in any way.
As I said before, I don't know where you are getting that information from, that's incorrect. Having logon cookies (an "active session" as you put it) does not bypass these checks. It is still possible to get these 403s.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeremy View Post
Nor are we attempting to block "illegitimate Tor traffic", we're trying to block "illegitimate traffic". FWIW, I made a small adjustment, fired up Tor and was able to browse LQ fine for an extended amount of time.
This is most likely because the exit node you were using at the time wasn't listed in the http:BL.

Last edited by mark_peters; 10-12-2012 at 08:43 AM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LinuxQuestions.org Turns Six jeremy Linux - News 76 07-30-2006 04:32 PM
LinuxQuestions.org Turns Five jeremy LQ Suggestions & Feedback 72 09-08-2005 11:12 AM
LinuxQuestions.org Turns Four jeremy LQ Suggestions & Feedback 15 07-21-2004 11:32 AM
LinuxQuestions.org turns three! jeremy LQ Suggestions & Feedback 20 07-02-2003 07:24 AM
LinuxQuestions.org turns 2 jeremy LQ Suggestions & Feedback 27 07-13-2002 08:49 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:58 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration