←back to thread

Ban me at the IP level if you don't like me

(boston.conman.org)
597 points classichasclass | 8 comments | 25 Aug 25 04:23 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
lwansbrough ◴[25 Aug 25 05:55 UTC] No.45010657[source]▶
We solved a lot of our problems by blocking all Chinese ASNs. Admittedly, not the friendliest solution, but there were so many issues originating from Chinese clients that it was easier to just ban the entire country.

It's not like we can capitalize on commerce in China anyway, so I think it's a fairly pragmatic approach.

replies(6): >>45010748 #>>45010787 #>>45010871 #>>45011590 #>>45011656 #>>45011732 #
lxgr ◴[25 Aug 25 06:10 UTC] No.45010748[source]▶
Why stop there? Just block all non-US IPs!

If it works for my health insurance company, essentially all streaming services (including not even being able to cancel service from abroad), and many banks, it’ll work for you as well.

Surely bad actors wouldn’t use VPNs or botnets, and your customers never travel abroad?

replies(11): >>45010774 #>>45010777 #>>45010786 #>>45010861 #>>45010879 #>>45010925 #>>45011206 #>>45011711 #>>45012110 #>>45013192 #>>45025318 #
thrown-0825 ◴[25 Aug 25 06:32 UTC] No.45010879[source]▶
If you are traveling without a vpn then you are asking for trouble
replies(1): >>45011046 #
1. lxgr ◴[25 Aug 25 06:54 UTC] No.45011046[source]▶
Yes, and I’m arguing that that’s due to companies engaging in silly pseudo-security. I wish that would stop.
replies(2): >>45011221 #>>45024902 #
2. ordu ◴[25 Aug 25 07:23 UTC] No.45011221[source]▶
It is not silly pseudo-security, it is economics. Ban Chinese, lower your costs while not losing any revenue. It is capitalism working as intended.
replies(1): >>45011864 #
3. lxgr ◴[25 Aug 25 09:14 UTC] No.45011864[source]▶
Not sure I'd call dumping externalities on a minority of your customer base without recourse "capitalism working as intended".

Capitalism is a means to an end, and allowable business practices are a two-way street between corporations and consumers, mediated by regulatory bodies and consumer protection agencies, at least in most functioning democracies.

replies(2): >>45013323 #>>45014298 #
4. ordu ◴[25 Aug 25 12:54 UTC] No.45013323{3}[source]▶
Maybe, but it doesn't change the fact, that no one is going to forbid me to ban IPs. Therefore I will ban IPs and IPs ranges because it is the cheapest solution.
replies(1): >>45017877 #
5. edoceo ◴[25 Aug 25 14:33 UTC] No.45014298{3}[source]▶
Moving a cost outside the business and then calling it improved margin is exactly what MBA school teaches and the market rewards.
6. lxgr ◴[25 Aug 25 19:25 UTC] No.45017877{4}[source]▶
Sure, you can keep blocking IPs, and I'll keep arguing for a ban on IP country bans (at least for existing customers) :)
replies(1): >>45023019 #
7. ordu ◴[26 Aug 25 06:34 UTC] No.45023019{5}[source]▶
If you don't see that your campaign is futile and want to waste you time, just go ahead, don't ask for my permission.
8. thrown-0825 ◴[26 Aug 25 11:02 UTC] No.45024902[source]▶
so you just raw dog hotel and conference wifi?