New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
Banana is Cloudflare. Yellow monkeys are people trusting Cloudflare.
Sometimes Banana trees have no bananas, you should see how all those yellow monkeys become agitated and start screaming on LET for their Banana tree. But for some reason, nobody learns, not even LET admins.
The attacks have been coming and going. No massive spikes but as our rules are in place, the last few they tried had no impact and were caught by the rules. We're easing off rules slowly.
Cloudflare does have a reasonably priced WAF and firewall which is hard to compete with. Some other providers have insane pricing and bill you on a per request basis, even for requests that have been blocked.
Yes, Hopefully other cost effective providers will start emerging in the market. There are plenty of cost effective CDNs out there. We aren't using CF for their CDN though. Infact their CDN is the weakest part of the product, other CDNs are much better.
Still waiting on that list of effective WAF/DDoS mitigation sites that we can use instead at the lower end of the pricing world.. Despite your wonderful banana metaphor.
It's an indication of what the world has become. People like complaining and insulting others, but no one wants to find or help create a solution.
Google's project shield
I do not have such a list. I did not even create such a list. I never mentioned to have such a list.
However, the fact that you (a LEB/LET Admin), can not come up with a solution, yet you keep a lot of advertisements from LET/LEB market, and can not even dare to ask for an offer from other providers to host LET on their DDoS protected servers, it only displays how short-sighted you can be. People come here asking for all sorts of crazy offers, but you can not offer a LEB/LET advertisement, for a free server to protect this board.
I shall now leave this topic with a bitter taste in my mouth, looking sadly at the banana tree with screaming monkeys while refreshing other topics of this board. The end is truly nigh.
@LEBAdmin needs to ask @SpartanHost for a $48/year plan (4x Ryzen and 4GB RAM) and select 200Gbps DDoS protection ($3/month).
We aren't one of the following:
We aren't electronics information?
Will reach out to @SpartanHost to see if its a fit for us.
I mean, it says elections both on the website and in my post..
It doesn't hurt to try and apply
NVM i still can't read...
Uhm? What kind of logic is that? South-Africa a racist country, where former times blacks were often treated like animal, and where nowadays blacks joyfully kill whites did sell to blacks and does sell to whites.
While I agree that Chinese probably are not more racist than any other people, "X sells to Y" does definitely not mean that X is not racist.
@LEBAdmin
Pardon me but that CloudF%&#! "protection" thing must be a cruel joke. Connecting via a (very fast) proxy that could open tens of thousands of connection per second does work fine (besides the crappy CF "we check your browser" farce), but trying to connect via a VPN that couldn't open 100 connection per second (and probably wouldn't do even that because of rate limits) does not work.
This is getting really annoying.
Message me the IP(s) from your VPN aren't working, I'll get back to you.
Also, you are assuming that the Proxy provider was part of the problem, and the VPN provider wasn't, or maybe the ASN/IP subnets that the VPN provider uses wasn't part of the problem.
How long has this DDoS been going for?
Off and on for over a week now. The last few large attacks were mitigated. When our rules turn off, the attacks come back. They are still, as you ask your question, probing the site with smaller attack volumes.
Maybe run LET via a VPN for a while. NordVPN supposedly has a DDoS protection. If that's even possible
@BunnySpeed - please help LET if you can. Popcorn drama is chasing us all.
Thank you. But makes no sense because it's not one IP but a pool and it's unlikely they'd tell me their IPs.
No, it seems that (not only my) VPN provider is the problem. It's quite common to filter out all known VPN ranges and proxy IPs, especially during an attack. Add to that a "there is our country and there is the (utterly unimportant) rest of world" attitude of quite a few us-american companies and it gets ugly quickly.
Yes, this is part of the strategies we implemented. More importantly, we blocked, rate limited, and challenged based on the different metrics the attacks came from. Infact, the first action we took was to block TOR networks.
The attack came from almost every continent except Africa. If the attack came solely from the US, we would've been more restrictive on the US, and let everyone play in the playground freely.
Suppose the attack was performed with zombie computers. One possible way to stop the attack is to report them so those zombie computers get cleaned. It will reduce the scale of DDoS attacks. The problem is, can you identify source IPs of attacks from your server log? Can you support your judgment with convincible reasons so the owners of zombie computers will act on your reports? The frequency of requests might not be good enough. You might need to examine your server log for entries with return code 404 first.
@chihcherng - Your signature is too short. As per LET rules, it needs to be more than 3 lines.
This is Cloudflare, so any logs on the server side go missing once you've blocked IPs on the firewall. Of course, there is the "Cloudflare enterprise log service" (or somesuch) but that's a pure money grab scheme by Cloudflare to bill you 4 digit sums for providing logs.
We reported a bunch of the worst IPs. Unfortunately a lot of them were from providers which aren't as active or responsive on handling abuse.
Yeah, I know that. But I got an error (Cloudflare Ray ID: 6334c4b83ca6eb69) when I was trying to follow the LET rules and adding another 297 lines to my signature.
Just kidding. I was trying to delete 1 line from my signature (so violate the LET rules even further) and got that error. Other functions work fine.
the china hacker is targeting here ?
Don’t know who but please defend us from all sorts of attacks.
Thanks.