Server with "IP HEADER MODIFICATION" for LEGITIMATE PURPOSE. (VPS)

CustomSemmy12

Hi, I'm looking for a server offer or at least a provider name which allow source IP spoofing.
I have two legitimate reasons to use IP spoofing.

The first is a censorship circumvention system using ReQrypt. ReQrypt software first encrypts and sends first TCP packet to IP spoofing server, the server forwards this packed from client's source IP to destination server, further data transfer between client and destination host within single TCP session is performed without spoofing server. This is faster than proxy and preserves client's IP address. ReQrypt was firstly developed in 2009 ( where IPHM was really easy to find , though )

The second is for my project to traverse NAT without outbound session initiation. It's basically based on pwnat but uses UDP packets on the server side. To connect to the host behind NAT from another NAT client needs to send ICMP TTL Exceeded packet which most NAT drop (but accept if it's incoming). Such ICMP packets would be sent from this server with source IP spoofing.

I can also accept some ports blocked, for example

don't even need full DNS capabilities? Amplification attacks can be somewhat mitigated if DNS ports are blocked. ( 53 )

Or also NTP port ( 123 ) . Blocking those 2 ports, it's almost out of 90% of risks.

I'm fine with any configuration. I need at most 256 MB RAM and somewhere about 5 GB HDD. I don't expect traffic to exceed 100 GB per month. The cheaper the better.

If you can't write here the domain, It's fine if u directly dm me.

MannDude

https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/comment/3361470

ValdikSS

Huh, that's a copy of my message, but an older one, from 2017

https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/111813/server-for-legitimate-ip-spoofing-not-ddos-amplification

neverain

Hi, I'm looking for a server offer or at least a provider name which allow source IP spoofing.
I have two legitimate reasons to use IP spoofing.

The first is a censorship circumvention system using ReQrypt. ReQrypt software first encrypts and sends first TCP packet to IP spoofing server, the server forwards this packed from client's source IP to destination server, further data transfer between client and destination host within single TCP session is performed without spoofing server. This is faster than proxy and preserves client's IP address. ReQrypt was firstly developed in 2009 ( where IPHM was really easy to find , though )

The second is for my project to traverse NAT without outbound session initiation. It's basically based on pwnat but uses UDP packets on the server side. To connect to the host behind NAT from another NAT client needs to send ICMP TTL Exceeded packet which most NAT drop (but accept if it's incoming). Such ICMP packets would be sent from this server with source IP spoofing.

I can also accept some ports blocked, for example

don't even need full DNS capabilities? Amplification attacks can be somewhat mitigated if DNS ports are blocked. ( 53 )

Or also NTP port ( 123 ) . Blocking those 2 ports, it's almost out of 90% of risks.

I'm fine with any configuration. I need at most 256 MB RAM and somewhere about 5 GB HDD. I don't expect traffic to exceed 100 GB per month. The cheaper the better.

If you can't write here the domain, It's fine if u directly dm me.

stefeman

Im sure its all bullshit and true purpose is DDoS.

Anyway,

Njal.la VPS
Swedendedicated dedicated servers range (stockholm location)
any dcstar facility in belgium. (fusa.be, etc..)
Creanova
Vinters
and so much more..

There is no legitmate reason for IP Spoofing since it compromises integrity of the way which things are supposed to work.

Any "legitmate usage" is just a hackfix to accomplish something which should be done properly via other means.

Any provider allowing spoofing at this day and age is either incompetent in blocking it or doing it for money.

@neverain said:
I can also accept some ports blocked, for example

don't even need full DNS capabilities? Amplification attacks can be somewhat mitigated if DNS ports are blocked. ( 53 )

Or also NTP port ( 123 ) . Blocking those 2 ports, it's almost out of 90% of risks.

I'm fine with any configuration. I need at most 256 MB RAM and somewhere about 5 GB HDD. I don't expect traffic to exceed 100 GB per month. The cheaper the better.

If you can't write here the domain, It's fine if u directly dm me.

Even if you block DNS and NTP, there are over 30 other commonly known ways of DDoS amplification attacks. If you want to show sincerity to the provider, limiting the port to 1 Mbps or 20-50GB @ 1Gbps shows that you are not looking to use it for amplification attacks. Anything beyond that would allow effective attacks such as constant 10Mbps memcached amplification.

neverain

@stefeman said:
Im sure its all bullshit and true purpose is DDoS.

Anyway,

Njal.la VPS
Swedendedicated dedicated servers range (stockholm location)
any dcstar facility in belgium. (fusa.be, etc..)
Creanova
Vinters
and so much more..

There is no legitmate reason for IP Spoofing since it compromises integrity of the way which things are supposed to work.

Any "legitmate usage" is just a hackfix to accomplish something which should be done properly via other means.

Any provider allowing spoofing at this day and age is either incompetent in blocking it or doing it for money.

@neverain said:
I can also accept some ports blocked, for example

don't even need full DNS capabilities? Amplification attacks can be somewhat mitigated if DNS ports are blocked. ( 53 )

Or also NTP port ( 123 ) . Blocking those 2 ports, it's almost out of 90% of risks.

I'm fine with any configuration. I need at most 256 MB RAM and somewhere about 5 GB HDD. I don't expect traffic to exceed 100 GB per month. The cheaper the better.

If you can't write here the domain, It's fine if u directly dm me.

Even if you block DNS and NTP, there are over 30 other commonly known ways of DDoS amplification attacks. If you want to show sincerity to the provider, limiting the port to 1 Mbps or 20-50GB @ 1Gbps shows that you are not looking to use it for amplification attacks. Anything beyond that would allow effective attacks such as constant 10Mbps memcached amplification.

I was just trying to make a copypasta lol, this post is ripped from some other post from 2017

JeDaYoshi

@ValdikSS said:
Huh, that's a copy of my message, but an older one, from 2017

https://lowendtalk.com/discussion/111813/server-for-legitimate-ip-spoofing-not-ddos-amplification

There's this, and the fact that the extra text from OP has a worse grammar.

Yeah, it's quite obvious what is this for, though. Looks like someone found the old post from Google and tried giving it a go nowadays. heh.

Edit: Congrats on your first post, OP.