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
I do get occasional mails
So makes my day when I see one from LE*
Any rule about providers that block certain countries?
To me, that’s discrimination, because no one should be held responsible for the actions of others. Bad actors exist everywhere, and cybersecurity courses on Udemy cost as little as $9 these days.
I use Tor and had the same problem. I ended up needing to open a ticket and request that an account be manually created for me (which, to my surprise, it was).
It would be a good idea to mention on the signup page clearly that vpns should be turned off at first time signup if its against the rules. It would save people and moderators time and confusion.
Because if i seen this message at the signup page it would be a reminder for me and i would’ve shutoff the vpn before registering.
All I got was the confusing message "registration is not possible at this time". I tried connecting using one of my VPSes as a proxy (the IP was squeaky clean and not on any blacklists), and I got the same exact message, so I assumed it was not just an IP reputation issue.
It could be that major provider ip ranges are blacklisted, its what netflix does too, they reconize a ip that belongs to a hosting server and they detect it as ‘vpn’.
I suspect it just blocks all proxies and all non-residential IPs from registering (but not from logging in, thankfully).
I believe purevpn offers resident lines for a additional fee. Have no experience with them, im using namecheap’s ‘fastvpn’ thats probably a ipvanish reseller. But its cheap! $12 for 1 year vpn!!
Just to say that we don't have a rule against the use of a VPN when registering an account
That said, the use of a VPN can more easily raise suspicion than the use of a residential IP. It's really hit or miss with a VPN
Yea its hard now because vpns become more common, there should be other ways a new user can be judged, some kind of other indentifyer.
Maybe i raised more suspicioun because i also used a custom made email alias on my protonmail account just to signup here, reason is there are many sites being hacked nowadays and causing the user’s emails being leaked, im always very careful on what sites i use my primary email adres.
Just in the netherlands a big provider called Odido (also known as T-Mobile) got hacked, all details from customers are in the darkweb now. This is going to be a global problem with AI, it will be abused to hack into systems.
If i had bad intentions i probably would just buy a prepaid simcard for 5 euros with credit on it just enough to use its data to signup at lowendtalk, causing my ip to be appearing as legit. Afterwards i would throw away the simcard and never use it again.
And then theres vpn providers that sell you a residental ip as backup. Or proxies that use home connections.
In the end of the day ip adresses are not really a reliable indicator, especially if someone has bad intentions and the knowledge, you dont catch the real bad guys this way. You punish legit people more than you’d keep out the bad i would say.
Maybe a MAC adress can be an better indentifyer? I dont know if you can obtain that tru a browser.
Ofcourse you can spoof mac address too in a router but most people dont know this
Best site for the beginners and finders to find the best and cheap reasonable price and companies available around lowendtalk
MAC is even easier to spoof than IP... But MAC addresses do not get past a single hop, so unless you're using IPv6 with privacy extensions disabled, you can't remotely determine MAC.
getting a bit ridiculous, this is just a discussion forum.
I'm sure it has been discussed before... but when is LET going to discourage advertisements and requests for "DMCA free" and "residential IP" services? We all know that they're aimed towards people using them for illegitimate purposes.
I get it - we've all maintained our fair share of Linux ISO collections, but it just seems like every other thread is some HF tier skid wanting a 10Gbps unmetered dedi with a EPYC 9965 for $7... and yes, it needs to be DMCA ignored.
Hopefully never. There are very valid reasons to get such services. I use them to run Tor relays.
Another reason people use them is to avoid fake takedown notices which often happen if you're running a site that makes enemies. It's quite trivial to get a site taken down with enough false reports.
When they ask for impossible deals, they'll just end up disappointed.
Proposition: @jbiloh @raindog308 @FAT32 @DP
I suggest to make a rule that requires patron providers as well as host reps to disclose which provider they represent, either in their sig or on their user page.
Seems to be normal and reasonable but unfortunately seems to not be required yet by a rule.
Company name left/right side of tag, dont need to fill signature.
I have just added the "Affiliation Disclosure" rule.
We have been actively rejecting patron tags for hosts offering services like this. If there are any you think need a review please send me a DM!
Thanks for looking out.
It has been more than 2 weeks since I started recognizing irregular users. Commonalities:
1. Few weeks to few months account
2. Posting multiple comments within short-time (under 10 minutes) and (likely) never login again within the same day or week.
3. Posting non-sequitur or low-quality opinion copied from other users
4. Copy something that's being discussed on the thread, then made it their own thread
I have mentioned this irregularities @DP on other occasion through DM.
I don't know what's LET policy on this. But to me, it seems someone are making sockpuppets.
So a host would have their tag rejected just because they offer services outside of DMCA jurisdiction? Or do you specifically mean sketchy hosts that make their whole identity about ignoring abuse complaints?
Whenever "DMCA ignored" is marketed, generic copyright infringement is meant, not a specific law as you might think.
Not all jurisdictions have the same copyright laws, and lots of providers here operate in countries where US copyright law (or even multinational copyright agreements) do not apply. Not to mention, many people use "DMCA ignored" to mean "doesn't kick you out the first time someone sends a bogus complaint" or even "is willing to host controversial content". I would hope there would be a bit more nuance than banning any host that advertises that they are outside of DMCA jurisdiction.
Controversial content and bogus abuse reports have nothing to do with an US (or any other country) copyright law. I think it's unhealthy to call proper abuse handing as "DMCA ignoring".
However, it looks completely reasonable for scenarios whenever customer expects to get any (not only bogus) copyright infringement complaints.
I completely agree. I hate how "DMCA" has come to mean any abuse report, but I also hate how abuse reports are so often acted on without being validated, whether by a massive company like YouTube or a small low-end company here.
Can we add an additional provision to the rules where each offer created in discussions by host will have to include the host's details at the very end of the post, including tax numbers and other data allowing verification of the company. If someone has host rep/provider status and sells it as an unregistered business, they should also include this information at the end of the offer.
On other forums it is normal policy to make every company easy to identify and not for LET detectives to have to look for this information themselves...
This provision should not cause any problems because it is just a few lines that each host will copy when creating an offer.
Isn't this forbidden?
You new here?