On 6/22/12 9:37 AM, David Banes wrote: > On 22/06/2012, at 4:32 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: > >> On 6/22/12 9:30 AM, bear wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 11:24 AM, David Banes <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On 22/06/2012, at 4:20 PM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 6/22/12 6:16 AM, Peter Saint-Andre wrote: >>>>>> On 6/22/12 4:01 AM, Tim Schumacher wrote: >>>>>>> At Thu, 21 Jun 2012 21:00:45 -0700, >>>>>>> Ed - 0x1b, Inc. wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Peter Saint-Andre >>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>>>>>>>> Hash: SHA1 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It seems that many of those who run multi-user chat services have >>>>>>>>> experienced chatroom flooders. What best practices do people have for >>>>>>>>> fighting this? It seems the best we can do in real time is change the >>>>>>>>> room to moderated so that new flooders can't send messages, but that's >>>>>>>>> not a very good solution and we should be able to come up with >>>>>>>>> something better. I've been thinking about ways to use entity >>>>>>>>> reputation (XEP-0275), but other suggestions are welcome. :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How about tar-pitting the flooders - like OpenBSD's spamd? (and not >>>>>>>> the spam filter spamd) >>>>>>>> It has a good feature set. I like that it works out at the firewall. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tarpitting sounds good, the problem I can see that in heated >>>>>>> discussion this could also trigger. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Another Problem I see with tarpitting is when the flooder joins with >>>>>>> 10 or more bots tarpitting would not be very effective. >>>>>> >>>>>> And that's what happens. >>>>> >>>>> Does spamd work by blocking IP addresses? >>>>> >>>>> One challenge we have is that we can't block a flooder's JID based on IP >>>>> address. All we can do is report the flooder to its "home" server and >>>>> ask that server to disable the account or block future registrations >>>>> from that IP address. For this we need an incident handling protocol >>>>> <http://xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0268.html> and we need it to be widely >>>>> implemented and deployed. >>>> >>>> Just chipping in here, speaking from many years experience in the >>>> anti-spam industry, it's perfectly acceptable to block the IP address in >>>> the even if it impacts other users. The general thought process is that >>>> the domain or IP range 'owner' is the responsible party because often it's >>>> not actually a 'user' but a trojan or bot causing the problem so they >>>> need to clean up their network. >>> >>> We do this all the time on the IRC servers I help run for communities. >>> A flooder is taken thru 3 levels of blockage and a lot manage to get >>> thru 3 levels in under 5 minutes :) >>> >>> 1st violation - kicked from the server with a warning message >>> 2nd violation - kicked from the server and an entry is added to the >>> ban list - this keeps them from reconnecting for N days/hours >>> 3rd violation - all of the above and their IP address is added to the >>> ban list for good. The message the get when refused connection >>> includes a link on how/why >>> >>> requires custom changes to get the different pieces interacting but >>> it's the only way to deal with it IMO >> >> XMPP isn't IRC. At jabber.org, we don't know the IP address of a user >> from example.com and even if we did the blockage would need to happen at >> example.com, not jabber.org. >> >> Distributed technologies are great, except when they're not. >> > > I don't understand the problem here, email is a distributed technology as > well. Just use the JID's domain part. Look up example.com's SRV records in > DNS, or from the S2S connection and block it at jabber.org. Same as email. > > Or am I having a Friday afternoon brain fade here, I must admit I haven't hit > the beer yet so it's possible :)
So we're going to block all 50,000 users at example.com because they have one bad user? I'd really really like to avoid that. Peter -- Peter Saint-Andre https://stpeter.im/
