| ▲ | BLKNSLVR 7 hours ago |
| Yeah, my setup is purely for my own security reasons and interests, so there's very little downside to my scorched earth approach. I do, however, think that if there was a more widespread scorched earth approach then the issues like those mentioned in the article would be much less common. |
|
| ▲ | lxgr 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| In such a world you can say goodbye to any kind of free Wi-Fi, anonymous proxy etc., since all it would take to burn an IP for a year is to run a port scan from it, so nobody would risk letting you use theirs. Fortunately, real network admins are smarter than that. |
| |
| ▲ | BLKNSLVR 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Pretty much. I think there's also a responsibility on the part of the network owner to restrict obviously malicious traffic. Allow anonymous people to connect to your network and then perform port scans? I don't really want any traffic from your network then. Yes, there are less scorched-earth ways of looking at this, but this works for me. As always, any of this stuff is heavily context specific. Like you said: network admins need to be smart, need to adapt, need to know their own contexts. | | |
| ▲ | gzread 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Do you feel coffee shop WiFi should require you to scan your passport to connect, or that it shouldn't exist at all? | | |
| ▲ | perching_aix 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not OP, but the latter sounds pretty good actually, yeah. Never understood the free WiFi craze anyways. Just use cellular? | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | Gigachad 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| If you actually wanted your site or service to be accessible you’d run in to issues immediately since once IP would have cycled between hundreds of homes in a year. IP based bans have long been obsolete. |
| |
