Comment by majorchord

Comment by majorchord a day ago

87 replies

You can't just blanket block all VPN access, that's not how the internet works... they could pick some common/well-known providers of VPN services and block their IPs/ASN/etc., but you can't just flip a switch and make all forms of VPN/proxy stop working, as there's no way to tell with certainty that someone is using one.

tallytarik a day ago

There are plenty of VPN and proxy detection services, either as a service (API) or downloadable database, which are surprisingly comprehensive. Disclaimer: I’ve run one since 2017. Years on, our primary data source is literally holding dozens of subscriptions to every commercial provider we can find, and enumerating the exit node IP addresses they use.

There are also other methods, like using zmap/zgrab to probe for servers that respond to VPN software handshakes, which can in theory be run against the entire IP space. (this also highlights non-commercial VPNs which are not generally the target of our detection, so we use this sparingly)

It will never cover every VPN or proxy in existence, but it gets pretty close.

  • acka a day ago

    > Years on, our primary data source is literally holding dozens of subscriptions to every commercial provider we can find, and enumerating the exit node IP addresses they use.

    Assuming your VPN identification service operates commercially, I trust that you are in full compliance with all contractual agreements and Terms of Service for the services you utilize. Many of these agreements specifically prohibit commercial use, which could encompass the harvesting of exit node IP addresses and the subsequent sale of such information.

    • infecto 20 hours ago

      TOS are pretty meaningless in cases like this. It amounts to getting rejected as a customer and your account canceled.

      • itintheory 15 hours ago

        I think ToS violations can also run afoul of CFAA.

    • fourside 19 hours ago

      Maybe the tables could be turned and we can build a service with dozens of subscriptions to every VPN detection service and report them for ToS violations ;)

    • MangoToupe 18 hours ago

      > I trust that you are in full compliance with all contractual agreements and Terms of Service

      Why? It's not like there's any real moral (or, likely, legal) reason to care beyond avoiding the service's ban hammer.

      • qingcharles 10 hours ago

        In Illinois you could, in theory, be jailed for up to three years for violating a web site ToS. (classified as "Computer Tampering")

    • immibis 3 hours ago

      There's a little secret that most of the business world knows but individuals do not know: You don't have to follow Terms of Service. In most cases, the maximum penalty the company can impose for a ToS violation is a termination of your account. And it's not illegal to make a new account. They can legally ban you from making a new account, and you can legally evade the ban.

      Unless you're the one-in-a-million unlucky user who gets prosecuted under the CFAA's very generic "unauthorized access to a protected computer" clause, like Aaron Swartz. It seems the general consensus is this doesn't apply to breaking a website ToS, and Aaron was only in so much trouble because he broke into a network closet, as well as for copyright violation. But consult a lawyer if unsure. (That's another difference: A business will ask a lawyer if it wants to do something shady, while an individual will simply avoid doing it)

  • addandsubtract a day ago

    Tangent: if you hold access to all VPN providers, have you thought about also releasing benchmarks for them? I would be interested in knowing which ones offer the best bandwidth / peering (ping).

  • 0xdeadbeefbabe 20 hours ago

    > which are surprisingly comprehensive

    How does the buyer even know what the precision and recall rates might be?

  • rdsubhas a day ago

    Interesting. I assumed all VPNs switched to IPv6 by now, making detection much harder.

    • tallytarik 13 hours ago

      Much of the internet still does not support IPv6, so most providers will give you an IPv4 address. In fact only a few providers even support IPv6 at all.

      Even with IPv6 it's not a huge problem. With a few samples we can know that a provider is operating in a given /64 or /48 or even /32 space, and can assign a confidence level that the range is used for VPNs.

    • bombcar 20 hours ago

      IPv6 isn't magically unrouteable, it just routes much larger blocks of "end IP addresses."

      You just track and block /24 or /16 as necessary.

    • tux3 20 hours ago

      Many websites including Soundcloud are still only accessible through IPv4, so this is moot, even if VPNs support IPv6 it's enough to block their V4 exit nodes for Soundcloud.

  • [removed] a day ago
    [deleted]
  • vb-8448 17 hours ago

    just out of curiosity: if i'm located in spain and i setup an ec2 or digital ocean instance in germany and use it as a socks proxy over ssh, do you will detect me?

  • m00dy 19 hours ago

    who's buying your service ?

  • ranger_danger 21 hours ago

    This will also cause problems with anyone that happens to (even accidentally/unknowingly) use apps that integrate services from companies such as BrightData/Luminati/HolaVPN/etc. where they sell idle time on your device/connection to their VPN/proxy customers.

    The legitimate end-user will then no longer be able to use e.g. SoundCloud.

    • blibble 20 hours ago

      I fail to see the problem if people that allow their internet connection used by scammers/AI crawlers are banned from every service

      • kstrauser 19 hours ago

        I’m with you on this one. Some of my projects are flooded with sus traffic from Brazil. I don’t believe there are a million eager Brazilian hackers targeting me in particular. It’s pretty clear from analysis that they’re all residential hosts running proxies, knowingly or otherwise.

        The more concise word for this is “botnet”. Computers participating in one should be quarantined until they stop.

      • majorchord 19 hours ago

        > unknowingly

        Often times random shovelware apps will have these proxy SDKs embedded in them, and the only mention of it being part of the software is buried in some long ToS that nobody reads.

      • Dylan16807 10 hours ago

        Sort of valid today.

        But the more sites that require a residential VPN for normal use, the less legitimate that argument becomes.

protocolture a day ago

GEOIP providers often sell a database of known VPN/Proxy endpoints. They take the approach of shoot first, ask questions later. Using one of these databases bans a lot of legitimate ip addresses that have seen been the source of known VPN or proxy traffic.

Its not perfect ofc, but its not meant to be. Its usually just used as a safety blanket for geoblocked intellectual property, like netflix.

  • wkat4242 5 hours ago

    For low-volume stuff you can always get a non-expiring 4G/5G bundle eSIM and tunnel through that. Because 4G/5G roaming always tunnels traffic through the home country, and then emerges from CGNAT so it can't be identified as foreign traffic.

    But those data packages are expensive and not available with each wanted origin country. Also you need hardware on your side. But it is an option, just saying.

  • itake a day ago

    I connect to my residential ISP in the USA via VPN all the time and have never had issues with being blocked for VPN use.

    Maybe they mean commercial VPN providers that run on the cloud?

    • oefrha a day ago

      You know perfectly well what blocking VPN access means in common verbiage. I don't understand the motivation of these "hey look my WireGuard connection to home isn't blocked, you guys don't know the true meaning of VPN" comments that inevitably pop up in these discussions. Like come on, this is a tech forum, you're not impressing anyone for knowing the technical definition of VPN and how to set up WireGuard.

      • kotaKat a day ago

        To flip that though, what about just using those sketchy-ass malware-laden "residential IP" VPN providers and route your traffic through someone else's hacked up VPN running on a Fire TV stick they bought off JimBob for $200?

      • TZubiri a day ago

        Here's me making a similar argument a month or so ago

        https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45926849

        Besides the political implications, I think we should try to find an objective taxonomy, it's clear that privacy VPNs and network security VPNs are different products semantically, commercially and legally, even if the same core tech is used.

        Possibly the configuration and network topology is different even, making it a technically different product, similar to how a DNS might be either an authorative server for a TLD, an ISP proxy for an end user, a consumer blacklist like pihole, or an industrial blacklist like spamhaus. It would be a non trivial mistake to conflate any pair of those and bring one up in an argument that refers to the other.

      • delusional a day ago

        The exhausting "well actually" masks a corrosive argument, that if you can't enforce the rules in a rigid and rigorous fashion, the rule is fiat.

        It's not that he doesn't know the difference. He's making the argument that since there's no _technical_ difference there can be no legal difference.

      • fragmede a day ago

        Tailscale is really not that hard to set up. There's an Apple TV app for it, even. And who doesn't have some friend in another state or country that would like an Apple TV?

    • protocolture a day ago

      >I connect to my residential ISP in the USA via VPN all the time and have never had issues with being blocked for VPN use.

      Bit of a non sequitur, you would have to outline your entire usage pattern to even submit that as N=1.

      GEOIP providers dont sit on your home network. They do accept data from third parties, and are themselves (likely) subscribed to other IP addressing lists. Mostly they are a data aggregator, and its garbage in > garbage out.

      If someone, say netflix, but other services participate, flag you as having an inconsistent location, they may forward those details on and you can get added to one of these lists. You might see ip bans at various content providers.

      But the implementation is so slapshod that you can just as likely, poison a single ip in a CGNAT pool, and have it take over a month for anyone to act on it, where some other users on your same ISP might experience the issue.

      These things can also be weighted by usage, larger amounts of traffic are more interesting because it can represent a pool of more users, or more IP infringement per user.

      You can also get hit from poor IP reputation, hosting a webserver with a proxy or php reverse shell, or a hundred other things.

      (Also, larger ISPs might deal with a GEOIP provider selling lists of VPN users that include their IP address space, legally, rather than just going through the process of getting the list updated normally. This means the GEOIP providers can get skittish around some ISPs and might just not include them in lists)

      • zinekeller a day ago

        There is even a single company in the unique position to actually tell where exactly(-ish, considering CGNAT exists) where an IP address is located: Google. They do use the "enhanced location" data on Android devices to pinpoint where an IP is, so a single Android device can actually change fings for Google (and YouTube).

      • mycall a day ago

        > You can also get hit from poor IP reputation, hosting a webserver with a proxy or php reverse shell, or a hundred other things.

        or in my case, have a VM on same subnet as other poor actors and thus get bad rep from others.

    • Lapel2742 a day ago

      >Maybe they mean commercial VPN providers that run on the cloud?

      I just tried it with a well known commercial VPN and I had no problems accessing the site and its music content.

jijijijij a day ago

Yes, and email is decentralized in theory...

If using a VPN for access is forbidden by the ToS, you only need to detect a VPN connection once to prove violation.

The IPv4 address space to consider is limited and it is technically absolutely feasible to exhaustively scrape and block the majority of VPN endpoints. Realistically any VPN provider will have some rather small IPv4 subnets make do, shit's expensive. More so, for the trivial case, VPN anonymization works best, when many people share one IP endpoint, naturally the spread is limited. There are VPN providers, some may even be trustworthy, which have the mission of "flying under the radar" with residential IPs and all, but they are way, waaaay more expensive. For most people that's no option.

IPv6 is a different matter, but with the very increase in tracking and access control discussed here, that may be even more of a reason, IPv6 is not going to be a thing any time soon....

Thinking about it, maybe this AI monetization FOMO and monopoly protectionism, will incidentally lead to a technological split of the web. IPv4 will become the "corpo net" and IPv6 will be the "alt net". I think there may be a chance to make IPv6 the cool internet of the people, right now!

  • ranger_danger 21 hours ago

    > you only need to detect a VPN connection once to prove violation

    But an IP address is not a person (legally in the US at least), and many IPv4 addresses get re-used fairly often. My home 5G internet changes IP every single day, and it's a constant struggle because other users often get my IP blocked for things I didn't do. I cannot even visit etsy.com for example. Just for fun I even checked 4chan and the IP was banned for CP, months before I ever had this particular IP (because I'm paranoid and track all that stuff).

    • jijijijij 20 hours ago

      > But an IP address is not a person (legally in the US at least)

      That's a completely different matter (and still probably reasonable suspicion for a search, anyway). If an account/service ID evidently uses a service through a VPN there is no uncertainty of ToS violation. Of course someone could have hacked your account and used a VPN, it doesn't ultimately prove you did it, but nevertheless the account can be flagged/blocked correctly for VPN usage.

      > many IPv4 addresses get re-used fairly often

      The VPN's servers won't be using changing, "random" IPs. That's something ISPs do when assigning residential IPs. VPNs with residential IPs are not common. (I am not sure those VPNs are even really legal offerings.)

      If your ISP uses NAT for its subnet space, you could argue it's technically similar to a VPN. However, same as with VPN exit scraping/discovery, those IP spaces can be determined and processed accordingly. I am also sure those ISP subnets for residential IPs are actually publicly defined and known. Eg. the Vodafon IP may get temporarily flagged for acute suspicious behavior, but won't get your account flagged for VPN violation, or even blocked permanently, since it's known to be the subnet of a mobile ISP, which uses NAT.

      Additionally, I presume e.g. SoundCloud prohibits anonymizing VPNs, not everything that's technically a VPN or similar.

      • kube-system 8 hours ago

        And also it doesn't matter what the legally provable significance of an IP address is for the purposes of violating a ToS. A ban from SoundCloud is not a court proceeding. ToS agreements are allowed to have arbitrary rules, and they routinely do.

makeitdouble a day ago

As long there isn't a critical risk, these kind of business decisions won't aim for certainity.

They probably assume some amount of collateral damage, a small number of VPN users still flying under the radar, the bulk of VPN users being properly targeted, and the vast majority of users not noticing anything.

dJLcnYfsE3 a day ago

It is easier to block all non-residential addresses, than block VPNs. As an added "bonus" it also kills personal VPNs running on VPS. VPNs in residential space exist but are sold as "premium" product.

  • ranger_danger 21 hours ago

    yes and those users that happen to have their bw sold as residential VPN will be caught in the crossfire... many times they are not even aware of it because it's something buried in a ToS they didn't read for some random app.

reisse a day ago

Big part of the Internet blanket ban countries, why do you think VPNs are any different?

  • IAmBroom 20 hours ago

    Countries can be isolated at the physical junctions (in the case of a country as restrictive as NK).

    Banning by a hosted IP amongst billions of other IPs is different.

giancarlostoro 20 hours ago

Hell, I remember malware (Trojans / RATs) from the 2000s that allowed you to use your victims IP as your personal proxy.

  • szszrk 20 hours ago

    Nowadays it's called "residential IP proxy".

    A lot of shady shit under that term. Used by all the harmful services - scammers, AI crawlers... :)

    • giancarlostoro 20 hours ago

      Now that you mention it, I never used those, but I always did wonder how they do those.

      • jabroni_salad 19 hours ago

        Someone googles "free VPN" so they can watch region locked videos and now their connection is a part of that network too. They may or may not realize that this is the arrangement.

citizenpaul 13 hours ago

Maybe its a trick and they are logging all the people on VPN's trying to see if they are blocked over the next 24 hr. Then they can take the data and start blocking it lol. Maybe not lol?

polski-g a day ago

MTU detection is the easiest one. Sucks for people with ISPs that don't do 1500 bytes but those are rare.

  • joecool1029 a day ago

    > but those are rare.

    yeah sure, if you ignore the existence of literally every mobile isp.

  • xiconfjs a day ago

    Isn‘t sub-1500 bytes the norm for residential internet access? (DOCSIS and DSL with PPPoE are the most common access protocols here in Germany)

  • zinekeller a day ago

    looks at Japan, UK (OpenReach), and a lot of other places still using PPPoE (on fiber!) for complicated reasons

    • cbzbc a day ago

      Some of those (including many providers on Openreach) will support mini-jumbo frames that allow an MTU of 1500 inside pppoe.

    • [removed] a day ago
      [deleted]
  • ranger_danger 20 hours ago

    Hard disagree... there are still a vast many providers around the world doing < 1500, such as PPPoE DSL.