Hi, I read some reports on this list where people get random IPs scanning/probing ports. I have that same issue of course. I use a combination of fail2ban and some hooks in my software to build up a blacklist of IPs over time. My question is if it's feasible to have a bitfolk-hosted blacklist of IPs. If we were all to report our probes and scans into a (to-be-build) bitfolk system, we'd probably protect each other more quickly and effectively. Of course I am not certain if that's an option, (e.g. not sure if the inbound routers are powerful enough) but maybe Andy could comment? Conrad

On 10/11/2019 10:56, Andy Smith wrote: Totally agree. The software now handles HEAD like GET, and all is quiet. Regards Ian -- Ian Hobson Tel (+351) 910 418 473

Then my point is perhaps even more valid, and also raises questions about unwanted censorship. How would I opt out if I needed to? Perhaps I want to analyse such traffic, or use it to test my own protection software. One man’s scat is another man’s fetish. This seems to me far too problematic for what little benefit there is. Chris — Chris Smith <space.dandy(a)icloud.com>

Hi Conrad, On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 11:30:50AM +0000, Conrad Wood wrote: At the moment I am also using Fail2Ban for SSH attackers and dictionary attacks against a few different web apps. Last time we talked about this on the list people suggested I use multiple different jails with much longer ban times for repeat offenders, so I started doing that too. I currently null route them rather than firewall them but that's much of a muchness. http://strugglers.net/~andy/blog/2019/09/04/fail2ban-iptables-and-config-ma… That is happening on each host (and even on each of BitFolk's own guests) without sharing the bans. I've often thought about sharing some sort of database. …so when I start thinking about sharing some sort of database, my next thought is, "could the customers contribute to and benefit from that as well?" It's been on my mind from time to time! I'm not really worried about load of it. It's probably beneficial to drop a packet rather than have it go through the router, through the hypervisor, into the guest, be logged as objectionable, do all that again and be dropped in the guest's firewall. My major concern is how to prevent customers (and me) from accidentally or maliciously blocking too many things for everyone else. Do you have any ideas? After that, my lesser concerns are around how much work this would be: - Presumably it is going to need some sort of REST API for submission and querying. - As the ban actions would be happening in a device that you don't have control of, possibly there would need to be reporting of the packets that have hit the ban for you in particular. Otherwise any time anything network-wise goes wrong, you're going to be in the dark about whether it's down to this. - This doesn't sound like a service that people would pay for, or even be so impressed by that it would influence a purchasing decision. That doesn't stop me from considering improvements like this but it does mean that it would happen at the expense of something else that needs doing. Copping out and just making a blocklist that people can choose to use themselves or not seems easier: at least they can see themselves what they are dropping. But then it's questionable if there is any value to that beyond just using existing blocklists. Cheers, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting