186
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 603:
Line 603: + + + + + +
Conservapedia:Desk/Abuse (view source)
Revision as of 21:26, December 2, 2008
, 21:26, December 2, 2008→Range Blocks: Some numbercrunching and a quick overview about security trade-offs
::::As I understand the range blocking system here, if you block a /16 range (81.210.0.0 to 81.210.255.255), you cannot go and unblock single IP's within that range. As I see the situation, you'd have to unblock the range and then finely tune a few block ranges that will not interfere with contributors. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 16:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)
::::As I understand the range blocking system here, if you block a /16 range (81.210.0.0 to 81.210.255.255), you cannot go and unblock single IP's within that range. As I see the situation, you'd have to unblock the range and then finely tune a few block ranges that will not interfere with contributors. [[User:Jallen|Jallen]] 16:16, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::::Isn't that what ''should'' have been done, anyway? Blocking 65k IPs to get a proxy that uses maybe... ten of them is massive overkill, no matter how often you scream "<s>Terrorists!</s> Vandals!". Also see below for some actual numbers. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)
:::We're talking about a form of security trade-offs here. In other terms: This site would be (quasi-)perfectly safe if we blocked every IP in existence. It would be very safe if every user had to go to Andy's house and personally apply (while hooked up to a lie detector) for the right to edit anything on CP. But if we did that, then practically nobody would join. The cost to join would be too high. If we leave the gates open or at least make our blocks a lot more precise to avoid splash damage, we scare off fewer people who could become valuable assets to us.
:::Likewise, if somebody signs up and finds out his IP was blocked and that he can't edit, he will likely move on instead of, oh, I don't know... ''share his knowledge''.
:::But I could almost swallow the "Protect CP against Internet Terrorists" argument if it was applied with more precision. For example, the 207.58.0.0/16 block covers 65,536 IPs. The [http://www.xroxy.com/webproxy611.htm URL] you gave shows that the ''network'' this proxy is operating in (which doesn't even mean that the proxy uses the entire network!) only uses 16,384 IPs (if I didn't miscalculate). That's ''a fourth''. This means that ''at least'' 75% of the range you blocked never had anything to do with the proxy. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 16:26, 2 December 2008 (EST)