Re:The unintended consequences of blocking IP addresses
by Nextgrid on Thursday December 29, 2022 @07:11PM
(#34179906)
Simply having a lot of traffic with differing user-agents/TCP/TLS stacks (yes, CF does fingerprint those too) will often look like a proxy and trigger captchas, even if there's nothing actually malicious about the traffic itself. I guess CF manually maintains lists of known NAT exit IPs to relax these restrictions for major carrier-grade NATs (mobile networks, etc) as they'd have the same problem otherwise.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The unintended consequences of blocking IP addresses
by acdha on Thursday December 29, 2022 @07:45PM
(#34180178)
They also do a lot of things to identify discrete real users - I asked because normally it’s not as simple as a NAT triggering this, especially once people establish reputation within a session. I’ve had multiple times where someone reported that as a problem for our sites and then investigated and found that they did have a system with malware, or a browser extension changing their behavior enough to look like a bot.
Re:The unintended consequences of blocking IP addresses
by grepfru_it on Thursday December 29, 2022 @10:58PM
(#34181633)
>or a browser extension changing their behavior enough to look like a bot.
You run privacybadger? To CF purgatory for you!