💾 Archived View for gemi.dev › gemini-mailing-list › 000310.gmi captured on 2024-05-12 at 16:03:00. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2023-12-28)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Is anyone else getting slammed by 70.113.100.216? Does anyone know who this is? I don't mind my server being used by clients as a test platform, but making a few hundred requests per second is a bit much. Also, a bunch of bogus requests. Sigh. I don't really want to block it, but whoever is responsible for it is doing a bad job at parsing URLs and a request of "" is NOT a valid Gemini request. On the plus side, it did flush out a bug in GLV-1.12556, so there's that. -spc
On 25 July 2020 01:53:56 CEST, Sean Conner <sean at conman.org> wrote: > >Is anyone else getting slammed by 70.113.100.216? Does anyone know who >this is? I don't mind my server being used by clients as a test >platform, >but making a few hundred requests per second is a bit much. Also, a >bunch >of bogus requests. > > Sigh. > > I don't really want to block it, but whoever is responsible for it is >doing a bad job at parsing URLs and a request of "" is NOT a valid >Gemini >request. > >On the plus side, it did flush out a bug in GLV-1.12556, so there's >that. > > -spc Getting that slam as well here.
Same here, over 1494 requests since Jul 23 17:22:40. It ended at Jul 24 19:41:05 for me. That's in EST timezone. And yes, I can confirm the URL parsing was horribly done, approximately 300 of those requests (20%) resulted in 51 NOT FOUND errors, seemingly all because of incorrectly constructed relative URLs. If this happens again I will likely ban the IP. Thanks for bringing this to my/our attention, I wasn't aware of until now. Do you have some monitoring system in place? How did you find out? Cheers, makeworld
I had a few of these too. Not nearly as many though. Request counts by
minute (UTC):
3 2020-07-24T18:16
2 2020-07-24T18:24
1 2020-07-24T18:27
1 2020-07-24T19:36
29 2020-07-24T19:59
1 2020-07-24T20:00
22 2020-07-24T23:25
3 2020-07-24T23:33
2 2020-07-24T23:34
1 2020-07-24T23:40
24 2020-07-24T23:41
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 8:46 PM <colecmac at protonmail.com> wrote:
> Same here, over 1494 requests since Jul 23 17:22:40. It ended
> at Jul 24 19:41:05 for me. That's in EST timezone.
>
> And yes, I can confirm the URL parsing was horribly done, approximately
> 300 of those requests (20%) resulted in 51 NOT FOUND errors, seemingly
> all because of incorrectly constructed relative URLs. If this happens
> again I will likely ban the IP.
>
> Thanks for bringing this to my/our attention, I wasn't aware of until now.
> Do you have some monitoring system in place? How did you find out?
>
> Cheers,
> makeworld
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20200724/bdcf
a50d/attachment.htm>
On Sat, Jul 25, 2020 at 02:19:53AM +0200, Sigrid Solveig Hafl?nud?ttir wrote: > On 25 July 2020 01:53:56 CEST, Sean Conner <sean at conman.org> wrote: > > > >Is anyone else getting slammed by 70.113.100.216? Does anyone know who > >this is? I don't mind my server being used by clients as a test > >platform, > >but making a few hundred requests per second is a bit much. Also, a > >bunch > >of bogus requests. > > > > Sigh. > > > > I don't really want to block it, but whoever is responsible for it is > >doing a bad job at parsing URLs and a request of "" is NOT a valid > >Gemini > >request. > > > >On the plus side, it did flush out a bug in GLV-1.12556, so there's > >that. > > > > -spc > > Getting that slam as well here. Same at my gemini server. Brad
I had a few too:
1 2020-07-23T21:13:27Z
1 2020-07-24T18:16:29Z
43 2020-07-24T18:16:27Z
69 2020-07-24T18:16:28Z
On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 08:54:33PM -0400, Paul Boyd wrote:
> I had a few of these too. Not nearly as many though. Request counts by
> minute (UTC):
>
> 3 2020-07-24T18:16
> 2 2020-07-24T18:24
> 1 2020-07-24T18:27
> 1 2020-07-24T19:36
> 29 2020-07-24T19:59
> 1 2020-07-24T20:00
> 22 2020-07-24T23:25
> 3 2020-07-24T23:33
> 2 2020-07-24T23:34
> 1 2020-07-24T23:40
> 24 2020-07-24T23:41
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 8:46 PM <colecmac at protonmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Same here, over 1494 requests since Jul 23 17:22:40. It ended
> > at Jul 24 19:41:05 for me. That's in EST timezone.
> >
> > And yes, I can confirm the URL parsing was horribly done, approximately
> > 300 of those requests (20%) resulted in 51 NOT FOUND errors, seemingly
> > all because of incorrectly constructed relative URLs. If this happens
> > again I will likely ban the IP.
> >
> > Thanks for bringing this to my/our attention, I wasn't aware of until now.
> > Do you have some monitoring system in place? How did you find out?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > makeworld
> >
It was thus said that the Great colecmac at protonmail.com once stated: > Same here, over 1494 requests since Jul 23 17:22:40. It ended > at Jul 24 19:41:05 for me. That's in EST timezone. You probably didn't have a large site. Now that I have added 20 years of blog entries, it only stopped when I finally blocked it at the firewall about fifteen minutes ago. 230K packets (12M of network traffic) blocked, and it shows no sign of letting up, which tells me it's not being monitored. > Thanks for bringing this to my/our attention, I wasn't aware of until now. > Do you have some monitoring system in place? How did you find out? It's rather unorthodox, but I forward my server logs to my home server (not just Gemini, anything that's logged via syslog()). There, I have a program that displays the logs in real time and color coded [1][2]. I'm not
Thanks for pointing this out. I never read logs if everything works, so... I'm getting lots of requests to urls like gemini://hannuhartikainen.fi/twinwiki/Welcome,%20visitors%21/twinwiki/Welco me%252C%2520visitors%2521/_history/twinwiki/_edit/twinwiki/_create/twinwiki /_create/twinwiki/_help/twinwiki/_help/twinwiki/_index/twinwiki/_edit/twinw iki/_history/twinwiki/_edit/twinwiki/_create/twinwiki/_help/twinwiki/_histo ry/twinwiki/_help/twinwiki/_create/twinwiki/_history/twinwiki/_history/twin wiki/_history/twinwiki/_create/twinwiki/_create/twinwiki/_index/twinwiki/_h istory/twinwiki/_edit/twinwiki/_edit/twinwiki/_history/twinwiki/_help/twinw iki/_help/twinwiki/_history/twinwiki/_create/twinwiki/_help/twinwiki/_edit/ twinwiki/_index/twinwiki/_history Oops, I've written bugs once again! I do have this robots.txt, though: User-agent: gus Allow: / User-agent: * Disallow: / (I guess I should disallow even gus from twinwiki, or at least any non-content pages.) The crawler also breaks ansi.hrtk.in for other users while crawling (which disallows even gus in robots.txt). I couldn't figure out how to make Jetforce stop streaming if the client closes connection. The code is here if someone has pointers: https://github.com/dancek/ansimirror/blob/master/ansimirror.py Anyone have experience fighting misbehaving crawlers? Should we develop low-resource honeypots to exhaust crawler resources? Or start maintaining a community blacklist? -Hannu
On Sat, 25 Jul 2020, Hannu Hartikainen wrote: > Should we develop low-resource honeypots to exhaust crawler resources? > Or start maintaining a community blacklist? I'd start with hardening Gemini servers ... The server I've written has a bunch of hard limits (in particular, on the duration of requests and the number of concurrent CGI processes). It might be advisable to add some more back-pressure for the case where user-agents are generating obviously redundant requests to an excessive degree. I'd put that before trying honeypots and blacklists. Mk -- Martin Keegan, +44 7779 296469, @mk270, https://mk.ucant.org/
Got a little more than 9K requests in a few hours from this IP, at least it's good to know that my server on a Pi Zero handled this "load" gracefully.
Thanks for flagging - also getting slammed by this IP. If anyone has any decent automated methods for picking up and banning this traffic from gemini servers, plz share. I wonder if it's possible to configure a fail2ban jail for gemini servers? Anyone tried this? I'm not familiar enough with the server-side yet to know how I might go about this. On 25/07/2020 10:32, Julien Blanchard wrote: > Got a little more than 9K requests in a few hours from this IP, at least > it's good to know that my server on a Pi Zero handled this "load" > gracefully.
2200 hits in the last few days... I'm going to setup a fail2ban rule. Adapt the datepattern to your logfiles. Basically any successful connection counts as "a failed login attempt". Of these, you may have 20 in a 40s time window, which is what I think is a reasonable upper limit for humans and bots. If you're crawling the site faster than that, you get banned for 10min by the firewall. /etc/fail2ban/jail.d/alex.conf: [alex-gemini] enabled = true port = 1965 logpath = /home/alex/farm/gemini-wiki.log findtime = 40 maxretry = 20 /etc/fail2ban/filter.d/alex-gemini.conf: [Init] # 2018/08/25-09:08:55 CONNECT TCP Peer: "[000.000.000.000]:56281" Local: "[000.000.000.000]:70" datepattern = ^%%Y/%%m/%%d-%%H:%%M:%%S [Definition] # ANY match in the logfile counts! failregex = CONNECT TCP Peer: "\[<HOST>\]:\d+" I also activated the recidive rule in fail2ban. This means that people who get banned by fail2ban repeatedly get banned for even longer times (hours instead of minutes). This is in the first file again: /etc/fail2ban/jail.d/alex.conf: [recidive] enabled = true I use this system for my websites, my gopher sites, and now for gemini, too. The attached image shows what this looks like over time, using Munin. As you can see, almost all the bans are due to the websites. Cheers Alex -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Image-X1D7N0.png Type: image/png Size: 36409 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://lists.orbitalfox.eu/archives/gemini/attachments/20200725/b32e a25d/attachment-0001.png>
(Resending because it seems that my mail disappeared somewhere.) 2200 hits in the last few days... I'm going to setup a fail2ban rule. Adapt the datepattern to your logfiles. Basically any successful connection counts as "a failed login attempt". Of these, you may have 20 in a 40s time window, which is what I think is a reasonable upper limit for humans and bots. If you're crawling the site faster than that, you get banned for 10min by the firewall. /etc/fail2ban/jail.d/alex.conf: [alex-gemini] enabled = true port = 1965 logpath = /home/alex/farm/gemini-wiki.log findtime = 40 maxretry = 20 /etc/fail2ban/filter.d/alex-gemini.conf: [Init] # 2018/08/25-09:08:55 CONNECT TCP Peer: "[000.000.000.000]:56281" Local: "[000.000.000.000]:70" datepattern = ^%%Y/%%m/%%d-%%H:%%M:%%S [Definition] # ANY match in the logfile counts! failregex = CONNECT TCP Peer: "\[<HOST>\]:\d+" I also activated the recidive rule in fail2ban. This means that people who get banned by fail2ban repeatedly get banned for even longer times (hours instead of minutes). This is in the first file again: /etc/fail2ban/jail.d/alex.conf: [recidive] enabled = true I use this system for my websites, my gopher sites, and now for gemini, too. Cheers Alex
And my axe! Errm, by which I mean, yes, gemini.circumlunar.space has not been left out of this and I've seen just over 3,000 requests from that IP. On Sat Jul 25, 2020 at 11:18 AM CEST, Martin Keegan wrote: > I'd start with hardening Gemini servers ... Yes, indeed. The spec does have a status code (44) meaning "slow down!" intended to allow machine-readable communication of a rate limiting policy to bots. Of course, it can be ignored by malicious bots, but it should help against well-meaning but incompetent bots. And, if nothing else, serving up code 44 with no response body over and over again rather than serving up actual resources should spare the server some traffic, and also might slow down discovery of new URLs to hit by an overactive crawler. Anyway, to the best of my knowledge no server actually implements a rate limiting scheme using this status code, but I suppose the time has come, as it inevitably would. Posts like this one have been common for years on the gopher mailing list, which is precisely the reason I added such a status code. Let's see if it helps any... Cheers, Solderpunk
That's great - Thanks Alex. Will try this. On 25/07/2020 14:32, Alex Schroeder wrote: > (Resending because it seems that my mail disappeared somewhere.) > > 2200 hits in the last few days... > > I'm going to setup a fail2ban rule. Adapt the datepattern to your > logfiles. Basically any successful connection counts as "a failed login > attempt". Of these, you may have 20 in a 40s time window, which is what > I think is a reasonable upper limit for humans and bots. If you're > crawling the site faster than that, you get banned for 10min by the > firewall. > > > /etc/fail2ban/jail.d/alex.conf: > > [alex-gemini] > enabled = true > port = 1965 > logpath = /home/alex/farm/gemini-wiki.log > findtime = 40 > maxretry = 20 > > > /etc/fail2ban/filter.d/alex-gemini.conf: > > [Init] > # 2018/08/25-09:08:55 CONNECT TCP Peer: "[000.000.000.000]:56281" > Local: "[000.000.000.000]:70" > datepattern = ^%%Y/%%m/%%d-%%H:%%M:%%S > > [Definition] > # ANY match in the logfile counts! > failregex = CONNECT TCP Peer: "\[<HOST>\]:\d+" > > > I also activated the recidive rule in fail2ban. This means that people > who get banned by fail2ban repeatedly get banned for even longer times > (hours instead of minutes). This is in the first file again: > > > /etc/fail2ban/jail.d/alex.conf: > > [recidive] > enabled = true > > > I use this system for my websites, my gopher sites, and now for gemini, > too. > > Cheers > Alex > > > > > >
Solderpunk wrote: > > I'd start with hardening Gemini servers ... > > [...] > > Anyway, to the best of my knowledge no server actually implements a rate > limiting scheme using this status code, but I suppose the time has come, > as it inevitably would. I have filed a Jetforce issue to add this feature. https://github.com/michael-lazar/jetforce/issues/39 I'd be happy to see it in Molly Brown as well, and lots of other Gemini servers! makeworld
It was thus said that the Great Sean Conner once stated: > > Is anyone else getting slammed by 70.113.100.216? Does anyone know who > this is? I don't mind my server being used by clients as a test platform, > but making a few hundred requests per second is a bit much. Also, a bunch > of bogus requests. Okay, I was able to track down the party responsible. I won't go into how I did, or who they are because I don't want anyone piling up on the party responsible. I sent a message to said party about the issues, and hopefully, I should hear a resonse back, or at the very least, the issues will be resolved silently. -spc
> On Jul 26, 2020, at 03:02, Sean Conner <sean at conman.org> wrote: > > Okay, I was able to track down the party responsible. Well done! :)
---
Previous Thread: Open Source Proxy
Next Thread: [ANN] A new flight journal! gemini://cetacean.club