TechTakes

1533 readers

178 users here now

Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.

This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.

For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

dgerard@awful.systems

LLM training bots are a plague (pod.geraspora.de)

submitted 1 week ago by mapto@feddit.bg to c/techtakes@awful.systems

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Evidence for the DDoS attack that bigtech LLM scrapers actually are.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pcouy@lemmy.pierre-couy.fr 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

CIDR ranges (a.b.c.d/subnet_mask) contain 2^(32-subnet_mask) IP addresses. The 1.5 I'm using controls the filter's sensitivity and can be tuned to anything between 1 and 2

Using 1 or smaller would mean that the filter gets triggered earlier for larger ranges (we want to avoid this so that a single IP can't trick you into banning a /16)

Using 2 or more would mean you tolerate more fail/IP for larger ranges, making you ban all smaller subranges before the filter gets a chance to trigger on a larger range.

This is running locally to a single f2b instance, but should work pretty much the same with aggregated logs from multiple instances

[–] froztbyte@awful.systems 3 points 1 week ago

I'm aware of the construction of a CIDR prefix, I meant what are you using to categorise IPs from requests to look up mask size? whois? using published NIC/RIR data? what's in BGP/routedumps? other?