/next/ - Infinity Next

I didn't understand at all until someone described it as a privacy concern. That makes a lot more sense to me.

I think boards like /v/ or GamerGate boards would want to disable it or add different a set of rules, but /b/ would want to keep things pruned.

>>59

>I didn't understand at all until someone described it as a privacy concern.

This could be solved by not recording IP addresses, just a hash of them.

>>63

I've historically used IPs to ban entire ISPs (Amazon, to be precise) during massive attacks on the site.

At some point this guy was spamming Anita Sarkeesian videos on then-/gg/ and every IP was coming from an Amazon server. After a few hours one-at-a-time bans, I shut down literally hundred of thousands of IPs that belonged to the Amazon cluster for a few days. This stopped the attack.

Hashing IPs would debilitate global moderation.

There's also an issue that IPs are VERY, VERY easy to make rainbow tables for. There is a finite number of IPs and in IPv4 that range is actually really small comparatively. If a malicious entity or government seized the software to get an IP, they could build a rainbow table in a matter of hours that effectively broke the protection.

The only other thing I can think of is enhancing my autopruner to be able to remove IP data after X days as well.

>>66

>The only other thing I can think of is enhancing my autopruner to be able to remove IP data after X days as well

Seems like a good solution.

>>66

the thing to do is counter-attack the attackers

no use being a patsy for the spammers

where are the warbots?

>>57

it's a non-issue. many people, including myself for a time, maintain archives of various chan sites for various reasons including making them publicly accessible. if you don't want something recorded then don't post it in public.

>>66

ip bans are depreciated, about 10 years ago, deal with it and find an actual solution. long term ip bans only hurt people who are technically inept and/or people who value anonymity. relying on ip bans on an 'anonymous' image board is frankly absurd.

>>161

I had the idea of not even allowing bans, just using deletions but that would be a radical idea.

IP bans need to stay intact, even if their time is capped, because it halts attacks, especially automated ones. Even if they can get around it it becomes increasingly difficult.

>>146

If it were legal, then yes.

Reverse DDoS the fucks back to the stone age.

HACKER WARS NOW.

>>66

I believe ALL IPs should expire after a week. Keep logs for no more than a week at most.

>>164

Is it possible to have boards trigger captcha authentication upon sudden influxes of connections? That should halt automated attacks without requiring IPs.

>>246

Yea, that's may be the best way to deal with things. It'd probably let in a lot more spam, though, so I'd have to be careful with those settings.

>>161

Could do browser fingerprinting

:^)