Buelldozer

There are residential IP providers that provide services to scrapers, etc. that involves them having thousands of IPs available from the same IP ranges as real users.

Now that makes sense. I hadn't considered rogue ISPs.

Sure, network blocking like this has been a thing for decades but it still requires ongoing manual intervention which is what these SysAdmins are complaining about.

fail2ban

I'm familiar with f2b. I even have several clients licensed with the commercial version but it doesn't fit this use case as there's no logon failure for it to work with.

I automatically ban any IP that comes from outside the US because there’s literally no reason for anyone outside the US to make requests to my infra.

I have systems setup with geo-blocking but it's of limited use due to the prevalence of VPNs.

also, use a WAF on a NAT to expose your apps.

This isn't a solution either because a WAF has no way to know what traffic is bad so it doesn't know what to block.

PoW has the advantage of being anonymous but I don't like it as solution for the simple fact that it uses more electricity. It's just not a very green solution.

Unsigned traffic = drop. Signed traffic that becomes an annoyance = drop. If signed traffic becomes more than an annoyance then you know who to report to the authorities and even in Brazil there's authorities.

In your example MS makes 65 Billion so if a few business units lost 13 Billion it's NBD, the overall company is still profitable. In this case though Gazprom lost 13 Billion across all units. What's worse is that there's no way for them to get more. They can't sell stock and as a Government Russia is basically broke.

Eh, arguing is fairly pointless and it's fair for them to point out that with the MC in charge of the LP the other types of libertarians no longer matter.

What will happen is that politicians will see this as another reason to push for everyone having their ID associated with their Internet traffic.

Yes, because like or not that's the only possible solution. If all traffic was required to be signed and the signatures were tied to an entity then you could refuse unsigned traffic and if signed traffic was causing problems you'd know who it was and have recourse.

I don't like this solution but it's the only way forward that I can see.

what would be the solution?

Simple, not allowing anonymous activity. If everything was required to be crypto-graphically signed in such a way that it was tied to a known entity then this could be directly addressed. It's essentially the same problem that e-mail has with SPAM and not allowing anonymous traffic would mostly solve that problem as well.

Of course many internet users would (rightfully) fight that solution tooth and nail.

I too read Drew DeVault's article the other day and I'm still wondering how the hell these companies have access to "tens of thousands" of unique IP addresses. Seriously, how the hell do they have access to so many IP addresses that SysAdmins are resorting to banning entire countries to make it stop?

I believe you completely about all these checks and balances

This isn't a "checks and balances" thing. The Governor of Minnesota has the authority to order actual military firepower, like tanks and helicopters, to maintain order at the facility.

What makes you think Walz would be any different?

Hochul is a corrupt hack, Walz is not.

its “how will you stop him”.

The State of Minnesota has its own force capabilities. Tim Walz could ring the facility with State Guard, order tanks to sit in the parking lot, and have combat helicopters flying over the facility 24x7. THAT is how its stopped. The State of Minnesota isn't a Court, it actually has the ability to enforce things using military firepower.

I don’t really see him presenting much of a problem.

People like you really aren't worth talking too. Sure bub, a Governor isn't much a problem. Uh huh.