Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> The people most likely to get caught by these systems are exactly the ones who care most about their privacy, and not the bots that they are apparently targeting.

In my brief experience with abuse mitigation, connections coming from VPNs or unusual IP ranges were very significantly more likely to be associated with abuse.

It depends on your users. VPNs aren’t common at all, even though you hear about them a lot on Hacker News. For types of social sites where people got banned for abuse (forums) the first step to getting back on the forum was always to sign up for a VPN and try to reconnect. It got so bad that almost every new account connecting via VPN would reveal itself as a spammer, a banned member trying to return, or someone trying to sock puppet alternate accounts for some reason.

The worst offenders are Tor IP addresses. Anyone connecting from Tor was basically guaranteed to have bad intentions.

I heard from someone who dealt with a lot of e-mail abuse that the death threats, extortion, and other serious abuse almost always came from Protonmail or one of the other privacy-first providers that I can’t remember right now. He half-jokingly said they could likely block Protonmail entirely without impacting any real users.

It’s tough for people who want these things for privacy, but the sad reality is that these same privacy protections are favored by people who are trying to abuse services.



The idea that normal people don't use proton is incredibly wrong. Same with VPNs to a large extent.

I work a customer facing email job and loads of people use Proton across demographics and industries


About what percentage of “normal people” who are email users would you estimate use Proton?


> In my brief experience with abuse mitigation, connections coming from VPNs or unusual IP ranges were very significantly more likely to be associated with abuse.

Correlating these factors with abuse implies that you already have methods of identifying abuse per se, independently of these factors. Is there no feasible way of just blocking the abuse itself when it begins, or developing much more proximate indicators to act on?

> The worst offenders are Tor IP addresses. Anyone connecting from Tor was basically guaranteed to have bad intentions.

Do you handle this by blocking known Tor exit node IPs entirely, or just adding hurdles to attempts to post from those IPs?

> It’s tough for people who want these things for privacy, but the sad reality is that these same privacy protections are favored by people who are trying to abuse services.

But naturally P(A|B) and P(B|A) are two different things.


The solution is for more people to use Tor routinely. Like I'm doing right now.


How does the Tor network counter abuse? Like, say you're hosting a service on the Tor network, what does the Tor network offer if anything to defend against e.g. DDoS attacks?


It's a solution for users because you can't afford to demand ID from your users (such as an IP address) if all your users quit when you do that.


Sure, but if the service keeps getting overwhelmed (financially or traffic-wise) or compromised (not even necessarily in the security sense but in the semantic purpose sense, like via spam floods on a message board) due to a lessened capability to combat abuse, then the user is worse off all over again, no?

All it would solve then is laundering Tor traffic from being probably malicious to being reputationally ambiguous. Though for a within-network service, that's probably assumed anyways - hard to run a Tor service if you assume all Tor users are malicious, that would be nonsensical.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: