Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Archives/Unblock/2011/February
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
74.208.134.1
- 74.208.134.1 · talk · contribs · block · log · stalk · Robtex · whois · Google · ipcheck · HTTP · geo · rangeblocks · spur · shodan
User talk:74.208.134.1 seems to be saying they are not using an open proxy. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - yeah, the ISP seems to be 1 & 1 Internet, i strongly doubt that this is an open proxy as i'm familiar with 1 & 1 Internet Services. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 18:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with Zzuuzz's proposal on the user talk of the above editor. The IP should get an account, and then ask for IP block exemption. The range block on 1&1 should be kept in place. A Google search for 74.208.128.0/18 brings up some past infelicities from that range. The block log for the range may be viewed at 74.208.128.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- {{opblocked}} -- This IP is covered by a long-term rangeblock placed by User:Zzuuzz, and there is no reason to lift it. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
91.121.31.193
- 91.121.31.193 · talk · contribs · block · log · stalk · Robtex · whois · Google · ipcheck · HTTP · geo · rangeblocks · spur · shodan
Says IP (currently in rangeblock) has been reassigned and is no longer open. Daniel Case (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- There is a /19 rangeblock in place on this range since 2006. The provider seems to be OVH, and a Google search for OVH brings up some bad news, for instance this forum post about spam from the range 91.121.0.0/16. Checking the contributions from from the wider /16 range I see mostly vandalism since July 1. I don't know what port to use to check whether the actual IP cited in this report is an open proxy. I hope somebody will look into whether extending the rangeblock to cover the entire /16 is reasonable. In this thread the OVH company is trying to defend their reputation. A Google search for OVH sas france open proxy gets a number of hits. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- A glance through the contributions of the /16 shows a very high proportion of banned users and open proxy-type edits, and whether open or not they are almost all web servers and VPNs. I turned down this IP's request - it resolves to stegosaure.linux-fr.net (stego- as in..). It's running ssh and other server services, and seems therefore to be an anonymising proxy or VPN. Using it as a proxy seems completely avoidable. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
- {{opblocked}} Open proxy or web server. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
- A glance through the contributions of the /16 shows a very high proportion of banned users and open proxy-type edits, and whether open or not they are almost all web servers and VPNs. I turned down this IP's request - it resolves to stegosaure.linux-fr.net (stego- as in..). It's running ssh and other server services, and seems therefore to be an anonymising proxy or VPN. Using it as a proxy seems completely avoidable. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
96.19.133.135
- 96.19.133.135 · talk · contribs · block · log · stalk · Robtex · whois · Google · ipcheck · HTTP · geo · rangeblocks · spur · shodan Says in unblock request that no one can connect outside of LAN, which user believes to be secure. Daniel Case (talk) 17:29, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the blocking admin did not leave any clues as to the specific proxy behaviour s/he found. I can't connect to the server at all at the moment, so I can't really say one way or the other. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
- This is the IP address of http://tnp.dyndns.org. Open that web site and click on 'network usage.' Dyndns and Squid certainly muddy the waters. Google finds one open proxy report from five months ago. Seems like this could be a network admin for a set of 11 machines who is experimenting with setting up services on his router. I left a question for this editor at User_talk:96.19.133.135. If there is no response in a reasonable time, the unblock request should be cleared. I would not have done the block on this much evidence, but we can't exonerate the guy either. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Can you actually access it? I haven't been able to get it to show anything period despite several attempts. I'm with you that the evidence here is not strong enough to block nor unblock. However shortening the duration of the block from 3 years to 6-12 months would probably be sensible as it's on a cable provider and the IP will likely shift in that period of time..... Sailsbystars (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- You can't open http://tnp.dyndns.org? EdJohnston (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's serving on 8080, not 80. (Courtesy of http://www.yougetsignal.com/tools/open-ports/). EdJohnston (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can't open the web link, I get a timeout error. When I try to connect on 8080 instead I get connection reset. My attempted port scans of ports 1-100 get host down errors. Very strange. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I notice from the search results than it ran Tor for a short time, over four months ago, and that it has also hosted a personal wiki. I'm inclined to agree with Ed that it's a closed and private IP for the most part, but would be interested to hear their response to Ed's questions. Asking them to temporarily close any open ports is also a useful strategy in such cases. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, I can't open the web link, I get a timeout error. When I try to connect on 8080 instead I get connection reset. My attempted port scans of ports 1-100 get host down errors. Very strange. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- I think it's serving on 8080, not 80. (Courtesy of http://www.yougetsignal.com/tools/open-ports/). EdJohnston (talk) 05:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- You can't open http://tnp.dyndns.org? EdJohnston (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Can you actually access it? I haven't been able to get it to show anything period despite several attempts. I'm with you that the evidence here is not strong enough to block nor unblock. However shortening the duration of the block from 3 years to 6-12 months would probably be sensible as it's on a cable provider and the IP will likely shift in that period of time..... Sailsbystars (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- This is the IP address of http://tnp.dyndns.org. Open that web site and click on 'network usage.' Dyndns and Squid certainly muddy the waters. Google finds one open proxy report from five months ago. Seems like this could be a network admin for a set of 11 machines who is experimenting with setting up services on his router. I left a question for this editor at User_talk:96.19.133.135. If there is no response in a reasonable time, the unblock request should be cleared. I would not have done the block on this much evidence, but we can't exonerate the guy either. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the blocking admin did not leave any clues as to the specific proxy behaviour s/he found. I can't connect to the server at all at the moment, so I can't really say one way or the other. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
82.202.112.250
- 82.202.112.250 · talk · contribs · block · log · stalk · Robtex · whois · Google · ipcheck · HTTP · geo · rangeblocks · spur · shodan Says it's not an open proxy. Daniel Case (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hesitant to unblock. Procseebot is usually very effective at detecting open proxies and the detection was recent (about a month ago). Furthermore, it was previously a proxy in 2008 [1]. It's not currently open under the block rationale or earlier proxy listing, but I think we need to carefully examine the range which may harbor a proxy on a relatively dynamic IP. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)It was apparently open for a few days in January. I agree the access proxy may have moved around the range, but I've opted for the benefit of the doubt and unblocked it. A month is a fairly long time for an exit IP - they move around as well. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- There is also a remarkable amount of good contributors on the range (and no sign of another proxy that I could find), so it's probably best to unblock. Sailsbystars (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)It was apparently open for a few days in January. I agree the access proxy may have moved around the range, but I've opted for the benefit of the doubt and unblocked it. A month is a fairly long time for an exit IP - they move around as well. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Hesitant to unblock. Procseebot is usually very effective at detecting open proxies and the detection was recent (about a month ago). Furthermore, it was previously a proxy in 2008 [1]. It's not currently open under the block rationale or earlier proxy listing, but I think we need to carefully examine the range which may harbor a proxy on a relatively dynamic IP. Sailsbystars (talk) 18:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
98.236.176.75
- 98.236.176.75 · talk · contribs · block · log · stalk · Robtex · whois · Google · ipcheck · HTTP · geo · rangeblocks · spur · shodan
User:Avicennasis in #wikipedia-en-unblock stated that it's his IP, he "as changing my Tor config to update Meta:Tor_Exit_Node_Configuration and /mistakenly/ removed the entry to block Wikipedia." and has since corrected the issue. See User talk:98.236.176.75. Thanks, Snowolf How can I help? 19:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- {{declined}} Nothing we can do for the IP other than IPBE for the account, however the user appears to be editing again so the mistake may have already worked itself out. -- zzuuzz (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)