Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies/Archives/Unblock/2011/May
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
78.46.100.0/23
Reason: Requested unblock by 78.46.101.130. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- I can't find the original reason the range was blocked (i.e. the original proxy) nor is the IP in any blacklists. That said, this particular IP looks like someone's dedicated server or a shared hosting provider, which generally don't need a reason to edit wikipedia. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
- {{inconclusive}} (ec). I've replied there and turned down the request for similar reasons. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
75.68.225.164
- 75.68.225.164 · talk · contribs · block · log · stalk · Robtex · whois · Google · ipcheck · HTTP · geo · rangeblocks · spur · shodan
EraserGirl has requested unblock. I see no abuse from this IP or from her -- no other users show up on it or any of her IPs (per Checkuser). --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- Can't find any open ports through port scan. I'd say I'll unblock her now to end the collateral damage; if anybody finds my analysis was technically wrong and it's still an open proxy after all, please feel free to reblock as you consider necessary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not going to endorse your analysis at this time. I'm seriously concerned that the IP is still a proxy, as several proxy lists from today (4/3)[1][2] still list it as an open proxy, only now on a different port. Furthermore, there are a wide variety of ports listed, so the proxy appears to be port-hopping. Having said that, I haven't been able to get the server to proxy for me on any of the listing ports, but the
duck evidence is way too strong for an unblock. At a minimum, were I an admin I would leave a week long softblock on the IP. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just another update, I checked again, and I still found recent (i.e. last day or two) proxy lists with this IP in it. When I connect to the listed port, I get a weird download thingy that I haven't seen before. Not sure what to make of it. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- These results are absolutely typical of an infected zombie proxy. They're fairly difficult to pin down to use properly so the risk is not great, but it's probably worth keeping an eye on for another while. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- {{inconclusive}}. I've softblocked the IP for another month, as a probable zombie for a while yet. I get a continuing bad vibe about it, which the block should cover with minimal risk and collateral. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
- These results are absolutely typical of an infected zombie proxy. They're fairly difficult to pin down to use properly so the risk is not great, but it's probably worth keeping an eye on for another while. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- Just another update, I checked again, and I still found recent (i.e. last day or two) proxy lists with this IP in it. When I connect to the listed port, I get a weird download thingy that I haven't seen before. Not sure what to make of it. Sailsbystars (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not going to endorse your analysis at this time. I'm seriously concerned that the IP is still a proxy, as several proxy lists from today (4/3)[1][2] still list it as an open proxy, only now on a different port. Furthermore, there are a wide variety of ports listed, so the proxy appears to be port-hopping. Having said that, I haven't been able to get the server to proxy for me on any of the listing ports, but the
202.90.98.2
- 202.90.98.2 · talk · contribs · block · log · stalk · Robtex · whois · Google · ipcheck · HTTP · geo · rangeblocks · spur · shodan
Could do with checking for an unblock. -- zzuuzz (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'm going to go for notaproxy. It appears to be an special internet gateway used by hotels and such where they charge for internet. It might also be an internet cafe or other such locale. Web on port 80 and telnet on port 23 both mention that particular software name. It is open on 3128 (a common proxy port), but it doesn't take my requests. I'm guessing it uses the port but is properly set up to only proxy for local traffic that has paid its internet bills. So yes, it has the open ports listed in the block log, but as far as I can tell they are being used for legit services. Sailsbystars (talk) 23:14, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
220.225.32.212
- 220.225.32.212 · talk · contribs · block · log · stalk · Robtex · whois · Google · ipcheck · HTTP · geo · rangeblocks · spur · shodan
I have no opinion on this, but the IP posted {{adminhelp}} on its talk page, which I take to be an unblock request. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 16 May 2011 (UTC) Reason: Requested unblock.
66.30.195.142
- 66.30.195.142 · talk · contribs · block · log · stalk · Robtex · whois · Google · ipcheck · HTTP · geo · rangeblocks · spur · shodan
Reason: Requested unblock. Comment has port number: 8080. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)