Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:OP
Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.
Archive
Archives

Contents


[edit] Active Members

Are there ANY actual members of this WikiProject out there? Calvin 1998 Talk Contribs 08:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, me, Zzuuzz, and Crazytales. Though, Crazytales hasn't edited the page in a while. Those are the ones I know of. And, of course, ClueBot IV and ClueBot. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 01:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I havent done any editing on the page in a bit due to other time constaints but still willing to do some work, currently working on a better TOR checker. Q T C 22:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I go through them from time to time. I generally make sure that IPs are listed for some time, due to the very high dropout rate of open proxies. The meta-wiki aspect of this project appears dead however. There are divergent policies on open proxies between wikis, suggestions for cross-wiki blocking, and a policy here which places less emphasis on prohibition. I wonder what the future of this project is. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd join and help out, but nobody has responded to my requests to add me to the verified users list. (I'm a huge computer nerd, have experience with proxies and interpreting portscans, and have Nmap and Tor installed on my computer) Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TOR

I was wondering, if I could get some of the admin members of this project, to take a look at User:SQL/Funky TOR, and, consider reviewing some of these blocks. Yes, some listed are still TOR (not many, I estimate about a 2% failure rate), due to network congestion, IP hopping, flipping, or, etc. I'd appreciate the help, if any of you have the time to do so, thanks! SQLQuery me! 07:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is what I came up with. Q T C 03:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
And this page for all the TOR nodes that are unblocked. Q T C 04:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
To reply to myself again, just what is the policy for unblocking ex-TOR nodes? Surely they dont stay banned indef? Q T C 04:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
We've been unblocking them, mostly. Careful to check it out, however. In some cases, some users actually blocked them (say, as "Blocked proxy") for other reasons, and then, a third party came by and tagged the page as {{tor}}. I usually check over the talkpage, the block log, the torstatus, and whatnot, when unblocking. SQLQuery me! 11:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I wonder why I come up with more than you, as far as blocked {{tor}} goes? BTW, you may want to limit that to the user_talk namespace :) I doubt anyone's monobook is blocked :) How are you determining torstatus? I use a combination of DNSBL's SQLQuery me! 11:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
A fresh copy of the Tor Directory, it's updated regularly and in MySQL so its easy to query against, got my copy here Q T C 16:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
From the blocking policy: "blocks on open or anonymous proxies should be undone once it is confirmed that they have been closed;". I would suggest some caution in removing blocks, especially relying on online checkers such as as3344.net or DNSBLs. Some admins will indef-block any IP which even looks a little like an open proxy, or is highlighted in a DNSBL list for even a day, whereas other admins may make more extensive checks the results of which may not be immediately obvious. Of particular relevance are asynchronous exit nodes (eg 83.15.197.2) and by the same measure IPs which could be CGI proxies, and anonymisers such as anonymizer.com, or even other types of open proxy (which are also immune to port scanning). Such things are usually noted in the block log or talk page, but may not always be obvious. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed change to {{Proxyip2}}

I'm suggesting a change to Proxyip2 (and have asked recent users to opine here)...

Line 13 (TOR link) is currently http://www.ippages.com/?ip
I'm suggesting a change to http://www.as3344.net/is-tor/?args

I find the "Kewlio.net Limited [AS3344] -- TOR node checker" to be much simpler to check just for a TOR check, rather than having to sift through the ippages to find the right line... Comments, suggestions, would be greatly appreciated! SkierRMH (talk) 04:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I do too, and it can't be that controversial of a change. If you could also put some sort of open proxy checker on that (if it's even possible), that would also be appreciated. Calvin 1998 Talk Contribs 04:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the AS3344 one is MUCH simpler. SQLQuery me! 05:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Delete Err, I mean, go for it. Agree Q T C 07:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I've absolutely no objections if it makes things easier for the checkers. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 08:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
If the new one is reliable, better and thrust worthy, I have no object to the change. --Appletrees (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, change it it's a better link, although it is less conclusive - with as3344 you have to make a further check on what exits the node allows. If you're changing the template I would also suggest replacing the link to cwi[1] with one to robtex[2] as this provides similar information but better access to DNS and c-net info which is useful for web proxies and anonymisers. -- zzuuzz (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
If you're wanting something like that, I could throw up something similar to as3344, but with the exit information. Q T C 15:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Try this Q T C 15:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I like the Tor checker from The Dark Citadel, due to the detailed information it gives. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 00:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The Dark Citadel does give good detailed info - stable & reliable? SkierRMH (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That's the only downside, it's my site, and I'm not a major ISP like kewlio so I can't guarantee uptime quite as well as they can. Q T C 14:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
While I know little about the topic, I've certainly found the Kewlio link simpler. Dan (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Without any replies for about a week, and the general consensus being it was a good idea, I went ahead a made the change, put a link to this discussion in the edit summary so anybody who disagrees can find it. Q T C 06:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of 131 open proxies

I stumbled across a list at www.blogging4.com and I have posted it at User:A. B./Sandbox4. I don't have access to efficient port-scanning tools and I am not a verified user. On top of that, I'm tied up with other things.

If someone works on this list, please mark it up as you go so that others won't cover the same ground.

Happy hunting/scanning. --A. B. (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:192.114.67.114

From meta:User talk:Pathoschild:


Hello, you blocked this address as an open proxy; we have blocked it on HE WP due to the same reason.

I was told today that this IP belongs to a public library, hence the amount of vandalism. Can you check again whether this is in fact an open proxy? If it is, we'll keep it blocked. If not, we may use shorter blocks when observing vandalism.

Regards, Odedee 02:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

bzq-114-67-114.static.bezeqint.net (192.114.67.114):
Not shown: 1693 closed ports
PORT     STATE    SERVICE
22/tcp   open     ssh
80/tcp   open     http
3128/tcp filtered squid-http
8081/tcp open     blackice-icecap

PORT   STATE SERVICE    VERSION
80/tcp open  http-proxy Squid webproxy 2.5.STABLE7
The scan results show that port 80 is open and used by a squid service. A misconfiguration or software vulnerability may leave it open to attack, but it's not necessarily an open proxy as-such. Port 8081 might be a firewall, or it might be a trojan or other vulnerability.
It might be open; it has been a long time since I did any open proxy scanning, so I don't remember the specifics on how to be more conclusive. Try posting a message on w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject on open proxies with the above data, and someone there will be able to answer more definitively. —{admin} Pathoschild 21:31:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone verify whether this address is indeed an open proxy, or have different reasoning why it should be kept blocked indefinitely? Odedee (talk) 04:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 200.158.136.204

I'm not sure how reliable the ClueBot reports are, but I was able to make a null edit to the sandbox using 200.158.136.204 (talk · contribs), despite User:ClueBot IV/WPOPreports/200.158.136.204 resulting in no open proxy. Spellcast (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] They are just Datacenter IPs

This is actually pretty dumb, The proxies are run on Datacenter IPs. Not residential IP addresses. There is no need for someone editing wikipedia threw a datacenter IP. Why not just block non-residental IP addresses and save yourself the headache. 99.249.175.178 (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cluebot screwup?

I've never posted here before, but an anonymous editor has been trolling around Talk:Young Earth creationism and related articles using an astonishing number of IPs, some of which the "Tor" link reports as Tor exit nodes. The following report was generated for one of them:

% % TOR (Anonymous-proxy) Node Checker % Copyright(c) 2008, Daniel Austin MBCS % % % TOR data is 838 seconds old. % % Checking TOR status for '24.195.126.244'... ACK % This is a TOR EXIT node (details below). % IP: 24.195.126.244 % Name: Phreakshow % Ports: 9001 9030 % Flags: Exit Fast Running V2Dir Valid

But Cluebot flagged this as not a tor node. Did I misunderstand the table syntax? What's up? silly rabbit (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently if ClueBot finds it's TOR blacklisted, it will still say "No open proxy". You have to click the link to the report to the DNSBL section and see for yourself. Oh, and please put a note after the || on the reports, otherwise you'll mess up the bot. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 01:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Am I at the right place?

I am an editor of the page Gundam and to my concern, there has been various non IPs coming in and drop down the same unsourced supposedly new series called Mobile Suit Gundam Aqua in which failed the google test for the English name as above and failed the Japanese(this is a Japanese meta-series) for both 機動戦士ガンダム AQUA and 機動戦士ガンダム アクア. The official site [3] have no news about it and none of the Japanese magazines including the official Gundam ACE magazine nor the blog Gunota famous for translating Japanese news to English got the news of having such series and the next TV series is the second season of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 which is going to be aired in October 2008. Thus it is considered vandalism and have been reverted quite a few times. first edit by IP address 124.13.70.46, second edit, this time with more made up numbers by a different IP also with minimal editing history using the same hit and run tactics. Third edit indentified as vandalism by a third IP 124.13.66.111 this time only concentrated on this particular page. This time the edit is by yet another IP and is obviously different from the previous ones, yet by the WHOIS info, all are from TELEKOM MALAYSIA BERHAD. Since the vandalism is random in time, and is persistent, I see no point in semi-protecting the page for a few months only blocking this specific person who seemingly got an incorrect info and believed it in the depth of his/her heart. If I am not in the right place, please point me to the correct place, thank you. MythSearchertalk 14:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Page Mess up ?

When I view the page I now see "|} |} |} |} |} |} |} |}" at the bottom. Just wondering is this actually meant to be there or has something gone wrong somewhere? Thanks. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think one of the bots might have done that - I've removed all but one. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 22:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
It's still not fixed. It got broke here ;) -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Woo! That means I broke it :D. /me says sorry =[ ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 17:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)