Absolutely, and this is why I refuse to run connected devices on my network that do run software I can reasonably trust. This is also why every computer, phone or appliance I own runs Linux. This includes my TV box, which I recently migrated to an x86 port of Android with Claude's help.
That is the least bad thing they could do btw. Unless your internet is data restricted, go for it if you want free cable. If questioned by your ISP (extremely unlikely but theoretically possible) pretend you have no idea what they're talking about.
Firewall it from your local network if you want to - it'll still work - they're not after that.
Interesting! According to this, a lot more going on beyond the residential proxy element, which was the only bit I had considered (or heard about). I wish there was an accompanying article with some more specifics.
> I get a hit in my vulnerability log, like in the threat log on my Palo Alto firewall, and it’s for a SCADA vulnerability. ... A SCADA vulnerability. This makes no sense. SCADA is the control systems used in large-scale industrial settings. Think pumps, valves, conveyor belts, compressors, elevators, railway switches. This is where SCADA systems live. Why in the world is this box that’s here to deliver TV and movies attempting to trigger a SCADA exploit on D3ada55’ network? This is very concerning.
Such things are threats to humanity imho. They can get us back to the times we couldn't exploit the internet to run a society.
There are plenty of people selling IPTV access on g2g, few bucks for a month, all TV channels from entire world. I am not sure if it is profitable to let such piracy boxes work forever, even with them being used as residential proxy, but I also don't know how low you can go if you skip middlemen.
I mean supply chain-attacks are everywhere. Smart-TV's with certain marketplace apps, IoT devices. Also, I'm surprised the white house's network is not monitored more.
> Residential proxy services sell access to everyday devices, letting customers send traffic through them so it appears to come from that device's network.
There are services you can pay for such that you can route internet traffic thru a specific IP in a specific part of the world. People (usually unwillingly and unknowingly) run software that effectively makes them part of a giant botnet. A computer running in Romania might have some kind of weather application or gambling/casino app that I could use to make an HTTP request as if I were on their network. So if you need access to 1,000 or 10,000 IP's to circumvent rate limits or perform crawling tasks, this is how you could do it.
There are companies that provide proxy services for scraping services, and residential proxies route through consumer networks (like Comcast) which is flagged less than a datacenter IP.
Many questionable TV streaming boxes pretend to deliver you video, but in reality they are also piggy backing on your personal ISP to power those companies.
It means some networked devices in there are being remotely piloted to tunnel network traffic to somewhere else. This scenario usually happens with more "unprofessional" ISPs, which sell bandwidth from their networked clients for people in need of such services.
Such as ignoring web scraping countermeasures, and DDoS.
So what? Packets flowing through machines is just how the internet works. Stop believing all this propaganda that other peoples papers are EVIL and if you route them you are getting in BIG BIG trouble. This is harmful messaging that does not reflect reality.
It's described at a high level in media often. Here's more detail though:
Person buys a product, or downloads some software - that unknowing to them, was reaching out to a central server elsewhere to establish a network tunnel. And over that tunnel, the other server routes traffic onto that person's home network. Which can then of course go onto the internet, and it appears like the traffic originated from their home internet connection.
Other people rent access to this network. The goal being, you have surreptitious access to appear as any one of tens of thousands of home network IP addresses on the public internet. Bad guys can use this to rotate through many different IP addresses when their access gets blocked because of malicious (or benign but unwanted) behavior on the internet. Residential IP addresses are more 'valuable' because they don't have the negative connotation that datacentre and commercial IPs can have, and they can be spread geographically or across many ISPs.
A very common way for people being a part of these residential proxy networks is by buying dodgy streaming boxes, and also installing shady apps on TV app marketplaces.
Honestly, I expect any of those free VPN services that require an app install to be doing precisely this. At this point, I just assume anything with "free" in it will cost me more than if I just paid for something instead.
You're right, a lot of 'free VPN' software also uses your own internet as a residential proxy. It's often mentioned in the ToS but the users don't read that.
It's definitely not all VPNs (typically the ones you pay for will buy their own hardware and internet connections in the places you can route your traffic through), but it is a common situation for the shadier (especially 'free') ones, and in that case it's usually not just a peer-to-peer thing, they make money by selling your connection to people who pay because they want a large pool of relatively reputable and disconnected IPs to send traffic through.
This isn't a theoretical problem either. My employer's website was being hammered by residential proxies a month ago. It wasn't until we setup WAF captcha rules that they mostly subsided. It wasn't even the typical exploit scanner. I don't know what the purpose was but it was effectively a DDoS.
Some good answers in this thread. I had the same question but I'm still a tad confused:
* I initially thought this meant someone in the WH network was using commercial proxies to appear as if they were exiting from a different network (which would align with "some user is firing up a proxy on their phone to exit in a different location")
* But then the description of residential proxies seemed to align more with traffic hitting an endpoint in the White House, and _exiting_ from the network there. But this didn't explain the timing (why isn't it 24/7).
* Finally it sounds like some person, legitimately on the WH network, has a device (cell phone, TV, whatever) that, when activated, is proxying outside traffic into the WH network.
I wouldn't call turning on CloudFlare's bot blocker an "absurd amount of effort" from the perspective of site owners.
But getting around it sure is annoying, sometimes I get flagged IP's from Comcast and can't visit sites like costco.com despite not doing any questionable stuff on my network.
Virtually all of it is the product of malware. This is like you saying that robbery is very important because you like buying cheap tools at pawnshops.
There exist services that will pay you a fraction of money to host their residential proxy service on a computer you own. But I do think the majority of residential proxies are hijacked.
There are providers who claim they are ethically sourced, and that users have consented. Although I guess many are users who don't know or care that it is happening.
Ethically, if someone just wants to play a free game and doesn't care about it, is it okay? How knowledgable does a user have to be in order to have informed consent?
> There are providers who claim they are ethically sourced, and that users have consented. Although I guess many are users who don't know or care that it is happening.
Betcha that means there was "consent" language on page 55 of some click-through EULA.
Most tools can be dual-use. Residential proxies are also used by malevolent actors to hack infrastructure or financial institutions and let some other poor soul get investigated for it. This is why we can't have nice things.
True, though unfortunately people can not be trusted to declare their intentions so the residential proxies will ultimately have to be sacrificed and given they are fairly easy to identify by behavior I could foresee the feds now having a reason to round 'em up faster. They already took out NetNut, IPIDEA, SocksEscort, Doppellganger and the "Kim Wolf" Offshoots.
Some of the more legit providers have KYC in place, and do literally require you to declare you intentions to open an account, and block certain traffic proactively unless you can prove a legitimate use.
They list the IP addresses of all the residential proxies? Is there a link to the netsets of all the IPv4 addresses they are using I can download once a day? (preferably over rsync but git over https is fine too)
I don't think even the most "ethical" providers are going to volunteer that information, since that defeats the entire purpose of having a residential proxy in the first place.
No...? That's a completely different question than what we were talking about above? The customers of a residential proxy who would be subject to KYC are the people using the addresses -- this has nothing to do with the exit addresses of those who have joined the network.
That's a completely different question than what we were talking about above?
In fairness to me, I did say "Most tools can be dual-use. Residential proxies are also used by malevolent actors to hack infrastructure or financial institutions and let some other poor soul get investigated for it. This is why we can't have nice things."
So it could be Alice. I know Alice has good intentions. It could be Bob, we know what Bob is up to but I will give him a pass regardless because Bob did nice things in the past. But then there is Mallory ... Mallory Malfoid is up to no good. I need to know which IP's are used by Alice and Bob so I can exclude them from my automated protections. Mallory will automatically get rate limited to 16kb/s, 1 HTTP request every 5 seconds and if they bounce around different residential proxies they get redirected to a bathtub regardless of which residential proxy they use.
And making DDoS-attacks nigh impossible to IP block.
Residential proxies are in many cases at least shady, both on the side of who uses them and for what and on providers that are often not above using dark pattern to hide them in some innocuous app for a smart-whatever that silently runs a proxy on a unaware user's connection. And in many places in the world if illegal stuff in done using your connection you are liable, regardless if you knew about it.
Residential proxies are a very important part of the internet
So important that we have to trick people into using them. Remember when folks were running SETI@Home? Of course you do, because it was widely thought to be a good thing, and folks willingly signed up.
How many would buy the "box" if the advertising were honest about what's actually in the box?
Seems like the president found a business opportunity and gave internal orders to rent out the network infrastructure to 'ethically sourced' providers :^) Jokes aside, might be some infected IoT crap.
The danger here, of course, is that while these compromised devices are currently being monetized in a relatively benign way (other than bandwidth costs to the user, which to be sure can be nontrivial)… it would be naive to assume that there isn't a Command and Control capability that can assign less benign tasking - or can be compromised to do so.
This also puts some of the troubling reports that politicians were bringing phones into SCIFs into context…
Not sure which direction you're intending this. The NSA is making special phones to protect politicians, or to make it easier to ensure they can read everything?
On a server that used to get below 1k HTTP requests a day, I've had several cases of mass scraping from these botnets exceeding 100req/s. The web is getting harder and harder to use due to all the anti-bot mechanisms site operators had to put up.
A compromised device inside the White House network could presumably be doing something _much_ worse than participating in a DDOS against random websites.
And it's right there in the second line of the article:
> One of the proxy services is a Russian company whose founder’s web hosting business was ground zero for cyberattacks against election systems in Arizona and Illinois in 2016.
Surely a Russian company known for cyberattacks against the US having direct access to the White House network is far more serious than just DDOSing random websites. This is espionage at the highest level. (Again.)
> The web is getting harder and harder to use due to all the anti-bot mechanisms site operators had to put up.
Indeed. I recently set up a bot on my local machine that I can interact with via Telegram. I gave it the ability to retrieve the contents of a URL via Playwright (with modifications). Basic things like getting the Readability view and getting the site as Markdown with links.
I was essentially mimicking the feature OpenAI etc offer where it can do a web search for you and get you the answer you seek. I just didn't want to pay a company for that feature.
It's not autonomous. It only acts when I tell it to. The actual search is via the Kagi API, but the URL contents is via Playwright. I also ensured it can't do lots of requests at a time. There's a mandatory (random) sleep of between 1 and 5 seconds between two requests.
In less than a week, I've been flagged. When I do a Google search (as a human), I have to prove I'm human. Many sites have simply blocked me - I can't buy stuff from various vendors[1], I cannot access several news sites, etc.
The thing is, I didn't really access that many sites with the bot! At most it's the equivalent of someone mildly addicted to the web. Yet they caught me quickly.
Obviously, I disabled the bot's capability to get site content. I wonder how long my IP will be in the blacklist.
I know some people will say "Good riddance" to the outcome and to what I did. I'd love to have a real, serious discussion on whether what I did was immoral. But whatever your thoughts on the matter, do ponder over the fact that the system has made it hard for average Joes like you and me to have this "feature", but if you pay a giant tech company a monthly fee, you can have it.
[1] Thankfully, Amazon didn't block me. In the past I'd avoid them, but now I'm in the dilemma where I don't want to buy stuff from sites that make it difficult for me to buy stuff from them!
That is entirely ISP dependent and many don't actually work like that. Your cable modem gets a specific IP for as long as Comcast or whoever sees fit, restarting does nothing on the WAN side.
Doesn't work like that, only on mobile phones you can toggle airplane mode to get a new ip assigned and cgnat makes sure mobile ips are "trusted" , but they fingerprint you beyond ip address
It depends on the DHCP part and your provider lease time. When you access the Internet through a modem and landline, it's an highly dynamical system, where it's difficult to guarantee every caller/user gets its own IP. Especially when IP sharing is used among the clients. Even more difficult it is with the mobile Internet. It's a constant connection loosing/reconnecting. Actually resetting and freeing up IPs for new devices, the whole time. With cable Internet (the TV cable) one is having a kind of stationary access point. The network provider can see it's topology and it never changes once a leafe has joined the network. I typically have the same access creds over months. Even when I restart my cable modem, it's still the same IP. When I was on modem, I could get a new IP every second of I wanted. Now I have to think twice, because I just can't get a new IP, even if is forcedly, not.
Expect to remain blocked, that's how defense works, some services plenty use will have is bot or known proxy exit node set to true, and some websites use the same defense services, request velocity is just one factor, if you don't have random human like scrolling and jitter with a bot, it's a dead profile walking, metaphorically speaking
I think that major gateways like Google and Cloudflare and Akamai are doing things like TLS-fingerprinting and smearing.
I normally use a VPN to access the Internet. It's an ordinary consumer-grade VPN, and I use it for pretty innocuous things like watching the international versions of Netflix or avoiding being geographically-profiled and charged more when I book travel. The VPN itself, I'm sure, is being used for all sorts of naughty stuff: when I look it up in whatismyip, it comes up as VPN, "abuse detected", and "residential proxy detected". I expect to get blocked occasionally on it and just pause the VPN then.
What I found surprising is that pausing the VPN doesn't always clear the CAPTCHAs. The next request will also fail, sometimes. For a while I was wondering if I have a residential proxy on my network, but I went hunting with lsof and bandwidth monitoring and a list of all the open connections through my router, and it seems clear. Yet even with VPN disabled, I'll get CAPTCHAs from Google and Cloudflare.
I suspect they're using browser/TLS fingerprinting and then smearing the results of that across bad IPs. If you connect to them through a known-bad IP, they not only will CAPTCHA you, but they will record a fingerprint of any data they can. Then if you connect again with that fingerprint, regardless of the IP, they block that too.
Ironically, if you are actually malicious, you can get around this pretty easily. Because you'll know not to use a fingerprintable browser, or to rotate fingerprints. So you have one completely separate identity on a given IP (that is not yours), and if it gets blocked, you roll up another completely separate identity on a different IP. But this is too much work for an ordinary consumer who just wants to keep their IP private. So you end up with this excluded middle where the only rational strategies are to either do exactly what the website expects you to do (with no funny business, even if it's innocuous), or to go whole-hog as the aggressor where you're determined to skirt their policies no matter what, and if you're doing that you might as well amortize the effort by extracting everything of value you can from them.
While your server handles that, what does your CPU do with the other 99% of available cycles?
I run https://bunnystomp.com on an Always Free VM from a major cloud provider. It handles 1,930 req/s at 33 ms latency with no tuning/optimization. It's literally just python behind cloudflare.
You seem to know a lot about my server. From what I could see, all cores were pinned to 100%, but maybe my budget AMD CPU is hiding fantastical amounts of compute from the kernel. I'd love to know how to make use of it.
I have no idea what the site you linked does, but it doesn't look like a cgit instance to me; that's what got hammered on my end, and when hosting it, one very quickly finds out that many git operations are CPU-bound.
If you want credibility from the get-go, you need to be up front about your application. I certainly took it to be a generic host for an unpopular site in your first comment.
I'm a screen reader user (which is as "weird and unusual" as it gets when fingerprinting mechanisms are concerned), and I am not really noticing much difference versus 2022 or so. Sure, there's little bits of anubis here or there, and a few sites (which I know for a fact are experiencing targeted DDoS attacks unrelated to AI scraping) having annoying Cloudflare verification screens, but that's about it.
My setup (other than the screen reader) is as vanilla as it gets. Safari, AdGuard for Ad blocking, no VPN except work VPN when necessary, no PiHole, no settings changed. If you're using something more esoteric, maybe try going mainstream and see if that improves your experience.
I am not sure what you are doing to get "harassed" by anubis but I use privacy respecting browsers with ad blockers and vpns myself, and anubis is by far the least annoying, almost invisible even.
In comparison I get cloudflare recaptcha on every site that uses it, sometimes multiple times per session and sometimes not even letting me pass at all due to "error".
And if the website uses Google recaptcha then I close the tab because I know it will just end up in endless recaptcha hell.
Google too. 'We are detecting unusual traffic from your address'. I don't know how often I've seen this and there isn't a byte that goes in or out on this connection without monitoring so if it really would be 'unusual' I would hope I would be on it before Google told me, especially not from a session that's been active for days or weeks.
Please substantiate this claim. What do you think makes it DRM? What kind of browser are you using that results in "harassment"? I use tor browser and other oddball firefox forks all the time, Anubis never gave me any trouble. I think it just requires you to compute some hashes.
1) The proxy isn't the scraper. There are plenty of scrapers not using residential proxies.
2) They're clearly talking from the perspective of the user and network admin. A residential proxy virus is in fact quite benign for both.
3) No matter what, DoS is quite a low priority in terms of security. And it's not even really DDoS, you'll know a real DDoS when you're on the receiving end.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves... If someone plants a bomb under your car, you drive to work, then it blows up while you're out for lunch, should you be prosecuted?
I'm all for creating consequences for people who negligently don't secure their systems and people get hurt because of it, but people who installed a mobile game that has a proxy library in it? Please, chill.
I'll just note that "compromised" is perhaps too strong. These services often come from VPN plugins (eg Hola VPN) that lets users watch sports from different restricted geographic regions. There is a trade here that's in the TOs: you get someone else's IP address, they get yours.
If I'm using one of these services while connected to a guest wifi network, with the usual configuration for guest access (like no intranet connections), is that guest wifi network compromised? What's the threat model?
I'd say yes since you've allowed random people unauthorized use of the connection. It makes no difference if it's your connection or not. For example, if that proxy gets used as part of a DDoS attack, your device compromised that network.
how is this different than Tor? You seem a bit on the surveillance side. The computer/network is compromised if someone gains unauthorized access to it not if you share it.
If that guest WiFi network is running inside the White House? Yes, I'd say that is compromised. The threat model being that guests on that network may be diplomatic officials and staff.
What part of that isn’t technically “compromised”? You can argue there’s no evidence of it currently being weaponized but I’d say some shitbird running a free vpn inside the White House is not a good look regardless.
The joke that S in "IoT" stands for Security is as old as the term itself, but there were no such clear incentives for exploiting them before, beyond basic DDoS and more recently crypto mining.
Step one, find your public IP, I like ipinfo.io but there are many other services that will show it. Then pop it into a tool like the one that's hosting TFA[1]
Check network traffic from smart devices would be a good start. If your TV does gigabytes of traffic in the night when you don’t use it, it most likely is acting as a residential proxy.
Unexpected traffic would be the biggest gross red flag. If it constrains itself to moving traffic when it's otherwise perform its desired function (if it's one of those "free TV" boxes and it only proxies when you're playing video) it might be hard to tease-out the unwanted traffic purely looking at bytes in/out.
Beyond that gross metric you're getting into capturing traffic and decoding it.
My most worrisome IoT device I have on my network is a digital picture frame my wife connected, but I was surprised the company routinely updates it even though it's on Android 6 (!).
It's been some time since I ran this myself but I used to have an openwrt router sit behind my ISP modem/router (it was one unit).
Multiple times I caught unexpected traffic and was able to block it piecewise including a lightbulb(!) that was sending mb packets of god knows what home.
If they were ethernet based I reckon some smart VLAN capable switches would be nice even at home to keep them out of each others business.
I moved home a few years ago and now I'm back with the ISP router and do often feel a little in the dark about what my network is doing!
It detects if your IP is a residential proxy, not if you are using a residential proxy. From the perspective of the outside Internet, they are the same thing, the only one who cares about the difference is you.
Neat. I almost said "surely this will only detect if your internet connection is itself being routed through a residential proxy", and then I realised that's effectively the same thing!
Freaky. They have a page explaining the concept (https://ipinfo.io/data/residential-proxy); when I checked it, there was a FOUC showing a full-screen, stretched image of what I think was Dario Amodei's face.
I would actually feel better if this were the case, but given that we have "the very best people" currently running our cybersecurity infrastructure I doubt it.
Most likely scenario is a 20-something holdover from DOGE who accidentally had his phone p0wned while downloading groyper memes.
Most likely scenario is a janitor who installed an app (I'm guessing it was called LegitWorldCupWatch420696969) on his phone (which might be connecting to the wifi network from whatever locker he leaves it in while he's on the clock, the WH is not a giant SCIF). Or any number of other mundane, easy to overlook employees who work outside of the actual secured areas of the building.
You can only _add_ jitter. So presumably you make people think you're farther away than you really are. I guess if you're especially clever, you can manufacture responses to packets you haven't sent yet to throw people off.
> There is no evidence that physically ties this to the WH.
They don't need to be physically inside a specific building to be a networking security problem.
The core issue is whether an outsider has bypassed your firewall and can send+receive traffic from a node which is getting more trust than it deserves. If they've compromised the computer's microphone/camera/wifi-control that's an additional problem.
It is tricky. Monitoring network traffic should be enough, the infected device has to connect to Command and Control, to receive orders and set up tunnels.
It got harder after malware creators started using Telegram, Discord or even good old IRC for those purposes - it will be asy to notice only if they use a service no one else uses in your network.
I have T-mobile 5g. My IP shows up as a residential proxy. I can't control the T-Mobile 5g device. It's a black-box. And, I only have one Linux desktop on the home network (so no Windows/Mac malware).
Not sure why my IP is listed as a residential proxy.
There’s only that many ipv4 addresses and I believe all 5G are shared ones. That’s why they’re among the most valuable ip ranges for scraping. You can’t just naively ban that IP or you’ll ban a large group of users
Not sure about US but where I live I can manually set the access point of my phones mobile network and it gives me a unique ipv4 (new one each time in fact)
It should be a balancing act though, somewhere between what you said and my first sentence.
Rate limiting, or additional layers of input sanitisation for IP addresses known to have been malicious in the past.
It's unfortunate that good users will have to endure some difficulties because of bad users on the same network, but if security is the priority, then measures must be taken, you shouldn't just leave to door open to potentially known bad users / traffic.
IPv4 is a shared resource, but some ranges have worse reputations than others, and all are owned by organisations that have the ability to monitor and filter for malicious traffic. It gets into a fraught discussion about censorship, but it is possible for network owners to monitor for, and block / restrict traffic detected as 'bad'. It's just a matter of cost and scale, and those that put the effort in should have their users rewarded with fewer 'trust-issues' roadblocks.
The blocking of residential proxies might be the thing that moves the world to ipv6. These days what we need is a dynamic map of all the IPs running proxies so servers can block them. If every device gets it's own v6 address, you could block just the TV running the proxy. Modern crowd sourced security products could identify the proxies and share their IP live so you can ban and unban addresses as the device moves.
> It's unfortunate that good users will have to endure some difficulties because of bad users on the same network, but if security is the priority, then measures must be taken, you shouldn't just leave to door open to potentially known bad users / traffic
Is this like a corporate support response? I legit can't tell. Try explaining to a retail consumer why they can't buy from your site because they have TMobile service.
They’re saying T-Mobile should be monitoring traffic on their network and block traffic from bad actors that ruin it for everyone for everyone else? Or at least they do in the next paragraph.
When the bad actor is grandma who has an infected computer, T-Mobile will be dealing with a lot of support calls from objectively non-malicious actors.
>you shouldn't just leave to door open to potentially known bad users / traffic
Why not? If security is the priority, the worst that could happen from that is clutter in logs and higher resource use. Nobody wastes 0days spraying them on random hosts, and a real motivated attacker targeting your server will not be stopped by an ip blacklist.
They’re too polite to say it explicitly, but when they say:
> Most of the activity happens in the evening, Eastern time: about half of it falls between 5 p.m. and midnight, and almost none happens in the early morning. That pattern suggests a person rather than a public guest Wi-Fi network: someone regularly on the White House network late into the evening, whose device is infected with a proxy SDK. Our data shows the exits, not the device or the person behind them.
There really aren’t very many candidates for who that person might be and it really seems like it would be someone who, I don’t know, maybe lives where the traffic is originating.
As someone elsewhere in the thread noted, this could well be the press. Could also be that this isn’t the White House network at all despite that attribution.
Right, we know the White House owns that public IP, but this could be as bad as an unsecured, unmanaged device that is joined to a private network that is supposed to be secured, OR, on the “all the way good” side, that IP could be the exit for a completely throwaway, untrusted, isolated LAN segment meant only for some iOT device and which has no route to any other peer on the LAN side, and some civilian who has access to that for work brought in his laptop with a “free VPN!” Plugin and joined it to that network because it’s all he had credentials for.
the show that came out recently, The Residence, while obviously fiction, made me think about the white house as a semi-public event venue in near constant use by dozens if not hundreds of people. It made for an interesting setting for a whodunit.
Of course it is. It's "The People's House." Look up the Great Cheese Levy of 1837, Lincoln's Office Hours, Coolidge's reception on New Years 1927 or Jackie Kennedy literally giving an "MTV Cribs" on TV in 1962. Or consider, if you can remember, the outcry when they permanently closed Pennslvania Avenue in 1995. Or when they closed Lafayette Square in 2020.
Do you believe the availability of wifi for staff/guests is somehow unreasonable? Or, is there a belief that no internet (wifi or cellular) connected devices are allowed on premises? Is them using cellular data, rather than a guest network, somehow more secure?
Guest networks are configured to disallow intranet connectivity, so the "security" risk would be from the device having access to the internet, on a guest network IP. But a guest network exists for the purpose of giving untrusted devices access to the internet, without compromising the security of the intranet. My local library, the local airport, Home Depot, the movie theater, etc all have public wifi, yet nobody would claim they were directly compromised. I understand the connection could be used for receiving and sending packets over the internet, like a DDoS (which would trigger rate limits, even at Home Depot), but framing a guest network, giving an untrusted device access to the internet, as some security issue seems very odd. The isolation is the mitigation.
The difference is the home depot does not have spies applying for custodial roles. I’d expect nonessential staff to put their phone in a box at the security check. We also live in a world where israel can remotely explode telecom devices they rig in supply chain intercepts.
I'm no expert but even I've read that "Works at the White House" is bigger than the executive residence and oval office, including the West Wing and the big office building that's directly connected to it by basement walkways. The National Security Council maintains 24-hour watch operations in the Situation Room (which is more a 'complex' than 'room'), while regional desk officers routinely work late evenings to overlap with morning business hours in Europe and Asia.
I asked Gemini if my recollection was correct and got: "The EOP network (managed by the EOP Office of Administration in coordination with Presidential Information Technology Community entities like the White House Communications Agency) operates as a single campus enterprise network. Its high-speed backbone links the West Wing, the EEOB, the East Wing, and nearby administrative facilities such as the New Executive Office Building (NEOB) on 17th Street."
So, definitely an issue that there's a device with some rogue malware installed but the total workforce across all shifts at the White House Complex is roughly between 2,500 and 4,000.
Because it's not the treasury building lol. There are multiple buildings near the White House that are under this umbrella, and I wouldn't think Treasury is one of them since they need their own office space.
If it keeps happening I think that at least suggests the source is someone or some people who are “above the rules” most people would be bound by. You can tell the cleaning crew to get off the damned WiFi, others not so much.
Even if many sometimes work at night, you would expect them to also regularly work in the morning, which isn't the case here? So the fact that almost none of the traffic is in the early morning is a further clue pointing to a certain resident whose office hours start around 11 AM...
Cleaner that comes in after normal office hours, with a phone which connects to guest wifi, which is segregated on the LAN side, but has public IPs from the Whitehouse AS
I can't imagine you'd need very many days of traffic to narrow it down to a very small group of people though. If a device is coming into and out of the campus, that should be fairly easy to reconcile with visitor records. Given that this is one of the most secure locations in the world, I'm reasonably sure a comprehensive list of "who is and isn't on campus" at any given time is available.
Even at midnight I can't imagine there being less than 100 people working at the WH in various capacities. While it's probably not the duty/desk officers in the Situation Room/Security Council, there are plenty of maintenance staff that work at night. 5-midnight seems like it overlaps perfectly with a shift schedule.
But how many of them would risk their job by smuggling in a device that violates government policies? Every device in the White House should be accounted for and meeting a number of security criteria. There are really only two or three people there who would know that those rules don't apply to them.
They are not saying that is _on purpose_, in fact they are saying the opposite: a compromised device, could be even an Android phone. It could also be as device planted on purpose, of course.
Given that, why are there so many loose phones at all? Here is one compromised that we know about, in the biggest target for espionage on planet earth.
You’re misreading what this says. It’s someone bringing in a device they managed to get infected.
Oh and also the part where no one has caught this internally which is possibly the bigger takeaway. It’s a zero-trust network made out of incompetence.
There's nothing in the article that suggests it's not just the guest wifi. Which wouldn't be monitored. Why would you? The whole point is that it's segmented and can't actually interact with anything important.
Why are you assuming the person knows and is actively smuggling in the device? And why would you then assume that person is more significant than a shift worker there?
Probably because hegseth decided to actively use signal to discuss military planning instead of secure channels that don’t invite such screwups like adding random citizens to these discussions.
Eh, I would not be surprised if they have a separate wifi that guests can use and you can hook up your private devices to. Basically every large company i have worked for, for the last two decades had that. I suspect deep in the bowels of the White House you don’t get good reception.
There’s a ton of people it could be. Any staffer that works 5-12, which wouldn’t be a particularly weird shift for cooks, cleaners, etc that bring their infected phone with them.
If it was someone who lived there it wouldn’t be exclusively that time period. Why wouldn’t it happen overnight or in the morning or any other time of day?
If you regard 1,000 or less people as few, then this is true. If you regard 1,000 people as "too many" then you rate the national security of the USA at the cost of 1 in 1000 means it's not worth bothing to find out.
Unless it is running on a government issued iPhone, it is not the Individual #1 you are alluding to.
He very famously does not know how to use computers and can only basically manage tweeting from his phone, which he is mostly not, actually, doing himself.
Now, there are two or three terminally online people around him. I would be more quick to point the finger at his foul-mouthed spokesman but it’s admittedly because I hate that guy and he seems rather stupid. But perhaps it could be the devoted portable printer lady, or the overpromoted unblinking former golf caddy guy.
All of them are around to help with the, er, modern day presidential communications.
> He very famously does not know how to use computers and can only basically manage tweeting from his phone, which he is mostly not, actually, doing himself.
The White House doesn't shut down at 5pm. There's whole books, TV series, and movies about the people that are working late every night at the White House. Likely dozens of people are on staff and work shifts that last until midnight every night of the week.
Service staff, including the storied hundred or so White House butlers, work whatever hours are needed. Then you have Secret Service, Kitchen staff, Natalie, house admin staff like the Chief Usher, maybe even NPS staff as the WH grounds are a national park as well, any of whom I would assume might be given access to the secure but unclassified WH wifi and likely a government-issued device. One device with a proxy among all of those people? Entirely unsurprising.
Maybe it's just the printer that Natalie carries around in her purse.
That timing could also align with a device that is turned on and off at specific times, for example an insecure smart TV that is generally turned on to watch TV in the evening, and turned off around midnight.
Though the fact that it lines up with an 8 hour shift also makes it seem human-like, so I think I'd rank a human carrying an infected device as more likely than an infected periodically-active device.
I've never heard the term 'residential proxy' before, but it seems like a Tailscale exit node would qualify for example? This doesn't seem necessarily malicious or even inadvertently dangerous to me?
Generally not really. Residential proxies are services that can provide customers with the ability to send and receive traffic from a wide range of apparently legitimate networks (i.e. people's home internet connections). Almost always this is done without the informed consent of the person who owns the device that is used as a proxy, whether it be buried in some agreement somewhere or just outright malware.
The biggest danger is that said proxies can also allow access to internal networks, and as you might guess from how they are installed, are not usually operated by the most scrupulous of organizations.
Yes, some of these companies offer libraries to turn your mobile app into an exit node and get paid for the traffic. You can find news about Google Play playing whac-a-mole against apps doing so silently, often involving law enforcement as well.
Also some free VPNs use their users as exit nodes for their actual paying customers, good luck finding a user who understands that. It's the obvious way to monetize such a service other than ads.
Residential IP addresses tend to have better reputations than datacenter networks, so there are providers who sell access to home internet connections. Oftentimes the people running the proxies have no idea they're running on their network, they're quasi malicious.
it’s a well known term in shady markets of the internet, they allow users and abusers to bypass bans and create multiple accounts that cannot be linked with each other by networking intel
Let's assume the worst, that it's a VIP. Ok, now let's do some basic frequency statistics:
If you click the AS2650 link (1) in the article, you will learn that AS2650 is announcing 65,792 addresses in 5 prefixes. Roughly 40-70% of the IP addresses in a typical corporate ASN are associated with actual computers humans are using. Let's go with 40%. You're looking at 26,317 people. Assume they're all adults (please, dear lord, let them all be adults). 3-8% of the workforce is in IT. Let's go with 3%, that's 789 people. I'm guessing one of those 789 folks has thought this through and has a few VLANs set up to keep VIP and family-of-VIP, pattern of life stuff in a box.
As for the thesis that these are all window-licking low-IQ goons, that's just not how the US government cultivates its workforce. It's no accident that Harvard Business School characterizes themselves as "the West Point of capitalism." West Point isn't someone else's anything. The US Government is in it for the long haul and captures folks young with impossible-to-resist opportunities like the military academies, ROTC, SMART scholars, etc. Let's just stick with the academies: 12,000 people a year who were likely competitive for the Ivies, Division 1 athletics, or both, but chose their parents poorly. Free, top tier education and a job is very attractive for kids from fly-over states. Hell, in big states like California, New York, and Texas, it can actually be even more competitive. Something north of 60% of those graduates stick around for at least 20 years of service (because the high three pension + VA benefits is a pretty nice floor for retirement when your options back home are line supervisor at the cotton mill, the sugar mill, the coal mine, or ramp manager for United), usually addicted to the crazy level of mission. Sort of the opposite of finance where people really struggle mentally if they're not making pallets of money at an accelerating rate. Government service pays dogshit, but the work can super interesting, especially as you gain seniority.
Those folks then often loop back into other agencies and do another 20 years. Are there goombas in the Government? Oh, for sure. Absolutely. But it's roughly the same fraction as any other workforce in the rest of the economy.
But by the time you get to top tier stuff like the White House staff, the sorting function has been strong. To make the point: you also see top tier folks in other organizations with government stink on them. I can think of at least two directors at Google who are prior military. A fat pile of McKinsey folks. Something like 8% of Fortune 500 CEOs have served in the military, above the national average (6-7% of Americans have served in the military at some point).
And it's hilarious to watch people simultaneously assert the government is a bunch of idiots, and then get all excited about fighter pilots, the CIA, the CDC, ambassadors, the NIH. As though those people just appeared from the head of Zeus fully formed. Where do you think they worked when they were young? They were stamping visas for the Department of State in some embassy in central Asia. They were rolling blankets and digging wells in Gambia for the Peace Corps. Checking corporate filings for mostly unknown companies at SEC. Studying aerospace engineering at Embry Riddle and then flying cleared checks between clearing houses across the state overnight in a Cessna.
... and then Donald Trump as President, Stephen Miller as, whatever he is, and Peter Hegseth as Defense Secretary (he did serve in the military, if that's worth anything).
I think it's pretty wild to make all these bold assertions about the absolute top tier of elite talent that the US federal gov recruits and retains, and then compare/contrast that with the current staffers of the present incarnation of the executive branch. It just doesn't jive. Seriously, do a deep dive into Hegseth's resume and background of the nonprofit he was the figurehead for. He's more qualified than some known 3/4-star generals? Seriously? Tulsi Gabbard was the most qualified person for DNI? Seriously?
I fear this is just the tip of the iceberg. It's the WH's own TOR node for any paying customer. It's manchurian candidate. It makes Clinton's emails look like ice cream.
Pure speculation, I don't have any concrete answers. I'm fairly scorched-earth with my blocking, but I'm only protecting personal environments, so no one other than scatter-gun-everything AI-scraper-bots would even bother.
I'd be very interested in AI capabilities in detecting anomalous activity given that it should be very effective at pattern matching across large data sets. What would be required, however, is significant training with industry/application specific 'normal' browsing traffic patterns to determine acceptable tolerances, and then design escalating deterrence if and when tolerances are breached.
How is the scraper process stepping through the site? It must be programmatic, even if it's programmed to be random. What does that look like in traffic data in terms of timing and content requests?
What hazards can be put in place that a normal user would never go near, but a scraper is likely to trip over?
If scraping is being performed from multiple locations in parallel, what might that look like? ie. joining multiple sessions together that may show a more 'scraper' kind of behaviour.
Under IPv6 wouldn't detection start burning a lot of addresses? Yes, the pool is large, but that just means it's a scaling issue from IPv4 to IPv6, rather than a new problem requiring new thinking to solve? (assuming ways of detection were successful).
I'm being somewhat devil's advocate in my blocking rhetoric. The internet is in a weird confluence of wild-west and surveillance state. I like that there are ways and means of being anon-/pseudon-ymous; I like a bit of anarchaos, that's where the spirit of hacking lives. But I also don't want it sticking to my boots when I walk in the house. I'm also not fundamentally against scraping; there's definitely good scraping. There is an irony, though, in protecting scraped data or services that are built on scraped data (and I'm not accusing you, personally, just my general logical ideology of scraping). On residential proxies, I think they're 99% run by erstwhile criminals leveraging what were, until recently, referred to as botnets into a service they can launder their botnets through as 'I am legitimate business man'. I think most, basically all, residential proxies are run involuntarily or unwittingly and that blocking them would provide a greater society benefit than it would a drawback. Anything that promotes the sanitisation of end user devices can only be a good thing. The whole ecosystem is in a terrible state and regulation doesn't even seem to be on the distant horizon.
Maybe I'm hypocritical, or I'm trying to maintain mutually exclusive positions. This is where I'm at though.
Brightdata still sucks at disclosing to users that they're opted in to this and that their connection is being used for this. It's "on by default", not opt-in and often buried in an unskippable "Accept the terms" or dig-to-opt-out prompt.
Not all residential proxy providers are seedy - but I only know of one that isn't out of probably 20 or so major players so I guess fair call out on "infected".
Google just banned a chinese Android tv manufacturer for backdooring and installing malware on their devices. This I think is such a device someone pirate sports or porn streaming device.
Why not? Cass Sunstein even suggested such an approach in his book in the 1990s, back when he was the Presidential Science Advisor. It's no different than the King of England going out among his people in disguise to get the lay of the land.
OTOH it could be a honeypot, OR possibly somebody was careless. But there is no reason it has to be suspicious.
PS: I own proxybase.xyz, and I think we’re the most transparent residential proxy network in the industry.
I don’t think it’s fair to call all residential proxy networks shady. Not all of us run our businesses that way. Our code is open, we have nothing to hide, and we use US-based stablecoins for transactions. User consent is our number one priority. I haven’t seen anyone else in the industry match that level of transparency.
Burning a compromised host just to run a public proxy client for pennies would be the worst trade-off imaginable for an attacker. It is loud, easily caught.
I didn't know that residential proxies were a thing. That sounds pretty handy because going online via a VPN gives constant nag popups from the likes of cloudflare :( I hate them.
It would be nice if the VPNs would integrate this option.
You resell a game, bundling a botnet proxy inside, and make it freemium: free if you accept T&C with a service allowing using your device connection for research purposes (or whatever wording could be even more confusing), or pay $20.
It's no longer a botnet, it's a "residential proxy" and you are doing clean business.
"User accepted T&C" is enough to get away with almost anything. It works very well for top IT companies. Upholding new business to higher standards would be unfair.
If residential proxies detected on White House network, why have network admistrators blocked the device?
And
why have they not physically located the device OR at least vastly reduced its possible location , by determining the flow of the traffic from network elements ?
Answer my own question - It was actually an outside entity that detected the problem. However , it gives the network admins a way to determine if this activity is happening on networks they are responsible for .....
Can anyone recommend home router that makes handling that threat easy for average Joe? As in a simple list, for TVs detected on my network, with streaming services they should be able to connect to, blocking all other traffic from it?
I was under the impression that actual ISP providers embed into their modems/routers ability to resell YOUR connection to proxy services and charge for that without customer's consent.
Same happens within cellphones - via native mobile apps pimped by ISP/Mobile providers.
bronco21016 | 14 hours ago
thehodge | 14 hours ago
JTbane | 14 hours ago
drnick1 | 10 hours ago
cowlevel | 10 hours ago
Firewall it from your local network if you want to - it'll still work - they're not after that.
Tangurena2 | 13 hours ago
https://darknetdiaries.com/episode/172/
There's a transcript if you want to read, not listen. At the start, you'll be "hey! I gotta get me one!" and later you'll be like "burn it with fire!"
mryijum | 11 hours ago
thenthenthen | 10 hours ago
“ Most of the infected devices were manufactured in China. ” uh… most devices are manufactured in China period. Very strange article/podcast.
yard2010 | 2 hours ago
Such things are threats to humanity imho. They can get us back to the times we couldn't exploit the internet to run a society.
ethagnawl | 12 hours ago
mplewis | 12 hours ago
Good4boothee | 2 hours ago
sfmike | 14 hours ago
spiderfarmer | 14 hours ago
Bassiestroep | 14 hours ago
thombat | 14 hours ago
https://lieu.house.gov/media-center/in-the-news/what-can-we-...
mongrelion | 14 hours ago
gessha | 14 hours ago
RKearney | 14 hours ago
[0]: https://layer3intel.com/what-is-a-residential-proxy
duiker101 | 14 hours ago
> Residential proxy services sell access to everyday devices, letting customers send traffic through them so it appears to come from that device's network.
whalesalad | 14 hours ago
georgel | 14 hours ago
Many questionable TV streaming boxes pretend to deliver you video, but in reality they are also piggy backing on your personal ISP to power those companies.
sparkling | 14 hours ago
+ Sketchy Apps
+ Malware
+ Weird Android Variants
microcode | 14 hours ago
dormento | 14 hours ago
Such as ignoring web scraping countermeasures, and DDoS.
2OEH8eoCRo0 | 14 hours ago
charcircuit | 13 hours ago
derektank | 13 hours ago
charcircuit | an hour ago
ZoneZealot | 14 hours ago
Person buys a product, or downloads some software - that unknowing to them, was reaching out to a central server elsewhere to establish a network tunnel. And over that tunnel, the other server routes traffic onto that person's home network. Which can then of course go onto the internet, and it appears like the traffic originated from their home internet connection.
Other people rent access to this network. The goal being, you have surreptitious access to appear as any one of tens of thousands of home network IP addresses on the public internet. Bad guys can use this to rotate through many different IP addresses when their access gets blocked because of malicious (or benign but unwanted) behavior on the internet. Residential IP addresses are more 'valuable' because they don't have the negative connotation that datacentre and commercial IPs can have, and they can be spread geographically or across many ISPs.
A very common way for people being a part of these residential proxy networks is by buying dodgy streaming boxes, and also installing shady apps on TV app marketplaces.
superjan | 14 hours ago
charcircuit | 13 hours ago
dylan604 | 12 hours ago
rustyhancock | 17 minutes ago
ZoneZealot | 12 hours ago
rcxdude | 11 hours ago
cpburns2009 | 13 hours ago
cowlevel | 10 hours ago
cpburns2009 | 10 hours ago
cowlevel | 7 hours ago
hackernud3s | 13 hours ago
rconti | 13 hours ago
* I initially thought this meant someone in the WH network was using commercial proxies to appear as if they were exiting from a different network (which would align with "some user is firing up a proxy on their phone to exit in a different location")
* But then the description of residential proxies seemed to align more with traffic hitting an endpoint in the White House, and _exiting_ from the network there. But this didn't explain the timing (why isn't it 24/7).
* Finally it sounds like some person, legitimately on the WH network, has a device (cell phone, TV, whatever) that, when activated, is proxying outside traffic into the WH network.
XnoiVeX | 9 hours ago
vanyle | 14 hours ago
While they have grown a bit too much, they are a natural response to the absurd amount of effort every website is pouring into anti-scraping tech.
georgel | 14 hours ago
But getting around it sure is annoying, sometimes I get flagged IP's from Comcast and can't visit sites like costco.com despite not doing any questionable stuff on my network.
sparkling | 14 hours ago
Maybe some people do not want to provide their entire website as free training material to [insert LLM lab here]?
ethin | 13 hours ago
anonreplier | 13 hours ago
squidmaster | 14 hours ago
10111001 | 14 hours ago
Aren't they almost always run unknowingly, by people tricked into running them?
dabbz | 14 hours ago
kube-system | 13 hours ago
Ethically, if someone just wants to play a free game and doesn't care about it, is it okay? How knowledgable does a user have to be in order to have informed consent?
10111001 | 13 hours ago
Betcha that means there was "consent" language on page 55 of some click-through EULA.
kube-system | 13 hours ago
xyzzy_plugh | 14 hours ago
Help me understand. As far as I'm aware, these residential proxies are almost always malware.
Bender | 14 hours ago
kube-system | 14 hours ago
Bender | 14 hours ago
kube-system | 13 hours ago
Bender | 13 hours ago
kube-system | 13 hours ago
Bender | 13 hours ago
amritananda | 13 hours ago
kube-system | 13 hours ago
Bender | 12 hours ago
In fairness to me, I did say "Most tools can be dual-use. Residential proxies are also used by malevolent actors to hack infrastructure or financial institutions and let some other poor soul get investigated for it. This is why we can't have nice things."
So it could be Alice. I know Alice has good intentions. It could be Bob, we know what Bob is up to but I will give him a pass regardless because Bob did nice things in the past. But then there is Mallory ... Mallory Malfoid is up to no good. I need to know which IP's are used by Alice and Bob so I can exclude them from my automated protections. Mallory will automatically get rate limited to 16kb/s, 1 HTTP request every 5 seconds and if they bounce around different residential proxies they get redirected to a bathtub regardless of which residential proxy they use.
kube-system | 12 hours ago
In no world does "KYC" mean "expose your customer list to the whole world", let alone undermine the entire purpose of the product you're selling.
"I want to dox all of the customers of a proxy provider" is just an unreasonable ask. We wouldn't expect or want ISPs or VPNs or telecoms to do this.
Bender | 12 hours ago
Agreed. Alice Rhodes, Bob Bojangle and Mallory Malfoid will all be treated equally.
This was a fun thread, I have always wanted to give them last names.
benjojo12 | 14 hours ago
mcmcmc | 14 hours ago
lakeviewterrace | 14 hours ago
mcmcmc | 14 hours ago
lakeviewterrace | 14 hours ago
> and can be used for extra anonymity
Great, so you can conduct illegal transactions and have some unsuspecting grandma take the blame and have her front door kicked in?
kube-system | 13 hours ago
lakeviewterrace | 13 hours ago
They didn't just connect a coffee pot to their WiFi one day.
kube-system | 13 hours ago
e.g. https://packetstream.io/share-bandwidth/
timacles | 13 hours ago
Technically correct statement though
OptionX | 14 hours ago
Residential proxies are in many cases at least shady, both on the side of who uses them and for what and on providers that are often not above using dark pattern to hide them in some innocuous app for a smart-whatever that silently runs a proxy on a unaware user's connection. And in many places in the world if illegal stuff in done using your connection you are liable, regardless if you knew about it.
mikestew | 14 hours ago
So important that we have to trick people into using them. Remember when folks were running SETI@Home? Of course you do, because it was widely thought to be a good thing, and folks willingly signed up.
How many would buy the "box" if the advertising were honest about what's actually in the box?
mzajc | 14 hours ago
09712306130 | 14 hours ago
I buy and use residential proxies, though.
btown | 14 hours ago
This also puts some of the troubling reports that politicians were bringing phones into SCIFs into context…
lesuorac | 14 hours ago
I mean politicians are so addicted to twitter the nsa makes special phones…
dylan604 | 12 hours ago
za_creature | 12 hours ago
It's always better to protect politicians from someone else
lesuorac | 12 hours ago
mzajc | 14 hours ago
On a server that used to get below 1k HTTP requests a day, I've had several cases of mass scraping from these botnets exceeding 100req/s. The web is getting harder and harder to use due to all the anti-bot mechanisms site operators had to put up.
How is DDOSing every site on the web benign?
nucleardog | 14 hours ago
A compromised device inside the White House network could presumably be doing something _much_ worse than participating in a DDOS against random websites.
mcv | an hour ago
> One of the proxy services is a Russian company whose founder’s web hosting business was ground zero for cyberattacks against election systems in Arizona and Illinois in 2016.
Surely a Russian company known for cyberattacks against the US having direct access to the White House network is far more serious than just DDOSing random websites. This is espionage at the highest level. (Again.)
KaiserPro | an hour ago
cyanydeez | 12 hours ago
BeetleB | 12 hours ago
Indeed. I recently set up a bot on my local machine that I can interact with via Telegram. I gave it the ability to retrieve the contents of a URL via Playwright (with modifications). Basic things like getting the Readability view and getting the site as Markdown with links.
I was essentially mimicking the feature OpenAI etc offer where it can do a web search for you and get you the answer you seek. I just didn't want to pay a company for that feature.
It's not autonomous. It only acts when I tell it to. The actual search is via the Kagi API, but the URL contents is via Playwright. I also ensured it can't do lots of requests at a time. There's a mandatory (random) sleep of between 1 and 5 seconds between two requests.
In less than a week, I've been flagged. When I do a Google search (as a human), I have to prove I'm human. Many sites have simply blocked me - I can't buy stuff from various vendors[1], I cannot access several news sites, etc.
The thing is, I didn't really access that many sites with the bot! At most it's the equivalent of someone mildly addicted to the web. Yet they caught me quickly.
Obviously, I disabled the bot's capability to get site content. I wonder how long my IP will be in the blacklist.
I know some people will say "Good riddance" to the outcome and to what I did. I'd love to have a real, serious discussion on whether what I did was immoral. But whatever your thoughts on the matter, do ponder over the fact that the system has made it hard for average Joes like you and me to have this "feature", but if you pay a giant tech company a monthly fee, you can have it.
[1] Thankfully, Amazon didn't block me. In the past I'd avoid them, but now I'm in the dilemma where I don't want to buy stuff from sites that make it difficult for me to buy stuff from them!
itishappy | 11 hours ago
cowlevel | 10 hours ago
qlte | 10 hours ago
drewnick | 7 hours ago
consp | 4 hours ago
proxyscore | 7 hours ago
theGeatZhopa | 2 hours ago
proxyscore | 7 hours ago
TheDong | 6 hours ago
I will instead say "skill issue".
Using Playwright results in some very obvious and easy to detect fingerprints. I'd expect better of someone on hacker news.
Mine hasn't been detected as far as I can tell, so I know it's possible to do better.
DANmode | 4 hours ago
lynx97 | 3 hours ago
nostrademons | 3 hours ago
I normally use a VPN to access the Internet. It's an ordinary consumer-grade VPN, and I use it for pretty innocuous things like watching the international versions of Netflix or avoiding being geographically-profiled and charged more when I book travel. The VPN itself, I'm sure, is being used for all sorts of naughty stuff: when I look it up in whatismyip, it comes up as VPN, "abuse detected", and "residential proxy detected". I expect to get blocked occasionally on it and just pause the VPN then.
What I found surprising is that pausing the VPN doesn't always clear the CAPTCHAs. The next request will also fail, sometimes. For a while I was wondering if I have a residential proxy on my network, but I went hunting with lsof and bandwidth monitoring and a list of all the open connections through my router, and it seems clear. Yet even with VPN disabled, I'll get CAPTCHAs from Google and Cloudflare.
I suspect they're using browser/TLS fingerprinting and then smearing the results of that across bad IPs. If you connect to them through a known-bad IP, they not only will CAPTCHA you, but they will record a fingerprint of any data they can. Then if you connect again with that fingerprint, regardless of the IP, they block that too.
Ironically, if you are actually malicious, you can get around this pretty easily. Because you'll know not to use a fingerprintable browser, or to rotate fingerprints. So you have one completely separate identity on a given IP (that is not yours), and if it gets blocked, you roll up another completely separate identity on a different IP. But this is too much work for an ordinary consumer who just wants to keep their IP private. So you end up with this excluded middle where the only rational strategies are to either do exactly what the website expects you to do (with no funny business, even if it's innocuous), or to go whole-hog as the aggressor where you're determined to skirt their policies no matter what, and if you're doing that you might as well amortize the effort by extracting everything of value you can from them.
NavinF | 10 hours ago
While your server handles that, what does your CPU do with the other 99% of available cycles?
I run https://bunnystomp.com on an Always Free VM from a major cloud provider. It handles 1,930 req/s at 33 ms latency with no tuning/optimization. It's literally just python behind cloudflare.
mzajc | 10 hours ago
I have no idea what the site you linked does, but it doesn't look like a cgit instance to me; that's what got hammered on my end, and when hosting it, one very quickly finds out that many git operations are CPU-bound.
fn-mote | 9 hours ago
yard2010 | 3 hours ago
miki123211 | 3 hours ago
What are you doing to make this true?
I'm a screen reader user (which is as "weird and unusual" as it gets when fingerprinting mechanisms are concerned), and I am not really noticing much difference versus 2022 or so. Sure, there's little bits of anubis here or there, and a few sites (which I know for a fact are experiencing targeted DDoS attacks unrelated to AI scraping) having annoying Cloudflare verification screens, but that's about it.
My setup (other than the screen reader) is as vanilla as it gets. Safari, AdGuard for Ad blocking, no VPN except work VPN when necessary, no PiHole, no settings changed. If you're using something more esoteric, maybe try going mainstream and see if that improves your experience.
coke12 | 3 hours ago
furst-blumier | 3 hours ago
kuschku | 3 hours ago
account42 | 3 hours ago
Aldqueath | an hour ago
In comparison I get cloudflare recaptcha on every site that uses it, sometimes multiple times per session and sometimes not even letting me pass at all due to "error".
And if the website uses Google recaptcha then I close the tab because I know it will just end up in endless recaptcha hell.
jacquesm | an hour ago
account42 | an hour ago
philipwhiuk | an hour ago
tempfile | an hour ago
barbafant | 47 minutes ago
VorpalWay | 23 minutes ago
franga2000 | 2 hours ago
2) They're clearly talking from the perspective of the user and network admin. A residential proxy virus is in fact quite benign for both.
3) No matter what, DoS is quite a low priority in terms of security. And it's not even really DDoS, you'll know a real DDoS when you're on the receiving end.
account42 | 57 minutes ago
That's only because it isn't being prosecuted appropriately.
franga2000 | 40 minutes ago
I'm all for creating consequences for people who negligently don't secure their systems and people get hurt because of it, but people who installed a mobile game that has a proxy library in it? Please, chill.
_alternator_ | 12 hours ago
jeremyjh | 11 hours ago
nomel | 8 hours ago
autoexec | 6 hours ago
I'd say yes since you've allowed random people unauthorized use of the connection. It makes no difference if it's your connection or not. For example, if that proxy gets used as part of a DDoS attack, your device compromised that network.
thefounder | 3 hours ago
account42 | 52 minutes ago
shakna | 36 minutes ago
tclancy | 11 hours ago
cowlevel | 10 hours ago
50208 | 7 hours ago
JudahNyquist | 14 hours ago
Good4boothee | an hour ago
anpat | 14 hours ago
blacksmith_tb | 14 hours ago
1: https://layer3intel.com/context
therein | 12 hours ago
In my experience, out of the two, iphunter.info has the more comprehensive database, I think the owner/operator frequents HN.
tom1337 | 14 hours ago
EvanAnderson | 14 hours ago
Beyond that gross metric you're getting into capturing traffic and decoding it.
j2kun | 14 hours ago
Retr0id | 14 hours ago
0cf8612b2e1e | 14 hours ago
I was aghast when my partner connected a pet watering bowl to the WiFi.
doublepg23 | 14 hours ago
https://support.frameo.com/hc/en-us/articles/23433637149842-...
zahlman | 11 hours ago
itishappy | 11 hours ago
Great gifts! (At least for those unconcerned with privacy or security, which is most people.)
cowlevel | 10 hours ago
rustyhancock | 38 minutes ago
Multiple times I caught unexpected traffic and was able to block it piecewise including a lightbulb(!) that was sending mb packets of god knows what home.
If they were ethernet based I reckon some smart VLAN capable switches would be nice even at home to keep them out of each others business.
I moved home a few years ago and now I'm back with the ISP router and do often feel a little in the dark about what my network is doing!
https://openwrt.org/
randomblock1 | 13 hours ago
If there's anything there, monitor your network to figure out exactly what
advisedwang | 13 hours ago
Retr0id | 13 hours ago
nostrademons | 13 hours ago
Retr0id | 13 hours ago
masfuerte | 13 hours ago
beepbooptheory | 13 hours ago
zahlman | 11 hours ago
privacyishuman | 7 hours ago
opengrass | 14 hours ago
geephroh | 12 hours ago
Most likely scenario is a 20-something holdover from DOGE who accidentally had his phone p0wned while downloading groyper memes.
betterunix2 | 8 hours ago
lakeviewterrace | 14 hours ago
There is no evidence that physically ties this to the WH. It could be in a security lab for all they know. Or a guest network for the news media.
1e1a | 13 hours ago
0cf8612b2e1e | 12 hours ago
cowlevel | 10 hours ago
fn-mote | 9 hours ago
1e1a | 7 hours ago
adyavanapalli | 8 hours ago
Hnrobert42 | an hour ago
Terr_ | 13 hours ago
They don't need to be physically inside a specific building to be a networking security problem.
The core issue is whether an outsider has bypassed your firewall and can send+receive traffic from a node which is getting more trust than it deserves. If they've compromised the computer's microphone/camera/wifi-control that's an additional problem.
itishappy | 11 hours ago
That seems significantly worse.
nexus6 | an hour ago
jefurii | 14 hours ago
pak9rabid | 13 hours ago
charcircuit | 13 hours ago
Let me guess. The SDK being used does properly handle this and this whole article is anti residential proxy FUD.
hackernud3s | 13 hours ago
mrefish | 13 hours ago
BLKNSLVR | 13 hours ago
9dev | 11 hours ago
threecheese | 13 hours ago
gdevenyi | 13 hours ago
cowlevel | 10 hours ago
Step 2: have you bought any devices made by large companies like LG or Samsung?
Good4boothee | 2 hours ago
seethishat | 13 hours ago
Not sure why my IP is listed as a residential proxy.
hetspookjee | 13 hours ago
sva_ | 13 hours ago
hod6654 | 5 hours ago
BLKNSLVR | 13 hours ago
It should be a balancing act though, somewhere between what you said and my first sentence.
Rate limiting, or additional layers of input sanitisation for IP addresses known to have been malicious in the past.
It's unfortunate that good users will have to endure some difficulties because of bad users on the same network, but if security is the priority, then measures must be taken, you shouldn't just leave to door open to potentially known bad users / traffic.
IPv4 is a shared resource, but some ranges have worse reputations than others, and all are owned by organisations that have the ability to monitor and filter for malicious traffic. It gets into a fraught discussion about censorship, but it is possible for network owners to monitor for, and block / restrict traffic detected as 'bad'. It's just a matter of cost and scale, and those that put the effort in should have their users rewarded with fewer 'trust-issues' roadblocks.
Gigachad | 8 hours ago
1e1a | 4 hours ago
Gigachad | 3 hours ago
BLKNSLVR | 3 hours ago
The lists generated by this tool can be useful as well: https://github.com/maximilianfeix/proxy-scraper (which point to here: https://github.com/maximilianfeix/free-proxy-list)
There is also this bot proxy IP list: https://github.com/antoinevastel/avastel-bot-ips-lists
skinfaxi | 8 hours ago
Is this like a corporate support response? I legit can't tell. Try explaining to a retail consumer why they can't buy from your site because they have TMobile service.
what | 8 hours ago
skinfaxi | 7 hours ago
neuroticnews25 | 2 hours ago
Why not? If security is the priority, the worst that could happen from that is clutter in logs and higher resource use. Nobody wastes 0days spraying them on random hosts, and a real motivated attacker targeting your server will not be stopped by an ip blacklist.
ofcrpls | 13 hours ago
walrus01 | 13 hours ago
cowlevel | 10 hours ago
cannonpalms | 11 hours ago
hbcdbff | 12 hours ago
dhosek | 12 hours ago
> Most of the activity happens in the evening, Eastern time: about half of it falls between 5 p.m. and midnight, and almost none happens in the early morning. That pattern suggests a person rather than a public guest Wi-Fi network: someone regularly on the White House network late into the evening, whose device is infected with a proxy SDK. Our data shows the exits, not the device or the person behind them.
There really aren’t very many candidates for who that person might be and it really seems like it would be someone who, I don’t know, maybe lives where the traffic is originating.
dpark | 12 hours ago
therein | 12 hours ago
dpark | 12 hours ago
xp84 | 12 hours ago
duskwuff | 6 hours ago
devindotcom | 12 hours ago
CGMthrowaway | 11 hours ago
samudrijan | 11 hours ago
deskamess | 12 hours ago
eloisius | 11 hours ago
nomel | 10 hours ago
RobotToaster | 5 hours ago
rightnutwingjob | 5 hours ago
nomel | 4 hours ago
Guest networks are configured to disallow intranet connectivity, so the "security" risk would be from the device having access to the internet, on a guest network IP. But a guest network exists for the purpose of giving untrusted devices access to the internet, without compromising the security of the intranet. My local library, the local airport, Home Depot, the movie theater, etc all have public wifi, yet nobody would claim they were directly compromised. I understand the connection could be used for receiving and sending packets over the internet, like a DDoS (which would trigger rate limits, even at Home Depot), but framing a guest network, giving an untrusted device access to the internet, as some security issue seems very odd. The isolation is the mitigation.
asdff | 2 hours ago
__MatrixMan__ | 11 hours ago
mrandish | 11 hours ago
I'm no expert but even I've read that "Works at the White House" is bigger than the executive residence and oval office, including the West Wing and the big office building that's directly connected to it by basement walkways. The National Security Council maintains 24-hour watch operations in the Situation Room (which is more a 'complex' than 'room'), while regional desk officers routinely work late evenings to overlap with morning business hours in Europe and Asia.
I asked Gemini if my recollection was correct and got: "The EOP network (managed by the EOP Office of Administration in coordination with Presidential Information Technology Community entities like the White House Communications Agency) operates as a single campus enterprise network. Its high-speed backbone links the West Wing, the EEOB, the East Wing, and nearby administrative facilities such as the New Executive Office Building (NEOB) on 17th Street."
So, definitely an issue that there's a device with some rogue malware installed but the total workforce across all shifts at the White House Complex is roughly between 2,500 and 4,000.
HaZeust | 9 hours ago
I ask in good faith, but why didn't you just say the Treasury Building?
praxulus | 8 hours ago
HaZeust | 7 hours ago
Wistar | 5 hours ago
14u2c | 5 hours ago
KptMarchewa | an hour ago
sailfast | 10 minutes ago
EA-3167 | 10 hours ago
cozzyd | 10 hours ago
rob74 | 2 hours ago
wtch98 | an hour ago
wtch98 | an hour ago
OtherShrezzing | 58 minutes ago
gcollard- | 12 hours ago
RockRobotRock | 11 hours ago
buildsjets | 10 hours ago
pjc50 | 2 hours ago
ajcp | 11 hours ago
jeremyjh | 11 hours ago
jp_sc | 11 hours ago
asdff | 2 hours ago
tclancy | 11 hours ago
Oh and also the part where no one has caught this internally which is possibly the bigger takeaway. It’s a zero-trust network made out of incompetence.
esikich | 7 hours ago
what | 11 hours ago
asdff | 2 hours ago
skipkey | 10 hours ago
what | 11 hours ago
If it was someone who lived there it wouldn’t be exclusively that time period. Why wouldn’t it happen overnight or in the morning or any other time of day?
ggm | 10 hours ago
Is that really how national security works?
nomel | 9 hours ago
shrubble | 10 hours ago
abofh | 10 hours ago
mikeweiss | 9 hours ago
dofm | 8 hours ago
He very famously does not know how to use computers and can only basically manage tweeting from his phone, which he is mostly not, actually, doing himself.
Now, there are two or three terminally online people around him. I would be more quick to point the finger at his foul-mouthed spokesman but it’s admittedly because I hate that guy and he seems rather stupid. But perhaps it could be the devoted portable printer lady, or the overpromoted unblinking former golf caddy guy.
All of them are around to help with the, er, modern day presidential communications.
lostlogin | 7 hours ago
Despite the constant negative press covfefe
dofm | 6 hours ago
avodonosov | 7 hours ago
3RTB297 | 7 hours ago
Service staff, including the storied hundred or so White House butlers, work whatever hours are needed. Then you have Secret Service, Kitchen staff, Natalie, house admin staff like the Chief Usher, maybe even NPS staff as the WH grounds are a national park as well, any of whom I would assume might be given access to the secure but unclassified WH wifi and likely a government-issued device. One device with a proxy among all of those people? Entirely unsurprising.
Maybe it's just the printer that Natalie carries around in her purse.
TheDong | 6 hours ago
Though the fact that it lines up with an 8 hour shift also makes it seem human-like, so I think I'd rank a human carrying an infected device as more likely than an infected periodically-active device.
jachee | 6 hours ago
redwood | 42 minutes ago
OJFord | 12 hours ago
rcxdude | 11 hours ago
The biggest danger is that said proxies can also allow access to internal networks, and as you might guess from how they are installed, are not usually operated by the most scrupulous of organizations.
O_H_E | 9 hours ago
is that actually a thing that was caught before?
debugnik | 4 hours ago
Also some free VPNs use their users as exit nodes for their actual paying customers, good luck finding a user who understands that. It's the obvious way to monetize such a service other than ads.
oasisbob | 11 hours ago
https://cloud.google.com/blog/topics/threat-intelligence/goo...
mcv | an hour ago
TZubiri | 11 hours ago
cowlevel | 10 hours ago
vonunov | 8 hours ago
itishappy | 11 hours ago
killjoywashere | 11 hours ago
If you click the AS2650 link (1) in the article, you will learn that AS2650 is announcing 65,792 addresses in 5 prefixes. Roughly 40-70% of the IP addresses in a typical corporate ASN are associated with actual computers humans are using. Let's go with 40%. You're looking at 26,317 people. Assume they're all adults (please, dear lord, let them all be adults). 3-8% of the workforce is in IT. Let's go with 3%, that's 789 people. I'm guessing one of those 789 folks has thought this through and has a few VLANs set up to keep VIP and family-of-VIP, pattern of life stuff in a box.
As for the thesis that these are all window-licking low-IQ goons, that's just not how the US government cultivates its workforce. It's no accident that Harvard Business School characterizes themselves as "the West Point of capitalism." West Point isn't someone else's anything. The US Government is in it for the long haul and captures folks young with impossible-to-resist opportunities like the military academies, ROTC, SMART scholars, etc. Let's just stick with the academies: 12,000 people a year who were likely competitive for the Ivies, Division 1 athletics, or both, but chose their parents poorly. Free, top tier education and a job is very attractive for kids from fly-over states. Hell, in big states like California, New York, and Texas, it can actually be even more competitive. Something north of 60% of those graduates stick around for at least 20 years of service (because the high three pension + VA benefits is a pretty nice floor for retirement when your options back home are line supervisor at the cotton mill, the sugar mill, the coal mine, or ramp manager for United), usually addicted to the crazy level of mission. Sort of the opposite of finance where people really struggle mentally if they're not making pallets of money at an accelerating rate. Government service pays dogshit, but the work can super interesting, especially as you gain seniority.
Those folks then often loop back into other agencies and do another 20 years. Are there goombas in the Government? Oh, for sure. Absolutely. But it's roughly the same fraction as any other workforce in the rest of the economy.
But by the time you get to top tier stuff like the White House staff, the sorting function has been strong. To make the point: you also see top tier folks in other organizations with government stink on them. I can think of at least two directors at Google who are prior military. A fat pile of McKinsey folks. Something like 8% of Fortune 500 CEOs have served in the military, above the national average (6-7% of Americans have served in the military at some point).
And it's hilarious to watch people simultaneously assert the government is a bunch of idiots, and then get all excited about fighter pilots, the CIA, the CDC, ambassadors, the NIH. As though those people just appeared from the head of Zeus fully formed. Where do you think they worked when they were young? They were stamping visas for the Department of State in some embassy in central Asia. They were rolling blankets and digging wells in Gambia for the Peace Corps. Checking corporate filings for mostly unknown companies at SEC. Studying aerospace engineering at Embry Riddle and then flying cleared checks between clearing houses across the state overnight in a Cessna.
(1) https://layer3intel.com/context/AS2650
BLKNSLVR | 9 hours ago
walrus01 | 45 minutes ago
reactordev | 11 hours ago
cowlevel | 10 hours ago
BLKNSLVR | 9 hours ago
cowlevel | 7 hours ago
BLKNSLVR | 4 hours ago
I'd be very interested in AI capabilities in detecting anomalous activity given that it should be very effective at pattern matching across large data sets. What would be required, however, is significant training with industry/application specific 'normal' browsing traffic patterns to determine acceptable tolerances, and then design escalating deterrence if and when tolerances are breached.
How is the scraper process stepping through the site? It must be programmatic, even if it's programmed to be random. What does that look like in traffic data in terms of timing and content requests?
What hazards can be put in place that a normal user would never go near, but a scraper is likely to trip over?
If scraping is being performed from multiple locations in parallel, what might that look like? ie. joining multiple sessions together that may show a more 'scraper' kind of behaviour.
Under IPv6 wouldn't detection start burning a lot of addresses? Yes, the pool is large, but that just means it's a scaling issue from IPv4 to IPv6, rather than a new problem requiring new thinking to solve? (assuming ways of detection were successful).
I'm being somewhat devil's advocate in my blocking rhetoric. The internet is in a weird confluence of wild-west and surveillance state. I like that there are ways and means of being anon-/pseudon-ymous; I like a bit of anarchaos, that's where the spirit of hacking lives. But I also don't want it sticking to my boots when I walk in the house. I'm also not fundamentally against scraping; there's definitely good scraping. There is an irony, though, in protecting scraped data or services that are built on scraped data (and I'm not accusing you, personally, just my general logical ideology of scraping). On residential proxies, I think they're 99% run by erstwhile criminals leveraging what were, until recently, referred to as botnets into a service they can launder their botnets through as 'I am legitimate business man'. I think most, basically all, residential proxies are run involuntarily or unwittingly and that blocking them would provide a greater society benefit than it would a drawback. Anything that promotes the sanitisation of end user devices can only be a good thing. The whole ecosystem is in a terrible state and regulation doesn't even seem to be on the distant horizon.
Maybe I'm hypocritical, or I'm trying to maintain mutually exclusive positions. This is where I'm at though.
skinfaxi | 10 hours ago
tgtweak | 8 hours ago
dools | 10 hours ago
XnoiVeX | 9 hours ago
tgtweak | 8 hours ago
Symbiote | 3 hours ago
https://spur.us/blog/smart-tv-apps-residential-proxy-sdks
BLKNSLVR | 30 minutes ago
Thankfully security researchers exist to fill the gaps that lawmakers haven't gotten to / won't get to: https://blog.includesecurity.com/2026/06/the-smart-tv-in-you...
These are the specific URLs mentioned:
I use these regular expressions to block any connections to the domains or subdomains: No idea if this actually prevents proxy functionality altogether, but prevents some phoning home if you're infected.IG_Semmelweiss | 8 hours ago
diyseguy | 8 hours ago
Not sure why the text is all black, but it's there
tgtweak | 8 hours ago
KoftaBob | 8 hours ago
xbmcuser | 8 hours ago
50208 | 8 hours ago
privacyishuman | 7 hours ago
https://www.trustpilot.com/review/myxproxy.com?languages=all
isolay | 7 hours ago
EmX_3000 | 6 hours ago
OTOH it could be a honeypot, OR possibly somebody was careless. But there is no reason it has to be suspicious.
LocalH | 6 hours ago
Root it out or let it rot us
m00dy | 6 hours ago
I don’t think it’s fair to call all residential proxy networks shady. Not all of us run our businesses that way. Our code is open, we have nothing to hide, and we use US-based stablecoins for transactions. User consent is our number one priority. I haven’t seen anyone else in the industry match that level of transparency.
kevmo314 | 5 hours ago
m00dy | 4 hours ago
alpineman | 2 hours ago
m00dy | 2 hours ago
alpineman | 2 hours ago
dminik | 2 hours ago
It should be made illegal.
m00dy | 2 hours ago
wolvoleo | 4 hours ago
It would be nice if the VPNs would integrate this option.
I don't need one from the white house though :)
stcg | 3 hours ago
port11 | 3 hours ago
cryptonym | 3 hours ago
It's no longer a botnet, it's a "residential proxy" and you are doing clean business.
port11 | 3 hours ago
And I’d argue that’s not clean business, the user doesn’t know what their connection is being used for :)
cryptonym | 2 hours ago
BLKNSLVR | 39 minutes ago
oefrha | 2 hours ago
asdefghyk | 3 hours ago
And why have they not physically located the device OR at least vastly reduced its possible location , by determining the flow of the traffic from network elements ?
hdgvhicv | 3 hours ago
asdefghyk | 3 hours ago
asdefghyk | 3 hours ago
Good4boothee | 2 hours ago
rustyhancock | 21 minutes ago
gesman | 2 hours ago
Same happens within cellphones - via native mobile apps pimped by ISP/Mobile providers.
Could it be the case?
janoelze | 5 minutes ago