[Armada]

I personally have never had a problem access HF due to blacklisting, however I can see how this would be useful for many.

However, Omni.

How would ban evaders be managed if say someone has all of one of our VPN services IP#s white listed?
Would this not simply encourage ban evaders and scammers easier access to continue on with their gibberish?

I think this could be a great idea for many users, however IMO the whitelisted IP# would need to be associated with a specific account for this to be effective without lowered the security already in place.

[Mons]

I personally have never had a problem access HF due to blacklisting, however I can see how this would be useful for many.

However, Omni.

How would ban evaders be managed if say someone has all of one of our VPN services IP#s white listed?
Would this not simply encourage ban evaders and scammers easier access to continue on with their gibberish?

I think this could be a great idea for many users, however IMO the whitelisted IP# would need to be associated with a specific account for this to be effective without lowered the security already in place.

Any abuse (API usage, sharing, or DOS) would mean the IP would be blacklisted into the firewall.

I may require Ub3r and the IP would need to be manually whitelisted by me.

[Armada]

Code

Any abuse (API usage, sharing, or DOS) would mean the IP would be blacklisted into the firewall.

I may require Ub3r and the IP would need to be manually whitelisted by me.

My point is, Lets say I have Server A of a VPN whitelisted for my uses.

What is preventing someone else on that same VPN service from using the same connection IP#?

I would not be "sharing" so to speak, but it would directly reflect to me as I was the one who had the IP# whitelisted.

Again, I think it would need to be tied to accounts if this were to be feasible.
Maybe I am missing something here as well.

[Energy Wizard]

What is the point in ub3r only? The registration ip will still be a real one, so its useless to be anon...
Or am I missing something?

Some users browse on the internet with their computer connected to a VPN all the time. It is usually an inconvenience to either disconnect it or add an exception.
For the registration IP, I'm sure it will be safe with staff. Most people are worried about another member getting their IP.

[Omniscient]

Would it not be possible to make this process automated, Omniscient?

Yes, and no.

I'd have to ensure that the blocks and whitelisting were correct. Initially I'd want to review everything manually but eventually yes, it could potentially be 100% automated.

Because of my paranoia with HF security, I'd have to write some serious scripts to deal with API access. Nothing touches HF servers except through tunnels so I can 100% control all access with a buffer.

What is the point in ub3r only?

Almost all new features are Ub3r only if only to ensure it works and is manageable. Also ub3r are all manually approved and have been members for at least 3 months. It's dangerous to whitelist a brand new member who may have just joined. Someone may decide to abuse it even if it costs a few hundred to get a few dozen IPs whitelisted to attack HF. Also it would be super easy for a new member to ban evade that way. Scammers would be super happy.

What is preventing someone else on that same VPN service from using the same connection IP#?

The IP match would trigger closed accounts. Unsure how much of this thread you're reading. Sharing IP's is an easy way to get closed accounts on HF. Everyone knows this, why don't you? Trust scan would even show the matching.

Most people are worried about another member getting their IP.

Would it honestly be so hard for me to warn anyone buying this to NOT USE A DYNAMIC IP VPN?

Jesus F'n CHRIST some of you are DENSE!

[Black Shadow]

I would like to do this, so could you please take me off your ignore list so I can send you a PM.

[Armada]

The IP match would trigger closed accounts. Unsure how much of this thread you're reading. Sharing IP's is an easy way to get closed accounts on HF. Everyone knows this, why don't you? Trust scan would even show the matching.

VPNs are inherently shared services though. The end user can not control who else is on the same VPN IP# that they are, nor are they likely to know who else is on that VPN server (Be it another HF member or otherwise).

Again, this issue has never presented myself a problem, but considering the factors I think there would be problems for users who do use this concept.

User A has Server 1 on VPN Service Acme co. whitelisted.
User B,C,D discover Server 1 is whitelisted and utilize the same server.

All 4 users would show as matching IP#'s.

So, with what you stated, would all 4 users be banned/blacklisted?

With what I was stating earlier, I can see this working very effectively, but it would need to be based on the user.
User A has had IP# whitelisted = Okay
User B,C,D have not had the IP# whitelisted = NO ACCESS

I do see this being a benefit for many members, especially in restrictive countries who limit internet access. But I also see potential for abuse as well.

[Omniscient]

VPNs are inherently shared services though.

No, they are not.

1. You can setup a tunnel on a VPS or dedicated.
2. You can find a VPN which offers you a private and dedicated IP. I even provided pricing and a link to one (PureVPN).

User A has Server 1 on VPN Service Acme co. whitelisted.
User B,C,D discover Server 1 is whitelisted and utilize the same server.

All 4 users would show as matching IP#'s.

All 4 users would get a CLOSED account. Which is exactly what would happen now anyways. This changes NOTHING.

So, with what you stated, would all 4 users be banned/blacklisted?

That's EXACTLY what I do now. WTF. Matching IPs = FUCKED.

I can see this working very effectively, but it would need to be based on the user.

I've already said that. REPEATEDLY!

[Supreme‌‌‌‌‌‌‌]

This is a great implementation. Willing to pay a fee for this. However, it should be only restricted to Uber members.

[Omniscient]

Going to note one last thing then close this thread.

The service is about whitelisting a single IP for a single user. It is NOT about whitelisting an entire datacenter or dynamic VPN service.

Go back to my first post. Done with the idiocy that is being posted here.