Bug Report

Remarkable number of SL edits apparently by [#7196]

Back to forum

New reply

PeterHB: Remarkable number of SL edits apparently by (2019-02-09 20:49) [#11314]

I don't believe that all the recent edits apparently by are really by the same person, the same organisation, or even from the same country.

[ext] https://senseis.xmp.net/?Movies By an anonymous person I think. Maybe Zach Gormley.

[ext] https://senseis.xmp.net/?diff=TheEndgameTheBook%2FReviewByRobertJasiek&new=16 By Robert Jasiek.

[ext] https://senseis.xmp.net/?diff=UtahGoClubs&new=84 By Zach Gormley

[ext] https://senseis.xmp.net/?info=BasicKoRule By PJTraill

I have noticed at least once on the blocked sites list due to overload.

10.x.x.x addresses are private ipv4 addresses, non-routable on the public internet. The internal addresses for a large organisation, similar to the 192.168.x.x addresses for home networks. So my instinctive first thought is that it shouldn't be appearing at all as a vistor's ip address. This should be the routable ip address of their internet facing router. As this has only started occurring recently, I think it could be related to SL's recent move to a new server on 2019-01-19.

tapir: ((no subject)) (2019-02-10 14:05) [#11315]

I had at least one edit as as well. This is a problem.

PeterHB: Re: ((no subject)) (2019-02-10 13:28) [#11316]

I agree, which is why I've raised it. If you look at the blocked list, you will see it is blocked today. This isn't the first time.

( I don't think the mechanism of IP address blocking should be discussed here online, as I don't want to give spammers hints on how to get round it. )

I have emailed Arno to draw his attention to this.

ArnoHollosi: looking into this... (2019-02-10 14:33) [#11317]

I noticed this phenomenon after moving to the new server ( being unroutable IP address space.) I think it is related to SL now being reachable over IPv6 and some odd behavior of the "what is the real visitor IP address" code in SL's engine.

I thought it's odd & nothing to worry about, but if we inadvertently block people that's no good. I'll dig into this and hopefully come up with a solution soonish.

@tapir: did this happen to you while you were logged in? (Because that definitely shouldn't happen...)

tapir: Re: looking into this... (2019-02-10 14:59) [#11318]

No, I wasn't logged in.

ArnoHollosi: suggestions? (2019-02-10 17:49) [#11319]

So indeed, it has to do with IPv6: the code checks for IPv4 addresses and if the client's address does not look like one, it assigns "". Don't ask :o)

So I have different ways forward now:

  • just use the routing prefix of IPv6 (i.e. the first 64 bits) like "2601:1601:d980:538a" (I prefer this variant)
  • show full IPv6 addresses like e.g. "2601:1601:d980:538a:a1e0:dabc:53ce:c184" (might be a bit long)
  • hide all IP addresses and use something like 'anonymous-1234' (much work...)
  • something else?

What's your opinion?

PeterHB: Re: suggestions? (2019-02-10 18:06) [#11320]

Yes, I think your suggestion of the routing prefix of IPv6 "2601:1601:d980:538a" looks good, so it gets my vote.

I've been googling ipv6 addressing, but haven't understood it, so there isn't much intellectual heft to my vote.

I think the "2601:1601:d980:538a" looks short enough to work in the wiki change logs without being unwieldy.

I don't like the suggestion of hide all IP addresses and use something like 'anonymous-1234'. That would just lead to a database cross-referencing the 'anonymous-1234' alias to the IPv6 address and then using that for blocking. Added complication with no benefit to my eyes.

ArnoHollosi: fixed (2019-02-10 18:58) [#11321]

Ok, I pushed the changes: just using the IPv6 routing prefix in case of IPv6 numbers. Let's see how it turns out :o)

PeterHB: Re: fixed (2019-02-10 22:30) [#11322]

Well, the first result is in.

[ext] https://senseis.xmp.net/?info=AmbiguousPlays

PJTraill* (2003:dd:df2f:6083:9308:aa87:da74:4b4b)

Longer than I was expecting. That is the full IPv6 address, rather than the routing prefix, I think.

(P.S. Thanks for reacting to do a quick fix. I'm sure this will do for now, letting you think about the consequences of the change. Better to stick with this for now rather than doing a late night change without the time to check how it is working. )

ArnoHollosi: Re: fixed (2019-02-12 14:03) [#11323]

Silly bug - should be prefix only now.

PeterHB: on the automatic block list today (2019-02-14 21:58) [#11324]

This feels like an indicator that something is still slightly wrong.

ArnoHollosi: fixed (2019-02-15 09:30) [#11325]

This is getting embarrassing :o( Now the code is bug free -- or so, I hope...

PeterHB: Re: fixed (2019-02-17 16:30) [#11326]

Not quite over the line yet. has appeared like the proverbial bad penny on the automatic block list today.

Back to forum

New reply

[Welcome to Sensei's Library!]
Search position
Page history
Latest page diff
Partner sites:
Go Teaching Ladder
Login / Prefs
Sensei's Library