Re: 4chan and att DO READ

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
Date: July 27, 2009 10:56:22 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] 4chan and att  DO READ

Dave -

I have received an offlist suggestion as to how AT&T might block the "/ 
b/" and "/r9k/" sections of the website without inspecting content.   
It is possible that "GET" commands to URLs for those pages involve  
further URL references to a common server (or servers)with a specific  
IP address, but other, unrelated URLs with the same DNS name do not  
require access to that server (or servers).

Such redirections would allow for a selective block by IP address only  
to be put in place by AT&T refusing to route IP packets to that address.

I don't know if that is the way AT&T did actually operate the block -  
but it suggests that AT&T might not be inspecting content to achieve  
the blocking observed by those who detected it.  It's why I asked how  
they achieved selective blocking.

I hope AT&T does disclose the techniques used, and the criterion on  
which they decided to block a popular site unilaterally.

- David

On 07/27/2009 09:41 AM, David Farber wrote:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: "David P. Reed" <dpreed () reed com>
> Date: July 27, 2009 8:32:30 AM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Subject: Re: [IP] NOT the whole story: a comprehensive time line of  
> 4chan and att
>
> This is hardly the whole story, Dave.  I'd be interested in how AT&T  
> managed to block *only* certain parts of 4chan's web content.    
> Since DNS routing does not depend on the characters after the "/" in  
> a URL in *any* way, the site's mention that AT&T was blocking only  
> certain sub-"directories" of 4chan's content suggests that the  
> blocking involved *reading content of end-to-end communications".
>
> If AT&T admits it was doing this, they should supply to the rest of  
> the world a description of the technology that they were using to  
> focus their blocking.  Since AT&T has deployed content-scanning-and- 
> recording boxes for the NSA in its US-based switching fabric,  
> perhaps that is how they do it.  However, even if you believe that  
> is legitimate for the US Gov't to do, the applicability of similar  
> technology to commercial traffic blocking is not clearly in the  
> domain of acceptable Internet traffic management.
>
>
> On 07/27/2009 06:41 AM, David Farber wrote:
> > The whole story djf
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Joly MacFie <joly () punkcast com>
> > Date: July 27, 2009 3:12:23 AM EDT
> > To: dave () farber net
> >
> >
> > According to
> > http://www.centralgadget.com/att-blocking-access-to-portions-of-4chan-2336/
> > access has been restored
> >
> > Archives        
>
> Archives        




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com