Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

54758 readers

378 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.


Ko-fi	Liberapay

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com

sunbrothersco@lemmy.dbzer0.com

dataprolet@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com

RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com

386

RANT: I hate the fact that my ISP can restrict access to certain sites (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by ad_on_is@lemmy.world to c/piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com

104 comments fedilink hide all child comments

How can it possibly be, that an ISP, which I'm paying for gets to decid, which sites I'm allowed to have access to, and which not?

All the torrenting sites are restricted. I know, I can use VPN, and such... but I want to do it because of my privacy concerns and not because of some higher-up decided to bend over for the lobbying industry.

While on the other hand, if there's a data breach of a legit big-corp website (looking at you FB), I'm still able to access it, they get fined with a fraction of their revenue, and I'm still left empty-handed. What a hipocracy!!

What comes next? Are they gonna restrict me from using lemmy too, bc some lobbyist doesn't like the fact that it's a decentralized system which they have no control over?

Rant, over!

I didn't even know that my router was using my ISPs DNS, and that I can just ditch it, even though I'm running AdGuard (selfhosted)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They won't be able to get to my SNI if I'm using ECH, yes? I just assumed ECH was secure enough but I don't know much

[–] noride@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

You are absolutely correct, I should have lead with that. Encrypted client handshake means no one can see what certificate you are trying to request from the remote end of your connection, even your ISP.

However, It's worth noting though that if I am your ISP and I see you connecting to say public IP 8.8.8.8 over https (443) I don't need to see the SNI flag to know you're accessing something at Google.

First, I have a list of IP addresses of known blocked sites, I will just drop any traffic destined to that address, no other magic needed.

Second, if you target an IP that isn't blocked outright, and I can't see your SNI flag, I can still try to reverse lookup the IP myself and perform a block on your connection if the returned record matches a restricted pattern, say google.com.

VPN gets around all of these problems, provided you egress somewhere less restrictive.

Hope that helps clarify.

[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago

I can still try to reverse lookup the IP myself and perform a block on your connection if the returned record matches a restricted pattern

This is only effective when the host is the only one using that IP. Anything that uses Cloudflares WAF or similar services will just be a shared IP that responds for hundreds of hosts like one of Cloudflares Reverse Proxies.

[–] MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Ah, that clears it up! I feel silly that the idea of the ISP doing a reverse-lookup on my traffic didn't occur to me, thanks.