Thank you for figuring out where it came from. Clever. I didn't even notice the comma.AmigoJack wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:07 pmLooks like:
The illogic comma in that message bothered me enough to use Google which brings up results for different boards, and that led to the name "CleanTalk", which then brought up the extension. The error message itself is not within the phpBB extension files, but instead must directly come from their service (which means it's somewhat impossible to fix).
- Anti-Spam by CleanTalk (Spam protection without CAPTCHA) (extension database)
- Installing the CleanTalk Anti-Spam Extension in phpBB 3.1, 3.2 (original vendor).
Good idea. I got a list of about 33,000 VPN IP addresses in a zip file here from Github: https://github.com/ejrv/VPNs/archive/master.zip and here is where the ZIP file came from: https://github.com/ejrv/VPNsEA117 wrote: ↑Sun Jul 26, 2020 8:46 pmNot aware of an extension that has a database of VPN IP address ranges. Which doesn't mean it can't exist, but I haven't seen it mentioned here.
The feature within phpBB itself which could have presented a similar message is simply banning an IP address range. As with other types of phpBB bans, you get to define a message that will be shown to the banned user/session. I suspect that might be all they have done here, and set the "Forbidden..." message as the ban reason to be shown.
Banning of IP address(es) is on the phpBB ACP Users & Groups tab, same as banning usernames or email addresses.
That the site in question had simply issued the ban themselves, from an IP address range they had found to be "at high risk for spam", is all I was expecting had happened. i.e. phpBB's built-in IP address ban capability could explain having a specific message presented to those users, as was being shown in the screen shot. But as was uncovered by AmigoJack, it appears they likely have an extension which has made its own deduction of "this is at high risk for spam", and nothing to do with the phpBB IP address ban system.
Standard header analysis and it showed about 10 extensions (cleantalk not being one of them)
Yep: since I was specifically looking for cleantalk, I should just have explicitly checked that (but blindly accepted the default check results).EA117 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:30 amhttps://www.avathar.be/forum/ext/cleantalk/antispam/composer.json
Thanks. The list was accepted as a single attempt to add it as I think I mentioned. No problem. And it created a separate line for each IP with the same Ban reason given for each entry. The difficulty was removing them all afterwards though. I couldn't do the whole list in one go again in the same way that I added them. It would only delete a few hundred at a time. So it took a bit longer to delete them all again. But while I had the list installed, I didn't see any reduction in site speed or performance.EA117 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 4:30 am
A ~490KB list might be accepted in a single attempt to add them to the phpBB ACP ban page. It would depend on what the PHP post size was set to allow in a single request on your server. Worst case you might have to break such a list into smaller pieces, if you're getting an error when trying to add the entire list, or don't see all the IP addresses in the ban list after you submit them.
The issue I see which should prevent the entire list from loading regardless of the post size is because the phpBB "ban IP address" input does not accept the network mask or CIDR-type notation being used in the list you linked to. Meaning the format such as x.x.x.x/27, x.x.x.x/18, etc. As described in the phpBB ACP page, each line must have either an IP address (x.x.x.x) possibly with an asterisk-based "wildcard"; or a range of IP addresses separated with a hyphen (x.x.x.x-x.x.x.x).
So that might have been what kept the VPNs you tested with from being blocked; because the IP address range present in the list which would have blocked the VPN wasn't specified in a format compatible with the phpBB ACP IP address ban input. The other possibility, since you didn't specifically confirm, is that the VPN you tested from simply wasn't in this public VPN list. I'm guessing your VPN probably was listed; but just saying we haven't explicitly confirmed having ruled that possibility out yet, either.
Isn't this obvious? If I have an address I can also try parts of it. Maybe you should also read the content of the websites you link to:
This list doesn't list all VPNs,
Understood. Yes, the "save as" which resulted in a file containing codes is saving the HTML document used to display the file on github, rather than saving the file itself. You have to click the "raw" view offered by github first in order to get just the file itself, instead of the friendly HTML display.ChinaGal wrote: ↑Mon Jul 27, 2020 6:39 amAlso, there were no IP ranges in the list I added. The list I used was all purely one IP per line. They seem to be providing 2 different IPV4 files on Github. If you go to the following link https://github.com/ejrv/VPNs and save the vpn-ipv4.txt file directly from the link provided there then you get a strange looking file filled with lots of code and IP ranges. But if you download the ZIP file, and then open the vpn-ipv4.txt file within the ZIP file, then you just get a pure list of just over 33,000 IP addresses, one per line, and that is what I used to install the Ban list I put in.
Code: Select all
18.104.22.168 22.214.171.124 126.96.36.199 188.8.131.52/22 184.108.40.206/22 220.127.116.11/24 18.104.22.168/22 22.214.171.124/22 126.96.36.199 188.8.131.52
184.108.40.206/22is a range; all hosts within 220.127.116.11 with a 22-bit network mask applied. Everything you see with "/xx" at the end is a range of addresses.
18.104.22.168(the part that passes the regex pattern) when processing the line
22.214.171.124/22. But what the list intended is that you would have added
126.96.36.199-188.8.131.52to phpBB in response to
184.108.40.206/22, because that is the range of addresses "220.127.116.11 with a 22-bit network mask applied" represents.