That "jackass" sounds like an AI training set scraper. They're known for being incredibly brutal to the sites they scrape, ignoring robots.txt and other honor-based systems for preventing the site from getting overloaded.
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2025
130 points (98.5% liked)
Fediverse
37666 readers
67 users here now
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to !moderators@lemmy.world!
Rules
- Posts must be on topic.
- Be respectful of others.
- Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
- Follow the general Lemmy.world rules.
Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I found the same IPs doing the same thing for my server, but one thing I noticed in the access log was that nginx was returning a 499 status code. That code means that the client closed the connection before the server answered the request. So this seems to be a deliberate attack instead of the rash of bots many have been dealing with recently. They just firehose out requests to DoS the server since pagination on services with dynamic data is expensive.
I ended up creating a fail2ban rule to add any IP to my firewall blocklist that makes a bunch of 499 entries.
Edit: I also set a rate limit in nginx for any url that has a "page" query included
Good idea with the f2b integration.
I thought about that before just blocking unscoped requests to that endpoint in Nginx.
Can't edit the post (Thanks Cloudflare! /s) but additional info:
- I truncated the log excerpts in the post. The user agent string in these requests isn't shown here, but it is blank in the actual logs.
- This is for Lemmy admins only. It might apply to others in some form, but this seems to be specifically exploiting a Lemmy API endpoint
- My Nginx solution may have room for improvement; I was just trying to block that behavior without breaking comments in posts and move on with my day. Suggestions for improvement are welcome.
I am gonna try to make it for caddy too
Get a blocklist and set it up.
Literally all of the IPs are known bots for up to 3 years:
- https://www.abuseipdb.com/check/134.19.178.167
- https://www.abuseipdb.com/check/213.152.162.5
- https://www.abuseipdb.com/check/134.19.179.211
Oh and maybe also a rate-limiter...
Thanks for sharing
Sounds like such unscoped requests should not be allowed in the first place? Maybe worth reporting in a Lemmy issue?
That was my thought, but also wasn't sure since there might be a use-case I'm unfamiliar with. I vaguely recall seeing a feature request for Photon a while back to be able to just browse comments, so I assume that would be how it worked.
But yeah as it is now, it can be abused.
It's only useful with the ModeratorView type. I haven't heard more than just a few using it for anything other than for moderation purposes. It is useful for some type of bots, for example. But I think they should opt in for a solution with the upcoming plugin system (for example a webhook) or with mentions. Polling this endpoint is not very efficient and it is very possible to even miss some comments.
So I think this endpoint should be just for the modview type and authorization should therefore be required.
Or the rate limit should be more fine tunable. There are like only 4 configurable rate limits that encompass all endpoints.
FYI these are all on ASN 49453
The other (lazier) option is to block/challenge the ASN
That's my normal go-to, but more than once I've accidentally blocked locations that Let's Encrypt uses for secondary validation, so I've had to be more precise with my firewall blocks
Good, I am challenging all ASN 49453
For Cloudflare users:
Security Rules:
(http.request.uri.path eq "/api/v3/comment/list" and not http.request.uri.query contains "post_id")
For Caddy users:
# >>> Specific handler for /api/v3/comment/list with post_id check
handle_path /api/v3/comment/list {
# Check if the 'post_id' query parameter is present
@hasPostId {
query post_id=*
}
# Abort the connection if the parameter is missing
handle @hasPostId {
reverse_proxy http://localhost:8536/
}
# This handles all requests that did not match @hasPostId
abort
}
I found that the Caddy handler above blocked many third party clients and even Tesseract.
So instead I'm using this CEL expression to return a 444 error on match of the unscoped old-sorted 50 per-page comments past page 99:
@block_comment_spam expression <<CEL
{http.request.uri.path} == "/api/v3/comment/list" &&
{http.request.uri.query.limit} == "50" &&
{http.request.uri.query.sort} == "Old" &&
int({http.request.uri.query.page}) > 99 &&
{http.request.uri.query.post_id} == ""
CEL
handle @block_comment_spam {
respond 444
}
Very nice!
Maybe we should introduce a gated API and charge $12 for 50k requests...
We had this issue on and off for a few weeks at least, causing massive postgres CPU spikes. I ended up blocking large page params with an nginx regex.
This is for Lemmy I presume (or also for Piefed or Mbin)? You've modified yours heavily though, I thought, which could complicate matters. I wonder if you are having those bot scraping issues that semi-recently (a month or so ago?) started increasing in frequency. So many instances now have a human detector before letting you in whereas before it was not necessary.
PieFed has a similar API endpoint. It used to be scoped, but was changed at the request of app developers. It's how people browse sites by 'New Comments', and - for a GET request - it's not really possible to document and validate that an endpoint needs to have at least one of something (i.e. that none of 'post_id' or 'user_id' or 'community_id' or 'user_id' are individually required, but there needs to be one of them).
It's unlikely that these crawlers will discover PieFed's API, but I guess it's no surprise that they've moved on from basic HTML crawling to probing APIs. In the meantime, I've added some basic protection to the back-end for anonymous, unscoped requests to PieFed's endpoint.
Good thinking!:-)
Could you elaborate on this:
it's not really possible to document and validate that an endpoint needs to have at least one of something
In what sense it is not possible, as I can easily see it done in the code?
It's straight-forward enough to do in back-end code, to just reject a query if parameters are missing, but I don't think there's a way to define a schema that then gets used to auto-generate the documentation and validate the requests. If the request isn't validated, then the back-end never sees it.
For something like https://freamon.github.io/piefed-api/#/Misc/get_api_alpha_search, the docs show that 'q' and 'type_' are required, and everything else is optional. The schema definition looks like:
/api/alpha/search:
get:
parameters:
- in: query
name: q
schema:
type: string
required: true
- in: query
name: type_
schema:
type: string
enum:
- Communities
- Posts
- Users
- Url
required: true
- in: query
name: limit
schema:
type: integer
required: false
required is a simple boolean for each individual field - you can say every field is required, or no fields are required, but I haven't come across a way to say that at least one field is required.
Ah, I see, so you are talking about this.
Of course it is nice if things get auto-generated, but doing it yourself, both in code and documentation should never be excluded as an option.
Exactly that, yeah. Thank you for the link.
Lemmy. I added a comment above since LW wouldn't let me edit the post.
Mine's only extended with some WAF rules and I've got a massive laundry list of bot user agents that it blocks, but otherwise it's pretty bog standard.
If instances have Anubis setup correctly (i.e. not in front of /api/...) then that might not help them since this is calling the API endpoint.
All of a sudden your edits went through - perhaps a delay caused by this same issue?
Also some related posts:
- another one reporting similar attack-like activities https://lemmy.world/post/36413045
- a month ago similarly https://lemmy.world/post/34310429
Isn't the same endpoint used to list all of a user's comments in their profile?
No, that's just /api/v3/user which returns both posts and comments.
Not sure if there's a legit use for just fetching only comments outside of a post
The ability to see all comments is right there at the Lemmy UI.
Things have been slow for me off and on in recent weeks. And today it’s quite slow.
Unfortunately, there's many many reasons that could be the case. I'm just putting this out there since it's easy to check for and mitigate against.
I appreciate the effort!