Slashdot Mirror


Internet Backbone Provider Cogent Blocks Pirate Bay and Other 'Pirate' Sites (torrentfreak.com)

Several Pirate Bay users from ISPs all over the world have been unable to access their favorite torrent site for more than a week. Their requests are being stopped in the Internet backbone network of Cogent Communications, which has blackholed the CloudFlare IP-address of The Pirate Bay and many other torrent and streaming sites, reports TorrentFreak. From the article: When the average Internet user types in a domain name, a request is sent through a series of networks before it finally reaches the server of the website. This also applies to The Pirate Bay and other pirate sites such as Primewire, Movie4k, TorrentProject and TorrentButler. However, for more than a week now the US-based backbone provider Cogent has stopped passing on traffic to these sites. The sites in question all use CloudFlare, which assigned them the public IP-addresses 104.31.18.30 and 104.31.19.30. While this can be reached just fine by most people, users attempting to pass requests through Cogent's network are unable to access them.

29 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Cogent is shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Level3 should have nuked it when they were caught hot-potato routing in violation of peering agreements

    1. Re: Cogent is shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thus begins the breakup of the free and open internet. No matter what you think of Pirate Bay.

    2. Re: Cogent is shit by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Filtering on your own end is fine for security purposes, but we can't have peering broken or else the whole thing just won't work.

    3. Re: Cogent is shit by flink · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is more like the road leading to the store being dynamited. Cogent should loose its common carrier status since they are now exerting editorial control over the contents of their network. Let them be liable for all copyright infringement they happen to route.

    4. Re: Cogent is shit by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're not looking at the Big Picture. If any backbone provider can unilaterally decide to disallow arbitrary traffic to traverse their network, then the Internet as a whole can become profoundly broken in no time. This sort of behavior sets a dangerous precedent for behavior for network providers at all levels. If you've ever been afraid of the Internet being broken up into 'walled gardens', then you should be afraid now, because moves like this from Cogent may set the tone for the future, emboldening other companies to take similar actions for whatever reasons suit them. This goes beyond frivolous things like, for instance, Comcast/Xfinity deciding to slow (or block) Hulu traffic because they offer their own streaming video service; what if, say, Wells Fargo Bank decides to pay a large ISP to slow (or block completely) access through their network to all Credit Unions? You might say "well, I'll just get a different ISP", but many people have no other choice of ISP. Since Comcast/Xfinity is a business, it can do whatever it wants. If there's no Net Neutrality regulation, then there's nothing to stop them. This is just one example; do you see the problem now?

    5. Re: Cogent is shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      And you work for a backbone provider?

      There is a big difference between a major provider cutting off access to millions of people and your little rinky-dink, Mickey Mouse operation cutting off IPs for your handful of employees while they are holed up in your converted boxcar "business" site.

    6. Re: Cogent is shit by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

      This is more like the road leading to the store being dynamited.

      Bingo.

      To further the analogy, there may be perfectly legitimate reasons for going to the store in question, even if they dealt exclusively in pirated media or other illegal items. To block access to the store or a site absent any criminal behavior on the part of the visitor is overreaching.

      I can think of exceptions (kiddy porn sites, for example) but it's still a slippery slope. It's a minor step from claiming "child porn" to "anarchist materials", whatever that might be.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    7. Re: Cogent is shit by starblazer · · Score: 2

      Well.. you know how we fix that? L3, cogent, cox... etc... nullroute foxnews.com, drudgereport.com, infowars.com. When they come screaming just point to the FCC chair and say "Hey, they just dismantled the rules that forbid us from doing that" oh... wait... that would require an ISP to be for the free movement of information, not for the sole purpose of squeezing cash out of consumers.

  2. Hey cogent... by wbr1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Do you want to retain common carrier status? Or do you want to be charged for every illegal piece of data flowing through your network? I am sure if you look hard enough you can find illegal porn, drug deals, terrorist communications, plans to commit crimes, insider trading.. etc.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re: Hey cogent... by mmell · · Score: 5, Informative

      D'ya suppose the current FCC will even care?

    2. Re: Hey cogent... by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Informative

      D'ya suppose the current FCC will even care?

      The FCC isn't the only organization that this falls under. ISP's in Canada use cogent as well, and oversight falls into the domain of the CRTC. We also have net neutrality rules, cogent operates offices here and in turn is subject to Canadian laws.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Hey cogent... by jon3k · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Yes, they are common carriers:

      The most controversial part of the FCC's decision reclassifies fixed and mobile broadband as a telecommunications service, with providers to be regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act.

      Their bigger concern should be the exemptions provided to them under the OCILLA Act. If you argue that you're just a carrier and you can't block illegal content you're fine. But once you prove you CAN block illegal content then why aren't you blocking more of it?

    4. Re:Hey cogent... by epyT-R · · Score: 3

      You know, the democrats are big friends of the entertainment industry as well.

    5. Re:Hey cogent... by Kagato · · Score: 3, Interesting

      All these companies were born out of the fact that Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (ILEC) like Verizon couldn't cross LATA lines with their network. They had to pay third parties to do it. So, at one point most of these companies were Title II common carriers. Then Micheal Powell F'd everyone during the Bush Jr. era when he blew up Title II.

      The question is does it still stand? I don't know if it's ever been tested. Most ISPs and Upstream Network providers operate as a common carrier because they want to be able to make the argument that they are a common carrier.

      The only reason I could see them null routing the traffic is for DDOS mitigation. They can make an argument about overall traffic and network stability. But it's not clear if that's actually at play.

  3. Re:Tor? by dunkindave · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Someone puts a chain and lock across the front door of a business. But the place has a backdoor down a poorly lit alley that is still open and accessible, so IF PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT IT AND KNOW HOW TO GET THERE they can still get in. Do you think the blocked front door will cause some, maybe most, visitors to go away instead of looking for another way in?

  4. Yawn, another day, another lame block by Zocalo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Completely useless for anyone using a VPN with an endpoint that doesn't transit Cogent to get to Cloudflare, and even if that is the case you can *still* work around it since assigned IPs on Cloudflare are entirely administrative and almost any Cloudflare IP will work as long as you present a valid hostname and HTTP header. Add $blocked_site to your hosts file with a different IP (104.31.18.31 instead of 104.31.18.30, for example) and off you go.

    --
    UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
  5. Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they start blackholing IP ranges just because of "infringing content", it's not much more to assume that they will start blackholing VPN providers, porn, non-backdoored services, inconvenient "alternate facts", the competition of their corporate friends, "undesirables", or indeed anything else that they want to. Best part of all is, it's all the blocking they could ever want, and it's not the government doing it but a private company. So there's no threat of lawsuit to reverse the policy as it's not a first amendment violation.

    The citizenry needs a decentralized network NOW if we are to preserve freedom of expression, and association on the net. Guess we could start adhocing the APs, that would be a start. (Better yet someone produce an AP gateway that routes traffic to other gateways. With a passthrough for the central net if it can't find the destination on the citizen net.)

  6. Re: ***VPN***, FTW! by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

    VPN may not solve that. It really depends on who your VPN provider's ISP is. The only sure way around this is by using tor.

  7. Re:What about... by epyT-R · · Score: 2

    ..or maybe start with saner copyright law in the first place.

  8. Re:Tor? by unrtst · · Score: 2, Informative

    Doesn't the pirate bay have a tor node?

    Using bittorrent over the tor network isn't a great idea.
    * It's very slow over tor. The tor network can't handle that sort of load. https://blog.torproject.org/bl...
    * bittorrent leaks identifying information (your IP address is included in the bittorrent headers, and most clients pick a random port to listen on, which is can be found on the tracker and every peer; combined, they can clearly ID you)
    * Due to aforementioned point, if you're using bittorrent over tor, and you're ALSO browsing the web over tor at the same time, an attacking exit relay can break the anonymity of some of your web traffic. https://blog.torproject.org/bl...

  9. IPv6 is working though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Somebody forgot there's more than one protocol in the stack.

    1. Re:IPv6 is working though by petermgreen · · Score: 2

      The cogent/HE peering spat is only an issue when both ends of the connection were stupid enough to single home with a wannabe teir 1.

      Advertising a route and then blackholing traffic for destinations covered by that route is much worse than simply not providing a route because it also impacts multihomed downstreams.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  10. Re:Tor? by dunkindave · · Score: 2

    No, it won't.

    Instead people will ask on board and will be pointed to the backdoor.

    The internet treats such things as damage and simply routes around them.

    Well, to use a car analogy, there is road construction near me right now. The businesses on the other side of the construction are significantly closer than the ones in the other direction, but I still prefer to avoid the hassle of dealing with the special twists and turns to get to my preferred places, and instead go to the farther ones since they are easier to get to.

    Fact - people are lazy animals, and if you put obstacles in front of them, the vast majority of them look for the path of least resistance, even if it yields an inferior result. Blocks like this one aren't designed to block everyone, just make it painful enough that a large number won't hassle with a workaround, and because of human nature, it normally works.

  11. Nice subversion. by MMC+Monster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Love how the article doesn't just mention Pirate Bay, but gave me the names of a couple other site I didn't know about as well as IP addresses for a couple of them.

    Now I know more ways to get my torrents. Well done.

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  12. Re:Tor? by bigfinger76 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This isn't about using bittorrent over Tor; this discussion is about accessing TPB (the tracker), which is necessary in order to obtain either .torrent files or magnet links. Once acquired, the client can be run as usual (not over the Tor network), and Cogent's blocking will have no effect on that.

  13. Re:Tor? by camperdave · · Score: 2

    TPB isn't a tracker. It is just a source for torrent files. The torrent files contain a list of trackers. These trackers maintain an active list of who has what part of the original file.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  14. Obviously weren't around in the 1990s. Did more by raymorris · · Score: 3, Informative

    The backbones used to null-route and de-peer far more often. Frequently it was around spam. When one ISP had too much spam coming from their network, other backbones would cut them off.

    Cogent themselves didn't route Telia traffic for several weeks in 1999. (Telia is one of the world's largest ISPs).

    This stuff happened often enough at a MUCH larger scale than Pirate Bay, and the internet not only survived, it's even grown a bit since then.

  15. Re:Know your demographic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    For most content for most people on the globe it's actually easier to access pirated content.