this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
100 points (98.1% liked)
Lemmy
12572 readers
3 users here now
Everything about Lemmy; bugs, gripes, praises, and advocacy.
For discussion about the lemmy.ml instance, go to [email protected].
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A per-user rate limit of some sort could have reduced the attack surface I think? Something like that would be quite a bit of dev work to implement though...
At least the situation was promptly resolved and users nuked, although R.I.P. to any smaller Lemmy servers that went down due to the massive spam wave
Actually there is, spammers are kind of funny because they help solidify the platform long term for short term gains. Turns out rate limiting was broken in the latest release of Lemmy, and no one noticed until this latest attack. So, there's a big fix and sounds like it'll be patched in the latest version. Thanks spammer for helping us bugfix the platform to shore it up!
I'm not sure how extensive the spam wave was, nor how quickly the user was able to create an account, make the comments.
I doubt that the quantity in that I came across would be enough to take down a server, but that may be the point: To test lemmy's collective defenses and response without drawing too much attention.
A common IP address or address range ban file that's frequently updated and downloaded by each instance might be another way to boost security.
If this is actually an org attack, I'm guessing that we'll see botnet DDOS comment and post attacks next.
I highly doubt it's an org attack, Lemmy just isn't popular enough to see something like that.
I don't know if Lemmy has the ability to shadow ban, but those can be pretty effective for cases like this. It obviously wouldn't help with a botnet attack, but it would help with your average, run of the mill pranksters.
It's part of the ol' Big Tech playbook:
If a promising emerging competitor emerges:
I mean it's possible, but lemmy only has ~50k monthly active users. Reddit, on the other hand, is in the millions (>400M monthly active users last year, and >50M daily active users). Lemmy just isn't anywhere in the ballpark of being a threat to anyone.
I also think Lemmy has some architectural issues that will make it very difficult to scale to anywhere near Reddit size, even if it somehow gets the users.
It's a cool service, I just highly doubt it's the target of any big campaign. And that's a big part of why I'm here, it's big enough to have interesting communities, but small enough to avoid most of the spam.
This wouldn't really solve the issue as the user could rather simply create as many accounts as they like to circumvent per-account limits.
That takes more effort though, especially if accounts require some kind of "not a robot" thing, like email verification, submitting an "essay," etc. I'm not a fan of that and think a different moderation system would be preferred (prefer to not go into details here), but it's easy and should be quite helpful.
It's not a "fix," more of a mitigation.
Typical mistake by the comment above yours: anti theft of anti break-in measures dont make it impossible to break in, they just make it harder and more time consuming. You dont need to outrun the bear, you just need to outrun the person next to you.
So this absolutely is a great idea.