PoW uses a lot of electricity on the client side so environmentally it's a poor solution, especially at scale.
There are residential IP providers that provide services to scrapers, etc. that involves them having thousands of IPs available from the same IP ranges as real users.
Now that makes sense. I hadn't considered rogue ISPs.
Sure, network blocking like this has been a thing for decades but it still requires ongoing manual intervention which is what these SysAdmins are complaining about.
fail2ban
I'm familiar with f2b. I even have several clients licensed with the commercial version but it doesn't fit this use case as there's no logon failure for it to work with.
I automatically ban any IP that comes from outside the US because there’s literally no reason for anyone outside the US to make requests to my infra.
I have systems setup with geo-blocking but it's of limited use due to the prevalence of VPNs.
also, use a WAF on a NAT to expose your apps.
This isn't a solution either because a WAF has no way to know what traffic is bad so it doesn't know what to block.
PoW has the advantage of being anonymous but I don't like it as solution for the simple fact that it uses more electricity. It's just not a very green solution.
Unsigned traffic = drop. Signed traffic that becomes an annoyance = drop. If signed traffic becomes more than an annoyance then you know who to report to the authorities and even in Brazil there's authorities.
In your example MS makes 65 Billion so if a few business units lost 13 Billion it's NBD, the overall company is still profitable. In this case though Gazprom lost 13 Billion across all units. What's worse is that there's no way for them to get more. They can't sell stock and as a Government Russia is basically broke.
Eh, arguing is fairly pointless and it's fair for them to point out that with the MC in charge of the LP the other types of libertarians no longer matter.
The guy posted a follow up comment. The charging connector was broken.
What will happen is that politicians will see this as another reason to push for everyone having their ID associated with their Internet traffic.
Yes, because like or not that's the only possible solution. If all traffic was required to be signed and the signatures were tied to an entity then you could refuse unsigned traffic and if signed traffic was causing problems you'd know who it was and have recourse.
I don't like this solution but it's the only way forward that I can see.
what would be the solution?
Simple, not allowing anonymous activity. If everything was required to be crypto-graphically signed in such a way that it was tied to a known entity then this could be directly addressed. It's essentially the same problem that e-mail has with SPAM and not allowing anonymous traffic would mostly solve that problem as well.
Of course many internet users would (rightfully) fight that solution tooth and nail.
Sure, why not but I've been fighting this notion that all libertarians are An-Caps for 20 years and the rise of the MC has turned an uphill battle into a nearly impossible one.
There's really no question that the MC are owned and operated by the string pullers of the Republican Party. They're doing it in order to to keep the people who do care about Small Government and Individual Liberty from leaving the Republican Party over the MAGA horseshit.