Stories with Tag Rate Limiting

• Keeping our free tier sustainable by preventing abuse

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-21 10:07:14

  Verbose tl;dr

  Geocod.io, a geocoding service, is modifying its free tier to combat abuse and ensure its long-term sustainability. Due to a significant increase in usage, including malicious activity like automated queries and denial-of-service attacks, they are implementing stricter rate limits. The new free tier will be limited to 2,500 queries per day, and exceeding this limit will result in a 402 error requiring users to upgrade to a paid plan. They are also strengthening their bot detection measures and emphasizing their commitment to providing a reliable and accessible service for legitimate free tier users while protecting their resources from exploitation.

  Geocod.io, a provider of geocoding services, has released a detailed explanation of recent changes to their free tier, driven by the necessity to combat escalating abuse and ensure the sustainability of this complimentary offering. The company elucidates the increasing strain placed upon their infrastructure due to a surge in automated queries, often exceeding reasonable usage patterns and indicative of exploitative practices. This abuse not only negatively impacts the performance and availability of the service for legitimate free tier users but also infringes upon the fair usage principles upon which the free tier was founded.

  The post meticulously outlines the specific measures implemented to mitigate this abuse, primarily focusing on stricter rate limiting. Previously, the free tier operated on a less stringent rate limit, allowing for a higher volume of queries per unit of time. However, the rampant misuse necessitated a reduction in this limit to curb excessive and automated access. Geocod.io emphasizes that this adjustment is not intended to penalize legitimate users but rather to protect the free tier's viability against automated exploitation and ensure its continued availability for those adhering to the intended usage parameters.

  Furthermore, the company underscores its commitment to transparency and communication, detailing their efforts to inform users about these changes. They explain that they proactively reached out to users identified as potentially exceeding the revised rate limits, providing guidance and support to transition to a paid plan if their usage requirements necessitate a higher volume of requests. Geocod.io also highlights their dedication to maintaining a robust and accessible free tier for genuine users, recognizing its value for educational purposes, small projects, and initial experimentation with their services. They articulate a desire to foster a sustainable ecosystem where the free tier remains a valuable resource without being compromised by abusive practices. Finally, they reaffirm their commitment to ongoing evaluation and refinement of their policies to ensure the free tier's long-term viability and accessibility for legitimate users while effectively deterring abuse.

  • API Abuse
  • Free Tier
  • sustainability
  • Rate Limiting
  • geocoding
  • API Management
  • Cost Control
  • Abuse Prevention
  • Service Limits
  • Fair Usage

  Summary of Comments ( 10 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43125875

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users generally supported the author's efforts to combat abuse of their free tier geocoding service. Several commenters shared their own experiences with similar issues, highlighting the prevalence of abuse and the difficulty in balancing free access with sustainable operation. Some suggested alternative mitigation strategies, including stricter rate limiting, requiring API keys even for free users, and offering a low-cost paid tier with more generous limits. One commenter pointed out the potential legal ramifications of storing user IP addresses, urging the author to ensure compliance with GDPR and other privacy regulations. Another noted the apparent contradiction in blocking VPNs while using Cloudflare, a service often used to bypass such blocks. Overall, the discussion focused on the challenges faced by developers offering free services and the need for effective abuse prevention measures.

  The Hacker News post "Keeping our free tier sustainable by preventing abuse" discussing the linked Geocod.io blog post has several comments exploring the challenges of offering a free tier and strategies for mitigating abuse.

  One commenter points out the inherent difficulty in balancing free access with preventing exploitation, noting that genuinely free services are often magnets for abuse. They suggest that a freemium model, while potentially impacting legitimate free users, might be a more sustainable approach in the long run. This commenter also raises the idea of using a CAPTCHA system, acknowledging its inconvenience but highlighting its effectiveness as a deterrent.

  Another commenter discusses the abuse vector of users signing up for multiple free accounts. They propose tying accounts to credit cards, even without charging them, as a way to increase the friction of creating numerous accounts. This, they argue, would make it less appealing for those looking to circumvent usage limits.

  The issue of bulk downloads and automated scraping is addressed by another comment, suggesting the implementation of rate limiting, especially for unauthenticated users. This would throttle excessive requests and prevent automated systems from overwhelming the service.

  One user questions the effectiveness of a pure CAPTCHA system, suggesting that determined abusers could bypass them using services designed to solve CAPTCHAs. They propose incorporating additional measures like analyzing usage patterns to identify and flag suspicious activity.

  There's a discussion about the impact on open-source projects, with one user expressing concern about the challenges faced by maintainers of free and open-source software (FOSS) who rely on donated infrastructure and resources. They suggest exploring alternative funding models like community-supported infrastructure.

  Finally, some commenters share their experiences with similar abuse issues on their own platforms and offer suggestions like requiring email verification and utilizing publicly available blocklists of known abusive IP addresses.

  Overall, the comments section reflects a general understanding and sympathy for the challenges Geocod.io faces. The discussion provides a range of practical suggestions for mitigating abuse while attempting to maintain accessibility for legitimate free tier users.

• Docker limits unauthenticated pulls to 10/HR/IP from Docker Hub, from March 1

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-21 07:42:45

  Verbose tl;dr

  Starting March 1st, Docker Hub will implement rate limits for anonymous (unauthenticated) image pulls. Free users will be limited to 100 pulls per six hours per IP address, while authenticated free users get 200 pulls per six hours. This change aims to improve the stability and performance of Docker Hub. Paid Docker Hub subscriptions will not have pull rate limits. Users are encouraged to log in to their Docker Hub account when pulling images to avoid hitting the new limits.

  Docker Hub, the primary registry for Docker images, is implementing rate limits on image pulls for anonymous (unauthenticated) users. Starting March 1st, anonymous users will be limited to 10 pulls per six hours per IP address. This change is being implemented to ensure the stability and performance of Docker Hub for all users and to combat abuse.

  This limitation applies to all Docker clients pulling images directly from Docker Hub without authentication. This means users who access Docker Hub through a Docker desktop client or other Docker tools without logging in will be subject to these limits.

  The limits are calculated based on the IP address initiating the pull request. Therefore, multiple users sharing a single IP address, such as those behind a corporate firewall or NAT, will share the same pool of 10 pulls per six hours. Exceeding this limit will result in the pull request being denied with an error message indicating the rate limit has been reached.

  This policy change does not affect authenticated users. Users who log in to Docker Hub with their Docker ID will not be subject to these rate limits and can continue to pull images without restriction. Docker strongly encourages users to log in for uninterrupted access and to take advantage of other benefits, such as access to private repositories and automated builds.

  This new rate limit is specifically for pulls, not pushes. Pushing images to Docker Hub still requires authentication and is unaffected by this change.

  Organizations and individuals who anticipate that the anonymous pull limits will disrupt their workflows are advised to create free Docker Hub accounts and log in when pulling images. This will allow them to avoid the rate limits entirely. This is especially important for automated build processes or environments where many pulls are performed from a shared IP address.

  • docker
  • Docker Hub
  • Rate Limiting
  • Image Pulls
  • Containerization
  • DevOps
  • Security
  • Authentication
  • IP address
  • API Limits

  Summary of Comments ( 290 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43125089

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discuss the implications of Docker Hub's new rate limits on unauthenticated pulls. Some express concern about the impact on CI/CD pipelines, suggesting the 100 pulls per 6 hours for authenticated free users is also too low for many use cases. Others view the change as a reasonable way for Docker to manage costs and encourage users to authenticate or use alternative registries. Several commenters share workarounds, such as using a private registry or caching images more aggressively. The discussion also touches on the broader ecosystem and the role of Docker Hub within it, with some users questioning its long-term viability given past pricing changes and policy shifts. A few users report encountering unexpected behavior with the limits, suggesting potential inconsistencies in enforcement.

  The Hacker News post discussing Docker Hub's new rate limits on unauthenticated pulls generated a significant number of comments, with many users expressing their concerns and opinions.

  Several commenters saw the move as a way for Docker to push users towards paid plans. They felt that the limits were too restrictive, especially for open-source projects and smaller developers who rely on Docker Hub for their workflows. The sentiment was that this change would disrupt their current processes and potentially force them to consider alternatives. Some users questioned the effectiveness of this strategy, suggesting it might drive users away from Docker altogether rather than towards paid subscriptions.

  A common point of discussion revolved around the impact on CI/CD pipelines. Commenters pointed out that shared CI/CD runners often use the same IP address, meaning the rate limits could be easily hit, causing builds to fail. This concern highlighted the potential for widespread disruption for projects relying on such infrastructure. Some suggested using authenticated pulls as a workaround, but others noted that this isn't always feasible or desirable, especially for open-source projects.

  The technical details of the implementation were also scrutinized. Some users questioned the choice of using IP addresses for rate limiting, arguing that it's not a reliable method due to the prevalence of shared IPs and dynamic IP allocation. This could lead to legitimate users being unfairly throttled. Alternatives like user-agent based limiting were proposed.

  There was a discussion about the potential for abuse and the motivation behind Docker's decision. Some commenters speculated that this move was aimed at combating cryptocurrency miners who might be leveraging Docker Hub's resources. Others suggested that it could be a response to excessive bandwidth usage and the associated costs.

  Some users expressed understanding for Docker's need to monetize its services, but they also emphasized the importance of a generous free tier for the health of the Docker ecosystem. The feeling was that striking a balance between monetization and community support was crucial for the long-term success of Docker.

  Finally, a few commenters offered alternative solutions and workarounds, such as setting up private registries or using different container registries altogether. This reflected a proactive approach within the community to adapt to the new limitations.