Fetch API Request.

Some banned, some not. <Huh?>

[pendanticist]

[1]62.3.32.55 - - [27/Oct/2003:09:54:38 -0800] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 403 480 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0) Fetch API Request"
62.48.195.74 - - [27/Oct/2003:18:28:16 -0800] "GET / HTTP/1.0" 403 480 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0) Fetch API Request"
62.48.195.74 - - [29/Oct/2003:22:29:09 -0800] "GET / HTTP/1.0" 403 480 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0) Fetch API Request"
62.3.32.55 - - [31/Oct/2003:16:04:49 -0800] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 200 20624 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0) Fetch API Request"
62.48.195.74 - - [31/Oct/2003:20:38:21 -0800] "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 20624 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0) Fetch API Request"
63.171.232.247 - - [01/Nov/2003:20:44:43 -0800] "GET / HTTP/1.0" 403 480 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0) Fetch API Request"
194.238.50.23 - - [01/Nov/2003:21:10:51 -0800] "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 20624 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.0) Fetch API Request"[/1]

None were deny from'd prior to these visits.

Overall, I'm curious why some Fetch API Requests were banned and some were allowed.

Why should some requests be HTTP/1.0 and some are 1.1?

I find it interesting that all the browsers are the same. What are the odds? <-He asked rhetorically.

I'm particularly interested in understanding how visitor

62.48.195.74

got 403'd on both

[27/Oct/2003:18:28:16]

&

[29/Oct/2003:22:29:09]

, only to return at

[31/Oct/2003:20:38:21]

and be fed a 200?

Thanks.

Pendanticist.

[jdMorgan]

Pendanticist,

It sounds to me like a change was made to the .htaccess file between Oct 29th and 31st that 'broke' the Fetch API Request detection -- one single typo in the bad-ua-list will do it. Some of these requests may be being blocked by REMOTE_ADDRESS, while the Fetch API Request user-agent is otherwise being permitted. Have you tested with WB?

This is probably the same guy, using several proxies, some of which publish HTTP/1.0, and others HTTP/1.1.

Jim

[pendanticist]

No, I have not tried Wannabrowser yet.

The only exception to adding a bunch of 'Deny from'(s) was a oneliner and it has had no need of repair (such to say it works), so there was no reason for me to suspect .htaccess as the culprit. At least that's what I thought.

I'm quite dilligent about the chmod commands too.

I'll keep an eye on it and see if they happen again.

Thanks Jim.

Pendanticist.