> The main solutions we have today are IP ban + VPN blocking using a database of known VPN subnets and adding them all to the firewall, and a similar fingerprinting technique which scans their folder structure of certain system folders.
No. VPN blocking is useless to stop malicious actors as most residential connections have DHCP and VPN subnets are added and removed somewhat frequently, it's not that hard to find a "undocumented" one. It also completely excluds anyone using a VPN for non-malicous purposes.
Scanning files and folders is just ridiculous, not only an incredible invasion of privacy, but also trivial to work around.
VPN blocking is a cheap mitigation that stops 95% of the problematic traffic without removing a meaningful number of legitimate users.
Yes it doesn't "solve" the problem, and yes it removes some legitimate users, but it's by no means useless. Given the tradeoffs involved I'm not at all surprised it's so common.
If you have a solution that's less invasive (e.g., some businesses can get away with not providing anything expensive till after a payment has cleared the normal fraud window, and many businesses don't have obscene levels of malicious traffic; in those cases you can just let bad traffic run rampant and ignore it till it's a problem) then that's probably better, but blocking VPNs or whole countries or whatever can be the difference between a successful business and bankruptcy.
No. VPN blocking is useless to stop malicious actors as most residential connections have DHCP and VPN subnets are added and removed somewhat frequently, it's not that hard to find a "undocumented" one. It also completely excluds anyone using a VPN for non-malicous purposes.
Scanning files and folders is just ridiculous, not only an incredible invasion of privacy, but also trivial to work around.