Support

Blog

Browsing all articles from May, 2012

Flattr this!

One of my clients had a non-working AppleTV Gen 1 edition (the white not quite Mac Mini one).
The Hard disk had died, so we needed to get a new OS on there.

While there are plenty of write-ups about upgrading them, I couldn’t find any clear instructions on starting from scratch. The closest I found was at the OpenElec forums within their upgrade script, so I used their drive partitioning as a baseline, then worked out how to go from there.

After a few hours of trial and error last night and today, I finally got to the point where I had a working drive, and could replicate the repair process from scratch.

Without further ado, here’s my instructions:

———————-

How to create a new working Apple TV Storage device for replacing an internal drive.

You’ll need:

1) atv_restore.tar.gz – chewitt.openelec.tv/atv_restore.tar.gz
2) atv_recovery.tar.gz – chewitt.openelec.tv/atv_recovery.tar.gz
3) OpenElec files for ATV – releases.openelec.tv/OpenELEC-ATV.i386-1.95.4.tar.bz2
4) A new storage device of some kind. 4G is enough, so CF or DOM or similar is suitable.
5) Ability to follow instructions, and use common sense.
If you lack this, find someone who can assist, and who has these attributes.
No, I’m not being facetious either, the operations below are destructive, so someone with a cluestick is preferred.

Ready?

Make a temp work folder.
eg

mkdir /tmp/atv
cd /tmp/atv

Unzip the OpenElec files, and put the SYSTEM, KERNEL, and place into the work folder.
Copy the atv_restore.tar.gz to the work folder.
Copy the atv_recovery.tar.gz to the work folder.

Mount your external drive. All data will be erased on it.
*Take a note of the drive letter*

*Make sure that you have the correct drive letter*
**Double check**

Operations below are destructive, so check once more, all data will be erased on the destination drive.
In my computer, my new drive has popped up as /dev/sdf

Instructions below assume your new drive is /dev/sdf

If you are using a different drive letter, amend instructions to your drive letter.
Assuming drive is /dev/sdf in the following instructions

****Replace /dev/sdf with your drive if your drive is not using /dev/sdf*****

#Erase existing partitions/drive if not currently empty.
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sdf bs=4 count=1M #Quick hacky partition / boot sector eradication, bwahahahahhem.
#Create GPT
parted -s /dev/sdf mklabel gpt
#make sure current OS knows *current* drive partition setup (i.e. no partitions, 1 gpt)
partprobe /dev/sdf

#Create EFI partition, and set bootable (35M size)
parted -s /dev/sdf mkpart primary fat32 40s 69671s
parted -s /dev/sdf set 1 boot on

#Create a “Recovery” partition (419M size)
parted -s /dev/sdf mkpart primary HFS 69672s 888871s
parted -s /dev/sdf set 2 atvrecv

#Create OS Boot partition (944MB)
parted -s /dev/sdf mkpart primary HFS 888872s 2732071s

#Create Media partition (rest of drive-262145sectors)
DISKSIZE=$(parted -s /dev/sdf unit s print | grep Disk | awk ‘{print $3}’ | sed s/s//)
let SECTORS=”${DISKSIZE}”-262145
parted -s /dev/sdf mkpart primary ext4 2732072s ${SECTORS}s

#Create SWAP partition
let SECTORS=”${SECTORS}”+1
let DISKSIZE=”${DISKSIZE}”-80
parted -s /dev/sdf mkpart primary linux-swap ${SECTORS}s ${DISKSIZE}s

#Update OS with new drive setup
partprobe /dev/sdf

#—–

#Format Partitions —-
mkfs.msdos -F 32 -n EFI /dev/sdf1 #boot
mkfs.hfsplus -v Recovery /dev/sdf2 #recovery
mkfs.hfsplus -J -v OSBoot /dev/sdf3 #Linux OS / ATV OS / OpenElec etc
mkfs.ext4 -b 4096 -L Linux /dev/sdf4 #Storage
mkswap /dev/sdf5
sync

#—
#My new _4g_ CF “HDD” looks like this:
#
#parted /dev/sdf print
#Model: TOSHIBA MK4309MAT (scsi)
#Disk /dev/sdf: 4327MB
#Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
#Partition Table: gpt
#
#Number Start End Size File system Name Flags
# 1 20.5kB 35.7MB 35.7MB primary boot
# 2 35.7MB 455MB 419MB hfs+ primary atvrecv
# 3 455MB 1399MB 944MB hfs+ primary
# 4 1399MB 4193MB 2794MB ext4 primary
# 5 4193MB 4327MB 134MB linux-swap(v1) primary
#
#—

#Setup Recovery partition (sdf2) to default factory restore files.
mkdir -p /mnt/recovery
fsck.hfsplus -f /dev/sdf2
mount -t hfsplus -o rw,force /dev/sdf2 /mnt/recovery
tar -xzvf atv_restore.tar.gz -C /mnt/recovery
chown -R root:root /mnt/recovery

#Copy OpenElec files to OSBoot Linux partition (sdf3) SYSTEM, LINUX ——–
mkdir -p /mnt/linux
fsck.hfsplus -f /dev/sdf3
mount -t hfsplus -o rw,force /dev/sdf3 /mnt/linux
cp KERNEL /mnt/linux
cp SYSTEM /mnt/linux
umount /dev/sdf3

#Redo recovery partition (sdf2) to patchstick defaults now. —–
#Copy over recovery.tar.gz files
#update keyword -> bootable
#rename boot script to patchstick.sh
#make executable and own all files as root
tar -xzvf atv_recovery.tar.gz -C /mnt/recovery
echo bootable > /mnt/recovery/keyword
rm /mnt/recovery/patchstick.sh
mv /mnt/recovery/patchstick.boot /mnt/recovery/patchstick.sh

#Make sure to edit fsck.ext4 /dev/sdf3 to fsck.hfsplus /dev/sdf3 in default patchstick.sh as this may break our HFSplus partition if we fsck.ext4 it…

chmod 7777 /mnt/recovery/patchstick.sh
chown -R root.root /mnt/recovery
umount /dev/sdf2

#Setup media partition (/dev/sdf4) ——
mkdir -p /mnt/media
mount /dev/sdf4 /mnt/media
mkdir -p /mnt/media/.config
touch /mnt/media/.config/ssh_enable #I like SSH access as a default.
mkdir -p /mnt/media/.cache
mkdir -p /mnt/media/.xbmc/userdata
umount /dev/sdf4

#Prepare for takeoff, er eject drive.
sync
eject /dev/sdf

—–
This drive can now be mounted in the ATV1, and will boot into OpenElec (after a 1st reboot fsck)

=============
#Amended Boot script for reference ( patchstick.sh )

fsck.hfsplus /dev/sdf3 &> /dev/null
fsck.ext4 /dev/sdf4 &> /dev/null
mkdir /boot
mount /dev/sdf3 /boot
kexec -l /boot/KERNEL –command-line=”boot=/dev/sdf3 disk=/dev/sdf4 quiet nosplash”
kexec -e

Flattr this!

One of our colo clients was complaining that his site was slow.

Took a look, and although load was only slightly above normal, he was doing a substantial amount of traffic throughput.

As he has multiple *busy* sites on his server, it was easier to take a look at iftop to see what was leeching the most traffic.

I could immediately see that he had a couple of spiders indexing one of his sites.
Normally this isn’t a huge issue, as they usually place nicely.

In this case, it seemed to be multiple connections from spiders.
Our robots.txt looked something like this –

cat robots.txt

User-agent: *
Disallow: /members/
Disallow: /activity/
Disallow: /ko/
Disallow: /fr/
Disallow: /zh/
Disallow: /th/
Disallow: /vi/
Disallow: /th/
Disallow: /es/
Disallow: /ja/
Disallow: /it/
Disallow: /ru/
Disallow: /ar/
Disallow: /fi/
Disallow: /pl/
Disallow: /nl/
Disallow: /pt/
Disallow: /he/
Disallow: /no/
Disallow: /sv/
Disallow: /zh-tw/
Disallow: /cs/
Disallow: /de/
Disallow: /uk/
Disallow: /el/
Disallow: /tr/

A quick check of site logs filtered by spiders showed that the majority of the traffic was coming from Bing / MSN.

There were at least 10 – 15 simultaneous spiders indexing. Not only that, but Bing / MSN was busy indexing all the lovely pages that we’d explicitly excluded in the sites robots.txt file.

*and* it was downloading the robots.txt file, then totally ignoring it.

207.46.195.241 - - [18/May/2012:03:15:04 +0000] "GET /robots.txt HTTP/1.1" 404 280 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
207.46.195.241 - - [18/May/2012:03:15:57 +0000] "GET / HTTP/1.1" 500 975 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
207.46.195.241 - - [18/May/2012:03:17:29 +0000] "GET / HTTP/1.0" 500 1534 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
207.46.195.241 - - [18/May/2012:04:17:30 +0000] "GET / HTTP/1.0" 500 1534 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
207.46.195.234 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:16 +0000] "GET /no/members/kxtjanio/activity/ HTTP/1.1" 200 14555 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.196 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:16 +0000] "GET /tr/members/poluden/activity/groups/?acpage=14 HTTP/1.1" 200 17927 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.196 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:16 +0000] "GET /zh-tw/members/bluezat/forums/ HTTP/1.1" 200 14633 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.196 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:18 +0000] "GET /ar/members/filozofem/activity/1643 HTTP/1.1" 200 12348 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.196 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:18 +0000] "GET /pt/members/chwacker/activity/groups/ HTTP/1.1" 200 18675 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.196 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:20 +0000] "GET /ru/members/maklare/points/points/ HTTP/1.1" 200 14945 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.196 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:21 +0000] "GET /pl/members/ken0115/activity/groups/?acpage=7 HTTP/1.1" 200 17936 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.196 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:21 +0000] "GET /zh/members/halilfree82/activity/favorites/ HTTP/1.1" 200 15677 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.196 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:23 +0000] "GET /zh/members/elwe/activity/mentions/ HTTP/1.1" 200 15670 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.196 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:23 +0000] "GET /no/members/afsaneh/activity/friends/?acpage=5 HTTP/1.1" 200 17101 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.196 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:25 +0000] "GET /tr/members/ahuy/activity/friends/ HTTP/1.1" 200 17458 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.196 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:25 +0000] "GET /members/zarus/activity/groups/?acpage=3 HTTP/1.1" 200 18131 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.196 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:26 +0000] "GET /ko/members/daniel/activity/friends/?acpage=4 HTTP/1.1" 200 18598 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.108.69 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:30 +0000] "GET /fr/members/poluden/activity/ HTTP/1.1" 200 15480 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.151 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:31 +0000] "GET /fr/activity/?acpage=14 HTTP/1.1" 200 17299 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.151 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:31 +0000] "GET /zh/members/zarus/activity/groups/blog.letsfx.com?acpage=1 HTTP/1.1" 200 19401 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.151 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:33 +0000] "GET /th/members/chwacker/activity/friends/?acpage=2 HTTP/1.1" 200 16651 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.110.198 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:34 +0000] "GET /vi/members/natvp/activity/groups/?acpage=5 HTTP/1.1" 200 20382 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.110.198 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:34 +0000] "GET /th/members/helen/activity/groups/?acpage=3 HTTP/1.1" 200 18099 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.109.200 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:35 +0000] "GET /groups/bep-study-buddies/activity/2971/ HTTP/1.1" 200 13887 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.109.200 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:35 +0000] "GET /ko/members/ahmedv/blogs/ HTTP/1.1" 200 15091 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.109.200 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:42 +0000] "GET /fr/members/cluadiomasu/points/ HTTP/1.1" 200 14172 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.109.200 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:42 +0000] "GET /ja/members/shengmao8620/groups/ HTTP/1.1" 200 15219 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.109.200 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:45 +0000] "GET /es/blog/tag/presentations-2/ HTTP/1.1" 200 17037 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.109.200 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:45 +0000] "GET /it/members/phuong.vo/activity/groups/ HTTP/1.1" 200 18216 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.109.200 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:48 +0000] "GET /fi/members/stella85/activity/1086 HTTP/1.1" 200 12350 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.109.200 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:48 +0000] "GET /ru/members/stella85/activity/groups/?acpage=12 HTTP/1.1" 200 21159 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.109.200 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:49 +0000] "GET /zh/members/kris/activity/friends/ HTTP/1.1" 200 18838 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.109.200 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:50 +0000] "GET /fr/members/cheryl/activity/groups/?acpage=14 HTTP/1.1" 200 19312 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.109.200 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:51 +0000] "GET /vi/members/vecttra/activity/groups/?acpage=4 HTTP/1.1" 200 17180 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.109.200 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:53 +0000] "GET /fi/members/?s=Intermediate&upage=1 HTTP/1.1" 200 13955 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.109.200 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:53 +0000] "GET /ar/members/test-user/activity/groups/?acpage=9 HTTP/1.1" 200 17499 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.151 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:53 +0000] "GET /members/admin/friends HTTP/1.1" 200 14760 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.151 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:53 +0000] "GET /members/lasso/activity/groups/?acpage=3 HTTP/1.1" 200 18101 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
207.46.13.51 - - [18/May/2012:12:57:58 +0000] "GET /fi/members/hoangdtv7986/friends HTTP/1.1" 200 13741 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.110.17 - - [18/May/2012:12:58:01 +0000] "GET /ru/members/nikoletth/points/ HTTP/1.1" 200 14970 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.151 - - [18/May/2012:12:58:01 +0000] "GET /ko/members/muratoncel3438/activity/ HTTP/1.1" 200 16100 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.151 - - [18/May/2012:12:58:01 +0000] "GET /fr/members/jack/activity/ HTTP/1.1" 200 15425 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.151 - - [18/May/2012:12:58:03 +0000] "GET /pl/members/filozofem/blogs/ HTTP/1.1" 200 13573 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.151 - - [18/May/2012:12:58:08 +0000] "GET /nl/members/mohamedyahia/activity/friends/?acpage=10 HTTP/1.1" 200 17835 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.151 - - [18/May/2012:12:58:08 +0000] "GET /pt/members/augert/activity/favorites/ HTTP/1.1" 200 15187 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.151 - - [18/May/2012:12:58:10 +0000] "GET /ko/members/chima78/activity/favorites/ HTTP/1.1" 200 15851 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.151 - - [18/May/2012:12:58:14 +0000] "GET /he/members/wildthing/activity/friends/ HTTP/1.1" 200 16883 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
207.46.13.51 - - [18/May/2012:12:58:21 +0000] "GET /no/members/filiz/activity/friends/?acpage=7 HTTP/1.1" 200 16440 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.108.69 - - [18/May/2012:12:58:30 +0000] "GET /members/david/activity/groups/?acpage=8 HTTP/1.1" 200 17208 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
207.46.13.51 - - [18/May/2012:12:58:30 +0000] "GET /pt/members/moniques/activity/groups/?acpage=7 HTTP/1.1" 200 18934 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.110.17 - - [18/May/2012:12:58:31 +0000] "GET /sv/groups/bep-study-buddies/members/?mlpage=7 HTTP/1.1" 200 14784 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.108.69 - - [18/May/2012:12:58:30 +0000] "GET /zh-tw/members/marcos/activity/friends/?acpage=2 HTTP/1.1" 200 18219 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.110.17 - - [18/May/2012:12:58:31 +0000] "GET /ja/members/sluconi/activity/groups/?acpage=3 HTTP/1.1" 200 21509 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.147 - - [18/May/2012:12:58:32 +0000] "GET /cs/members/joyull/activity/favorites/ HTTP/1.1" 200 14216 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.108.69 - - [18/May/2012:12:58:32 +0000] "GET /zh-tw/members/moniques/activity/friends/?acpage=15 HTTP/1.1" 200 18509 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
157.55.17.147 - - [18/May/2012:12:58:32 +0000] "GET /pt/members/luquejee/activity/groups/?acpage=12 HTTP/1.1" 200 18612 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
65.52.110.17 - - [18/May/2012:12:58:35 +0000] "GET /fi/activity/?acpage=66 HTTP/1.1" 200 16466 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
207.46.13.51 - - [18/May/2012:12:58:58 +0000] "GET /members/filozofem/profile/ HTTP/1.1" 200 13354 "-" "Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; bingbot/2.0; +http://www.bing.com/bingbot.htm)"
^C

The ranges in use by bing appear to be 207.46.*, and 65.52.*, 157.55.17.*
A quick check to see who owns those ranges confirms that yes, it is indeed the evil empire.


NetRange: 65.52.0.0 - 65.55.255.255
CIDR: 65.52.0.0/14
OriginAS:
NetName: MICROSOFT-1BLK
NetHandle: NET-65-52-0-0-1
Parent: NET-65-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
RegDate: 2001-02-14
Updated: 2012-03-20
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-65-52-0-0-1

NetRange: 207.46.0.0 - 207.46.255.255
CIDR: 207.46.0.0/16
OriginAS:
NetName: MICROSOFT-GLOBAL-NET
NetHandle: NET-207-46-0-0-1
Parent: NET-207-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
RegDate: 1997-03-31
Updated: 2004-12-09
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-207-46-0-0-1

NetRange: 157.54.0.0 - 157.60.255.255
CIDR: 157.60.0.0/16, 157.56.0.0/14, 157.54.0.0/15
OriginAS: AS8075
NetName: MSFT-GFS
NetHandle: NET-157-54-0-0-1
Parent: NET-157-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Assignment
Comment: Abuse complaints will only be responded to if sent to abuse@microsoft.com and abuse@msn.com.
RegDate: 1994-04-28
Updated: 2010-08-19
Ref: http://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-157-54-0-0-1

As you can see, they do have an abuse email contact. Which bounces.
Need I say anything more?

As I could readily identify that they were completely ignoring the file, even *after* downloading it from logs (eg see a request for the robots.txt file, then more requests for folders explicitly denied inside the robots.txt file! from the same ip), I decided to take some action to block them.

The following will block MSN Bot (Bing) from hammering a site.

#Block 207.46.*
iptables -A INPUT -s 65.52.0.0/14 -j DROP
#Block 65.52.*
iptables -A INPUT -s 207.46.0.0/14 -j DROP
#Block 157.55.17.*
iptables -A INPUT -s 157.55.17.0/24 -j DROP

Note that the 3rd range actually goes from 157.54.0.0 – 157.60.255.255
I wasn’t actually seeing any evilness from the 157.56 – 157.60.* range, so I’ve ignored them. Letting some Bing stuff through is a good idea (assuming they can behave themselves), as we don’t want to lose SEO goodness on one of the less^H popular search engines.

A quick tail of the logs later, and I could see that the multitude of bandwidth leeching MSN / Bing bots were gone. Plus, the site loaded much much faster.

A quick google (haha), for MSN / BING spiders doing the same thing to others revealed that we aren’t alone, and a number of people complain about exactly the same issue.

According to Bing, they do respect the protocol.

http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/webmaster/archive/2009/08/10/crawl-delay-and-the-bing-crawler-msnbot.aspx

My own findings, and a check of others findings show that they do not.

This search might be of interest –
http://www.google.com/search?&q=bing+ignoring+robots.txt

We’re not the only ones –
http://techie-buzz.com/microsoft/bing-crawler-msnbot-stupid.html

http://www.semwisdom.com/blog/msnbot-stupid-plain-evil

As we’ve verified that the ip ranges in use by the crawlers are indeed owned by Microsoft, its pretty evident that they’re lying.

C’est la vie.

Flattr this!

As our clients probably know, we run our own email servers.

Email is one of those things that looks simple on the surface, but isn’t necessarily so simple when it comes down to troubleshooting.

As is typical, the day started with a trouble ticket from a client letting us know that they were having difficulties receiving mail from one of their clients.

I was also given enough information to start troubleshooting without having to ask for additional information, which was nice, as this sometimes takes time to get.

We do have an email issues page with some notes and instructions for what is needed linked off of our webmail page; the issues page is here.

The bounce message supplied included headers, so it was fairly straightforward to work out what server they were using.

The sender (junglefish.com) was seeing the below as an error, when emailing us:

Failure notice from mxttb2.hichina.com:

I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses.
This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out.

As we have multiple mail servers in different countries, I first needed to identify which server they were connecting too, so I could check logs.

I usually do this by searching through our logs for occurrences of the senders domain.

If that doesn’t find any results, then I lookup what their mail servers should be and check for entries in our logs from those servers.

This doesn’t always guarantee a result, but in this case I had enough information to get a result.

Our sender was coming from junglefish.net, so I checked to see what mail servers they might use.

To check what mail servers are used, we check the MX (Mail Exchanger) records for their domain. In this instance I used dig – a dns lookup tool.

dig mx junglefish.net

junglefish.net. 3600 IN MX 10 mail.junglefish.net.
junglefish.net. 3600 IN MX 0 mail.junglefish.net.

We can see that mail is served by mail.junglefish.net for the junglefish.net domain. We can also see that the MX records are incorrect, as their are 2 entries pointing at the same server with different preferences. This won’t cause mail to be rejected though, so its not the issue we’re looking for.

Next we check the ip address for mail.junglefish.net

Some mail servers are on shared servers, so the domain name does not always match up with the ip address. We need the ip address as we need to search the logs for that, or addresses close to that range.

A simple ping should return their ip address.


ping mail.junglefish.net

Reply from 218.244.133.134...

In this instance, mail.junglefish.net points at 218.244.133.134

As mail servers also require valid reverse DNS entries, I also checked if that ip address has a valid reverse dns entry with nslookup.

nslookup 218.244.133.134
Server: ::1
Address: ::1#53

Non-authoritative answer:
134.133.244.218.in-addr.arpa name = out133-134.mxttb2.hichina.com.

In this case, their reverse DNS is out133-134.mxttb2.hichina.com
Just to double check thats valid, I pinged the name, and got a valid response.

ping out133-134.mxttb2.hichina.com
PING out133-134.mxttb2.hichina.com (218.244.133.134) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from out133-134.mxttb2.hichina.com (218.244.133.134): icmp_req=1 ttl=51 time=29.0 ms

So, we’ve done some basic checks –

We’ve checked that the sender domain has MX records.
We’ve checked that their mail server exists, and it has both forward and reverse dns.

Next up, I need to search the logs for connections from their server.

If I search for connections to our mail servers from 218.244.133 I saw the following:

USA – no results.
CN – no results.
CN2 – rejections.

Looking at the logs, I immediately saw that our server was rejecting their mail for failing MFCHECK

@400000004fb3951e1f2ee324 tcpserver: ok 8328 mail.smartshanghai.com:211.144.68.52:25 out133-134.mxttb2.hichina.com:218.244.133.134::51396
@400000004fb3951e28966374 jgreylist[8328]: 218.244.133.134: OK known
@400000004fb3952504477f44 qmail-smtpd[8328]: MFCHECK fail [218.244.133.134] junglefish.net

The MFCHECK code checks the domain portion of the envelope sender address (in the MAIL FROM command) to make sure it’s a real domain which has at least one MX record. This prevents spammers from being able to use phony domain names in their forged sender addresses.

In this case, our server was rejecting mail from them due to this failure.

As we didn’t have sufficient logs to see *why* this was happening, I turned on full connection logging for their ip address, and asked them to send us another mail.

They did so, and I checked the logs for what was happening.
(see below)

@400000004fb48fad0004630c tcpserver: ok 17315 mail.smartshanghai.com:211.144.68.52:25 out133-134.mxttb2.hichina.com:218.244.133.134::50611
400000004fb48fae061430c4 17315 > 220 mail.smartshanghai.com NO UCE ESMTP
400000004fb48fae090ae354 17315 < EHLO mxttb2.hichina.com 400000004fb48fae090decac 17315 > 250-mail.smartshanghai.com NO UCE
400000004fb48fae090df094 17315 > 250-SIZE 0
400000004fb48fae090df47c 17315 > 250-PIPELINING
400000004fb48fae090df864 17315 > 250 8BITMIME
400000004fb48fae0c26ec7c 17315 < MAIL FROM:
400000004fb48fc0396b0344 17315 > 451 DNS temporary failure (#4.3.0)
400000004fb48fc10a1b68f4 17315 < QUIT

In this case, their server started off the conversation with
EHLO mxttb2.hichina.com

As mail servers need to provide a valid domain that they claim to be sending from, I checked if mxttb2.hichina.com existed.
It didn't.

So, that was the reason.

Having identified that, I whitelisted their server ip address for the MFCHECK portion of our checks, and asked them to resend mail again.

Unfortunately this did not let them send mail as they failed another test!

@400000004fb495f92bd72ec4 qmail-smtpd[22644]: Received-SPF: error (mail.smartshanghai.com: error in processing during lookup of junglefish.net: DNS problem)

As SPF relies on TXT records, I tried to manually lookup their DNS

dig TXT junglefish.net

; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> TXT junglefish.net
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: SERVFAIL, id: 11512 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0

That failed.

Hmmmm.

I then tried using an oversea's server to lookup their domain.

dig ns junglefish.net

; <<>> DiG 9.7.3 <<>> ns junglefish.net
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 41739 ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 2, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;junglefish.net. IN NS ;; ANSWER SECTION: junglefish.net. 2931 IN NS ns54.domaincontrol.com. junglefish.net. 2931 IN NS ns53.domaincontrol.com.

That lookup worked.

So, we're getting somewhere.

We've identified a number of issues, and its starting to look like their DNS servers are blocked in China from a cursory test.

To confirm this I checked if using their DNS servers worked from within China.

Check from ns53 fails -
nslookup
> server ns53.domaincontrol.com
Default server: ns53.domaincontrol.com
Address: 216.69.185.27#53
Default server: ns53.domaincontrol.com
Address: 2607:f208:206::1b#53
> junglefish.net
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached

Check from ns54 fails -
> server ns54.domaincontrol.com
Default server: ns54.domaincontrol.com
Address: 208.109.255.27#53
Default server: ns54.domaincontrol.com
Address: 2607:f208:302::1b#53
> junglefish.net
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
>

As those failed, I tried pinging their server.
ping ns54.domaincontrol.com
PING ns54.domaincontrol.com (208.109.255.27) 56(84) bytes of data.
^C
--- ns54.domaincontrol.com ping statistics ---
8 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 7056ms

Ping test fails

Next, I tried to see where it was failing with traceroute.

root@edm:/home/shanghaiguide# traceroute ns54.domaincontrol.com
traceroute to ns54.domaincontrol.com (208.109.255.27), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
1 reserve.cableplus.com.cn (211.144.79.254) 5.723 ms 5.899 ms 6.078 ms
2 211.154.92.89 (211.154.92.89) 3.860 ms 3.878 ms 3.936 ms
3 211.154.64.94 (211.154.64.94) 3.545 ms 3.608 ms 3.686 ms
4 211.154.72.181 (211.154.72.181) 4.154 ms 4.421 ms 4.419 ms
5 202.96.222.73 (202.96.222.73) 4.657 ms 4.632 ms 4.635 ms
6 61.152.81.189 (61.152.81.189) 4.671 ms 5.401 ms 5.367 ms
7 61.152.86.50 (61.152.86.50) 6.387 ms 6.330 ms 6.301 ms
8 202.97.33.86 (202.97.33.86) 8.003 ms 7.941 ms 7.743 ms
9 202.97.33.254 (202.97.33.254) 7.829 ms 7.656 ms 7.647 ms
10 202.97.50.114 (202.97.50.114) 175.491 ms 175.982 ms 171.405 ms
11 202.97.52.218 (202.97.52.218) 155.507 ms 155.755 ms 155.750 ms
12 218.30.54.150 (218.30.54.150) 191.389 ms 191.306 ms 191.544 ms
13 * * *
14 * * *
15 * * *
16 * * *
17 * * *

Traceroute fails (at 218.30.54.150)

whois 218.30.54.150
% [whois.apnic.net node-5]
% Whois data copyright terms http://www.apnic.net/db/dbcopyright.html

inetnum: 218.30.32.0 - 218.30.55.255
netname: CHINANET-US-POP
descr: Chinanet POP in American
descr: 201 S. Lake Ave. Suite 604, Pasadena, CA 91101
country: CN
admin-c: CH93-AP
tech-c: CH93-AP
mnt-by: MAINT-CHINANET
changed: hostmaster@ns.chinanet.cn.net 20020221
status: ALLOCATED NON-PORTABLE
source: APNIC

So, it looks like there are 3 issues.

1) Invalid MX setup (although this is not going to stop mail from failing).
2) Their Mail server claims to be a non-existent domain.
(Note that this seems to have been subsequently rectified, as that domain now resolves).
3) Their DNS servers are blocked within China.

To solve that, I added an external DNS lookup from outside the country.

In summation, simple things may involve multiple issues, as we can see from above!

In this case, we resolved the issue by whitelisting the senders ip to bypass the MFCHECK failure. We then added external DNS resolvers to our Mail Servers to bypass the block.
Lastly informed the sender, and the client of all of the issues noted so that they could be resolved.

Archives

Categories

Most Popular Posts

Tags

PHOTOSTREAM

uploaduploaduploaduploaduploaduploaduploaduploaduploaduploadIMG_2273GuyGuyGuyGuyGuyGuyGuy