IP address of the client has been rejected. The requested page can not be accessed via anonymous proxies.

[+Celeras]

This is the message I am getting when I try to log a trackable. I am not behind a proxy Can somebody look into this for me?

 

Edited March 13, 2016 by Celeras

[+kunarion]

Can somebody look into this for me?

I can't tell what your IP address is. If you google "ip address" it will be displayed. If the issue hasn't cleared up by now, contact Groundspeak about it, and include the IP address. You may also contact your Internet Provider.

 

Did you try a "Blacklist Check" of your IP address on that site (whatsmyip.com)?

Edited March 13, 2016 by kunarion

[+TeamPoki]

I get this message (the one in the OP title) all the time when I access geocaching.com while using Hotspot Shield (a VPN app) when traveling. The only fix for me in that case is to either drop the VPN, or reconnect and hope to get an acceptable IP.

[+Drynwynn]

I just received this message while attempting to view this cache. I *am* behind a VPN by choice, as your ISP has no business snooping on your traffic and creating analytics about you which it then sells to advertising companies. I would question why content on this site cannot be accessed via proxy, as it shouldn't matter in the slightest what IP I'm coming from (blocking spam via IP is a horrible solution/excuse, by the way, since IPs can be forged by the simplest of spammers).

[+unkreativ.net]

Geocaching.com is blocking most of the VPN-Provider. But don't ask me why... and they only block the access to the listings. Your profile or the app are working fine.

[+RobWinmar]

It's really frustrating! It's the only thing I've been blocked from on the whole internet that I've encountered so far when using a VPN. It strikes me as a particularly arrogant thing to do, dictating how users should be accessing the internet.

[+DerBlaueReiter]

The issue still exists. It happens, when I try to create a log entry using my companies network. It is independent of the used device (desktop, mobile phone via WLAN), the used browser (Chrome, Firefox), operating system (Linux, Android) or the visited cache. If I switch from company network to mobile data, everything works fine.

 

As far as I can tell, our outgoing IP address (62.146.75.212) is not on any blacklist. I can't tell for sure, but I'd say the problem exists since the admins changed to the new firewall.

 

I think it is a stupid thing to do. Especially as it happens only as a logged in user using the core functionality of the service.

 

To add on this, I'm a premium member, so Groundspeak is annoying a paying customer. Shouldn't make a difference anyway.

Edited July 6, 2016 by DerBlaueReiter

[+tikache]

I have the same issue. I have been inactive for awhile, but now, due to location am using a VPN and can't get in to log my finds. A bit frustrating as that's half the fun. So -------- what's the answer? VPN has to stay on for me, so does that mean I might as well cancel my membership? There has to be a simple fix. I can query, read, etc. just not log a find.

 

I could have just copied DerBlaueReiter, as I spent quite a bit of time running through the same things, except I have no mobile data here. All to no avail.

[+dprovan]

I think it is a stupid thing to do. Especially as it happens only as a logged in user using the core functionality of the service.

 

To add on this, I'm a premium member, so Groundspeak is annoying a paying customer. Shouldn't make a difference anyway.

Meh. Apparently GS is trying to protect themselves from people blitzing the geocaching.com data without revealing their location. I guess they're concerned about (or have already experienced) people posting abusive logs anonymously. So you're faced with a choice: continue to hide your true location through a VPN or trust GS and reveal it to get full access. It is unfortunate that the situation is stickier and more annoying to you because you're using the VPN because your company wants you to use the VPN, but other people use the same mechanism so websites they visit can't trace their IP address back to them, and those are the people GS is trying to block.

[+DerBlaueReiter]

Apparently GS is trying to protect themselves from people blitzing the geocaching.com data without revealing their location. I guess they're concerned about (or have already experienced) people posting abusive logs anonymously.

 

This leaves me with more questions.

 

1. Why don't Groundspeak state so on the blocking page? If I read the reasoning (and not only the reason) for the blocking, I can at least understand it. And in my case it would have saved money. As I was using the company internet connection I was afraid, that the outgoing IP address of the company ended up on a blacklist. So I thouroghly checked (on company time!), if this is really the case, as it can easily cost us half a million per day.
   
2. How will the blocking protect them? Is this blocking active for signing up, too? (Didn't check) Wouldn't it be enough to do the blocking on the sign-up page? You can only post comments when logged-in, so if the comment is abusive you know the account.
   
3. How helps the physical location against abuse on the Internet? Is the abuse worse from New York than from San Francisco or Paris or Sidney or Hong Kong?
   
4. A GeoIP lookup of my IP shows the correct City. So my location is correctly detected and nevertheless I'm blocked from logging my finds. Using mobile data connection my GeoIP location moves to a city 200 km away. So this is a false positive in both cases.
   

 

I've worked for five years as a firewall administrator. I'm now for more than eight years data protection officer at my current company. I can fairly say, that I'm paranoid by training. I would never suggest to implement a VPN blocker for our shop to protect it against malicious contemporaries. It's not worth the effort.

 

I would suggest to use tar-pitting. Nothing annoys a bad guy more, than to have to wait.

 

The CEO of my company alwas says "Err on the side of the customer. They pay your bills."

Edited July 9, 2016 by DerBlaueReiter

[+dprovan]

This leaves me with more questions.

Since I can only guess the answers, I won't try to answer you in detail. But the thing you seem to be missing is that they're looking for specific addresses, not geographical areas. They are trying to prevent Joe Schmoe sitting at his home computer from being abusive from one account, then when that account gets shut down, opening another account and being abusive from that account, with GS being unable to see that the two events are related by coming from the same IP address.

 

It's hard to imagine this being very effective in the modern age, but I know that some people still consider it important. I don't know if GS has specific reasons that tell them it's effective.

 

I've worked for five years as a firewall administrator. I'm now for more than eight years data protection officer at my current company. I can fairly say, that I'm paranoid by training. I would never suggest to implement a VPN blocker for our shop to protect it against malicious contemporaries. It's not worth the effort.

I'm guessing you don't have lawyers calling the shots. It's a given that something done because some lawyer thinks it will cover his behind isn't going to be worth the effort, but that doesn't matter if the lawyer is considered the most important authority.

 

The CEO of my company alwas says "Err on the side of the customer. They pay your bills."

Well, here you're looking at it backwards: they are, in fact, erring on the side of the customer, but it's the customer effected by someone abusing the system, so they err by impacting the relatively small number of people such as yourself using an IP address masking approach for a legitimate reason.

[+TeamOpap]

I am traveling and use internet access provided by the hotel.

And get the error message 403.6:

IP address of the client has been rejected.

The requested page can not be accessed via anonymous proxies.

 

Very annoying!

 

Team Omam