Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CloudFlare and Google Cloud Platform

cloudflare.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 133 posts

Re: CloudFlare and Google Cloud Platform

#31

Post by MichaelGG »

ceejayoz wrote: post #10
AdmiralAsshat wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pretty neat from a routing standpoint and devastating to user privacy on the whole I'm interested. Please expand on the privacy point. I thought the general move to CloudFlare was a good thing for privacy, as it provides an easy mechanism for getting sites onto HTTPS without having every site to worry about managing certificates.

If CloudFlare is compromised by an intelligence agency or forced by law enforcement and courts to cooperate, they're a large single-point-of-failure for privacy.

Additionally, a lot of sites probably just use CFs crypto, without securing it to their backend servers. Hence there could be less encryption overall.

Re: CloudFlare and Google Cloud Platform

#32

Post by arihant »

jgrahamc wrote: post #14
arihant wrote: post #13

This is tangential, but is there any way one can use Cloudflare and not be subject to Google Analytics spam?

What are you talking about?

This: https://moz.com/blog/how-to-stop-spam-bots-from-ruining-your...

And this: https://blog.sucuri.net/2015/07/malicious-google-analytics-r...

I and others that I know get this kind of referral spam on every single domain we have with cloudflare. I know DNS records are public, but is there something cloudflare and other public DNS hosting services can do to prevent this?

Re: CloudFlare and Google Cloud Platform

#33

Post by nulltype »

steckerbrett wrote: post #11
Someone1234 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a lot of hyperbole there. If you look at the top 500 websites very few of them are behind CloudFlare, CloudFlare's penetration seems to be SMBs mostly (since larger orgs can afford the in-house mitigations that CloudFlare offers).

Did you know reddit is? You wouldn't know it from looking at the WHOIS, I'm betting lots of places are behind it without showing the normal indicators. Name Server: CNS1.REDDIT.COM Name Server: CNS2.REDDIT.COM Name Server: CNS3.REDDIT.COM Doesn't look like it from here.. ;; ANSWER SECTION: CNS1.REDDIT.COM. 172246 IN A 173.245.58.24 Delegated to? OrgName: CloudFlare, Inc. OrgId: CLOUD14 There we go! CloudFlare after a…

It might be easier if you use curl.

curl -I https://www.reddit.com HTTP/1.1 200 OK Server: cloudflare-nginx

Re: CloudFlare and Google Cloud Platform

#34

Post by toomuchtodo »

steckerbrett wrote: post #8
dangrossman wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more popular it becomes, the more incentive there is for other companies to enter the space and grab a chunk of the money. The barriers to entry are not insurmountable for e.g. existing CDN companies to start offering DNS, WAF and DDOS mitigation products, making them more like Cloudflare. They already have the peering/hosting relationships and engineering teams experienced at working with large volumes of traffi…

Is there reason for people to enter a market with a single obvious leader though? I got the impression that making peering agreements with people on any sort of scale was a bit of a bear. It is already quite ubiquitous, a surprising number of websites use it even if it's not completely obvious, reddit.com has some sort of stealth configuration that bypasses the normal DNS setup for example.

> Is there reason for people to enter a market with a single obvious leader though?

Were there not search engines before Google? Isn't AWS the cloud computing "leader" while Google is trying to break into the space? There is no such thing as an obvious leader, only juicy prey waiting for the next hungry org to eat its lunch.

> I got the impression that making peering agreements with people on any sort of scale was a bit of a bear.

Hardly. Peering agreements are of similar difficulty level as any vendor negotiation, whether it be with a specific network or an interconnection fabric (IXP).

Re: CloudFlare and Google Cloud Platform

#35

Post by malkia »

pdknsk wrote: post #21

I strongly advise against hosting images, particularly photos, behind CloudFlare. I don't use it myself but I'm frequently noticing CloudFlare aggressively stripping color-profiles from images. Most noticeable if the photo has an AdobeRGB profile, as many do. It makes skin tones in particular look very dull. I don't know if CloudFlare honors no-transform – I suspect they do, but most sites don't send it.

This makes it unsuitable for gfx outsourcing work. In my last job (gamedev) people were starting to use more and more of the profiles built-in the image formats we were exporting (we settled on .tiff, but also supported .png, and few others).

Though I remember that sometimes previews (or was it layers) saved in the .tiff were making it 10x, 20x (not kidding) times bigger, so a special "save" plugin was done to filter these out, and on regular someone wrote a script to check for such.

Re: CloudFlare and Google Cloud Platform

#36

Post by hueving »

jgrahamc wrote: post #23
verelo wrote: post #18

I want to love CloudFlare, I really do. We currently use them, but sadly the number of times that CloudFlare has been the cause of a service interruption is somewhere around 50% mark. They are no longer in use on any critical/important end points, I just don't need PagerDuty waking us up over an issue I have no control over. This is not a problem I expect to improve. As they start to cover all of the web, i imagine t…

I would love to talk to you about this. jgc @ guess the domain.

jgc@akamai.com?

Re: CloudFlare and Google Cloud Platform

#37

Post by jgrahamc »

malkia wrote: post #35
pdknsk wrote: post #21

I strongly advise against hosting images, particularly photos, behind CloudFlare. I don't use it myself but I'm frequently noticing CloudFlare aggressively stripping color-profiles from images. Most noticeable if the photo has an AdobeRGB profile, as many do. It makes skin tones in particular look very dull. I don't know if CloudFlare honors no-transform – I suspect they do, but most sites don't send it.

This makes it unsuitable for gfx outsourcing work. In my last job (gamedev) people were starting to use more and more of the profiles built-in the image formats we were exporting (we settled on .tiff, but also supported .png, and few others). Though I remember that sometimes previews (or was it layers) saved in the .tiff were making it 10x, 20x (not kidding) times bigger, so a special "save" plugin was done to filter…

So, if you are in that situation don't enable our "Polish" service and the images will be passed/cached untouched.

Re: CloudFlare and Google Cloud Platform

#38

Post by hueving »

Kalium wrote: post #30
jsprogrammer wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

CloudFlare strips HTTPS protection off on their machines and views all plain text. So, you get HTTPS protection on the public Internet in exchange for CloudFlare getting to see everything. This may or may not be what you want/need.

It's worth remembering that that's one operating mode. There are others.

If they can cache it, they can read it.

Re: CloudFlare and Google Cloud Platform

#39

Post by McGlockenshire »

pdknsk wrote: post #21

I strongly advise against hosting images, particularly photos, behind CloudFlare. I don't use it myself but I'm frequently noticing CloudFlare aggressively stripping color-profiles from images. Most noticeable if the photo has an AdobeRGB profile, as many do. It makes skin tones in particular look very dull. I don't know if CloudFlare honors no-transform – I suspect they do, but most sites don't send it.

> I don't use it myself but I'm frequently noticing CloudFlare aggressively stripping color-profiles from images

They have a service that tries to perform loss-free optimization of served images. It's easy to disable, and should be disabled if you either already perform similar optimizations (optipng / pngquant, jpegtran, etc) or have images with annotations, color profiles, etc.

Re: CloudFlare and Google Cloud Platform

#40

Post by TheHippo »

pdknsk wrote: post #21

I strongly advise against hosting images, particularly photos, behind CloudFlare. I don't use it myself but I'm frequently noticing CloudFlare aggressively stripping color-profiles from images. Most noticeable if the photo has an AdobeRGB profile, as many do. It makes skin tones in particular look very dull. I don't know if CloudFlare honors no-transform – I suspect they do, but most sites don't send it.

Do you have image "improvement" options enabled? Maybe disabling them could help.
Post reply on HN