So if your browser agent is not firefox, chrome, safari internet can stop working. What a great side feature.
Yeah, because most custom browsers are malicious. They have the data to prove it. This isn't a side feature, it's a direct feature that is 100% intentional. They maintain a backend whitelist of known "good" user-agents. Curl is on that list and there are a few others outside of the big players. Most people building custom browsers are doing it to do something Chrome would disallow. One instance would only supporting…
Any sufficiently bad actor will already modify their user agent. Who is this really stopping?
I really wish you could just directly pay for services. A hundredth of a cent per visit would make most abuse un-profitable while still allowing very affordable procrastination.
It appears that you may have made some modifications to your user agent string. If you revert your user agent to the one provided by default by your browser vendor everything will be fine.
This is a horrible recommendation and will ensure that the attack can continue after activating CloudFlare. You've already exposed your origin's IPs in this circumstance.
can't you ask your provider for a new one?
Your provider would have to nullroute the ip under attack and you'll have to wait for DNS cache expiration so your updated zone is being distributed to clients.
Short TTLs are not honoured by everyone so you'll experience some downtime.
How is it ridiculous? It's called email obfuscation (it can be disabled within Cloudflare) it's to stop spam bots from ripping email addresses from websites and adding them to mailing lists.
Because their regex is crap and if you have @twitterHandle or something with a legitimate "@" you just see the obfuscated version. It's laughably adorable to think it's actually solving a problem or helping in any way, the 'bad actors' it's trying to prevent probably have a work around anyway.
> It's laughably adorable to think it's actually solving a problem or helping in any way, the 'bad actors' it's trying to prevent probably have a work around anyway.
The problem presented by services like ReCaptcha and Cloudflare is a tough nut to crack. They're silently embedded in a huge portion of modern websites, and the average user will never even know about them. But it seems to be way too easy for them to blanket-ban or serve an absurd amount of captchas to powerusers, linux gurus, privacy geeks, or anyone with the wrong combination of browser+addons. And the failures (as…
Yeah, you can't really talk about downsides of Recaptcha/Cloudflare without also acknowledging the extreme amount of malicious actors and abuse on the internet. We're in a "this is why we can't have nice things" predicament and you have malicious actors to thank for that, yet most people on HN only seem capable of attacking the few affordable solutions to that problem. I'm even down with the theory that Cloudflare is…
The problem presented by services like ReCaptcha and Cloudflare is a tough nut to crack. They're silently embedded in a huge portion of modern websites, and the average user will never even know about them. But it seems to be way too easy for them to blanket-ban or serve an absurd amount of captchas to powerusers, linux gurus, privacy geeks, or anyone with the wrong combination of browser+addons. And the failures (as…
Yeah, you can't really talk about downsides of Recaptcha/Cloudflare without also acknowledging the extreme amount of malicious actors and abuse on the internet. We're in a "this is why we can't have nice things" predicament and you have malicious actors to thank for that, yet most people on HN only seem capable of attacking the few affordable solutions to that problem. I'm even down with the theory that Cloudflare is…
> Yeah, you can't really talk about downsides of Recaptcha/Cloudflare without also acknowledging the extreme amount of malicious actors and abuse on the internet.
What percentage of traffic on the long tail of 95% of smallest websites served by CF is malicious then? So that we talk in numbers.
Do you have any evidence of this? I'd take a dodgy looking blogspot URL over absolute nothing
In the past, Cloudflare were free speech absolutists. They accepted customers in a content neutral way. When people tried to get them to deplatform ISIS websites, they said this: One of the greatest strengths of the United States is a belief that speech, particularly political speech, is sacred. A website, of course, is nothing but speech... A website is speech. It is not a bomb. There is no imminent danger it create…
> Since then, they've stopped working with a number of other sites due to content, like 8chan.
I believe that number is 1, and that the only two sites they've shut off service to are Daily Stormer and 8chan.
The problem presented by services like ReCaptcha and Cloudflare is a tough nut to crack. They're silently embedded in a huge portion of modern websites, and the average user will never even know about them. But it seems to be way too easy for them to blanket-ban or serve an absurd amount of captchas to powerusers, linux gurus, privacy geeks, or anyone with the wrong combination of browser+addons. And the failures (as…
Yeah, you can't really talk about downsides of Recaptcha/Cloudflare without also acknowledging the extreme amount of malicious actors and abuse on the internet. We're in a "this is why we can't have nice things" predicament and you have malicious actors to thank for that, yet most people on HN only seem capable of attacking the few affordable solutions to that problem. I'm even down with the theory that Cloudflare is…
Somewhat of a topic hijack and a naive question, but assuming Cloudflare is a government entity, wouldn't they still have to comply with whatever their terms of service / contracts with their users are? As they are a US company, barring illegality, theoretically they can't actually do shady shit without being in breach of contract right? They would also open themselves up to shareholder lawsuits.
First, no one said the SPLC is the final say for this. Second, do you have any examples of an organization that the SPLC deemed a white supremacist that wasn't?
I know the SPLC has paid out in defamation suits rather than allow the cases to go to trial. Pretty good sign they knew they'd lose as it has severely hurt their reputation.