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

Issues with Cloudflare Images

blog.klungo.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 152 posts

Re: Issues with Cloudflare Images

#11

Post by AtNightWeCode »

"5. Lack of dynamic resizing, only 20 “variants” allowed"

Best practice when it comes to images on the web is to use a fixed number of sizes. Why they limited it to 20 I do not know though. You should never allow dynamic image resizing since it is commonly used in various attacks.

Re: Issues with Cloudflare Images

#12

Post by LukeLambert »

Image Resizing is technically a separate product, so I apologize if this is off-topic, but it appears to be missing the most useful `fit` mode – something like `fit=cover-scale-down`. I never want to enlarge an image on the server, since I can do that client-side. If I request a version with the dimensions 512×512 (square), but the source image is only 400×600, there should be a way to get a resulting image of 400×400. Am I misreading the docs? https://developers.cloudflare.com/images/image-resizing/url-...

Edit: Changed suggested name of fit mode for clarity.

Re: Issues with Cloudflare Images

#15

Post by LukeLambert »

AtNightWeCode wrote: post #11

"5. Lack of dynamic resizing, only 20 “variants” allowed" Best practice when it comes to images on the web is to use a fixed number of sizes. Why they limited it to 20 I do not know though. You should never allow dynamic image resizing since it is commonly used in various attacks.

That’s why many image CDNs allow signed URLs. With Cloudflare Image Resizing, you’d need to implement that functionality using Workers.

Re: Issues with Cloudflare Images

#16

Post by danielskogly »

AtNightWeCode wrote: post #11

"5. Lack of dynamic resizing, only 20 “variants” allowed" Best practice when it comes to images on the web is to use a fixed number of sizes. Why they limited it to 20 I do not know though. You should never allow dynamic image resizing since it is commonly used in various attacks.

Cloudflare is industry leading when it comes to facing those kinds of attacks, though, and it's supported in the "Cloudflare Image Resizing" [0] product.

Also, using a fixed number of sizes might be best practice when it comes to a website you have full control over, and can plan the content for. When it comes to user-generated content, where you want to give the user the opportunity to select a custom crop for an image, you don't necessarily have that kind of control.

The alternative we considered was doing the crop on the client before uploading the image, but that ensures loss of information, and makes it impossible for the user to edit their selection at a future time without re-uploading the image.

[0]: https://developers.cloudflare.com/images/image-resizing

Re: Issues with Cloudflare Images

#17

Post by marccl »

Thanks for the feedback. I'm on the CF Images product team. We will allow the download of the original images, it is actually one of the next features coming up. Also we will introduce webhooks and Images Analytics next.

Re: Issues with Cloudflare Images

#18

Post by yawnxyz »

jcsnv wrote: post #10

We were charged $10k for the first month of use and immediately reverted the implementation. CF was kind enough to refund us since we're still an early stage co. It would be great if pricing was more reasonable

I remember there was another article about image uploads and content moderation (here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28684250), essentially saying that if you create a open uploading service, you WILL start getting lots of spammy images / abuse.

CF Images always seems like a LOT more $$ than other image hosting tools out there. What other service did you end up going with?

Re: Issues with Cloudflare Images

#20

Post by john37386 »

jcsnv wrote: post #10

We were charged $10k for the first month of use and immediately reverted the implementation. CF was kind enough to refund us since we're still an early stage co. It would be great if pricing was more reasonable

Lucky for you that you don't check your bills on a quarter basis (3 months). It could have been another story to be reimbursed and the bills might have more than triple.
Post reply on HN