This is insanely dumb. Cloudflare is providing free hosting services, not materially supporting the attacker. You can argue that cloudflare needs to be better, or adopt different values towards, taking down sites they host, but this organization could absolutely just serve elsewhere (or just advertise their services over telegram or the like). Maybe there is a point to be made about monopoly power in hosting and ddos…
Can someone please explain whether Cloudflare blackmailed Canonical?
11–20 of 182 posts
Re: Can someone please explain whether Cloudflare blackmailed Canonical?
#12Re: Can someone please explain whether Cloudflare blackmailed Canonical?
#13Re: Can someone please explain whether Cloudflare blackmailed Canonical?
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They protect (from legal consequence or even discovery) the attackers and host them on their infrastructure so they're untouchable Victims can't file a subpoena to get account details?
I've never tried a subpoena. I've tried reporting them to ICANN for whois abuse contact violations and never received a response (after I recieved a response from cloudflare saying, "Go away, we don't care, sign up for our services and pay us to care."). Perhaps I should set up a gofundme or something for the thousands of dollars needed to get justice via subpoena. If I were hosting illegal malicious actors doing thi…
So ICANN is complicit too? After all, if we adopt your interpretation, in some way ICANN is also turning an blind eye, both to what cloudflare is supposedly doing and also to what the domain registrars are doing.
Re: Can someone please explain whether Cloudflare blackmailed Canonical?
#15This whole article seems conflate hosting an informational site run by the attackers and hosting the attack itself.
Re: Can someone please explain whether Cloudflare blackmailed Canonical?
#16Ddos protection services can be cast as a digital protection racket where they have a perverse incentive to keep attackers attacking. “It's a dangerous internet out there; you'd better pay us to protect your website from the attackers using our free tier.” At the least, even if there is no active collusion or profit sharing or anything like that, there is not a clear side that the DDos protector service is on?
Re: Can someone please explain whether Cloudflare blackmailed Canonical?
#17Re: Can someone please explain whether Cloudflare blackmailed Canonical?
#18All the faceshops I have reporeted to cloudflare, all these phising pages behind cloudflare I reported, never came down.
None of them.
For a company making billions, protecting people, they should take this stuff serious.
Re: Can someone please explain whether Cloudflare blackmailed Canonical?
#19Re: Can someone please explain whether Cloudflare blackmailed Canonical?
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've never tried a subpoena. I've tried reporting them to ICANN for whois abuse contact violations and never received a response (after I recieved a response from cloudflare saying, "Go away, we don't care, sign up for our services and pay us to care."). Perhaps I should set up a gofundme or something for the thousands of dollars needed to get justice via subpoena. If I were hosting illegal malicious actors doing thi…
>I've tried reporting them to ICANN and never received a response. So ICANN is complicit too? After all, if we adopt your interpretation, in some way ICANN is also turning an blind eye, both to what cloudflare is supposedly doing and also to what the domain registrars are doing.