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

Cloudflare took down our website

robindev.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 483 posts

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#121

Post by tempaccount420 »

skrebbel wrote: post #105
jrochkind1 wrote: post #77

I have been hearing stories from developers/entrepeneurs about Cloudflare being very weird to deal with: "We'd like to talk to you about an enterprise plan." "No thanks, I'm fine with the free plan." "Based on your traffic, we'd like to talk to you about an enteprrise plan." "Is there a traffic limit on the free plan?" "No, there is no limit. But based on your traffic, we require you to get an enteprirse plan." [Give…

We had a similar experience. Stuff suddenly started breaking for 10% of our traffic, support dragged their feet for weeks wrt any sort of insight as to what was going on, and then the answer was “you’re over an undocumented limit, try the enterprise plan”. Fwiw this was some years ago and we moved most of our stuff away from them in response. I didn't get the feeling that this was malicious from their side, more like…

> undocumented limit

this makes it sound like the limit is automatic or applies non-discriminately to customers, but my first instinct is that this was manually set by someone, maybe the sales reps again?

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#122

Post by ecjhdnc2025 »

I will remind HNers: is Cloudflare not the company that leaked sensitive data through cache files that were indexed by at least Google, and when the tech community were up in arms about the massive leakage of sensitive data, the CEO’s strategy was to turn up here and criticise Google for not deindexing quickly enough?

You get what you pay for.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#123

Post by Tao3300 »

user_7832 wrote: post #52
candiddevmike wrote: post #5

Sounds like OP is a casino and plays domain games to avoid regulatory interest. Recommend reading article carefully before reacting to the headline. Hopefully Cloudflare provides a perspective.

If 90 or 95% of their traffic comes from a single domain (and presumably has for a while), that still doesn’t make OP sound guilty. If there was a legal issue Cloudflare legal should’ve stepped in, not their sales team.

That was the part that bugged me. This workflow is very busted from a user standpoint, though I'm sure it works very nicely to Cloudflare!

It smells like the "problem" was detected by automation, but instead of being able to reach anyone technical to work through it, you can only call sales teams.

In my opinion it's one racket vs another.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#124

Post by jasonvorhe »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #77

I have been hearing stories from developers/entrepeneurs about Cloudflare being very weird to deal with: "We'd like to talk to you about an enterprise plan." "No thanks, I'm fine with the free plan." "Based on your traffic, we'd like to talk to you about an enteprrise plan." "Is there a traffic limit on the free plan?" "No, there is no limit. But based on your traffic, we require you to get an enteprirse plan." [Give…

I wouldn't trust a company after they pulled this stunt just once. Why are you letting them do this to you(r company)?

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#125

Post by ndiddy »

candiddevmike wrote: post #5

Sounds like OP is a casino and plays domain games to avoid regulatory interest. Recommend reading article carefully before reacting to the headline. Hopefully Cloudflare provides a perspective.

This shouldn't matter, in general Cloudflare responds to complaints about allowing illegal content with "we're a neutral utility, we forwarded your complaint to the site's webhost". To me, the article showed that Cloudflare was being extremely aggressive with selling the customer on an enterprise plan and repeatedly invented excuses to get them on the phone with their sales team. They then took the site offline and locked them out of their account when the customer started talking with other CDNs.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#126

Post by nocfforever »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #77

I have been hearing stories from developers/entrepeneurs about Cloudflare being very weird to deal with: "We'd like to talk to you about an enterprise plan." "No thanks, I'm fine with the free plan." "Based on your traffic, we'd like to talk to you about an enteprrise plan." "Is there a traffic limit on the free plan?" "No, there is no limit. But based on your traffic, we require you to get an enteprirse plan." [Give…

I thought about using CF in some of my deployments.

After hearing about these sorts of "discussions" from other colleagues, I certainly talked about using their services.

And then I realized that I had to hand them over my DNS? Uhh, no. It could have been "set nameserver to ours in your DNS console".

And also there was the recent SSL spoofing they're doing even with DNS with no hosted websites. And they charge money to send a revocation.

The whole thing is a hot yipes!

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#127

Post by gruez »

albert_e wrote: post #93
perihelions wrote: post #37

- "This also means that if a country DNS-blocks our main domain, a secondary domain may still be available. This could arguably be seen as a violation of the Cloudflare TOS, as they wrote above." Attorneys love it when people put everything in writing like this.

Devil's advocate: If a country A decides to block twitter.com but forgets to ban x.com which remains available ... is Twitter engaging in illegality / violation of CDN terms of service?

Like most things in the legal system, it depends on intent. It's pretty obvious that twitter's rebrand to x.com was an actual rebrand and not some way of evading domain bans.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#129

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

rrr_oh_man wrote: post #116
endisneigh wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why they don’t just have clear limits - seems like it would make it easier to grok.

Genuine question: Why did you use `grok` in that context?

You're on a site named hacker news; why would you expect any other word there?

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#130

Post by rvnx »

nso wrote: post #102
Etheryte wrote: post #43

This doesn't pass the sniff test. From the actions Cloudflare took and their communication, it's very clear that there was something about the way their services were used that they were unhappy about. The post doesn't include what that problem was, but I have a very hard time believing that the author was not in the know and just got their account nuked without any further commentary, especially after being in a num…

So CF is ok with shady for 10k but not for .25k?

Maybe... Same ratio: I might be ok to do shady stuff for 100k a month, but not 2.5k a month
Post reply on HN