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

391–400 of 483 posts

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#391

Post by Aeolun »

dangus wrote: post #383
Zak wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that means OP probably can't sue them. My comment is about customer trust.

OP isn’t a customer (anymore), therefore customer trust isn’t a concept that exists for them anymore. For everyone else, this clause is pretty much standard for all SaaS services. Take your pick. If you don’t want this level of service with any vendor you have to sign an enterprise contract where termination procedures are agreed upon more intentionally by both parties.

> OP isn’t a customer (anymore), therefore customer trust isn’t a concept that exists for them anymore.

I don’t know about you, but my customer trust is at an all time low, and I’m seriously considering at least moving all my registered domains off CloudFlare.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#392

Post by [deleted] »

Zak wrote: post #385
dangus wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP isn’t a customer (anymore), therefore customer trust isn’t a concept that exists for them anymore. For everyone else, this clause is pretty much standard for all SaaS services. Take your pick. If you don’t want this level of service with any vendor you have to sign an enterprise contract where termination procedures are agreed upon more intentionally by both parties.

This comment still misses the point. Any customer or potential customer who reads about this incident may have their trust in Cloudflare reduced, and rightfully so in my opinion. They have the legal right to terminate the relationship without reason or warning, but exercising that right in this context hurts their reputation.

[deleted]

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#393

Post by weird-eye-issue »

csomar wrote: post #380
weird-eye-issue wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> From personal experience I know that 10TB per month is like 30k/year Is this true? We are at 3TB and growing so I'm slightly concerned

If you are doing any serious business you should have a plan B always ready (ie: fastly) and a downgraded state where you can operate without a CDN.

Almost all of our state is stored inside Durable Objects and R2 and we use Workers extensively

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#394

Post by simplyinfinity »

aeyes wrote: post #108

From personal experience I know that 10TB per month is like 30k/year and SSL for SaaS is around 40k/year on the enterprise plan. No idea about pricing for having your own IP. I have no idea why Cloudflare would ask you to use these two features. SSL for SaaS is only useful if you want to add domains and certificates via API. I have had my fair share of negative experience with Cloudflare but this is next level bad. U…

Lmao. non cdn traffic for 1tb from an eu provider is 1 euro/tb. And you're telling me 80tb is worth. 30k/month? That's a joke, right?

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#395

Post by remram »

johnklos wrote: post #376
remram wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "don't put your eggs in one basket" here? Your DNS has to point to something... and changing it will go through propagation delays, during which it will be down if you are banned suddenly. It's not like you can have your domain/DNS somewhere else and point to Cloudflare IPs (to not put DNS and CDN in same basket). Cloudflare does not allow that setup. You can't protect your website from your DNS provider or h…

> You can't protect your website from your DNS provider or hosting provider suddenly kicking you off. You are going to be offline for a couple of days. Sure you can. Colocate in two or three places. You're your own DNS provider and your own hosting provider. If one of your colocation companies doesn't like what you're doing for whatever reason, you use the other two until you replace that provider.

"Do it all yourself" is a far cry from "don't put all your eggs in the same basket". The latter principle I agree with, the former not so much.

And you are still unprotected from your DNS registrar kicking you out, directing your domain to some "customer terminated" page until you can find another registrar, and have new NS records propagate (days).

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#396

Post by eschaton »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #135
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.

This is legally equivalent to "we have domain aliases". Lots of sites have those. Do you think that's really the problem here?

No, it’s technically equivalent. I be legally equivalent it would be required to prove (or disprove) intent.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#397

Post by arp242 »

ecjhdnc2025 wrote: post #305
Twirrim wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what you were expecting people to take away from your message, with the way that it is worded. It may not have been the intent, but the particular way you expressed your point heavily implies it.

I wrote what I wrote. He came here and in his only comment, criticised Google for not being quick enough. That is all I wrote and all I meant. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13718752#13721644 I don't much care if words are being put in my mouth but I do point it out. But then again as Maya Angelou said: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."

For someone getting very aggressive for words "being put in your mouth", you're not really paraphrasing that Cloudflare CEO very fairly.

He was specificity responding to someone complaining it's still in Google's cache, by stating that "The caches other than Google were quick to clear [..] I agree it's troubling that Google is taking so long.".

By leaving out this context, and phrasing it a "strategy", is not a fair paraphrasing. These bits matter. Two things can be true at the same time: 1) Cloudflare messed up, and 2) Google is very slow to deal with this, and also messed up. Indexing all of the web comes with some responsibilities.

Please apply the same standards to yourself that you impose on others with such aggression and hostility.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#398

Post by arp242 »

getlawgdon wrote: post #19
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.

Hmm. My take is the casino structured its business to comply, not to evade interest. Further, I don't see how Cloudflare benefits by taking on the risk to charge more to help a customer avoid scrutiny. More like: they know it's a humming business and want a piece.

> My take is the casino structured its business to comply, not to evade interest

It's impossible to say what's going on since it's an anonymous post with no details.

Maybe it's all 100% true.

Maybe there are some key details being left out. Wouldn't be the first time I've seen one of those outrage posts that seriously misrepresented things.

Whatever the case, obviously the author is not an unbiased party. These posts do well because "zomg Cloudflare bad!", and maybe they are, but I sure as fuck don't trust some casino guy either.

Re: Cloudflare took down our website

#399

Post by weird-eye-issue »

weird-eye-issue wrote: post #393
csomar wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are doing any serious business you should have a plan B always ready (ie: fastly) and a downgraded state where you can operate without a CDN.

Almost all of our state is stored inside Durable Objects and R2 and we use Workers extensively

And by extensively I mean it's literally our entire infrastructure
Post reply on HN