![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Cryptome recently announced a new website called CloudFlare Watch -- see http://cryptome.org/2012/07/cloudflare-watch.htm Cryptome is often cited in Wikipedia, and this particular Cryptome announcement was also picked up by Google News. But there is no mention of this new website, which is critical of CloudFlare, in this Wikipedia article. 66.87.0.132 ( talk) 14:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[1] Yoorshop ( talk) 06:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
It doesn't seem to make sense trying to critique a CDN's reputation especially when it's of face value. Cloudflare is a CDN , not a host in the first place.
http://sitevet.com/db/asn/AS13335 http://www.crimeflare.com/target2.html http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA18/20150127/102855/HHRG-114-FA18-Wstate-KohlmannE-20150127.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gph004 ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
In the article, "SiteVet Beta" and "Host Exploit" is used as references to claims that CloudFlare is one of the world's worst hosts.
Firstly, the SiteVet "Beta" is still "Beta" and has no other data on its website other than March 2014. That data is taken directly from the "Host Exploit" website.
"Host Exploit" has not published data since March 2014 and seems all but convincing. Neither "SiteVet" nor "Host Exploit" has Wikipedia articles.
I propose to remove these sentences from the article: "As of March 2014, CloudFlare was ranked in the top 10 of the world's worst hosts and networks based on malicious traffic it hosts by SiteVet Beta.[29] It was also ranked in the 7th rank among the top 50 Bad Hosts by Host Exploit.[30]" Palelnan ( talk) 10:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The lede is probably technically correct but I don't understand a word of it, yet I think I know what a CDN does and how it works. What I think I know is that a CDN delivers usually static data (like images) to a website visitor's browser when they visit a web page. Say for example Visitor "A" visits website "B". While some, most or all of the data from the website might come from website "B" 's Server, some, or even most of that data might come from the CDN (Content Delivery Network), for example Cloudflare. So, data from both "B" (the website server) and "C" (the CDN) is being downloaded simultaneously to the visitor "A" 's browser. The visitor sees none of this, however they do notice a significant improvement in page load times, as the data is coming from multiple sources (B and C) instead of just one (B). Result: Faster page load times, better browser/User experience.
That's what I think I know, and I bet 90% of the internet population do not know this, so they are going to get even less meaning from the lede than I did. There may be other reasons why a website might use a CDN. Those should be described in layman's terms also. Jonny Quick ( talk) 04:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
https://torrentfreak.com/cloudflare-forced-to-censor-anti-censorship-site-150710/
Recent article about a court ordering Cloudflare to either do or not-do "something" regarding a site "grooveshark". The article does not explain the legal theory of how or why a court could prevent a Content Delivery Network from delivering data to an "infringing" website. I fail to see a reasoned justification for the "censorship" and am concerned about what the court's limits are, or if it has any at all. At this point, it appears to me that the court is ordering Cloudflare to not deliver content to any domain name with the word(s) "Grooveshark" in it. If this is the case, what if I run a site "Groovesharksucks(dot com)", in the tradition of "walmartsucks (dot com)". This is where I (mentally) "go" when I read this torrentfreak article, and I wish Wikipedia would provide more substantive and encyclopedic information with regard to these questions and concerns. Jonny Quick ( talk) 17:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: I work for CloudFlare & obviously wouldn't edit the page. I do, however, have concerns over some of the citations/content on the page.
"As of March 2014, CloudFlare was ranked in the top 10 of the world's worst hosts and networks based on malicious traffic it hosts by SiteVet Beta.[31]" This site hasn't been updated with any content since 2014. It also really seems to contradict what Google reports at: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/safebrowsing/malware/#region=ALL&period=365&size=LARGEST&compromised&attack&asn=46844&aggregation=RATE&page=1
And: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/safebrowsing/malware/#region=ALL&period=365&size=LARGEST&compromised&attack&asn=46844&aggregation=RATE&page=1 (Google shows 1%). CloudFlare also proactively works with a number of providers to combat phishing and malware directly.
CloudFlare, (13335) 786,762 9,631 (1%) 11%
Damoncloudflare ( talk) 21:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)damoncloudflare
"The site protects a great many credit card fraud sites such as Rescator.[33]" Crimeflare.com is hardly a reliable third-party resource (fundamentally no different than pointing to something like Walmartsucks.com or Googlesucks.com). We don't host the content in question & we do follow legal processes for removing sites from our network. Damoncloudflare ( talk) 21:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)damoncloudflare
Ok, but the edit to Rescator seems to indicate that we host the site. CloudFlare does not host content and/or websites for any site that happens to use our network. Damoncloudflare ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:CB00:F00D:5CA1:6526:6363:7337:49A2 ( talk) 23:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
You are not using valid sources in some cases, crimeflare is not a valid source. since there is a possible Wikipedia:Libel issue I am removing some of the bad sources. Blog posts are not appropriate in many cases, maybe the WSJ one is good. I am not saying you added all these, I have not gone through the diffs. If you try to restore them then I will just bring it to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
"Two of ISIS' top three online chat forums are guarded by CloudFlare but U.S. law enforcement has not asked them to discontinue the service." CloudFlare provides website protection to websites, which is fundamentally no different than using something like mod_security or a security plugin on a site, and these topics have been covered at length in a variety of verifiable third-party resources (we will also gladly work with law enforcement that follows due process). We don't monitor content that flows through our network, but we do have processes for dealing with these items that follow the letter of the law.
Damoncloudflare ( talk) 21:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)damoncloudflare
Actually, I did read your comments.
Two things: 1. We don't host the website(s). Removing the site(s) would not impact their availability online (they just might be a little slower). They would still be there without CloudFlare. And, as I also mentioned, there is a process for working these issues for removal from our network that requires due process. If you read the article on our position on the internet, then it brings a little more clarity on where we sit in the internet ecosystem. If you want a private company deciding what content on the internet is good or not, then there are far larger issues to discuss.
2. Law enforcement may actually want sites online so they can do their investigation(s).
Damoncloudflare, I suggest you talk to whoever is in charge. You have a crisis management issue. If some more news sources pop up you will likely only have a criticism section. Credit card fraud is not free speach. I am not helping you, I am just trying to keep the article neutral and use valid sources. Jadeslair ( talk) 02:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
We are not against having a criticism section and/or having a rational discussion about the issues at play. Given the size of the CloudFlare network & the number of sites on our network, there will be issues where some people don't like what is on the network. Having worked at PayPal, I am also not unfamiliar with issues related to credit card fraud and/or how law enforcement looks at carding sites. We will also gladly work with law enforcement requests that follows a particular process through our abuse and compliance teams.
Damon says, "1. We don't host the website(s). Removing the site(s) would not impact their availability online (they just might be a little slower). They would still be there without CloudFlare."
This is disinformation. The exact same line is frequently used by CloudFlare employees when contacted by the press; it must be a CEO-required mantra. The truth is that the site would be unreachable within minutes, because the default TTL (time-to-live) for CloudFlare's nameservers is a mere five minutes. Until the site owner arranges for a new DNS provider, that site is gone. And other DNS providers do not normally hide the original IP address where the site is located, which presents a huge problem for the criminals and misfits who love CloudFlare. See: http://www.crimeflare.com/damon.html for more info. Silivalley ( talk) 14:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
NOTE: I work at Cloudflare and don't want to change the controversy section, but can someone clean up the first sentence in the section, while also clarifying that Cloudflare is not a host? It's notable that despite not actually being a host it made the list.
Proposed: Though not a web host, Cloudflare was ranked 7th on the list of top 50 Bad Hosts by HostExploit in 2014.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanknight24 ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I have posted one link used on here in the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Jadeslair ( talk) 02:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It's worth mentioning that CloudFlare censors Tor users : - https://people.torproject.org/~lunar/20160331-CloudFlare_Fact_Sheet.pdf - https://blog.torproject.org/blog/trouble-cloudflare - https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/18361 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.254.145.74 ( talk) 09:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The History section makes multiple mentiones to “largest-ever recorded” DDoS attacks. It should be noted that these were only new records at the time, and do not currently hold. (As of last month's 1 Tbps attacks on OVH) 87.165.24.224 ( talk) 19:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
notability is from Cloudflare, and not independent of it. (The other founders also have no BLP.) Widefox; talk 09:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
crimeflare.org is a website "anti" cloudflare for their Effort to help cybercriminals hide their host-ip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hieu pham The son ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I have a feeling this is going to end up on the article. So here we go, digging for some sources and choice bits.
-- Nanite ( talk) 06:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Cryptome recently announced a new website called CloudFlare Watch -- see http://cryptome.org/2012/07/cloudflare-watch.htm Cryptome is often cited in Wikipedia, and this particular Cryptome announcement was also picked up by Google News. But there is no mention of this new website, which is critical of CloudFlare, in this Wikipedia article. 66.87.0.132 ( talk) 14:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[1] Yoorshop ( talk) 06:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
It doesn't seem to make sense trying to critique a CDN's reputation especially when it's of face value. Cloudflare is a CDN , not a host in the first place.
http://sitevet.com/db/asn/AS13335 http://www.crimeflare.com/target2.html http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA18/20150127/102855/HHRG-114-FA18-Wstate-KohlmannE-20150127.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gph004 ( talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
In the article, "SiteVet Beta" and "Host Exploit" is used as references to claims that CloudFlare is one of the world's worst hosts.
Firstly, the SiteVet "Beta" is still "Beta" and has no other data on its website other than March 2014. That data is taken directly from the "Host Exploit" website.
"Host Exploit" has not published data since March 2014 and seems all but convincing. Neither "SiteVet" nor "Host Exploit" has Wikipedia articles.
I propose to remove these sentences from the article: "As of March 2014, CloudFlare was ranked in the top 10 of the world's worst hosts and networks based on malicious traffic it hosts by SiteVet Beta.[29] It was also ranked in the 7th rank among the top 50 Bad Hosts by Host Exploit.[30]" Palelnan ( talk) 10:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The lede is probably technically correct but I don't understand a word of it, yet I think I know what a CDN does and how it works. What I think I know is that a CDN delivers usually static data (like images) to a website visitor's browser when they visit a web page. Say for example Visitor "A" visits website "B". While some, most or all of the data from the website might come from website "B" 's Server, some, or even most of that data might come from the CDN (Content Delivery Network), for example Cloudflare. So, data from both "B" (the website server) and "C" (the CDN) is being downloaded simultaneously to the visitor "A" 's browser. The visitor sees none of this, however they do notice a significant improvement in page load times, as the data is coming from multiple sources (B and C) instead of just one (B). Result: Faster page load times, better browser/User experience.
That's what I think I know, and I bet 90% of the internet population do not know this, so they are going to get even less meaning from the lede than I did. There may be other reasons why a website might use a CDN. Those should be described in layman's terms also. Jonny Quick ( talk) 04:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
https://torrentfreak.com/cloudflare-forced-to-censor-anti-censorship-site-150710/
Recent article about a court ordering Cloudflare to either do or not-do "something" regarding a site "grooveshark". The article does not explain the legal theory of how or why a court could prevent a Content Delivery Network from delivering data to an "infringing" website. I fail to see a reasoned justification for the "censorship" and am concerned about what the court's limits are, or if it has any at all. At this point, it appears to me that the court is ordering Cloudflare to not deliver content to any domain name with the word(s) "Grooveshark" in it. If this is the case, what if I run a site "Groovesharksucks(dot com)", in the tradition of "walmartsucks (dot com)". This is where I (mentally) "go" when I read this torrentfreak article, and I wish Wikipedia would provide more substantive and encyclopedic information with regard to these questions and concerns. Jonny Quick ( talk) 17:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: I work for CloudFlare & obviously wouldn't edit the page. I do, however, have concerns over some of the citations/content on the page.
"As of March 2014, CloudFlare was ranked in the top 10 of the world's worst hosts and networks based on malicious traffic it hosts by SiteVet Beta.[31]" This site hasn't been updated with any content since 2014. It also really seems to contradict what Google reports at: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/safebrowsing/malware/#region=ALL&period=365&size=LARGEST&compromised&attack&asn=46844&aggregation=RATE&page=1
And: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/safebrowsing/malware/#region=ALL&period=365&size=LARGEST&compromised&attack&asn=46844&aggregation=RATE&page=1 (Google shows 1%). CloudFlare also proactively works with a number of providers to combat phishing and malware directly.
CloudFlare, (13335) 786,762 9,631 (1%) 11%
Damoncloudflare ( talk) 21:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)damoncloudflare
"The site protects a great many credit card fraud sites such as Rescator.[33]" Crimeflare.com is hardly a reliable third-party resource (fundamentally no different than pointing to something like Walmartsucks.com or Googlesucks.com). We don't host the content in question & we do follow legal processes for removing sites from our network. Damoncloudflare ( talk) 21:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)damoncloudflare
Ok, but the edit to Rescator seems to indicate that we host the site. CloudFlare does not host content and/or websites for any site that happens to use our network. Damoncloudflare ( talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:CB00:F00D:5CA1:6526:6363:7337:49A2 ( talk) 23:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
You are not using valid sources in some cases, crimeflare is not a valid source. since there is a possible Wikipedia:Libel issue I am removing some of the bad sources. Blog posts are not appropriate in many cases, maybe the WSJ one is good. I am not saying you added all these, I have not gone through the diffs. If you try to restore them then I will just bring it to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
"Two of ISIS' top three online chat forums are guarded by CloudFlare but U.S. law enforcement has not asked them to discontinue the service." CloudFlare provides website protection to websites, which is fundamentally no different than using something like mod_security or a security plugin on a site, and these topics have been covered at length in a variety of verifiable third-party resources (we will also gladly work with law enforcement that follows due process). We don't monitor content that flows through our network, but we do have processes for dealing with these items that follow the letter of the law.
Damoncloudflare ( talk) 21:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)damoncloudflare
Actually, I did read your comments.
Two things: 1. We don't host the website(s). Removing the site(s) would not impact their availability online (they just might be a little slower). They would still be there without CloudFlare. And, as I also mentioned, there is a process for working these issues for removal from our network that requires due process. If you read the article on our position on the internet, then it brings a little more clarity on where we sit in the internet ecosystem. If you want a private company deciding what content on the internet is good or not, then there are far larger issues to discuss.
2. Law enforcement may actually want sites online so they can do their investigation(s).
Damoncloudflare, I suggest you talk to whoever is in charge. You have a crisis management issue. If some more news sources pop up you will likely only have a criticism section. Credit card fraud is not free speach. I am not helping you, I am just trying to keep the article neutral and use valid sources. Jadeslair ( talk) 02:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
We are not against having a criticism section and/or having a rational discussion about the issues at play. Given the size of the CloudFlare network & the number of sites on our network, there will be issues where some people don't like what is on the network. Having worked at PayPal, I am also not unfamiliar with issues related to credit card fraud and/or how law enforcement looks at carding sites. We will also gladly work with law enforcement requests that follows a particular process through our abuse and compliance teams.
Damon says, "1. We don't host the website(s). Removing the site(s) would not impact their availability online (they just might be a little slower). They would still be there without CloudFlare."
This is disinformation. The exact same line is frequently used by CloudFlare employees when contacted by the press; it must be a CEO-required mantra. The truth is that the site would be unreachable within minutes, because the default TTL (time-to-live) for CloudFlare's nameservers is a mere five minutes. Until the site owner arranges for a new DNS provider, that site is gone. And other DNS providers do not normally hide the original IP address where the site is located, which presents a huge problem for the criminals and misfits who love CloudFlare. See: http://www.crimeflare.com/damon.html for more info. Silivalley ( talk) 14:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
NOTE: I work at Cloudflare and don't want to change the controversy section, but can someone clean up the first sentence in the section, while also clarifying that Cloudflare is not a host? It's notable that despite not actually being a host it made the list.
Proposed: Though not a web host, Cloudflare was ranked 7th on the list of top 50 Bad Hosts by HostExploit in 2014.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanknight24 ( talk • contribs) 22:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I have posted one link used on here in the Reliable sources Noticeboard. Jadeslair ( talk) 02:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It's worth mentioning that CloudFlare censors Tor users : - https://people.torproject.org/~lunar/20160331-CloudFlare_Fact_Sheet.pdf - https://blog.torproject.org/blog/trouble-cloudflare - https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/18361 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.254.145.74 ( talk) 09:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
The History section makes multiple mentiones to “largest-ever recorded” DDoS attacks. It should be noted that these were only new records at the time, and do not currently hold. (As of last month's 1 Tbps attacks on OVH) 87.165.24.224 ( talk) 19:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
notability is from Cloudflare, and not independent of it. (The other founders also have no BLP.) Widefox; talk 09:25, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
crimeflare.org is a website "anti" cloudflare for their Effort to help cybercriminals hide their host-ip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hieu pham The son ( talk • contribs) 15:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I have a feeling this is going to end up on the article. So here we go, digging for some sources and choice bits.
-- Nanite ( talk) 06:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)