3 ms·
Either way, CloudFlare is a part of the problem. They're either protecting booter services (thus necessitating your use of DDoS protection in the first place) o
by kbuck 10y ago
Either way, CloudFlare is a part of the problem. They're either protecting booter services (thus necessitating your use of DDoS protection in the first place) or terminating the booter sites without "due process".
It's relevant to mention that CloudFlare already does terminate a class of sites without "due process": malware hosts. What makes malware hosts that much worse than booters? Answer: CloudFlare's IPs can get blacklisted for it.
- stcredzero 10y agoIs it of comparable difficulty to reliably empirically establish 1) malware hosting and 2) operating a booter site?
- kbuck 10y agoI'd say yes: if you visit a purported malware URL and you are served malware, then it is a malware site. If you visit a purported booter site URL and it advertises booter services, then it is a booter. If the booter sites start trying to hide their identity, fine, I can see not removing that without proof. That will also severely injure the booter's signup rate, though.
- yoo1I 10y agoEven when reporting malware hosts to them, the response to my abuse reports is "we are a reverse proxy, we do not provide hosting" - and then no further action is taken.