That's not a winning solution either. When Anonymous ran some anti-ISIS operation, they accused CloudFlare of "hosting" dozens of pro-ISIS sites[1]. It turns o

That's not a winning solution either. When Anonymous ran some anti-ISIS operation, they accused CloudFlare of "hosting" dozens of pro-ISIS sites[1]. It turns out Anonymous was entirely wrong about the CloudFlare customer sites (confirmed by DHS) and hypocritical (because CloudFlare tried to remain content-indifferent and, as such, protects lots of Anonymous sites). But their image took a spanking for it in the news, despite (1) investigating the claims, (2) contacting DHS to confirm they were in the right, (3) having a rational counterargument (even if it wasn't as simply as "TERRORISTS!!!!1!!1one"). Remaining quiet isn't the solution either. @eastdakota was actively corresponding with the HN community while his security+product teams were actively mitigating the "CloudBleed" damage. Sometimes you will lose the news cycle, even if you are in the right and did everything right as a company should. [1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/18/cloudflare_ceo_rubbishes_anonymous_claims_of_terrorist_support/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/18/cloudflare_ceo_rubb...