4 ms·

It isn't your security they're concerned about, it is the server's- it is preventing DDoS attacks. If you want to blame someone, blame the people who poisoned

It isn't your security they're concerned about, it is the server's- it is preventing DDoS attacks. If you want to blame someone, blame the people who poisoned the well for everyone else.

maxbond 4y ago
We can walk & chew gum here, spammers and DDoSers are poisoning the well for sure, but Cloudflare is responsible for externalities of their service.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- zdragnar 4y ago
  Server hosts want protection from DDoS. They hire a bouncer (I e. Cloudflare) to keep the hordes at bay. The bouncer asks for some way to distinguish your suspicious looking request from that of the start of a DDoS attack. How is this an "externality" of cloudflare's service? If anything, it is an "externality" of the server hosts.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    Does it even matter? Blame is irrelevant, I find responsibility to be a more interesting thing to discuss in virtually all circumstances. The DDoSers and spammers should cut it out (but unfortunately we can't really count on them for anything), Cloudflare should make more of an effort to preserve accessibility, and their customers should care about it too & make it clear to Cloudflare that it's a priority to them. But if we take a step back it's clear that Cloudflare is the entity here that can have the biggest impact. Spammers and customers are diffuse, Cloudflare isn't. How much of the blame they deserve, I don't really care, but theres a problem, they're in the best position to act, so they have a responsibility to. In my opinion, that's the best mindset for solving problems.
    - zdragnar 4y ago
      > Blame is irrelevant, I find responsibility to be a more interesting thing to discuss This is, to me, a bizarre notion. You're imposing some sort of moral edict upon cloudflare for providing an opt-in service to web hosts. > they're in the best position to act They have, and they decided that certain traffic requires additional consideration to distinguish from bad actors. Your refusal to cooperate is entirely on you. Just because you don't like their solution doesn't mean that there is a better one. If you have better ideas, I'm sure they're all ears, as less intrusive is generally cheaper to implement.
userbinator 4y ago
it is preventing DDoS attacks. Is it? Those who want to DDoS will always find a way, and meanwhile users with slightly odd hardware/software are being locked out. Admittedly the latter is a minority, but one of the key tenets of the Internet and what made it so successful was interoperability. This is, in some ways, even worse than (but somewhat of a following effect of) the effective browser monopoly. Calling it "security" when it's really about "availability" is another deceptive misdirection, because the former is something that can more easily persuade the sheeple. I don't really like to go to extremes, but fingerprinting clients and deciding access based on such should really be regarded as a moral equivalent to racial profiling.
- zdragnar 4y ago
  Profiling happens all the time for entirely legitimate reasons in the real world. Racial profiling is immoral not because it is profiling; it is immoral because it is based on immutable characteristics which have no intrinsic bearing on the purpose of the profile. To tie this back to the topic at hand, you're complaining that a service has decided your traffic resembles known patterns from bad actors, and is asking you to go through an extra step to access the content. Are there better options? Maybe, but it's utterly asinine to compare what cloudflare is doing to racial profiling.
- jayd16 4y ago
  > Those who want to DDoS will always find a way How do you figure? You don't think far more DDoS events would occur if it was easier and more effective?
- cortesoft 4y ago
  > Those who want to DDoS will always find a way Not really. We are actually pretty good these days at stopping DDOS attacks.
  - mysterydip 4y ago
    Not sure how accurate this is, but currently shows 150+ DDoS attacks going on globally: https://www.netscout.com/ddos-attack-map https://www.netscout.com/ddos-attack-map
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
worldofmatthew 4y ago
DDOS attacks that exist because Cloudflare knowly protects booter websites which feeds the DDDOS economy with money to make DDOS botnets profitable?

It isn't your security they're concerned about, it is the server's- it is preventing DDoS attacks. If you want to blame someone, blame the people who poisoned the well for everyone else.

maxbond 4y ago

We can walk & chew gum here, spammers and DDoSers are poisoning the well for sure, but Cloudflare is responsible for externalities of their service.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
zdragnar 4y ago
Server hosts want protection from DDoS. They hire a bouncer (I e. Cloudflare) to keep the hordes at bay. The bouncer asks for some way to distinguish your suspicious looking request from that of the start of a DDoS attack. How is this an "externality" of cloudflare's service? If anything, it is an "externality" of the server hosts.
- maxbond 4y ago
  Does it even matter? Blame is irrelevant, I find responsibility to be a more interesting thing to discuss in virtually all circumstances. The DDoSers and spammers should cut it out (but unfortunately we can't really count on them for anything), Cloudflare should make more of an effort to preserve accessibility, and their customers should care about it too & make it clear to Cloudflare that it's a priority to them. But if we take a step back it's clear that Cloudflare is the entity here that can have the biggest impact. Spammers and customers are diffuse, Cloudflare isn't. How much of the blame they deserve, I don't really care, but theres a problem, they're in the best position to act, so they have a responsibility to. In my opinion, that's the best mindset for solving problems.
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    > Blame is irrelevant, I find responsibility to be a more interesting thing to discuss This is, to me, a bizarre notion. You're imposing some sort of moral edict upon cloudflare for providing an opt-in service to web hosts. > they're in the best position to act They have, and they decided that certain traffic requires additional consideration to distinguish from bad actors. Your refusal to cooperate is entirely on you. Just because you don't like their solution doesn't mean that there is a better one. If you have better ideas, I'm sure they're all ears, as less intrusive is generally cheaper to implement.

userbinator 4y ago

it is preventing DDoS attacks. Is it? Those who want to DDoS will always find a way, and meanwhile users with slightly odd hardware/software are being locked out. Admittedly the latter is a minority, but one of the key tenets of the Internet and what made it so successful was interoperability. This is, in some ways, even worse than (but somewhat of a following effect of) the effective browser monopoly. Calling it "security" when it's really about "availability" is another deceptive misdirection, because the former is something that can more easily persuade the sheeple. I don't really like to go to extremes, but fingerprinting clients and deciding access based on such should really be regarded as a moral equivalent to racial profiling.

zdragnar 4y ago
Profiling happens all the time for entirely legitimate reasons in the real world. Racial profiling is immoral not because it is profiling; it is immoral because it is based on immutable characteristics which have no intrinsic bearing on the purpose of the profile. To tie this back to the topic at hand, you're complaining that a service has decided your traffic resembles known patterns from bad actors, and is asking you to go through an extra step to access the content. Are there better options? Maybe, but it's utterly asinine to compare what cloudflare is doing to racial profiling.
jayd16 4y ago
> Those who want to DDoS will always find a way How do you figure? You don't think far more DDoS events would occur if it was easier and more effective?
cortesoft 4y ago
> Those who want to DDoS will always find a way Not really. We are actually pretty good these days at stopping DDOS attacks.
- mysterydip 4y ago
  Not sure how accurate this is, but currently shows 150+ DDoS attacks going on globally: https://www.netscout.com/ddos-attack-map https://www.netscout.com/ddos-attack-map

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

worldofmatthew 4y ago

DDOS attacks that exist because Cloudflare knowly protects booter websites which feeds the DDDOS economy with money to make DDOS botnets profitable?