4 ms·

The comments here surprise me a bit. The common thread so far seems to be a general fear of US based companies, but how is that relates to the article? Cloudfl

The comments here surprise me a bit. The common thread so far seems to be a general fear of US based companies, but how is that relates to the article? Cloudflare's post is pretty boring here in that regard. They dig into how BGP works and propose that similar leaks seem common for the Venezuelan ISP in question. Sure they could be wrong or even actively hiding the truth of what happened here, but the article mentions nothing of Cloudflare being involved in the action and they're describing a networking standard by pointing to publicly available BGP log data. What am I missing here that everyone else seemed to zero in on?

ffsm8 10mo ago
Probably because most people only read headlines (and maybe 3 paragraphs) combined with the fact that the US has a long history of doing what people are condemning them for, even if this particular instance probably wasn't a case of such behavior. Especially considering how the general sentiment towards the US has gotten bitter with constant threads of invasion of Denmark and Canada by their government. Or it's just Russian and China socket accounts? Who knows...
xocnad 10mo ago
I share your view - how does this article imply US companies and/or government involvement? If there were such involvement what aspect of BGP gives the US entities more ability to carry this out vs other nefarious actors? I ask this sincerely knowing almost nothing about BGP and wanting to learn...
- jeroenhd 10mo ago
  You may have missed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46504963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46504963 a few days ago where this same anomaly was discussed and American government involvement was directly implied by the article.
  - Ajedi32 10mo ago
    The top comment of that thread points out exactly the same thing this Cloudflare article does; that there doesn't really seem to be be any indication this was anything nefarious.
jeroenhd 10mo ago
There was another post a few days ago that suggested a connection between the American invasion of Venezuela and the BGP anomaly: https://loworbitsecurity.com/radar/radar16/ https://loworbitsecurity.com/radar/radar16/ Combine that with the news of Trump publicly admitting that the US is willing to take military action to bring other countries in line, even against their own allies: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/06/politics/us-options-greenland-military https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/06/politics/us-options-green... Personally, I don't think the Americans would bother hide their attack and make it look like an accident under the current regime. Trump would announce the CIA/NSA/FBI/whatever did the Greatest Attack, and Amazing Attack, to Completely Control and break the Weak Government of Venezuela to Rescue Their Oil. I'll believe the "it was just a misconfiguration" explanation for now. I think it only makes sense that people start fearing the influence of American companies given the current developments. When America is in the news, it's either threatening someone, pulling out of cooperative efforts, or delivering on a previous threat. That's bound to derail discussions whenever American companies are involved and it'll only get worse with the way things are developing.
- k12sosse 10mo ago
  That's what I find interesting about the billionaire elite standing behind el presidente, like, sooner or later he'll be gone and you guys -and your companies- won't. There's been no more compelling argument to actually overtax the rich to give to the masses than the last 13 months. Eat the rich. History won't forget.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
appreciatorBus 10mo ago
I think it’s just bog standard, “USA bad, not USA good” thinking.
zug_zug 10mo ago
I don't think this article provides any evidence of anything to be scared of. That said, based on what we know already, there is no reason to take everything is this article at face value necessarily. Firstly, if anybody isn't aware of the history of Stuxnet, it's worth reading, because otherwise you'd underestimate the government's ability to use 0-days by an order of magnitude (we're talking full custom-written multi-month hacking projects with root-kits and custom fake drivers delivered successfully to an airgapped system, source wikipedia). Also worth learning about Dual EC DRBG debacle. Secondly am immediate friend of mine worked at a FANG company that routinely sent a firehose of all sorts of things matching all sorts of filters directly to governments. In fact many ISPS have back-doors built in and that's not really disputed (wikipedia: room641A). So the question to ask yourself is -- if this was a deliberate interaction that cloudfare was required to participate in via a warrant, would they legally even be allowed to publish a blog post that contradicted this? So I think that is probably the default attitude of skepticism you are seeing, which in my opinion is a good default. Plus the primary claim of this article "Look it wasn't 1 routing issue, it's been happening for even longer! Therefore nothing to look at here!" seems really weak.
- nucleardog 10mo ago
  > So the question to ask yourself is -- if this was a deliberate interaction that cloudfare was required to participate in via a warrant, would they legally even be allowed to publish a blog post that contradicted this? So you're proposing they could be in a situation where they can either: 1. Publish an untruthful blog post, relying on public data available from multiple parties, trying to somehow explain it all while avoiding talking about their involvement in a way that would get them in PR, legal or political hot water; or 2. Publish nothing. And they chose #1? The only way #1 makes any sense at all is if some greater consequence to not publishing was put in place. But that would be more something like "the US gov essentially forced Cloudflare to write this" than "Cloudflare was part of this". Unless they were part of this, _and_ the government forced them to write a post saying they're _not_ part of it and... For my money: this is something in the news making it a good marketing opportunity which is ultimately what the blog is--trying to market Cloudflare and the brand to technical crowds.
caycep 10mo ago
I mean, it's the context around the article...based on recent events...

ffsm8 10mo ago

Probably because most people only read headlines (and maybe 3 paragraphs) combined with the fact that the US has a long history of doing what people are condemning them for, even if this particular instance probably wasn't a case of such behavior. Especially considering how the general sentiment towards the US has gotten bitter with constant threads of invasion of Denmark and Canada by their government. Or it's just Russian and China socket accounts? Who knows...

xocnad 10mo ago

I share your view - how does this article imply US companies and/or government involvement? If there were such involvement what aspect of BGP gives the US entities more ability to carry this out vs other nefarious actors? I ask this sincerely knowing almost nothing about BGP and wanting to learn...

jeroenhd 10mo ago
You may have missed https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46504963 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46504963 a few days ago where this same anomaly was discussed and American government involvement was directly implied by the article.
- Ajedi32 10mo ago
  The top comment of that thread points out exactly the same thing this Cloudflare article does; that there doesn't really seem to be be any indication this was anything nefarious.

jeroenhd 10mo ago

There was another post a few days ago that suggested a connection between the American invasion of Venezuela and the BGP anomaly: https://loworbitsecurity.com/radar/radar16/ https://loworbitsecurity.com/radar/radar16/ Combine that with the news of Trump publicly admitting that the US is willing to take military action to bring other countries in line, even against their own allies: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/06/politics/us-options-greenland-military https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/06/politics/us-options-green... Personally, I don't think the Americans would bother hide their attack and make it look like an accident under the current regime. Trump would announce the CIA/NSA/FBI/whatever did the Greatest Attack, and Amazing Attack, to Completely Control and break the Weak Government of Venezuela to Rescue Their Oil. I'll believe the "it was just a misconfiguration" explanation for now. I think it only makes sense that people start fearing the influence of American companies given the current developments. When America is in the news, it's either threatening someone, pulling out of cooperative efforts, or delivering on a previous threat. That's bound to derail discussions whenever American companies are involved and it'll only get worse with the way things are developing.

k12sosse 10mo ago
That's what I find interesting about the billionaire elite standing behind el presidente, like, sooner or later he'll be gone and you guys -and your companies- won't. There's been no more compelling argument to actually overtax the rich to give to the masses than the last 13 months. Eat the rich. History won't forget.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

appreciatorBus 10mo ago

I think it’s just bog standard, “USA bad, not USA good” thinking.

zug_zug 10mo ago

I don't think this article provides any evidence of anything to be scared of. That said, based on what we know already, there is no reason to take everything is this article at face value necessarily. Firstly, if anybody isn't aware of the history of Stuxnet, it's worth reading, because otherwise you'd underestimate the government's ability to use 0-days by an order of magnitude (we're talking full custom-written multi-month hacking projects with root-kits and custom fake drivers delivered successfully to an airgapped system, source wikipedia). Also worth learning about Dual EC DRBG debacle. Secondly am immediate friend of mine worked at a FANG company that routinely sent a firehose of all sorts of things matching all sorts of filters directly to governments. In fact many ISPS have back-doors built in and that's not really disputed (wikipedia: room641A). So the question to ask yourself is -- if this was a deliberate interaction that cloudfare was required to participate in via a warrant, would they legally even be allowed to publish a blog post that contradicted this? So I think that is probably the default attitude of skepticism you are seeing, which in my opinion is a good default. Plus the primary claim of this article "Look it wasn't 1 routing issue, it's been happening for even longer! Therefore nothing to look at here!" seems really weak.

nucleardog 10mo ago
> So the question to ask yourself is -- if this was a deliberate interaction that cloudfare was required to participate in via a warrant, would they legally even be allowed to publish a blog post that contradicted this? So you're proposing they could be in a situation where they can either: 1. Publish an untruthful blog post, relying on public data available from multiple parties, trying to somehow explain it all while avoiding talking about their involvement in a way that would get them in PR, legal or political hot water; or 2. Publish nothing. And they chose #1? The only way #1 makes any sense at all is if some greater consequence to not publishing was put in place. But that would be more something like "the US gov essentially forced Cloudflare to write this" than "Cloudflare was part of this". Unless they were part of this, _and_ the government forced them to write a post saying they're _not_ part of it and... For my money: this is something in the news making it a good marketing opportunity which is ultimately what the blog is--trying to market Cloudflare and the brand to technical crowds.

caycep 10mo ago

I mean, it's the context around the article...based on recent events...