4 ms·
I tweeted CloudFlare asking for a statement about this, as a few of us commenters have asked for (and wanted), and this was the response from their co-founder..
by bluetidepro 14y ago
I tweeted CloudFlare asking for a statement about this, as a few of us commenters have asked for (and wanted), and this was the response from their co-founder...
> " @bluetidepro @CloudFlare flawed testing strategy that assumes a last-generation, rules-based WAF. We've always worked differently. " https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/307604650436210688 https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/307604650436210688
> " @bluetidepro @CloudFlare that said, we'll have a significant release soon that allows the people who want a rules based WAF to have it. "
https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/307604791054434304 https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/307604791054434304
> " @bluetidepro @CloudFlare but it's kinda silly because it's certainly not the future. Feels like taking a step backward. "
https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/307604919605661698 https://twitter.com/eastdakota/status/307604919605661698
(My tweet: Hope @CloudFlare can make a statement about this: http://zeroscience.mk/files/wafreport2013.pdf http://zeroscience.mk/files/wafreport2013.pdf - I'm pretty annoyed as a paying customer.)
https://twitter.com/bluetidepro/status/307603272645111808 https://twitter.com/bluetidepro/status/307603272645111808
- druiid 14y agoWait, what? That is, I'm sorry... but a stupid response on their part. A SQL injection attempt (successful or not) is an SQL injection attempt. If it makes it to the server how is anything the 'future' or 'working differently', it still made it to the server and the service isn't doing the job one is paying for. This response is so bad that I just did a literal facepalm. Needless to say we will be getting in touch with them as well...
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]