|WikiProject United States||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Companies||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
- 1 CloudFlare Watch
- 2 Blocking and Scope
- 3 "...not all of it positive..."
- 4 Advertisement; article standards
- 5 It's about DDOS and not blocking browsers, s....
- 6 Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2014
- 7 Correcting "advertisement" issue
- 8 External links, impending edit war?
- 9 Reputation
- 10 "Bad host" references
Cryptome recently announced a new website called CloudFlare Watch -- see http://cryptome.org/2012/07/cloudflare-watch.htm Cryptome is often cited in Wikipedia, and this particular Cryptome announcement was also picked up by Google News. But there is no mention of this new website, which is critical of CloudFlare, in this Wikipedia article. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- I've added it to the external links section, but I don't believe that's notable enough to be mentioned in the main body of the article. In addition, Daniel Brandt made the announcement; Cryptome simply published the announcement. Cryptome doesn't write the contents; it published letters, documents, and such that other people send to it. WP:PRIMARY applies here, and there aren't any reliable secondary sources that mention CloudFlare Watch. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- As CloudFlare Watch, aka CrimeFlare, conducts defacement attacks on websites that use CloudFlare, I don't think Wikipedia should include direct links to crimeflare.com. KiloByte (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Blocking and Scope
Some browsers (Chromium under Linux) are receiving messages from websites "[This server running CloudFire] has banned your access based on your browser's signature (52201fa6-mh5)". No suitable explanation is given on their website or the web in general. Can anyone explain what this "feature" is?
On http://blog.cloudflare.com/?page=9 they claim to sit "in front of nearly a half a million websites" including "banks, national governments, Fortune 500 companies, universities, media publications, blogs, ecommerce companies" which is a pretty big responsibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- I found this CloudFlare support document on the topic. I can't find any reliable sources explaining it more, so it sounds like this would be a good question to ask CloudFlare itself. Since there aren't any reliable sources (at least none that I can find), we can't add information about it to the article - see WP:V. Dreamyshade (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm glad not to be the only one. The blocking of browser is stupid, so incredible stupid. They should rather block real attacks, not browsers. Are the engineers @Cloudflare insane? This is a serious question... --184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
"...not all of it positive..."
The article currently states "CloudFlare received media attention in June 2011, *not all of it positive*..." (emphasis mine). However the citations provides do not show any negative attention. Either a source for the negative attention should be given, or that phrase should be removed. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, the hackers certainly don't like it since they can't attack websites anymore. No IP = no attack. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Advertisement; article standards
It's about DDOS and not blocking browsers, s....
On February 13, 2013, a comparative penetration testing analysis report was published by Zero Science Lab, showing that ModSecurity is more effective than CloudFlare and Incapsula. In fact, out of the three, CloudFlare was the least effective.
- ModSecurity and CloudFlare actually both block valid browsers from accessing the website. Still, CloudFlare is more about protecting from DDOS, hiding server's IP behind a reverse proxy...and I don't think that ModSecurity can do that. However, I'm no CloudFlare fan, actually I hate it, since it blocks my favourite browser, like some ModSecurity configurations, too. I'd like to see that all the engineers responsible for this mess would use their brains again, let the information free flow and only block real attacks. Let's not kill the internet by only allowing a few handful browser to access a webpage, that wasn't the idea behind the internet. --22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2014
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
- Where would the cite fit in? Sam Sailor Sing 11:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. (t) Josve05a (c) 13:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Correcting "advertisement" issue
Removing references to LulzSec and PopVote should in my opinion at least partially resolve any concern about this article being written like an advertisement. On a related note, CloudFlare's use of the term "datacenter" seems to be in a marketing context. To my knowledge CloudFlare does not operate any datacenters, rather has collocation agreements or partnerships that allow it to place content at global locations. Also, having the same "Key People" and "Founders" in the infobox seems redundant? Ddosguru (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to make sense trying to critique a CDN's reputation especially when it's of face value. Cloudflare is a CDN , not a host in the first place.
http://sitevet.com/db/asn/AS13335 http://www.crimeflare.com/target2.html http://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA18/20150127/102855/HHRG-114-FA18-Wstate-KohlmannE-20150127.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gph004 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
"Bad host" references
In the article, "SiteVet Beta" and "Host Exploit" is used as references to claims that CloudFlare is one of the world's worst hosts.
Firstly, the SiteVet "Beta" is still "Beta" and has no other data on its website other than March 2014. That data is taken directly from the "Host Exploit" website.
"Host Exploit" has not published data since March 2014 and seems all but convincing. Neither "SiteVet" nor "Host Exploit" has Wikipedia articles.
I propose to remove these sentences from the article: "As of March 2014, CloudFlare was ranked in the top 10 of the world's worst hosts and networks based on malicious traffic it hosts by SiteVet Beta. It was also ranked in the 7th rank among the top 50 Bad Hosts by Host Exploit." Palelnan (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)