Talk:CloudFlare

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Companies (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

CloudFlare Watch[edit]

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. 66.87.0.132 (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)
Removed. We need at least a modicum of notability for something like this, seeing how any Tom, Dick, or Dann Harry can start up a blog and critique away. Tarc (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Lol, I thought CloudFlare Watch was a legitimate website with legitimate complaints until I actually visited it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.185.88.189 (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2014 (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[edit]

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 82.32.31.166 (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... --178.197.228.4 (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"...not all of it positive..."[edit]

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. 190.124.162.159 (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. --178.197.228.4 (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Advertisement; article standards[edit]

This article is written like an advertisement. Does the article meet the required standards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.137.247.10 (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It's about DDOS and not blocking browsers, s....[edit]

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. --178.197.228.4 (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 April 2014[edit]

[1] Yoorshop (talk) 06:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Where would the cite fit in? Sam Sailor Sing 11:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. (tJosve05a (c) 13:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Carnevali, Johann (10 april 2014). "Efficiency comparison report of an optimized website vs CDN : Optimized website vs CloudFlare vs CDN.net". Johann. Retrieved 10 April 2014.  Check date values in: |date= (help)

Correcting "advertisement" issue[edit]

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)

External links, impending edit war?[edit]

Silivalley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) , could you please discuss your decision to revert the changes by two different editors which removed your external links? These seem to be in violation of Wikipedia:External_links. Also, if any Wikipedia:Conflict_of_Interest exists could you please disclose here and on your user page? Ddosguru (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Reputation[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 18:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"Bad host" references[edit]

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.[29] It was also ranked in the 7th rank among the top 50 Bad Hosts by Host Exploit.[30]" Palelnan (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)