Here's two known (that is, easily identified) address blocks belonging to Cyveillance:
- 184.108.40.206 - 220.127.116.11
- CYVEILLANCE Q0118-65-118-41-192 (NET-65-118-41-192-1)
- 18.104.22.168 - 22.214.171.124
- CYVEILLANCE QWEST-63-148-99-224 (NET-63-148-99-224-1)
Do what you wish with it. --Tokachu 23:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Their bots are also using this IP - 126.96.36.199 GMan
I just got hit by 188.8.131.52 at 20 pages per second. They have no entry in ARIN's whois database, which is odd. I'm not sure what ARIN's policy is towards hiding sub-allocations, but I'm going to contact cogent about it. The IP also has no reverse address. Personally, I think this scourge deserves no page on wikipedia, or at least the introduction should dwell more strongly on its nefarious side. --Dandin1 (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This article reads like an advertisement for Cyveillance.
Mwt6782 18:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Cyveillance IP ranges @ Cogent:
My websites keep getting hits from this entity. I've read the article, but still don't know who they are or what they do. Could someone be so kind as to explain what they might be doing on my sites? 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind; I followed this link from the article and found out what was going on. That said, it took me all of two minutes reading the linked article to get more and better information than the Wikipedia article provided, indicating that it needs work. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
this link <----- This is a DEAD LINK!!!
Cleanup, esp. criticisms
Hi, original article creator here.
I removed/reworded a lot of stuff that sounded like a marketing pamphlet. If there are any Cyveillance employees in the audience, please read WP:COI before making any (further?) edits.
I attempted to reword the 'positive contributions' section, but there was too little to work with so I removed it until it can be rewritten.
- They help enforce cybersquatting laws - only law enforcement can enforce laws, at least in the United States.
- They isolate phishing attacks so they can quickly be shut down and blocked. - I work in IT and I still have no idea what this is supposed to mean. If this sort of thing is going in the article it needs to be explained to some level of detail.
- They create a hostile environment for financial fraud. - Vague, unverifiable, not encyclopedic.
I've removed the following additions from the criticisms section:
(In point 1): The access of many pages in a short period of time is a result of the use of modern standards like HTTP pipelining to reduce the load on servers and the intervening network. Since the same amount of data can be transferred with less packet overhead, this actually results in less data transfer. This is nonsensical - 'less data transfer' than what? The fact that they're using an efficient mechanism to request many pages does not negate the fact that they're requesting many pages. 'Less data transfer' would be refraining from requesting a large volume of pages in the first place. Therefore this additional information is not relevant to the criticism as stated.
(In point 2): This protocol, however, is purely advisory. This is simply not true. Robots.txt is not a recommendation, it's a request, and there's nothing ambiguous or optional about it. The fact that it is not an enforcement mechanism does not imply that it is any less of a request. If the only intention of this sentence was to explain that robots.txt is not an enforcement mechanism, then it is redundant, because the previous sentence explains that the company ignores it.
In addition to not honouring /robots.txt, cyveillance also willfully extracts URLs from commented out sections in HTML and then request these pages. When an URL has been commented out, it's pretty clear that the web page author does NOT want it to be fetched. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)