Talk:Cloudflare/Archives/2014

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 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..."

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)

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

External links, impending edit war?

Silivalley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · 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)