I don't think it is possible for few-man startup can responds in 1 hours for 24x7. I would choose to use an alternative hosting that give a longer gracing period.
I don't think it is possible for few-man startup can responds in 1 hours for 24x7. I would choose to use an alternative hosting that give a longer gracing period.
Unfortunately, during that grace period, numerous people may be receiving spam emails directing them to the site, and some of those people may be naively entering their information ...
I really dislike the way most service providers and the like handle spam, but unfortunately, I too must side with Rackspace on this one. They simply can not afford to "wait and see" until the site owner responds, or provide a grace period while the site owner tries to figure things out.
Phishing attempts must be handled by site owners as though their server has just been compromised and someone is currently downloading the entire password database: the server must be shut down immediately, the problem fixed offline, and the server only brought back online once the issue is fixed.
Sorry. :-/
1. Keep the very short notification period but also try to reach the site owner via phone or IM
2. Lengthen the notification period if using email only
(Note that I have no problem with short notice and email only if the customer was given the option of providing an emergency contact method but chose not to, and that I otherwise generally agree with the response.)
It seems like the real flaw here is the combination of lack of communication and lack of warning.
For your argument, I just created an wufoo form which should take down immediately once discovered. http://rickmak.wufoo.com/forms/phishing/. IN that case, I am sure only my account will be taken down, not the whole wufoo.
Actually, it depends on size. If someone created a phishing site on Heroku's, Amazon probably won't shutdown all Heroku sites. But to let Heroku to investigate. For small startup like pandaform, no luck. Rackspace just regards you as one site.
Pandaform can handle things better, like banned "password" field like wufoo do.
This is the kind of thing where a customer who gets their information stolen while Rackspace is waiting for the grace period to expire might have a legal cause of action against Rackspace.
Ultimately, I think Rackspace did exactly the right thing here. If you are operating a service that would potentially allow fishing, then you are bearing the risk of policing your users. Asking Rackspace and affected users to give you a grace period is asking them to bear the risk instead. I 100% agree with the decision to immediately shut the site down.
If Amazon got complains about Heroku then I'd certainly expect them to be investigated, and in Heroku's case I'd expect Heroku would take over and shutdown the phishing site.
Yes, if there are enough complaints and harm that may come from it is serious enough.
A second complaint, without any investigation, would result in the termination of his account and destruction of data.
That is not reasonable.
We don't know this. We have no idea how many complaints rackspace has against this guy. It could be one or it could be dozens.
Once a phishing form is “in the wild,” every minute counts.
The burden is on the service (your site) to prevent or quickly act to rectify a situation, but if your provider determines that it must intervene, then it is well within it's right to.
Also pandaform doesn't allow use to put any script or password field in the form, which the quality of the "phishing" form is not as serious as what we thought as a normal phishing site do.
I'm sure if Pandaforms had done this (which is difficult when you're a much smaller startup than Heroku) then their server would have been left untouched.
You can argue that Heroku would have most likely got a phone call and that Pandaforms deserve the same treatment, but I don't think that they'd have been allowed to leave phishing sites up for any period of time without their servers being placed in jeopardy either.