You don’t want to be on Cloudflare’s naughty list

That person should start with the assumption they haven't been misclassified and eliminate the possibility that a device on their network is compromised.

The space is in need of solid competitors to break the stranglehold they have on the internet. Whether it's the right combination of services, documentation, etc.

Essentially, for a broad class of web-based businesses, they have made themselves gatekeepers. I'm sure they'll find a profitable use for this position. Charging outright would look bad, but investing in businesses that just happen to not run into Cloudflare-based trouble, but whose competitors do...

> The past few weeks I've been getting tons of redirects to verify my humanity before being allowed to view a webpage. Usually I just have to click the box that says human, not find all the ladders in a photo. SoFi is doing it every single time I log in. Petco, too, along with others who are more sporadic. This is happening with and without uBlock on. Same browser I've always used. ...

SoFi and Petco both use Cloudflare. I do exactly zero web crawling / scraping / abusive anything from my home connection.

I'm noticing a recent increase in volume of complaints about Cloudflare's human verification filter. I'm starting to wonder if they touched a dial.

I had already started pulling some infra back from Cloudflare after their last appearance in the tech news cycle. Now I've got an additional reason to continue doing that.

I encourage those of you attempting to block Cloudflare to try and host your own website for a bit. Make sure you don't do it on a metered/paid connection. I know one eCommerce site with 1,300 employees that went bankrupt overnight thanks to the AWS bill (and lack of options to get back online, this was prior to companies such as CF). Bankruptcy as in the company filed for bankruptcy and no longer exists. They were profitable for a decade prior. One DDoS attack...

Also make sure you don't have a democratic opinion if you are in the US, like a 50 person manufacturing company. They were shut down completely thanks to saying a single wrong thing about Republicans. CF existed there, but they weren't aware thanks to not having IT folks. They were a non profit.

CF may be evil to some, but there is a reason they exist. I use CF. I don't like throwing money at them every month, however, many of my websites have also been attacked, usually via competitors. We can either deanonymize the internet or allow companies like CF to exist. There is really no other way.

Edit: team tells me this idea never got off the ground. Did talk with some potential partners (which did NOT include Google) but didn’t happen. So if Google was throwing CAPTCHAs it wasn’t because of our IP reputation.

The fact that humans are seeing the traffic meant for bots is an unfortunate side-effect.

I personally welcome our future bot overlords (not only because being unwelcome might be unhealthy for me — why would I publicly disagree with an overlord or not want to be their friend?).

A couple of examples I can think of is blocking bots from scraping their site for pricing and details and from resellers from buying up all of the stock (see sneakers, electronics, etc). The last example doesn't directly impact their bottom line, but it will make customers go elsewhere.

The amount of automated and apparently-manual attempted credit card fraud (and exploit attempts, for that matter) any halfway-prominent site with a CC form is subjected to is hard to appreciate if you've never seen it. It's a whole lot. They aren't even necessarily trying to buy what you have, but to validate that their stolen cards work. And they're quite busy. If too much of that gets through—really, any more than a very tiny amount of it gets through—you're gonna have an extremely bad time.

Various CC service providers like Stripe do provide tools to try to block those attempts, but defense in depth is usually a very good idea, including fairly aggressive firewall-level blocking.

And once your spammer has been identified then that's them banned/removed, unable to sign up again.

Similar, the internet is already very difficult for the people with limited means. This would make it even harder.

I've always thought that client certs would be an interesting solution to this problem. Any given certificate can carry signatures from multiple signing authorities, right? So we could imagine a world where there are many different certificate authorities, each of whom have their own criteria for signing a particular certificate and each of whom offer different varieties of assurance regarding the signature-holder's identity.

From here, the question of "should I allow the user identified by this client cert to use my service" simply becomes a question of 1.) checking the validity of the signatures of the client cert and 2.) deciding if the CA's criteria for signing certs aligns with my desired userbase.

For example, a particular CA might insist that their users go through some real-world process to renew their certification every few years, but when they sign a cert it means that the bearer has been strongly vetted as a real person.

An interesting side effect of this auth model is that a service provider accepting certs from a particular CA has someone to complain to if a user bearing their signature acts improperly on their platform. You could imagine a CA which has a code of conduct expected of the users whose certs they sign, and would perhaps revoke a user's certification if too many websites complain.

We already use this model in practice. It's why so many services require a phone number verification now - they are hard enough to get en-masse, especially if you block things like Google Voice. They even have a big advantage in that they are comparatively hard to hack, as the SIM card is effectively a weak form of physical security key.

I think the big problems this causes is discussed on HN quite often.

Could cloudflare legally charge them a bribe to captcha their users less? It isnt good to have a company in this position of power if so.

Why are you using Starlink at all if you have other options?

I do these things as well. It’s been months since I’ve seen a CloudFlare challenge page.

UPnP allows devices inside your network to open ports to the outside world without your knowledge. I think everyone should avoid it if they can get by without it

https://google.com/search?q=mikrotik+botnet

These things are the absolute scourge of the internet.

It's almost certainly compromised.

How would we know?

I love how people reflectively answer with cries of "no evidence!" to something that presents the evidence about exactly the thing they are claiming has no evidence. I get a distinct impression that the only person they're trying to convince is themselves, by self-hypnotically denying the reality in public.

There's a fact of CF booting sites, there's a fact of CF having IP blacklist, there's a fact of getting into IP blacklist being a very frustrating experience, there's a fact of various activists itching to make the lives of their political enemies a very unpleasant experience and launching successful pressure campaigns to do exactly that.

Did that happen with CF and IP blocking? No, I explicitly said it didn't, at least - I don't know any cases of it. But there's a lot of facts confirming there's a capability and motivation to do so. You may not believe it would happen, and you have a right to believe so, but when you are denying known facts, I don't think your beliefs are based on anything but wishful thinking. Your argument would be strong if you showed that, despite the known facts, it still couldn't happen. But instead to claim it couldn't happen you have to deny the facts.

> How many times have they done it?

Probably more than I know, but it's too big to bother with me, so I'm not too concerned about it right now. Maybe if I was in the same business as Assange, I'd be worried more.

> very much underweighing the costs of doing something like that.

Like what costs? You mean to say, no major provider would dare to boot the person from the Internet? Like Facebook, Twitter, Paypal, Venmo, Gofundme, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Mailchimp, Tiktok, etc. would not dare to block people for political dissent and expressing unpopular opinions? Because, you know, opportunity costs, collateral damage, unintended consequences, reputation costs, brand harm. That' just couldn't happen. All that is fact-less conspiranoia.

> Why not make the same complaint about your ISP, your hardware manufacturer, your OS manufacturer

I can buy different hardware. I can install different OS. With some effort, but I can connect to a different ISP. Any of that won't help if Cloundflare would refuse to talk to me.

> Remember that US criminal system attributes 3 elements to a crime

Oh, but that's not a crime. That's the beauty of it - remember, it's a private action of a free enterprise, and you have no rights there. And even if the government would hold weekly meetings with Cloudflare suggesting them who exactly needs to be banned, it's still free enterprise, right? I mean, excluding the fact that the government would never do something like that, because reputation costs, brand harm, etc. That's another instance of fact-less conspiranoia, of course.

> I’m not defending CloudFlare here so much as tired of conspiracy theories and paranoia and social panics.

That's nothing. Imagine how tired you'd be when it turns out everything you thought is "paranoia" is actually happening. Of course, it would never happen to you - you'd never disagree with the government, or any people in power, or voice any unpopular opinions in public, would you now?

Pretty much anyone who works for Twitter, Facebook, Google, Paypal, Venmo, Amazon, Microsoft, Gofundme, Mailchimp, Tiktok, Reddit, Nextdoor, and many other tech companies routinely engaging in censorship and unpersoning. The idea that people in tech are some kind of high morals freedom lovers that would never work for a company that censors doesn't suffer even minimal scrutiny. If anything, they'd refuse to work for a company that doesn't censor enough - Twitter workers were in utter screaming panic when they thought Musk could but Twitter and relax the censorship a bit. So if anything you just disproven your own argument - maybe what will force CF to censor is not external pressure but the internal one. I don't see why Cloudflare workers would be any better than Twitter ones.

1) refuse to take responsibility for content they host by claiming they don't host

2) discriminate against huge parts of the Internet with no publicly known rules, nor methods to change that discrimination

3) make the abuse reporting process intentionally difficult and time-consuming

4) want to aggregate all the DNS data they can by making a deal with Firefox to turn on DNS-over-https by default without asking or even informing end users

5) want to re-centralize the Internet, in part so they can mix bad actors with good, in ways that make blocking next to impossible

How many of them do the discrimination we're all writing about here?

Or are you suggesting that if you're having trouble visiting sites because of Cloudflare, you should become an enterprise customer? (slightly sarcastic, but not completely)

I just have no sympathy for Daniel since up until just now he was trying to get everyone to do this.

False positives happen. They happen a lot more than you think. And they are a serious problem. Even more serious when it's cloudflare, but arguing for everyone to implement these algorithmic blocks "that won’t inconvenience users" individually, taken to it's logical end, does the same.

Using NGinx as an example:

    if ($server_protocol != HTTP/2.0) { return 403 'Nope'; }

Using IPTables as an example:

    /sbin/iptables -t raw -I PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp -m tcp --tcp-flags FIN,SYN,RST,ACK SYN -m tcpmss ! --mss 420:16384 -j DROP

As long as you're using a <label> or aria-label attribute, that shouldn't be an issue.

(Author here.) If I remember correctly, his browser of choice predates the Origin header.

Once the IP address I don't own is released and assigned to some other router how do you think CF determines the new IP address for the individual/home? Unless this person is running the CF Dynamic DNS service which gives CF the IP address, I'm not sure CF would have any reasonable validation techniques to determine who is what given the size of residential networks.

Another cause could be that you have some malware on your network that is attacking sites.

The author could be infected with something that wakes up sporadically (perhaps on external command) to participate in an attack, and then returns to dormancy. So the Cloudfare block being lifted isn't necessarily evidence that all is well.