I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect cloudflare to be policing their own service for malware when they're trying to pitch themselves as a security product.
At the same time, this is exactly some variation of the "random people have put malware on random internet locations" scare the GP was talking about. If "malware somewhere on the internet" is a problem, we have to fix what turns it into a problem, because we just won't fix this one.
Same. I think they're getting too big to care, or even to attempt to do so.
(note that I don't necessarily agree but that statement is loaded)
However, putting the responsibility to mitigate this problem in its entirety is very inefficient and ineffective. If Cloudflare would have a team dedicated for this effort, bad actors would simply switch providers, beating $200k/year effort by couple clicks.
Notice that the malware ultimately takes effect when the user executes the file.
This sounds more like an interaction design problem that should be solved in the OS level; the OS interface is one of the logistical bottleneck for the malware delivery path.
Large software companies seem to enjoy passing the buck in recent years if it might impact their profitability which is fine but to say the could not do anything about it incorrect. It may not be feasible to do so an still operate the service but that doesnt mean it isnt possible.
Either discontinue the service, or serve each pipe from a subdomain that encodes the original source. Something that lets security tooling block known bad sites, without having them block a lot of legitimate sites.
That said, they're also using the "utility argument" - just as your phone provider won't screen you at every call you make, your electricity provider won't lock your supply until you authenticate use for non-nefarious purposes , your ISP won't content-filter, Cloudflare also says they won't police per-use other than when under explicit legal mandate (court injunctions). That's fair enough, at least to me.
I hadn't heard of trycloudflare.com before, but it's blocked on my network for now. If I need to, I can re-evaluate that later.
Anyone running a service online can get caught off guard and be taken advantage of by scammers and assholes. It's an opportunity to shore up your security and monitoring. The bad actors will eventually move on to abuse easier targets and that's fine. When they do that doesn't invalidate the work someone put into making sure their service wasn't being repeatedly/routinely used to harm others.
We want service providers on the internet to police themselves and make sure that they're not turning a blind eye to crimes taking place right on their own servers because the alternative is that laws and regulation come into play. There's an argument that internet companies that are too big to block could still be negligent, an accessory to crimes, liable for the very real and significant damages the poor management of their service enabled just so that they could save a little money, etc.
Just like with banks, there are people who would say that if a company is too big to fail/be blocked then they are too big to exist and should be broken up.
Personally, I'd rather that a service provider just do a better job keeping their corner of the internet clean, keeping the people who use their services safer, and preventing their services/equipment/IP space from being used to carry out criminal acts. In the end it'd improve their service, improve their image, make the internet a safer place, and as a bonus it would force criminals to waste their time looking for the a new company who'll be too cheap/lazy to kick them off their services. Hopefully they'll eventually end up only being able to find ones that the rest of us feel we can block.
The abuse mechanism you describe exists in theory, but... commercial.
There is community between the NOCs of tier 1 ISPs, but they mainly care about routing.
In your picture, I'm imagining, say, CenturyLink stomping on a retail ISP, and I question whether this pans out like swatting. Can I get someone taken down by abusing abuse reports?
Not generally, no. Typically, abuse departments at ISPs don't blindly cut off people's internet access just because someone complains. They require evidence (server logs, message headers, etc) and there will be an investigation as well as multiple communications between an ISP and a user being accused of violating the ISP's terms of service. The same is true when the issue is between ISPs and their upstream providers. Keep in mind too that for both ISPs and upstream providers, everyone is naturally and strongly incentivized to not cancel the accounts of the customers who pay them.
There is one situation where false reports can get someone taken down. DMCA notices have this potential. ISPs can face billions in fines if they refuse to permanently disconnect their customers from the internet based on nothing more than unproven/unsubstantiated allegations made by third party vendors with a long history of sending wildly inaccurate DMCA notices. So far, media companies have been winning in courts and ISPs have been losing or (more often) settling outside of court. Everyone is still waiting to see how the case against Cox ends (https://torrentfreak.com/cox-requests-rehearing-of-piracy-ca...)
Here cloudflare is showing they should nt be trusted, but because they are so big, we can't act on that. Blocking them would be bad, mocking them is the second best option.
The consequences for Cloudflare and it's legitimate users might be anything but mild.
Say blocking any cloudflare domain or IP.
Many cuz ur into privacy or your parinoid....who cares why.
Anecdote: i've been an internet end user for 30-ish years, an active FOSS developer for most of that time (with no small amount of web dev), and have never once intentionally used CloudFlare (only indirectly, by visiting sites which use it). Not because i'm especially "into privacy or paranoid," but because it's never once been necessary.
And there is the problem. Too many sites are behind Cloudfare, so if you want to block Cloudfare for your organization, your employees will start complaining that the "internet doesn't work".
I have a small dedicated server with OVH that I use as a wireguard based VPN sometimes. The amount of sites that become unusable because of Cloudflare blocking me is insane. The inverse would be true if I blocked Cloudflare.
blocklists are effective and now we need things like DoH, 3rd-party dns providers and sketchy vpn's in order to internet
mission fucking accomplished
TLDs that are most commonly abused actually do get blocked on a regular basis.
.ru, .io, .xyz, .cf, .tk, .ly, .top and .link are common examples
Many corporate networks block URL shortener services for the same reason
Yes, .com has the highest absolute number of phishing domains, but it also has the overwhelmingly highest number of registered domains period. The relative prevalence is only 24.2, as compared with 2nd-ranked (by absolute score) .top, with a phishing domains core of 422.7. That's still not the highest listed, which is .lol at 577.5.
<https://krebsonsecurity.com/2024/07/phish-friendly-domain-re...>
If you're looking at relative benefit vs. harm from blocking, blocking TLDs with a higher relative (abusive vs. legitimate) domains score gives an additional security benefit.
Reputation-based scoring by TLD, domain, ASN, or basis is likely to become more prevalent over time. We've already been doing that for email for over a quarter century, with the Spamhaus Project being founded in 1998 (it reports abusive email domains).
But you can bet your ass we block newly registered domains and have an active list of domain reputations - your brand new .com or your axuuasck32213mczo.com malware domain isn't getting through any decent security tool.
If Cloudflare lets this continue, it's only a matter of time before trycloudflare.com's reputation puts them on block lists everywhere.
It wouldn't be an issue for trying it out if you don't block it yourself.
But you're right, these big money-making companies are such snowflakes that you have to have some compassion with them, right.
Their systems are telling them that try.cloudflare.com is not a trustworthy domain, but it is so ubiquitous, that blocking them isn't feasible.
Cloudflare is enshittifying the Internet once again.
(I don't care if this gets downvoted by CF fans - not a single one will engage meaningfully about any point asserted here)
Scammers and assholes will always exist. It's the responsibility of everyone operating a service on the internet to make sure that their service isn't acting as a safe-haven for those criminals and bad actors.
Google is somehow worse than cloudflare is. I heard recently that Google won't even accept an abuse complaint for docs.google.com unless you create and sign into a google account.
It's not complicated.
Apocryphally saying "they all suck at this but Cloudflare sucks most" is just moaning. Any free/near-free hosting or caching service can be used to distribute malware. Mail services have been used to push malware for decades, and while many of them filter content, that's a cat&mouse game a determined malactor will occasionally win.
Are they really "so much worse" than anyone else ?
(ex-CF so pillory me for ex-cusing my ex-employer; as said, to me, "all cooks use water")
First, their abuse reporting page has issues. The amount of data allowed to be pasted is very limited and won't allow the full content of most spam. If you paste the full amount, you can't submit, and you won't know why - you have to go and remove some content. It's rate limited so that even a human reporting multiple items has to sit and wait. You're forced to provide a URL that points to Cloudflare servers, meaning there's no way to report abusive domains for which they're the registrar and/or for whom they host DNS. They have a CAPTCHA on the abuse reporting form. I could go on, but it's tedious.
This company spent YEARS saying that they don't "host" anything, and they still play games in that their abuse reporting doesn't reflect any of the offerings that've been added in the last several years. They don't even have a category for spam!
So yes, they are "so much worse" than anyone else. They actively skirt responsibility.
Yes there is: registrar-abuse@cloudflare.com
> This company spent YEARS saying that they don't "host" anything
Yes, for their "proxying" service, they take no action when it comes to that, all they will do is forward the report to the hosting provider.
> They don't even have a category for spam
Use the general category or abuse@cloudflare.com
> It's rate limited so that even a human reporting multiple items has to sit and wait. [...] They have a CAPTCHA on the abuse reporting form.
Yes, I agree. I reported hundreds of ".pages.dev" sites (hosted by their Cloudflare Pages service), the form restricts it to 1 unique domain per report, so I had to make hundreds of individual reports but they did take them down.
> they are "so much worse" than anyone else
I don't agree with this, in my experience they have taken action on some reports meanwhile some other companies have done nothing (DigitalOcean (Doesn't deal with any of my reports, known for being infested with bad actors, now they're the first ASN I block when I'm setting up a firewall), AWS (their customer spammed me for months, tried telling me the email didn't originate from them, but it did.), Dynadot (will not do anything without court orders, warrants) )
On the contrary. The tendency of those expectations turning into assumptions is the wider issue.
I mean if the security stack misses that (forgivable) but then allows this:
> When executed, it establishes a connection to an external file share, typically via WebDAV, to download an LNK or VBS file. When executed, the LNK/VBS executes a BAT or CMD file
It fucking sucks.
Completely agree. And over the years I have found it sad how many people (some who considered themselves computer experts) I had to explain what extensions are, why they are needed, how to make them show, and etc.
a proxy server is a server application that acts as an intermediary between a client requesting a resource and the server providing that resource.
But you're not the customer, you're the consumer.
Are they pitching themselves as safer for the consumer?
I see am connecting to Comcast, it says so right on my modem.
If you merely want to be edgy, then well done. Otherwise, a piece of advice, start by understanding the problem.