This is called racketeering. Create the problem indirectly and offer protection. Sound familiar?
This is called racketeering. Create the problem indirectly and offer protection. Sound familiar?
Some people like me may suspect some viruses and trojans are created by AV companies out there. In fact malicious, money-greedy one (which no one would use until they got a nice pop that reads "your computer is infected now use our solution") do this. I don't know about the big players out there, but who knows?
If CloudFlare can handle such bandwidth and can defend such attacks for enterprise users, wow, that's a big win for them. Whether they should offer stronger mitigation for any level of users is a different story.
I don't have a problem with CloudFlare offering multiple service levels. That's just smart business. They are one of the relatively few companies with their own network that can mitigate attacks. And that's where the problem lies - they are using that capability to prop up booters (DDoS attack services, if you weren't familiar with the term). As others have said, booters would be largely uneconomical to operate without the cheap assistance of CloudFlare, because the booter "market" is similar to drug gangs - it's a "war" with the booter owners all trying to take out their competition. (So this makes DDoS attacks less easily available, a good thing for the rest of the Internet.)
The problem is that CloudFlare is choosing to allow them to operate, while offering protection services at the same time. This is the very definition of a racket. It is no different from "wouldn't it be a shame if your shop burned down, you should pay us money."
Now, I'm not saying that _all_ DDoS would instantly go away if CloudFlare stopped this. It wouldn't. It would make a significant difference though, IMO. Services like this make it easy for anyone with little skill to launch attacks, and with amplification techniques (NTP, DNS, SNMP, chargen, etc.) the booter needs very little hardware and bandwidth to launch massive attacks.
put it this way: if I am a security researcher and I want to publish a paper on DoDs, I can make use of CloudFlare to accomplish my objective. How do you distinguish good from the bad?
What do you propose they should do?
Publishing research papers about DDoS attacks is one thing. Selling a service that performs them (i.e. DDoS-for-hire) is completely different, IMO.