It's sad that to run a service now the expectation is to shovel money to another service to absorb UDP packets.
So, perhaps more to your liking would be selling armed guard services to guard against a gang robbery, while simultaneously funding and supporting (but not actually participating in, i.e. not actually providing people for) said gang.
This metaphor got long and stupid, but at least its accurate. Stop fear-mongering just because you don't like CloudFlare.
They don't do that, but continue to sell their DDoS protection service (beyond the free tier), so they are indeed a racketeering operation.
In more detail:
- These DDoS-for-hire services being referred to are called "booters," "stressers," or similarly retarded names. For a low fee (I think the average is probably around $10, but you can check yourself), one can buy access to one, where they're able to launch an attack for a period of time (the exact period depends on the booter, and some even charge more for longer attacks; 5-10 minutes at a time is probably around average now) by logging into a website, entering the IP/host, and clicking the "attack" button. That is, no skill. Check places like hackforums yourself and you'll find tons of these. Usually the booters are using Ecatel boxes (generally paid for by the booter owner) because they allow spoofing (which is another topic entirely), some use rooted boxes as well.
- These are very common in gaming, because any 12-year-old with access to mommy's credit card can get their hands on one. That's where the "booter" name comes from; the original meaning was to "boot" someone off Xbox Live (residential connections are obviously really easy to knock out).
- The vast majority of these booters are behind CloudFlare to mask their true host. This serves two purposes: it discourages abuse complaints against the host and also provides the sites with DDoS protection.
- Now, this is like drugs - booter owners don't tend to be friendly with each other. As with rival drug dealers, they'll attack each other and generally try to knock out their competition.
- The only reason these booters are able to operate is because of CloudFlare eliminating the DDoS aspect. If CloudFlare stopped providing service to these illegal sites, they'd be forced to fend for themselves, and it would basically be a "gang war" - everyone attacking each other. Which is fine with me, as if the booter kids are attacking each other, their booters aren't able to mess with anyone else. (Let dumb kids be dumb kids.) Eventually perhaps there will be a small number of booters that come out "on the top," able to withstand attacks, but this then has the effect of eliminating most of the competition, which means the prices will rise. This is also a desired effect, because it's harder to get mommy to agree to pay $100 for something (I'm sure they lie about it) than $10.
- So why not just put your own stuff behind CloudFlare and get rid of the problem? Well, besides the whole issue of not wanting to support this racketeering scam (yes, there is a free level of CloudFlare, but certainly they want to sell you the paid ones and the higher levels can withstand different attacks), this option is only open for websites.
FYI, my position in all this is as a game server owner who has dealt with this BS enough, and I'll admit I'm certainly biased towards that side.
CloudFlare stopping support here would go a long ways towards eliminating the booter problem. It won't eliminate DDoS attacks entirely, of course, but it will eliminate a whole class of them and probably the largest class (because actual botnet owners are rarer). I agree entirely with the assessment that CloudFlare is engaging in racketeering.
Also, I believe their defense is "we are a proxy, not the host, go elsewhere to complain". So, yes- They appear to allow these booters to exist and thrive in a world where they were unable to (at this level) before.
* http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1235995 * http://www.organicweb.com.au/17240/internet/cloudflare-secur... * http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/02/the-new-normal-200-400-gb...
Just because a company temporarily relocates behind Cloudflare doesn't mean CF is guilty, though. They can't vet every website before it goes up and each time it updates.
If they aren't kicking these guys off their network for performing the same activities they defend against, though . . . well, "racket" is kind of the term for it.
In fact, this is precisely what they've done in the past, though they'd only provide the host details rather than stopping service to a site. (I don't think they'll even go this far anymore, rather they'll give you the abuse email for the host and tell you to have the host contact them, which is ridiculous.) I've filed a few such complaints myself. In one instance, the booter site didn't provide any info about its services without registration, so I linked to the hackforums thread where it was being offered. CloudFlare declined this as sufficient proof. Luckily, I could register an account without payment, and that gave me the options to pay to launch attacks, so I sent the login details to CloudFlare and they accepted that.
I wonder, however, if even the latter policy would solve the booter problem. Accessible websites are convenient for commerce, but they aren't required.
Also, any argument you make about CloudFlare could also be made about Google: I see http://quantumbooter.net as the second link and http://top10booters.com/ as the fifth link at https://www.google.com/search?q=booter+services
I agree with this.
> Re-reading your comment, I'm not sure, but are you saying that CF are at the former end of the policy spectrum? That's regrettable.
Somewhat. As of my last experience with them (which was like a year ago), they will accept abuse complaints for booters. If you can prove to them the site is a booter, by providing documentation on the site itself (not hackforums or anywhere else where it's being advertised, which is understandable as it's basically hearsay, though a bit difficult) indicating the site offers a DDoS service, they will provide the abuse@ email of the hosting company. They will tell you to have the abuse@ people contact them directly for further details. This is the only action they will take.
But my opinion is they should, upon confirming the site is a booter, terminate their service to the site. It would also be nice if they would continue to provide the host details, in addition, so the reporter can contact the actual host and have the site taken down from there as well.
> Also, any argument you make about CloudFlare could also be made about Google: I see http://quantumbooter.net as the second link and http://top10booters.com/ as the fifth link at https://www.google.com/search?q=booter+services
Very good point, thank you for mentioning.
The difference I see is that CloudFlare actively provides a service to them, while Google is merely maintaining a keyword-based search listing for them. That being said, I can see both sides of this one.
My views on the legitimacy (rather, lack thereof) of booters: they are a service that serves absolutely no legitimate purpose. The sole purpose is to perform an illegal act against another person. I know a bunch of them are sold on hackforums as "stressers," i.e. "stress test your own server," but that also isn't a legitimate purpose - I can see no case where one would want to stress test their own services with some UDP or SYN flood over the Internet. Such a thing would only be done over a private network using your own packet generator.
Help them thrive, how? I don't understand. Because they prevent DDOS-for-hire services from attacking each other? Surely "other DDOS-for-hire operators" are not the people charged with stopping DDOS-for-hire services.
Depending on your point of view, cloudflare providing the protection that makes DDOS-for-hire possible is either (a) them being fair and website-content-neutral, anything else would be censorship or (b) the glazier giving baseballs to the child who carelessly breaks windows with them, to generate demand for his services that would not otherwise exist.
EDIT Surely many of these DDOS-for-hire companies cross into illegal territory. CF can maintain a content-neutral stance by kicking illegal activity off.
Their position is a reasonable one: they are not the host, they are not responsible for content, don't ask them to censor.
Unless you're claiming the blackmail group is made up of Cloudflare employees, you should choose your words more wisely.
Still, saying they are a racket is a step too far. There were lots of accusations of the antivirus vendors purposefully releasing viruses in the 80s and 90s[1], which would certainly be a racket if it were true.
[1] Not counting the products themselves as viruses.
Pretty bold assumption IMO
DDoS wouldn't go away without booters, but many small cases like this would be significantly reduced.