It is a protection racket ONLY if they are aiding or doing the attacks. I don't see how protecting a company from DDoS attacks is a protection racket by itself, care to elaborate?
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.