Hacker News Reader

Comment by somenameforme | Hacker News Reader

DDOS attacks are dirt cheap and can be contracted from large professional sites offering customer support and the works. The largest one taken down had hundreds of thousands of users, and had carried out some 4 million attacks, for prices starting at $14.99/month. [1]

So in other words, anybody can carry out a DDOS for basically no cost. So trying to analyze the purpose, let alone suspects, is probably not going to be fruitful.

[1] - https://wccftech.com/865619-2/

View on HN

And they're curiously usually protected by Cloudflare.

Doubt cloudflare has anything to do with it. The operators most likely don't want to openly expose their website's ip addresses.

That is exactly the problem. These services are constantly at war with each other and are attacked by competitors. Cloudflare provides DDoS protection to the DDoS providers so they can keep their services online, which directly benefits Cloudflare by DDoS being a bigger problem than if they were all busy attacking each other.

This is a sampling of currently available services and who they use for DDoS protection:

  stresslab.app - Cloudflare
  maxstresser.com - Cloudflare
  sunnystress.com - Cloudflare
  tresser.io - Cloudflare
  ip-stresser.net - Cloudflare
  hardstresser.com - DDoSGuard
  zdstresser.net - Cloudflare
  starkstresser.net - Cloudflare
  stresserhub.org - Cloudflare
  nightmarestresser.net - DDoSGuard

Just for fun head over to Cloudflare's abuse reporting site and try to figure out how to get one of these taken down. https://abuse.cloudflare.com/

DDoSGuard has a reputation for being The Crime CDN, disproportionately serving things like phishing campaigns, black hat forums, piracy sites, etc, so the fact that they are merely the second most popular CDN amongst DDOS providers after Cloudflare speaks volumes.

TIL. thats shocking. i doubt it’s intentional but “institutions will preserve the problem to which they are the solution. no need to ascribe to malice that which can be blamed on simple incentives (and of course its a big problem, things fall thru the cracks, etc etc)

I find the idea of DDoS providers confusing. If someone tried to operate a service that can be abused easily to cause similar disruption in the physical world, the operation would be taken down quickly and the people behind it would probably end up in prison. But somehow the internet is still a lawless zone where crime is tolerated and everyone is out for themselves.

It used to be very rare for DDoS providers to publicly advertise their services, you kinda had to know a guy who knew a guy. If you put up a website offering this service the Good Guys of the Internet would track you down and get your provider to take you down, or that provider would in turn get disconnected from the internet.

Now they hide behind Cloudflare who will refuse to turn over any information so that security folks can get them taken down. Unfortunately Cloudflare has grown too large that we can't just block all of it or depeer them like we would any other network that provided services to bad actors.

That kind of vigilante justice is part of the general lawlessness.

Most of the listed domain names are under US jurisdiction. That means the authorities should be able to take them down. If Cloudflare is found to have been knowingly enabling crime, it could face fines, and the CEO and other key people could end up in prison. The Cloudflare services have probably been paid using means that are under US jurisdiction. Those payment accounts can be closed and the people behind them tracked down and potentially charged with crimes.

Or at least that's how things work in the real world. The internet is still apparently too new for the authorities to understand how to deal with it.

It's true that you can't practically block Cloudflare without impacting legitimate users, but they can absolutely be depeered if you're willing to pay a higher transit bill.

The added element of international relations makes it a far bit more tricky than any real-world equivalent. Usually these operate out of places that are not on good relations with the countries they target. Russia and China are the big ones.

It's obvious why a DDOS provider would want to use Cloudflare, but their point is that Cloudflare turns a blind eye to DDOS providers using their services. Actively helping to keep DDOS providers online while also selling DDOS mitigation isn't a good look to say the least.

Cloudflare is a data goldmine setup by people who love fedoras and newspapers. Professional DDOS providers won't use Cloudflare ever and have the skills, metal and (human) network to do everything in-house.

Yeah you're actually worse off using Cloudflare because you can't block attacker IPs anymore, once you're dependent on them to protect you, and they're not very good at protecting. I run an online service that invites hackers to DDOS the server. Cloudflare's servers would usually go down before we did. The only way we could stay online was by switching to GCS and using token buckets to blackhole IPs in the raw prerouting table, which made the hostile packets into mighty Google's problem. Thankfully they don't charge for ingress, so it was about as cheap as Cloudflare too.

You mention the key feature for ddos (self-)protection - zero ingress fees. Non-Availability hurts you in harder-to-quantify terms than a bill for bandwidth used.

Zero ingress puts the upfront bandwidth cost onto the attacker. Because... you actually may succeed to defend and stay up. Their success is not guaranteed, they might be shouting into the void.

Attack success (as in, "impact on you") is guaranteed if your ingress is chargeable.

And you probably think glass repairers don’t drive around freeways at night dusting gravel.

What makes that curious?

Cloudflare's "protection" is basically a racket. e.g.

https://robindev.substack.com/p/cloudflare-took-down-our-web...

While I think there might be valid arguments to support that claim, that blog post hardly qualifies. The author runs a gambling site and while the way Cloudflare handled the situation (according to the author) could certainly be improved, they clearly were affecting other users by "tainting" shared IPs.

And yet if they ponied up the money, that issue of "tainting" shared IPs suddenly goes away. You can bet CloudFlare would graciously give the gambling site as much time as they need to bring their own IP (they went out of their way to link third party sellers of IPs with dubious provenance, after all).

Did you read the blog post? It doesn't include the entire correspondence so it's not clear how explicit Cloudflare was about this but the Enterprise plan they were trying to upsell them includes BYOIP. It's clear to me that Cloudflare insisted they buy the enterprise plan because it includes BYOIP.

So in other words, Cloudflare noticed the author was running a gambling site, they decided that this was negatively impacting the shared IPs and the author would therefore need to upgrade to a plan that included BYOIP because they would need to use that feature to continue using Cloudflare and they likely insisted on prepayment for the annual plan because gambling sites have a reputation for being flaky and prepaying would have demonstrated the liquidity necessary to continue operating the site at that plan.

Again, Cloudflare could have communicated this better (and maybe they did in parts of the correspondence the author didn't share) but this all seems perfectly understandable, especially given how the sales team kept referencing Trust and Safety (implying the alternative is ending the contract for violating the ToS).

The issue of tainting shared IPs would indeed have suddenly gone away had the author brought their own IP (which would have required an Enterprise plan to do while staying on Cloudflare). Instead the author feigns ignorance arguing they don't even need the features of the Enterprise plan and doesn't acknowledge the issue with sharing IPs while sheepishly mentioning that maybe they're accidentally invading bans of their domain in certain countries by having alternative domains which they of course don't actually need because most traffic comes from their main domain yet somehow having these alternative domains is critical to running their business.

What are you even trying to argue here? The author is being deliberately dishonest in how they frame the incident and Cloudflare's motivation is perfectly understandable. The only thing to take offense with is the communication style which we can only judge based on a select few messages the author shows us. We have to rely on their word after they have already demonstrated dishonesty.

To me it’s similar to the whole “SSO wall of shame” thing, where a vital feature is locked behind more expensive pricing. As said in the article:

“We tried saying that we don't need any number of the 14 features that are included”

Which, to me, is the crux of the issue. Is it fair for Cloudflare to say “You are breaking the terms of service if you do not change your set up in this specific way, and also the way you need to chance your setup is locked behind a significantly more expensive pricing.” Being able to bring your own IP does not, to me, seem like something that should require a plan that is orders of magnitude more expensive than the standard. It seems much more to me like something that is more fundamental, and should be included as an option in a lesser version of the product Maybe I’m wrong, and there is actually significant overhead to Cloudflare for letting customers bring an IP. But as is, it feels very much to me like a situation where something vital was locked at the most expensive tier to force certain kinds of customer to pay more.

I'd say at that point it's essentially compensation for personal suffering.

Yes, BYOIP as a feature does not seem complex enough to warrant paying for an Entperise license. But the kind of customers who need BYOIP (especially if they need it to avoid harming your IP reputation) are likely to be at a higher risk of being flaky or otherwise painful so this is very much a tax on running that kind of business (just as porn sites often find it hard to find payment processors because of the high risk of credit card fraud).

As a freelancer I have absolutely made offers at 10x my going rate for client I did not want. The idea is that if they really want me to work for them, at least I get reimbursed for the suffering that will entail. This kind of pricing structure is no different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com