Readit NewsWhile Cloudflare has been publishing transparency reports for a long time, this year we chose to revamp the report in light of new reporting obligations under the DSA, and our goal of making our reports both comprehensive and easy to understand. Before you dive into the reports, learn more about Cloudflare’s longstanding commitment to transparency reporting and the key updates we made in this year’s reports.
1H and 2H 2024 reports are now live.
xxdesmus commented on Before you buy a domain name, first check to see if it's haunted bryanbraun.com/2024/10/25... · Posted by u/bryanbraun
Also be careful connecting new domains to cloudflare. It has a habit of adding old info from presumably a previous owner.
Managed to get a takedown notice thanks to that idiotic "feature" while not even aware the domain is serving anything
Please drop me an email with what you’re seeing - justin (at) cloudflare.com ?
That doesn’t sound like old info - that sounds like someone might still be reporting it for abuse even after the domain changed owners.
xxdesmus commented on Show HN: Host a Website in the URL smolsite.zip/UEsDBBQAAgAI... · Posted by u/acidx
I look forward to the phishinhg. Hopefully you can block known bad hashes.
1) Thanks for the heads up
2) Is this the beta channel? or official builds?
3) You've already notified 1Password of this possible bug/risk?
xxdesmus commented on Show HN: A Google Reader-inspired RSS reader boredreading.com/?1... · Posted by u/khet
Self hosting option? Looks great, but I’d rather avoid a SaaS service if possible.
> In order for this to work, 2 DNS records need to be created:
>CNAME for the domain to prose
I don't think RFC 1034 even allows that (zone apex must be A record).
https://serverfault.com/questions/613829/why-cant-a-cname-re...
CNAME flattening works just fine and is supported by a variety of DNS providers at this point, but yes — there’s an RFC otherwise.
In the vast majority of cases, Cloudflare is not the hosting provider of a website resolving to our IPs. In those cases we have no capacity to remove content hosted by others. In those cases we can place a phishing warning page (like Google safe browsing) to warn and educate users that they were nearly phished. If we simply terminated a website it would not remove the content, and the user wouldn’t learn or realize they almost just got phished. It’d be the worst of both worlds. In the rare case where we are the host we place a non-bypassable block in front to make protect users.