Has avoiding Cloudflare become Impossible?
Has avoiding Cloudflare become Impossible?
Nearly every website today seems to be hosted behind Cloudflare which is really concerning for the future of privacy on the internet.
Cloudflare no doubt logs, stores, and correlates network telemetry that can be used for a wide array of deanonymization attacks. Not only that, but Cloudflare acts as a man-in-the-middle for all encrypted traffic which means that not even TLS will prevent Cloudflare from snooping on you. Their position across the internet also lends them the ability to conduct netflow and traffic correlation attacks.
Even my proposed solution to use archive.org as a proxy is not a valid solution since I found out today that archive.org is also hosted behind Cloudflare... edit: i was wrong
So what options do we even have? What privacy concerns did I miss, and are there any workaround solutions?
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't think it's possible to avoid companies like Cloudflare, AWS, Akamai, etc. Or not without a whole lot of effort that isn't really reasonable and would severely degrade user experience. They provide what's become fundamental infrastructure to the internet, and that doesn't seem likely to change.
It is possible to avoid Cloudflare (the worst offender), proven by instances that are run by more competent experts. For example:
- fedia.io
- sopuli.xyz
- beehaw.org
- infosec.pub
- lemmy.dbzer0.com
- slrpnk.net
- links.hackliberty.org
- lemmy.ml ← used to be Cloudflare-proxied but they got wiser
- mander.xyz
^ Those are good instances where users’ traffic is not recklessly exposed to Cloudflare.
These instances below not only expose their users to Cloudflare, but they’re not even decent enough to inform their own users about it:
- lemmy.world ← Cloudflare
- sh.itjust.works ← Cloudflare
- zerobytes.monster ← Cloudflare
- lemmy.ca ← Cloudflare
- lemm.ee ← Cloudflare
- programming.dev ← Cloudflare
- lemmy.zip ← Cloudflare
If you probe admins of the above list, some will say in effect that they regret pawning all their users to CF but claim they have no choice - that they do not know how to defend from attack. Some admins have no regrets and simply do not give a shit. Many admins are actually ignorant to the extent of not even knowing Cloudflare sees the traffic (yes, many times admins were appalled to learn this from me; who to them is just some random pleb). Probably the most despicable aspect to this is that no Cloudflare admin is socially responsible enough to post a banner msg making sure users are informed about their exposure. If they are proud of their choice and feel they have no choice, then why neglect to disclose it (esp. on a non-profit activity)?
Regardless of their reasons/excuses, it really does not matter to the user. What matters to users is that there are privacy-disrespecting choices and relatively privacy-respecting choices. Obviously street-wise users select from the first list I posted and not the 2nd list.
Only CFd government sites are unavoidable
The only Cloudflare sites that are unavoidable AFAICT are government sites. You can always boycott the private sector, but there are 6 or so states in the US where voter registration goes through Cloudflare. Even if you register on paper, the data entry worker likely goes to the Cloudflare site. I became a non-voter for this reason.
ironically monero.town also uses Cloudflare.
What's so fundamental about their services?
Cloudflare provides anti ddos protection, aws provides cloud computing for online services
But does everything on the internet require anti ddos protection?
From corporate perspective, if the ddos protection is cheaper than potential ddos attack, yes.
Of course it’s important to note that business case relies on users being uninformed. If a billion or more users suddenly became informed about this along with the fact that the business does not disclose it (not even in the fine print of the privacy policy), your business case would need to account for a PR backlash variable.
From a user side, nothing.
From a host side: AWS/GCP/Azure, scaling is built in; maybe isn’t cheaper than self hosting, but it eliminates maintenance worries, uptime is their responsibility.
Cloud front, F5, imperva: protection from: sql injection, basic script attacks, ddos, and man in the middle.
To avoid them you’d have to stick to small time web sites that self host and handle attacks on their own. Funny enough when I ran small-time sites we never had a successful injection attack, and I handled a ddos attack by just blocking IPs one at a time till they gave up. It’s not hard, but when the company hits a certain size where they hire a cyber security specialist, all the sudden we need these additional protection tools.
Thank you. One of the best responses I've got so far.
A significant percentage of the internet relies on them. There's basically no avoiding these companies while using the internet as it now exists.
That's a circular argument.
"It's impossible to avoid this these companies because a lot of sites use them."
Ok. Why?
"Because they provide fundamental services."
Ok, what's so fundamental about them?
"A lot of sites use them."
...ok? WHY?
The service they provide to websites is "better user experience" by acting as a cdn close to the user they get better download speeds and responsiveness. It also is a benefit for the business because they don't have to worry nearly as much about deploying and maintaining multiple servers around the world.
That is why it's impossible to avoid these companies, every sane website engineer is going to want the services they offer.
And it's a service that is easiest to offer when you are an already established large cdn.
Sure, so they're fundamental to businesses. Not to the internet.
User experience isn't just for businesses.
User experience?
Wait, I thought we were talking about more than just user experience.
Sure 100% you can build a website without them.
But anyone expecting to serve millions of users is going to use and need them or the user experience will suffer
That's my point. So it's not fundamental. Just fundamental for big sites.
And not anyone. Cloudfare and AWS are not the only cloud/CDN services in the world.
But I understand now.
The pattern is that big businesses can afford their own infosec experts and have no use for CF (who poses a disclosure risk to their business). It’s the small mom & pop shops that cling to CF. They hire someone cheap who doesn’t have a high infosec proficiency, who just takes the cheap lazy path of deploying the site on CF. They usually don’t even bother to tweak CF’s extra privacy-hostile default settings.
Interesting. That makes sense in many reasonable contexts.
You say “fundamental” when I think (from context) you mean to say “essential”. But to be clear, Cloudflare is not essential to business or the internet. Consider banking in the US. Big banks are competent enough to not need CF. But credit unions are small and on shoestring budgets. So CUs are increasingly exposing all their customers to Cloudflare to save money. If you are a client of a CU that starts using Cloudflare, I suggest switching to paper statements and quit using the website. Switch to a CU that does not expose you to Cloudflare. So far that’s not difficult but that could change.
Thanks! Good tip.
Not sure why people are being so weird about answering your questions, but e.g. CloudFlare does DDoS protection which now basically everything you put on the internet needs some type of , and is far too complicated to do yourself, when you need it.
Thus CloudFlare (or AWS's equivalent) is pretty essential. I'm sure there are other reasons too.
Thanks. Though I knew all that, I appreciate your response.
I guess DDoS protection is essential, but the fundamental part is dependant on the seevice provider's goal. If I just want to host a game over the internet for my friends, Cloudflare is not really fundamental for that. For businesses, though, yeah.
Admins tend to have an exaggerated degree of self-importance. They think their own service is somehow so important that downtime is just not an option, even at the cost of pawning all their own users/supporters traffic to a tech giant in a country without privacy safeguards. And they do that even when offering a non-profit service like a fedi instance. It’s a total disregard for privacy even when no money is on the line. Part of the problem is not only are they not hiring experts but they can’t be bothered to develop the competency themselves. They don’t factor in or realize the fact that web security is part of the task they are signing up for. Like someone saying they want to sell fries but they don’t want to be bothered with finding a potato supplier. If they want to reject a fundamental component of the activity, perhaps that activity is not for them.
Sorry, I was assuming that people knew what they did or would look it up themselves. The short and non-technical answer is "the cloud" actually means "other people's computers" and these companies are the "other people". The why of it is complicated, there are both technical and economic reasons. I think it probably comes down to efficiency and economies of scale.
Care to elaborate?
So far it seems like it pertains to big sites. So if these cloudfare et al are "impossible to avoid" for any other scanario, I'll be happy to be schooled.
A quick web search suggests that AWS (Amazon Web Services, I think) hosts 32% of websites. I don't have more nuance to provide other than to agree that these companies provide architecture to a huge portion of the modern internet. Most of everything is held by a small number of companies, just like wealth is concentrated in a small percentage of the population with huge companies owning most of the market.
AWS is impossible to avoid because there is an incredible amount of stuff on their services. A large portion of websites are hosted there in full or in part. Their various compute services are used by a lot of companies.
AWS is so incredibly big that they are basically "the cloud". There are of course other providers (Microsoft Azure being the second biggest one) but the developed world would be in chaos if they shutdown overnight.
I am not a huge fan of how big they are, but they are obviously doing a good job.
I can avoid them if I stick to sites that don't use them.
That seems very hard and inconvenient and a waste of time with no benefit. But you do you.
Wait. You're all whining that using cloudflare has serious privacy issues, in a privacy-related community.
...and when I mention that I prefer not to use cloudflare, it has no benefits?
Then why whine at all?
Read again, I was talking about AWS.
And don't call me "You're all".
I have my opinions and others have their opinions. We are not a hive mind.
Personally I don't care about cloudflare but some do.
But on that note, I will just say good luck avoiding them. Unless you mean avoiding using them on your own website.
Cloudflare can be avoided so far but this may not hold up for long. There are browser extensions that put a strikethrough on all links to CF sites. There is also a search service (Ombrelo) which tags and down-ranks Cloudflare sites in the results. There is a bot you can follow on Mastodon that will DM you whenever you share a link to a CF website, so you can remove it (documented here).