I disagree. I don't know the details of cloudflares bot detecion, but there are many automated vulnerability scanners that this could protect against.
I said that instead of crashing the system they should have something that takes an intentional decision and informs properly about what's happening.
I agree. Every crash is a failure by the designers. Instead it should be caught by the program and result in a useful error state. They probably have something like that but it didn't work because the crash was to severe.
What's the point of your complaint if you do agree?
I am not complaining. I am informing you that you are missing an angle in your consideration. You can never prevent every crash ever. So when designing your product you have to consider what should happen if every safeguard fails and you get an uncontrolled crash. In that case you have to design for "fail open" or "fail closed".
Cloudflare fucked up. The crash should not have happened and if it did it should have been caught. They didn't. They fucked up. But, i agree with the result of the fuck up causing a fail closed state.
it shouldn't crash the whole thing: if the bot detection module crahses, control it, fire an alert but accept the request until fixed.
Fail open vs fail closed. Bot detection is a security feature. If the security feature fails, do you disable it and allow unchecked access to the client data? Or do you value Integrity over Availability
Imagine the opposite: they disable the feature and during that timeframe some customers get hacked. The hacks could have been prevented by the Bot detection (that the customer is paying for).
Yes, bot detection is not the most critical security feature and probably not the reason someone gets hacked but having "fail closed" as the default for all security features is absolutely a valid policy. Changing this policy should not be the lesson from this disasters.
Yes but no. If you use a different service for the same purpose as you would use cloudflare you will be just as offline if they make a mistake. The difference is just that with a centralized player, everyone is offline at the same time. For the individual websites that does not matter.
Except that is not how it works and courts have in the past ruled for the website and against people who took "secret" information out of web responses that were "not supposed to be displayed" in the browser.
For most people wasp=yellow jacket. And Yellow jackets are never frendly. Just sometimes "not outright aggressive".
I like to ignore them and give them a chance to retreat in peace. If they fly to close to my face though, I will single strike, closed fist, punch them in the head (while flying, not mash them against the wall). It disorients them so much they just fly away. Never got stung while doing it, 100% success rate if I hit them.
Exactly! Everyone in this tread is hating on people that just learned a different "truth". In 50 years everyone here will be wrong about something as fundamental as the animal kingdom and insist on being right. Science advances and previous truths become false.
There is also the aspect of biological classification not being very useful for everyday live. Do people go "uhm actachully biologically fish don't exist" every time they see a meal advertised as "fish ...". People can have a concept of "animal" that is different from the taxonomy. And classifying mammals+reptiles+amphibian(+birds) as something different than fish and different than insects is a pretty reasonable classification (based on phenotype and not on phylogeny)
Bots will simply join the biggest instances. The only solution would be to defederate the main instances and have everyone pretty much host their own server.
the user base will consolidate to fewer and fewer popular instances that are able to address the spam.
And if everybody hosts their own server, than so will the advertisers and everybody will have to defederate then individually making the problem of moderation even worse.
There are cave paintings/petroglyphs at 3000m above sealevel in the valleys of the Andes, central Asian mountains and Tibet (and probably more I don't know about). I dont think there is enough water on earth, ice or otherwise for 3km sea level rise.
They have much much more interactions with humans and consequently also more negative interactions. And stupid humans will do stupid things like slapping an animal or randomly start screaming right next to an animal. So yes.
Not like the whole video goes from 1080p to 720p or something but single bits of the drive will fails over time. If that bit is part of your video file, one pixel of one frame will be the wrong color/black. If multiple bits close to each other fail you might get a video stutter. If even more fail your video player will not play the video at all (or just stop playing at the place of the errors).
That is the smallest scale of self hosting. The server and the client are the same device. It is also the most insecure way as you probably don't have any backups and very limited storage space.
Actually self hosting is the next step when you decide you want 5+ TB of data and have it automatically create backups. Digital storage media degrade pretty quickly and if you just have your movies on a hard drive in your computer, after 5-10 years you might start to lose quality or some files completely.
Relevant xkcd to the first point.
https://xkcd.com/638/