And insurances provide monetary compensation until you become a common liability, too high to be covered by any sort of fee.
DDOS protection is just the same. It’s only feasible if it happens rarely, like they usually happen.
However if it’s a common occurrence it will just eat up the profits made by the fees and then some, which just is stupid to do in any case.
I don’t want TP convince anyone they are not like jerks, but rather highlight why a corporation would do something like this to a (most likely) lucrative client.
It’s a completely different thing. DDoS protection is not like insurance. Insurance is putting monetary value on a risk and paying off if that risk materialises. DDoS mitigation is a set of technical measures that are implemented. Most of the DDoS protections are features which are implemented (e.g., when the traffic is more than X, require captcha for all requests). It doesn’t have any marginal cost for the provider.
And you can argue the same for the network infrastructure. Once you have the bandwidth, as long as it’s not saturated it is a waste letting it idle.
So I really don’t see how even being under DDoS every day can “eat up your fees”. Maybe you can elaborate?
I should have elaborated on it a bit more, my bad.
While it’s true that DDoS is more of an active technology rather than a CYA thing.
It does however also act as insurance when it comes to the “blame game”: if your site goes down it’s not your fault but the provider’s fault, meaning you might be able to recoup lost profits through a lawsuit.
Of course the only way to avoid this for the provider is to provide better and stronger systems, which normally would grow homogenous through more customers and/or growing fees for all customers, which would pay for better capacity and stronger protection by itself.
However here we have a client that is a high value target that others might want to take down at all costs.
Even if they didn’t sue, a strong enough attack might, alongside naturally expected DDoS on other clients, not only take down this customer’s server, but others as well, which really isn’t something you want, for the reasons stated above.
And rapidly increasing security could be not worth it, as it could devolve into an arms race by proxy with a high risk of the customer leaving if you raise their fees to much, leaving you with a system which’s maintenance will now dig into your profits due to a lost big income stream, or make other customers leave if you raise the general fee.
It’s not that they got DDoSed, it’s that unregulated off-shore gambling is illegal in many countries, so their IP addresses were getting blocked in these countries. The way CDNs like CloudFlare work is that many customers share the IP addresses, so they were getting other CloudFlare customers blocked as well.
CF wanted them to move to a “bring your own IP” plan so that their IP blocks wouldn’t affect other customers, and that came with the steep price tag.
Online casinos are also tech. The devops in the article literally says they set up proxies to continue operating in countries where their main domain is blocked. I know the core domain of casinos are very regulated, but I doubt the entire tech aspect of online casinos are regulated. I imagine there’s plenty of fuckery to do there.
Also casinos will throw out people who benefit too much at the expense of the casino. The casino benefitted too much at the expense of Cloudflare and refused to share the profits, so Cloudflare did what any casino would do and kicked them out.
The entire tech aspect of online casinos is regulated, from procedure to register customers, to bonuses, to segmentation, to popups that you need to show during game, to responsible gaming features, to security controls in the infrastructure, to reporting etc. I worked for one and I took care of the compliance to licenses. Nothing is perfect, of course, but you are under tight scrutiny, especially when you start accumulating licenses.
I don’t think casinos will throw out anybody ATM, they mostly work on quantity of users, they don’t care of few individuals who win (in fact they are good business - they will most likely play again in the future). Actions are taken against specific segments of users that are deemed high risk (e.g. suspected sure-betters, syndicates etc.).
There is no need to throw them out, usually limits are applied.
For cloudflare, still nobody explained to me how using features and bandwidth already available costed anything more for Cloudflare.
Removed by mod
And insurances provide monetary compensation until you become a common liability, too high to be covered by any sort of fee. DDOS protection is just the same. It’s only feasible if it happens rarely, like they usually happen. However if it’s a common occurrence it will just eat up the profits made by the fees and then some, which just is stupid to do in any case.
Comparing Cloudflare to insurance companies is not how you’ll convince me they’re not acting like jerks lol
I don’t want TP convince anyone they are not like jerks, but rather highlight why a corporation would do something like this to a (most likely) lucrative client.
It’s a completely different thing. DDoS protection is not like insurance. Insurance is putting monetary value on a risk and paying off if that risk materialises. DDoS mitigation is a set of technical measures that are implemented. Most of the DDoS protections are features which are implemented (e.g., when the traffic is more than X, require captcha for all requests). It doesn’t have any marginal cost for the provider.
And you can argue the same for the network infrastructure. Once you have the bandwidth, as long as it’s not saturated it is a waste letting it idle.
So I really don’t see how even being under DDoS every day can “eat up your fees”. Maybe you can elaborate?
I should have elaborated on it a bit more, my bad.
While it’s true that DDoS is more of an active technology rather than a CYA thing. It does however also act as insurance when it comes to the “blame game”: if your site goes down it’s not your fault but the provider’s fault, meaning you might be able to recoup lost profits through a lawsuit.
Of course the only way to avoid this for the provider is to provide better and stronger systems, which normally would grow homogenous through more customers and/or growing fees for all customers, which would pay for better capacity and stronger protection by itself.
However here we have a client that is a high value target that others might want to take down at all costs. Even if they didn’t sue, a strong enough attack might, alongside naturally expected DDoS on other clients, not only take down this customer’s server, but others as well, which really isn’t something you want, for the reasons stated above. And rapidly increasing security could be not worth it, as it could devolve into an arms race by proxy with a high risk of the customer leaving if you raise their fees to much, leaving you with a system which’s maintenance will now dig into your profits due to a lost big income stream, or make other customers leave if you raise the general fee.
Removed by mod
It’s not that they got DDoSed, it’s that unregulated off-shore gambling is illegal in many countries, so their IP addresses were getting blocked in these countries. The way CDNs like CloudFlare work is that many customers share the IP addresses, so they were getting other CloudFlare customers blocked as well.
CF wanted them to move to a “bring your own IP” plan so that their IP blocks wouldn’t affect other customers, and that came with the steep price tag.
I think they are only “very regulated” if they are based in certain western countries?
I used to hear a bunch of stories about issues getting payouts.
Online casinos are also tech. The devops in the article literally says they set up proxies to continue operating in countries where their main domain is blocked. I know the core domain of casinos are very regulated, but I doubt the entire tech aspect of online casinos are regulated. I imagine there’s plenty of fuckery to do there.
Also casinos will throw out people who benefit too much at the expense of the casino. The casino benefitted too much at the expense of Cloudflare and refused to share the profits, so Cloudflare did what any casino would do and kicked them out.
The entire tech aspect of online casinos is regulated, from procedure to register customers, to bonuses, to segmentation, to popups that you need to show during game, to responsible gaming features, to security controls in the infrastructure, to reporting etc. I worked for one and I took care of the compliance to licenses. Nothing is perfect, of course, but you are under tight scrutiny, especially when you start accumulating licenses.
I don’t think casinos will throw out anybody ATM, they mostly work on quantity of users, they don’t care of few individuals who win (in fact they are good business - they will most likely play again in the future). Actions are taken against specific segments of users that are deemed high risk (e.g. suspected sure-betters, syndicates etc.). There is no need to throw them out, usually limits are applied.
For cloudflare, still nobody explained to me how using features and bandwidth already available costed anything more for Cloudflare.