Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Jun 24, 2022. It is now read-only.

CloudFlare #96

Closed
ghost opened this issue Nov 18, 2016 · 12 comments
Closed

CloudFlare #96

ghost opened this issue Nov 18, 2016 · 12 comments

Comments

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Nov 18, 2016

CloudFlare is a major privacy issue to the users of a site protected by it.

Is there a good reason to use it for privacytools.io?

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Nov 21, 2016

Also, CF SSL is not very friendly.

╭─samuel@ROG  ~  
╰─$ python
Python 2.7.6 (default, Jun 22 2015, 17:58:13) 
[GCC 4.8.2] on linux2
Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
>>> from urllib2 import urlopen
>>> urlopen("https://privacytools.io")
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/urllib2.py", line 127, in urlopen
    return _opener.open(url, data, timeout)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/urllib2.py", line 404, in open
    response = self._open(req, data)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/urllib2.py", line 422, in _open
    '_open', req)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/urllib2.py", line 382, in _call_chain
    result = func(*args)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/urllib2.py", line 1222, in https_open
    return self.do_open(httplib.HTTPSConnection, req)
  File "/usr/lib/python2.7/urllib2.py", line 1184, in do_open
    raise URLError(err)
urllib2.URLError: <urlopen error [Errno 1] _ssl.c:510: error:14077438:SSL routines:SSL23_GET_SERVER_HELLO:tlsv1 alert internal error>
>>> 

@privacytoolsIO
Copy link
Contributor

The reason i decided to use CloudFlare was the fact that it's easy to setup, and nice to have a free ssl certificate. To be honest to have https for privacytools.io is totally optional, since we're not dealing with any user date whatsoever. We had some discussion about CloudFlare before: https://www.reddit.com/r/privacytoolsIO/search?q=CloudFlare&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all

I don't think this is a priority at the moment.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Dec 18, 2016

Note: HTTPS is faster, trustworthy (this site doesn't deal with user data, but it's a good practice and feels much more trustworthy for users), and looks better.

@bakku
Copy link

bakku commented Dec 18, 2016

Plenty of reasons to use https even for a static site. Some here: https://www.bitballoon.com/blog/2014/10/03/five-reasons-you-want-https-for-your-static-site

Personally I would move away from cloudfare and use let's encrypt to get a free certificate.

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Dec 18, 2016

@privacytoolsIO
Copy link
Contributor

I can't switch to Let's Encrypt at the moment, because I'd have to change the DNS servers of the domain and that would reveal my server location. I agree with you that Let's Encrypt is first choice, but CloudFlare still makes privacytools.io faster, hides my server location and provides a free SSL certificate. Again, we're not handling any user data.

@Hillside502
Copy link

@privacytoolsIO
You can hide your server location via a VPN static IP address.

@beerisgood
Copy link

Read this comment from Moonchild (Pale Moon dev) why Lets Encrypt isnt good:
https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=13216&p=97307#p97307

@Hillside502
Copy link

@beerisgood
That was 14 months ago. Does that still apply?

@ghost
Copy link
Author

ghost commented Jan 3, 2018

@privacytoolsIO

Hide server location? Then why not rental hosting server?

Try https://danwin1210.me/ .
You'll receive:

  1. Access log without IP address (all IP address replaced to 0)
  2. Let's encrypt certificate
  3. Can host with your own domain
  4. Hosted in Germany, not in USA like Cloudflare
  5. Can have .onion domain. You'll automatically receive onion domain!
  6. Free
  7. He's friendly.

Just try it. Better than Cloudflare.

@beerisgood
Copy link

@Hillside502 Yes. I got this answer from Moonchild:

Nothing has changed about the way Let's Encrypt does things because all of those bad things are "by design" for them

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jan 3, 2018

@Hillside502 @beerisgood
It is getting even worse https://letsencrypt.org/2017/07/06/wildcard-certificates-coming-jan-2018.html

And they are sticking with their fragile/questionable verification process

We will initially only support base domain validation via DNS for wildcard certificates

This opens the door wide for abuse. Wondering how Mozilla is going happily along, but perhaps not any more since Mozilla is also actively sponsoring this MitM provider CF.

https://www.robtex.com/dns-lookup/www.mozilla.org

cname | www.mozilla.org.cdn.cloudflare.net

That from an organization supposedly promoting privacy and freedom of the internet and asking for donations of that cause... well bon chance

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants