Hope @CloudFlare can make a statement about this: http://zeroscience.mk/files/wafreport2013.pdf … (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5306519 ) - I'm pretty annoyed as a paying customer.
-
-
Replying to @bluetidepro
@bluetidepro@CloudFlare flawed testing strategy that assumes a last-generation, rules-based WAF. We've always worked differently.2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @eastdakota
@eastdakota@bluetidepro@CloudFlare@mikedamm Serious gaps in your WAF were reported over a year ago. None fixed. Now this...7 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attritionorg
@attritionorg@bluetidepro@CloudFlare@mikedamm heuristic-based spam filters emerge starting in 2002 (e.g., Postini, MessageLabs, MXLogic).1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @eastdakota
@eastdakota@bluetidepro@CloudFlare@mikedamm Don't need history refresher. Your WAF didn't stop 48 known attacks. You claim it "works".2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attritionorg
@attritionorg@bluetidepro@CloudFlare@mikedamm server response sometimes better indication of vulnerability than request.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@eastdakota @bluetidepro @CloudFlare @mikedamm "sometimes", so why bother filtering known bad attacks? doesn't seem like a good strategy
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.