Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Hi, is there anyone with experience on CF? I got small web server on my vps (literally nothing interesting here), i allow only IPs from cloudflare range, so it's impossible to connect directly. Now, i am under ddos, and CF seems not to filter out the requests. At this point there were total 80kk requests from ONLY 30 unique visitors. How can i configure CF to ban IPs that connect lets say more than 1k times over an hour? I spent hours digging in their documentation and tools...

Posted

Do you have paid of DDoS Protection on cloudflare or just took the free plan? Because the free plan its not protecting you from DDoS Attacks.

Posted

iptables is your friend, it can do anything you describe and literally ALL firewalls are just user interfaces for plain iptables. Just look for a guide on the net

Posted

I know i can do it with iptables. The thing is, its just a tiny tiny vps, so every connection = check in the iptables. I just wanted cloudflare to take responsibility of filtering, not to let them into my server at all.

Posted

I know i can do it with iptables. The thing is, its just a tiny tiny vps, so every connection = check in the iptables. I just wanted cloudflare to take responsibility of filtering, not to let them into my server at all.

 

None will do that for free. 

 

Keep in mind that iptables has nearly zero overhead and a very slight one in case of a few million records

Posted (edited)

iptables is your friend, it can do anything you describe and literally ALL firewalls are just user interfaces for plain iptables. Just look for a guide on the net

 

Unless you have some special hardware like Radware DefensePro

 

I know i can do it with iptables. The thing is, its just a tiny tiny vps, so every connection = check in the iptables. I just wanted cloudflare to take responsibility of filtering, not to let them into my server at all.

 

I fear you won't find any free service for it; or at least service you can count on

 

Keep in mind that iptables has nearly zero overhead and a very slight one in case of a few million records

 

Depends on how many rules do you use, whether you use conntracking (and whether you use it the right way - then it can help much because you check only SYN packets and pass through the rest) etc...

There's also lot of additional settings that might interest you like SYN cookies.

 

Szaka: If I were you, I'd start with iptables and try to find something better only if iptables won't do it

 

EDIT: In case you need to check whether IP belongs to some set, don't set rules for all those addresses. Use ipset http://ipset.netfilter.org/

Edited by eressea
Posted

Unless you have some special hardware like Radware DefensePro

 

AFAIK even hardware firewalls internally use iptables.

Except if someone writes his own OS for the firewall a case I really doubt since the iptables that comes with the linux Kernel is an extremely good and reliable base.

I may be wrong because I don't have much hands-on experience with firewalls

Posted

AFAIK even hardware firewalls internally use iptables.

Except if someone writes his own OS for the firewall a case I really doubt since the iptables that comes with the linux Kernel is an extremely good and reliable base.

I may be wrong because I don't have much hands-on experience with firewalls

 

When it's Linux-based, it will use iptables, that's fact. There are some other options that are used commonly, for example pfSense which is FreeBSD-based. Also Cisco has it's own operating system (IOS, don't confuse with iOS)

Posted

Depending on how, you can act on iptables or webserver, cloudflare, beside declaring yourself under attack you can't do shit. I wouldn't even consider those guy to protect me.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Posts

    • LIVE VERIFICATION? SUMSUB? “IMPOSSIBLE”? ▪ Spoiler: it is possible — if you know who to work with. A client came in with a task to pass **live verification** on **WantToPay**, a Telegram virtual card service. On the platform side — **Sumsub**: liveness check, SMS, manual review. “Fast” and “by eye” simply don’t work here. › What was done: → analyzed the verification scenario and Sumsub requirements → built the correct flow: phone number, email, timing → **completed live verification remotely, without account handover** → handled SMS and confirmation codes → brought the process to final approval ▪ Result: → verification passed → access granted → no flags or repeat requests ▪ Live verification is not luck. It’s scenario-based preparation — not hope. › TG: @mustang_service ( https:// t.me/ mustang_service ) › Channel: Mustang Service ( https:// t.me/ +6RAKokIn5ItmYjEx ) *All data is published with the client’s consent.* #verification #sumsub #livecheck #kyc #case
    • IMPORTANT INFO: In a few days, I will switch to completely new code, written from scratch with a new download system, patch building and management system. The Updater will become true 2026 code with "foolproof systems". I'm going to create a Discord server for customers to request new ideas and features. FIRST CUSTOMERS ARE ALREADY USING THE NEW UPDATER ON LIVE SERVERS! Watch this topic for upcoming info because the new updater is around the corner! Yes, you can still use self-update on the previous updater! No, the new updater won't be compatible with the old patch system! A new build is required, but players who already have game files won't have to download the entire patch again! New templates and updates to existing templates are coming soon! Sneak peek:  
    • i used guytis IL project and source. i found in his project there are 3 Client version source... 1,CliExt_H5   --->this one cant be compiled in VS2005,i did know why..is it for H5 client? 2,CliExtNew  --->this one is IL version ,but when i compiled it and use it.player cant login game,MD5Checksum wrong.i check the source code,but not found any hints. 3,L2Server    --->this one for HB client?im not sure...   so my question is what are the differences between these three versions of cliext.dll?how can i fix the issue of the MD5Checksum not matching problem?   01/29/2026 21:04:11.366, [CCliExt::HandleCheckSum] Invalid Checksum[1130415144] vs [-721420287] packet[dd] len[29] sum[2698] key[30] HWID[] Account[]! 01/29/2026 21:04:11.366, SocketLimiter::UserSocketBadunknownprotocol 11111111111 01/29/2026 21:04:11.366, [usersocket]unknown protocol from ip[113.137.149.115]!      
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

This community uses essential cookies to function properly. Non-essential cookies and third-party services are used only with your consent. Read our Privacy Policy and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..