Anonymous accuses Silicon Valley firm of helping ISIS by protecting their websites from cyber attacks
A Silicon Valley firm is helping ISIS bolster speeding up and improving their online security, Anonymous have claimed.
The hacktivists, who have targeted the terrorist group’s internet activity in response to the attacks in Paris, have accused CloudFlare of protecting pro-militant websites.
The startup provides services to around four million customers that speeds up website loading times and helps defend against cyber attacks.
They stop so-called Denial of Service Attacks – where websites are overrun with traffic so they are forced to shut down – by routing connections through its own network.
Hacking collective Anonymous claim Silicon Valley firm CloudFlare are helping to protect ISIS from cyber attacks by providing their services
This means that if Anonymous tried to get online and take the website down, the technology provided by CloudFare would stop them.
A recent report accused CloudFare of protecting 40 websites with links to terrorism – including 37 purely pushing propaganda.
Anonymous posted on Twitter: ‘Once again, @CloudFlare have been found to be providing services to pro-#IslamicState websites. Shameful. #OpISIS #Daesh #Anonymous.’
Matthew Prince, CloudFlare’s cofounder and CEO, says Anonymous’s claims is just ‘armchair analysis’ and insists they would have no benefit from supporting the terror group.
He told The Register: ‘I’d suggest this was armchair analysis by kids – it’s hard to take seriously. Anonymous uses us for some of its sites, despite pressure from some quarters for us to take Anonymous sites offline.’
He added that if cops or federal authorities came to their San Francisco office then they would cooperate, suggesting he would rather take advice from the State Department or U.S. Government over a faceless Twitter user.
‘Even if we were hosting sites for ISIS, it wouldn’t be of any use to us,’ Prince added. ‘I should imagine those kinds of people pay with stolen credit cards and so that’s a negative for us.
Out of four million customers, he also said some were likely to be some dodgy customers.
In 2013, they faced similar accusations with a website linked to Al Qaeda.
Prince wrote a blog post in response, suggesting they were protecting free speech.
He said: ‘A website is speech. It is not a bomb. There is no imminent danger it creates and no provider has an affirmative obligation to monitor and make determinations about the theoretically harmful nature of speech a site may contain …
‘If we were to receive a valid court order that compelled us to not provide service to a customer then we would comply with that court order.
‘We have never received a request to terminate the site in question from any law enforcement authority, let alone a valid order from a court.’