Talk:DDoS-Guard

Possibly add kiwi farms to the known clients?
After cloudflare dropped them, they have moved to using a Russian URL and ddos-guard. 2601:940:C001:CA90:10E9:3A0E:262E:DC9A (talk) 02:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As with everything else on Wikipedia, we need a reliable secondary source reporting on this before it can be added. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 14:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

New modifications
There are issues with this article. I tried to explain some of them there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GorillaWarfare, but this page probably is a better place. Xmp512 (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

(Moved by GorillaWarfare):

The changes you are doing on the DDoS-Guard page cannot be right.

You are using sources like Brian Krebs or Meduza to describe the company. However, Brian Krebs and Meduza are investigators. They just investigate activities, and write the report based on their own understanding of the situation.

We should use other sources to describe DDoS-Guard. It's a quite big Russian company. I've used the Tadviser website, which is a Russian catalog website for all big business.

Regarding other changes, I need to check them carefully, it will take time. Xmp512 (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, you just restored an old text of the page, but you haven't checked any of my changes.
 * For example, you have restored that "DDoS-Guard also provides services to The Daily Stormer", but this is not true. I didn't check the source, but as of September 2022, they don't provide any services to The Daily Stormer.
 * Another example, you have restored that "It was first registered in July 2014 in Sevastopol, by Evgeny Marchenko and Dmitry Sabitov". But I've tried to check this information, and what I discovered is that the company was registered in Rostov-on-Don, and also in July 2014. Also, Evgeny Marchenko is the only owner of the firm. Indeed, Meduza says that it was registered in Sevastopol, but I wasn't able to find any proves of it.
 * We cannot just copy Meduza and Brian Krebs. If we can find that the company was really registered in Sevastopol, it will be relay good to add. But if we cannot do this, I think it's just only Meduza's opinion, and we should write it to Meduza's section.
 * And there are a lot more issues with this article. I tried to fix it, but you are just restoring the previous text. Xmp512 (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * One more clear example.
 * You have restored this text: "After the researcher reported DDoS-Guard to LACNIC, LACNIC announced they would revoke more than 8,000 IP addresses from the company.".
 * But the source said this: LACNIC published a notice on its website that it intends to revoke 8,192 IPv4 addresses from DDoS-Guard".
 * The source dates January 21, 2021. If you check the IP addresses, you will see that they are still owned by DDoS-Guard. So, whatever LACNIC posted, it was some kind of internal interim document, and after they figured out the situation, they did not withdraw the IP addresses.
 * I did a separate change for this earlier this day. If you check every my change, you will see that they make sense, and improve the quality of the article. Xmp512 (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Controversy section, I didn't know that I cannot create such a section. But I don't think that Clients is a proper name for this section as well. This section includes only some notorious clients, but I think DDoS-Guard has more than 10,000 ordinary clients as well. It's like Cludflare. Anyone who have a credit card can buy their services in 5 minutes. Probably like Kiwi Farms did.
 * Also, you named you change "removed unsourced additions, restored sourced content". It's not right. I've added an info from Tadviser, and it was properly sourced. Your change removed it, and it stayed that it was an unsourced addition. It wasn't. Xmp512 (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Both Krebs and Meduza are perfectly reasonable sources, I'm not sure why you are suggesting they are unusable. The statements are also carefully attributed for extra clarity around the sourcing.
 * The TAdviser source appears to be roughly equivalent to a Crunchbase-style source, rather than a proper secondary source. It appears that TAdviser almost directly copied the statement from DDoSGuard's own website, and you almost directly copied the English machine translation of the TAdviser text. If you want to paraphrase it and add it to the "Products" section that's probably fine, although a proper secondary source really ought to be found. It definitely shouldn't be the second sentence of the lead, though.
 * Have you got a reliable source to support that DDoS-Guard dropped The Daily Stormer? Note that we need reliable, secondary sourcing.
 * On the company registration and LACNIC topics, again, we go based on what's published in reliable, secondary sources.
 * Regarding the "Clients" section, it is a section describing their clients and so the naming makes sense. It by no means implies an exhaustive listing of their clients. Feel free to add to it if any of their services to other clients have achieved coverage in reliable, secondary sources, or if there's an overview of their clientele in a quality source that could be added.
 * I'd recommend reviewing WP:OR before continuing to edit. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:16, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is about DDoS-Guard. The first current source of the article is "Hamas May Be Threat to 8chan". This article literally takes the description about DDoS-Guard from an article about Hamas. It doesn't seem right. If I cannot use TAdviser, I don't understand what I should use.
 * Regarding The Daily Stormer, and other clients, everyone can check WHOIS and DNS records. Now the domain of The Daily Stormer is stormer-daily.rw. Just check its IP addresses, and you will see that it's hosted by Vdsina (also in Russia). It can be easily done from any Linux machine. Or you can use online resolve and WHOIS services. But I'm not sure that there are the proper sources you need somewhere in the Internet. Krebs will only write that they started to host someone (BTW, not host, but provide anti-DDoS services), and he will forgot about it and will never change the article. So, when someone moves to DDoS-Guard, it just stays on this page forever. Xmp512 (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You should use reliable, secondary sources. WHOIS records and similar are not acceptable for sourcing on Wikipedia; see WP:PRIMARY ("Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself").
 * The idea that no one would ever publish when DDoS-Guard stops hosting a site seems easily disproven by the fact that several publications including The Associated Press have done exactly that. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The first source of this article is this page: https://krebsonsecurity.com/2021/01/hamas-may-be-threat-to-8chan-qanon-online/
 * You have said that Krebs is a perfectly reasonable source. This source says "DDoS-Guard, a dodgy Russian firm that also hosts the official site for the terrorist group Hamas" in its frst paragraph.
 * Why we shouldn't say in the Wikipedia article that DDoS-Guard is a dodgy Russian firm? The Wikipedia article says that it's a Russian Internet infrastructure company. So, if Krebs is a perfectly reasonable source, let's change the article and write that DDoS-Guard is a dodgy Russian firm. Xmp512 (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We could put it in with attribution if you really like. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:05, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

re 10.5555 DOI
Re removing the 10.5555 DOI: it's true that it's not exactly real, but it seems to be a reserved namespace functioning as a private use area. It's not useless: it's an attempt at a permanent identifier (which could be searched on Google or at the publisher). The URL https://www.science.org/do/10.5555/article.2378504 works. Other publishers like ACM use it for substitute DOIs too, e.g. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195 for a paper in a journal that doesn't assign real DOIs. Would you still object to keeping it? Micler (talk) 21:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It will never ever work. It is not guaranteed to be unique: ACM, jstor, etc use them. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 10:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

"Hacked" Claim is Fake
Regarding the assertion regarding the incident on June 1, 2021, in which the cyber intelligence firm Group-IB reported that they found the database of DDoS-Guard on a cybercrime black market forum, I would like to clarify that this claim is unfounded and lacks substantial evidence. It was merely an allegation; the service was never interrupted, and these alleged data have not surfaced anywhere. The claim is fake. 2003:C4:B747:5300:481:3890:CF5:8573 (talk) 18:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)