US KVM ipv4 VPS $2/mo with recurring 50% OFF all orders + Free FTP250G Storage Account

Comments

• DrNutella

  2:27AM

  PSA: Please read their AUP. You don’t have freedom of speech when using this provider.

  “Disparage, tarnish, or harm us or the Services.”

  Thanked by (1)imok

  Insert signature here, $5 tip required
• vyas OGSenpai

  2:43AM

  @DrNutella said:
  PSA: Please read their AUP. You don’t have freedom of speech when using this provider.

  “Disparage, tarnish, or harm us or the Services.”

  Nothing wrong with that. Why would you want to do anything illegal in the name of free speech anyways ?

  Thanked by (1)CharityHost_org

  blog | exploring visually |
• DrNutella

  3:00AM edited 3:24AM

  @vyas said:

  @DrNutella said:
  PSA: Please read their AUP. You don’t have freedom of speech when using this provider.

  “Disparage, tarnish, or harm us or the Services.”

  Nothing wrong with that. Why would you want to do anything illegal in the name of free speech anyways ?

  This means if you publicly share a bad experience, then it’s grounds for banning your service.

  Honestly that’s just absurd. Every other host usually accepts any and all feedback vs shuns users who say anything.

  Insert signature here, $5 tip required
• Alyx

  5:35AM

  Would avoid them, they snoop trough your data

  Thanked by (2)Khalequzzaman imok
• CharityHost_org Hosting Provider

  6:28AM

  @Alyx said:
  Would avoid them, they snoop trough your data

  How so? Public data in public_html? Know your facts dont make assumptions
• vyas OGSenpai

  6:28AM edited 6:31AM

  @DrNutella said:

  @vyas said:

  @DrNutella said:
  PSA: Please read their AUP. You don’t have freedom of speech when using this provider.

  “Disparage, tarnish, or harm us or the Services.”

  Nothing wrong with that. Why would you want to do anything illegal in the name of free speech anyways ?

  This means if you publicly share a bad experience, then it’s grounds for banning your service.

  Honestly that’s just absurd. Every other host usually accepts any and all feedback vs shuns users who say anything.

  “Disparage, tarnish, or harm us or the Services.”

  and

  "if you publicly share a bad experience, then it’s grounds for banning your service."

  I see your point. That's the Tarnish/disparage part. Harm can also mean doing "naughty" things with network, or sharing some types of "iso" files that may be frowned upon etc. That is where my first comment came from. Thanks for clarification.

  ---

  @Alyx said:
  Would avoid them, they snoop trough your data

  Someone had put it nicely.. this is called Peeking into my garden.
  Peeking is not cool

  Thanked by (1)Khalequzzaman

  blog | exploring visually |
• CharityHost_org Hosting Provider

  6:29AM

  @DrNutella said:

  @vyas said:

  @DrNutella said:
  PSA: Please read their AUP. You don’t have freedom of speech when using this provider.

  “Disparage, tarnish, or harm us or the Services.”

  Nothing wrong with that. Why would you want to do anything illegal in the name of free speech anyways ?

  This means if you publicly share a bad experience, then it’s grounds for banning your service.

  Honestly that’s just absurd. Every other host usually accepts any and all feedback vs shuns users who say anything.

  We accept constructive criticism, but not insults and berating staff in public or private support tickets.
• Alyx

  7:03AM

  @CharityHost_org said:

  @Alyx said:
  Would avoid them, they snoop trough your data

  How so? Public data in public_html? Know your facts dont make assumptions

  So I'm allowed to look through my customers data in the public_html folder even tho there is actual a authentication mechanism infront of it?

  Is it just the public_html folder or do you snoop trough all folders called public?

  Since facts are so important to you, it's probably also worth mention that the site was not actually connected to any valid domain, and therefore not actually publicly accessible.

  Thanked by (1)ialexpw
• CharityHost_org Hosting Provider

  7:15AM

  Since when did public_hmtl have auth on ti? You need to setup htpasswd and htaccess for that!

  Look up, man curl. if you know anything about cli cmd in linux or even windows. Look for --resolve.
• CharityHost_org Hosting Provider

  7:17AM

  @vyas said:

  @DrNutella said:

  @vyas said:

  @DrNutella said:
  PSA: Please read their AUP. You don’t have freedom of speech when using this provider.

  “Disparage, tarnish, or harm us or the Services.”

  Nothing wrong with that. Why would you want to do anything illegal in the name of free speech anyways ?

  This means if you publicly share a bad experience, then it’s grounds for banning your service.

  Honestly that’s just absurd. Every other host usually accepts any and all feedback vs shuns users who say anything.

  “Disparage, tarnish, or harm us or the Services.”

  and

  "if you publicly share a bad experience, then it’s grounds for banning your service."

  I see your point. That's the Tarnish/disparage part. Harm can also mean doing "naughty" things with network, or sharing some types of "iso" files that may be frowned upon etc. That is where my first comment came from. Thanks for clarification.

  ---

  @Alyx said:
  Would avoid them, they snoop trough your data

  Someone had put it nicely.. this is called Peeking into my garden.
  Peeking is not cool

  public browse into the open public park with curl --resolve from a hosting management perspective is not intruding privacy on public_html hosted data. Let's be clear and sensible.
• ialexpw OGServices Provider

  7:26AM edited 7:49AM

  @CharityHost_org said:
  Since when did public_hmtl have auth on ti? You need to setup htpasswd and htaccess for that!

  Look up, man curl. if you know anything about cli cmd in linux or even windows. Look for --resolve.

  You said in the previous thread the user did not have a domain connected to the storage and that you do not have a default domain for each box - so how was it public?. Would be good to clear that part up if possible.

  Thanked by (1)Alyx
• vyas OGSenpai

  7:29AM edited 7:36AM

  @CharityHost_org said:

  @vyas said:

  @DrNutella said:

  @vyas said:

  @DrNutella said:
  PSA: Please read their AUP. You don’t have freedom of speech when using this provider.

  “Disparage, tarnish, or harm us or the Services.”

  Nothing wrong with that. Why would you want to do anything illegal in the name of free speech anyways ?

  This means if you publicly share a bad experience, then it’s grounds for banning your service.

  Honestly that’s just absurd. Every other host usually accepts any and all feedback vs shuns users who say anything.

  “Disparage, tarnish, or harm us or the Services.”

  and

  "if you publicly share a bad experience, then it’s grounds for banning your service."

  I see your point. That's the Tarnish/disparage part. Harm can also mean doing "naughty" things with network, or sharing some types of "iso" files that may be frowned upon etc. That is where my first comment came from. Thanks for clarification.

  ---

  @Alyx said:
  Would avoid them, they snoop trough your data

  Someone had put it nicely.. this is called Peeking into my garden.
  Peeking is not cool

  public browse into the open public park with curl --resolve from a hosting management perspective is not intruding privacy on public_html hosted data. Let's be clear and sensible.

  If you search the threads, (vanilla's poor search capabilities notwithstanding), "Peeking into garden" has a very clear meaning as does "iso" or "chicken". I am very clear in my statement about the peeking part. If you interpret it otherwise, that is your prerogative. On the other hand,

  If you think that is NOT sensible, then I wish you well. With that attitude, may you get customers who are okay with a high horse rider. I am not, and this concludes my message in this or any other discussion where your hosting is involved. Best regards.

  Edit: Have self flagged my posts, since the conversation is heading nowhere, and in community spirit.

  Thanked by (3)Alyx ialexpw sh97

  blog | exploring visually |
• Alyx

  7:30AM edited 7:30AM

  @CharityHost_org said:
  Since when did public_hmtl have auth on ti? You need to setup htpasswd and htaccess for that!

  Look up, man curl. if you know anything about cli cmd in linux or even windows. Look for --resolve.

  The issue here is, to check if a .htaccess exist, you first need to look in the directory.

  Ahh, I was waiting for that argument.
  So, you say anyone could have accessed the file if they

  A: Know the server IP address
  B: know the none existing domain name
  C: Know that this none existing domain name is actually "hosted" on said IP address
  D : Actually make the effort to spoof the host header in a request to said server

  I'm sorry my friend, but this really does not public to me

  Thanked by (3)ialexpw Khalequzzaman Falzo
• CharityHost_org Hosting Provider

  9:28AM

  @Alyx said:

  @CharityHost_org said:
  Since when did public_hmtl have auth on ti? You need to setup htpasswd and htaccess for that!

  Look up, man curl. if you know anything about cli cmd in linux or even windows. Look for --resolve.

  The issue here is, to check if a .htaccess exist, you first need to look in the directory.

  Ahh, I was waiting for that argument.
  So, you say anyone could have accessed the file if they

  A: Know the server IP address
  B: know the none existing domain name
  C: Know that this none existing domain name is actually "hosted" on said IP address
  D : Actually make the effort to spoof the host header in a request to said server

  I'm sorry my friend, but this really does not public to me

  You think customer could not have shared the domain and the ip? He had both, does not matter if the domain resovled or not. public_html is public
• CharityHost_org Hosting Provider

  9:30AM

  @vyas said:

  @CharityHost_org said:

  @vyas said:

  @DrNutella said:

  @vyas said:

  @DrNutella said:
  PSA: Please read their AUP. You don’t have freedom of speech when using this provider.

  “Disparage, tarnish, or harm us or the Services.”

  Nothing wrong with that. Why would you want to do anything illegal in the name of free speech anyways ?

  This means if you publicly share a bad experience, then it’s grounds for banning your service.

  Honestly that’s just absurd. Every other host usually accepts any and all feedback vs shuns users who say anything.

  “Disparage, tarnish, or harm us or the Services.”

  and

  "if you publicly share a bad experience, then it’s grounds for banning your service."

  I see your point. That's the Tarnish/disparage part. Harm can also mean doing "naughty" things with network, or sharing some types of "iso" files that may be frowned upon etc. That is where my first comment came from. Thanks for clarification.

  ---

  @Alyx said:
  Would avoid them, they snoop trough your data

  Someone had put it nicely.. this is called Peeking into my garden.
  Peeking is not cool

  public browse into the open public park with curl --resolve from a hosting management perspective is not intruding privacy on public_html hosted data. Let's be clear and sensible.

  If you search the threads, (vanilla's poor search capabilities notwithstanding), "Peeking into garden" has a very clear meaning as does "iso" or "chicken". I am very clear in my statement about the peeking part. If you interpret it otherwise, that is your prerogative. On the other hand,

  If you think that is NOT sensible, then I wish you well. With that attitude, may you get customers who are okay with a high horse rider. I am not, and this concludes my message in this or any other discussion where your hosting is involved. Best regards.

  Edit: Have self flagged my posts, since the conversation is heading nowhere, and in community spirit.

  I do not agree. But I'll give you this, you are not insulting us, you are just sending your opinion, it's not reality based of facts, it's your opinion. I can respect that and still disagree.
• CharityHost_org Hosting Provider

  9:32AM

  @ialexpw said:

  @CharityHost_org said:
  Since when did public_hmtl have auth on ti? You need to setup htpasswd and htaccess for that!

  Look up, man curl. if you know anything about cli cmd in linux or even windows. Look for --resolve.

  You said in the previous thread the user did not have a domain connected to the storage and that you do not have a default domain for each box - so how was it public?. Would be good to clear that part up if possible.

  All FTP accounts we service to customers have a domain but it can be any domain, does not have to resolve. However, if autoindex is on as it was to accomodate easier file sharing browsing, curl --resovle will list the autoindex, so will a browser. public_html === public data
• ialexpw OGServices Provider

  9:51AM

  @CharityHost_org said:

  @ialexpw said:

  @CharityHost_org said:
  Since when did public_hmtl have auth on ti? You need to setup htpasswd and htaccess for that!

  Look up, man curl. if you know anything about cli cmd in linux or even windows. Look for --resolve.

  You said in the previous thread the user did not have a domain connected to the storage and that you do not have a default domain for each box - so how was it public?. Would be good to clear that part up if possible.

  All FTP accounts we service to customers have a domain but it can be any domain, does not have to resolve. However, if autoindex is on as it was to accomodate easier file sharing browsing, curl --resovle will list the autoindex, so will a browser. public_html === public data

  But if you supply a dead domain (e.g. dfjs231dlkfs.com) and you don't have a temporary domain to access the data over the web - how is this public? autoindex wouldn't matter as you couldn't resolve it anywhere on the web. Only you (the host) could see this by browsing the files - this is the part I don't understand.
• yoursunny OG

  10:08AM

  @CharityHost_org said:
  You think customer could not have shared the domain and the ip? He had both, does not matter if the domain resovled or not. public_html is public

  Customer can also share the FTP account username and password.
  Thus, the entire account, regardless of public_html, is pubic information.

  Thanked by (3)Alyx ialexpw Falzo

  No hostname left!
• Alyx

  10:23AM

  @CharityHost_org said:

  @Alyx said:

  @CharityHost_org said:
  Since when did public_hmtl have auth on ti? You need to setup htpasswd and htaccess for that!

  Look up, man curl. if you know anything about cli cmd in linux or even windows. Look for --resolve.

  The issue here is, to check if a .htaccess exist, you first need to look in the directory.

  Ahh, I was waiting for that argument.
  So, you say anyone could have accessed the file if they

  A: Know the server IP address
  B: know the none existing domain name
  C: Know that this none existing domain name is actually "hosted" on said IP address
  D : Actually make the effort to spoof the host header in a request to said server

  I'm sorry my friend, but this really does not public to me

  You think customer could not have shared the domain and the ip? He had both, does not matter if the domain resovled or not. public_html is public

  By that logic everything is public.
  So, you not only claim the right to snoop trough your customers public_html folder, but trough everything since customers could have shared login details with someone else?
• Falzo Senpai

  10:33AM

  just to be very clear here from what could be taken away in the threads at OGF:

  • a user won a ftp storage product in a giveway
  • he filled the storage with a collection of adult content for private use
  • this triggered a quota warning at some point, which made the provider start looking at what is taking so much space (reason: to be able to notify the client and recommend an upgrade or cleanup)
  • there is a folder called public_html which was used for storing the data
  • the provider claims that this is publicly accessible via http because there is webserver running on it, that had directory index enabled
  • however, to access that data "publicly" one would have to know the domainname that the user provided during setup of the product and on top
  • because that domainname did not have an a record, one would have to use a hosts entry or other resolving techniques to finally be able to find and access that data
  • the provider however defines this as 'publicly accessible' and therefore not snooping through client data
  • as publicly hosting adult content is forbidden in their ToS user was suspended, should pay an admin fee to get a backup and other things...

  IMHO the main point here is, the provider saw the disk space is full and checked what is going on. when he found porn he suspended the client and tried to extort an admin fee. after the client went public they tried to justify looking into the clients data with a weird definition of it being public and therefore against their AUP. regardless of the fact, that the client wasn't even aware of that technical possibility, the domain had no A record and nearly no one really understands how to actually access that data "publicly"

  the fact remains, that if you hit some quota, the provider will access your data and look into what you have stored there.

  @CharityHost_org a word of advise if I may... while all the technical stuff with directory index and curl resolve and whatnot is for sure a working solution, no one (me included) is going to believe, that you will actually use this as a procedure to look for anything your monitoring is triggering. let's be real, every provider has full access to all data anyway, so why would one jump through hoops.

  or do you want to suggest that, if there would not have been any data in public_html but instead it would have been in any other folder (not 'public' by your definition), you would not have investigated further, what is taking up that space?

  any reasonable provider has to act on monitoring alerts - which is fine. no one is gonna check diskusage via come cringy curl lookups on public folder. you can run simple du commands to see which folder is taking up space and then check the webserver logfiles, to see if there is actual access from some public/external IP.

  and even then... you probably could have handled the comms with the client much better 😅

  also please! don't take your tone of voice from OGF over to here. that would not be appreciated.

  Thanked by (4)ahnlak skorous vyas sh97
• Falzo Senpai

  10:34AM

  @yoursunny said:

  @CharityHost_org said:
  You think customer could not have shared the domain and the ip? He had both, does not matter if the domain resovled or not. public_html is public

  Customer can also share the FTP account username and password.
  Thus, the entire account, regardless of public_html, is pubic information.

  in this case indeed it was...

  Thanked by (2)Alyx _MS_
• nghialele

  11:37AM

  Is this the mighty CH that throwing tantrum everywhere?

  Well hello there, heard that these good for your SEO.

  Thanked by (1)Alyx

  kinda bored recently
• skorous OGSenpai

  11:57AM edited 11:58AM

  @Falzo said: just to be very clear here from what could be taken away in the threads at OGF:

  a user won a ftp storage product in a giveway
  he filled the storage with a collection of adult content for private use
  this triggered a quota warning at some point, which made the provider start looking at what is taking so much space (reason: to be able to notify the client and recommend an upgrade or cleanup)
  there is a folder called public_html which was used for storing the data
  the provider claims that this is publicly accessible via http because there is webserver running on it, that had directory index enabled
  however, to access that data "publicly" one would have to know the domainname that the user provided during setup of the product and on top
  because that domainname did not have an a record, one would have to use a hosts entry or other resolving techniques to finally be able to find and access that data
  the provider however defines this as 'publicly accessible' and therefore not snooping through client data
  as publicly hosting adult content is forbidden in their ToS user was suspended, should pay an admin fee to get a backup and other things...

  Do I recall correctly that it also wasn't mentioned that this FTP Storage was web available? People expected a place to dump files and got a place to dump files that you could share unintentionally?

  Thanked by (1)Falzo
• Alyx

  12:01PM edited 12:03PM

  @nghialele said:
  Well hello there, heard that these good for your SEO.

  Yea, the AI summaries will love all the threads about CharityHost snooping into customer data 😅
• Falzo Senpai

  12:27PM

  @skorous said:

  Do I recall correctly that it also wasn't mentioned that this FTP Storage was web available? People expected a place to dump files and got a place to dump files that you could share unintentionally?

  yes, from what was shared, it wasn't mentioned in the mail after setup. the user was kind of expected to find and welcome this as a great feature because of the folder name and the requirement to provide a domain name.

  it's even below the level of putting notes in the motd that say "don't type sudo, or else"