Airtel is sniffing and censoring CloudFlare’s traffic in India
I&#x27;ve never understood CloudFlare&#x27;s position on this issue&#x2F;feature. They generally do a great job at improving, caring and fighting for internet security, yet continue to offer a product (Flexible SSL) that they know is insecure:<p><i>This option is not recommended if you have any sensitive information on your website. It should only be used as a last resort if you are not able to setup SSL on your own web server, but it is less secure than any other option (even “Off”)</i> [1]<p>So by CF&#x27;s own admission this is less secure than having SSL disabled. That&#x27;s of course technically incorrect assuming the visitor is aware that SSL is terminated at CloudFlare, and insecure from there to the origin server. If the visitor is aware of this distinction (and know what it means, which includes knowing where the CF edge and origins are located) then it does add some security (the coffeeshop&#x27;s Wi-Fi etc).<p>However it&#x27;s probably fair to assume that most visitors of CloudFlare-protected sites are not aware of this distinction. They&#x27;re probably just aware that Green Lock + HTTPS = secure. So instead this product primarily gives a visitor a false sense of security, which in my opinion is much worse and potentially dangerous. I guess CloudFlare agrees with that; why else would they say it&#x27;s less secure than no SSL?<p>In the end, CloudFlare should clarify why they continue to offer a seemingly secure encryption product that they themselves consider less secure than no encryption. They say it should only be used &quot;as a last resort&quot;, but when is choosing &quot;Flexible SSL&quot; really the last resort? I mean, you can just disable SSL entirely or do it properly (and even get a free certificate from CF), both of which are more secure.<p>I don&#x27;t know, but here&#x27;s an idea: It might be a good product for CloudFlare customers, such as TBP, who don&#x27;t care enough to actually secure their visitors&#x27; traffic, but still want to give the appearance thereof. Which is exactly what the more prominent product page lists as the advantages of &quot;Flexible SSL&quot;[2]:<p>- <i>You do not need an SSL certificate on your server.</i><p>- <i>Visitors will see the SSL lock icon in their browser.</i><p>I might be missing something and I&#x27;d honestly appreciate if someone can shed some light on this. I respect CloudFlare a lot and appreciate their efforts to improve internet security. It&#x27;s just difficult to maintain a brand as a company on the forefront of the internet security battle, while also enabling customers to somewhat deceitfully give the appearance of security at the expense of their visitors&#x27; security and safety. It seems pretty clear that CF needs to discontinue this product before it hurt their brand as well as unassuming visitors.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;support.cloudflare.com&#x2F;hc&#x2F;en-us&#x2F;articles&#x2F;200170416-What-do-the-SSL-options-mean-" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;support.cloudflare.com&#x2F;hc&#x2F;en-us&#x2F;articles&#x2F;200170416-W...</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cloudflare.com&#x2F;ssl&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cloudflare.com&#x2F;ssl&#x2F;</a>