Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | bcooks's commentslogin

Hi cyberferret. Two quick trys to provide some clarity for you here:

1. On your vendors don't say why they took action point. I think a lot of vendors, us included, worry about the bad actors knowing the _how_ of our algorithms because they will then have intelligence on what to try and work around to avoid detection. It's a constant adversarial chess match we adjust, they adjust.

2. As for the human element being needed for the after effects I totally agree. That said, I looked at our numbers and while many of the nefarious actors simply move to the next thing, a very large percentage of the, "WTF" replies are actually from bad actors hoping that is enough to be re-enabled and to keep going for a while. Our goal is to bring more people into the after effects and give them better information to make decisions and work with customers to avoid this kind of mess in the future.


I appreciate you giving an insight into the reasons behind your decisions Barry - I've learned a bit here myself, and can relate to the quandary that you must have to tiptoe around, in between being open and communicative, versus keeping your cards close to your chest. Thanks, and best of luck.


Hi weaksauce... sorry I must have missed your earlier question.

The account had been live for some time and in that sense had history but because of credits it didn't have payment history. As some others have commented lots of startups use credits to get their business going and depending on your usage they can last you for quite a while. Payment history indicates a willingness and capability to make payments.

Part of the issue here was what triggers the algorithm used when looking at remaining credits, payment history (none), workload deltas (the new spin ups), and effective run rate (think of that as the amount of money they would be charged for the workload they were spinning up). The bug in this case was both simple and super impactful. Raisup did nothing wrong, everything right in fact. We just blew it.

Thanks for the comment on request for download of backups or snapshot. That is a great idea, I guess we just never expected to actually go shoot a real customer and the fraudsters don't ask for their data.


I appreciate the response. a followup question to that would be how they got enough credits to be running for that long without any payment?


DO has a startup program called Hatch: https://www.digitalocean.com/hatch/

That is the starting place for many folks.


So a startup was getting their hosting entirely for free, their paying customers were Fortune 500 companies, but they didn't have the money to pay for off-site backups.

What the hell was their cost then?


This is correct. This was the primary thing we were attempting to solve for in this case and the bug in the algorithm started the chain of events documented in the postmortem.


Sorry to hear that you had a bad experience and left with a bad impression of that team. We have a number of data sciences efforts including in the core R&D group where we are growing and working to improve models in support of a number of fleet monitoring tasks


I agree on the twitter cred point. The fact that this happened in the end, personally I think it is a good thing as it highlighted a weakness we must fix.

We trust our people high-level, low-level whatever to make important decisions everyday. thats why they are here.

The "marketing communications specialists" are getting slammed a lot here, so I will just point out that they spend most of their time rolling their eyes at my crappy grammar, spelling and ludicrous number of comma splices. I don't think our goal was to sound like anything. We just wanted to lay out our investigation and the follow on work we are undertaking.

Totally agree with your point that trust is earned and we lost many peoples in the last few days. That will take time and as you say good behavior to earn back, but that is what we are committed to doing.


I talk about mktg comms because I have worked at places where angry customers got earnest letters promising changes, but the manager expected to implement the changes said "No, we're not doing that!" Or "OK" but nothing happened. So I don't give much credit for promises, even when it was the right thing to promise.

Giving your ticket punchers authority is good when they are authorized to do what customers need to get or keep going. Giving them authority to eliminate customers, not so much.

I have to agree with the commenters who say it was an exemplary postmortem.

Hospitals have been doing formal postmortems for many years, but the number of them didn't start down until they instituted checklists.


Correct.


Nothing was deleted or removed. The droplets were powered off and the access to them locked. once (way too long later) the unlock happened the customer had full control and access again.


Good to hear - that's how I'd assumed things went, but thank you for clarifying Barry.


Thanks for the pointer. I'm going to blame my dad/up bringing for my over use of passive voice. He will be deeply amused by this. I will read the paper and attempt to improve.


Hey there. Thanks for this feedback. I think it is important to be open honest but not blame-oriented in our review of the situation. People make mistakes and that is okay, so long as they aren't willful or due to incompetence. Neither of which was the case here. The key thing is not to create a situation where a mistake is an individuals fault. My general view is if people are making mistakes then we have done something wrong as a company and need to understand and fix the tools/training/process that led to the mistake.


I'm involved in work around reviewing medical care.

Generally, a "People" section that mentions processes not being followed is an incomplete root cause analysis.

Why was it was possible for the process not to be followed?

There's obviously a limit to how far it makes sense to drill down with why why why, but stopping at "someone didn't follow guidance" is too early.


The first few items on your list are actually a part of what we meant by "having billing history with us". There are a number of things we look at in that bucket. We use these items as a part of validating users before taking any action (yes, we clearly failed on this account due to the credits which is a clear bug). As far as offering things like a copy of your business license or other means of verification that isn't a bad idea. As an example people paying with POs today are excluded from the algorithm already.


Please make it official, so that people can have peace of mind knowing that they've got that "verified" badge. People hate having to wonder whether they're at risk of crossing an invisible, inscrutable, and constantly changing threshold. See: PayPal and AdSense account forfeitures. You could do so much better than that.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: