Best of the ISP-Lists

Keeping a Webhosting Secret

Members of the ISP-Webhosting list discuss the perils of hosting controversial content. If a customer asks to remain anonymous, is that possible in a networked world? Can you keep a webhosting secret?

[July 27, 2001]

On the ISP-Webhosting list in June, AL queried,

"We were recently asked to host a site on the condition that the author could remain anonymous to the outside world. We were also informed that if the site could be traced back to us, it would affect us in negatively. The content is not illegal, but it is highly scrutinized. I'm not sure of how to mask our identity in hosting the site: use an alternate contact for the domain, implement traceroute filtering at our gateway router, or go all the way and have it hosted off site with another provider?"

A number of respondents noted that it's impossible to completely conceal yourself:

[TS advised] "If you are giving them an IP out of your assigned block, they will know who you are. A DNS lookup and DOS attack on that IP will take you out. If you feel you have to take this site, host it somewhere else. I made the mistake of hosting a pro-life site for about four months: they used up my complete bandwidth (2xT1), and made me liable to the rest of my customers for failure of the SLA."

[NT observed] "There is no way to completely hide. At the very least, someone has a record of your IP address assignments, and a smart user can backtrack any site to the ISP hosting it. If you think you might come under attack for hosting the site, just say no. Hiding is going to do nothing but bring trouble, and will cost you more than you are likely to make off hosting the questionable site. I would suggest the end user might consider a dedicated server for their site: that way at least if the server gets attacked, it might have a minimal effect on other clients of the ISP."

[JM suggested] "The question is, how controversial is it and what might be the consequences? DOS attacks, pickets in front of your business, letters to the editor in the local paper, or might they make the New York Times and send their web traffic up a thousand-fold in a day? If you're worried about any of those, just advise them to host the site at some brain-dead megahost, where they'll never notice (or care) about the controversy."

[ED warned] "Things are public on the Internet, more so than some might realize. It's probably not worth the hassle to try hiding."

TH raised the issue of free speech:

"People have the freedom to do or host anything they want as long as it's not illegal. Even if you or someone else thinks a site is morally wrong, they should still have every right to host it. White supremacist groups have web sites: should their hosts remove them because of their beliefs?"

Others responded that it's not an issue of freedom of speech, but of being forced to hide:

[BS contended] "We host a few sites here that are controversial: I don't hide the fact that we host them, even though our hosting them results in our constantly being hammered by those who wish to save us from the error of our ways. But I won't host anything I won't publicly admit to hosting; I think that is the issue here. I don't see freedom of speech as a consideration in this particular equation. The issue, from where I sit, is simple: if you have to hide the fact that you are doing it, then don't do it. If whatever it was made me so afraid to be associated with it that I felt a need to hide my participation, then I would have to pass."

[DM asked] "Why would you want to put yourself in this position to start with? I am always leery when anyone tries so hard not to be associated with something that they are doing."

—End