Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Ranting about netcup's Malicious Server Suspension
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.

Ranting about netcup's Malicious Server Suspension

Hey everyone,

I just wanted to rant about netcup, a really shady server provider. Recently, they maliciously suspended my 228 dedicated servers, claiming it was due to "mining." Honestly, I haven't done any mining like they said. Most of these servers have been running for several months, and just because the CPU usage went up recently, they accused me of possibly mining and suspended all my servers through traffic monitoring without any warning.

What's even more frustrating is that most of these servers had just been renewed and were in use for less than two days. They've been suspended since May 31st, and it's now the 12th, so it's been 12 days. During this time, they haven't let me retrieve any data, haven't issued any refunds, and haven't given me any chance to communicate. This has caused me a direct loss of $4000.

I strongly condemn netcup for their malicious actions and hope that everyone can take this as a warning to avoid becoming the next victim.

«13

Comments

  • ehabehab Member

    did you call them?

    with such money they would keep you as a good customer.

    but if you are naughty and hiding something, then only dr. @emgh can help.

    Thanked by 1emgh
  • dustincdustinc Member, Patron Provider, Top Host

    Ouch! I'm curious if you're compromised and whether these were actually dedicated servers or VPS?

  • @dustinc said:
    Ouch! I'm curious if you're compromised and whether these were actually dedicated servers or VPS?

    It's says on the picture rs2000

  • MoopahMoopah Member

    Seems like the crypto miners caused them to get trigger happy with abuse suspensions.

    Also, holy crap you have 228 root servers O_O

    Thanked by 1totally_not_banned
  • AndruAndru Member

    Did you call them? What was their answer?

  • angstromangstrom Moderator

    @morofish said: I just wanted to rant about netcup, a really shady server provider. Recently, they maliciously suspended my 228 dedicated servers, claiming it was due to "mining." Honestly, I haven't done any mining like they said. Most of these servers have been running for several months, and just because the CPU usage went up recently, they accused me of possibly mining and suspended all my servers through traffic monitoring without any warning.

    These are VPSes ("Root-Servers"), not dedicated servers

    So you have absolutely no idea why netcup would suspect you of mining on these 228 VPSes? It's a complete mystery why netcup would suspect you of this?

  • MechanicWebMechanicWeb Member, Patron Provider
    edited June 11

    @morofish said: suspended all my servers through traffic monitoring

    This part is concerning.

    If you are not doing mining, and can prove it, call them and politely explain that you are willing to provide root access so they can examine the servers first hand to prove that you are not mining.

    If you are mining or anything that resembles mining, get servers from those who allow it, otherwise, you would be risking the same.

  • DataWagonDataWagon Member, Patron Provider
    edited June 11

    It's fairly easy for them to tell if you were mining / running a node for a PoW network or not.

  • edited June 11

    @morofish said:
    Hey everyone,

    I haven't done any mining like they said.

    Let me guess... You weren't mining but you were participating in some resource intensive crypto scheme, right? If that's the case the difference to actual mining is like microscopically small. Actually it's really little more than word twisting.

    Having said that, if Netcup doesn't disallow these kind of use cases per AUP straight up booting people over it is pretty weak. Even refusing to extend the contract would be somewhat misleading if there was no chance for the client to know this before signing up. The very least they should do if OP didn't violate the AUP is letting him get his data and refund ASAP.

    In general companies making these kinds of big promises just to get their panties in a twist once someone actually decides to take them by word is getting a bit tiresome...

  • AdvinAdvin Member, Patron Provider
    edited June 11

    Is this for Quilibrium? If so, it makes sense. Many providers have been banning it. Even though the cores might be dedicated, something with Quilibrium causes problems with most VM hypervisors.

    Your best option is to just buy a dedicated server, or a VDS from a provider who explicitly allows it. Unless it's not Quilibrium.

  • @Advin said:
    Is this for Quilibrium? If so, it makes sense. Many providers have been banning it. Even though the cores might be dedicated, something with Quilibrium causes problems with most VM hypervisors.

    Your best option is to just buy a dedicated server, or a VDS from a provider who explicitly allows it. Unless it's not Quilibrium.

    ...and @advin allowes it ;)

  • edited June 11

    @Advin said:
    a provider who explicitly allows it

    In my opinion looking for an explicit permission when the provider claims that the resources would be 100% available 24/7 is putting a bit much responsibility on the client. In the end the provider will have to specify what it's service can be used for and that's usually done by providing a negative list in the AUP. If it isn't listed there the client should be able to assume in good faith that it's OK.

    Being upfront about the use case pre sale is still a wise move in my opinion. There's probably still quite a lot of providers which haven't noticed how problematic large scale usage of this particular application is and therefore didn't have a chance to update their AUP accordingly. Giving them a chance to inform themselves beforehand puts everyone on the same page and avoids trouble later on.

  • AdvinAdvin Member, Patron Provider
    edited June 11

    @totally_not_banned said:

    @Advin said:
    a provider who explicitly allows it

    In my opinion looking for an explicit permission when the provider claims that the resources would be 100% available 24/7 is putting a bit much responsibility on the client. In the end the provider will have to specify what it's service can be used for and that's usually done by providing a negative list in the AUP. If it isn't listed there the client should be able to assume in good faith that it's OK.

    Being upfront about the use case pre sale is still a wise move in my opinion. There's probably still quite a lot of providers which haven't noticed how problematic large scale usage of this particular application is and therefore didn't have a chance to update their AUP accordingly. Giving them a chance to inform themselves beforehand puts everyone on the same page and avoids trouble later on.

    I know, I'm mostly saying that it'll likely be problematic on any provider. Not arguing what's right or wrong, but rather, in the future if OP is looking for a new provider and is running Quilibrium on their VMs.

    Thanked by 1totally_not_banned
  • DataWagonDataWagon Member, Patron Provider
    edited June 11

    @totally_not_banned said:

    @morofish said:
    Hey everyone,

    I haven't done any mining like they said.

    Let me guess... You weren't mining but you were participating in some resource intensive crypto scheme, right? If that's the case the difference to actual mining is like microscopically small. Actually it's really little more than word twisting.

    Having said that, if Netcup doesn't disallow these kind of use cases per AUP straight up booting people over it is pretty weak. Even refusing to extend the contract would be somewhat misleading if there was no chance for the client to know this before signing up. The very least they should do if OP didn't violate the AUP is letting him get his data and refund ASAP.

    In general companies making these kinds of big promises just to get their panties in a twist once someone actually decides to take them by word is getting a bit tiresome...

    Netcup explicitly disallows mining in their TOS.

    Thanked by 1totally_not_banned
  • CybrCybr Member

    I can't be the only one curious about what the OP could be using 228 servers for, if not mining...

  • @DataWagon said:

    @totally_not_banned said:

    @morofish said:
    Hey everyone,

    I haven't done any mining like they said.

    Let me guess... You weren't mining but you were participating in some resource intensive crypto scheme, right? If that's the case the difference to actual mining is like microscopically small. Actually it's really little more than word twisting.

    Having said that, if Netcup doesn't disallow these kind of use cases per AUP straight up booting people over it is pretty weak. Even refusing to extend the contract would be somewhat misleading if there was no chance for the client to know this before signing up. The very least they should do if OP didn't violate the AUP is letting him get his data and refund ASAP.

    In general companies making these kinds of big promises just to get their panties in a twist once someone actually decides to take them by word is getting a bit tiresome...

    Netcup explicitly disallows mining in their TOS.

    I see. So if the suspicions are correct OP is basically engaging in word twisting saying that his gaining rewards for burning resources is technically not actual mining. If i were Netcup i'd cover my ass with an appropriate definition, which covers all possible forms of (de facto) mining but at least common sense wise the situation is pretty clear to me in this case.

  • angstromangstrom Moderator

    We'll see whether the OP returns to clarify the matter more

    (This is his third post; his previous post was in November 2018)

    At this time, it seems that netcup haven't yet canceled/deleted the 228 VPSes

    A point that I find a bit puzzling is that the OP says that most of the VPSes had just been renewed -- "most of these servers had just been renewed and were in use for less than two days" -- which if true, then why hadn't netcup noticed something suspicious earlier? (Unless the VPSes were suddenly used for something new at the end of May / beginning of June, in which case there was a sudden change in behavior)

  • emghemgh Member

    @ehab said:
    did you call them?

    with such money they would keep you as a good customer.

    but if you are naughty and hiding something, then only dr. @emgh can help.

    Yes I’m dr

    Thanked by 2ehab Frameworks
  • remyremy Member

    This certainly explains why my server is performing so well again.

  • MoopahMoopah Member

    @remy said:
    This certainly explains why my server is performing so well again.

    There's been at least 2-3 other LET members who reported their Root Server performance doubled (returned to normal) in the last week. Maybe this suspension is the cause?

  • edited June 11

    @angstrom said:
    We'll see whether the OP returns to clarify the matter more

    (This is his third post; his previous post was in November 2018)

    At this time, it seems that netcup haven't yet canceled/deleted the 228 VPSes

    A point that I find a bit puzzling is that the OP says that most of the VPSes had just been renewed -- "most of these servers had just been renewed and were in use for less than two days" -- which if true, then why hadn't netcup noticed something suspicious earlier? (Unless the VPSes were suddenly used for something new at the end of May / beginning of June, in which case there was a sudden change in behavior)

    OP also states that Netcup suspended the boxes over (contents of) monitored traffic. Maybe the appropriate filters were only put in place recently (a couple days ago someone posted that Netcup's earlier degraded performance returned to normal - maybe it's related?). Either that or the nodes didn't really see much utilization up to this point (i have no experience with the Guacamole thing, so i'm not sure if that' realistic) unless they were actually repurposed like you already speculated.

    Thanked by 2angstrom remy
  • @Moopah said:
    Maybe this suspension is the cause?

    I wouldn't be all that surprised if this suspension was actually part of a larger crackdown.

  • angstromangstrom Moderator
    edited June 11

    @remy said:
    This certainly explains why my server is performing so well again.

    There were also a couple of days a week or so ago when netcup didn't allow Root-Servers to be purchased

    I wonder whether these things are related :)

    Thanked by 1remy
  • @angstrom said:

    @remy said:
    This certainly explains why my server is performing so well again.

    There were also a couple of days a week or so ago when netcup didn't allow Root-Servers to be purchased

    I wonder whether these things are related :)

    Yeah, might have been time spent on brainstorming how to identify these totally-not-miners.

  • TionTion Member

    @Advin said:
    Is this for Quilibrium? If so, it makes sense. Many providers have been banning it. Even though the cores might be dedicated, something with Quilibrium causes problems with most VM hypervisors.

    Considering a Quilibrium spokesperson made a statement on 2024-06-01 to not use shared ressources to run Quilibrium nodes and Qulibrium recently having an update which highly increased the cpu usage which fits OP's narrative of "CPU usage went up recently" I think you're right on the money.

    Thanked by 1totally_not_banned
  • anbelevebelanbelevebel Member
    edited June 11

    I don’t think you understand what "mining" is for them.

    Most of them (I mean server/VPS providers) don’t know the difference between actual crypto mining and other things like staking, masternodes, validators etc so they’re simply referring to them all as "mining".

    So you cannot say "I’m not doing mining" while doing something as resource intensive as mining and get away with it just because it’s not actually called mining. They’re just referring to whatever you’re doing, you cannot do it on their servers.

    Mining here basically refers to any crypto related activity that is as heavy as mining. Same apply for every other provider that prohibits mining like Hetzner and others.

    You cannot expect them to keep up with every new crypto shenanigans and specifically mention every single one of them in their ToS or something.

    You are expected to know what mining means for them.

    Do you genuienly believe that they will allow something as heavy as mining but not the actual mining just because they only mentioned "mining"?

    Thanked by 1concept
  • MoopahMoopah Member

    @anbelevebel said:
    I don’t think you understand what "mining" is for them.

    Most of them (I mean server/VPS providers) don’t know the difference between actual crypto mining and other things like staking, masternodes, validators etc so they’re simply referring to them all as "mining".

    So you cannot say I’m not doing mining and get away with it. They’re just referring to whatever you’re doing, you cannot do it on their servers.

    Some hosts such as @MrRadic explicitly lays it out on their order form:

    Crypto/Blockchain Activities (Mining, Staking, Validation, etc)?
    
  • anbelevebelanbelevebel Member
    edited June 11

    @Moopah said:

    @anbelevebel said:
    I don’t think you understand what "mining" is for them.

    Most of them (I mean server/VPS providers) don’t know the difference between actual crypto mining and other things like staking, masternodes, validators etc so they’re simply referring to them all as "mining".

    So you cannot say I’m not doing mining and get away with it. They’re just referring to whatever you’re doing, you cannot do it on their servers.

    Some hosts such as @MrRadic explicitly lays it out on their order form:

    Crypto/Blockchain Activities (Mining, Staking, Validation, etc)?
    

    Good for them but they don’t need to. You need to understand this yourself as a customer.

    Next week some other new crypto stuff will come out that is not called mining, staking or validator but it is as heavy as mining and you think MrRadic will allow you to run this stuff just because they didn’t mention it in their ToS? That’s what I’m trying to explain here because OP believes he can do that because it’s not mentioned in their ToS.

  • DataWagonDataWagon Member, Patron Provider

    @totally_not_banned said:

    @DataWagon said:

    @totally_not_banned said:

    @morofish said:
    Hey everyone,

    I haven't done any mining like they said.

    Let me guess... You weren't mining but you were participating in some resource intensive crypto scheme, right? If that's the case the difference to actual mining is like microscopically small. Actually it's really little more than word twisting.

    Having said that, if Netcup doesn't disallow these kind of use cases per AUP straight up booting people over it is pretty weak. Even refusing to extend the contract would be somewhat misleading if there was no chance for the client to know this before signing up. The very least they should do if OP didn't violate the AUP is letting him get his data and refund ASAP.

    In general companies making these kinds of big promises just to get their panties in a twist once someone actually decides to take them by word is getting a bit tiresome...

    Netcup explicitly disallows mining in their TOS.

    I see. So if the suspicions are correct OP is basically engaging in word twisting saying that his gaining rewards for burning resources is technically not actual mining. If i were Netcup i'd cover my ass with an appropriate definition, which covers all possible forms of (de facto) mining but at least common sense wise the situation is pretty clear to me in this case.
    @anbelevebel said:
    I don’t think you understand what "mining" is for them.

    Most of them (I mean server/VPS providers) don’t know the difference between actual crypto mining and other things like staking, masternodes, validators etc so they’re simply referring to them all as "mining".

    So you cannot say "I’m not doing mining" while doing something as resource intensive as mining and get away with it just because it’s not actually called mining. They’re just referring to whatever you’re doing, you cannot do it on their servers.

    Mining here basically refers to any crypto related activity that is as heavy as mining. Same apply for every other provider that prohibits mining like Hetzner and others.

    You cannot expect them to keep up with every new crypto shenanigans and specifically mention every single one of them in their ToS or something.

    You are expected to know what mining means for them.

    Do you genuienly believe that they will allow something as heavy as mining but not the actual mining just because they only mentioned "mining"?

    The Quilibrium stuff quite literally is mining though. It's not validating any transactions, you're not staking anything. It's literally a proof of work blockchain in which you mine (complete proofs) to get tokens issued.

  • q3579338q3579338 Member

    试试HETZENR,虽然他也禁止挖矿,但是他会退钱给你

Sign In or Register to comment.