• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Login/Password Problems: Weird as hell log-in problem.. o_O

Volkodav

Dad****er
What, precisely, can FA be held responsible for?
FA can be responsible for backing up lost submissions if you're a super popular furry porn artist and hackers decide to delete all of your submissions [true story]

B)

It's simply amazing to me that this problem was under "investigation" for hours and the site remained online. When something like this happens, pull the plug, downtime be damned. I was told once that all administrators have access to a button that will shut down the site. Why did no one press this? Seriously? People being spontaneously logged into other people's accounts isn't a valid reason to shut down everything?

It's amazing that just weeks after the journal thing the staff hasn't figured out not to announce things are fixed before they know for sure things are fixed.

And quoting the "FA is not a backup service" portion of the ToS is NOT a valid response to users accounts being compromised and their submissions deleted. You should be apologizing profusely and attempting to find some sort of backup to restore, not saying "THIS ISN'T OUR FAULT SEE IT SAYS SO RIGHT HERE IN THE ToS!"



It's really sad that communication is so poor amongst the site staff that things like this happen. There's like, three people who have the access to do something like this, and they couldn't bother to tell the other two? Really?
this a thousand jillion times.
The site can be taken down. Sure people will freak out, but once the site is back up they will calm down. If they decide to leave FA because the admins temporarily took down the site during a security issue then that's their problem. It's better to protect the users and upset them than to leave them to security issues and keep them happy and oblivious... and then angry later when their account gets messed up and they all turn to the admins in a fit of "WHY DIDN'T YOU DO ANYTHING"

I for one, wouldn't care if FA had to be taken down temporarily, whether it was for an update, fixing a security error, or whatever. I can live without furry art.
 
Last edited:

Gavrill

ladies~
Is there any way to check if someone accessed your account during all this?

This is by far one of the most inexcusable fuckups I have seen on this site. It's frustrating to think FA is just like, "Whatever, not our problem that we fucked up our security, thus compromising your account."
What a clusterfuck of terrible.
 

Accountability

Enthusiastic Downloader
Is there any way to check if someone accessed your account during all this?

This is by far one of the most inexcusable fuckups I have seen on this site. It's frustrating to think FA is just like, "Whatever, not our problem that we fucked up our security, thus compromising your account."
What a clusterfuck of terrible.

You might be able to check http://www.furaffinity.net/controls/sessions/logs/
 

CerbrusNL

I am legion, for we are many.
Well, Accountability, Eevee, sorry for trying to clear things up a little in the early stages, back then. If that's how y'all are gonna respond, I might as well leave you all in the dark.
I was just trying to help, there. I knew barely anything more than any normal user did, so I did what I could.

That said, I do agree the actions taken by the tech staff, not to mention the trouble it took me to contact them, was far from ideal.
First of all, why are these new developments tested on the live version of the site?
Second, what's the effort in posting a announcement, as soon as you find out about the issue (Like the one that's on the mainsite right now?) At least let the users know you're working on it. Or at least make a announcement in the staff forums, so we can respond to the users, and tell them what's going on.

This was a serious mistake / bug / whatever. I had really hoped it was handled a little better, when I found out about it this morning.
 

Pravda

Banned
Banned
Well, Accountability, Eevee, sorry for trying to clear things up a little in the early stages, back then. If that's how y'all are gonna respond, I might as well leave you all in the dark.

Oh that's a lovely little attitude you're pulling.

If you don't know what's going on, why are you making definitive/authoritative statements? (it is because nobody seems to know what is going on)

Also, why is it that the first response to any issue, assuming it's not just going to be outright ignored, is to lie about how fixed it is?
 

CyberFoxx

Wait, what?
I seem to remember, at least a couple times, when the site was put into a "read-only" mode. This was quite a while back, so maybe that broke, but if not, maybe it'd be a good idea to at least use that whenever something like this happens.

Just tossing the idea out there...
 

CerbrusNL

I am legion, for we are many.
Also, why is it that the first response to any issue, assuming it's not just going to be outright ignored, is to lie about how fixed it is?

Don't shoot the messenger.

I was told it was fixed, by the person doing the fixing. I just posted that here on the forums.

And I don't know about you, but I'd rather know half of what's going on, than nothing at all. I was just trying to get some information out there.
 

Accountability

Enthusiastic Downloader
Well, Accountability, Eevee, sorry for trying to clear things up a little in the early stages, back then. If that's how y'all are gonna respond, I might as well leave you all in the dark.
I was just trying to help, there. I knew barely anything more than any normal user did, so I did what I could.

The thought is appreciated, the way it was executed was poor. If something like this ever happens again in the future, saying something like "Our ops team says this is fixed, is anyone still having problems?" is much better than saying "It's fixed" and then finding out it's not.

The "we're not a backup service" portion could have been "I'm sorry to hear that, I'll ask Yak if it's possible we can restore a backup and get those submissions back up for you." It's customer service 101. Even if you know Yak will say no, it still looks better to pretend to try then tell the customer that it's not FA's problem.
 

CerbrusNL

I am legion, for we are many.
The thought is appreciated, the way it was executed was poor. If something like this ever happens again in the future, saying something like "Our ops team says this is fixed, is anyone still having problems?" is much better than saying "It's fixed" and then finding out it's not.

The "we're not a backup service" portion could have been "I'm sorry to hear that, I'll ask Yak if it's possible we can restore a backup and get those submissions back up for you." It's customer service 101. Even if you know Yak will say no, it still looks better to pretend to try then tell the customer that it's not FA's problem.
Now we're talking!

I'm sure you're aware by now I ain't got a degree in PR or customer service, but this is some helpful info.
I'll keep it in mind. Thanks!
 

Pravda

Banned
Banned
It's kind of sad that you're reacting to "at least pretend to give a shit about the users" as though it's an entirely new concept.

Anyway, will we ever learn who tried to put on an HTTP server-side cache and for what reason? I cannot fathom why this was done in the first place.
 

CerbrusNL

I am legion, for we are many.
It's kind of sad that you're reacting to "at least pretend to give a shit about the users" as though it's an entirely new concept.

Anyway, will we ever learn who tried to put on an HTTP server-side cache and for what reason? I cannot fathom why this was done in the first place.

Well, this is one of the first times I've actually gotten some decent feedback.

People are eager to scream "You're doing it wrong!", but actually correcting you?

Can't help you with the rest of your post, though.
 

Pravda

Banned
Banned
Can't help you with the rest of your post, though.

Uh, didn't you just say you were talking to the person doing the supposed fix, while they were doing it?

We have the "what" and the "when", now it would probably be appropriate to give at least a "why".

(Yes, yes, in before the "we don't have to give you technical details because evil troll hackers")
 

Diocletian

Banned
Banned
Well, this is one of the first times I've actually gotten some decent feedback.

So have you never been given much (or any) feedback by other forums moderators/admins/etc?

Have any other forum moderators/admins/etc been given or give guidence, feedback, mentoring etc?
 
Last edited:

ryoko

ಠ_ಠ
Just a thought.... Why were they testing new code without live-sandboxing it first?????? I would think that if they had, this would not have happened.
 

Pravda

Banned
Banned
Just a thought.... Why were they testing new code without live-sandboxing it first?????? I would think that if they had, this would not have happened.

Because they are apparently incapable of running their code in a testing environment at all. Yak has been claiming to have been "polishin" up the code to get it runnable in a test situation for at least a year now. I've offered to help, of course, but I'm always turned down because they have some concerns that they can never articulate besides "you might break it". Meanwhile, their current setup is working out OH SO WELL, right?
 
Because they are apparently incapable of running their code in a testing environment at all.
That makes them look like n00bs because live-sandboxing is a standard prosedure. Putting code to the live environment before it has got to work flawlessly in testing environment is n00bish and it should be never done. FA's technical staff should learn that before something worse happens due to untested code.
 
Last edited:

CerbrusNL

I am legion, for we are many.
That makes them look like n00bs because live-sandboxing is a standard prosedure. Putting code to the live environment before it has got to work flawlessly in testing environment is n00bish and it should be never done. FA's technical staff should learn that before something worse happens due to crappy* code.
Do you expect anyone to take you seriously, now?

I agree the code should be sand-boxed, first. But you're doing a pretty lousy job of explaining why.

* Disclaimer: I'm not saying FA's code is good, how would I know. It's just that I'm not gonna take "Crappy" seriously
 
Top