Talk:Leaseweb

Reference 24

Reference 24 leads to a dead link. The only similar reference I could find was from Ocom: http://www.ocom.com/en/press/leaseweb-launches-new-public-cloud-platform

However, this reference is not dated.

Presedintelepl (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Miguel

Data robbers

I propose this category: "data robbers", because they deleted someone else's data without permission.--Pwnagic (talk) 13:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LeaseWeb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6EDQ4IG1o?url=http://www.leaseweb.com/en/about-us/press/leaseweb-to-open-us-datacenter to http://www.leaseweb.com/en/about-us/press/leaseweb-to-open-us-datacenter

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Reputation

Interesting would be mentioning the bad reputation in relation to spam and intrusion attempts. Sources would have to be found, but some acquired networks are infamous and systematically blocked by many sysadmins. [1] [2] are a few examples of people expressing their concerns. —PaleoNeonate – 19:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate The current version of the article is heavily sanitized (history section jumps from one point in a decade to antoher). Look at history edits. You will find what has lots of verified information has been removed about Leaseweb's association with criminal elements like Megaupload and famous botnet attacks that have been command and controlled from Leaseweb's servers. Dutch police once seized Leaseweb hosted material and had to physically cut their computers off the internet in order to stop world wide malware and spam attacks. The article is swept clean all this stuff and reads like a company brochure. --Loginnigol (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I can only second that. As a Sysadmin, it has been the second time, that LeaseWeb has done nothing when I filed them an abuse report for hammering our systems with thousands of requests. After blocking one IP and giving them notice that I would block their entire subnet if they continue with another ip, guess what happend? Exactly, again starting in the evening hours of the weekend, several thousand hammering requests have been startet from another ip in the same LeaseNet nl subnet. So I blocked the entire subnet next day. 176.199.210.233 (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2022 (UTC)