Talk:PRQ

Waffles.fm is moving to PRQ

Yep. Should this be added?

Strange sentence

"It also hosts Wikileaks, The Piracy Bureau, and Kavkaz Center (Karantän)." The way Karantän is added seems to imply that it is an alternate name for Kavkaz Center, but that is not the case. Karantän is an separate freedom of speech community hosted by PRQ but not related to any of the other listed sites in any way. 213.89.251.44 (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

PRQ is not so bulletproof!

This article seems to heroize PRQ, like it was a tree-giant from LoTR. In fact an ISP is easy to kill, you just have to convince its uplink providers to drop them as customers. There are VERY few true TIER1 companies who have fully-owned, unconditional connection to the global net backbone, most ISP and hosting providers rely on Tier2/3/4 telecom companies to lease access to the net.

Just recently the american Intercage Inc. was cut from the net, because of its bandwith reselling to the infamous russian hacker-hosting venture EstHost/EstDomains. Everybody severed contract with Intercage/Atrivo on acceptable use policy violation excuses after Spamhaus.org declared it an enemy of the people. Intercage eventually dropped EstHost as customer and promised in writing to reform its company policies, which finally made United Layer Corp. re-accept them as a customer.

It would be equally easy for USA to cut PRQ from the net, they do have the might to convince uplink providers to drop the contract.

The article should be rewritten in a balanced manner, so that readers do not get false impressions like PRQ are some kinds of axe-wielding vikings of the net, who are totally untouchable. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

all information in the article is referenced. You are free to add, but it needs to be referenced, hence no original research.

I added a lot of the material on the hosting recently, and its based on the sources I could find (secondary). A main issue is the lack of secondary sources... but if you find further sources please feel free to add. Also, and I know this is not the perfect solutions, but as per wikipedia policy all information in an article has to be balanced (i.e. in language and the way the source is quoted), but there is no rule to say that the article needs to be balanced (i.e. that for every positive, a negative has to be covered). If you can find secondary sources critical of PRQ, or covering hosting vulnerabilities then please add this information.--SasiSasi (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

PRQ also long-time hoster of Monkif C&C infrastructure

PRQ is also known in the malware research community to be the primary hosting provider for the gang behind the Monkif trojan. The threat utilizes botnet command and control over HTTP and various domains hosting C&C servers are frequently found pointing to the host 88.80.7.152 (host-88-80-7-152.cust.prq.se). Here is an example of one such domain currently resolving to that address:

media9s.com.            300     IN      A       88.80.7.152
media9s.com.            172800  IN      NS      ns1.name.com.
media9s.com.            172800  IN      NS      ns4.name.com.
media9s.com.            172800  IN      NS      ns2.name.com.
media9s.com.            172800  IN      NS      ns3.name.com.

http://research.zscaler.com/2010/03/trojan-monkif-is-still-active-and.html

http://malwaresurvival.com/2010/07/14/malicious-site-media9s-com-and-the-monkif-trojan/

This association with cybercrime hosting needs to be recognized in the article as well.

Dspruell (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

PRQ appears to be a controversial Internet Service provider. But we need reliable sources to report the story before we can expand the article. Wikispan (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Different Owner?

According to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38598784/ the owner of PRQ is Mikael Viborg, which contradicts or complements the current information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.217.95 (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph

Howdy, The opening paragraph sounded to critical of the company. I'm rewording it to make it less biased and moving the sourced criticism to the criticism section. Feel free to get back to me with input.

BookishOwl (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)