Add https://barracudalabs.com/

_{(The above requested edit was made by clicking on a link in an automatically added notice.)}

1. What is a "whitlist"? 2. What are "Barracuda Blog Lists"? 3. The behaviour of this company is dubious at least, wildly blocking IPs for unexplained reasons. Especially in Europe where the majority of users has dynamic IPs which are given to them by European providers of a good reputation are blocked already at the very first contact. Research shows even stranger behavior which might be illegal in different Non-U.S. countries under their own jurisdictions.

--- What are you asking/suggesting? When my IP was blocked they fixed it right away and told me why it was blocked. Nothing dubious or illegal about it. You should add your research to the controversies section.

My name is Anne and I work for Barracuda Networks. I'd like to propose the below infobox to replace the current one.

Below is each change in the proposed infobox for individual review:

• Key People: The current page attempts to list the entire C-suite and names an old CEO. The proposed lists just the current CEO, Rohit Ghai.
• Products: The current page attempts to list every product individually (in violation of WP:NOTPRICE). The proposed trims this and leaves just an "industry" parameter of "information security"
• Revenue: The current page has revenue data from 2017, which is 9 years-old and no longer relevant or useful. 2017 was the last time Barracuda publicly disclosed its financials. The proposed infobox trims this, as there is no recent data publicly available.

Thanks in advance for your time and attention. Best regards. AnneKasperCampbell (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[]

This seems reasonable to me. Edits made per request. By all means WP:BRD if there's a problem. Chumpih ^t 20:07, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[]

Hi. As stated previously, my name is Anne and I work for Barracuda Networks. I'd like to request a couple corrections to the History section as outlined below. I also have some corrections for the Acquisitions section, if an editor wants to look at all of them together.

Sending a ping to @Chumpih:, who reviewed my last request. AnneKasperCampbell (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[]

Heard. Uncontentious, AFAIKS. Changes applied. Chumpih ^t 16:42, 16:47, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[]

My name is Anne and I work for Barracuda Networks. I'd like to request a few more corrections - this time to the acquisitions section. Pinging @Chumpih:, since he helped with a couple prior requests. The specific requested edits are below.

• Explanation: Correcting the date of the acquisition as the cited article is from May and says that acquisition was announced the day the article was published ("announced this morning").

• Explanation: Current citation is to a broken link to a law firm's "In the News" page. I suggest replacing it with a proper secondary source.

• Explanation: Correcting the date of the acquisition. Replacing a press release citation with an independent news article.

AnneKasperCampbell (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[]

👁 Image
Done MetalBreaksAndBends (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[]

Currently, there is a "Controversies" section against the advice of WP:CRIT ("In most cases, editors should avoid devoting a section to criticisms or controversies..."). The "IP reputation and Emailreg.org" sub-section appears to be entirely made up of primary sources and original research, while the "Security Issue" sub-section is cited to a short blurb regarding a vulnerability that was quickly patched. As previously disclosed, I work for Barracuda Networks and have a conflict of interest. I'm wondering what impartial editors suggest to bring the content into compliance with Wikipedia's rules. I did some basic searches and didn't find any better citations. AnneKasperCampbell (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[]

I've removed the one subsection because it was poorly sourced. I don't agree with removing the security issue, although I did remove the sentence about the backdoor being closed because there was no source for that. Schazjmd (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[]

Thanks @Schazjmd:! I have a few other requests/comments if you don't mind sticking around:

1. The phrase "Soon after opening BRBL many IP addresses got blacklisted without apparent reason and without any technical explanation." seems to have poor citations as well.
2. Should the "Security issue" section content be in the History section in its place in the chronology of events? Seems odd to have a dedicated section for this one incident, when all other historical events are in the historical chronology.
3. I'd also like to consolidate some paragraphs in the History section if you think it makes sense? About half of the History section is made up of one-sentence paragraphs that I think can be merged into fewer, larger paragraphs. I wasn't thinking of any trims or content changes; just fewer paragraphs with the Acquisitions section as a sub-section. I don't know if there is any real COI concern with this, but let me know what you think.

AnneKasperCampbell (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[]

@AnneKasperCampbell, I agree; #1 was sourced solely to self-published posts by individuals. Without independent sourcing, it isn't due. I've reorganized the history section. Schazjmd (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[]