I got into the self-hosting scene this year when I wanted to start up my own website run on old recycled thinkpad. A lot of time was spent learning about ufw, reverse proxies, header security hardening, fail2ban.

Despite all that I still had a problem with bots knocking on my ports spamming my logs. I tried some hackery getting fail2ban to read caddy logs but that didnt work for me. I nearly considered giving up and going with cloudflare like half the internet does. But my stubbornness for open source self hosting and the recent cloudflare outages this year have encouraged trying alternatives.

Coinciding with that has been an increase in exposure to seeing this thing in the places I frequent like codeberg. This is Anubis, a proxy type firewall that forces the browser client to do a proof-of-work security check and some other nice clever things to stop bots from knocking. I got interested and started thinking about beefing up security.

I'm here to tell you to try it if you have a public facing site and want to break away from cloudflare It was VERY easy to install and configure with caddyfile on a debian distro with systemctl. In an hour its filtered multiple bots and so far it seems the knocks have slowed down.

https://anubis.techaro.lol/

My botspam woes have seemingly been seriously mitigated if not completely eradicated. I'm very happy with tonights little security upgrade project that took no more than an hour of my time to install and read through documentation. Current chain is caddy reverse proxy -> points to Anubis -> points to services

Good place to start for install is here

https://anubis.techaro.lol/docs/admin/native-install/

top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 190 points 11 months ago (20 children)

Anubis is an elegant solution to the ai bot scraper issue, I just wish the solution to everything wasn't just spending compute everywhere. In a world where we need to rethink our energy consumption and generation, even on clients, this is a stupid use of computing power.

  • source
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 115 points 11 months ago* (12 children)

    It also doesn’t function without JavaScript. If you’re security or privacy conscious chances are not zero that you have JS disabled, in which case this presents a roadblock.

    On the flip side of things, if you are a creator and you’d prefer to not make use of JS (there’s dozens of us) then forcing people to go through a JS “security check” feels kind of shit. The alternative is to just take the hammering, and that feels just as bad.

    No hate on Anubis. Quite the opposite, really. It just sucks that we need it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] [S] 64 points 11 months ago* (4 children)

    Theres a compute option that doesnt require javascript. The responsibility lays on site owners to properly configure IMO, though you can make the argument its not default I guess.

    https://anubis.techaro.lol/docs/admin/configuration/challenges/metarefresh

    From docs on Meta Refresh Method

    Meta Refresh (No JavaScript)

    The metarefresh challenge sends a browser a much simpler challenge that makes it refresh the page after a set period of time. This enables clients to pass challenges without executing JavaScript.

    To use it in your Anubis configuration:

    # Generic catchall rule
    - name: generic-browser
      user_agent_regex: >-
        Mozilla|Opera
      action: CHALLENGE
      challenge:
        difficulty: 1 # Number of seconds to wait before refreshing the page
        algorithm: metarefresh # Specify a non-JS challenge method
    

    This is not enabled by default while this method is tested and its false positive rate is ascertained. Many modern scrapers use headless Google Chrome, so this will have a much higher false positive rate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah I actually use the noscript extension and i refuse to just whitelist certain sites unless I'm very certain I trust them.

    I run into Anubis checks all the time and while I appreciate the software, having to consistently temporarily whitelist these sites does get cumbersome at times. I hope they make this noJS implementation the default soon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    Wait, you keep temporarily allowing them over and over again? Why temporary?

    Sincerely,
    Another NoScript fan

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago

    Most of the Anubis encounters I have are to redlib instances that are shuffled around, go down all the time, and generally are more ephemeral than other sites. Because I use another extension called Libredirect to shuffle which redlib instance I visit when clicking on a reddit link, I don't bother whitelisting them permanently.

    I already have solved this on my desktop by self hosting my own redlib instance via localhost and using libredirect to just point there, but on my phone I still do the whole nojs temp unblock random redlib instance. Eventually I plan on using wireguard to host a private redlib instance on a vps so I can just not deal with this.

    This is a weird case I know, but its honestly not that bad.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago

    if you are a creator and you’d prefer to not make use of JS (there’s dozens of us) then forcing people to go through a JS “security check” feels kind of shit. The alternative is to just take the hammering, and that feels just as bad.

    I'm with you here. I come from an older time on the Internet. I'm not much of a creator, but I do have websites, and unlike many self-hosters I think, in the spirit of the internet, they should be open to the public as a matter of principle, not cowering away for my own private use behind some encrypted VPN. I want it to be shared. Sometimes that means taking a hammering. It's fine. It's nothing that's going to end the world if it goes down or goes away, and I try not to make a habit of being so irritating that anyone would have much legitimate reason to target me.

    I don't like any of these sort of protections that put the burden onto legitimate users. I get that's the reality we live in, but I reject that reality, and substitute my own. I understand that some people need to be able to block that sort of traffic to be able to limit and justify the very real costs of providing services for free on the Internet and Anubis does its job for that. But I'm not one of those people. It has yet to cost me a cent above what I have already decided to pay, and until it does, I have the freedom to adhere to my principles on this.

    To paraphrase another great movie: Why should any legitimate user be inconvenienced when the bots are the ones who suck. I refuse to punish the wrong party.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    What would you propose as an alternative?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Scarcity is what powers this type of challenge: you have to prove you spent a certain amount of electricity in exchange for access to the site, and because electricity isn't free, this imposes a dollar cost on bots.

    You could skip the detour through hashes/electricity and do something with a proof-of-stake cryptocurrency, and just pay for access. The site owner actually gets compensated instead of burning dead dinosaurs.

    Obviously there are practical roadblocks to this today that a JavaScript proof-of-work challenge doesn't face, but longer term...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    You could skip the detour through hashes/electricity and do something with a proof-of-stake cryptocurrency, and just pay for access. The site owner actually gets compensated instead of burning dead dinosaurs.

    Maybe if the act of transferring crypto didn't use a comparable or greater amount of energy...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    That's why I specified a proof-of-stake cryptocurrency. They use so much less energy that it is practically negligible in comparison, and more on the order of traditional online transactions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    I think the issue is that many sites are too aggressive with it. Anubis can be configured to only ask for challenges if the site is under unusual load, for instance when a botnet it's actually ddosing the site. That's when it shines.

    Making it constantly ask for challenges when the service is not under attack is just a massive waste of energy. And many sites just enable it constantly because they can defer bot pings from their logs that way. That's for instance what op is doing. It's just a big misunderstanding of the tool.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I think maybe they wouldn't if they are trying to scale their operations to scanning through millions of sites and your site is just one of them

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 23 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Honestly im not a big fan of anubis . it fucks users with slow devices

    https://lock.cmpxchg8b.com/anubis.html

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago

    The creator is active on a professional slack I'm on and they're lovely and receptive to user feedback. Their tool is very popular in the online archives/cultural heritage scene (we combine small budgets and juicy, juicy data).

    My site has enabled js-free screening when the site load is low, under the theory that if the site load is too high then no one's getting in anyway.

  • source
  • [–] 38 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    I don't think you have a usecase for Anubis.

    Anubis is mainly aimed against bad AI scrappers and some ddos mitigation if you have a heavy service.

    You are getting hit exactly the same, anubis doesn't put up a block list or anything. It just put itself in front of the service. The load on your server and the risk you take it's very similar anubis or not anubis here. Most bots are not AI scrappers they are just proving. So the hit on your server is the same.

    What you want is to properly set up fail2ban or, even better, crowdsec. That would actually block and ban bots that try to prove your server.

    If you are just self-hosting with Anubis the only thing you are doing is deriving the log noise towards Anubis logs and making your devices do a PoW every once in a while when you want to use your services.

    Being honest I don't know what you are self hosting. But at least it's something that's going to get ddos or AI scrapped, there's not much point with Anubis.

    Also Anubis is not a substitute for fail2ban or crowdsec. You need something to detect and ban brute force attacks. If not the attacker would only need to execute the anubis challenge get the token for the week and then they are free to attack your services as they like.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    yes, please be mindful when using cloudflare. with them you’re possibly inviting in a much much bigger problem

    https://www.devever.net/~hl/cloudflare

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago

    Great article, but I disagree about WAFs.

    Try to secure a nonprofit's web infrastructure with as 1 IT guy and no budget for devs or security.

    It would be nice if we could update servers constantly and patch unmaintained code, but sometimes you just need to front it with something that plugs those holes until you have the capacity to do updates.

    But 100% the WAF should be run locally, not a MiTM from evil US corp in bed with DHS.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago* (5 children)

    I host my main server on my own hardware, and a VPN on Hetzner because my shitty ISP doesn't let me port forward. For the past year, bots were hitting my Forgejo instance hard. I forgot to disable registration and they generated hundreds of accounts with hundreds of repos with sketchy links, generating terrabytes of traffic from my VPS, costing me money in traffic. I disabled registration and deleted the spam, and bots still kept hitting my server for several months, which would cause memory leaks over time and crash it and consume CPU, and still costed me money with terrabytes of traffic per month. A few weeks ago, I put Anubis on the VPS. Now, zero bots hit my Forgejo instance and I don't pay for their traffic anymore. Problem solved.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    Its always code forges and wikis that are effected by this because the scrapers spider down into every commit or edit in your entire history, then come back the next day and check every “page” again to see if any changed. Consider just blocking pages that are commit history at your reverse proxy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (2 children)

    This is the first time I've ever seen it misspelled like that. It's 'terabyte/terabytes'. 1,024 GBs worth of data.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    I don't mind Anubis but the challenge page shouldn't really load an image. It's wasting extra bandwidth for nothing.

    Just parse the challenge and move on.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

    It's a palette of 10 colours. I would guess it uses an indexed colorspace, reducing the size to a minimum.
    edit: 28 KB on disk

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    A HTTP get request is a few hundred bytes. The response is 28KB. Thats 280x. If a large botnet wanted to denial of service an Anubis protected site, requesting that image could be enough.

    Ideally, Anubis should serve as little data as possible until the POW is completed. Caching the POW algorithm (and the image) to a CDN would also mitigate the issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    The whole point of Anubis is to not have to go through a CDN to sustain scrapping botnets

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    I might agree, still one could argue that brand recognisability is contributing to the service as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Definitely, which is why i suggested hosting the image + js on a CDN. Keeps brand awareness, and lets the CDN take the brunt of any malicious activity. with a bit of code-golfing, the data served by Anubis directly prior to POW could be a few hundred bytes, without impacting its functionality.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Afaik, you can set it up not to have any image, or have any other one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    It's actually a brilliant monetization model. If you want to use it as is, it's free, even for large corporate clients.

    If you want to get rid of the puppygirls though, that's when you have to pay.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago* (5 children)

    I have a script that watches apache or caddy logs for poison link hits and a set of bot user agents, adding IPs to an ipset blacklist, blocking with iptables. I should polish it up for others to try. My list of unique IPs is well over 10k in just a few days.

    git repos seem to be real bait for these damn AI scrapers.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

    This is the way. I also have rules for hits to url, without a referer, that should never be hit without a referer, with some threshold to account for a user hitting F5. Plus a whitelist of real users (ones that got a 200 on a login endpoint). Mostly the Huawei and Tencent crawlers have fake user agents and no referer. Another thing crawlers don't do is caching. A user would never download that same .js file 100s of times in a hour, all their devices' browsers would have cached it. There's quite a lot of these kinds of patterns that can be used to block bots. Just takes watching the logs a bit to spot them.

    Then there's ratelimiting and banning ip's that hit the ratelimit regularly. Use nginx as a reverse proxy, set rate limits for URLs where it makes sense, with some burst set, ban IPs that got rate-limited more than x times in the past y hours based on the rate limit message in the nginx error.log. Might need some fine tuning/tweaking to get the thresholds right but can catch some very spammy bots. Doesn't help with those that just crawl from 100s of ips but only use each ip once every hour, though.

    Ban based on the bot user agents, for those that set it. Sure, theoretically robots.txt should be the way to deal with that, for well behaved crawlers, but if it's your homelab and you just don't want any crawlers, might as well just block those in the firewall the first time you see them.

    Downloading abuse ip lists nightly and banning those, that's around 60k abusive ip's gone. At that point you probably need to use nftables directly though instead of iptables or going through ufw, for the sets, as having 60k rules would be a bad idea.

    there's lists of all datacenter ip ranges out there, so you could block as well, though that's a pretty nuclear option, so better make sure traffic you want is whitelisted. E.g. for lemmy, you can get a list of the ips of all other instances nightly, so you don't accidentally block them. Lemmy traffic is very spammy…

    there's so much that can be done with f2b and a bit of scripting/writing filters

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    Can't you just bookmark the page?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    You mean for the referer part? Of course you don't want it for all urls and there's some legitimate cases. I have that on specific urls where it's highly unlikely, not every url. E.g. a direct link to a single comment in lemmy, and whitelisting logged-in users. Plus a limit, like >3 times an hour before a ban. It's already pretty unusual to bookmark a link to a single comment

    It's a pretty consistent bot pattern, they will go to some subsubpage with no referer with no prior traffic from that ip, and then no other traffic from that ip after that for a bit (since they cycle though ip's on each request) but you will get a ton of these requests across all ips they use. It was one of the most common patterns i saw when i followed the logs for a while.

    of course having some honeypot url in a hidden link or something gives more reliable results, if you can add such a link, but if you're hosting some software that you can't easily add that to, suspicious patterns like the one above can work really well in my experience. Just don't enforce it right away, have it with the 'dummy' action in f2b for a while and double check.

    And I mostly intended that as an example of seeing suspicious traffic in the logs and tailoring a rule to it. Doesn't take very long and can be very effective.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    When I visit sites on my cellphone, Anubis often doesn't let me through.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I've never had any issues on my phone using Fennec or Firefox. I don't have many addons installed apart from uBlock Origin. I wouldn't be surprised if some privacy addons cause issues with Anubis though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    I don't really understand what I am seeing here, so I have to ask -- are these Security issues a concern?

    https://github.com/TecharoHQ/anubis/security

    I have a server running a few tiny web sites, so I am considering this, but I'm always concerned about the possibility that adding more things to it could make it less secure, versus more. Thanks for any thoughts.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] 6 points 11 months ago

    Security issues are always a concern the question is how much. Looking at it they seem to at most be ways to circumvent the Anubis redirect system to get to your page using very specific exploits. These are marked as m low to moderate priority and I do not see anything that implies like system level access which is the big concern. Obviously do what you feel is best but IMO its not worth sweating about. Nice thing about open source projects is that anyone can look through and fix, if this gets more popular you can expect bug bounties and professional pen testing submissions.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    This isn't really a security issue as much as it is a DDOS issue.

    Imagine you own a brick and mortar store. And periodically one thousand fucking people sprint into your store and start recording the UPCs on all the products, knocking over every product in the store along the way. They don't buy anything, they're exclusively there to collect information from your store which they can use to grift investors and burn precious resources, and if they fuck your shit up in the process, that's your problem.

    This bot just sits at the door and ensures the people coming in there are actually shoppers interested in the content of some items of your store.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 30 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I appreciate a simple piece of software that does exactly what it’s supposed to do.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago

    The front page of the web site is excellent. It describes what it does, and it does its feature set in quick, simple terms.

    I can't tell you how many times I've gone to a website for some open-source software and had no idea what it was or how it was trying to do it. They often dive deep into the 300 different ways of installing it, tell you what the current version is and what features it has over the last version, but often they just assume you know the basics.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago

    My phone hates anubis.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 11 months ago (13 children)

    Kinda sucks how it makes websites inaccessible to folks who have to disable JavaScript for security.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    there's a fork that has non-js checks. I don't remember the name but maybe that's what should be made more known

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Please share if you know.

    The only way I know how to do this is running a Tor Onion Service, since the tor protocol has built-in pow support (without js)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    I kinda sucks how AI scrapers make websites inaccessible to everyone 🙄

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Not if the admin has a cache. It's not a difficult problem for most websites

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 11 months ago* (3 children)

    Lol I'm the sysadmin for many sites that doesn't have these issues, so obviously I do..

    It you're the one that thinks you need this trash pow fronting for a static site, then clearly you're the one who is ignorant

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Obviously I don't think you need Anubis for a static site. And if that is what your admin experience is limited too, than you have a strong case of dunning krueger.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 45 points 11 months ago (15 children)

    I've repeatedly stated this before: Proof of Work bot-management is only Proof of Javascript bot-management. It is nothing to a headless browser to by-pass. Proof of JavaScript does work and will stop the vast majority of bot traffic. That's how Anubis actually works. You don't need to punish actual users by abusing their CPU. POW is a far higher cost on your actual users than the bots.

    Last I checked Anubis has an JavaScript-less strategy called "Meta Refresh". It first serves you a blank HTML page with a <meta> tag instructing the browser to refresh and load the real page. I highly advise using the Meta Refresh strategy. It should be the default.

    I'm glad someone is finally making an open source and self hostable bot management solution. And I don't give a shit about the cat-girls, nor should you. But Techaro admitted they had little idea what they were doing when they started and went for the "nuclear option". Fuck Proof of Work. It was a Dead On Arrival idea decades ago. Techaro should strip it from Anubis.

    I haven't caught up with what's new with Anubis, but if they want to get stricter bot-management, they should check for actual graphics acceleration.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] [S] 35 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    Something that hasn't been mentioned much in discussions about Anubis is that it has a graded tier system of how sketchy a client is and changing the kind of challenge based on a a weighted priority system.

    The default bot policies it comes with has it so squeaky clean regular clients are passed through, then only slightly weighted clients/IPs get the metarefresh, then its when you get to moderate-suspicion level that JavaScript Proof of Work kicks. The bot policy and weight triggers for these levels, challenge action, and duration of clients validity are all configurable.

    It seems to me that the sites who heavy hand the proof of work for every client with validity that only last every 5 minutes are the ones who are giving Anubis a bad wrap. The default bot policy settings Anubis comes with dont trigger PoW on the regular Firefox android clients ive tried including hardened ironfox. meanwhile other sites show the finger wag every connection no matter what.

    Its understandable why some choose strict policies but they give the impression this is the only way it should be done which Is overkill. I'm glad theres config options to mitigate impact normal user experience.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago

    Anubis is that it has a graded tier system of how sketchy a client is and changing the kind of challenge based on a a weighted priority system.

    Last I checked that was just User-Agent regexes and IP lists. But that's where Anubis should continue development, and hopefully they've improved since. Discerning real users from bots is how you do proper bot management. Not imposing a flat tax on all connections.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago* (10 children)

    POW is a far higher cost on your actual users than the bots.

    That sentence tells me that you either don't understand or consciously ignore the purpose of Anubis. It's not to punish the scrapers, or to block access to the website's content. It is to reduce the load on the web server when it is flooded by scraper requests. Bots running headless Chrome can easily solve the challenge, but every second a client is working on the challenge is a second that the web server doesn't have to waste CPU cycles on serving clankers.

    POW is an inconvenience to users. The flood of scrapers is an existential threat to independent websites. And there is a simple fact that you conveniently ignored: it fucking works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    Its like you didn't understand anything I said. Anubis does work. I said it works. But it works because most AI crawlers don't have a headless browser to solve the PoW. To operate efficiently at the high volume required, they use raw http requests. The vast majority are probably using basic python requests module.

    You don't need PoW to throttle general access to your site and that's not the fundamental assumption of PoW. PoW assumes (incorrectly) that bots won't pay the extra flops to scrape the website. But bots are paid to scape the website users aren't. They'll just scale horizontally and open more parallel connections. They have the money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    You are arguing a strawman. Anubis works because because most AI scrapers (currently) don't want to spend extra on running headless chromium, and because it slightly incentivises AI scrapers to correctly identify themselves as such.

    Most of the AI scraping is frankly just shoddy code written by careless people that don't want to ddos the independent web, but can't be bothered to actually fix that on their side.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (7 children)

    You are arguing a strawman. Anubis works because because most AI scrapers (currently) don’t want to spend extra on running headless chromium

    WTF, That's what I already said? That was my entire point from the start!? You don't need PoW to force headless usage. Any JavaScript challenge will suffice. I even said the Meta Refresh challenge Anubis provides is sufficient and explicitly recommended it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    And how do you actually check for working JS in a way that can't be easily spoofed? Hint: PoW is a good way to do that.

    Meta refresh is a downgrade in usability for everyone but a tiny minority that has disabled JS.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    And how do you actually check for working JS in a way that can’t be easily spoofed? Hint: PoW is a good way to do that.

    Accessing the browsers API in any way is way harder to spoof than some hashing. I already suggested checking if the browser has graphics acceleration. That would filter out the vast majority of headless browsers too. PoW is just math and is easy to spoof without running any JavaScript. You can even do it faster than real JavaScript users something like Rust or C.

    Meta refresh is a downgrade in usability for everyone but a tiny minority that has disabled JS.

    What are you talking about? It just refreshes the page without doing any of the extra computation that PoW does. What extra burden does it put on users?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    If you check for GPU (not generally a bad idea) you will have the same people that currently complain about JS, complain about this breaking with their anti-fingerprinting browser addons.

    But no, you can't spoof PoW obviously, that's the entire point of it. If you do the calculation in Javascript or not doesn't really matter for it to work.

    In the current shape Anubis has zero impact on usability for 99% of the site visitors, not so with meta refresh.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    You will have people complain about their anti-fingerprinting being blocked with every bot-managment solution. Your ability to navigate the internet anonymously is directly correlated with a bots ability to scrape. That has never been my complaint about Anubis.

    My complaint is that the calculations Anubis forces you to do are absolutely negligible burden for a bot to solve. The hardest part is just having a JavaScript interpreter available. Making the author of the scraper write custom code to deal with your website is the most effective way to prevent bots.

    Think about how much computing power AI data centers have. Do you think they give a shit about hashing some values for Anubis? No. They burn more compute power than a thousand Anubis challenges generating a single llm answer. PoW is a backwards solution.

    Please Think. Captchas worked because they're supposed to be hard for a computer to solve but are easy for a human. PoW is the opposite.

    In the current shape Anubis has zero impact on usability for 99% of the site visitors, not so with meta refresh.

    Again, I ask you: What extra burden does meta-refresh impose on users? How does setting a cookie and immediately refreshing the page burden the user more than making them wait longer while draining their battery before doing the exact same thing? Its strictly less intrusive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    No one is disputing that in theory (!) Anubis offers very little protection against an adversary that specifically tries to circumvent it, but we are dealing with an elephant in the porcelain shop kind of situation. The AI companies simply don't care if they kill off small independently hosted web-applications with their scraping and Anubis is the mouse that is currently sufficient to make them back off.

    And no, forced site reloads are extremely disruptive for web-applications and often force a lot of extra load for re-authentication etc. It is not as easy as you make it sound.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    Anubis forces the site to reload when doing the normal PoW challenge! Meta Refresh is a sufficient mouse to block 99% of all bot traffic without being any more burdensome than PoW.

    You've failed to demonstrate why meta-refresh is more burdensome than PoW and have pivoted to arguing the point I was making from the start as though it was your own. I'm not arguing with you any further. I'm satisfied that I've convinced any readers of our discussion.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago

    Stop playing wack-a-mole with these fucking people and build TARPITS!

    Make it HURT to crawl your site illegitimately.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Unrelated but one day I won't get gender envy from random cartoon woman

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    "Anubis has risen, Wendell"

    "Are you Jane's addiction"?

  • source
  • [+] 26 points 11 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (3 children)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›