Tell HN: Impassable Cloudflare challenges are ruining my browsing experience I travel often. Sometimes I use a VPN, sometimes I don't. I use a heavily customized Firefox config on Linux. Cloudflare challenges have made large portions of the web unusable for me. Some recent examples Is anyone else dealing with this mess? |
I am good at this stuff, and "Cloudflare challenges have made large portions of the web unusable for me" too.
not a single mention of advertising on all these comments.
those captcha are not against bots. bots are only one item in the broader category they block. you, an unmonetizable user, is another.
cloudflare et all have the "marketplace conundrum". they need to provide value to both sides, and for the site they do this by blocking hard to monetize traffic. that means traffic that won't generate high yield on ad networks those sites care about.
Sometimes you miss what you were aiming for I guess
Cloudflare are a scummy company trying to force you to use one browser and view all ads.
I don't want to think about HTTPS, my websites are low risk, mostly static pages (and there are tens of them).
> I use a heavily customized Firefox config on Linux.
If you really care about privacy, you should blend in to look like everyone else. Avoiding being tracked raises alarm bells. You have to let them track something; but no one ever said it had to be you.
I also use a (not-so-heavily) customized Firefox config on Linux. I also see repeated abuse of my network activity by Cloudflare.
I guess they're just protecting themselves from bots, and I look like a bot in their eyes.
Use a VPN but use a normal network. VPN back to your home, your office. Your traffic will probably take a throughput and latency hit but it looks like real residential traffic, and that's a lot less sus.
I also can't think of one of the popular VPNs that get heavily advertised that I'd trust to actually protect my privacy.
And it's discriminatory, yes.
This is probably the cause, especially if you're doing stuff like spoofing user agent. It's not cloudflare "cracking down on privacy" or whatever either. Unmodified tor browser passes turnstile challenges just fine.
So many sites have deployed countermeasures like Cloudflare, but they aren't actively monitoring the failure mode on those countermeasures.
The web is on it's knees and these countermeasures are another nail in the coffin if we don't act fast.
I guess the best web experience is when one filters Cloudfare, Google and Microsoft at the firewall.
docker run -it --rm -e DISPLAY --net=host -v $XAUTHORITY:/root/.Xauthority -v /tmp/.X11-unix:/tmp/.X11-unix debian:12-slim
apt update
apt install firefox-esr
firefoxFor even more protection, run VNC server with common resolution in the container and connect to it using VNC viewer. In this case firefox provides a super generic profile (latest debian with mesa GPU), making this browser very hard to distinguish from others. This has some downsides however: First, you cannot resize window. Second, a lot of actual bots use same config, so it might be blocked.
They really don't want feedback from people who don't pay them.
I mostly shrug off and just avoid visiting that kind of sites again. For an unsubscribe challenge I just copy paste the url and visit it using firefox focus on my smartphone on my mobile connection.
Unless you accept the racket of course, start paying them and proxy your traffic through the CF workers https://github.com/pellaeon/cloudflare-worker-proxy and magically most barriers will disappear.
Source this actually works? ie. that using cloudflare workers allows you to bypass cloudflare protection?
Only for Enterprise customers [1].
[1]: https://developers.cloudflare.com/bots/plans/bm-subscription...
If on the other hand unsubscribing from mailing lists is not the true use case and we are actually being asked to help a bot bypass safeguards… then Cloudflare is doing a great job here.
But if you're going out of your way to look suspicious (ie. "I use a heavily customized Firefox config on Linux"), surely you'd agree at some point it goes from "your software is shit at its job" to "it's your fault for looking suspicious"? If you walk into bank wearing a balaclava and get stopped by security, it's not really "security is shit at its job".
I've become to hate Cloudflare with a seething passion.
If I can log in, especially with 2-factor, you can safely assume I am not a bot, or you have a larger problem.
If I have entered bad credentials 5+ times, okay, you can start backing me off or challenging me.
What am I missing? Fail2ban has been around a long time.
From their perspective, the blocking of power users with unusual setups is actually a happy coincidence, as those are unlikely to "engage" with the product in the desired way (they run ad & spyware blockers, don't fall for dark patterns, and are more likely to fight back if they get defrauded by the corporation).
Also remember, especially on AWS, bandwidth is expensive. A CDN cache + blocking bots = big savings.
Modern threat actors can spread requests out over large pools of source IPs. Rate limiting login attempts by IP isn't an effective means of preventing credential stuffing attacks.
Cloudflare’s customers can largely disable these and rely on other means of detecting bots.
In the case of turnstile, it has three modes, two of which are entirely automatic and work by interrogating the web browser, with the other requiring a client:
https://developers.cloudflare.com/turnstile/concepts/widget/
Cloudflare CDN’s security setting on its free tier also has an essentially off setting that will basically eliminate challenges when browsers accessing pages protected by cloudflare unless there are exceptional circumstances. I believe it can be fully turned off for the enterprise tier.
Whenever I configure cloudflare for a website, I always turn off challenges since they are annoying to users. There is an interesting write up about how cloudflare’s bot detection works here:
https://blog.capmonster.cloud/en/blog/web-scraping1/how-clou...
Note that I have yet to use turnstile, so I am speaking from documentation I read rather than from actual experience with it. I have used cloudflare’s CDN and I am speaking from experience with it.
Anyway, the website author is the one that should be blamed here.
Don't know if it will help but they use lots of methods to see if you are hostile, and being logged in and authenticated with them can't harm
the container approach on the other hand is bog-standard firefox.
The racket is not in the workers themselves, but rather cloudflare both protecting from internet abuse and protecting sites which sell the abuse services. (For example hosting WebStresser) I meant that by giving them more traffic and accepting that as a workaround, we'd be saying "I'm ok with that".
pip install curl_cffi
Even easier than spending 15 minutes setting up cloudflare workers.
>The racket is not in the workers themselves, but rather cloudflare both protecting from internet abuse and protecting sites which sell the abuse services. (For example hosting WebStresser) I meant that by giving them more traffic and accepting that as a workaround, we'd be saying "I'm ok with that".
Do you think it's a "racket" for gun shops to sell guns for home defense, but also to sell guns to criminals?
Seems like a slippery slope argument, but isn't reflective of reality. They still allow Tor browser to pass, of all things.
But if you like: the arbitrarily blocked user if not at fault, cloudflare is at fault.
Of course it'll be presented as a security feature, because users are dumb, whilst also allowing vendors to lock you into their ecosystem; similar to how passkeys are currently being push by these same companies.
You need both in practice. Changing the TLS details won't save you from coming out of the same CGNat as the rest of your city for example.
> for gun shops to sell guns for home defense, but also to sell guns to criminals?
If they know they're selling to criminals who are likely to attack their customers, then of course yes. In practice the overlap is not as trivial so I don't think it really transfers that well. So really "mu, the analogy is not close enough".
That doesn't advance the conversation, or show that cloudflare should be always as fault, as you seem to imply. Even if people are pro privacy/freedom, I think most wouldn't give the individual (as opposed to the security provider) unlimited leeway, as seen in the bank example.
But banks aren't mandated to admit you either. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean a private establishment has to let you in. When it comes to denying entry, banks are relatively tame. Some establishments go beyond that, by denying entry unless you wear formal clothing, or presenting proof of identity.
That's a CAN-SPAM act violation.
FTC: "Tell recipients how to opt out of receiving future marketing email from you. Your message must include a clear and conspicuous explanation of how the recipient can opt out of getting marketing email from you in the future. Craft the notice in a way that’s easy for an ordinary person to recognize, read, and understand. Creative use of type size, color, and location can improve clarity. Give a return email address or another easy Internet-based way to allow people to communicate their choice to you. You may create a menu to allow a recipient to opt out of certain types of messages, but you must include the option to stop all marketing messages from you. Make sure your spam filter doesn’t block these opt-out requests."[1]
Experian was recently fined for making it hard to opt out of their marketing emails.
The actual regulation text:
§ 316.5 Prohibition on charging a fee or imposing other requirements on recipients who wish to opt out.
Neither a sender nor any person acting on behalf of a sender may require that any recipient pay any fee, provide any information other than the recipient's electronic mail address and opt-out preferences, or take any other steps except sending a reply electronic mail message or visiting a single Internet Web page, in order to:
(a) Use a return electronic mail address or other Internet-based mechanism, required by 15 U.S.C. 7704(a)(3), to submit a request not to receive future commercial electronic mail messages from a sender; or
(b) Have such a request honored as required by 15 U.S.C. 7704(a)(3)(B) and (a)(4).
That seems to cover it. File a CAN-SPAM act complaint (spam@uce.gov). Send a copy to the legal department of the sender.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/can-spam-act...
I decided to download larger files from their web site a few tens of millions of times, which I think cost them a few hundred dollars. Unethical? Perhaps, but I'm not the kind of person who just accepts that companies are too large to have humans that can communicate and that I should just accept their harassment.
It worked, though. I finally got a response from Hertz saying they were going to "get to the bottom of it", and I finally stopped getting their spam.
They didn't but I still recieved spam which I couldn't opt out of because they wanted me to log into my account, even for support, which obviously didn't exist.
At least back then we had Twitter and messaging them publicly got a customer service response.
If you don't do that, bot protection isn't going to stop a dedicated troll.
CAN-SPAM was introduced by Republicans and signed into law by Bush btw.
It's like a restaurant that complies with a local food access requirement to be open at a certain time... but only by having a drive-through that requires you to not just be a human being, but also to drive a car to get to the restaurant.
Unfortunately, I think the Cloudflare challenges are designed to filter out users similar to your profile... once you stray far enough from the norm, it just looks like a bot / suspicious traffic to them. Statistically there's not enough users like you (privacy-conscious Linux users on nonstandard browsers) for them to really care enough to do anything about it. Site owners don't care either since you're usually like 1-2% of users at most, and typically also the same ones who block ads, etc., so they don't mind blocking you... it's sad, but I don't think there is really anything you can do about it except conform. It's an ongoing arms race and you're caught in the middle.
For example, Google proposed https://github.com/explainers-by-googlers/Web-Environment-In... and this was shot down by privacy advocates (for very good reasons).
So basically the choice for website operators is either to fight the bots and accept that their service will be unusable for some subset of their users or not fight the bots, which will lead to their service becoming unusable for everyone.
More and more, you see services pushing you very hard towards using their app and the reason is that with the app, they are able to actually verify that you are likely not a bot (or rather, in reality, that at least the app is running on an actual physical device, mobile phone bot farms are unfortunately also a thing).
As for Cloudflare - they offer it as a service, so when the website operator has a choice between using them or allocating several engineers for bot-fighting, why would they not just go with Cloudflare? Doing it yourself can be slightly higher fidelity, as you know your customers better, but it is also a lot of effort which could be better spent elsewhere.
2/3 of the issues OP listed would not make the service unusable for anyone if the botcheck were removed. 1. What would be the problem with allowing "bots" to opt out of receiving marketing emails? Why do I need to be a human to tell you to stop spamming me? Who is running such a bot, for what purpose? 2. What would be the problem with allowing a "bot" to log in to an already-verified human account a single time?
The only situations where you actually need to confirm that a user "looks human" is for repeated connection attempts in quick enough succession to matter (DDoS prevention), or when they want to do something that someone would actually write a nefarious bot to do (mainly just creating posts/messages visible to other users).
Even if you send a confirmation email afterwords that's potentially millions of emails you are sending because of bots.
Recently I had to deal with this for alibaba just to look at something, which I usually just use torbrowser with, and finally gave up as I couldn't pass the challenge. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at that though, they trust me as much as I trust them.
The worst is usually adobe and cookielaw with all their related tracking crap, where I can't even get the captcha to render as it's so many layers buried in scripting I can't enable enough sites between ublock, noscript, privacy badger, and firefox strict modes. I treat adobe like malware, but unfortunately things like albertsons.com for groceries and other mega companies love to use it, and their sites literally do not work without allowing their heavy scripting/tracking.
There are other usually smaller captcha players that I haven't been human enough to pass with, I forget the names of the stupid to shame, but a few when I see them I recognize to just close the window and forget about whatever it was I was looking for there (like twitter/x).
Hooray commerce!
CloudFlare has positioned itself as the doorman of the Internet, deciding who gets to visit shitty websites written by AIs and who doesn't. Every time I try to visit a website and get blocked by this company and its unnecessary services, I congratulate myself for avoiding yet another terrible website and move on with my life.
Offering free stuff which works and that many people want is how internet companies get big.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38063548
What's funny about it is that as a human I get tormented by those things all the time but I have been writing bots since 1999 and have yet to have had CAPTCHAs affect a webcrawling project in a big way: for instance I have a bot that collected 800,000 images from 4 web sites since last April, at times I thought they had anti-bot countermeasures but I realized that when they were having problems it was because the wheels were coming off their web site (don't blame me, that is 0.03 requests/second and are not parallelized and pipelined like the requests from a web browser.) I'm also prototyping one that can look at an article like
https://phys.org/news/2025-01-diversifying-dna-origami-gener...
see if there are links to journal articles in there, determine if the articles are Open Access and pick out an image for social... so far no problems. But if I want to pay my electric bill there's a CAPTCHA -- I mean, what kind of bot wants to pay my electric bill? (Kinda seems like it is asking for a lawsuit in this day and age if it prevents anyone 'differently abled' from accessing essential services...)
For example, for starters, Cloudflare and Google need to find ways so that individual people who're wrongly being locked out of services by the company, have some way to get that unlocked. Not "sux2bu we dont do support bro".
(Then they can start thinking about the next step, which is due process, and what it means to wrongly lock out someone in the first place.)
That said, as an immediate pragmatic matter, one debugging tip with your Firefox is to go to the `about:profiles` URL, and temporarily create a new profile, and without using any Firefox sync feature, and see if Cloudflare lets you through, and then incrementally add back in your extensions and preference customizations, and see if/when CF stops letting you in. (Not that it will necessarily identify the sole and exact trigger, since they might be using scores of multiple factors, but it will be evidence of one thing that pushes it over the edge. And maybe get you to a compromise setup that lets you do your work for now.) Also helpful is to have alternate browsers installed; personally, I keep Chromium installed, as my "violate me every possible way, if you'll just let me access this one page/site I really need right now".
It seems ironic that as a human I can't seem to reliably prove I am a human with a realistic amount of effort via these systems, but having installed a specific automated browser extension does?
I am not a fan of Cloudflare and don't like the idea of running their software on my computer, but it seemed like the only options to continue using the internet at all.
Error 1015 Ray ID: .... • xxxx-xx-xx xx:xx:xx UTC
You are being rate limited
What happened?
The owner of this website (wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com) has banned you temporarily from accessing this website.
It could be the address is being reused - is it home, cloud or corporate? Have you tried different browsers? Incognito mode?
I have an IPv6 block at home and have no problem accessing that site.
I wound up removing / reinstalling firefox...same exact setup otherwise. No more cloudflare (or vastly fewer) prompts. The internet is usable again.
Hope that helps.
Has become increasingly more common in the past few months across several sites.
Maybe indeed could be held liable here? From the can spam act (if you're from the US):
> You can’t charge a fee, require the recipient to give you any personally identifying information beyond an email address, or make the recipient take any step other than sending a reply email or visiting a single page on an Internet website as a condition for honoring an opt-out request.
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/can-spam-act...
so i just flagged it all as spam and hoped it hurts their deliverability a little.
I didn't ask for your fucking emails and I sure as shit am not going to do the homework you're assigning me to make them stop.
1) Privacy Pass Extension
Install Privacy Pass Client Extension in your browser, here for Chrome https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/silk-privacy-pass-c...
2) Use Cloudflare Warp (which is a VPN by Cloudflare basically, it's free):
I think it may have been what happened my since-2010 Reddit account was mysteriously killed a couple years ago, and literally the only cause I can think of is that I might've used the wrong public wifi for an evening.
Cloudflare is the enemy of open web.
The problem I do have with CF is their captchas seem to require human interaction on the page, and this makes getting through them problematic when you open half a dozen tabs, and each loads a CF captcha, and you have to move the mouse around for ten seconds just to get the captcha to load, and loading is not reliable. Often you need to reload the page. It's this type of performance, and poor performance, which is breaking web-pages for me.
Last week I had a run of (legacy) Cloudflare captchas on sites protected by CF to solve of "select all the boxes with motorcycles in", and despite doing it fastidiously and correctly (although I never know how to handle the boxes with like 3 pixels of object in but are otherwise clear), I had to do it like 5 times with different images, until suddenly it was happy.
I thought they eliminated them back in 2023? Their announcement is pretty clear on them:
"Cloudflare will never issue another visual puzzle to anyone, for any reason."
https://blog.cloudflare.com/turnstile-ga/
Are you sure it's not fake? For example archive.is sometimes sends me orange-colored CAPTCHAs (with "select all the boxes" style) that are never accepted; but if one looks closer at them, it actually never says "cloudflare" on them anywhere, nor there is a logo (it does this because it has a long-standing feud with cloudflare re users' privacy).
Maybe keeping a heavily-sandboxed Chrome in a VM for situations where Cloudflare is getting in your way might help?
(In the large: this has been an issue a long time coming. Quite a bit of cyberpunk predicts the future where the web bifurcates into the "regular" web that is sanitized, corporate, controlled, and used by most people... And the "everyone else" web that is not, with all the pros and cons that entails. The tech has evolved to the point that companies that want a service provider "keeping the bad guys away" for them can pay to have that done, at the cost of false-positives... But at their scale, the false-positives may not matter to them).
The primary cause of this is most likely any kind of 'optimizations' you have in your browser (or missing fingerprints).
If you want to 'bypass' these I recommend removing any use of Proxy[1] (via extensions). You should also look into disabling any kind of forced backgrounding. Make sure service workers are working.
1: They catch Proxy usage by using exceptions and analyzing the stacktrace. I assume you know what a javascript proxy is, but incase you don't: It's something that allows you to override any kind of object function such as navigator.hardwareConcurrecy.
That is really clever, I am guessing this is why various browser automation companies are using custom forks of Chromium.
JsFiddle used to be my favorite for quickly testing out code snippets. It's a shame that due to Cloudflare hurdles, I've stopped using it and don't plan on going back.
It may not be much but as more websites and businesses lose genuine web traffic like this, Cloudflare might eventually listen and fix this mess.
Incidentally, since I configured DNS over HTTPS in Firefox, using Cloudflare's DNS, it seems I see this much less often.
If I tunnel via my VPS which is still in Australia, then I can access it.
But complete blocks via Cloudflare have also been a problem: I had to do something with VicRoads as part of selling my car, and was blocked outright when I got to the actual form page. Had I not had my VPS in Australia, I don’t know what I would have done.
My IP address is massively shared (CGNAT) with plenty of botnet around, so I’m frequently troubled by Cloudflare, but not often outright blocked, and if challenged rather than blocked, I’ve never had any problem with it. Linux, Firefox.
Wireguard/Tailscale and my parents having access to cheap renewable power are the real enablers ofc.
To anyone moving abroad in the near future - leave a box behind with your parents/close friends, it's well worth the trouble if they're ok with you occasionally mooching some bandwidth. You absolutely won't regret it
There are residential-IP-backed VPN services that you can use just like commercial VPN services — but they're mostly built on the backs of botnets, so it's ethically questionable to use them.
The old IP address was a mom-and-pop CGNAT.
Thanks CF, for protecting us from capitalism, I guess?
I do believe that it is true that many site owners wouldn't care. But I suspect that in the vast majority of cases they don't actually know. Cloudflare probably shows them a nice dashboard about all of these blocked "threats" and they don't know better than to question it.
"We have a problem with bots" - "Just create a firewall rule, whatever"
Anyway, I know the "Cloudflare's monopoly gating is killing web openness!" meme is common online, especially on HN, but in real life I've never actually heard anyone else complain about it (either a fellow dev or a customer or a manager). Instead, it's been universal praise for the actual issues Cloudflare exists to solve (CDN, bot protection, serverless, etc)... they are a godsend for small businesses that otherwise get immediately flooded by spam requests, especially from China, Russia, and India.
And if you think Cloudflare is bad, it was even worse before they became dominant, with terrible services like Incapsula/Imperva charging way more but providing both worse bot protection AND more false positives, or the really hard early reCAPTCHAs (that Cloudflare was largely able to replace, for users who DO fit within the "norm"). That, or you'd have to fight every random sysadmin with their own lazy rules, like firewall rules that blacklisted entire regional ISPs and took weeks or months to resolve, if they ever even checked their emails.
As inconvenient as Cloudflare is for users who take privacy seriously and try to be less trackable, for the other 90% of us who don't care as much and easily fit into their "norm" model, it's much nicer than what came before. Site downtime and slowness are also much less common now, in no small part because of their easy CDN and caching.
From the implementation side, I've set up a few Cloudflare accounts in my career, but do take the time to try to configure it to balance security vs accessibility for any given target audience. Sometimes we'd block entire countries, other times we'd minimize security to ensure maximum reach, but usually we'd customize rulesets in the middle for any given company & audience. I never got a complaint about it (our emails were still available and not blocked).
This was always a direct response to some business need, usually spambots or DDoS attempts that fail2ban etc. couldn't catch well enough. For the business, it was usually a "shit, our website is down again, what is it this time", and the choice between "for free or $20 we can get it back up again and not have this issue anymore" or "we can spend thousands of dollars and weeks of labor building our own security solution" is pretty easy. "What about that one guy who is proxied behind TOR and three VPNs with a random user agent using a text-only browser he wrote himself?" never really factors into that process =/ There's just not enough users like that out in the wild vs the very real constant threat of bots and malware.
It's a shitty situation that the web is like this today, and I wish it weren't the case, but it really is an arms race, and these imperfect weapons are just what most of us have access to...
The error: ``` Access denied Error 16 www.albertsons.com 2025-01-03 09:30:00 UTC What happened? This request was blocked by our security service Your IP: xxx Proxy IP: xxx (ID xxx) Incident ID: XXX Powered by Imperva ```
Might be worth checking some enterprise threat lists for whatever IP's your popping up on (ie Imperva and Cloudflare), or something uniquely fingerprints you from your browser. I use multiple extensions to block whatever they each can, and even I'm not treated that badly as you for wherever you are coming online from.
Here's Fortinet's you can check your IP against, they all tend to roughly use the same lists eventually: https://www.fortiguard.com/iprep
This is the way.
None, but they do want to use your electricity company's credit card payment facility to test stolen card numbers.
That's because that web site returns bad results to Cloudflare DNS, ostensibly because they take issue with the way it handles EDNS0. The fact that it fails to work is a deliberate choice by the site operator; it isn't Cloudflare's fault.
Cloudflare wants to "protect" people from exposing even their general region. This has the side effect of making CDNs that aren't Cloudflare work worse. Cloudflare are being dicks because they do to others what they wouldn't want to be done to themselves, or what they themselves don't do to themselves.
It's not even that people are choosing to opt in to Cloudflare's bullshit. If you use Firefox in the US (and many other areas, but the US for sure) and you haven't manually configured Firefox or set up a canary domain, all your DNS lookups are going to Cloudflare, and they're using that to make other CDNs work less well. That's definitely shady and definitely bad on Cloudflare's end.
I'm glad some people are taking a stand.
I work at the Uni now and circa 2015 we had a lawsuit against us because we made people use terrible quality applications that weren't accessible. I'd make the case that that sort of organization which has a rigid social hierarchy (e.g. grad student, postdoc, assistant professor, associate professor, full professor, department head, provost, ...) finds it close to impossible to confront quality problems that it finds invisible. (e.g. if you submitted a bad paper to a journal or had sex with an undergraduate it could understand that but a web site could set your computer on fire and they wouldn't see a problem with that.)
Since then all higher ed organizations feel a lot of need to offer accessible applications. My unit sells a subscription service to a data product and in sales talks and other conversations with our customers we find accessibility is a priority so it is a priority for me as a web dev.
(2) Don't get me started about RSS. I think it is great, kinda. Fir $10 a month I can pay Superfeedr to scrape 110 news sites and send them to my web hook which queues them in SQS and lets my RSS reader YOShInOn ingest them at its own convenience. I'd like to subscribe to 2000 or so independent blogs but don't want to pay a $100+ month scraping bill.
Could I write my own crawler? Sure! But polling is for the birds. You really want to get a ping just when the event happens (ActivityPub? PubSubHubbub? AT Protocol? XMPP?) but instead you have to poll. There are two kinds of polling: (a) too fast, (b) too slow. Should I run it at home over my slow ADSL connection (is my wife having trouble using the internet because my crawler is having a bad day?) or should I run it the cloud where trying to save $5 a month on my bill could cause EBS volumes to go swap crazy costing me $500 a month? It's awful for people who run feeds, see
https://rachelbythebay.com/w/2024/05/27/feed/
although she should (a) just get a CDN and get over it or (b) give up on RSS. Sorry, people write stupid stateless crawlers with curl and making your crawler stateful enough to respect her silly 429 protocol makes RSS no longer a simple protocol.
On top of that people keep failing with the same failing user interfaces for RSS readers that have been failing with 1999 with no insight that "people tried that in 2001 and it failed". People like Dave Weiner have no insight why the world couldn't care less about RSS because they just won't recotnize there are problems.)
(e.g. if you gotta know, YOShInOn works like TikTok... I never "mark as read", it doesn't show me little windows that show me the top N from 20 different sites, none of that.)
(3) If it's your electric bill it really is an essential service that there is no competition for. Frequently markets work, but not in that case, even if Enron was able to fool some legislators that they would work in that case for a while.
No. Tor is for anonymization. Some might use that for abuse, but that is not it's raison d'être.
A person or police officer might recommend some action to a DA, but it's completely up to their discretion what to do with that information.
GP said:
>> need to confirm that a user "looks human" is for repeated connection attempts in quick enough succession to matter (DDoS prevention)
And even in that case, you could implement other solutions. For example, for unsubscription links, you could pass a "token" in the query string that "verifies" that it's the address' owner unsubscribing. You could generate such token either stateless (JWT, for example, then verify it) or store it somewhere along with the address.
It’s only easy to bypass if you’re scraping or doing nefarious stuff.
On my small website, bot traffic is almost entirely from DigitalOcean VPSs.
Maybe in your country, but tons of countries outside of the US (first world) avoid Macs like the plague and just use Linux/Windows as building machines.
But you are right on Google/Cloudflare, they are the poison of the web.
I’m considering investing in a https://tinypilotkvm.com/, but that can wait till I’ve lost ssh at least once. I’m not hosting aws on the thing so I can afford to play it fast and loose :)
I just checked my own server logs, and HTTP 200 responses were 12.7% of the total requests against my rss.xml. Which is suboptimal I guess (I haven't made a single post this year) but isn't outrageously terrible.
and automatically posts it to HN. Sometimes having an average score/post doesn't seem enough to me and I think of adding a population of high scoring posts. Like that blog. Or those articles that have been posted 20 times before and gotten between 200-1200 points each time and will probably do so if you post them again.
I can't remember the site I saw them on, so I don't know for certain, but the site was definitely protected by Cloudflare, and I'm not really sure what you mean by "fake" - they were definitely CAPTCHAs with image tiles, but I guess I don't know for certain they were coming from Cloudflare servers.
HCaptcha is still a thing, it has "find all dogs": https://developers.nopecha.com/recognition/hcaptcha/
I get flagged by Google's reCaptcha all the time, it's super annoying: https://developers.nopecha.com/recognition/recaptcha/
Archive.is made their own check page (probably based on HCaptcha), which uses same color scheme as cloudflare and same general design.. except if you look closely, you'll notice there is no word "cloudflare" anywhere on page, it's a homegrown solution: https://www.reddit.com/r/SaintMeghanMarkle/comments/18c3ea7/...
For some weird reason, people like to attribute every captcha to cloudflare, even if they no longer offer this service...
They are easily detected if you are buying IP intelligence from one of the higher quality providers: https://app.spur.us/context?q=STARVPN_PROXY
CloudFront being way past the simple blocking of IP addresses, I wouldn't be surprised if a mismatch between your IP block and your language/cookies would be enough to lower your score.
But the immediate response to bots shouldn't be "make everyone go through a captcha". There's lots of nuance that you can tune to deal with your particular situation, but the first thing I'd do is block known bots or ASNs, set up a limit to trigger (bots usually don't make 1 document request a minute), set up higher limits for users who (seem to) have a valid cookie indicating that they are logged in, set up different thresholds for certain countries that are more risky etc etc.
What you need to protect your service depends on your situation, it's not a one-size-fits-all solution. E.g. I find that I have no automated contact form spam once I add a simple JS to add some data that isn't standard, but I'm sure that wouldn't hold up if there was enough incentive to try to get past it.
But the OP mentioned not just free services, but e.g. webhosting logins. That's just sad, as is Cloudflare's community being behind an aggressive captcha. I'm a user, I'm logged in, I've posted before, I'm in good standing, yet when I go there, I need to solve a captcha. When I then go there again an hour later, guess what, another captcha.
Either there's another reason I'm not seeing or it's just lazyness as in "we need to have a forum but we really don't want to spend any resources on it, just put up an aggressive captcha that'll filter out most bots and everyone but the determined users".
> I'm a user, I'm logged in, I've posted before, I'm in good standing, yet when I go there, I need to solve a captcha.
Though consider the fact that taking over someone's account shouldn't give you (a spammer) unlimited access either. The spambots you see on Twitter are mostly cred-stuffed accounts. It's a hard problem. Existing accounts are more dangerous than fresh accounts.
Imo, "write your own password" should be a thing of the past. Services should just auto-gen a password or there should be a way to require the OS (like a password manager) to generate one to avoid cred-stuffing. We're letting down the average person by making them come up with unique passwords for every service instead of just helping them. Though I'm way off topic.
I sent an email to their regulator that this company keeps sending me confidential information about one of their clients. It took one day until I received an email from the company informing me that they've corrected the mistake and I shall no longer receive any emails, and it worked, I haven't received a single one since.
I just mark as spam and or block the sender
Tempted to set that up on my server.
But it's not unlimited access -- it's _read_ access at that point. This is just when trying to access the forums at all, not when trying to post a message. And if they were worried about evildoers scraping all the data from their forums, they could rate-limit and then require captchas (their WAF settings make that trivial). But they don't, or the rate limiting is so generous that I've never hit it, and their forums are not that active, so I don't think that's the reason.
Adding more protection to an endpoint where users send posts makes some sense, but for reading? On their dashboard you need to solve the captcha on the login-form. On the forums, you cannot even get to the login (which works via the dashboard, where you'll solve a captcha again) until you've solved the captcha.
I use and like CF's products a lot (I'm a paying customer, I'm not even looking for free support on the forums, but their docs are lacking a lot of information that I'm interested in), so I don't believe in "we're incompetent", keeping the resource-investment low by filtering out bots and a chunk of users makes a lot more sense.
That's not correct, Cloudflare challenge pages / Turnstile will never show you a puzzle.
And before you say "that's their choice," you're the one who is breaking the functionality. Nothing about using a VPN or linux or Firefox creates any problem for TCP/IP or https.
Some non-existant system of attesting that I'm person X (possibly through an e-ID card) who has issued a client certificate Y (cert chain, using my e-ID cert to sign) to be used with my device Z (presumably with a device fingerprint or IP range attached to the cert). Of course, this would mean no privacy, but that's not that different from being signed in through Google as an identity provider, we'd just shift the mechanism to be universal (like client certs already are). One of the options that would take more coordination than will probably happen (though very similar to some e-signature solutions in EU, which we already use) but I could see using something like that for a variety of professional/service sites, since signing in with the e-ID card directly is already a thing on some sites here (government sites, banking sites, utilities sites).
I had a guy like that working with me. Blocked every possible tracker, disabled javascript, used some niche browser, proton mail, and then complains that google doesn’t allow him to sign in. I get it, privacy and what not. But the guy was an outlier.
Some random blogs, product pages aren’t gov, most likely have no way to opt-in for gov eID (maybe they aren’t based in the EU), and they only care that their service is available fast globally and that they get ddos protection for free (plus some other convenience features).
We already do a simpler version of that with TLS and HTTPS, there are globally trusted root certs that ship with most OSes and browsers. It's just that we haven't extended the same approach to client certs and identity verification, instead having a bunch of walled gardens and governments running legacy methods of figuring out who someone is, as opposed to various eID mechanisms.
If I trust news.ycombinator.com because I trust ISRG Root X1, I might similarly trust John Doe's iPhone because I trust the government of France's CA, as a hypothetical, as long as the certification chain is valid there.
It's a problem that's technically solvable (say, in 20-50 years), but won't get done because good luck getting a bunch of governments to collaborate on that across the world. It's actually a surprise that we have TLS in the first place.
1) People who anonymize their IP, use Linux, a browser with noscript, etc
2) People who are OK with having a government issued digital id and having to use it to access the internet
...look like, in your opinion?
Of course accessibility is important - ie screen reader compatibility.
A typical testing matrix in the US would be
- Safari for iOS
- Chrome for desktop and Android
- maybe Safari for desktop or you just tell Mac users to use Chrome
- Firefox if you have the time. But if not, no big deal.
We are definitely not going to test for a highly customized Firefox on Linux running over a VPN.
The issues I have are website pretending to be apps and apps that are SPAs for no reasons.
You can do so when your bottom line is healthy. Otherwise you go out of business. That’s business 101.
Binding login interaction to some government issued id…who’s entitled here.
Sounds like throwing a baby out with the bathwater.
However, while the site creator does have to meet the disabled halfway, the disabled person is responsible for having whatever type of equipment they need to make it work - ie screenreaders
Just do your job right. Not saying you should test some unique Firefox config but at least the default version is to be tested.
Hell, I've seen people here indicating that they just tell desktop Mac users to "install Chrome". Such carelessness is bad for business. Web development sure could raise its bar.
For the longest, Amazon Connect’s - AWS hosted call center software - call flow builder only worked with Chrome.
Even for B2C users, using Chrome is not a deal breaker. If they are okay with using shitty Electron apps, they will be okay with using Chrome for Mac.
Everything else - no.
But if I am using standards and they have an ad blocker that blocks some of the functioning of my site, am I also required to test my site against that?
I'd include _everything_ important in the "yes" category. If I cannot access the customer panel to update settings or notify them of a bug that is affecting me because I'm using Firefox ("works for 95% of users"), they're just not keeping up their end of the contract.
Remember, 95% excludes everything but chromium/webkit-engines.
Every company decides which customers are worth going after.
One side of the argument is that Cloudflare places an undue burden. The other side of the argument is that without the CF protections, the service provider doesn't even have reason to believe the request is coming from a human being the law protects.
Where. It’s global internet we communicate via.
There are a whole ton of privacy problems with this. I am happy to demonstrate anonymously that I am not a bot, but a random blogger does not need to know that I am John Doe, a citizen of France with national ID number 12345678.
Hey, by the way, would you trust some Chinese or Russian root certificate?
The question is irrelevant, frankly. Consider this: you’re living in Germany today. You trust the German government. They handle all your logins using that eID. What if in February AfD comes to power? Do you still trust the German government? Governments are formed by people. Different people have different interests.
Another good example of something that’s technically feasible and not that complex, but was made infeasible due to either ignorance or malice, with all of the dark UI patterns and scummy behaviour.
> Hey, by the way, would you trust some Chinese or Russian root certificate?
Most people already do: https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/main/net/da...
For example:
CN=CFCA EV ROOT,O=China Financial Certification Authority,C=CN
CN=GDCA TrustAUTH R5 ROOT,O=GUANG DONG CERTIFICATE AUTHORITY CO.,LTD.,C=CN
CN=UCA Global G2 Root,O=UniTrust,C=CN
CN=UCA Extended Validation Root,O=UniTrust,C=CN
CN=vTrus ECC Root CA,O=iTrusChina Co.,Ltd.,C=CN
CN=vTrus Root CA,O=iTrusChina Co.,Ltd.,C=CN
Plus, the opposite is also viable, if for example the Russian govt. wanted to allow anyone to verify whether particular requests come from their citizens, they might also run their own CA akin to https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/russia-create... except that the attack vector would change from MitM to fake identities being issued by them as needed (but since the server is the one doing the verification, it might as well drop the CA when desired).
> What if in February AfD comes to power?
Revoking the eID and anything dependent on it would be akin to your passport being taken away.
Essentially the modern day digital equivalent of getting your Google account banned by some bot, if you use that account for auth in a bunch of places.
Fundamentally, that’s no different from the reality that we already face - my regular eID could also be taken away if my own government felt like it, same as with my bank account and other assets.
Client certs themselves are nothing new, same for PKI. It’s a cool technology that could but presently cannot solve the problem of client identity globally, because we just can’t have nice things and order.
Is it? If my eID is used for logging in to my bank and said eID is revoked, I can no longer log in to my bank account. That’s completely different than a locked up passport.
> Essentially the modern day digital equivalent of getting your Google account banned by some bot, if you use that account for auth in a bunch of places.
Use a custom domain, don’t make your kingdom dependent on the gmail.com address.
I don’t know, for me the perfect amount of government oversight is “as little as possible”. There’s zero need for the government to mediate between me and my bank, or some random service provider on the internet.
What you’re describing sounds like a fun technical challenge assuming a perfect world. For example: who decides which countries’ certificates should be revoked? Who decides who is the rogue one? Even that is stretching it too far. Can I simply download a browser without some selected certificates? If the technology is so great, why isn’t it widely adopted today
Those are all rhetorical questions. You don’t have explain PKI to me.
Pretty much the same failure mode, just with different immediacy. No more travel, no more ability to start using new banking services, no more proving identity for becoming employed, pretty much anything that needs you to provide valid governmental ID (ID card or passport) and doesn't accept alternatives.
On the opposite end of that, both those services might accept something like a driver's license and the banking service might allow you to log in with their app, or a similar identity provider as a backup.
> There’s zero need for the government to mediate between me and my bank, or some random service provider on the internet.
Who else should we depend upon for verifying the identity of someone? Because currently it's a hodgepodge, especially when some places treat the equivalent of an SSN as a secret or have other half baked mechanisms, whereas in actuality it's a problem that's been solved far better, the same way how e-signatures work here when a single competent authority implements them well (certs on the e-ID card, you choose what to sign, but there's both data integrity and non-repudiation, a service that everyone integrates with and it is basically treated as a commonplace utility).
> What you’re describing sounds like a fun technical challenge assuming a perfect world. ...
Yeah, that's about it. Have a good one!
Might still be a business decision, but it's like saying "we'll drop any emails that indicate a mail client other than apple mail/gmail/outlook".
It's not surprising that the strongest protections always happen on the unsubscribe links, but not on the subscribe-links. That just needs to be fined out of existence, just like "you can order with one click, but you need 50 clicks and a three-hour-conversation to cancel".
Just like other cases, I won’t accept that it’s “just lazy” on the part of big tech companies. They clearly know how to adjust their internal view/reputation of a domain once it starts being used for “misbehaviour” and spam such that they start blocking it.
Thus they could clearly start by not doing so-and, maybe, they’re “really touchy” about domains with no initial “internal score” such that if a new domain pops up and starts spamming people they catch it fast. Its not necessary to break open Internet protocols, though, unless they want the breakage.