Live data from Hacker News

JavaScript is now required to sign in to Google

security.googleblog.com

311–320 of 529 posts

Re: JavaScript is now required to sign in to Google

#311
When I was at Google I started both the login risk analysis project and the Javascript-based bot detection framework they're now enforcing, so it's a pity to see so many angry comments. Maybe a bit of background will make it seem more reasonable.

Firstly, this isn't some weird ploy to boost ad revenue. This is the login page - users are typing in a long term stable identifier already! The Javascripts they are requiring here are designed to detect tools, not people. All mass account hijacking attacks rely on bots that either emulate or automate web browsers, and Google has a technology that has proven quite effective at detecting these tools. There's a little bit of info on how it works scattered around the internet, but none of the explanations are even remotely complete, and they're all years old now too. Suffice it to say: no JS = no bot signals.

Google had the ability to enforce a JS-required rule on login at least 6 years ago and never used it until now. Without a doubt, it's being enforced for the first time due to some large account hijacking attack that has proven impossible to stop any other way. After so many years of bending over backwards to keep support for JS blocking users alive, it's presumably now become the weakest link in the digital Maginot line surrounding their network.

For the people asking for the risk analysis to be disable-able: you used to be able to do that by enabling two-factor authentication. You can't roll back your account to just username and password security though: it's worth remembering that account hijacks are about more than just the immediate victim. When an account is taken over it's abused and that abuse creates more victims. Perhaps the account is used to send phishing mails to your contacts, or financial scams, or perhaps it's used to just do normal spamming which can - at enough volume - cause Gmail IPs to get blocked by third party spam filters, and user's emails to get bounced even if their own account is entirely secure. The risk analysis is mostly about securing people's accounts, but it's also about securing the products more generally too.

Re: JavaScript is now required to sign in to Google

#312
post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A company I am considering investing into: https://fingerprints.digital/

Are they looking for funding? They appear to be privately funded.

They have been at https://www.wolvessummit.com/ - they are preparing for a funding round. You can find them at other events listed on their page: https://fingerprints.digital/event/

Re: JavaScript is now required to sign in to Google

#313

ITT: people dramatically under-estimating the risk to their accounts from credential stuffing and dramatically over-estimating their security benefits from not running JS. They're probably right that not running JS is privacy accretive, but only if you consider their individual privacy, and not the net increase in privacy for all users by being able to defend accounts against cred stuffing using JS. The privacy loss…

And indeed it's time to give up on the web being a document format only. The internet is about loading remote applications in your local sandbox. That's what it is. It sucks, but it is what it is. As part of loading remote applications, we now might be asked to compute whatever anti-abuse puzzles are required. So it goes.

If something shitty is happening, you don't have to shrug your shoulders coswhatyagonnado. Understanding the human reason why something shitty is happening doesn't mean you have to accept it. So it goes, until it doesn't.

Re: JavaScript is now required to sign in to Google

#314

ITT: people dramatically under-estimating the risk to their accounts from credential stuffing and dramatically over-estimating their security benefits from not running JS. They're probably right that not running JS is privacy accretive, but only if you consider their individual privacy, and not the net increase in privacy for all users by being able to defend accounts against cred stuffing using JS. The privacy loss…

If by ‘cred stuffing’ you mean brute forcing accounts, that’s what short lockouts and 2 factor authentication are for. JavaScript is just a layer of obfuscation and doesn’t fundamentally help.

Credential stuffing more commonly refers to the practice of getting valid sets of creds from various password database dumps and retrying them across common/popular systems.

2FA is a good defence against it, but lockouts are less as they attacker will be going broad and not deep (could be a single request per user account)

Re: JavaScript is now required to sign in to Google

#315
post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is especially interesting is that this will allow Google to track you on more pages, but that in this case, you can by definition not block the tracker. I've checked, but reCAPTCHA just falls under the general Google Terms of Service. I don't believe this to be done with that goal, but it is an unfortunate side-effect.

ReCaptcha is like Cloudflare's free DDoS protection: we like to point at these services and complain how people are "ruining the web" by using them because that's what we do on HN. We ignore the big picture and whine. But I encourage everyone to consider a darker reality: that centralized services by large companies are becoming more and more necessary in a world where it's becoming easier and easier to be an attacke…

That is exactly what I was trying to say with the final line in my comment: I do believe that this is necessary; it's just unfortunate that it comes with the tracking side-effect.

So no: the take-away is that this improves reCAPTCHA. A side remark to that is that it also improves Google's ability to track you, and hampers your ability to fight that.

Re: JavaScript is now required to sign in to Google

#316

When I was at Google I started both the login risk analysis project and the Javascript-based bot detection framework they're now enforcing, so it's a pity to see so many angry comments. Maybe a bit of background will make it seem more reasonable. Firstly, this isn't some weird ploy to boost ad revenue. This is the login page - users are typing in a long term stable identifier already! The Javascripts they are requiri…

I understand what you're saying and it makes sense. I think in my mind it's the fact that javascript has the potential to do so many things, not that it's being used that way today.

To use a bad car analogy, the in-car entertainment used to be just a dumb radio. Now that it's a computer connected to the main car network, it has a lot more potential to do things, whether it's a feature, bug, or an exploit.

Re: JavaScript is now required to sign in to Google

#317
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, basically javascript is used for security through obscurity?

Can't you use Javascript to implement challenge-response authentication, which meaningfully improves security by: 1. Preventing interception of passwords on the wire 2. Allowing a tunable "difficulty" parameter which makes brute-force attacks cost ineffective 3. Requiring that brute-force attackers either run a Javascript interpreter (dangerous, because the web site chooses what they do and could make them mine Bitco…

>1. Preventing interception of passwords on the wire

Isn't this solved by https? I have no idea, but I hope at least that https protects my passwords.

>2. Allowing a tunable "difficulty" parameter which makes brute-force attacks cost ineffective

I don't want to wait for a login more than a second. Actually, I don't want to wait at all.

>3. ... or rewrite their brute-forcer each time the JS-driven network communication channel is altered

How is this different from altered HTML/CSS? An attacker has to adapt to the altered login page. It is not an argument for javascript.

>It seems to me that having a client-and-server protocol beyond just "POST this data here" can be more secure than sending a password to the server for verification...

You say it: a protocol! not a piece of javascript.

Re: JavaScript is now required to sign in to Google

#318
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, basically javascript is used for security through obscurity?

Can't you use Javascript to implement challenge-response authentication, which meaningfully improves security by: 1. Preventing interception of passwords on the wire 2. Allowing a tunable "difficulty" parameter which makes brute-force attacks cost ineffective 3. Requiring that brute-force attackers either run a Javascript interpreter (dangerous, because the web site chooses what they do and could make them mine Bitco…

I believe some US banks have been doing this for a while.

Re: JavaScript is now required to sign in to Google

#319
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Javascript can be served dynamic as well, per user/connection specific even. So an attacker would have to investigate and counter each new version of the scripts. Even if this could be done automatic it greatly increases the cat/mouse factor for Google.

So, basically javascript is used for security through obscurity?

security through obscurity may be no security at all, but security without obscurity is probably not as good as security with obscurity for many security scenarios that one can imagine.

Re: JavaScript is now required to sign in to Google

#320

When I was at Google I started both the login risk analysis project and the Javascript-based bot detection framework they're now enforcing, so it's a pity to see so many angry comments. Maybe a bit of background will make it seem more reasonable. Firstly, this isn't some weird ploy to boost ad revenue. This is the login page - users are typing in a long term stable identifier already! The Javascripts they are requiri…

Not to detract from your work there, but there's actually some great research papers about how Botguard itself is easy to bypass and google cookies provide most of the heavy lifting when it comes to bot detection.

I've snooped around a bit myself and it doesn't seem like botguard does anything much more advanced than other fingerprinting solutions.

I just don't buy that this is all about detecting more bots; every sophisticated bot I've seen in the ad world runs javascript as it's better to pose as a normal user, and only a tiny fraction of users would have javascript disabled.

To be honest, I also don't think requiring javascript is a bad thing either.

Post reply on HN