211–220 of 335 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except v3 has to be on every page of the site and that gives Google a full view of all traffic on the site
So does Google Analytics, so does AdSense. ReCaptcha V3 is probably the least used of the three.
The problem presented by services like ReCaptcha and Cloudflare is a tough nut to crack. They're silently embedded in a huge portion of modern websites, and the average user will never even know about them. But it seems to be way too easy for them to blanket-ban or serve an absurd amount of captchas to powerusers, linux gurus, privacy geeks, or anyone with the wrong combination of browser+addons. And the failures (as…
Yeah, you can't really talk about downsides of Recaptcha/Cloudflare without also acknowledging the extreme amount of malicious actors and abuse on the internet. We're in a "this is why we can't have nice things" predicament and you have malicious actors to thank for that, yet most people on HN only seem capable of attacking the few affordable solutions to that problem. I'm even down with the theory that Cloudflare is…
It's hard to consider simply viewing content to be malicious or abusive, no matter how automated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the severely-outdated Firefox version number. Spambots and crawlers sometimes have user-agent strings corresponding to very old browsers, because they were set once when the bot was created and then never updated. On an unrelated site that I run, we get a lot of traffic with user agent strings corresponding to implausibly-old browsers, and it's ~100% bots.
November 2017 is “severely outdated”? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/57.0/releasenotes/
As others have echoed, this is probably a huge marker for malicious bots to Cloudflare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the severely-outdated Firefox version number. Spambots and crawlers sometimes have user-agent strings corresponding to very old browsers, because they were set once when the bot was created and then never updated. On an unrelated site that I run, we get a lot of traffic with user agent strings corresponding to implausibly-old browsers, and it's ~100% bots.
November 2017 is “severely outdated”? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/57.0/releasenotes/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this goes out the window when you have a bad actor making claims as follows: >The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology. I am no fan of Cloudflare; as an expat, their service just makes my life increasingly frustrating as I have to go through hoops and perform circus tricks just to look at the bouquet…
Cloudflare only got its revenge on Daily Stormer because it had the power to do so, and abused that power instead of using the legal system like everyone else has to. I used to be a schoolteacher, and no matter what bad or false thing a student said about me, I wouldn't fail them as retribution or to prove them wrong or anything. That would be abuse of power. Might is right?
A business has no such constraints. If I go to a bar and start telling people that the owner is actually a racist, I’m going to get kicked out even if I want to buy more drinks. That’s not “might is right”; it’s the owner not wanting to do business with an asshole.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any sufficiently bad actor will already modify their user agent. Who is this really stopping?
Bad actors who are bad at being bad actors, which is actually the bulk of bad actors. It's maddening, but it's true. I've seen tale of people having to modify resource auto-generators that created URLs with hexadecimal identifiers in them because the sequence "ad" in a URL would trip ad-blocking browser plugins. You might ask yourself "how many ad companies worth their salt have 'ad' in the URL path?" and the answer…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
November 2017 is “severely outdated”? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/57.0/releasenotes/
Two full years for an evergreen web browser, which contains probably the largest surface area for software exploits of anything on the machine? I’d argue absolutely yes. As others have echoed, this is probably a huge marker for malicious bots to Cloudflare.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does Cloudflare have to provide CDN services for them, though?
I oppose CloudFlare's decision because, culturally, it's un-American—and they are an American company. I expect all Americans, and especially the most prosperous and successful Americans—like the CEO of CloudFlare—to uphold those values. I would 100% support legislation requiring anyone providing a platform or infrastructure, such as CloudFlare, to have a 100% neutral policy as to who they provide service to. It's a…
If they had phrased this as "we have decided to drop them because the DDOSes they were experiencing were more expensive than the money we were making from them", would you have been ok with them dropping them? Or would they be required to publish a hard rule about 'we will drop a customer that experiences more than x amount of DDOS traffic'? And if they have to do that, that is basically telling adversaries, "DDOS us this much and you can get us dropped"
It seems really tricky to make this a rule that businesses have to do business with everyone. It is a very established rule in the United States that a business is free to enter into business agreements with whoever they want, as long as they don't discriminate based on specific protected classes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, no one said the SPLC is the final say for this. Second, do you have any examples of an organization that the SPLC deemed a white supremacist that wasn't?
I know the SPLC has paid out in defamation suits rather than allow the cases to go to trial. Pretty good sign they knew they'd lose as it has severely hurt their reputation. Here's a particularly egregious case where a UN affiliated group was labeled an extremist hate group and the SPLC wouldn't relent even after evidence was presented: https://www.newsweek.com/splc-nawaz-million-apologizes-98187...
I've been noticing a larger and larger portion of sites in google results have been taken over by something . They all act the same way, and act similar to cloudfares checks. You get a big green dot on the screen first and then a bunch of redirects. I've not read anything about it, but probably 1/15 of my google result clicks end up there. How does google not know these sites have been taken over and keep them on the…
I have a little tip for you; right-click your back arrow, and choose your search page from the list.
I assume it's somehow redirect-related and that's why these sites tend to trigger it.