Live data from Hacker News

Google broke reCAPTCHA for de-googled Android users

reclaimthenet.org

441–450 of 618 posts

Re: Google broke reCAPTCHA for de-googled Android users

#441
post #375
post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, how? At some point someone will need to issue a key, which at some point will need to be verified against known good signatures. These signatures will also need to be kept in case of lawsuirs/enforcement, so if somebody gets access they will know you visited that site

Parental controls on device are a better solution that work today and don't carry a risk of data breach.

Parental controls are intentionally gimped. They do the bare minimum while providing more than enough wiggle room for a tech savvy teenager. To implement a robust parental control scheme you need network level filtration which isn't something the average parent will know anything about.

Re: Google broke reCAPTCHA for de-googled Android users

#442

My understanding is that this new reCAPTCHA is basically just remote attestation. Remote attestation doesn't use blind signatures (as that would be 'farmable') so tying the device to the 'attestee' is technically possible with collusion of Google servers: EK (static burned-in private key) -> AIK (ephemeral identity key in secure enclave signed by a Google server) -> attestation (signed by AIK). As you can see if the…

> (as that would be 'farmable')

It could be contextual, as in each user gets one anonymous id per domain name per day. Multiple uses by the same user at the same domain in the same day are linked.

But much of the purpose of these systems is to violate the public's privacy and exert as much surveillance and control as possible. If not for that schemes that mitigate the privacy loss would be a top priority.

Re: Google broke reCAPTCHA for de-googled Android users

#443
post #367
post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Much like age verification Age verification as a technical concept can be done in a privacy-preserving manner! Whether or not we want age verification is another debate, but let's stop making wrong technical claims about that: it doesn't help.

Really, how? At some point someone will need to issue a key, which at some point will need to be verified against known good signatures. These signatures will also need to be kept in case of lawsuirs/enforcement, so if somebody gets access they will know you visited that site

You can prove your signature is from a key which is in a member of an acceptable set without revealing which one. These schemes can also prevent excessive reuse, e.g. by you also proving that some linked value is a hashlike function of your private key, the date, and the domain, so if you sign multiple times for the same site in the same day your uses are linked, so someone can't just toss up an oracle that gives endless authentications.

Such systems are deployed in production by privacy preserving cryptocurrencies as its the same problem: Prove you're spending a coin that exists without revealing information about which one, and prove that you're not spending it multiple times.

Less private but easier to implement is just simple blind signing. Site asks you to give them a signature of their domain name, your account name, and date. You blind the data using a random number, go to google and identify yourself (e.g. solve a CAPTCHA, check your mobile device, age verify, whatever) and ask them to sign the blinded value-- they rate limit you and give you a signature. You unblind and provide to the site. Now the site knows you passed the google rate limit but nothing else, but google never learns what site you authenticated to.

The blindsigning approach is kinda lame because it requires active communication with a third party that learns you're online and authenticating to stuff. So I think it's generally less preferred but the cryptography is hardly any more complicated than an ordinary digital signature.

Re: Google broke reCAPTCHA for de-googled Android users

#444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same problem but with French equivalent SNCF (sncf-connect.com). I just checked and can confirm nothing has changed. You cannot use up-to-date Firefox on Linux to access the main booking site for French rail tickets. Access is temporarily restricted We detected unusual activity from your device or network. Reasons may include: -Rapid taps or clicks -JavaScript disabled or not working -Automated (bot) activity on your…

Does it work if you spoof the user agent? > -Use of developer or inspection tools Gotta love it.

It gets blocked in a private window, but only on the second page load. So more sophisticated than UA-blocking.

The finger-wagging about "Use of developer or inspection tools" is just outrageous. Akin to accusing users of thought crime.

The only solution to all this will be through elections and laws.

Re: Google broke reCAPTCHA for de-googled Android users

#445
post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, they could sue for non competitive behavior, but good luck beating Google's lawyers

GrapheneOS users (and actually just citizen who care) in the EU should complain to the DMA team [1]. As with everything: the more people complain, the higher priority it gets. [1]: https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/contact-dma-team_en

I recommend every EU citizen to do this. Don't send a pre-canned message or an LLM-generated message. Write your own story and how Google (and Apple) are destroying competition and freedom for you as an EU citizen.

Even if you are a GMS Android user, they are going to make installing apps outside the Play Store much more annoying and these attestation-backed verifications are going to further deanonymize you.

Re: Google broke reCAPTCHA for de-googled Android users

#446
post #106

I've kept a spare cheap android for too long and recently went with Graphene instead. I have one Google profile and only use it for Uber, work's Google Chat and maps. One bank refused to work (even with Google services) so I moved bank. I've moved most of my mobile use to self hosted (freshrss full text, password manager, calendar, tasks) with no direct internet connection. It's a bit irritating but I'm glad I starte…

> It's a bit irritating but I'm glad I started down this journey because it looks more and more like I'm going to be avoiding the internet

I feel this more and more each day.

Re: Google broke reCAPTCHA for de-googled Android users

#447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you can just search 'buy google account' - it isn't illegal.

Sure but how do I know that the person I'm buying from legitimately owns the account? Won't scam me? Or try to con me out of my existing account? I'm just saying not everyone is as relaxed about that sort of thing.

The price is about $2-3 so you are not risking much, there are reviews and ratings. Of course there are scam sites, but once you buy several accounts you quickly figure out which ones are scam and which are not.

Re: stolen accounts, you can examine account details, history and activity after purchase, check for emails from social networks and return stolen account to the owner. The posting usually also mentions registration period (new accounts are unlikely to be stolen). But it seems that registering new accounts is cheaper than stealing - old accounts are much more expensive.

I didn't use the account for any illegal activity, there are just sites that use Google Account as a "verification" that you are not a bot, and to issue bans. And I am not interested in jumping through the hoops of searching a locked smartphone with Google Services and filing a visa application to register the account. I strongly dislike proprietary software and locked smartphones.

Re: Google broke reCAPTCHA for de-googled Android users

#448
post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really, how? At some point someone will need to issue a key, which at some point will need to be verified against known good signatures. These signatures will also need to be kept in case of lawsuirs/enforcement, so if somebody gets access they will know you visited that site

Ring cryptography does this - given a public key and a set of private keys you can attest that one of the keys signed it but not which one. This lets both Google and you generate a signature and say “this is attested”, without the person verifying it knowing _who_ signed it.

You likely need one other step beyond a plain ring signature, often called a linkable ring signature. If you use only a plain ring signature I could get one authenticated key and setup a site that gives away an unlimited number of access tokens with it, and you can't identify which key is doing so in order to kick it out.

A linkable ring signature lets you correlate multiple usage but only if they share a common 'context value'. Intelligent selection of the context value results in abusive use inevitably sharing a context so you can exclude or rate limit it, but honest use tends to not share a context so the privacy is preserved.

Re: Google broke reCAPTCHA for de-googled Android users

#449

To be fair, there are already apps that require a mobile phone to sign up, for example, VK, Telegram. And I think Google requires to scan a QR code to register account, so it is easier just to buy a Google account on a black market if you need it for some purpose. Nobody trusts web browsers nowadays.

I think you and I move in very different social circles... I would have no idea how, nor desire to purchase a Google account on the black market, and I do in fact still trust that my web browser can do TLS correctly.

I meant "corporations do not trust users who register from a web browser and not from a mobile app". Without a mobile app (which allows to collect more hardware identifiers and spam you with notifications) you are not welcome.

Re: Google broke reCAPTCHA for de-googled Android users

#450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never understand this anymore, it's genuinely one of the easiest services to pay to bypass automatically (literally 3-liner of JS), webmasters are becoming incompetent.

If you don't understand something, the first thing to do is try to understand it, before going to "the people who use this are incompetent". In this case, the answer is right there in the question: You have to pay to bypass it.

Sometimes, people just do dumb choices, there is nothing to understand except plain lazyness, there is better captchas, free, non-invasive, more secure, GDPR compliant and so-on that are also not covered by captcha-solving providers, so what's the positive argument about reCaptcha?
Post reply on HN