[dead]
Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
241–250 of 817 posts
Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
#242This seems really, really stupid. Similar to the weird Zig runtime signature thing from a few months ago ago, it was bound to be discovered, quickly, and all the resellers have to do is find a new domain name that (checks notes) doesn't have the word DEEPSEEK in it. Like, seriously? Your goal was to identify resellers by checking if the proxy has the corporate name of one of your competitors in it? Is this amateur ho…
To Claude Code: "Please modify Claude Code to mark requests in a way that is not immediately obvious to a human user. Requests should be marked if they originated from one of the following Chinese AI labs or LLM service providers: ..."
Consider also that Claude Code is explicitly designed to limit human agency [1].
Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
#243> If the client wants to detect custom API gateways, it can say so plainly. It can send an explicit telemetry field with documentation. It can make the policy visible. It can put the behavior in release notes. This seems like a very naive response. If clients send explicit telemetry fields to the gateway, a malicious gateway can trivially strip or modify the field to conform to what normal traffic looks like. The ste…
I would add that it would probably work even better than a KYC at least for some time until discovered, given that there is a very developed international market for KYC bypass services
Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
#244The conclusion of this blog post is a bit hysterical. The intent of this steg is excruciatingly clear (identifying usage by Chinese firms that may be conducting model distillation). It's unclear on how this "punishes normal developers" in any shape or form.
> hysterical. The intent of this steg is excruciatingly clear Even good goals do not excuse malicious or reckless execution. The ends do not always justify the means. Whether or not it harmed you this time , it's a violation of trust and autonomy. Surely you'd be angry if someone secretly installed a rootkit onto your computer, even if--at least for now--it only had code to try to detect and snitch on Public Enemy #1…
What do you see as malicious or reckless here, exactly?
This seems to be a VERY low resolution, functionally anonymous, bit of info, probably related to protecting their IP from bad actors breaking the TOS.
This looks like it's covered in the second bullet point of the "Personal data we automatically receive", that you consented to:
> Usage Information: We collect information about your use of the Services, such as the dates and times of access, browsing history, search, information about the links you click and about third-party applications, services, and content you integrate or interact with, pages you view, and other information about how you use the Services, and technology on the devices you use to access the Services.
What do you see as malicious or reckless here, exactly?
Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
#245Value judgment aside: I am a bit surprised at how sloppily they did this. I think they could've achieved the same effect while decreasing the odds of detection via reverse engineering. (This field is known as "underhanded code", coined by the Underhanded C contest: https://www.underhanded-c.org . It's a little-known "art"; little-known for probably self-explanatory reasons. There are much cleverer ways of achieving o…
Claude Code are slopmaxxxing and you're considering their "judgement"? :-)
"Value judgment aside" meaning commenting on how this was done without commenting on the actual considerations of whether one should do such a thing
Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
#246Value judgment aside: I am a bit surprised at how sloppily they did this. I think they could've achieved the same effect while decreasing the odds of detection via reverse engineering. (This field is known as "underhanded code", coined by the Underhanded C contest: https://www.underhanded-c.org . It's a little-known "art"; little-known for probably self-explanatory reasons. There are much cleverer ways of achieving o…
It's just the first layer and there are multiple layers underneath this that we don't know about. As a side note, I have a pet theory that one of the reasons that OpenAI and Anthropic are okay with the latest models not being released is to prevent distillation. I think they want to wait a couple months and see if the Chinese models continue to keep catching up or if their gains are really just because they're distil…
>It's just the first layer and there are multiple layers underneath this that we don't know about.
Oh, of course. I am sure this is the tip of an iceberg of tons of server-side detections and analytics. But, still, the client-side portion could've been done more cleverly.
What I meant was "some of the specific things in this little client-only snippet could've stayed server-only". I am sure long before they added this they already had tons of other mostly-server-side detection coverage.
Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
#247Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen Eve Online corporations that do a better job of steganographic marking than this.
That would actually be an interesting thing to read about
Years ago, EVE corps swapped Unicode lookalike characters in patterned ways, inserted patterned zero width space characters, and put very slightly color shifted background watermarks into forum posts to detect leaks.
Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
#248It's unclear to me how they're deducing the labs from this? "host.includes(keyword))" doesn't seem at all useful. Most corporate machine hostnames are just some numeric ID or similar not baichuan001 or whatever
>on your local machine
I'd think any developer worth their salt has at least some for of isolation going.
Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s even more funny how this blew in their faces. They even advertised pretty much all providers on hackernews home page. Here is in case you missed in the article ‘’’ cn baidu.com alibaba-inc.com alipay.com antgroup-inc.cn bytedance.net kuaishou.com xiaohongshu.com jd.com bilibili.co iflytek.com stepfun-inc.com moonshot.ai anyrouter.top claude-code-hub.app claude-opus.top openclaude.me proxyai.com yunwu.ai zenmux.a…
You have an odd definition of "blew up in their faces". What, do you somehow think your average Claude Code user on HN is going to think "Oh wow, I'm sure I'll get a much better experience if instead of going to the standard Anthropic Claude API endpoint I go through xiaohongshu.com."
For personal projects with no data sensitivities, I use Claude Code with DeepSeek v4 Pro a lot. I'm probably going to switch to OpenCode or pi.dev after this. I was already a little annoyed at using a closed source harness, but it matched what I used at work. Nowadays, I'm mostly using Codex at work so no reason not to switch anymore.
Re: Claude Code is steganographically marking requests
#250The conclusion of this blog post is a bit hysterical. The intent of this steg is excruciatingly clear (identifying usage by Chinese firms that may be conducting model distillation). It's unclear on how this "punishes normal developers" in any shape or form.
If you want to proxy Claude for a legitimate reason, you’ll have potentially nerfed responses.
edit:
Legitimate reasons include:
- analyzing what Claude Code is sending to Anthropic to verify its not exfiltrating data;
- selecting a model dynamically based on prompt difficulty, or enforcing a particular model;
- switching between multiple Anthropic accounts based on the project;
- filtering out credentials, PII and company secrets.
and many more.