Live data from Hacker News

It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

anubis.techaro.lol

131–140 of 223 posts

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#131
post #115

Tangential but all the pages I see protected by Anubis are just static HTML. But bot traffic is only harmful on dynamic pages right?

no, absolutely not, any malicious or dishonest bot traffic is harmful, generating unnecessary transfer and literally stealing data

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#132
post #130
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or something that shadier websites could calculate ahead of time in your browser, then spend on your behalf. I feel like Anubis is ironically speedrunning a lot of discoveries the crypto folks have already made several years ago...

What if the work output was bound to a particular source IP? That'd stop most "theft" at the expense of discards when your device switches networks.

Anubis does this. Happy Eyeballs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Eyeballs), IPv6 privacy extensions (https://oneuptime.com/blog/post/2026-01-15-ipv6-privacy-exte...), and devices migrating between home and mobile IP addresses as the person moves have all caused issues with this. Fixing this is hard, but I have been trying.

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#133
post #85
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scrapers scrape all sorts of nonsense, notably every possible git diff from git hosts. They clearly aren't concerned with rationality.

Scrapers scrape every link they can find. The git host example is probably the one which Anubis is the dumbest defense for: the main reason to have those links is for easy machine interaction. So that's dead when you implement it. So why even host the links? It's a git repo: send them a local got client and let them clone the repo in browser or something.

> why even host the links? It's a git repo: send them a local got client and let them clone the repo in browser or something.

I document my code, in issue and elsewhere on the Web, by referring to specific commits so having a URL for each is useful to me at least.

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#134
post #115

Tangential but all the pages I see protected by Anubis are just static HTML. But bot traffic is only harmful on dynamic pages right?

I'm not a fan of Anubis for various reasons but the idea that bot traffic in only harmful with dynamic pages must die. CPU (yes, even to serve static pages) is not free, bandwidth is definitely not free. There's an idea that serving a static page to a bot has a marginal cost tending to zero, but it's never really zero and serving them by millions definitely has a cost. Also, while some pages may look like static HTML…

There are numerous services that will let you host static pages for free or nearly free. There are also numerous services that sit in front of your website that can block bots and reduce load on your origin server, many of which are also free, or very low cost relative to the service they provide.

The situation you are in is far less dire sounding when you consider that you have these options available to you.

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#135
post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Look, if you're going out of your way to break expected behaviour on websites you shouldn't be surprised when people code to the most common denominator and then you have weird subtle breakage as a result.

Gotta agree. Turning tracking cookies off? Sure! Turning session cookies off and then complaining that the server doesn’t remember you? Uhhh… And while I’m sympathetic to the idea of not wanting to run JS, to a first approximation modern browsers are JS engines that have graphical displays. How things should be vs how they are is a classic is/ought problem. The world took a vote on what a browser’s meant for and we l…

There's no mechanistic difference between the two types of cookies, let's not pretend this is an actual config choice that people are making.

Whenever I hit Anubis, I simply go "keep your secrets then" and take my leave. The vast majority of the sites posted to HN (that catch my fancy) work fine or fine enough, and are better for it.

If I really, really desperately want to check something out, I can always just turn stuff back on. Turns out, I rarely do.

Shoutout to the particularly dogshit few that don't just require cookies and JS, but even third party JS. For reading a blogpost or a message thread!

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#136
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it could in principle be profitable for the website, not the client?

Yup was thinking the same: make honest people pay $0.00001 when they visit the site (in electricity/compute), have the challenge made so that only the website wins a tiny something. Bleed the bots dry. > This makes Anubis challenges use a memory-hard proof of work function (argon2id) instead of just a CPU hard one. It also means that the "hey Claude vibeslop me a CUDA Anubis solver" route is on its way to being funda…

[dead]

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a fan of Anubis for various reasons but the idea that bot traffic in only harmful with dynamic pages must die. CPU (yes, even to serve static pages) is not free, bandwidth is definitely not free. There's an idea that serving a static page to a bot has a marginal cost tending to zero, but it's never really zero and serving them by millions definitely has a cost. Also, while some pages may look like static HTML…

There are numerous services that will let you host static pages for free or nearly free. There are also numerous services that sit in front of your website that can block bots and reduce load on your origin server, many of which are also free, or very low cost relative to the service they provide. The situation you are in is far less dire sounding when you consider that you have these options available to you.

Except that I don't have these options per employer policies.

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#138

> In my experience the kinds of people who run this exact combination of circumstances also tend to be the kind of people that have a wide variance in the level of kindness they display to the authors of open source programs that happen to be in their way. Love this. There’s been past discussion on HN re how OSS maintainers are treated, and this is such a wry sentence. I really appreciate the tone / attitude to the p…

Can you translate the American for me? “Wide variance”, does that they’re being assholes?

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#139
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it's not stopping anyone" and "it is stopping some people" are mutually exclusive statements.

You're selectively quoting the comment. It's clearly talking about the PoW aspect not being a serious impediment.

Who cares if its PoW or something else? Does it matter in any meaningful way?

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#140

I have every copy of Firefox here configured with webassembly disabled...because I don't tend to do what Webassembly was designed for, i.e. online games, video/audio editing, emulation, etc. [1] and because I dislike things running in the background without my knowledge. So this is going to be interesting. My plea (in a small voice) to the OP: just as many sites still do for JavaScript, please add a "This captcha req…

I really don't see why you'd disable WebAssembly and allow JavaScript instead. Expecting developers to make a fallback for a baseline-supported feature for any reason but backwards compatibility with runtimes that do not so support WASM is extremely silly.
Post reply on HN