Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

anubis.techaro.lol

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 223 posts

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#141

Post by afavour »

skrebbel wrote: post #138
vintagedave wrote: post #32

> 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?

Well a little translation would be that some are very kind, some are total assholes, and everything in between. But your reading is probably more accurate.

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#143

Post by well_ackshually »

doctor_radium wrote: post #103

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 disable things and expect others to do things for me, in their own time, without being paid, to bring solutions to my paranoia"

You do see how selfish it is, right? While the author did introduce such a solution, it's such a massive waste of time.

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#144

Post by strken »

afavour wrote: post #141
skrebbel wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well a little translation would be that some are very kind, some are total assholes, and everything in between. But your reading is probably more accurate.

I think the literal interpretation is correct here. It's a way of saying "you, dear reader who runs this combination of things, might be very kind, but some of your compatriots will be unusually unkind and will turn up in my issue tracker and on my socials to complain".

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#145

Post by [deleted] »

strken wrote: post #144
afavour wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well a little translation would be that some are very kind, some are total assholes, and everything in between. But your reading is probably more accurate.

I think the literal interpretation is correct here. It's a way of saying "you, dear reader who runs this combination of things, might be very kind, but some of your compatriots will be unusually unkind and will turn up in my issue tracker and on my socials to complain".

[deleted]

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#146

Post by skrebbel »

afavour wrote: post #141
skrebbel wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well a little translation would be that some are very kind, some are total assholes, and everything in between. But your reading is probably more accurate.

Thanks!

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#147

Post by well_ackshually »

gruez wrote: post #63
embedding-shape wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Scrapers can't change their strategy? Yes, but you normally don't try to fight all strategies up front, you add stuff on a need-to basis. Currently, lots of people are in the stage of "need to get this thing using bunch of IPs to stop hammering my servers", apparently Anubis helps them with that. If that stops working, other tactics are tried, and so it goes on for the life of your service. Hasn't stopped yet, does…

That argument also works against anubis. Why bother forcing clients to solve a PoW challenge, when you're fighting a bunch of unsophisticated attackers that will be deterred by a javascript challenge that requires them to solve `result = x + y`?

You're not fighting unsophisticated attackers. 50% of them are, maybe. The rest? They're actively hostile, detecting blocking attempts, moving on to botnets, DDoSing you and trying everything they can to bypass you.

People have been sent to jail for participating in LOIC attacks which were less destructive that what these bots do on the daily.

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#148

Post by swiftcoder »

doctor_radium wrote: post #103

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…

> because I dislike things running in the background without my knowledge

Point of order: WASM doesn't let things run in the background. To do that you need WebWorkers (a javascript feature, not WASM-specific).

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#149

Post by Nnnes »

andai wrote: 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?

Others have answered your question. A lot of the sites listed here https://anubis.techaro.lol/docs/user/known-instances/ have dynamic content; Git web interfaces in particular (Codeberg, the Linux kernel, FFMPEG, and more are on the list) are vulnerable to poorly or maliciously configured scrapers.

Re: It took a year to ship WebAssembly in Anubis

#150

Post by adrian17 »

> something I was doing with my "strict MVP" build of Anubis' WASM wasn't in fact sticking to just the MVP features of WebAssembly

Fun fact, this _used_ to be the case - wasm32-unknown-unknown had extra non-mvp features added later, which in my eyes has been a breaking change on stable. You're not the first person to have been bitten by this, there's [1] and a similar story in Ruffle [2].

Weirdly, the response from the rustc side (IIRC we also talked with one of the devs of wasm component on discord a bit around 2024) has contained a lot of (paraphrasing) "in retrospect we think wasm32-unknown-unknown target was designed badly*, so we'd prefer if you either dealt with it or switched to another wasm target than us fixing it". (*I acknowledge that the way std was implemented on that target was unusual and "not clean", but it works _really well_ for a lot of people.)

> I looked into the process involved for rebuilding the standard library twice: once with only MVP wasm features enabled and once with an "all yes config" like usual. Based on some research I did this seemed like a massive pain.

That's what Ruffle does [3], it's a bit unfortunate but wouldn't call it a massive pain.

[1] https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/can-we-have-either-a-new-t...

[2] https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle/pull/18397

[3] See lines 55 and 117-127 in https://github.com/ruffle-rs/ruffle/blob/6890c618daab3153343...

Post reply on HN