Live data from Hacker News

Sending spammers to password purgatory

troyhunt.com

131–140 of 170 posts

Re: Sending spammers to password purgatory

#131
Nice! I like things that keep spammers and scammers busy.

My own low-effort method is to accept mail for any domain on my name servers. Spammers think they are relaying their scams but it just goes to a flat text file. It isn't like I try to hide it. The banner even says its a honeypot and not to use it.

    139K /var/spool/mail/vhosts/crap
    24K  /var/spool/mail/vhosts/crap
    177K /var/spool/mail/vhosts/crap
    196K /var/spool/mail/vhosts/crap
That's 4 days of spam/scams.

Re: Sending spammers to password purgatory

#132
post #73

For our dating site, which of course has to deal with many prinses, Nigerian or otherwise, when we manually verified an account to be a scammer, we reject logins with a message stating that the IP address has been blocked. Scammers will usually go through all of their VPNs/bots in order to try to login, allowing our system to flag them all. We'll manually review all accounts that use (more than one of) those ip addre…

> when we manually verified an account to be a scammer This makes all the difference with other services that block out users only to let them guess why they were blocked. If an automated system did that, I would have said it's evil. Yet, I hope you have a communication channel in case there was a human error.

Admittedly, there is the occasional false positive. For such cases, we display an email address right underneath the error message. Scammers rarely dare to complain, and when they do, they are usually not very convincing.

Re: Sending spammers to password purgatory

#133
I like the idea, but upon pondering, I think it could be made better by imitating other dark patterns:

1. Ask for a username, only offer "OK"

2. Upon OK: Wait 2-3s while showing an ajax spinner, then add another box to the DOM, asking for an "e-mail"

3. Rinse and repeat with first name + last name; then company name; country (pick from a list of ~50 widely known country names, sorted by median age of the population - remove the IPs country of origin, so they have to pick "other" and enter it manually)

4. Tell the user the username doesn't match the expected format and offer to add a random "#1234" for them - upon doing so, back to square one (except their username is now "#1234" and not "scamoverlord#1234"). make sure to flush the other info as well.

5.1. Tell them you're sending a verification mail (you don't). Offer them to resent it after 30s.

5.2. Upon "try again", tell them first to check their mail address, and lock the "try again" for another 10s.

5.3. Now, after another 30s, tell them there must be an error with the mail gateway (there is no mail gateway) and offer them to continue; the verification mail is queued and will be sent later (-> you're sooo super userfriendly!).

6. Now the user/victim easily spent 90s to enter "valid" details and must be quite invested. Show a re-captcha style captcha before asking for password (after sending an email and possibly spamming someone? yeah, maybe put that before the fake mail verification, I came up with that in the wrong order).

7. the "checking if you're human" should fail after 3-4s (spammers are used to that).

8. Then the first of the 9 captcha images should pop up afer 1-2s initial "loading time", the other ones after another .5 - 2s, each.

9. Let the first one or two captchas fail no matter what (two if they're fast, one if they're already spending a lot of time there - plausible if you're handpick terms + images for which foreign speaker often don't know the exact meaning; like "barnacles", "melange", "cabin", "truck", or showing differnt styles buses and asking for "tram").

10. Three times the charm: Accept any answer, as long as the "user" spent more than 4s on it (use a simple term with obvious images to make it plausible, like "birds" or "cars").

11. finally get started with the password. Let them do four or six levels.

12. What's that, the the captcha timed out and/or too many bad password tries? Are you sure you're not a bot? Well, do it again! (maybe let them only fail once to keep them hooked)

13. Oh no, the password field has been reset after the captcha was solved. At least you now know how to do a rule-abiding password. So let them do all the levels.

14. If they're really persistent, fake a "oh no, your tab crashed, reload?" screen for their browser.

Uuuuh, I think I put that on my infinite todo list.

PS: Have them write "a few words" about their business. Make sure to garble copy/paste (e.g. reverse word order or just reset length counter to 0, increase decrease from there and do a proper recount on submit). On submit, verify the input for a few seconds and claim that it's either to short or too long (if they wrote >500 chars, say it should be 200-400, if they wrote PPS, for balls of steel: Add a second act by only enforcing the first few levels. Then, upon login, tell them they need to change their password. Maybe also tell them if they install your "super special" security extension, they can use weaker password rules. If they stupid enough to really install it, let it send a "X-Block-Me: I am a scammer" header along with every http/s request.

Re: Sending spammers to password purgatory

#134
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when we manually verified an account to be a scammer This makes all the difference with other services that block out users only to let them guess why they were blocked. If an automated system did that, I would have said it's evil. Yet, I hope you have a communication channel in case there was a human error.

Admittedly, there is the occasional false positive. For such cases, we display an email address right underneath the error message. Scammers rarely dare to complain, and when they do, they are usually not very convincing.

These humane touches make all the difference. Thanks for taking the time.

Re: Sending spammers to password purgatory

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Legitimate interest would totally cover you here. The fear-mongering and misinformation about the GDPR is getting really annoying by now.

Indeed. Dating sites have a legitimate (and I'd say moral) need to protect their customers from all kinds of nasty business. If the only way to do that is through the use of PII, and that use is well-documented in the privacy statement, and the data is not being used for unrelated purposes, this should be well within the bounds of GDPR.

Re: Sending spammers to password purgatory

#137
post #99
post #89

You can check in their GitHub repo [1] the list of reasons to reject your password (classified by level of "InfuriationLevel"). Some examples: 'Password must contain at least 1 primary Simpsons family character' 'Password must contain at least 1 Nordic character' 'Password must contain at least 1 Greek character' 'Password must contain at least 1 primary Griffin family character' 'Password must contain at least one e…

My favorite was "password must be a palindrome".

But how does the palindrome rule work with “password must start with ‘cat’” and “password must end with ‘dog’”? It seems impossible to satisfy these three.

Having the conditions contradict each other serves as a proof that it’s impossible to create a password; I thought this information shouldn’t be revealed to the user.

Looks like there is already an issue about it: https://github.com/troyhunt/password-purgatory-api/issues/45

Re: Sending spammers to password purgatory

#138

I like the idea, but upon pondering, I think it could be made better by imitating other dark patterns: 1. Ask for a username, only offer "OK" 2. Upon OK: Wait 2-3s while showing an ajax spinner, then add another box to the DOM, asking for an "e-mail" 3. Rinse and repeat with first name + last name; then company name; country (pick from a list of ~50 widely known country names, sorted by median age of the population -…

Wow, this is almost precisely the process for creating a new Air Canada account.

Re: Sending spammers to password purgatory

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the article goes into detail to explain how only spammers have a key to the api which logs that data

They’re still people though. Is punishing spammers for what they’ve done a helpful thing to do? Sure. Are spammers deserving of having their whole digital lives compromised? I don’t know.

> Are spammers deserving of having their whole digital lives compromised?

Yes

Re: Sending spammers to password purgatory

#140

I like the idea, but upon pondering, I think it could be made better by imitating other dark patterns: 1. Ask for a username, only offer "OK" 2. Upon OK: Wait 2-3s while showing an ajax spinner, then add another box to the DOM, asking for an "e-mail" 3. Rinse and repeat with first name + last name; then company name; country (pick from a list of ~50 widely known country names, sorted by median age of the population -…

Wow, this is almost precisely the process for creating a new Air Canada account.

Another well intentioned 'design by committee'.
Post reply on HN