Blocked by Cloudflare
jrhawley.ca
jrhawley.ca
> What about Google Chrome?
> I tried all of the above in Firefox. So I naturally tried to access the same page in Google Chrome to see if I’d still be blocked. Thankfully, I wasn’t.
> But of course I wasn’t because Chrome doesn’t have the same privacy- and security-enhancing designs that Firefox does. Chrome will happily collect as much private information about me and my browsing history and share them with select parties, as needed. It also doesn’t resist fingerprinting or let me modify settings to the same degree that Firefox does because Chrome relies on those fingerprinting technologies to ensure that I am targeted by ads it deems necessary for me to see.
> Being blocked on Firefox and not blocked on Chrome also tells me that Cloudflare is blocking me based on the fingerprint (or lackthereof) of my browser. Everything about my connection is identical between the two requests, aside from the browser being used. It’s the same security certificates, same corporate VPN, same machine, even the same timeframe when I try to access the site.
If you care about anything these days, don't use Chrome.
> Chrome will happily collect as much private information about me and my browsing history and share them with select parties, as needed
What information does Chrome provide in this scenario that Firefox doesn’t? It feels like backward logic: it worked in Chrome therefore it must be because Chrome gave extra info. In reality it could be a whole bunch of things, something as mundane as Firefox being a rarer user agent so subject to more filtering.
It strikes me that all of this is an inexact science. I've run into rate limit messages with sites before now that go away when I switch browsers, no matter what the browser is. I assume it's because, with the limited information given, the DDOS protection software assumes that same IP + different UA = different computer.
I have no clue but I wasn’t persuaded that this specific scenario works with Chrome because it was giving away more information. At a bare minimum at least try a third browser!
> But of course I wasn’t because Chrome doesn’t have the same privacy- and security-enhancing designs
Maybe I’m missing something but it seems the conflation was by the article author, not me?
To be clear, I don’t even use Chrome, in part because “Google bad”. This just isn’t intellectually honest.
> Eventually, I found some suggestions that if you’re using Firefox you can disable the privacy.resistFingerprinting option in the about:config page. But that was already listed as false for me when I got stuck, so I switched the value to true just to see if that would do anything.
> And that worked!Firefox on Android was still working, though, loathe as I am to put passwords of any significance on my phone. Doesn't directly address your question, which I'd like to know the answer to as well.
Sigh
In terms of being blocked by CloudFront (not cloudflare),I actually got a website to fix their policies by just emailing their tech support and showing that simple user-agent changes bypasses their policy anyhow.
My high-level understanding is that they're going to run an ML model over your browsing history (locally on your device) to build a list of "topics" that you care about. Sites you browse can use the Topics API to pull a set of these interests from the browser to show you "relevant" ads. Mozilla has taken a negative position against this standard.
>> Chrome will happily collect as much private information about me and my browsing history and share them with select parties, as needed
> What information does Chrome provide in this scenario that Firefox doesn’t?
Is Cloudflare using an as yet unshipped API as part of DDOS protection?
But this new API demonstrates that Google is not on the consumers side when it comes to limiting tracking/data gathering ability, as the new API is explicitly for fingerprinting.
Whether Mozilla/Apple/others agree is a different story. The blowback has mostly been around how topics aren't perfect and the design still leaves room for abuse and therefor effectively devolves to traditional tracking: https://mozilla.github.io/ppa-docs/topics.pdf.
The argument from supporters is that this is a step away from the “fingerprint and track” status quo MO. The argument from detractors is that it doesn't quite achieve that goal.
All you need to address your concern is for access to the API to be user-configurable.
And it should be behind a permissions prompt
But that’s exactly what I’m saying: the author asserts as fact the reason Chrome worked was because it gives up more personal information but there’s no interrogation of whether that’s actually true and if true, how it’s achieved.
I’m no defender of Google I just believe we should be making arguments we’re able to actually back up.
If the site is serving Google, Meta, or ads from other networks, your unique browser fingerprint is one of the tools that makes it possible to target and retarget you.
I think the fingerprinting is a red herring. Yes, Chrome is less secure. But Chrome worked.
It's quite possible someone at the author's workplace updated their Cloudflare WAF settings and made things more strict, causing more checks. I'd even offer that a Firefox extension might be contributing.
But the argument that Chrome worked because it offered Cloudflare personal information is pretty out there ;)
But yes, 3 is all we're left with outside of a few bespoke projects...
Servo doesn't have a browser but I'd wager that writing a full featured browser for Servo would be much more useful than another Blink browser
“The Chrome User Experience Report (CrUX) provides user experience metrics for how real-world Chrome users experience popular destinations on the web. This data is automatically collected by Chrome from users who have opted in, . . .”
Taken from https://web.dev/crux-and-rum-differences/
I harden my Firefox installations, and therefore this website comparison isn't useful.
The site that morjom posted gives you a simple overview and Firefox is known for the privacy preserving features it comes with. However, you are right, that it is an inexact science as long as we don't know the logic of the Cloudflare implementation.
I have ublock, privacy badger, decentraleyes, canvas blocker, facebook disconnect, and duckduckgo privacy essentials installed.
I would go through and disable each extension in order to see if it was the cause of the issue, and so far, every single time it has been duckduckgo privacy essentials that is breaking websites for me.
I think I should remove it at this point, but who knows? Maybe it's protecting me from something that I don't see.
Really? That's news to me.
Case in point: Many of those targeted ads contain malware. :)
Any modern browser that doesn't actively fingerprint as either most-common Chrome on a laptop, most-common Android browser, or most-common iPhone is written by such hopelessly naïve nerds that they shouldn't be trusted with user-facing software with real security considerations.
Since Chrome is so common that it's basically guaranteed to have been tested against the site I'm trying to access, I use Chrome.
Or Cloudflare.
The older you get, the more valuable being able to just dump your shit on other people becomes.
I wonder how world views were shaped with those entering the industry post GFC and with google and aws on the ascendency.
The absolute state of software engineers and systems administrators in here, man. Talk about overengineering and premature optimisation, let alone being totally oblivious that their laziness is what creates a monopoly.
Also, fingerprinting isn't always "bad" -- any business who takes credit cards online, wants to try to exclude people who will commit fraud (because they might have done it before.) Preventing fingerprinting, means you prevent certain anti-fraud, which means that you see higher prices and more friction doing commerce online, which also affects your experience. The connection is just much less direct.
(My point? Characterising anonymity with an item of clothing associated with paramilitaries has associations that don't need to be there.)
I still today wear a mask in every store I enter and I can completely honestly say that I have never gotten a weird look from staff over it; it's never been a problem.
Admittedly France has tried this bullcrap with burkas before, but that's not exactly something anyone should be emulating, I think we'd pretty much all agree that "I'm sorry but for security reasons you can't buy groceries wearing a burka" is not an acceptable argument. Security doesn't grant free license to override other people's rights.
Bear in mind that the actual real-world examples of the argument "people shouldn't be able to wear masks in stores because of security risks" have for the most part mostly been examples of security being used as a justification to infringe on religious rights or to block marginalized/disabled people from taking reasonable safety measures to protect themselves from infectious disease.
If you're going to bring up an example of security overriding other concerns, at least bring up an example where security hasn't observably immediately become a slippery slope to infringing on people's rights and excluding them from society. Is "stores can ban you for wearing a mask" supposed to make me more comfortable with websites fingerprinting me? I mean, I know where that argument ends up in the real world, it never ends with balaclavas, we've had that argument in the real world and where it actually ends is with immunocompromised people not being able to buy groceries.
So I'm not sure any of this is really supporting your point. Anonymity should not be punished in physical or virtual spaces, and there are huge debates about de-anonymization, facial recognition, and tracking in both public and private physical spaces and for the most part we don't accept security as a justification for de-anonymization.
But why.
----
More seriously (and more relevantly), in the context of the current conversation about privacy and user autonomy, the correct answer to "why do you need to be able to do X" should usually be, "that's none of your business."
"Why do you need to run a VPN?" None of your business. "Why do you need to wear a mask?" None of your business. "Why do you have WebGL disabled?" None of your business. "Why does your browser not have this font installed?" None of your business.
A big part of autonomy and agency is that you don't need to ask permission or justify to anybody why you're doing the things you have agency to do. If you need to explain then it's not autonomy, it's permission. I don't feel I need anyone's permission to wear a mask indoors in a public space regardless of my reasoning (and in practice I'm never asked to explain, millage may vary but my experience is that nobody really cares). And similarly I shouldn't need Cloudflare's permission to run an obscure browser or to customize my computer setup.
The price is the highest the market will pay. Increasing that price means few customers lower revenue. Fraud is a cost to the business they must pay out of profits because if they tried to increase prices demand would drop.
Granted, I'm not aware of a lack of fingerprint being penalized. That said, there are products that allow custom rules, in which case anything is possible.
I work for a company in this space. Opinions are my own.
In this context the goal of fingerprinting is to detect requests coming from an attacker. It does not care about the ability to distinguish between individual machines.
>Once a card is deemed stolen it stops working so it's unnecessary for that scenario.
The whole point of automating it is so you can cash out many stolen credit cards. If you only have one you might as well do it manually.
>Increasing that price means few customers lower revenue
Making more revenue doesn't matter if that extra revenue ends up getting eaten by chargebacks.
By the same argument you could say it should be fine for a physical store to refuse service to anyone who they get a bad feeling about or don't want to serve. But if you permit that then you're immediately opening the door to racism etc., which we consider socially unacceptable. It should be the same for websites too - I bet all these browser fingerprinting techniques just happen to mean better service for people who can afford the latest iphone.
How bad is it nowadays? Can't you just enforce 3DS2?
And if we're taking things to task for monopolizing a market and being a threat to the future of the open internet, I'd say Cloudfare is and will always be a bigger threat.
The moment the Cloudfare dictatorship becomes less benevolent, everyone is gonna feel it.
In my eyes they have already done that. ICYMI I highly suggest checking out their response and subsequent blog post around the Kiwifarms incident.
That whole debacle was enough to prove to me they learned nothing and are going to continue down this path. I migrated web services and closed my account with them shortly after that whole thing.
Cloudflare routinely ignores abuse reports for its network and takes no responsibility for the utter garbage being carried across their network. It’s almost comical how they so desperately cling to the claim that they are “just a dumb pipe” on one side of the house and on the other a “serious security vendor” who is “protecting the web” while blocking out users simply for the “crime” of trying to preserve their privacy.
If they wanted to convince me they had the web’s best interest at heart they wouldn’t host half the sites they do. They would actually respond to abuse reports and take abusive websites offline rather than wait for it to hurt their bottom line and reputation before taking action but they don’t.
Using JS to "verify that this is not a bot" is a way to force users to enable JS and expose themselves to more advertising.
(I've tried it, that's how I know)
I care about a lot of real world stuff - human rights, wars, the environment, friends etc. I don't care if Chrome knows who I am and tries to show me ads which uBlock then blocks. There are more important things to worry about than privacy geekery.
If you've read history (and maybe you have, or not) privacy is a human right. When privacy goes away, then everything else goes away. Ask anyone over 60 in Germany or Romania (that was not WITH the army or the Police/Security services) and they will tell you how nice life is without privacy.
But hey, sure, 1) privacy doesn't matter, 2) you got nothing to hide, etc etc.
> Cloudflare detected the high frequency of requests and denials (but not their faulty loop that caused this pattern of requests, of course), and tagged my browser as suspicious.
I can tell you at least that we don't penalize users for this looping behavior, so this wouldn't cause us to see your browser as suspicious. I hope we can dig into this more and uncover the cause of the problem.
Personally, I'm a big Firefox user, and this isn't behavior I see. If there were a widespread Firefox wide issue, automated alerts would trigger and we'd consider this a critical incident.
You can drop me an email at amartinetti at cloudflare if you're interested in troubleshooting.
2-3x per day i get some sort of "click here if you're a human" thing from cloudflare.
It could be caused by someone else's bad behavior on the VPN but I'd hazard a guess that it's more than that.
I don't think I've seen it for a week or two now but I've certainly encountered it in the past for spans where it'd occur at a frequency of maybe once every two or three days and then go away for a while.
Could it have something to do with that ticket extension I'm using (Privacy Pass, looks like it's called)? I don't know if it does anything.
1. IP addresses are to be used for packet routing. Certainly not for assigning "behavior scores" to users in the background. IP addresses say nothing about your visitors, my IP address could have been a complete stranger's IP address yesterday.
2. Deciding who can access half the web based on their TLS signature achieves nothing in the long run except reinforce browser monopolies, and goes completely against the spirit of the open web.
I guess now I have to use Chrome for browsing the web from home. Yes, I do run a crawler-like bot as a hobby project, I got what I was asking for. (Funnily enough, it still works if I just emulate Chrome's TLS signature). But I also have friends who have done absolutely nothing of sorts (no technical skills), and still got caught up in this latest ban wave.
Let's be honest here. Your service has likely caused millions of people harm who one day to the other are suddenly blocked from half the WWW - not just nerds, who can get around that one way or the other, real users who just got unlucky and now are potentially blocked from accessing websites required for their daily lives (welcome to the 21th century). This is not a one time problem, it has been going on for years; this time it just came too suddenly for too many people. And this kind of harm is a logical conclusion to the heuristics you use for determining who can view a website.
Never mind that it's ridiculous how a single company from outside my country has the power to decide on whether I can use the web or not. That's kind of on website owners unconditionally giving this power to CF anyway.
Now, allow me to return to purchasing proxies from shady sources for myself, so I can keep using Firefox. Thanks and keep up the good work.
You know what else is harmful to the concept of the open internet? The enormous malicious botnets and other endemic problems that require a solution like CloudFlare.
Is there a 'town square' where we can talk about being presented captchas and similar things from 3rd party intermediates.
I think it's incredibly likely that millions of hours have been wasted on such challenges.
https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor...
"Well, let's say you can shave 10 seconds off of the boot time. Multiply that by five million users and thats 50 million seconds, every single day. Over a year, that's probably dozens of lifetimes. So if you make it boot ten seconds faster, you've saved a dozen lives. That's really worth it, don't you think?"
Imagine if people still thought like this about computers and software.
Not to take away from your point, just that it's all a hindrance.
The GDPR does not mandate gratuitous and pointless personalised spying, which is the only case that requires consent. Normal operations (say a shop collecting payment details and shipping address to fulfil an order) do not require a consent banner.
Technically, I think if you have the default Apache logging configured and you read those logs, you should probably float that banner.
GDPR is not "vague" about this; perhaps you haven't read it (as laws go, it's pretty easy to read).
It reminds me of the war on drugs in a lot of ways.
This became irritating enough that it caused two side effects: (a) I stopped shopping at Petco, and (b) I moved a pile of sites off of Cloudflare and stopped recommending them, and now sometimes recommend against them.
Cloudflare is still a good, quick, cheap option for sites that receive unusual volumes of malicious traffic, so I'll still recommend them as a solution to some problems. But, they're not a good default.
Cloudflare offered Petco the features to do this as a product and makes money off of Petco's usage of those features. I do sympathize with the perspective that ultimately tools need to be somewhat neutral and it can be dangerous to forward around responsibility. But "tools are neutral" can also be taken to an absurd degree. This isn't 5 levels of indirection here and it's not Petco going and installing a neutral piece software that they downloaded from Github. Petco is a client. They're turning on toggles that Cloudflare built into their user interface and advertises as features.
There's some level of moral accountability there for how those features are abused. I'm not saying it should be illegal, I'm not saying it shouldn't be allowed, but Cloudflare is definitely at least eligible for criticism. This is a product, it's not Petco abusing Cloudflare's infrastructure; they're using the product as intended and advertised.
An open web is open for everyone/thing not just classes of beings you select. Bots and users can both be malicious and both can be positive.
> An open web is open for everyone/thing not just classes of beings you select. Bots and users can both be malicious and both can be positive.
This I agree with. I run an archiver ~monthly on a subset of my month's browsing history, and I'd hate if that got me blacklisted from Cloudflare-backed sites for a benign purpose. (See also the idea of remote attestation)
For the archival process I use ArchiveBox[1] running as a container on my NAS; I just grep through the note for `http|https` and feed the resulting list to the archiver. For everything not-hackernews I set the depth to 1, but for HN threads I do 2 so I grab whatever people may have linked in the comments.
I think there's ways to hook into like, ALL Firefox history or saved posts on reddit, but that's way heavier than what I care for.
You know what's infinitely worse? Monopolies.
Half these problems can be fixed by banning certain parts of the world. It's just politically shifted out of the Overton window to do that so CF profits greatly.
If there's a place to start, it would be with eliminating the infinite challenge loops. Bad enough that IP blocks get outright blocked. Bad enough that I have to decide whether or not that blurred sliver of the edge of the wheel+shadow constitutes being part of the bicycle. Not to mention the humanitarian betrayal of the absolute highest form to farm the free human labor to train AI models when they are simply trying to browse the $#@%ing internet.
Every spec is a three-edged sword: the spec, the intent of the spec, and the use of the spec in the wild.
In practice, Cloudflare does a pretty good job on far-more-than average of gluing together some heuristics in an unspec'd way to filter traffic. It sucks because you can't plan around it, but that's rather the point because the malicious actors are trying to plan around it also.
(ETA: Hacker News rate-limited this post. In theory, I could have set up a sock-puppet to try and work around that, but then they would catch that too and I'd be out two accounts. So I just waited out the limit. Measure and counter-measure. ;) ).
Is it a theory about increasing quality of communications? It can't be a tech bottleneck.
Dang was handing them out like candy on January 6th. And I think he was justified in doing so; there was a coup in progress in the United States, so discourse here went completely off the rails.
But it's a very easy to implement method of throttling volume, which helps improve the conversation by minimizing opportunities for people to gish-gallop. You can email and ask to have it removed; I have refrained from doing so because it serves as a gentle reminder not to get dragged down in the lowest common denominator of what passes for discourse on the site from time to time.
So there is no perfect solution. You can't use strong identity because a user can share their identity with a robot. You have to use a crapy heuristic that only works most of the time (or tell site owners it's an application layer problem and use this SASS solution to solve the problem).
I mean you admitted that you run a crawler. Cloudflare has detected that you run a crawler and has wants you to prove that you're human to access sites on their network. It actually sounds like their product worked.
In any event, there should probably be better regulation around how this blocking is handled so that users aren't being unjustly blocked. If you want to run a crawler, how do you do it ethically so that you aren't targeted and your traffic blocked? If Cloudflare blocks you from accessing one site should that block extend across their whole network? How long should it last? How do you appeal the block if Cloudflare's heuristics falsely block you? If you're in a life and death situation and need immediate access to medical information and Cloudflare unjustly blocks your access and it causes harm, who's at fault? Etc.
> Break rate limit and get a timeout
It sounds like you’re coming at this from an authenticated API perspective where client identity is a given and anonymous access is the exception. The web inverts this, making everything much more difficult and necessitating the sort of fingerprinting that is at issue in this article and I presume you are opposed to.
Cloudflare provides a vital service that solves a real problem that breaks non-pragmatists brains.
Often times when people say this, what they really mean is that they have different opinions about which tradeoffs are tolerable and which tradeoffs aren't.
Captchas are a nightmare for accessibility. Turnstile was designed to solve that problem, but is a nightmare for privacy-oriented and non-standard setups. Getting rid of both systems and blocking based purely on behavior or building entirely new metrics to block on would absolutely be a nightmare for website security.
It's all tradeoffs, but some of those tradeoffs get labeled as "pragmatic" and some of them get labeled as "idealistic" -- mostly just based on the personal values of whoever is making that distinction. The reality is that no matter which direction we go, somebody is going to get the short end of the stick. We all want to minimize harm, but we disagree about who that somebody getting the short end of the stick should be and how short of a stick they should get.
I agree that it's idealistic to claim that we can just let automated agents access any website and that it wouldn't be a nightmare for security. However it is equally idealistic to claim that it is possible to fully secure websites against automated attacks without restricting disabled people, violating user autonomy, or harming the overall health of the open web. I do have sympathy for Cloudflare; they are trying to solve an impossible challenge. That's the key word: it's actually impossible. It's a challenge that can't be solved, we can only do the best we can do and that means accepting tradeoffs both for site security and for accessibility and access.
I disagree with Cloudflare about the exact degree to which solving that challenge justifies and excuses harming the open web and I disagree with Cloudflare's idealistic fantasy that fully solving that challenge is possible without significantly harming the open web. I disagree with some of their product directions and metrics not because I'm idealistic about alternatives but because I'm realistic about the outcomes of what Cloudflare is doing right now.
They're not tasked with anything. They choose to sell a bot detection and mitigation platform as a product, and that's a hard business to be in. If they think they can do it, great. If they can't, they shouldn't try.
Why not place the blame on the people who are configuring Cloudflare to behave in this way?
I'm a happy Cloudflare Enterprise customer, and our DDoS settings are "Off", we don't present captchas to end users, we don't block any traffic, and we've disabled all of Cloudflare's managed rulesets.
It's very possible to use Cloudflare with all of the security features switched off. The features causing the author's issues are features that can be disabled by the site owner. Cloudflare has power over what they recommend as the default settings, but ultimately it's up to the site owner to choose how to configure Cloudflare for their site.
I think there could be a healthy debate around Cloudflare's default account settings, but I'm surprised by the number of people here dismissing the fact (or maybe not aware of the fact?) that all of these are features that can be turned off. The owner of the site chose to keep bot protection, visitor verification and related features turned on.
Sane defaults. Of course everyone would turn DDoS protection on.
I'm wondering if it's related to Cloudflare's new/updated Bots features, especially the "Super Bot Fight Mode" feature -- which I believe gets a default setting that is super strict.
As others have mentioned, saner defaults might help, but I guess they want to error on the side of "more secure" vs a less secure default.
Blocking all crawlers except Google bot is itself a problem.
There should not be any bot protection, only abuse (e.g. DDOS) protection. Block disruptive behaviors, not fingerprints.
It's probably third in the list of frustrating web behaviors in the past couple of years (behind GDPR popups and registration/paywalls that seem to have gotten much worse recently).
And somehow there are some sites that I get CF delay walls on every time I visit.
This feature is utterly broken for a good web experience; it pushes users away from sites which use it.
Every time that "checking your browser" page comes up for a legitimate user should be considered a failure. Sure, it can maybe happen a few times in a thousand, but the feature is utterly broken if it comes up every time I visit the same site from the same browser not in private mode.
Cloudflare's customers are website operators, not you the end user. Those website operators seem pretty pleased with the service, so clearly they are doing a good job for the people who they are building it for.
Cloudflare is running the single biggest, most blatant man-in-the-middle attack in history, and far too many people are happy about it
if that's not an "attack", I don't know what is
Like is it an attack on the site owner - are you saying cloudflare is extorting them or something? That seems unlikely but I agree that would be a form of attack... it also doesn't seem to be what you're saying.
Is it an attack on the user of the website because the website owner successfully denies visitors it does not want? Does that mean that login credentials are a form of attack too? Would an on-prem load balancer or WAF that dropped all traffic from a region or matching patterns still be an attack?
It just doesn't make sense that it's an attack.
How can you not see that as anything but an "attack"?
This is precisely what Cloudflare is doing to end users - causing problems like OP (and myriad others) experience by slowing down and/or blocking major chunks of the internet
Also, it’s quite disingenuous to label cloudflare as only slowing things down. One of their primary functions is a global CDN/cache which significantly speeds up otherwise bandwidth constrained sites.
Eventually I gave up. I don't even bother with their captchas or other stupid human tricks anymore. Whenever Cloudflare gets between me and the site I'm trying to use, I move on and shop somewhere else. Life's too short for this.
Cloudflare is acting as judge and executioner, and site owners never accept that the product may be faulty.
And soon with Web Integrity API they may start telling you to use Chrome on Windows or MacOS, rendering Linux completely unusable.
But I'm pretty sure that millions of users aren't using stuff like w3m pager ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34175754 )
We're all technical here, we are the edge cases. We use exotic software / combos. Let's not get carried away here
The PM of cloudflare uses Firefox, I sometimes use Firefox and I don't notice any difference ( concerning this use-case at least).
If you want help, perhaps describe the actual use-case that is blocking you to him. He shared his email.
- country
- software ( VPN, ... )
- browser
- OS
- traceid
- ...
Either way, buying shady proxies as you mentioned is already a warning flag.
While using Firefox is not :)
If this was true, Cloudflare wouldn't be a good product used by a lot of sites.
To a large firm, 1% failure is acceptable. To the affected 1%, it's a disaster. Consider wrongful imprisonment as an example.
The penalties for being excluded from the web are fairly severe, and looking to become more so. CF is fairly lean; there is no available human to operate an escape hatch for when things go wrong.
When I'm king, every block or account suspension must provide a phone number, and hang the inefficiency.
What causes such loops? Just a challenge over and over.
It must be intentional. Not unlike the endless loop of frustratingly slow-fading reCAPTCHA challenges that don't go anywhere. The user gives up after some time, but doesn't see any explicit error or page blocking their access. I imagine it must be quite effective.
You can either reply in the comments with the ID (no PII), or email me at amartinetti at cloudflare.com and I'd love to dig into it.
We're building Turnstile because we want to make challenges a better system than CAPTCHA. It sounds like for you it's worse, and we want to fix that.
7f3b42d2bee22efb
I can get into the linked site but only if I turn on web workers (I also have WebGL turned off), and while I don't have the RayIDs on me, I have run into scenarios where Turnstile refuses to let me on websites before. I'll add a second vote on here that Turnstile has been worse for me than the system it replaced.
It's kind of wild to me that Turnstile doesn't seem to have a fallback. Users can specify one I guess? But they're not required to, and Cloudflare does have some responsibility for giving website operators the option to just turn off alternate challenges.
The end result is that if something goes wrong while Turnstile is loading, it's just... done. It just sits there. No captcha, no advice, no feedback, no error message, we couldn't load the code we wanted and now you get to look at a spinner for eternity with no indication of whether you're blocked because of a browser config or because you don't have cookies turned on or what. And captchas have a ton of problems, but Turnstile is openly designed to test for browser API presence, it's openly designed to use black-box AIs to test how similar your browser is to other people's who have passed before. It's no wonder at all to me that it's tougher on less common browser setups. I'm grateful there are people from Cloudflare willing to help debug these issues, and I don't doubt Cloudflare's intentions, but if I was trying to build a system to encourage browser homogeneity, Turnstile is what I would build.
I used to resent being asked to prove I wasn't a robot. Now I resent not even being given the option to prove I'm not a robot.
here is one. I'm not on my PC so i used a privacy enchanted fork of Mobile Chrome. Enabled WebGL, WebRTC and WASM. Disabled all the fingerprint resistant features i could easily (the only thing messing with your systems could be the HTTP Referrer or Timezone)
Perhaps its a DNS-level issue? Does cloudflare use any google related APIs to provide the integrity check?
I run dnscrypt-proxy and I have seen CloudFlare protected sites reject me based on that. I haven't been able to pinpoint which upstream resolver provider causes it as I have it set to automatically cycle through and it's intermittent enough that I haven't bothered getting to the bottom of it (ie. doesn't happen for several weeks and then happens for 15 minutes or so before resolving).
Perhaps it's one of the default DOH providers being used by Firefox?
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Security/DOH-resolver-policy#Confor...
Presumably not CloudFlare themselves, though.
I'm not a Chrome user, but does Chrome automatically use Google DNS these days?
My experience is that Firefox as a policy is not blocked, but if anything about my setup looks sketchy (I'm on a VPN, I have Javascript disabled, I'm blocking cookies, etc...) being on Firefox seems to make Cloudflare a lot less "tolerant" for lack of a better word.
I don't think Cloudflare has a policy against Firefox, but I do vaguely suspect that certain behaviors that wouldn't trigger blocks for Chrome do trigger blocks for Firefox (particularly if it's hardened). I don't have any hard data to back that up, maybe it's my imagination -- but it is what I personally notice.
But my biggest practical complaint at the moment with cloudflare is that it intermittently inserts captchas in the json responses sent from Roundcube webmail - pretty amazing.
(The webmail server in question is hosted on a uni network that paid for cloudflare between themselves and the internet, so being indirect cloudflare "customers" there's no support channel. Hooray for scale)
No, you don't. Tor Browser is constantly blocked by Cloudflare and the captchas cannot be solved. And you know it.
This somehow even persisted into the browser's incognito mode, and I had to use an entirely different browser. This wasn't on a small unknown site either.
(It looks like pinned CSPs are a dead standard, but did anyone implement it?)
Troubleshooting done. If it's any consolation, I don't think Cloudflare is the only offender. Geolocation is a crappy idea to begin with, if you ask me.
- https://gitlab.com/users/sign_in
- https://www.zabbix.com/forum/
- https://camelcamelcamel.com/
It's really annoying and Cloudflare is apparently doing nothing to fix it as this has been going on for months if not years. I guess Cloudflare just hates the open web and really wants to enforce Chrome/Chromium/Blink hegemony.
These bot detection systems tend to use all manner of imprecise statistical heuristics and weird fingerprinting.
Perhaps AegirLeet has a graphics card that a popular web scraper pretends to have. Maybe they're in a suspicious timezone. Maybe they've installed a font usually only found on a different operating system. Maybe I'm never blocked because I have an excellent IP reputation, due to regular visits to approved websites.
We are gonna have to live in a slightly bot-rich society to keep this at bay.
It starts with browser control. And then, ends with needing human verification to ssh into a server that you own. Let’s just build better security.
There is no such thing as a reliable standard for browsers to verify that users are human that does not harm the open web or threaten user autonomy and accessibility. Every single accessibility standard and user choice about extensions and access is abusable by malicious actors, and every security measure to block abuse of automated scraping or access also blocks valid use cases.
Making it a web standard won't change that fact.
We'll also release a reporting mechanism soon, so in the future you can let us know when you see these issues and we can react to them quickly.
- 7f395b5ddfe43a54
- 7f395ca09bfa3a54
- 7f395d8afaf73a54
- 7f395f075e33690d
- 7f396102afef35fd
- Gitlab; Ray ID: 7f3961b4ec46c443
- Zabbix; Ray ID: 7f39624d982bc32e
- NameMC; Ray ID: 7f3962e68d251871
- Camelcamelcamel; Ray ID: 7f3962eb9cbb421f
Easily can recreate at least the never ending loop by flipping on ublock origin's 3rd party scripts and 3rd party frame blocking, which matches their recommended medium settings.
- Zabbix: 7f3970eabe8ff196
- SteamDB: 7f396f534b0400d2
- Casetext: (works)
- NameMC: 7f3971a01a22d5a8
- Spinroot: (works)
- Camelcamelcamel: (works)
casetext 7f39762f693733e4
steam 7f397694995aa3b7
all over firefox
ray id 7f3a169d4e630306
I previously had the same problem with ungoogled-chromium as well (regular chromium worked), but I guess it works now after 2-3 loops.
Incidentally, another Cloudflare PM for Pages asked me to do the same thing--I shared my account ID, the request, the problem, timestamps, etc...never heard back ever, request went straight into the void.
A service has injected itself between you and your goal, it's going to periodically impede you from reaching that goal and then lie to you about why, all while making money off of the arrangement.
https://steamdb.info/login/ 7f3cc161bf85dbd9
https://www.zabbix.com/forum/ works
https://casetext.com/ works
https://namemc.com/login 7f3cc182b8c20ccf
https://spinroot.com/spin/whatispin.html works
https://camelcamelcamel.com/ 7f3cc171f96d2b9b
- https://gitlab.com/users/sign_in 7f3e45c3cebfb90f
- https://steamdb.info/login/ 7f3e4a04bf7a0e39
- https://www.zabbix.com/forum/ 7f3e4b681f8f1cc6
7f3e4cab4af40b05
- https://namemc.com/login 7f3e4debdf6cb7f1
- https://spinroot.com/ loads normally, no delay or blocking
- https://camelcamelcamel.com/ loads normally, no delay or blocking
Adammartinetti, I appreciate your interest in doing this, but would love to hear that CF maintains a giant white board in the developer area with the name of every TLS 1.3 web browser known to mankind (the same data on a Group Policy-enforced internal home page would be even better), to reinforce the idea that it takes more than Google to make the world go round.
Personally, I'll add myself to the list of people who think you've created a game you can never win, and thus shouldn't be playing.
That's a little different
Like you have the illusion of choice, that's what I'm talking about and that's different
Browser engines are now open source a lot more than they were.
I don’t think it’s about illusion of choice as much as some browsers actively working to degooglify themselves from Chromium and maintain it.
Some browsers are maintaining their own forks, others aren’t.
Companies like Cloudflare, Google, Meta, etc are the reason anti-trust law exists. Unfortunately, it appears there is no one with any power that is willing to use the laws for their purpose. The internet in 20 years will be nothing like we've seen before. That's not a good thing.
Website owners specifically choose for cloudflare to protect against this, it's not forced upon them by cloudflare.
Could anybody still create a new search engine nowadays?
https://radar.cloudflare.com/traffic/verified-bots
https://blog.cloudflare.com/friendly-bots/
> At Cloudflare, we manually “verify” good bots, so they don’t get blocked.
But cloudflare references robots.txt a lot ( which i mentioned before => to respect robots.txt)
Additionally, they solve the authentication problem here. As a website owner that got bad crawlers ( that copied user agents), i just whitelisted Google's IP's and blocked all the other crawlers.
It seems that cloudflare is actually fixing this problem and making competition for Google possible here.
I recall an article that Bing actually circumvented robots.txt a bit, because site owners were only allowing Google and blocked all the rest => Bing. Which gave Google an unfair advantage ( searched for it, couldn't find it)
Similar article to highlight the issue: https://www.fastcompany.com/90709672/the-little-known-reason...
Our opinions about this seem to differ severely. Cloudflare actually enables good bots to start competing ( while respecting robots.txt).
I’ve had to deal with these things easily bringing sites down.
If all we had to deal with were the users, wouldn't need nearly the spend on the site. Started manually blocking some of the worst offenders.
Feel free to prove me wrong and disrupt cloudflare by only handling that use-case
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34101988
> Had a lot of spammers with Russian language. Implemented expanding xml-bombs, Google Captcha, hidden input fields and a couple of other things against bots. But the block on the russian language was most effective ( and since I was dogfooding it, I didn't see the harm at the time. But it's out of scope at this very moment, yes).
Eg. If you live in a dictatorship and use a VPN. You're traffic is together with a lot of people.
The website owner can disable cloudflare their checks and that will leave their site unprotected. The choice of that is up to the website owner, no?
It really sucks for a third party to claim you're a bot and as a result you lose access to resources. And the potential for harm is only increasing.
Worse still, the false positive rate appears unacceptably high (look at all the people here with substantial issues) and there's no recourse unless you get a highly voted thread on hacker news.
And their technical skills probably skews perception ( exotic browsers, behavior, VPN, Tor, ... )
As such, can you say, by indication, what percentage of web surfers "a lot" is? ( = Including non technical)
I don't disagree that people can have problems. I'm just wondering how representative "a lot" in reality is.
Yeah but what sort of transparency does Cloudflare offer website owners about what kind of traffic was blocked and *why*?
There are all kinds of tools that you can easily deal with bots and the large DDOS your ISP can handle for you if you are willing to pay for it.
That's exactly what people are paying Cloudflare for, because contrary to your local ISP they are actually competent at blocking a DDOS attack.
People use services like Cloudflare exactly because they don't want to spend a fortune on complex infrastructure just to deal with abuse. Even a mostly-static page running on a reasonably-specced server can easily be overwhelmed by an attack. Why spend $1000 / month on hardware when you can spend $100 / month on Cloudflare's protection?
Cloudflare actually provides this service for free (for simple use cases at least).
I don't know how to come down on this issue. On one hand, I am against the centralization of cloudflare and the risks that come with it.
On the other hand, cloudflare allows almost anyone to set up a simple website and serve it to large numbers of people with very little resources/cost and advanced protection from DDOS attacks.
Note: light use-cases ( or should I say shared models?). Not heavy GPU tasks
input: This is fucking badass!
result: [ { "label": "NEGATIVE", "score": 0.9994425177574158 } ]
No one "forgets" this because it isn't true.
Only if Cloudflare stops you moving to a competitor.
[0] https://community.cloudflare.com/t/statistically-speaking-wh...
legacy.com
Ray ID: 7f3e7bad3afbb731
That's the difference to me.
[0] https://community.cloudflare.com/t/statistically-speaking-wh...
These range from pretty simple things that check that the browser is actually a browser rather than a raw HTML parser (e.g. "draw an image on a <canvas>, export it to PNG, hash the PNG, compare to an expected result"); to things that check for low-effort headless-browsing techniques like the one you get by default using Puppeteer in a Lambda/Cloud Function (e.g. "do we have the weirder fonts you'd expect to exist on a consumer OS, but which these default batteries-included container images don't bother to bake in"); to things that work really hard to detect the "scent of humanity" through the browser (e.g. "before the user activated the integrity-check prompt, did we record a sequence of 'extraneous' mouse movements and key events that look like a human making individualized mistakes on their way to completing the form, and don't look like a recorded capture of such similar to other ones we've seen recently.")
If you're getting caught in a verification loop, it's because you're using a browser or device or extension that obscures/disables enough of these heuristics that Cloudflare can't get proof positive that you're a person rather than a bot — and so, under whatever settings the site-owner has it set at, it will just keep trying to get that proof, rather than telling you you've failed and been blocked. (Why? Because telling a bot they've failed tells them that they should stop trying something that's not working and instead — in the words of Star Trek technobabble — "rotate their shield frequency" before trying again.)
Many headless-browser stealth techniques involve rotating between the signatures and reflected metrics of real — but niche and/or ancient — User-Agents. (For some reason, the developers of these stealth systems think that variety beats commonality. Maybe it makes sense if they're specifically trying to overcome Apache mod_security's signature-based UA blocking or something.)
It turns out that when you actually see one of these UAs in your server logs, it's far more (99.99%) likely to be a stealthed bot that picked that UA out of a bag, than it is to be an actual niche/ancient UA.
In the case of the niche UAs, this is a tragedy of the commons.
In the case of the ancient UAs, though, there's no downside to blocking them entirely — because if the traffic is going through Cloudflare at all, then you're already requiring of the client a minimum version of TLS that the real old UAs can't even speak. So the only things actually saying they're that old device — but managing to get through an HTTP request at all — are stealthed bots.
I work in this space and we just use fingerprints we collect from actual users over the previous month. The hardest work is: 1) reverse-engineering the javascript of the CAPTCHA/fingerprinting solutions so that we can collect and encapsulate the fingerprints correctly in a way that looks native to cloudflare/recaptcha/etc, and 2) Training AI models to solve the captchas well enough.
Sounds like most of the people you catch are using ancient user-agents. But I doubt most of the people you want to catch are.
I suppose there are verticals where the data is so valuable, and the garden around it so walled-in, that you could build a whole IT business with a custom scraping stack just around extracting that data to then resell it. (I presume that's the business you're in.)
But for most verticals, the "attackers" you'll see in your logs aren't people building a data-broker business, and so aren't building their own secret-sauce anonymity from scratch; rather, they're end-users who want to do an end-run around your rate-limits, commit promotion fraud, etc., and so want to buy anonymity as a product, script-kiddie style. And "anonymity as a product", sold publicly (rather than through high-value contracts) tends to suck. It's script-kiddies buying from script-kiddies, with no real engineering in sight.
> I work in this space and we just use fingerprints we collect from actual users over the previous month.
Are you sure you're not in a citogenesis cycle? How sure are you that some of those "real users" aren't your peers' stealthed bots, who in turn picked up those fingerprints from unknowningly observing other stealthed bots in their logs, who...
Doesn't matter, they work (at least when used in combination with high-quality proxy IP's). If they stopped working I'd do something else. We only apply hard science when absolutely needed, otherwise it's mostly wire and duct tape holding things together -- ruthless focus on creating business value.
We definitely only sell this via high-value contracts, so you're probably mostly correct there. Though puppeteer-stealth deserves at least a quiet shout-out for not completely sucking.
That said, we do pay attention to a lot of the research in the field, even if we only apply the absolute bare minimum needed to create business value. Eric Wustrow[0] at UC Boulder does really, really good work in an adjacent space, and we've found some his papers/software to be helpful, as well as those of some of the colleagues he works most closely with. I don't think he'd love our applications of his research, but our technological needs dovetail well with the needs of the anti-censorship research that he works on.
If you were interested in the degree of "citogenesis", I think that's something that academic researchers like Wustrow et. al would be very well-positioned to investigate. Highly recommend any of their papers, they make front page of HN surprisingly often.
In my humble opinion if your bot is stuck in a CloudFlare loop for 10 minutes that's a pretty strong signal that something's not working...
(I yearn for a world where auth challenge failures give proper error messages so I can figure out why my regular, human-used authentication channels aren't working).
A "try again" just means "you haven't succeeded yet." If that's all you get, you're getting zero bits of new information — so you can't do anything other than to assume it was your timing that looked weird, and keep trying. (And you might be dealing with even more noise, e.g. trying to have the bot calibrate itself toward a very low human-tuned request rate limit, where above-rate-limit responses look no different than integrity-fail "try again" responses.)
Suddenly getting a (maybe permanent) hard-fail, meanwhile, means that you said something the integrity-checker really didn't like.
Presuming you have a lot of IP addresses to send requests from, you can then do many experiments to bisect the difference between a hard-fail and soft-fail, and use that to blacklist values from your UA+metrics library. It's free entropy!
Case in point, I set a waf rule that blocked all non verified bot traffic from several big datacenters (Google cloud, OVH, digital ocean, etc). That turned out to be a mistake because a lot of corporations were routing their traffic through those ASNs for some reason. Now they’re blocked. They could have gotten pissed out cloudflare, the error page looks the same, but it was really misconfiguring it.
On some sites. Many sites, especially the big ones, see that it's an unknown browser, and refuse to send content. Probably they think it's a bot. But even if it were, what's wrong with bots, as long as they're well-behaved?
What kind of closed web have we let the megacorps build?
But each person developing a web scrapping bot realizes at most after a week that being honest with User-agent has negative impact on how well it works, and changing it to existing browser takes literally seconds.
The only fix is to navigate back to page somehow, either by going to address bar and pressing enter (to navigate there again instead of reloading) or finding some link that points you back to the page.
I wouldn't be surprised if those POSTs will end up banning you from some website since they "know" you shouldn't POSTing to that page so clearly you are evil bot trying to hack them.
For people going through life with ADHD such as myself, the impact of all these delays and disruptions throughout the day can be severe. Despite being properly medicated this measure is absolutely debilitating and makes for a dreadful and very taxing online experience.
It should significantly reduce the amount of CAPTCHAs you see in a way that's not terrible for privacy.
For Safari, you can enable Private Access Tokens: https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-to-enable-private-access-tok...
Both of these mechanisms are similar to Google's web DRM proposal in that they rely on external issuers to generate tokens, but unlike Google's attempt they don't guarantee that ad blockers are disabled on pages that try to use tokens.
Which is honestly surprising in this area where it feels like privacy, anonymity and human verification are incompatible with each other.
I am trying to minimise my time wasted by websites, which is hard to balance with privacy, one other one is the repetitive consent forms (if you don't retain cookies, it's a never ending process). I think consent forms and human verification are the 2 biggest human time wasters.
The thing is, it still allows for some correlation between attestation provider and the websites themselves, potentially exposing part of your browsing history to these companies based on how many tokens you use and what websites consume them.
That doesn't matter much for Cloudflare's implementation (now Cloudflare knows when you visit Cloudflare, oh no!) but with Apple's attestation provider the risks increase. The smaller the attestation provider gets or the fewer parties trust that particular attestation provider, the higher the risk becomes.
It's better for your privacy than the current norm (de-anonimisation through fingerprinting while you fill out a CAPTCHA) but it's still not great. It also allows for attestation providers (and their algorithms) to arbitrarily deny you access to the web if other websites decide to start using them.
Privacy in exchange for power, I'm not so sure about that. I imagine for someone suffering from ADHD the small risk that Cloudflare decides to screw you in particular is worth the massive improvement in browsing experience, but everyone will have to determine the pros and cons for themselves.
Besides, those solutions have far too much in common with blackmail/extortion to my liking. Either you continue to suffer this structural harassment, or hand over all your bits and maybe in specific cases suffer slightly less! :)
No one is forcing the website owners to sign up with Cloudflare to enable this service with these aggressive configurations, and yet I understand why they would even just pre-emptively. It's cheap and effective, there's no denying that.
It is Cloudflare Inc. (66,59USD, +23.57USD/54.79% YTD), however, that architected the solution, markets it as a service, and controls it as a core part of their (i.e. everyone's) internet architecture.
As a serviceprovider they could be better at informing their customers of these unintentional side-effects and how they impact otherwise innocent visitors, but whose mental disorders/impairments cause them to be flagged for and having to undergo additional verification steps disproportionately more than others, likely due to some atypical behavioural patterns they show and their often adjusted hardsoftware setups producing an unconventional signature.
Some modifications to the system could probably be made on the architectural level too. We can get people in wheelchairs to the top of the empire state building, surely we can also find a solution that allows us to enjoy the benefits of these protective measures without wrecking the web's inclusivity and accessibility this much every time the measures need to be stepped up.
Am I asking for too much, what do you think?
If there was just as effective a way to tell cheap bots from legitimate browsers without making users wait I'm pretty sure it would have been used.
Things aren't set in stone either. The most effective method to communicate over long distances used to be carrier pigeons, but only because they hadn't yet invented the telegraph.
"There must be some way out of here," said the joker to the thief
"There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief"I just stopped watching Twitch streams.
This seems more like an "IT department gone mad" problem than a Cloudflare problem. I'm surprised they'd rather switch to Chrome than submit a support ticket.
Having used passkeys for a month+ now via macOS/iOS/1Password betas, I don't understand how they're related or the author's concerns. Couldn't you just replace "passkey" with "password" in all of their questions?
Most contract law lawsuits are settled out of court. The great advantage of suing someone is that you get past the low-level customer support people and talk to someone who's authorized to settle.
[1] https://www.lodhs.com/blog/interference-with-contractual-or-...
I also have maxed out anti fingerprinting etc on FF, so it comes with the territory. I have to slowly enable JS on some sites to see if the loop will break, or i just navigate away.
I use all browsers except chrome, but i only navigate the web with FF
Cloudflare is a huge part of the internet. Often they won't respond and it appears that for whatever reason, their IP range is blocked in Egypt. We probably get 10 support emails per week. I contacted Cloudflare and they simply said there is nothing they can do.
Blocking cloudflare ip addresses means that half of the internet wouldn't be accessible from Egypt. its closw to blocking port 443 because some people use DNS over https.
disclaimer: I'm Egyptian living in the US.
Apparently there is a pool of IP's that Cloudflare use for their CDN and some of them are blocked in Egypt. If you are unlucky enough to be one of the websites that is using that IP, it's blocked. Apparently they rotate them, but I haven't seen it yet, so chances are, when they do rotate them, more will be blocked.
I thought privacy was on the rise after the data leaks and irresponsibility of the big tech companies, and the public's involvement in the issue of individual privacy, but it seems like everything is still a step backwards.
Especially since Apple has partnered with Cloudflare on PAT.
[0] https://jrhawley.ca/2023/08/07/blocked-by-cloudflare#implica...
https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-to-enable-private-access-tok...
There are no vast technical differences, only incredibly subtle ones.
[0] https://www.snellman.net/blog/archive/2023-07-25-web-integri...
I know cloudflare is not to blame here, but they provide way easy access to blocking to bad admins.
Unfortunately there's also bad actors on the web (and the definition of bad varies). I understand reasons to try centralise the removal of that so called bad, but obviously a central group deciding on the 'bad' just isn't democratic.
Ironically when chatgpt mentioned their UA on a web page the other day, users were presented with an anti-bot challenge.
In other words, if Cloudflare can't reliably fingerprint your browser, you are treated as a "bot" and denied access to a huge chunk of the web. Well, in that case, I would rather be a bot than a human. Being a human seems to be increasingly annoying nowadays :)
https://blog.cloudflare.com/end-cloudflare-captcha/
Discriminate against all but "major browsers". Why.
https://developers.cloudflare.com/fundamentals/get-started/c...
I have a relatively Google'd Android running lineageOS. It passes SafteyNet on a fresh install, but even that isn't good enough for one of my banking apps (or netflix) - they both also perform a CTS Profile (Compatibility Test Suite) check and block me from using the app if they don't like what they see.
I ultimately had to root the phone to be able to use my bank's app. Rooting allowed me to use a fake CTS Profile, and then because it was rooted, SafteyNet started failing and I had to install a bypass to work around that.
Now everything works great, except OS updates un-root the phone and then "secure" apps stop working again.
(Oh, and if you mention that you're rooted, the LineageOS folks will refuse to provide any support, even for unrelated issues. Making you choose between friendly help and a usable phone is probably the only thing I don't like about LineageOS and, to my view, the biggest break from it's CyanogenMod roots.)
FYI When using Chrome, incognito window carries a lot of baggage. For issues like this use Guest profile as it doesn't include extensions, caches, storage, etc. Optionally do a Google search first to seed it with cookies.
Since it's so much easier to hide behind a new unique address, compared to IPv4, that any service such as Cloudflare would need to be extremely aggressive in blocking to meet their internal metrics and customer advertised minimum thresholds.
So much so that it actually costs more to use IPv6 then sticking with IPv4.
I imagine the scenario described by the author would become more and more common as time goes on as more of the world's internet users becomes harder to distinguish.
If you think IPv6 is mostly pointless, I think you're unaware of the fact that a significant majority of phones already use IPv6 most of the time they're on cellular.
Can you point to where I suggested that? Or did you misread the comment?
>it does seem to indicate that IPv6 is mostly pointless for human users for exactly this reason
> >it does seem to indicate that IPv6 is mostly pointless for human users for exactly this reason
Huh? There is no quote in that comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37051011.
Unless you are referring to a different comment?
Maybe you're misremembering - but you wrote it :)
'johnklos' did not quote a single word from anyone in the comment I linked, nor a single word from my original comment you linked, let alone an entire phrase, and that was the only response he made from what I can see.
Are you confusing him with a different HN user?
You don't have to believe me, it's accessible to every passing reader right there in the comment chain...
you wrote: "it does seem to indicate that IPv6 is mostly pointless for human users for exactly this reason" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37050359)
he wrote: "If you think IPv6 is mostly pointless, I think you're unaware of the fact that a significant majority of phones already use IPv6 most of the time they're on cellular" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37051011)
As you so helpfully put it, "You don't have to believe me, it's accessible to every passing reader right there in the comment chain..." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37056142)
Feel free to continue to deny what you wrote, how he responded, and me repeatedly showing you where quotes your words if you want - no one stop you from ignoring your own words (eventhough they're right there on display for all) ...but he used your own words in response to your own comment :)
There's no sign of 'johnklos' quoting me as you claim. It literally appears in his own words, and he even wrote it in a manner that could not possibly be confused with my style of writing. Just check my recent comment history?
Frankly, it's just impossible for there to be a 17 word phrase in that comment that can be interpreted as a quotation, even by a teenager who only started learning English.
And in any case, you are free to contact dang, or any other HN user you trust, and ask them to double check whether such a thing occurred.
You can also review HN norms, other examples of HN users quoting each other and explicitly acknowledging it, the popular dictionary definitions of 'quote', etc...
Since your HN account is nearly 11 years old I'm fairly confident you know various methods to verify these things to a reasonable degree of certainty.
'warrenm' clearly needs some help with resolving confusion regarding HN norms, or something along those lines, not piling on and exploiting the odd comment chain at his expense.
I think he's in it for the humor value
I doubt that either of you are in this for the humor; that simply emerges from the duration and pointlessness of the argument.
you're a comedian!
thanks for the laughs - anyone who can straightfacedly deny what they wrote, and people referencing it such an obvious manner that you still deny must be in it for the humor value
If they confirm your view then post it here, because I think many passing readers would be curious in seeing it too.
This breaks OpenVPN, which insists on both endpoints being one or the other.
You would have the same problem without IPv6 - your phone doesn't have a spare IPv4 address to give out, it would have to give you some kind of internal-only address and then NAT it when talking to the public internet.
> This breaks OpenVPN, which insists on both endpoints being one or the other.
That seems unlikely (also why would your server not have a v6 address?). You can't connect to IPv4 addresses by IP because you don't have an IPv4 connection, but connecting to your server by hostname or by v4-address-embedded-in-v6-address should work.
IPv6 doesn't allow you to easily get a new completely random address. You get a subnet allocated by your ISP, and you can use any address within that subnet. Rather than blocking a single IPv6 address, a service like Cloudflare can just block the entire IPv6 subnet prefix and get the same result as blocking an IPv4 address.
Cloudflare needs an algorithm to deduce the IPv6 prefix size controlled by a given entity, but the details of that algorithm are not obvious. You are jumping to the conclusion that they must be doing a bad job because the problem is challenging.
IPv4 abuse detection is also challenging because of (e.g.) the prevalence of CGNAT with multiple users sharing an IP address.
Which problem is harder? Which solution is better? I don't know, without a lot of proprietary data and analysis.
The author did not specify which project he was trying to access so I picked a random one to test from /explore/projects/topics/bioinformatics. No problem accessing it without a web browser. TLS1.3. No SNI.
> Worse yet, I know that Cloudflare knows I have those certificates. Why? Because it asked for them!
Not really. Cloudflare notices your browser has TLS authentication available and asks you for it. That's really annoying, but part of the protocol spec. Your browser won't send this information unless you pick a certificate and hit OK.
Disable your ad blocker and you'll find that many trackers will also ask you to identify yourself this way. It's really annoying, browsers need to design better UX for this type of authentication.
> · MAC address of my machine that I have previously used to access this site
How does it gather your MAC address? Did you disable IPv6 Privacy Extensions? Unless the website is sitting behind the same switch as your computer or you run some kind of native application that sends the MAC address, websites can't read the MAC of your network interface. Enable the MAC randomisation that's present (sometimes even turned on by default!) in every modern OS if you consider the local switch or WiFi network to be a privacy risk.
> Will I be able to create and sync these passkeys myself?
Yes, assuming they follow the standard
> Can only certain types of software use passkeys? If so, who decides what software meets this standard?
I don't really understand the question. Any software supporting passkeys will be able to prompt you for generating or using a passkey.
> Will I only be able to generate passkeys on a device with specific hardware/software requirements like a TPM, DeviceCheck, or Integrity API?
According to the spec, keys can be stored in software no trouble. Websites and apps can ask for securely generated keys, but I don't think those are all that common. Hardware can also be faked relatively easily in most circumstances.
> Can I, at any time, export my passkeys from one service provider and switch to another provider?
Ask your service provider for export options. Most likely, you can't just dump the keys and import them elsewhere (that would defeat the point).
> If a passkey is invovled in a suspicious event, will that suspicious mark propogate to any other device that uses that same passkey? Do devices that contain suspicious passkeys also get marked as suspicious? If so, would that impact the ability of that device to access other independent websites?
That depends on the software using the key for authentication. Maybe?
The same was true for IPv6 for a while, but that too has been solved a long time ago.
For a SLAAC client whose privacy extensions have been disabled for some reason, it's very much possible to figure out your MAC address. This may be a problem on old hardware that doesn't receive updates anymore!
Will using chromium for such cases work while having Firefox for the rest of sites?
And what’s cloudflare alternative that provides similar services for free including traffic analysis?
That's interesting.
For a while I did notice that when using certain IP blocks, they would show me more captchas when using Firefox than when using Chrome, but I haven't had that problem in a while.
And so I've stopped visiting websites that use that system (several per days).
There's no way to report that to Cloudflare so f*ck'em.
This is one of the things that makes it so clear to me that the web is diverging into two, one that is the "clean walled-garden capitalism web" and the continuation of the original web that was open, freely-accessible and built around sharing and knowledge.
It should be replaced with something better. Unfortunately all attempts to do something better get attacked by people who don’t realize that you can’t just get rid of it, or important things will break.
It doesn’t make sense for Cloudflare to request any client certificates.
I think there are real bugs somewhere.
https://developers.cloudflare.com/ssl/client-certificates/en...
https://developers.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-one/identity/de...
This would then require Cloudflare to request a client certificate. This is great for securing websites using corporate identity that is derived from AD certs for example to make sure the device being used has a valid cert on it.
Alongside MDM for example forcing the certificate to have a short lifespan (my $CORP uses 7 days) you can validate that the device has the correct security posture to access the resources.
If for example I let my device not update the version of macOS often enough my cert expires and I can't access internal resources until I update my OS and MDM software checks that and provisions me a new device certificate.
They want people to disable any privacy protections or push usage of browsers that have no to less privacy protections, in order to access the website they are blocking. This has nothing to do with if a user is an actual threat or bot, but is more a strategy to shape what browsers are used and destroy user privacy.
Cloudflare is also very aware of the numerous and constant complaints about what they are doing, coming from users and for years. They are ignored, because they have something else in mind.