Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Slightly related, but I have a fun conspiracy to share:

I'm convinced that part of the reason Google released headless Chrome is as a honeypot for bot authors to use. The idea is that instead of going through the effort of fingerprinting and identifying new bot software, release something that bot authors will use instead that you have a capability to detect.

Somewhere inside of headless Chrome, there's one or more subtle changes that make it so Google can detect whether you're using headless Chrome or normal Chrome. There's no limit to how subtle the indicator could be - maybe headless Chrome renders certain CSS elements slightly slower than normal Chrome, etc.

It sounds pretty crazy/complicated but I could definitely see it being worth it if it means detecting $X,000,000 worth of ad fraud every year




It's actually not that complicated. Most headless browser drivers have some global JavaScript functions in the `window` namespace that immediately identify themselves.

I once ran into a piece of code from the scammy advertising world that tried to redirect users to a phishing site. They cleverly tried to hide themselves from the automated quality checks some ad networks do, by checking for these functions and appearing benign if they saw them. One of the checks even created an exception and then inspected the stack trace for certain flags that apparently are only there on some type of headless browser. Clever!


Interesting idea :)

I don't think spambots are currently using Chromium or even running JavaScript. Using simple spamfilters in JavaScript still works fine on my setups.


Most modern credential stuffers use headless browsers with all the bells and whistles, html5, javascript, etc.

Login attempts are usually spread over a massive botnet of residential IPs as well, where they'll only use each IP for one or two login attempts before moving on to the next.

It's a very fascinating problem space


In my experience, the botnet didn't upgrade their JVM...it was 18-24 months out of date. THAT was what we filtered on at the F5 to blunt the attack.


Does it mean that you're breaking the experience for users who deliberately disable js by default? Can I ask you not to do that? Modern web is unusable if you let js on any webpage




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: