Anubis, The Opensource Defender Against AI Bots: I fight bots in my free time (xeiaso.net)
from Pro@programming.dev to technology@lemmy.world on 07 Jul 15:39
https://programming.dev/post/33507734

Project.

#technology

threaded - newest

karpintero@lemmy.world on 07 Jul 16:08 next collapse

Cool project. The closing slide was pretty funny

If you are working at an AI company, here’s how you can sabotage Anubis development as easily and quickly as possible. So first is quit your job, second is work for Square Enix, and third is make absolute banger stuff for Final Fantasy XIV. That’s how you can sabotage this the best.

Tracaine@lemmy.world on 07 Jul 17:42 next collapse

Is this the first seed of the Blackwall?

rhythmisaprancer@piefed.social on 08 Jul 03:42 next collapse

Interesting. I clicked on a link here a couple weeks ago and was presented with this and wasn't really sure what it was. Thanks for sharing this! It seems like a good alternative.

PushButton@lemmy.world on 08 Jul 04:57 next collapse

I use the lynx browser sometimes, for hacker news, some blogs that I follow, or just for a quick browse to find an answer.

The fact that more and more websites need to use this kind of protection is saddening me, since lynx doesn’t support JavaScript.

That’s just another reason why I fucking hate AI.

I don’t hate it, I /fucking/ hate AI.

Flipper@feddit.org on 08 Jul 05:04 collapse

You can bypass it by changing the user agent to not include Mozilla in the beginning.

Allero@lemmy.today on 08 Jul 11:00 next collapse

Why does default config check Mozilla specifically?

{
"name": "generic-browser",
"user_agent_regex": "Mozilla",
"action": "CHALLENGE"
}

Guess that’s why I’ve seen Anubis check screen quite a few times.

morbidcactus@lemmy.ca on 08 Jul 11:50 next collapse

Afaik, almost every browser uses “Mozilla/5.0” as part of the user agent, Mozilla mentions it as well in developer docs about User agents, it’s a historical compatibility thing apparently.

Allero@lemmy.today on 08 Jul 11:54 collapse

Interesting, thanks!

Guess it’s the same kinda thing as amd64 on Intel lol

lime@feddit.nu on 08 Jul 12:42 collapse

it’s even stupider, it’s more like why there is no windows 9 because of programs doing stuff like if os.name.startswith(“windows 9”) then print(“this program is not compatible with windows 98”) end

Allero@lemmy.today on 08 Jul 12:52 next collapse

Lol

sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works on 08 Jul 13:54 collapse

Yup. There was a time when Mozilla was somewhat dominant, so browsers unlocked features based on the browser being Mozilla (as opposed to Internet Explorer).

lime@feddit.nu on 08 Jul 14:17 collapse

well if you want to get into it, i think the last browser that didn’t have mozilla in the useragent was internet explorer, which had “trident/9.0” or something. every other browser on the market is based on the old KDE browser Konqueror, which had “khtml, like gecko” in it. when that didn’t work they just added “mozilla” to it. then apple took that codebase and added “safari”, chrome took that codebase and added “chrome”, etc etc etc. compatibility problems just kept compounding on every browser based on khtml until we got to the point where microsoft edge’s current user agent is Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/134.0.0.

even firefox has had to give in to this: my useragent is Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:140.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/140.0 even though the version of gecko in firefox 140 is v125, from 2022.

EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world on 08 Jul 18:12 collapse

The creator of Anubis did an interview on the Selfhosted Show podcast a little while back and explains this in detail, and it’s worth a listen.

Here’s a time stamped link for the interview

Allero@lemmy.today on 08 Jul 18:56 next collapse

Thanks!

LovableSidekick@lemmy.world on 08 Jul 19:28 collapse

Great interview! The whole proof-of-work approach is fascinating, and reminds me of a very old email concept he mentions in passing, where an email server would only accept a msg if the sender agreed to pay like a dollar. Then the user would accept the msg, which would refund the dollar. So this would end up costing legitimate senders nothing but would require spammers to front way too much money to make email spamming affordable. In his version the sender must do a processor-intensive computation, which is fine at the volume legitimate senders use but prohibitive for spammers.

Shanmugha@lemmy.world on 08 Jul 11:55 next collapse

My hero in shining armour (not a sarcasm, just a form of appreciation of someone who did what I would never have done)

LovableSidekick@lemmy.world on 08 Jul 19:08 collapse

Seems like it screens out bots regardless of whether they use AI or are just traditional asshole-created bots.

lagoon8622@sh.itjust.works on 08 Jul 19:12 collapse

It does, yes. This will prevent your content from being indexed, in most cases. The benefit is that your servers will be up. If your servers are down, they can’t be indexed either