> But here we're talking about a system where legitimate users (human browsers) and scrapers get the same value for every application of the work function. The cost:value ratio is unchanged; it's just that everything is more expensive for everybody. You're getting the worst of both worlds: user-visible costs and a system that favors large centralized well-capitalized clients.
Based on my own experience fighting these AI scrappers, I feel that the way they are actually implemented makes it that in practice there is asymmetry in the work scrappers have to do vs humans.
The pattern these scrappers follow is that they are highly distributed. I’ll see a given {ip, UA} pair make a request to /foo immediately followed by _hundreds_ of requests from completely different {ip, UA} pairs to all the links from that page (ie: /foo/a, /foo/b, /foo/c, etc..).
This is a big part of what makes these AI crawlers such a challenge for us admins. There isn’t a whole lot we can do to apply regular rate limiting techniques: the IPs are always changing and are no longer limited to corporate ASN (I’m now seeing IPs belonging to consumer ISPs and even cell phone companies), and the User Agents all look genuine. But when looking through the logs you can see the pattern that all these unrelated requests are actually working together to perform a BFS traversal of your site.
Given this pattern, I believe that’s what makes the Anubis approach actually work well in practice. For a given user, they will encounter the challenge once when accessing the site the first time, then they’ll be able to navigate through it without incurring any cost. While the AI scrappers would need to solve the challenge for every single one of their “nodes” (or whatever it is they would call their {ip, UA} pairs). From a site reliability perspective, I don’t even care if the crawlers manage to solve the challenge or not. That it manages to slow them down enough to rate limit them as a network is enough.
To be clear: I don’t disagree with you that the cost incurred by regular human users is still high. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that this is not a situation in which the cost to the adversary is not asymmetrical. It wouldn’t be if the AI crawlers hadn’t converged towards an implementation that behaves as a DDOS botnet.
I find it really frustrating that I am not able to avoid using whatsapp due to how popular it is to the point that it’s become the go-to communication channel for most things :/
Just wanted to call out that linkhut does have IFTTT integration [0]. Although you will need to pay for an IFTTT developer account if you want to enable that on your self hosted instance. If you need help setting that up let me know, I’ll be happy to walk you through the process (and that way I can write documentation on how to do it).
Edit: I also was under the impression that one could use the webhooks integration [1] to make bespoke integrations (as the documentation says they support passing arbitrary request headers) but haven’t tried it myself, have you tried it and run into any issues? I’d also be happy to help improving support for that workflow.
Do you have pointers to this? As a Spaniard I recall that even though I was originally told the spanish alphabet treated the LL as its own letter, it always felt quite inconsistent. And I always assumed it’s removal was more about simplifying things than having to do with computers
Based on my own experience fighting these AI scrappers, I feel that the way they are actually implemented makes it that in practice there is asymmetry in the work scrappers have to do vs humans.
The pattern these scrappers follow is that they are highly distributed. I’ll see a given {ip, UA} pair make a request to /foo immediately followed by _hundreds_ of requests from completely different {ip, UA} pairs to all the links from that page (ie: /foo/a, /foo/b, /foo/c, etc..).
This is a big part of what makes these AI crawlers such a challenge for us admins. There isn’t a whole lot we can do to apply regular rate limiting techniques: the IPs are always changing and are no longer limited to corporate ASN (I’m now seeing IPs belonging to consumer ISPs and even cell phone companies), and the User Agents all look genuine. But when looking through the logs you can see the pattern that all these unrelated requests are actually working together to perform a BFS traversal of your site.
Given this pattern, I believe that’s what makes the Anubis approach actually work well in practice. For a given user, they will encounter the challenge once when accessing the site the first time, then they’ll be able to navigate through it without incurring any cost. While the AI scrappers would need to solve the challenge for every single one of their “nodes” (or whatever it is they would call their {ip, UA} pairs). From a site reliability perspective, I don’t even care if the crawlers manage to solve the challenge or not. That it manages to slow them down enough to rate limit them as a network is enough.
To be clear: I don’t disagree with you that the cost incurred by regular human users is still high. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that this is not a situation in which the cost to the adversary is not asymmetrical. It wouldn’t be if the AI crawlers hadn’t converged towards an implementation that behaves as a DDOS botnet.