From: dnomhcir@gmx.com
Sylvia Else writes:
> On 24-Jan-25 3:33 am, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-01-21, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
>>>>>>> Salvador Mirzo wrote:
>>>>>>> Sylvia Else writes:
>> >>> How is this going to '"better protect" Google Search against
>> >>> malicious activity, such as bots and spam'?
>> >> I believe the idea is that if the robot doesn't speak
>> Javascript,
>> >> it's an easy denial by the web server. And making bots speak
>> >> Javascript is one step up. And with Javascript they can likely
>> >> monitor things like mouse movement to detect whether the user
>> >> is a human or a robot.
>> > Which of course is one of Google's main businesses, with their
>> > Captchas that don't always need to show a puzzle in order to
>> > validate users as humans. So if anyone _thinks_ they can achieve
>> > that, you'd expect it to be Google.
>> And they don't even need it to be perfect: a robot that
>> implements the relevant browser APIs, while possible, /will/
>> be costlier to run and maintain, thus reducing the profits of
>> the robot operators, in turn disincentivizing them.
>> Even if that doesn't solve the problem altogether, it will
>> still likely result in less load for their servers.
>> Not that it invalidates any other reasons they might want to
>> require Javascript / APIs regardless, mind you.
>
> A bot only needs to be able to send the correct data to the
> server. how difficult that is obviously depends on the details of the
> Javascript's interactions with the server, but frequent interactions
> themselves create a higher server load.
>
> One example would be the mouse-movement based human detection. If the
> script just sends a yes/no message to the server, then the bot doesn't
> need to try to emulate a human at all.
>
> Sylvia.
That's useful. I set my Seamonkey user agent string to a Lynx user agent
string and now google search works without javascript.
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
