News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Subtle bug in Google can get you banned by po on Saturday October 02, 2010 @10:50PM (#1751954)
Bots can probably perfectly duplicate the behavior of a toolbar. Only the rate and volume of requests would be different.

I'm assuming the toolbars can't communicate between each other. On toolbar launch, it should pick a random number between 1 and x and wait that many ms before contacting google. Pick x by looking at the number of req/sec that trigger a ban and the high-end number of tabs a power user might restart with. This would spread the requests out over that time period and keep it under the ban.

Re:Subtle bug in Google can get you banned by abraham on Saturday October 02, 2010 @11:00PM (#1751967)
The toolbar should really only pull the page rank for active tabs. This would effectively only require a single request initially.
Re:Subtle bug in Google can get you banned by regularfry on Sunday October 03, 2010 @02:30AM (#1752226)
> Bots can probably perfectly duplicate the behavior of a toolbar. Only the rate and volume of requests would be different.

If they do, isn't that precisely what Google would want? Isn't it only the rate and volume of requests that are a problem?

Re:Subtle bug in Google can get you banned by olefoo on Sunday October 03, 2010 @04:48AM (#1752394)
There is plenty of malware that finds victims by looking at the results of google searches. Google seems to think that they have an obligation to prevent the indiscriminate spread of self-replicating infovores. Fucking Censorship if you ask me.
Re:Subtle bug in Google can get you banned by dmoney on Sunday October 03, 2010 @02:44AM (#1752250)
They might not want someone to build a large database of pageranks.
Re:Subtle bug in Google can get you banned by rick_2047 on Sunday October 03, 2010 @05:29AM (#1752422)
ok, wouldn't that require like a very very very long time? Google has a dadabase probably terabytes big and if someone does want it can't they do something like what DDG does? I believe they get their searches by yahoo for free
Re:Subtle bug in Google can get you banned by jacquesm on Saturday October 02, 2010 @10:54PM (#1751960)
Of course they can communicate with each other, they're extensions, not web pages. The first one could act as the 'master', and proxy all the requests.

It's obvious the limiting is rate based, otherwise this would never have happened, so if it is rate based then the toolbar could pace itself to below that rate. Of course that would 'give away' the rate to observers of the toolbar during a browser restart but they could observe that just the same by checking when they get blocked, so that's no loss.

The toolbar knows I'm logged in, knows that a browser has just restarted and presumably can see how many instances/tabs are open (after all that's what it provides the info on) so it has all the data at it's disposal to make the right decision. This seems like a simple oversight to me (that a user installing the toolbar on a machine with a large number of tabs open would land in this situation).

Re:Subtle bug in Google can get you banned by po on Sunday October 03, 2010 @01:00AM (#1752124)
Of course they can communicate with each other, they're extensions, not web pages.

Firefox extensions are Javascript CSS and XUL so I don't think that's obvious. I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that they might be sand boxed and have no awareness of each other. Is it one instance of the toolbar per "page-opened" event? Is it one instance per window? What I was describing was a way to stay under the limit without having centralized state-aware rate-limiting code. If that's possible, then yeah sure, do it that way.

It's obvious the limiting is rate based, otherwise this would never have happened, so if it is rate based then the toolbar could pace itself to below that rate.

It's not obvious to me. I think the issue is that the OP opens 50 tabs simultaneously after a crash and each window opens a connection to google without a rate limit of any kind. My idea was a way to do it without a centralized state.

Re:Subtle bug in Google can get you banned by gmac on Sunday October 03, 2010 @05:23AM (#1752416)
Firefox extensions are Javascript CSS and XUL so I don't think that's obvious. I think it's entirely reasonable to assume that they might be sand boxed and have no awareness of each other.

Multiple Mozilla extension instances are indeed able to communicate via some centralised code.

Re:Subtle bug in Google can get you banned by spyder on Sunday October 03, 2010 @08:11AM (#1752568)
It's possible to do with JavaScript modules: "JavaScript code modules are a concept introduced in Gecko 1.9 (Firefox 3) and can be used for sharing code between different privileged scopes." https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Using_JavaScript_code_modul...
Re:Subtle bug in Google can get you banned by houseabsolute on Sunday October 03, 2010 @02:12AM (#1752212)
> Of course that would 'give away' . . .

Meh, I have trouble believing that spammers cannot experiment to find this number out themselves. The binary search on rate would require only a handful of IPs before you acquire it to a sufficient resolution for working purposes.

Re:Subtle bug in Google can get you banned by proexploit on Sunday October 03, 2010 @12:37AM (#1752083)
Wouldn't it be simpler to rate limit the toolbar? E.g. it will only try x requests/second? Then bots wouldn't emulate it because it wouldn't be able to provide a high enough rate to be really useful.

Of course, that solution is so simple, I'm sure there's a reason it's not possible.