debugnik 4 days ago

Fair, then I obviously think Xe may have a kinda misguided understanding of their own product. I still stand by the concept I stated above.

Reply View 6 replies
  • rhaps0dy 4 days ago

    latest update from Xe:

    > After further investigation and communication. This is not a bug. The threat actor group in question installed headless chrome and simply computed the proof of work. I'm just going to submit a default rule that blocks huawei.

    Reply View 5 replies
    • scratchyone 4 days ago

      this kinda proves the entire project doesn't work if they have to resort to manual IP blocking lol

      Reply View 4 replies
      • troyvit 3 days ago

        It doesn't work for headless chrome, sure. The thing is that often, for threats like this to work they need lots scale, and they need it cheaply because the actors are just throwing a wide net and hoping to catch it. Headless chrome doesn't scale cheaply so by forcing script kiddies to use it you're pricing them out of their own game. For now.

        Reply View 0 replies
      • Aachen 3 days ago

        Doesn't have to be black or white. You can have a much easier challenge for regular visitors if you block the only (and giant) party that has implemented a solver so far. We can work on both fronts at once...

        Reply View 2 replies