Look, we can debate the proper and private way to do Captchas all day, but if we remove the existing implementation we will be plunged into a world of hurt.
I run tucson.social - a tiny instance with barely any users and I find myself really ticked off at other Admin’s abdication of duty when it comes to engaging with the developers.
For all the Fediverse discussion on this, where are the github issue comments? Where is our attempt to convince the devs in this.
No, seriously WHERE ARE THEY?
Oh, you think that just because an “Issue” exists to bring back Captchas is the best you can do?
NO it is not the best we can do, we need to be applying some pressure to the developers here and that requires EVERYONE to do their part.
The Devs can’t make Lemmy an awesome place for us if us admins refuse to meaningfully engage with the project and provide feedback on crucial things like this.
So are you an admin? If so, we need more comments here: https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3200
We need to make it VERY clear that Captcha is required before v0.18’s release. Not after when we’ll all be scrambling…
EDIT: To be clear I’m talking to all instance admins, not just Beehaw’s.
UPDATE: Our voices were heard! https://github.com/LemmyNet/lemmy/issues/3200#issuecomment-1600505757
The important part was that this was a decision to re-implement the old (if imperfect) solution in time for the upcoming release. mCaptcha and better techs are indeed the better solution, but at least we won’t make ourselves more vulnerable at this critical juncture.
Interesting, well, I guess I sound vague because the error was pretty vague:
Cloudflare OWASP Core Ruleset
949110: Inbound Anomaly Score Exceeded
So yeah, your example is from the Standard Managed Ruleset, I wouldn’t even think of Disabling that, and I think this issue is limited to this OWASP one only. I think I’m still safe here, but I think I can just exclude only this one particular rule as you noted.
EDIT: Nope that’s the one you cannot edit. Strange, I’m fairly certain these files are fine and it’s probably not that - I may have to exclude the entire ruleset here.
Double Update: Yeah, so this OWASP one is far to sensitive. I’ve validated my files with AV and other solutions and tried other machines and such. Apparently it’s tripping some XSS rules, SQL injection detection rules, and a few other things. Mostly seem like false positives on account of the EXIF and other file header data.
Triple Update: Found the proper way to exclude from specific rules in the managed rulesets. There’s like multiple ways that you appear to be able to do it, but only one way that works.