HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
antifraudcg
proposals
OPEN SOURCE2023–2023
antifraudcg / proposals

proposals

Proposals for the Anti-Fraud Community Group.

2Distinct people
3Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
35GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Proposals for the Anti-Fraud Community Group.

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by day3 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2023-07-25 08:47:13 UTC to 2023-08-04 06:15:40 UTC.

012023-07-25 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-26 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJul 252023-07-26 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-27 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-07-27 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-28 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-07-28 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-29 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments2023-07-29 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-30 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-07-30 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-31 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsJul 302023-07-31 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-08-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-08-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-08-02 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-08-02 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-08-03 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-08-03 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-08-04 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-08-04 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-08-05 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsAug 4

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Jul 252023-07-25 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-26 00:00:00 UTC101
Jul 262023-07-26 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-27 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 272023-07-27 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-28 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 282023-07-28 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-29 00:00:00 UTC110
Jul 292023-07-29 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-30 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 302023-07-30 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-31 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 312023-07-31 00:00:00 UTC2023-08-01 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 12023-08-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-08-02 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 22023-08-02 00:00:00 UTC2023-08-03 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 32023-08-03 00:00:00 UTC2023-08-04 00:00:00 UTC000
Aug 42023-08-04 00:00:00 UTC2023-08-05 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

3 sources
This is the same attack (and same people who developed) faulTPM[1] that was previously discussed[2]. This article is the same people demonstrating that attack against Tesla vehicles. The paper[1] and previous discussion[2] address the underlying problems with AMD's Secure Processor (AMD-SP) that is embedded in their CPU SoCs and previously and more commonly known as Platform Security Processor (AMD-PSP). Unlike a web browser where W3C AntiFraudCG folk propose that websites would blacklist all impacted AMD-SP hardware and create massive amounts of e-waste[3], Tesla likely can't do much about this attack because Tesla (not users) would be responsible for a very expensive change of vehicle hardware. If it's not an easy-to-execute attack like faulTPM, there are more complex (but becoming more mainstream and cheaper) IC reverse engineering met
Read the rest
hods like polishing the die down to take photos of each metal layer and regenerating VHDL, FIB editing an operational IC to bypass tamper detection methods, etc[4]. A security architect of the Xbox One presented a talk[5] a few years ago which provides some good background too. Largely the Xbox One has managed to avoid piracy because they made it economically not worth anyone's time to attack due to competitive pricing models versus high cost of attack. Similar to use of Denuvo for a month or two after release of a PC game, attackers aren't going to bother if their work amounts to nothing a month later. Hacking a Tesla to enable additional features is worth a lot of money, so the economics are quite different. It's also different economics for printer cartridges, "pay to enable more features or performance" network equipment, etc. The cost of IC reverse engineering / FIB editing attacks (or other future attack methods) will keep reducing. IC tamper detection features will get more complex. Perhaps attackers will even get an advantage once they can readily reverse engineer 3nm ICs and defenders can't do much other than implementing ever more complex and obfuscated IC tamper detection features and VHDL logic (kind of like a Denuvo situation in hardware). [1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2304.14717 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35787195 [3] https://github.com/antifraudcg/proposals/issues/19 [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6390Zqca3Mg [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7VwtOrwceo
In Hackers manage to unlock Tesla software-locked features
It's not whataboutism because Mozilla's response to the WEI, IPA and other PATCG[1] and AntiFraudCG[2] proposals are closely intertwined and all reduce the control users have over their browser, their computers and their Internet experience to the benefit of a cartel of technology companies who receive a significant revenue stream from advertising and gatekeeping online commerce. How can Mozilla be committed to "Our mission is to ensure the Internet is a global public resource, open and accessible to all."[3] and at the same time be participating in PATCG and AntiFraudCG proposals that have opposing objectives? Is there even one serious consideration given in any PATCG or AntiFraudCG proposal for impacts to accessibility, interoperability, openness of the Internet (including to new market entrants wanting to implement a new phone, compute
Read the rest
r, browser, advertising business, etc)? Additionally, AntiFraudCG proposals such as WEI focus on benefits they provide to PATCG proposals. For example, a Googler with historical interest in minimising inflated view counts on YouTube[4] (a benefit to YouTube's advertisers) wrote earlier this year a proposal to AntiFraudCG including: "By transmitting signals of legitimacy from the device’s platform, such as if the device is emulated or rooted, publishers and their technology partners could use this information in part to determine if traffic is invalid. They could then choose appropriate actions like flagging advertising actions as suspicious"[5] [1] https://github.com/patcg [2] https://github.com/antifraudcg [3] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/mission/ [4] https://security.googleblog.com/2014/02/keeping-youtube-view... [5] https://github.com/antifraudcg/proposals/issues/8
In Mozilla Standards Positions Opposes Web Integrity API

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.