Visa application is riddled with scams. From the simple website that charges you twice the price to websites that will tell you that you were rejected and then fake your documents to get in with your name.
So they're probably trying to see that you're not one of those web servers, a proxy for them or detect some known C2 channels.
That would be quite clever for an incredibly horrible website. The other day my SO, who is a Turkish citizen, was filling up her visa application and after half an hour of meticulous form filling the system just kick her out. I think the session times out or something. If you haven't created an account or you haven't write down the current application ID everything is lost. In the process she was also directed to a non-.gov website for something during the process, I thought she was getting scammed but no.
It actually makes sense to have a paid service that makes this abomination less painful. Though they work with VFS Global for collecting the applications and relevant documents, the VFS Global itself is an abomination and doesn't help with the handling of the form filling anyway.
Recently EU streamlined the Schengen visa application process for Turkish citizens as those "visa agencies" that are the official agencies and the only way to apply for a visa for many countries don't actually help with anything and are scamming people by selling the "good hours" for the visa appointment on the black market. An agency was dropped for this and the scams by agencies were listed among the reasons to streamline the application process.
Both with US and EU people are losing scholarships etc. due to outrageous wait times that are sometimes are years ahead or there's an issue with the systems handling the applications.
I guess there must be an opportunity there to fix all this together with smaller stuff like handling transliteration and character encodings, I wonder if some of those scam site are not scams and actually help with it. An AI agent can be useful here.
I had this problem too last year. I found, at the time, it was the website was poorly managing the session in some browsers causing the timeout countdown to not be reset on activity. I had to find a windows computer and use microsoft edge I think (maybe it was chrome). But no browser on my mac would not have that issue.
The "waterfall model" is a toxic way of thinking that pervades corporate management. Simplistic minds can't fathom any states other than "done" or "not done". Corporations are determined to crush the human soul. That is why it's not a progressive series of forms, saving your progress all along.
The VISA appointment scheduling site rate limits to a ridiculous degree these days. As in refresh your page within 10seconds and get a 429 error.
That's probably because of the fact that the appointments are near impossible to get, they only allow booking a few months out and it's always completely booked. So everyone was refreshing (or if clever botting) to get an appointment slot.
Not to defend the US immigration system, but my experience is that this user-hostile behavior (modulo the port scanning lol) is endemic across US government websites - including those that nominally want to serve you, those that are at the state level instead of the federal level (such as the DMV sites), and those that are even internal for use by government employees only.
It's bad enough that in some cases I believe the designers should be threatened with legal penalties.
This. The website for buying treasury products is straight out of the year 2002. The login is so bad I would never consider buying them there - the service fee charged by brokerages is absolutely worth it in this case.
Which brokerages charge fees for purchasing US Treasuries? Schwab definitely doesn't.
Really the only reason you need TreasuryDirect is for buying Series I bonds (and maybe a few other niche Treasury products), which are not available through brokerages.
As I wrote elsewhere; they subcontract the bot protection to F5, an external company that I see for some reason a lot on old/horrible banking websites.
The hard truth of it all is that both the US and (partially) the EU don’t want to make this easier because seeing as wanting “outside” people is now a political liability. You may want to adjust your expectations around that.
Turkish tourist are desired, Turks love spending money on restaurants and activities especially since the prices in Turkey have become more expensive than most of the EU. Greeks even introduced special non-Schengen on-arrival visa valid on the Greek islands especially for the Turks. Besides that, EU has "green passport" exception for the Turkish nationals, where they can travel visa-free on this kind of passport that is provided to individuals that meet certain criteria and millions of such passports were issued.
The rejection rates are also not bad and EU has a "return agreement" with Turkey, which is designed to keep the middle eastern refugees in Turkey(essentially, if you come from Turkey EU can send you back to Turkey right away ).
Crime rates for Turks show up among the lowest ones, unlike others from the region. So I don't think that EU is trying to reduce visas for Turks.
I am EU citizen, I happen to know the Turkish perspective only because spent some years in Turkey and in fact it is the Turkish perspective that that EU doesn't want them and intentionally makes things harder but the moment you look at what's actually going on you see that this is not the case, just a Turkish fantasy about the "evil West and snobby Europeans". Considering that last year 50K Turks applied for asylum in EU and another 100K overstayed their visa, IMHO EU can be considered pretty generous actually with only 15% rejection rate since Turkey is the 2nd country with most applications after China.
> it is the Turkish perspective that that EU doesn't want them
Of course we don't. Most of us think it is a scandal that Turks can go visa free here. It's a scandal that so many politicians here used to talk about Turkish EU membership as if that was a desirable thing.
I'm Danish and we have lots of Turks. They are generally much nicer than the Danes but almost all of them are dunces. Many are crazy Nationalists, some are crazy Muslims (many more than there used to be), some are crazy Communists (not as many as there used to be).
And they are indeed among the less extra criminal Muslim immigrants we have -- only 2x according to the official stats. Those official stats over count the native crime rates by including 2nd/3rd gen Turks and Arabs, of course.
The first non-dunce Turk I met was a rude and unpleasant university student I met at a dorm party. He was only visiting Denmark. The second was a nice (and clever!) optician. The third through fifth were a Turkish tourist family I met on a rooftop above a museum in Copenhagen. Four of those five were great people and I wish we had more like that. I also wish Turkey had more like that. It's a shame that the few normal Turks have to share a country with all the others.
The rest? They won't be missed if they decide to go home.
Another data point - 5he Indian visa system is similar. The official website ending in .gov.in, which is hard to find, offers a visa for $10 and minimal hassle. The scam websites, with better SEO sell the same shit for $80. They’re just proxying your application to the real website and pocketing the difference.
It would be good if the Indian government could block the scammers but I guess it’s a lower priority for the moment.
Not sure if this is the case for India, but I've experienced similar situations for other countries, but the 'scam websites' actually provided a real service - if you needed some ultra-urgent processing (like you only realized you needed a visa to this country before boarding a flight, once you were already at the airport check-in...) they were able to provide 30 minute approval, whereas the official site's accelerated processing was 24 hours.
So obviously the only way they could to this is with government contacts meaning the government themselves could already do it, but a lot of immigration stuff everywhere is full of people taking kickbacks.
This was the case with Ghana. The Embassy in the US had an unofficial offical partnership with an expediter scam (charge more for faster shipping, looks very official). They fired the whole visa staff when it finally came to light. Probably because someone forgot to let their manager's manager in on the scam.
I found the real website, but the application never went through, always some issue. My boss told me which service to use and everything just worked. (I could expense that service so cost didn't bother me)
Just a guess, but maybe a typical bot has a webserver, ssh server, some other servers running on the same machine, whereas a typical Visa applicant doesn't.
Or a browser automation server (Marionette/CDP). I seem to remember watching a presentation where it was mentioned you could detect them this way, <s>but I don't remember where or what it was called.</s> this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nZD6ee2Xo8 (WHY2025: Stealth Web Scraping Techniques for OSINT)
Huh, how do you imagine that would work? This "scan" is happening inside client-side javascript, delivering the file through a proxy wouldn't "detect" anything about the proxy.
I imagine it may not be a proxy in the true sense, but a headless browser that's "proxying" the application process rather than the network traffic itself.
it's riddled with scams, and thinking any of this will detect any of the things you mention is very foolish, native and show a total lack of understanding of the scams. of you think using a proxy is essential for visa scam, i would even know where to begin to correct you.
it's one hundred per cent clueless privacy invasion. they are probably also opening ports via other means and using that for side channel ID like Facebook does.
just like any other documentation scam, the only weak point is on the "last mile" that's why you will always have a human interviewer.
the visa process is abusive and unpractical because people will work around any hurdle and their kpi will never be affected no matter how crappy they manage to make to whole process. or how many doge kids implement useless privacy invasion tech just because.
Checking out the initial request on github for this feature I wonder why is this necessary? What access to the local network does the browser provide, or need to provide, and why isn't this something developers are more concerned about? I had a feeling this was possible as I see lots of mdns requests when I connect to certain things running sockets.
There are certainly use cases, but whether they’re warranted is a good question.
One popular router maker offers a ‘magic URL’ (domain name) that scans your network for the gateway management page, and redirects. It’s not necessary, but it certainly helps novice users. Having worked in IT support,
I’ve also purchased hardware devices that have a web management UI; which connects directly instead of proxying through a cloud.
Ultimately this is probably one thing that should be behind a permission request (like webcam access), but it’s not a feature without value.
… or you can instead phase out those browsers who try to force blocker restrictions i.e. spyware on you (e.g. chrome and such), and use one of the browsers where you can use the full-featured (not "lite") uBlock Origin instead, e.g. Firefox.
then again, if the makers of one big browser (and via there also the derived browsers) start force-shoving spyware upon you (by restricting blockers), it comes down to a decision of how you set your priorities. Personally, It's a clear cut red line, but you do you.
It's coming from a F5 script, which is a company that sells anti-bot protection amid other things. (It's coming from obfuscated script at /TSPD, which is a F5 thing.)
(There is some language online suggesting PNA has not actually shipped, but I experienced it myself in stable Chrome several years ago, so I am unsure of the current state).
Firefox doesn't implement either approach -- I assume this is indicative of their lack of development resources.
> Firefox doesn't implement either approach -- I assume this is indicative of their lack of development resources.
Since ublock had this as a feature for a long time, I'm sure they are aware of it. Unlike other non funded oss projects, Firefox can't and shouldn't shield themselves with this lack of development resource excuse. They have millions.
I'm using uMatrix and it blocks by default all connections outside the requested site and parent domains. For example, if I request https://mail.yahoo.com, connections to yimg.com are blocked. I need to manually allow each CDN for each website, so this attack/profiling won't work.
Using uMatrix was very annoying at first, most websites are broken without their CDNs, but after a few months or so, the whitelist grew and it contains 90% of websites I visit.
On my system https://ceac.state.gov/genniv/ tries to connect to captcha.com, google-analytics, googletagmanager, 127.0.0.1 and "burp" (a local hostname that doesn't exist in my network). Interestigly, the browser console doesn't list connection attempts to localhost or burp. If I allow 127.0.0.1 and "tcpdump -i lo", I see connections to port 8888, which isn't open.
How does uMatrix handle the Facebook tracking pixel, or the replacement which is the Conversions API Gateway?
This is a container that FB gives you to host that lives under your domain (it can be your main domain) that slurps up user data and sends it to Facebook from the server side. You embed some JS in your website, and they hoover up the data.
It doesn't handle it. Anyway, there's no way to know what a website does on the server site. Even a completely static website could be sending the server logs somewhere.
There are options to not load JS, images, XMLHttpRequests, frames, cookies, for each site, but it doesn't list individual files.
It seems like they only make the localhost requests on your first visit. If you open devtools in incognito mode (or just clear the cookies) before accessing https://ceac.state.gov/genniv/ you should see those 127.0.0.1 attempts as ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED in the network tab.
Somewhat more worryingly, Little Snitch doesn't report them at all, though that might just be because they were already blocked at the browser.
The requests are not made, because some operating systems prevent this.
If you're on OSX, the permission to "discover on the local network" prevents it from happening ( System Settings -> Privacy & Security -> Local Network -> yourbrowser )
Could also be 'network' permissions on firefox ( Go to Settings > Privacy & Security > Permissions ) which is on a per site level, but iirc that could be set site-wide at some point.
The other browsers likely have similar configs, but this is what I have found.
> On my system https://ceac.state.gov/genniv/ tries to connect to captcha.com, google-analytics, googletagmanager, 127.0.0.1 and "burp" (a local hostname that doesn't exist in my network).
The "port scan" just seems to be a local connection to 127.0.0.1:8888. I don't know what purpose it serves on this page, but our government websites often use this technique to communicate with native software for digitally signing documents.
Could also be incompetence :D until I fixed it, deploying from my local machine rather than CD resulted in one of the baked in URLs being localhost rather than the public host on the project I'm working on now. Their local development server might just be at port 8888. Wouldn't surprise me.
I looked at the website again and noticed that the request paths looked odd, one of them being `/400_random_url_with_numbers_403`. I googled that and it looks like it's part of a client-side bot detection script that's testing something, the explanation isn't very informative.
> These requests are caused by the bot profile to test the different browser capabilities.
> 'http://127.0.0.1:xxxx' request is a call to the localhost/client machine, which is normal when trying to protect assets like end-server using ant-bot defense. It does not have any impact regarding application page load.
This is a common pattern for connecting to smart cards / hardware security devices. Probably a service or hardware that’s run on official CBP machines that should be disabled for prod, but forgot.
Many sites do it .Included in many standard device fingerprinting / anti anonymity SAAS. Ebay facebook etc all do this ! But it looks this is first party to prevent the adblocking of them
1MB of obfuscated fingerprinting + portscan + Webgl . But oddity this one is trying to find burp suite specific route's.
The company I work for has a legitimate service that runs on the loopback (it provides our web apps APIs for some device integration) hopefully its just as simple as the user accepting the prompt else we'll be drowning in support.
We had to go the path of the local service because they killed NPAPI. I've been thinking about using web serial as an alternative but Firefox doesn't support it.
That being said, I think this is an overall win, hopefully Firefox implements it in a consistent manner as well.
It would be the job of the operating system to give or take away the ability of your browser to access your local network. But you can run your browser in a container/vm and disable localhost. (And use a separate browser for localhost only if you need it.)
Just a little side note - in this context, it makes sense if the website tries to connect to a local port because you might be running a card reader(ie. terminal). This is how it works with some(all?) EU countries that have a chip in their ID cards, or even vehicle registration cards, which you can use to access sensitive information or perform certain administrative tasks on government websites.
Although, from personal experience, it used to require java and it worked only on internet explorer and since it has been retired and replaced with chromium, i am not sure what is the way to make it work nowadays, as i have not been able to figure out to use it when i needed the last time.
It requires installing a local service that bridges between the browser and the smartcard driver (what Java applets did in earlier years). The web app then communicates with the service via requests on localhost. The card-specific driver and bridge service are often bundled together for installation.
I've had it before where it asked me to use an iPhone/Android app which can read the passport's NFC chip. I guess that's the modern replacement for IE/Java.
That extension has "Access your data for all websites" ... I really don't get how anyone can give that permission to anyone that isn't well known (a company with a lot on the line) or a person famous for their work (the uBO dev) who has stated he will never sell to anyone or do bad things.
"Hacks and Hops" doesn't even have a valid home page. The extension links to https://g666gle.me/ which does not exist. The domain name itself does not want to make me give access to all my data for all websites to them.
As nice as this extension seems, I would ever in a million years install it.
Unfortunately this level of incoherence is almost universal on HN and similar forums. You'd have to be completely out of your mind to install this extension, but people for some reason believe they can install privacy. They got whipped into fearing nebulous online actors so much that they'll download FSB rootkits dressed as VPNs. The minimal set of actions a rational person would take after realizing they've been tricked into installing this extension is setting their entire PC on fire and then running it over with their car, while moving all of their bank accounts to new accounts, in person, and changing all of their passwords using a brand new device.
Yes. Facebook was using this trick on Android. Meta's android apps would host a server on localhost, and their sites would communicate with this local server to pass tracking information that would otherwise be blocked by all browser protection methods on Android. I guess it is still fingerprinting, but at the most extreme end.
CORS doesn’t prevent requests (i.e. GET requests from IMG tags, or XHR preflight requests), it only prevents web apps from processing the response if the responding server doesn’t agree. And a simple GET or even OPTIONS request can be enough to exploit vulnerabilities in routers and other local devices.
It seems to be part of some "bot defense" product by these F5 people, to "test the different browser capabilities". I doubt it's intended to hit a real endpoint on any system.
Mostly it's great for tracking although I'm sure it could also be used to exfiltrate data (e.g. if the user is running something sensitive on localhost).
As far as I understand it, it is supposed to be a scan done by the browser on the user's computer, not an external scan, which a browser extension wouldn't be able to detect.
I see. So the website would try to access private IP adresses (RFC 1918) by having elements like <iframe src="http://10.0.0.1"> in the web site and then the web site would check if the iframe was loaded successfully?
Judging just from the screenshots, it seems it blocks websites from accessing 127.0.0.1 get requests. Not a port scan to the outside, more of what do you have running on the local machine inside your network.
Capturing forensic artifacts of the local network allows a building a bridge strategy for identifying fraudulent networks without requiring knowledge of the path taken from destination to recipient. Other local devices do this and send the network map during a phone home, allowing comparison to a source of truth that is tied almost directly to the person, or group of people.
There is also a lot of fingerprintable material within such a port scan from clock skew, TCP ISN, and a few other areas.
You can sieve this quite easily with this available, thanks to Roku's, Phone's, and other things doing this while just sitting locally in a shared collision domain (a digital soldier quartered in every home).
The metadata node graph of devices locally acts as a unique fingerprint once in RFC1918 space, technically not unique but close enough.
If would be interesting to see what happens on OpenBSD. With pledge(2) and unveil(2) in Firefox, I wonder what it would see. I expect it would see nothing.
I will give it a try and see what happens and if I see anything I will add it here.
It looks useful and looks good, there's minimal unneeded whitespace and I'm glad it looks as it does. We'd be better off if the entire web switched to a style like this.
Most likely some "antivirus" bs. Probably harmless. Fun fact. Most browsers allow by default GET access to web resources on localhost and LAN. Been used for exploits since last century.
Visa application is riddled with scams. From the simple website that charges you twice the price to websites that will tell you that you were rejected and then fake your documents to get in with your name. So they're probably trying to see that you're not one of those web servers, a proxy for them or detect some known C2 channels.
That would be quite clever for an incredibly horrible website. The other day my SO, who is a Turkish citizen, was filling up her visa application and after half an hour of meticulous form filling the system just kick her out. I think the session times out or something. If you haven't created an account or you haven't write down the current application ID everything is lost. In the process she was also directed to a non-.gov website for something during the process, I thought she was getting scammed but no.
It actually makes sense to have a paid service that makes this abomination less painful. Though they work with VFS Global for collecting the applications and relevant documents, the VFS Global itself is an abomination and doesn't help with the handling of the form filling anyway.
Recently EU streamlined the Schengen visa application process for Turkish citizens as those "visa agencies" that are the official agencies and the only way to apply for a visa for many countries don't actually help with anything and are scamming people by selling the "good hours" for the visa appointment on the black market. An agency was dropped for this and the scams by agencies were listed among the reasons to streamline the application process.
Both with US and EU people are losing scholarships etc. due to outrageous wait times that are sometimes are years ahead or there's an issue with the systems handling the applications.
I guess there must be an opportunity there to fix all this together with smaller stuff like handling transliteration and character encodings, I wonder if some of those scam site are not scams and actually help with it. An AI agent can be useful here.
I had this problem too last year. I found, at the time, it was the website was poorly managing the session in some browsers causing the timeout countdown to not be reset on activity. I had to find a windows computer and use microsoft edge I think (maybe it was chrome). But no browser on my mac would not have that issue.
>> the system just kick her out
The "waterfall model" is a toxic way of thinking that pervades corporate management. Simplistic minds can't fathom any states other than "done" or "not done". Corporations are determined to crush the human soul. That is why it's not a progressive series of forms, saving your progress all along.
The VISA appointment scheduling site rate limits to a ridiculous degree these days. As in refresh your page within 10seconds and get a 429 error.
That's probably because of the fact that the appointments are near impossible to get, they only allow booking a few months out and it's always completely booked. So everyone was refreshing (or if clever botting) to get an appointment slot.
You might be making the assumption that the US wants to make the process easier.
Not to defend the US immigration system, but my experience is that this user-hostile behavior (modulo the port scanning lol) is endemic across US government websites - including those that nominally want to serve you, those that are at the state level instead of the federal level (such as the DMV sites), and those that are even internal for use by government employees only.
It's bad enough that in some cases I believe the designers should be threatened with legal penalties.
This. The website for buying treasury products is straight out of the year 2002. The login is so bad I would never consider buying them there - the service fee charged by brokerages is absolutely worth it in this case.
Which brokerages charge fees for purchasing US Treasuries? Schwab definitely doesn't.
Really the only reason you need TreasuryDirect is for buying Series I bonds (and maybe a few other niche Treasury products), which are not available through brokerages.
Makes it obvious which lobby has a hand in this, doesn't it?
That would be an abysmally poor assumption currently.
The purpose of a system is what it does.
I'd invoke Hanlon's razor, but in this case, it's certainly both malice and stupidity...
They are so frequently intertwined
If there is any conclusion to be drawn here, it is that the United States doesn't want foreigners in their land (for tourism or otherwise).
I'm not sure I see the upside of moving to a nation knowing that its citizens actively despise my existence.
You use the same system for Business visas. Hard to imagine US wouldn’t want those as easy as possible.
You don't have a good enough imagination for how stupid our current leadership really is.
During 8 years of Obama and 4 years of Biden, none of this was different or better. Perhaps this isn't a partisan political issue.
I guarantee the visa system was created before the current administration.
As a US citizen, I feel it’s opposite. Hard to imagine they’d want anything related to visas to be easy.
Hard to imagine that the US wouldn't be as paranoid, self-sabotaging, and bureaucratically inept as possible? </sarcasm>
As I wrote elsewhere; they subcontract the bot protection to F5, an external company that I see for some reason a lot on old/horrible banking websites.
F5 is huge in enterprise and academia for firewall/VPN/load-balancer services
The hard truth of it all is that both the US and (partially) the EU don’t want to make this easier because seeing as wanting “outside” people is now a political liability. You may want to adjust your expectations around that.
Turkish tourist are desired, Turks love spending money on restaurants and activities especially since the prices in Turkey have become more expensive than most of the EU. Greeks even introduced special non-Schengen on-arrival visa valid on the Greek islands especially for the Turks. Besides that, EU has "green passport" exception for the Turkish nationals, where they can travel visa-free on this kind of passport that is provided to individuals that meet certain criteria and millions of such passports were issued.
The rejection rates are also not bad and EU has a "return agreement" with Turkey, which is designed to keep the middle eastern refugees in Turkey(essentially, if you come from Turkey EU can send you back to Turkey right away ).
Crime rates for Turks show up among the lowest ones, unlike others from the region. So I don't think that EU is trying to reduce visas for Turks.
You are looking at it from Turkish perspective unfortunately.
I am EU citizen, I happen to know the Turkish perspective only because spent some years in Turkey and in fact it is the Turkish perspective that that EU doesn't want them and intentionally makes things harder but the moment you look at what's actually going on you see that this is not the case, just a Turkish fantasy about the "evil West and snobby Europeans". Considering that last year 50K Turks applied for asylum in EU and another 100K overstayed their visa, IMHO EU can be considered pretty generous actually with only 15% rejection rate since Turkey is the 2nd country with most applications after China.
https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/news/visa-applications-rea...
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
> it is the Turkish perspective that that EU doesn't want them
Of course we don't. Most of us think it is a scandal that Turks can go visa free here. It's a scandal that so many politicians here used to talk about Turkish EU membership as if that was a desirable thing.
I'm Danish and we have lots of Turks. They are generally much nicer than the Danes but almost all of them are dunces. Many are crazy Nationalists, some are crazy Muslims (many more than there used to be), some are crazy Communists (not as many as there used to be).
And they are indeed among the less extra criminal Muslim immigrants we have -- only 2x according to the official stats. Those official stats over count the native crime rates by including 2nd/3rd gen Turks and Arabs, of course.
The first non-dunce Turk I met was a rude and unpleasant university student I met at a dorm party. He was only visiting Denmark. The second was a nice (and clever!) optician. The third through fifth were a Turkish tourist family I met on a rooftop above a museum in Copenhagen. Four of those five were great people and I wish we had more like that. I also wish Turkey had more like that. It's a shame that the few normal Turks have to share a country with all the others.
The rest? They won't be missed if they decide to go home.
B-visa rejection rate for Turkey in FY24, as per the US State Department, was 19.78%, btw. https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Non-Im...
The US gov’t has been actively targeting CANADA, one of the countries historically closest trading partners and allies.
Maybe in the EU it’s all good, but expect a lot of turbulence in the US.
That doesn't explain the same poor operational quality before it became a liability
Another data point - 5he Indian visa system is similar. The official website ending in .gov.in, which is hard to find, offers a visa for $10 and minimal hassle. The scam websites, with better SEO sell the same shit for $80. They’re just proxying your application to the real website and pocketing the difference.
It would be good if the Indian government could block the scammers but I guess it’s a lower priority for the moment.
Not sure if this is the case for India, but I've experienced similar situations for other countries, but the 'scam websites' actually provided a real service - if you needed some ultra-urgent processing (like you only realized you needed a visa to this country before boarding a flight, once you were already at the airport check-in...) they were able to provide 30 minute approval, whereas the official site's accelerated processing was 24 hours.
So obviously the only way they could to this is with government contacts meaning the government themselves could already do it, but a lot of immigration stuff everywhere is full of people taking kickbacks.
The scam websites are probably owned by someone who works in the Indian govt.
This was the case with Ghana. The Embassy in the US had an unofficial offical partnership with an expediter scam (charge more for faster shipping, looks very official). They fired the whole visa staff when it finally came to light. Probably because someone forgot to let their manager's manager in on the scam.
Almost certainly, entire industries have been given over to indian scammers and their government allies.
damn bro, how bad situation on there????
I know that Indian scam stereotype is racist and bad but how much it is "that bad"
Modhi, for one
I found the real website, but the application never went through, always some issue. My boss told me which service to use and everything just worked. (I could expense that service so cost didn't bother me)
I'm not too familiar with network side stuff. What would a port scan be able to detect that would indicate that you're a scammer?
Just a guess, but maybe a typical bot has a webserver, ssh server, some other servers running on the same machine, whereas a typical Visa applicant doesn't.
Or a browser automation server (Marionette/CDP). I seem to remember watching a presentation where it was mentioned you could detect them this way, <s>but I don't remember where or what it was called.</s> this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nZD6ee2Xo8 (WHY2025: Stealth Web Scraping Techniques for OSINT)
This is a very clever answer.
Huh, how do you imagine that would work? This "scan" is happening inside client-side javascript, delivering the file through a proxy wouldn't "detect" anything about the proxy.
I imagine it may not be a proxy in the true sense, but a headless browser that's "proxying" the application process rather than the network traffic itself.
Proxy is being used in the traditional sense here. It’s common for a business (scam or legit) to handle visa applications on behalf of customers.
it's riddled with scams, and thinking any of this will detect any of the things you mention is very foolish, native and show a total lack of understanding of the scams. of you think using a proxy is essential for visa scam, i would even know where to begin to correct you.
it's one hundred per cent clueless privacy invasion. they are probably also opening ports via other means and using that for side channel ID like Facebook does.
just like any other documentation scam, the only weak point is on the "last mile" that's why you will always have a human interviewer.
the visa process is abusive and unpractical because people will work around any hurdle and their kpi will never be affected no matter how crappy they manage to make to whole process. or how many doge kids implement useless privacy invasion tech just because.
If the proxy scams are just a little clever, they'll run the proxy on an another IP.
"Since looking into it, I noticed that uBlock Origin already has the default list "Block Outsider Intrusion into LAN" but it wasn't enabled."
Never knew that this existed. Thank you!
Checking out the initial request on github for this feature I wonder why is this necessary? What access to the local network does the browser provide, or need to provide, and why isn't this something developers are more concerned about? I had a feeling this was possible as I see lots of mdns requests when I connect to certain things running sockets.
https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uAssets/issues/4318
There are certainly use cases, but whether they’re warranted is a good question.
One popular router maker offers a ‘magic URL’ (domain name) that scans your network for the gateway management page, and redirects. It’s not necessary, but it certainly helps novice users. Having worked in IT support,
I’ve also purchased hardware devices that have a web management UI; which connects directly instead of proxying through a cloud.
Ultimately this is probably one thing that should be behind a permission request (like webcam access), but it’s not a feature without value.
It's being looked at.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1481298
Massively improved my security posture with this. Thanks all!
Is that available in lite version too? Now that the origin js being phased out
… or you can instead phase out those browsers who try to force blocker restrictions i.e. spyware on you (e.g. chrome and such), and use one of the browsers where you can use the full-featured (not "lite") uBlock Origin instead, e.g. Firefox.
It’s only being phased out on Chrome, by Google.
Yes, to make us safer, now you enable developer mode and disable signature checking to install it locally, thanks Google
Soon, you won't be able to install it locally because the API it relies on will no longer be available. Use Firefox.
You can't change browser? Or is there something bigger happening?
Not everyone wants to change browsers.
then again, if the makers of one big browser (and via there also the derived browsers) start force-shoving spyware upon you (by restricting blockers), it comes down to a decision of how you set your priorities. Personally, It's a clear cut red line, but you do you.
Just checked, and it seems like it is. Not enabled by default for some reason.
It's coming from a F5 script, which is a company that sells anti-bot protection amid other things. (It's coming from obfuscated script at /TSPD, which is a F5 thing.)
https://www.f5.com/
TS seems to be short for TrafficShield (a product of some company F5 acquired in early 2000s) and PD seems to be Proactive Defense (?)
How and why do browsers allow this? Why wouldn't the browser ask for permission in the same way that it does for Microphone access?
It's insane to allow any random website to port scan my LAN. If this wasn't a "feature", I would have considered this a high severity vulnerability
Chrome doesn't allow it - local network services have to opt-in to being fetchable from public sites (https://github.com/WICG/private-network-access), although they're replacing it with a user-permission-based approach (https://github.com/WICG/local-network-access).
(There is some language online suggesting PNA has not actually shipped, but I experienced it myself in stable Chrome several years ago, so I am unsure of the current state).
Firefox doesn't implement either approach -- I assume this is indicative of their lack of development resources.
> Firefox doesn't implement either approach -- I assume this is indicative of their lack of development resources.
Since ublock had this as a feature for a long time, I'm sure they are aware of it. Unlike other non funded oss projects, Firefox can't and shouldn't shield themselves with this lack of development resource excuse. They have millions.
I'm using uMatrix and it blocks by default all connections outside the requested site and parent domains. For example, if I request https://mail.yahoo.com, connections to yimg.com are blocked. I need to manually allow each CDN for each website, so this attack/profiling won't work.
Using uMatrix was very annoying at first, most websites are broken without their CDNs, but after a few months or so, the whitelist grew and it contains 90% of websites I visit.
On my system https://ceac.state.gov/genniv/ tries to connect to captcha.com, google-analytics, googletagmanager, 127.0.0.1 and "burp" (a local hostname that doesn't exist in my network). Interestigly, the browser console doesn't list connection attempts to localhost or burp. If I allow 127.0.0.1 and "tcpdump -i lo", I see connections to port 8888, which isn't open.
How does uMatrix handle the Facebook tracking pixel, or the replacement which is the Conversions API Gateway?
This is a container that FB gives you to host that lives under your domain (it can be your main domain) that slurps up user data and sends it to Facebook from the server side. You embed some JS in your website, and they hoover up the data.
It doesn't handle it. Anyway, there's no way to know what a website does on the server site. Even a completely static website could be sending the server logs somewhere.
There are options to not load JS, images, XMLHttpRequests, frames, cookies, for each site, but it doesn't list individual files.
Then why use it? They're number one.
uMatrix is archived and I think uBlockOrigin is now advised to use(which incorporate uMatrix by enabling advanced settings)
For those who want to try blocking more stuff you can enable hard mode and bind relax blocking mode keyboard shortcut
I'd recommend also enabling filter lists(I advice yokoffing/filterlists and your region/language)
https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-hard-m...
But uBlockOrigin UI is so much worse...
Besides, uMatrix works fine. It's that kind of program that doesn't need any updates.
I would really like an intuitive UI for people who don't want to do 'a project' to get their config tight.
Until uBO has an even remotely usable interface for this use case people (including myself) will continue to use uMaxtrix or forks of it instead.
I reluctantly switched to only uBo because of uM bugs. But the UI/UX is just a huge step backwards to enable mobile usability.
uBO advanced settings still isn't as flexible as uMatrix was though, fwiw. (I did give in and switch in the end though.)
With uBO I can't block cookies by domain.
It seems to try to check if you are using the Burp Suite on their web application.
How does it manage to hide the requests to 127.0.0.1 from the network tab?
I have no ideea. Possibly that's a limitation of Chrome+Firefox developer tools (I get the feeling it's the same code)?
But I found what "burp" is: https://portswigger.net/burp/communitydownload
It seems like they only make the localhost requests on your first visit. If you open devtools in incognito mode (or just clear the cookies) before accessing https://ceac.state.gov/genniv/ you should see those 127.0.0.1 attempts as ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED in the network tab.
Somewhat more worryingly, Little Snitch doesn't report them at all, though that might just be because they were already blocked at the browser.
This is what I see.
https://i.imgur.com/lvjg2YQ.png
> 400_random_url_with_numbers_403
That looks so much like test code that was shipped to prod.
Searches for that string on GH does return results.
The requests are not made, because some operating systems prevent this.
If you're on OSX, the permission to "discover on the local network" prevents it from happening ( System Settings -> Privacy & Security -> Local Network -> yourbrowser )
Could also be 'network' permissions on firefox ( Go to Settings > Privacy & Security > Permissions ) which is on a per site level, but iirc that could be set site-wide at some point.
The other browsers likely have similar configs, but this is what I have found.
Looks like this is new to MacOS 15 Sequoia, as I don’t see a Local Network option in Sonoma.
> On my system https://ceac.state.gov/genniv/ tries to connect to captcha.com, google-analytics, googletagmanager, 127.0.0.1 and "burp" (a local hostname that doesn't exist in my network).
That will be this burp: https://portswigger.net/burp/documentation/desktop/tools/pro...
Sounds like they don't want you to analyze their site.
Whitelisting seems to be the way to go. With IPv6 and OS generated IPs (up to what the ISP domestic router allows) could be very efficient.
The "port scan" just seems to be a local connection to 127.0.0.1:8888. I don't know what purpose it serves on this page, but our government websites often use this technique to communicate with native software for digitally signing documents.
Are you seeing connection attempts to other IPs?
Might also be card readers, debug servers, etc.
Could also be incompetence :D until I fixed it, deploying from my local machine rather than CD resulted in one of the baked in URLs being localhost rather than the public host on the project I'm working on now. Their local development server might just be at port 8888. Wouldn't surprise me.
I looked at the website again and noticed that the request paths looked odd, one of them being `/400_random_url_with_numbers_403`. I googled that and it looks like it's part of a client-side bot detection script that's testing something, the explanation isn't very informative.
https://my.f5.com/manage/s/article/K000138794
> These requests are caused by the bot profile to test the different browser capabilities.
> 'http://127.0.0.1:xxxx' request is a call to the localhost/client machine, which is normal when trying to protect assets like end-server using ant-bot defense. It does not have any impact regarding application page load.
This is most likely an attempt to connect to a webserver on your own device to collect data and/or do tracking.
Remember back in June when Facebook/meta got caught tracking users trough a webserver on Android phone thought Messenger and Instagram? Same thing.
See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44169115 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44175940
Why do you say that’s most likely?
This is a common pattern for connecting to smart cards / hardware security devices. Probably a service or hardware that’s run on official CBP machines that should be disabled for prod, but forgot.
How are you so sure?
Many sites do it .Included in many standard device fingerprinting / anti anonymity SAAS. Ebay facebook etc all do this ! But it looks this is first party to prevent the adblocking of them
1MB of obfuscated fingerprinting + portscan + Webgl . But oddity this one is trying to find burp suite specific route's.
Madness! How do I harden my network against that?
Chrome is already in the process of killing it https://developer.chrome.com/blog/local-network-access
The company I work for has a legitimate service that runs on the loopback (it provides our web apps APIs for some device integration) hopefully its just as simple as the user accepting the prompt else we'll be drowning in support. We had to go the path of the local service because they killed NPAPI. I've been thinking about using web serial as an alternative but Firefox doesn't support it.
That being said, I think this is an overall win, hopefully Firefox implements it in a consistent manner as well.
Enable "Block Outsider Intrusion into LAN" filter list in uBlock Origin.
Thank you!
You should actually harden your browser or PC... to block any unwanted requests. Apparently some browser extensions can do that.
It would be the job of the operating system to give or take away the ability of your browser to access your local network. But you can run your browser in a container/vm and disable localhost. (And use a separate browser for localhost only if you need it.)
my bank did this on the site they sent me to in order to activate my new card.
Just a little side note - in this context, it makes sense if the website tries to connect to a local port because you might be running a card reader(ie. terminal). This is how it works with some(all?) EU countries that have a chip in their ID cards, or even vehicle registration cards, which you can use to access sensitive information or perform certain administrative tasks on government websites.
Although, from personal experience, it used to require java and it worked only on internet explorer and since it has been retired and replaced with chromium, i am not sure what is the way to make it work nowadays, as i have not been able to figure out to use it when i needed the last time.
It requires installing a local service that bridges between the browser and the smartcard driver (what Java applets did in earlier years). The web app then communicates with the service via requests on localhost. The card-specific driver and bridge service are often bundled together for installation.
I've had it before where it asked me to use an iPhone/Android app which can read the passport's NFC chip. I guess that's the modern replacement for IE/Java.
That extension has "Access your data for all websites" ... I really don't get how anyone can give that permission to anyone that isn't well known (a company with a lot on the line) or a person famous for their work (the uBO dev) who has stated he will never sell to anyone or do bad things.
"Hacks and Hops" doesn't even have a valid home page. The extension links to https://g666gle.me/ which does not exist. The domain name itself does not want to make me give access to all my data for all websites to them.
As nice as this extension seems, I would ever in a million years install it.
Unfortunately this level of incoherence is almost universal on HN and similar forums. You'd have to be completely out of your mind to install this extension, but people for some reason believe they can install privacy. They got whipped into fearing nebulous online actors so much that they'll download FSB rootkits dressed as VPNs. The minimal set of actions a rational person would take after realizing they've been tricked into installing this extension is setting their entire PC on fire and then running it over with their car, while moving all of their bank accounts to new accounts, in person, and changing all of their passwords using a brand new device.
Embarrassed to say that I wasn't aware of this practice. Are there malicious uses for this beyond fingerprinting?
Yes. Facebook was using this trick on Android. Meta's android apps would host a server on localhost, and their sites would communicate with this local server to pass tracking information that would otherwise be blocked by all browser protection methods on Android. I guess it is still fingerprinting, but at the most extreme end.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44169115
Routers with vulnerable URLs. You can search for: "router" "authentication bypass".
Isn't CORS supposed to prevent this?
CORS doesn’t prevent requests (i.e. GET requests from IMG tags, or XHR preflight requests), it only prevents web apps from processing the response if the responding server doesn’t agree. And a simple GET or even OPTIONS request can be enough to exploit vulnerabilities in routers and other local devices.
https://files.catbox.moe/g1bejn.png
When I visit the site from Safari on macOS I see this in the console. Are there any particular services that use port 8888 for the website to do this?
https://my.f5.com/manage/s/article/K000138794
It seems to be part of some "bot defense" product by these F5 people, to "test the different browser capabilities". I doubt it's intended to hit a real endpoint on any system.
Mostly it's great for tracking although I'm sure it could also be used to exfiltrate data (e.g. if the user is running something sensitive on localhost).
https://www.digitalsamba.com/blog/metas-localhost-spyware-ho...
> Blocks malicious websites from port-scanning your computer/network
How does that work? A browser extension can't influence how your router and other machines in your network react to incoming requests.
As far as I understand it, it is supposed to be a scan done by the browser on the user's computer, not an external scan, which a browser extension wouldn't be able to detect.
Hopefully should soon be a thing of the past with https://developer.chrome.com/blog/local-network-access
I see. So the website would try to access private IP adresses (RFC 1918) by having elements like <iframe src="http://10.0.0.1"> in the web site and then the web site would check if the iframe was loaded successfully?
It could also just try making the request with javascript. Or try a websocket connection.
Judging just from the screenshots, it seems it blocks websites from accessing 127.0.0.1 get requests. Not a port scan to the outside, more of what do you have running on the local machine inside your network.
but it can hook javascript methods before that scan can happen.
Very interesting. Having looked at NoScript it seems like you can disable LAN as a default value under the allow tab.
Looking further
* uBlock Origin and Lite have it as an option under Filter List > Privacy > Block Outsider Intrusion into LAN
* Brave prevents it, tested with Aggressively block Trackers and Ads.
Why do you need a heavyweight extension to block sites from scanning your local network? Ridiculous.
Also I wonder if this protection is available only with old extension manifest version or new network request hooks API also supports it.
Checking if you are sharing torrents, run a tor node, mine coins?
Perhaps to avoid people using misconfigured open proxies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_proxy
Like a less sophisticated Tor/VPN that is easily detected by port scans
Capturing forensic artifacts of the local network allows a building a bridge strategy for identifying fraudulent networks without requiring knowledge of the path taken from destination to recipient. Other local devices do this and send the network map during a phone home, allowing comparison to a source of truth that is tied almost directly to the person, or group of people.
There is also a lot of fingerprintable material within such a port scan from clock skew, TCP ISN, and a few other areas.
You can sieve this quite easily with this available, thanks to Roku's, Phone's, and other things doing this while just sitting locally in a shared collision domain (a digital soldier quartered in every home).
The metadata node graph of devices locally acts as a unique fingerprint once in RFC1918 space, technically not unique but close enough.
If would be interesting to see what happens on OpenBSD. With pledge(2) and unveil(2) in Firefox, I wonder what it would see. I expect it would see nothing.
I will give it a try and see what happens and if I see anything I will add it here.
I saw nothing of note on OpenBSD. I added the plugin and it prompted me an attempt was made to scan the network, it said it blocked the scan
SO, I guess that is going to be used on all my firefox runs.
For another example, studentaid.gov doesn’t work in private browsing.
I just tried opening it in a private window and the page loaded and rendered. What part doesn't work?
Isn't it sort of contradictory to try to use private browsing with a service that requires your identity?
My biggest grief with that site is that it's like something from the 90s.
Yeah it should have a fixed header and footer along with a pop-up consent drawer so you can only see 10% of the actual site content.
So much better.
Modern web design is a joke.
t-shirt worthy quote - "modern web design is a joke" ;)
>like something from the 90s
It looks useful and looks good, there's minimal unneeded whitespace and I'm glad it looks as it does. We'd be better off if the entire web switched to a style like this.
The 1990s web was actually good
As something from the 90s myself, I find this rude.
It's also inaccurate, as this style of page (relating to layout and specific graphic style) didn't appear until 2006ish.
I think you are confusing something from the 90 with something from the gov
These guys need to look at Gov.uk, this site is a total horror show.
I wish gov.uk was even a smidgen as "outdated" looking as that page.
Most likely some "antivirus" bs. Probably harmless. Fun fact. Most browsers allow by default GET access to web resources on localhost and LAN. Been used for exploits since last century.
this is awesome
Be careful your security tool isn't producing false positives.
I remember years back when people would run these firewalls and we'd get complaints from home users about normal traffic.
Thinks like complaints our mail servers was scanning them on port 25 when they sent email.