Algorithms used for catching robots - php

What kind of algorithm do websites, including stackexchange use to catch robots?
What makes them fail at times and present human-verification to normal users?
For web-applications and websites running on PHP, what would you recommend in order to stop robots and bot attacks and even content stealing?
Thank you.

Check out http://www.captcha.net/ for good and easy human-verification tools.
Preventing content stealing will be really difficult as you want the information to be available to your visitors.
Do not disable right click, it will only annoy your users and not stop content thiefs in any way.
You won't be able to keep out all bots, but you will be able to implement layers of security that will each stop a part of the bots.
A few hints and tips;
Use Captcha's for human verification, but don't use too many of them as they will tire users.
You could do e-mail verification with a Captcha and require a login for your content (if it doesn't scare away too many users). Or consider giving some part of the content for free and require registration for the full content.
Check for pieces of your content on other sites regularly (through Google, possibly automated with the Google API) and sue / DMCA notice if they blatantly stole (not quoted!) your content.
Limit the speed at which individual clients can make requests to your site. Bots will scrape often and quickly. Requesting content more than once a second is already a lot for human users. There are server tools that can accomplish this, eg. check out http://www.modsecurity.org/
I am sure there are more layers of security that can be thought of, but these come to mind directly.

I ran across an interesting article from Princeton University that presents nice ideas for automatic robot detection. The idea is quite simple. Humans behave differently than machines, and an automated access usually does things differently than a human.
The article presents some basic checks that can be done over the course of a few requests. You spend a few requests gathering information about how the client is browsing and after some time you take all your variables and make an assertion. Things to include are:
Mouse movement: a robot will most likely not use a mouse and therefore will not generate mouse movement events in the browser. You can prepare a javascript function, say "onBodyMouseMove()" and call it whenever the mouse moves over the entire area of page's body. If this function is called, count +1 in a session counter.
Javascript: some robots will not take the time to run javascript (i.e. curl, wget, axel, and other command line tools), since they are mostly sending specific requests that return useful output. You can prepare a function that is called after a page is loaded and count +1 in a session counter.
Invisble links: crawler robots are sucking machines that don't care about the content of a website. They are designed to click on all possible links and suck all the contents to a mirror location. You can insert invisible links somewhere in your webpage -- for example, a few nbsp; space characters at the bottom of the page surrounded by an anchor tag. Humans will not ever see this link, but you get a request on it, count +1 in a session counter.
CSS, images, and other visual components: robots will most likely ignore CSS and images, because they are not interested in rendering the webpage for viewing. You can hide a link to inside an URL that ends in *.css or *.jpg (you can use Apache rewrites or servlet mappings for Java). If these specific links are accessed, it's most likely a browser loading CSS and JPG for viewing.
NOTE: *.css, *.js, *.jpg, etc are usually loaded only once per page in a session. You need to append a unique counter at the end for the browser to reload these links everytime the page is requested.
Once you gather all that information in your session over the course of a few requests, you can make an assertion. For example, if you don't see any javascript, css or mouse move activity you can assume it's a bot. It's up to you to take these counters into consideration according to your needs.. so you can program it based on these variables any way you want. If you decide some client is a robot, you can force him to solve some captcha before continuing with further requests.
Just a note: Tablets will usually not create any mouse move events. So I'm still trying to figure out how to deal with them. Suggestions are welcome :)

Related

How to block spider if he's disobeying the rules of robots.txt

Is there any way to block a crawler/spider search bots if they're not obeying the rules written in robots.txt file. If yes, where can I find more info about it?
I would prefer some .htaccess rule, if not then PHP.
There are ways to prevent most bots from spidering your site.
Aside from filtering by user agent and known IP adresses, you should as well implement behaviour driven blocking. That means, if it acts like a crawler, block it.
You can find multiple lists of search engine bots here. But most of the big players obey the robots.txt.
So the other, rather big part is the blocking because of the bots behaviour. Things are getting less complicated when you are using a framework like Laravel or Symfony, because you easily set a filter to be executed before every page load. If not, you'd have to implement a function which is called before every page load.
Now there are some things to consider. A spider usually crawls as fast as it can. So you could use the session to measure time between page loads and page loads in a given time span. If amount X this is exceed, the client is blocked.
Sadly, this approach relies on the bot handling sessions/cookies correctly, which may not always be the case.
Another or an additional approach would be to measure the amount of page loads from a given IP address. This is dangerous because there may be as well a huge amount of users using the same IP address. So this may exclude humans.
A third approach I can think of is to use some kind of honeypot. Create a link that leads to a specific site. That link has to be visible to computers, but not to humans. Hide it away with some css. If someone or something is accessing the page using the hidden link, you can be (close to) sure it is a program. But be aware, there are browser addons which are preloading every link they can find. So you cannot rely totally on this.
Depending on the nature of your site, on last approach would be to hide the complete site behind a capture. This is a harsh measure in terms of usability, so decide carefully if it applies to your use case.
Then there are techniques like using flash or complicated Javascript most bots do not understand, but it's disgusting and I don't want to talk about it. ^^
Finally, I will now come to a conclusion.
By using a well written robots.txt most robots will leave you alone. In addition to that, you should combine all or some of the approaches mentioned beforehand to get the bad guys.
Afterall, as long as your site is publically available, you can never evade a custom made bot tailored specifically for your site. When a browser can parse it, a robot can do it as well.
For a more useful answer I would need to know what you are trying to hide and why.

How can I track outgoing link clicks without tracking bots?

I have a few thoughts on this but I can see problems with both. I don't need 100% accurate data. An 80% solution that allows me to make generalizations about the most popular domains I'm routing users to is fine.
Option 1 - Use PHP. Route links through a file track.php that makes sure the referring page is from my domain before tracking the click. This page then routes the user to the final intended URL. Obviously bots could spoof this. Do many? I could also check the user agent. Again, I KNOW many bots spoof this.
Option 2 - Use JavaScript. Execute a JavaScript on click function that writes the click to the database and then directs the user to the final URL.
Both of these methods feel like they may cause problems with crawlers following my outgoing links. What is the most effective method for tracking these outgoing clicks?
The most effective method for tracking outgoing links (it's used by Facebook, Twitter, and almost every search engine) is a "track.php" type file.
Detecting bots can be considered a separate problem, and the methods are covered fairly well by these questions: http://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+detect+http+bots+site%3Astackoverflow.com But doing a simple string search for "bot" in the User-Agent will probably get you close to your 80%* (and watching for hits to /robots.txt will, depending on the type of bot you're dealing with, get you 95%*).
*: a semi-educated guess, based on zero concrete data
Well, Google analytics and Piwik use Javascript for that.
Since bots can't use JS, you'll only have humans. In the other way, humans can disable JS too (but sincerely, that's rarely the case)
Facebook, Deviantart, WLM, etc use server side script to track. I don't know how they filter bots but a nice robots.txt with one or two filter and that should be good enough to get 80% I guess.

How to determine real user are browsing my site or just crawling or else in PHP

I want to know whether a user are actually looking my site(I know it's just load by the browser and display to human, not actually human looking at it).
I know two method will work.
Javascript.
If the page was load by the browser, it will run the js code automatically, except forbid by the browser. Then use AJAX to call back the server.
1×1 transparent image of in the html.
Use img to call back the server.
Do anyone know the pitfall of these method or any better method?
Also, I don't know how to determine a 0×0 or 1×1 iframe to prevent the above method.
A bot can access a browser, e.g. http://browsershots.org
The bot can request that 1x1 image.
In short, there is no real way to tell. Best you could do is use a CAPTCHA, but then it degrades the experience for humans.
Just use a CAPTCHA where required (user sign up, etc).
I want to know whether a user are actually looking my site(I know it's just load by the browser and display to human, not actually human looking at it).
The image way seems better, as Javascript might be turned off by normal users as well. Robots generally don't load images, so this should indeed work. Nonetheless, if you're just looking to filter a known set of robots (say Google and Yahoo), you can simply check for the HTTP User Agent header, as those robots will actually identify themselves as being a robot.
you can create an google webmasters account
and it tells you how to configure your site for bots
also show how robot will read your website
I agree with others here, this is really tough - generally nice crawlers will identify themselves as crawlers so using the User-Agent is a pretty good way to filter out those guys. A good source for user agent strings can be found at http://www.useragentstring.com. I've used Chris Schulds php script (http://chrisschuld.com/projects/browser-php-detecting-a-users-browser-from-php/) to good effect in the past.
You can also filter these guys at the server level using the Apache config or .htaccess file, but I've found that to be a losing battle keeping up with it.
However, if you watch your server logs you'll see lots of suspect activity with valid (browser) user-agents or funky user-agents so this will only work so far. You can play the blacklist/whitelist IP game, but that will get old fast.
Lots of crawlers do load images (i.e. Google image search), so I don't think that will work all the time.
Very few crawlers will have Javascript engines, so that is probably a good way to differentiate them. And lets face it, how many users actually turn of Javascript these days? I've seen the stats on that, but I think those stats are very skewed by the sheer number of crawlers/bots out there that don't identify themselves. However, a caveat is that I have seen that the Google bot does run Javascript now.
So, bottom line, its tough. I'd go with a hybrid strategy for sure - if you filter using user-agent, images, IP and javascript I'm sure you'll get most bots, but expect some to get through despite that.
Another idea, you could always use a known Javascript browser quirk to test if the reported user-agent (if its a browser) is really actually that browser?
"Nice" robots like those from google or yahoo will usually respect a robots.txt file. Filtering by useragent might also help.
But in the end - if someone wants to gain automated access it will be very hard to prevent that; you should be sure it is worth the effort.
Inspect the User-Agent header of the http request.
Crawlers should set this to anything but a known browser.
here are the google-bot header http://code.google.com/intl/nl-NL/web/controlcrawlindex/docs/crawlers.html
In php you can get the user-agent with :
$Uagent=$_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT'];
Then you just compare it with the known headers
as a tip preg_match() could be handy to do this all in a few lines of code.

Top techniques to avoid 'data scraping' from a website database

I am setting up a site using PHP and MySQL that is essentially just a web front-end to an existing database. Understandably my client is very keen to prevent anyone from being able to make a copy of the data in the database yet at the same time wants everything publicly available and even a "view all" link to display every record in the db.
Whilst I have put everything in place to prevent attacks such as SQL injection attacks, there is nothing to prevent anyone from viewing all the records as html and running some sort of script to parse this data back into another database. Even if I was to remove the "view all" link, someone could still, in theory, use an automated process to go through each record one by one and compile these into a new database, essentially pinching all the information.
Does anyone have any good tactics for preventing or even just detering this that they could share.
While there's nothing to stop a determined person from scraping publically available content, you can do a few basic things to mitigate the client's concerns:
Rate limit by user account, IP address, user agent, etc... - this means you restrict the amount of data a particular user group can download in a certain period of time. If you detect a large amount of data being transferred, you shut down the account or IP address.
Require JavaScript - to ensure the client has some resemblance of an interactive browser, rather than a barebones spider...
RIA - make your data available through a Rich Internet Application interface. JavaScript-based grids include ExtJs, YUI, Dojo, etc. Richer environments include Flash and Silverlight as 1kevgriff mentions.
Encode data as images. This is pretty intrusive to regular users, but you could encode some of your data tables or values as images instead of text, which would defeat most text parsers, but isn't foolproof of course.
robots.txt - to deny obvious web spiders, known robot user agents.
User-agent: *
Disallow: /
Use robot metatags. This would stop conforming spiders. This will prevent Google from indexing you for instance:
<meta name="robots" content="noindex,follow,noarchive">
There are different levels of deterrence and the first option is probably the least intrusive.
If the data is published, it's visible and accessible to everyone on the Internet. This includes the people you want to see it and the people you don't.
You can't have it both ways. You can make it so that data can only be visible with an account, and people will make accounts to slurp the data. You can make it so that the data can only be visible from approved IP addresses, and people will go through the steps to acquire approval before slurping it.
Yes, you can make it hard to get, but if you want it to be convenient for typical users you need to make it convenient for malicious ones as well.
There are few ways you can do it, although none are ideal.
Present the data as an image instead of HTML. This requires extra processing on the server side, but wouldn't be hard with the graphics libs in PHP. Alternatively, you could do this just for requests over a certain size (i.e. all).
Load a page shell, then retrieve the data through an AJAX call and insert it into the DOM. Use sessions to set a hash that must be passed back with the AJAX call as verification. The hash would only be valid for a certain length of time (i.e. 10 seconds). This is really just adding an extra step someone would have to jump through to get the data, but would prevent simple page scraping.
Try using Flash or Silverlight for your frontend.
While this can't stop someone if they're really determined, it would be more difficult. If you're loading your data through services, you can always use a secure connection to prevent middleman scraping.
force a reCAPTCHA every 10 page loads for each unique IP
There is really nothing you can do. You can try to look for an automated process going through your site, but they will win in the end.
Rule of thumb: If you want to keep something to yourself, keep it off the Internet.
Take your hands away from the keyboard and ask your client the reason why he wants the data to be visible but not be able to be scraped?
He's asking for two incongruent things and maybe having a discussion as to his reasoning will yield some fruit.
It may be that he really doesn't want it publicly accessible and you need to add authentication / authorization. Or he may decide that there is value in actually opening up an API. But you won't know until you ask.
I don't know why you'd deter this. The customer's offering the data.
Presumably they create value in some unique way that's not trivially reflected in the data.
Anyway.
You can check the browser, screen resolution and IP address to see if it's likely some kind of automated scraper.
Most things like cURL and wget -- unless carefully configured -- are pretty obviously not browsers.
Using something like Adobe Flex - a Flash application front end - would fix this.
Other than that, if you want it to be easy for users to access, it's easy for users to copy.
There's no easy solution for this. If the data is available publicly, then it can be scraped. The only thing you can do is make life more difficult for the scraper by making each entry slightly unique by adding/changing the HTML without affecting the layout. This would possibly make it more difficult for someone to harvest the data using regular expressions but it's still not a real solution and I would say that anyone determined enough would find a way to deal with it.
I would suggest telling your client that this is an unachievable task and getting on with the important parts of your work.
What about creating something akin to the bulletin board's troll protection... If a scrape is detected (perhaps a certain amount of accesses per minute from one IP, or a directed crawl that looks like a sitemap crawl), you can then start to present garbage data, like changing a couple of digits of the phone number or adding silly names to name fields.
Turn this off for google IPs!
Normally to screen-scrape a decent amount one has to make hundreds, thousands (and more) requests to your server. I suggest you read this related Stack Overflow question:
How do you stop scripters from slamming your website hundreds of times a second?
Use the fact that scrapers tend to load many pages in quick succession to detect scraping behaviours. Display a CAPTCHA for every n page loads over x seconds, and/or include an exponentially growing delay for each page load that becomes quite long when say tens of pages are being loaded each minute.
This way normal users will probably never see your CAPTCHA but scrapers will quickly hit the limit that forces them to solve CAPTCHAs.
My suggestion would be that this is illegal anyways so at least you have legal recourse if someone does scrape the website. So maybe the best thing to do would just to include a link to the original site and let people scrape away. The more they scrape the more of your links will appear around the Internet building up your pagerank more and more.
People who scrape usually aren't opposed to including a link to the original site since it builds a sort of rapport with the original author.
So my advice is to ask your boss whether this could actually be the best thing possible for the website's health.

Tell bots apart from human visitors for stats?

I am looking to roll my own simple web stats script.
The only major obstacle on the road, as far as I can see, is telling human visitors apart from bots. I would like to have a solution for that which I don't need to maintain on a regular basis (i.e. I don't want to update text files with bot-related User-agents).
Is there any open service that does that, like Akismet does for spam?
Or is there a PHP project that is dedicated to recognizing spiders and bots and provides frequent updates?
To clarify: I'm not looking to block bots. I do not need 100% watertight results. I just
want to exclude as many as I can from my stats. In
know that parsing the user-Agent is an
option but maintaining the patterns to
parse for is a lot of work. My
question is whether there is any
project or service that does that
already.
Bounty: I thought I'd push this as a reference question on the topic. The best / most original / most technically viable contribution will receive the bounty amount.
Humans and bots will do similar things, but bots will do things that humans don't. Let's try to identify those things. Before we look at behavior, let's accept RayQuang's comment as being useful. If a visitor has a bot's user-agent string, it's probably a bot. I can't image anybody going around with "Google Crawler" (or something similar) as a UA unless they're working on breaking something. I know you don't want to update a list manually, but auto-pulling that one should be good, and even if it stays stale for the next 10 years, it will be helpful.
Some have already mentioned Javascript and image loading, but Google will do both. We must assume there are now several bots that will do both, so those are no longer human indicators. What bots will still uniquely do, however, is follow an "invisible" link. Link to a page in a very sneaky way that I can't see as a user. If that gets followed, we've got a bot.
Bots will often, though not always, respect robots.txt. Users don't care about robots.txt, and we can probably assume that anybody retrieving robots.txt is a bot. We can go one step further, though, and link a dummy CSS page to our pages that is excluded by robots.txt. If our normal CSS is loaded but our dummy CSS isn't, it's definitely a bot. You'll have to build (probably an in-memory) table of loads by IP and do an not contained in match, but that should be a really solid tell.
So, to use all this: maintain a database table of bots by ip address, possibly with timestamp limitations. Add anything that follows your invisible link, add anything that loads the "real" CSS but ignores the robots.txt CSS. Maybe add all the robots.txt downloaders as well. Filter the user-agent string as the last step, and consider using this to do a quick stats analysis and see how strongly those methods appear to be working for identifying things we know are bots.
The easiest way is to check if their useragent includes 'bot' or 'spider' in. Most do.
EDIT (10y later): As Lukas said in the comment box, almost all crawlers today support javascript so I've removed the paragraph that stated that if the site was JS based most bots would be auto-stripped out.
You can follow a bot list and add their user-agent to the filtering list.
Take a look at this bot list.
This user-agent list is also pretty good. Just strip out all the B's and you're set.
EDIT: Amazing work done by eSniff has the above list here "in a form that can be queried and parsed easier. robotstxt.org/db/all.txt Each new Bot is defined by a robot-id:XXX. You should be able to download it once a week and parse it into something your script can use" like you can read in his comment.
Hope it helps!
Consider a PHP stats script which is camouflaged as a CSS background image (give the right response headers -at least the content type and cache control-, but write an empty image out).
Some bots parses JS, but certainly no one loads CSS images. One pitfall -as with JS- is that you will exclude textbased browsers with this, but that's less than 1% of the world wide web population. Also, there are certainly less CSS-disabled clients than JS-disabled clients (mobiles!).
To make it more solid for the (unexceptional) case that the more advanced bots (Google, Yahoo, etc) may crawl them in the future, disallow the path to the CSS image in robots.txt (which the better bots will respect anyway).
I use the following for my stats/counter app:
<?php
function is_bot($user_agent) {
return preg_match('/(abot|dbot|ebot|hbot|kbot|lbot|mbot|nbot|obot|pbot|rbot|sbot|tbot|vbot|ybot|zbot|bot\.|bot\/|_bot|\.bot|\/bot|\-bot|\:bot|\(bot|crawl|slurp|spider|seek|accoona|acoon|adressendeutschland|ah\-ha\.com|ahoy|altavista|ananzi|anthill|appie|arachnophilia|arale|araneo|aranha|architext|aretha|arks|asterias|atlocal|atn|atomz|augurfind|backrub|bannana_bot|baypup|bdfetch|big brother|biglotron|bjaaland|blackwidow|blaiz|blog|blo\.|bloodhound|boitho|booch|bradley|butterfly|calif|cassandra|ccubee|cfetch|charlotte|churl|cienciaficcion|cmc|collective|comagent|combine|computingsite|csci|curl|cusco|daumoa|deepindex|delorie|depspid|deweb|die blinde kuh|digger|ditto|dmoz|docomo|download express|dtaagent|dwcp|ebiness|ebingbong|e\-collector|ejupiter|emacs\-w3 search engine|esther|evliya celebi|ezresult|falcon|felix ide|ferret|fetchrover|fido|findlinks|fireball|fish search|fouineur|funnelweb|gazz|gcreep|genieknows|getterroboplus|geturl|glx|goforit|golem|grabber|grapnel|gralon|griffon|gromit|grub|gulliver|hamahakki|harvest|havindex|helix|heritrix|hku www octopus|homerweb|htdig|html index|html_analyzer|htmlgobble|hubater|hyper\-decontextualizer|ia_archiver|ibm_planetwide|ichiro|iconsurf|iltrovatore|image\.kapsi\.net|imagelock|incywincy|indexer|infobee|informant|ingrid|inktomisearch\.com|inspector web|intelliagent|internet shinchakubin|ip3000|iron33|israeli\-search|ivia|jack|jakarta|javabee|jetbot|jumpstation|katipo|kdd\-explorer|kilroy|knowledge|kototoi|kretrieve|labelgrabber|lachesis|larbin|legs|libwww|linkalarm|link validator|linkscan|lockon|lwp|lycos|magpie|mantraagent|mapoftheinternet|marvin\/|mattie|mediafox|mediapartners|mercator|merzscope|microsoft url control|minirank|miva|mj12|mnogosearch|moget|monster|moose|motor|multitext|muncher|muscatferret|mwd\.search|myweb|najdi|nameprotect|nationaldirectory|nazilla|ncsa beta|nec\-meshexplorer|nederland\.zoek|netcarta webmap engine|netmechanic|netresearchserver|netscoop|newscan\-online|nhse|nokia6682\/|nomad|noyona|nutch|nzexplorer|objectssearch|occam|omni|open text|openfind|openintelligencedata|orb search|osis\-project|pack rat|pageboy|pagebull|page_verifier|panscient|parasite|partnersite|patric|pear\.|pegasus|peregrinator|pgp key agent|phantom|phpdig|picosearch|piltdownman|pimptrain|pinpoint|pioneer|piranha|plumtreewebaccessor|pogodak|poirot|pompos|poppelsdorf|poppi|popular iconoclast|psycheclone|publisher|python|rambler|raven search|roach|road runner|roadhouse|robbie|robofox|robozilla|rules|salty|sbider|scooter|scoutjet|scrubby|search\.|searchprocess|semanticdiscovery|senrigan|sg\-scout|shai\'hulud|shark|shopwiki|sidewinder|sift|silk|simmany|site searcher|site valet|sitetech\-rover|skymob\.com|sleek|smartwit|sna\-|snappy|snooper|sohu|speedfind|sphere|sphider|spinner|spyder|steeler\/|suke|suntek|supersnooper|surfnomore|sven|sygol|szukacz|tach black widow|tarantula|templeton|\/teoma|t\-h\-u\-n\-d\-e\-r\-s\-t\-o\-n\-e|theophrastus|titan|titin|tkwww|toutatis|t\-rex|tutorgig|twiceler|twisted|ucsd|udmsearch|url check|updated|vagabondo|valkyrie|verticrawl|victoria|vision\-search|volcano|voyager\/|voyager\-hc|w3c_validator|w3m2|w3mir|walker|wallpaper|wanderer|wauuu|wavefire|web core|web hopper|web wombat|webbandit|webcatcher|webcopy|webfoot|weblayers|weblinker|weblog monitor|webmirror|webmonkey|webquest|webreaper|websitepulse|websnarf|webstolperer|webvac|webwalk|webwatch|webwombat|webzinger|wget|whizbang|whowhere|wild ferret|worldlight|wwwc|wwwster|xenu|xget|xift|xirq|yandex|yanga|yeti|yodao|zao\/|zippp|zyborg|\.\.\.\.)/i', $user_agent);
}
//example usage
if (! is_bot($_SERVER["HTTP_USER_AGENT"])) echo "it's a human hit!";
?>
I removed a link to the original code source, because it now redirects to a food app.
Checking the user-agent will alert you to the honest bots, but not the spammers.
To tell which requests are made by dishonest bots, your best bet (based on this guy's interesting study) is to catch a Javascript focus event .
If the focus event fires, the page was almost certainly loaded by a human being.
Edit: it's true, people with Javascript turned off will not show up as humans, but that's not a large percentage of web users.
Edit2: Current bots can also execute Javascript, at least Google can.
I currently use AWstats and Webalizer to monitor my log files for Apasce2 and so far they have been doing a pretty good job of it. If you would like you can have a look at their source code as it is an open source project.
You can get the source at http://awstats.sourceforge.net or alternatively look at the FAQ http://awstats.sourceforge.net/docs/awstats_faq.html
Hope that helps,
RayQuang
Rather than trying to maintain an impossibly-long list of spider User Agents we look for things that suggest human behaviour. Principle of these is that we split our Session Count into two figures: the number of single-page-sessions, and the number of multi-page-sessions. We drop a session cookie, and use that to determine multi-page sessions. We also drop a persistent "Machine ID" cookie; a returning user (Machine ID cookie found) is treated as a multi-page session even if they only view one page in that session. You may have other characteristics that imply a "human" visitor - referrer is Google, for example (although I believe that the MS Search bot mascarades as a standard UserAgent referred with a realistic keyword to check that the site doesn't show different content [to that given to their Bot], and that behaviour looks a lot like a human!)
Of course this is not infalible, and in particular if you have lots of people who arrive and "click off" its not going to be a good statistic for you, nor if you have predominance of people with cookies turned off (in our case they won't be able to use our [shopping cart] site without session-cookies enabled).
Taking the data from one of our clients we find that the daily single-session count is all over the place - an order of magnitude different from day to day; however, if we subtract 1,000 from the multi-page session per day we then have a damn-near-linear rate of 4 multi-page-sessions per order placed / two session per basket. I have no real idea what the other 1,000 multi-page sessions per day are!
Record mouse movement and scrolling using javascript. You can tell from the recorded data wether it's a human or a bot. Unless the bot is really really sophisticated and mimics human mouse movements.
Prerequisite - referrer is set
apache level:
LogFormat "%U %{Referer}i %{%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S}t" human_log
RewriteRule ^/human/(.*) /b.gif [L]
SetEnv human_session 0
# using referrer
SetEnvIf Referer "^http://yoursite.com/" human_log_session=1
SetEnvIf Request_URI "^/human/(.*).gif$" human_dolog=1
SetEnvIf human_log_session 0 !human_dolog
CustomLog logs/human-access_log human_log env=human_dolog
In web-page, embed a /human/$hashkey_of_current_url.gif.
If is a bot, is unlikely have referrer set (this is a grey area).
If hit directly using browser address bar, it will not included.
At the end of each day, /human-access_log should contains all the referrer which actually is human page-view.
To play safe, hash of the referrer from apache log should tally with the image name
Now we have all kind of headless browsers. Chrome, Firefox or else that will execute whatever JS you have on your site. So any JS-based detections won't work.
I think the most confident way would be to track behavior on site. If I would write a bot and would like to by-pass checks, I would mimic scroll, mouse move, hover, browser history etc. events just with headless chrome. To turn it to the next level, even if headless chrome adds some hints about "headless" mode into the request, I could fork chrome repo, make changes and build my own binaries that will leave no track.
I think this may be the closest answer to real detection if it's human or not by no action from the visitor:
https://developers.google.com/recaptcha/docs/invisible
I'm not sure techniques behind this but I believe Google did a good job by analyzing billions of requests with their ML algorithms to detect if the behavior is human-ish or bot-ish.
while it's an extra HTTP request, it would not detect quickly bounced visitor so that's something to keep in mind.
Have a 1x1 gif in your pages that you keep track of. If loaded then its likely to be a browser. If it's not loaded it's likely to be a script.
=? Sorry, misunderstood. You may try another option I have set up at my site: create a non-linked webpage with a hard/strange name and log apart visits to this page. Most if not all of the visitor to this page will be bots, that way you'll be able to create your bot list dynamically.
Original answer follows (getting negative ratings!)
The only reliable way to tell bots
from humans are [CAPTCHAS][1]. You can
use [reCAPTCHA][2] if it suits you.
[1]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha
[2]: http://recaptcha.net/
You could exclude all requests that come from a User Agent that also requests robots.txt. All well behaved bots will make such a request, but the bad bots will escape detection.
You'd also have problems with false positives - as a human, it's not very often that I read a robots.txt in my browser, but I certainly can. To avoid these incorrectly showing up as bots, you could whitelist some common browser User Agents, and consider them to always be human. But this would just turn into maintaining a list of User Agents for browsers instead of one for bots.
So, this did-they-request-robots.txt approach certainly won't give 100% watertight results, but it may provide some heuristics to feed into a complete solution.
I'm surprised no one has recommended implementing a Turing test. Just have a chat box with human on the other end.
A programatic solution just won't do: See what happens when PARRY Encounters the DOCTOR
These two 'characters' are both "chatter" bots that were written in the course of AI research in the '70: to see how long they could fool a real person into thinking they were also a person. The PARRY character was modeled as a paranoid schizophrenic and THE DOCTOR as a stereotypical psychotherapist.
Here's some more background

Categories