Brotector

---

What Brotector actually does

An open-source anti-bot you can host yourself, which makes it the only entry in this section you can read the detection logic of instead of inferring it from pass and fail.

What Brotector's maintenance signals mean

pushed_at reads 2024-12-03 — 619 days, or about 1.7 years, before the field check, which places it inside the 365-to-1095-day band the rubric calls NRND.

NRND is borrowed intact from the electronic component catalogues, where it means Not Recommended for New Designs, and it is the most useful state in this register precisely because it is not a synonym for broken. The part is still in the catalogue. You can still buy it. If you are designing something new, do not design it in. Applied here: what this project does, it very likely still does. Starting a new build on it means inheriting a maintenance gap you did not create and cannot close.

No release was captured for this entry, which this register records as unknown rather than as none. The distinction matters more than it looks: a project with no tags and a project whose tags the sweep failed to read produce the same blank cell, and printing them as the same fact would be the register asserting something it has not measured.

Where Brotector sits in this catalogue

Brotector is filed in section 03, detection test pages & fingerprint scanners, whose scope is this: Pages you point a browser at to see what it gives away. This section is where a link register earns its keep: test pages rot faster than repositories. An entry sits in exactly one section here. Where a project could defensibly go in two, it is placed where a reader would look for it first rather than where it fits most tidily, and that is an editorial decision rather than a measured one.

Filed beside it in the same section: check.ja3.zone (ACTIVE), FP-Monitor (fpmon) (ACTIVE), Are You Headless (DEAD). Comparing an entry against its own section-mates is more informative than comparing it against the catalogue as a whole, because everything in a section is answering roughly the same question and the differences left over are the ones that matter.

It is published under MIT, alongside the rest of the MIT entries in this register, and it sits with everything else currently marked NRND. Read those two facets together: a permissively licensed project that stopped shipping is not a safer dependency than a copyleft one that did not, and a filter on one axis alone will tell you the wrong thing.

What to settle before you adopt Brotector

Testing against a detector you can read is a genuinely different exercise from testing against a black box, and it is the more instructive one. Its push date matters here, because detection heuristics date faster than most code.