(CASE STUDY) (GUIDE) Avoid Triggering Facebook's Anti-Spam Filters Using Unique Images

But wait.... Correct it me If I am wrong...
Instead of the rehashing stuff, why not just do a screen shot of the image to be uploaded, and save yourself all the stress or copy the image to MS paint and save as new image with the name of your choice.
I think this should solve the problem
 
Advertise on BHW
0xxi3 said:
Well you incorporate randomness into the filter to get new images. There are many ways to do this, for PHP try using a combination of:
imagecolorallocatealpha(...)
imagefilledrectangle(...)

The trick in the imagecolorallocatealpha is to increase the last parameter (int $alpha) to get an almost transparent filter.
Click to expand...
I think I see where you're going with this. I don't know PHP, but the idea is to create some filter (brightness +x or contrast +x), use a random number generator to fill in x, and then make the filter 99% transparent so all the pixels change, but by barely anything remotely noticeable to the human eye, right?
 
uches12 said:
But wait.... Correct it me If I am wrong...
Instead of the rehashing stuff, why not just do a screen shot of the image to be uploaded, and save yourself all the stress or copy the image to MS paint and save as new image with the name of your choice.
I think this should solve the problem
Click to expand...
You can do this, but then you'd need to crop the image in MS paint manually for every image. Along with that, if you accidentally crop the image to the exact same resolution as one before it, then both images will have exactly the same pixels and will be linked with one another by anti-spam filters.
 
Noah Hawryshko said:
I think I see where you're going with this. I don't know PHP, but the idea is to create some filter (brightness +x or contrast +x), use a random number generator to fill in x, and then make the filter 99% transparent so all the pixels change, but by barely anything remotely noticeable to the human eye, right?
Click to expand...

You got it :) but in this case I am generating a random color with transparency which gives a total of 255^3 different colors.
 
0xxi3 said:
You got it :) but in this case I am generating a random color with transparency which gives a total of 255^3 different colors.
Click to expand...
That's genius! Have you encountered any situations in which similar filter variables produce the exact same pixels and thus, the exact same hash? For instance, would filter #8BF765 which is made 99% transparent and then applied to the original image have any chance whatsoever of producing the exact same pixels as filter #8BF764 applied the same way?
 
Noah Hawryshko said:
That's genius! Have you encountered any situations in which similar filter variables produce the exact same pixels and thus, the exact same hash? For instance, would filter #8BF765 which is made 99% transparent and then applied to the original image have any chance whatsoever of producing the exact same pixels as filter #8BF764 applied the same way?
Click to expand...

In theory it should produce a different result, but the encoding (jpeg, png) will alter the image to increase efficiency. PNG is better than JPEG in keeping original colors, PNG should be lossless and you should not encounter the issue you're describing by using PNG or any other lossless format.
 
Radly said:
Nice guide. I want to try.
Click to expand...
Thanks
DrPorn said:
Actually, nice tips :)
Click to expand...
Appreciate that, man. If you're wondering about the difference between Photoshop methods and this method (saw you edit your post), it's that Photoshopping can't be done to hundreds of images at once, while this method can. More than that, you can only modify an image so many times with Photoshop edits before it starts looking different than the original. For example, making an image and applying brightness +1 to it will change every pixel and won't make that much of a difference, but apply brightness +25 will. So if you need to make 400 images your filters are both going to take forever to do by hand, and end up looking drastically different near the end due to the very noticeable amount a filter will change an image if you're applying anything more than +5 or -5 to it.
 
0xxi3 said:
In theory it should produce a different result, but the encoding (jpeg, png) will alter the image to increase efficiency. PNG is better than JPEG in keeping original colors, PNG should be lossless and you should not encounter the issue you're describing by using PNG or any other lossless format.
Click to expand...
It's in the encoding that I think one has to be careful. Uploading an image to Facebook or any other image service that modifies post-upload will change a file relative to it's pixels, not it's encoding. If I were to use this (and I might as well make a tutorial and program for it now) I'd only recommend it with files that are originally lossless, or at least modified to be "lossless" so that the pixels are never compressed. and the above issues can be circumvented.

Also, can't both "png" and ".jpg" files be either compressed or lossless? I always thought both formats supported compression.
 
Noah Hawryshko said:
It's in the encoding that I think one has to be careful. Uploading an image to Facebook or any other image service that modifies post-upload will change a file relative to it's pixels, not it's encoding. If I were to use this (and I might as well make a tutorial and program for it now) I'd only recommend it with files that are originally lossless, or at least modified to be "lossless" so that the pixels are never compressed. and the above issues can be circumvented.

Also, can't both "png" and ".jpg" files be either compressed or lossless? I always thought both formats supported compression.
Click to expand...

Regarding uploading the image to Facebook for example, that is a valid point which can make both your and my method useless. I am confused with the way you use the word "lossless". JPEG is by default lossy and that's why you can have such high compression. PNG is by default lossless and can be compressed but only to a certain level to keep it lossless, that's why it's rarely used for massive collections like the ones Facebook have.
 
Noah Hawryshko said:
Thanks

Appreciate that, man. If you're wondering about the difference between Photoshop methods and this method (saw you edit your post), it's that Photoshopping can't be done to hundreds of images at once, while this method can. More than that, you can only modify an image so many times with Photoshop edits before it starts looking different than the original. For example, making an image and applying brightness +1 to it will change every pixel and won't make that much of a difference, but apply brightness +25 will. So if you need to make 400 images your filters are both going to take forever to do by hand, and end up looking drastically different near the end due to the very noticeable amount a filter will change an image if you're applying anything more than +5 or -5 to it.
Click to expand...

I removed the original post as I was unsure on whether detailing it was a good idea. I'm glad you seen it though :)

Photoshop has droplets, and automation. You can load in 1000's of images and have them all altered in different ways. You have to spend a few hours creating the automation, after that it takes a couple of minutes to process them all.

You can also do the same in NodeJS, Python, PHP, C# etc.
 
DrPorn said:
I removed the original post as I was unsure on whether detailing it was a good idea. I'm glad you seen it though :)

Photoshop has droplets, and automation. You can load in 1000's of images and have them all altered in different ways. You have to spend a few hours creating the automation, after that it takes a couple of minutes to process them all.

You can also do the same in NodeJS, Python, PHP, C# etc.
Click to expand...
I didn't actually know about the automation, Good share!

From what you're saying, it seems like my method and the Photoshop method do the same thing. Whichever one is readily available, I guess :p
 
Noah Hawryshko said:
I think I see where you're going with this. I don't know PHP, but the idea is to create some filter (brightness +x or contrast +x), use a random number generator to fill in x, and then make the filter 99% transparent so all the pixels change, but by barely anything remotely noticeable to the human eye, right?
Click to expand...

Not bad...
I guess that solves the problem, cropping is not a problem to do.... different size and diff pixels too
 
So glad I came across this thread on time. I'm preparing to launch a marketing campaign on FB groups, and this is the best way to stay under the radar. Didn't think FB would have anti-spam to check hash on pictures.

Since you mentioned that they check, profile pics, links, hash, etc...
If we're going to promote a link from 50 different accounts in groups each... do we have to "warm up" the link too?
Let's say post up the link only from 2-3 accouns day 1, then 3-5 accounts on day 2, etc?
 
cuerVo said:
So glad I came across this thread on time. I'm preparing to launch a marketing campaign on FB groups, and this is the best way to stay under the radar. Didn't think FB would have anti-spam to check hash on pictures.

Since you mentioned that they check, profile pics, links, hash, etc...
If we're going to promote a link from 50 different accounts in groups each... do we have to "warm up" the link too?
Let's say post up the link only from 2-3 accouns day 1, then 3-5 accounts on day 2, etc?
Click to expand...
First of all, try it with 5 accounts to make sure you're doing it right. You make 1 mistake and boom, all of them are interlinked and banned. Anything you do to every account, do first with 10% of your accounts. That way if the thing you do ends up getting all your accounts flagged, you only lost 10% of your accounts and not all them. I cannot stress how important small-scale initial testing is for every setting that you change en masse.

Make sure you use more than one 1 link, also. Give yourself no less than 25 landing pages posted no more than once a day initially for 50 accounts. Remember that these landing pages need to be in separate domains. Remember to use spintax. Be conservative, don't get over-eager, start small, and you'll be fine.
 
Could you describe the process of how the pixelbased manipulation is done in your program? I want to develop a version which can run on a server.
 
I suggest you guys have a little read over HERE before you get your accounts blown out thinking you're safe. Some colour edits or 1px changes aren't doing the trick anymore when mass posting, you'll get your accounts linked.

One they can't crack down on is if an ORIGINAL image/link goes "viral" ;)
 
So this method is outdated. From your writing I would say that you have a solution for this, am I correct ?

@MrE If so could you please give me a few points to dig deeper into?
 
Thank you!

Great study of high value. Someone give this guy a diploma. :)
 
Advertise on BHW
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sign up now!

Main Menu

Home Main Forum List Black Hat SEO White Hat SEO BHW Newbie Guide Blogging Black Hat Tools Social Media Downloads

Marketplace

Account Selling Content / Copywriting EBooks / Methods Hosting Misc Proxies For Sale SEO - Link building SEO - Packages Social Media Social Media - Panels Web Design More

Making Money

Affiliate Programs Hire a Freelancer IM Journeys Making Money Pay Per Click Site Flipping Want to Buy

BlackHat World

Dispute Resolution Forum Suggestions & Feedback Introductions Lounge
Back
Top