Overview
JavaScript leads Computer Software & Development's secondary barrier stack above the norm
| Value | |
|---|---|
| WAF | 95% |
| Antibot | 17% |
| CAPTCHA | 19% |
| JavaScript | 30% |
| Rate Limiting | 18% |
| TLS | 13% |
WAF at 95% is the dominant barrier. JavaScript (30%) leads secondary coverage. The remaining barriers sit materially lower, giving Computer Software & Development a narrow but defined secondary layer.
Barrier Landscape
WAF leads Computer Software & Development at 95% — JavaScript is the main secondary layer
| Value | |
|---|---|
| WAF | 95% |
| Antibot | 17% |
| CAPTCHA | 19% |
| JavaScript | 30% |
| Rate Limiting | 18% |
| TLS | 13% |
| Has robots.txt | 83% |
| Blocks AI crawlers | 14% |
WAF dominates at 95%. JavaScript (30%) leads active secondary barriers, followed by CAPTCHA (19%). The remaining three barriers all sit at or below 18% — a concentrated rather than broadly stacked profile.
Two-barrier stacks are Computer Software & Development's most common security posture
| % of sites | |
|---|---|
| 0 barriers | 4% |
| 1 barrier | 37% |
| 2 barriers | 38% |
| 3 barriers | 12% |
| 4 barriers | 3% |
| 5 barriers | 5% |
| 6 barriers | 1% |
38% of Computer Software & Development sites carry exactly 2 barriers. 21% stack three or more. 4% carry none — a low share of unprotected sites for this sector.
Nearly half of Computer Software & Development sites are Simple to access
| Mean recommended tier | |
|---|---|
| All sites | 1.63 |
A mean recommended tier of 1.63 and a median of Easy place Computer Software & Development around the middle of the sectors surveyed. 48% of sites are Simple to access; 10% require Moderate or above.
Simple is the dominant tier in Computer Software & Development, but Easy accounts for a significant share
| % of sites | |
|---|---|
| 1 - Simple | 47.5% |
| 2 - Easy | 42.4% |
| 3 - Moderate | 10.1% |
| 4 - Complex | 0% |
| 5 - Advanced | 0% |
Simple (48%) is the most common tier. Simple and Easy together account for 90% of sites, while 10% land at Moderate and 0% at Complex or Advanced.
robots.txt
Most Computer Software & Development sites publish a robots.txt — coverage above the norm
| % of sites | |
|---|---|
| Publish a valid robots.txt | 83% |
83% of Computer Software & Development sites publish a valid robots.txt. The 17% without a file leave crawl policy undefined — a lower gap than the cross-sector average of around 24%.
Computer Software & Development sites name a handful of agents in robots.txt — few commit to comprehensive policies
| % of sites | |
|---|---|
| 0 | 21% |
| 1 | 41% |
| 2–4 | 20% |
| 5–9 | 5% |
| 10–15 | 3% |
| 16+ | 10% |
The mean of 4.3 named agents reflects limited bot-policy investment in Computer Software & Development. 21% of sites name no agents; 41% name exactly one. Only 10% maintain a list of 16 or more named bots.
SEO / search indexing and AI crawlers draw near-equal attention in Computer Software & Development robots.txt
| % of sites | |
|---|---|
| AI crawlers | 14% |
| SEO / search indexing | 15% |
| SEO audit tools | 4% |
| Commercial scrapers | 6% |
| Social / content scrapers | 8% |
| Archive / research crawlers | 4% |
| Monitoring / uptime bots | 0% |
SEO / search indexing appears in 15% of Computer Software & Development sites; AI crawlers in 14%. The near-equal split reflects a sector that treats both categories with comparable priority. Figures are percentages of all 100 sites.
Path-level mixed rules dominate Computer Software & Development robots.txt posture
| % of sites | |
|---|---|
| Uniform per-agent rules | 39% |
| Path-level mixed rules | 41% |
| Allow-only (no Disallow rules) | 1% |
| Mixed AI posture | 7% |
| Blanket Disallow: / | 2% |
Path-level mixed rules lead at 41%, with uniform per-agent rules at 39%. Mixed AI posture reaches 7%.
AI crawlers are among the most-targeted agents in Computer Software & Development robots.txt
| Disallowed | Allowed (whitelisted) | |
|---|---|---|
| * | 76% | 44% |
| CCBot | 11% | 3% |
| GPTBot | 11% | 3% |
| ClaudeBot | 9% | 3% |
| PerplexityBot | 7% | 4% |
| Twitterbot | 3% | 7% |
| Applebot-Extended | 7% | 3% |
| FacebookBot | 7% | 3% |
| anthropic-ai | 8% | 2% |
| Google-Extended | 8% | 2% |
| Bytespider | 7% | 2% |
| Googlebot | 5% | 4% |
| cohere-ai | 6% | 2% |
| AdsBot-Google | 2% | 6% |
| Claude-Web | 5% | 2% |
| Diffbot | 5% | 1% |
| meta-externalagent | 4% | 2% |
| GoogleOther | 4% | 2% |
| Meta-ExternalAgent | 4% | 2% |
| OAI-SearchBot | 5% | 1% |
| ia_archiver | 4% | 2% |
| Amazonbot | 3% | 2% |
| ChatGPT-User | 4% | 1% |
| AdsBot-Google-Mobile | 1% | 4% |
| ImagesiftBot | 4% | — |
Values are percentages of all 100 Computer Software & Development sites surveyed. The wildcard (*) leads at 76% Disallow. Among named agents, CCBot, GPTBot lead the Disallow list — reflecting direct targeting of AI training and indexing bots.
Industry Cohort
Computer Software & Development sits mid-table within the Technology cohort
| WAF | Antibot | CAPTCHA | JavaScript | Rate Limit | TLS | robots.txt | Blocks AI | Tier | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Biotech | 89% | 13% | 19% | 39% | 17% | 13% | 76% | 14% | Tier 1 |
| Computer Software | 95% | 17% | 19% | 30% | 18% | 13% | 83% | 14% | Tier 2 |
| Information Technology | 94% | 13% | 15% | 36% | 21% | 14% | 68% | 7% | Tier 2 |
| Market Research | 94% | 16% | 22% | 44% | 25% | 14% | 71% | 0% | Tier 1 |
| Nanotechnology | 95% | 8% | 33% | 31% | 10% | 9% | 79% | 6% | Tier 1 |
| Online Services | 93% | 9% | 16% | 50% | 19% | 12% | 86% | 36% | Tier 2 |
| Security Products & Services | 91% | 19% | 26% | 40% | 15% | 12% | 73% | 4% | Tier 1 |
Across Technology, Computer Software & Development's barrier rates are broadly in line with peers. WAF at 95%, JavaScript at 30%, and AI blocking at 14% all sit near the cohort median. Tier difficulty (mean 1.57) is above the group average.