Slashdot Mirror


Defeating Captcha

An anonymous reader pointed us at PWNtcha, a package that breaks various on-line captcha algorithms. The site provides numerous examples of easy (Paypal, and an older version of Slashdot make the list) and hard Captcha. It also links various sources explaining why Captcha is a bad idea.

430 comments

  1. Old news is no news. :-( by XorNand · · Score: 4, Informative
    # Q. Where is the code? # A. No code is available yet. I am still pondering the pertinence of allowing code in the wild. The good old full-disclosure debate... If you think I should release the code for PWNtcha, feel free to explain your arguments to me.
    ::sigh:: The blurb leads one to believe that there's a new script kiddie tool in the wild. This is just someone's experiment with OCR and some AI. (And an old project at that; I remember reading this site about six months ago while working on my own Captcha implementation). There's a handful of researchers around the world doing the same type of work, including at team at UC Berkeley that devised a system that they claimed was 92% accurate... back in 2003. All in all, this isn't all that newsworthy.
    --
    Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    1. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by Cujo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The blurb leads one to believe that there's a new script kiddie tool in the wild.

      I doubt it. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's just trying to make sure what he's doing is responsible by releassing the code. And what he's doing at this site is mainly pointing out the weaknesses in some common captchas.

      --

      Helium balloons want to be free.

    2. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by Datamonstar · · Score: 1

      He might be on to something. There is a goatse pic on the site, afterall.

      --
      The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
    3. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by drgonzo59 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The problem with with captcha stuff is that if it is so good that if the current OCR cannot read it, it is probably bad enough that even humans cannot read it.

      I saw a couple of sites a while that used some captchas that you could barely read, which made it annoying and unusable.

      What would make it much more difficult is if they combined captchas with pictures, or ask people a simple question with a captcha that would have a common sense answer. Like "what is 2+2=" and then alternate it with forms like "what is two plus two equal to" and such, combine such questions with stuff like "what color is the sky?" or "what is the 1st derivative of x^n with respect to x"... well, ok, maybe not this one...

      Or how about blending images together. For example a picture of a dog and a cat on some background, also both transperenlty super-imposed with a small overlap. Then ask the question name the two animals in the picture?

      How about asking the user to make a mouse gesture in an applet. (Did someone already implement this?). For example: "draw a circle with a small triangle in the middle" or "draw number '4'", then let the server use OCR to validate.

    4. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by PowerMacG4 · · Score: 1

      Hah. It feels like I'm the only other person who noticed the goatse. I guess we're all used to it now.

    5. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by feargal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem with blending images and so on is that blind people still cannot see them.
      This slide demonstrates the problem beautifully, I think.

      With regard to the simple questions, that is indeed what I do, some simple trivia, and some basic maths, and the library is called SimpleQuestions.

      "What colour is the sky?" is actually one of the questions, and the maths question do indeed vary in form, from expression to natural language.

      The problem with the drawing requirement is that you're now blocking people who cannot draw.

      --
      "A goldfish was his muse, eternally amused"
    6. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      So if it was proved machine crackable in 2003, WHY THE HELL ARE SITES STILL USING IT? Those goddamned tests are the most annoying thing on the Internet now, by far.

    7. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by Enrico+Pulatzo · · Score: 1

      It's a shame that PWNtcha isn't released to the public--a nice free OCR fork would be great.

    8. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by name773 · · Score: 1

      i was thinking simple literary comprehension tests would greatly increase the programming required to subvert them. and those little association things from the standardized tests
      you know orange:fruit::celery:[answer here], writing it out might be a good idea for those though, so more people get it

    9. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by Sheriff+of+Rockridge · · Score: 1
      you know orange:fruit::celery:[answer here]
      There is definitely a line though between copying letters and symbols and answering a comprehensive question. For instance, this may limit registration to only people who know how to spell "vegetable", and who can answer that question in the first place. Also, there are different languages to think about. Do you have different questions for Spanish, English, German, etc.?
    10. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1

      The thing is, you will have a great number of people who will not get those. On the other hand you might not want those people logging in sometimes...

    11. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by name773 · · Score: 1

      then they can ask their parents to help

    12. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by cujo_1111 · · Score: 1

      "What colour is the sky?"

      You would then need to check for the origin of the web site visitor as an Briton person would almost always answer 'grey'.

      --
      If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
    13. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by feargal · · Score: 1

      Heh, I'm Irish, so I only put one colour in there. I think the other answers include "Table" and "Fish". I'll have no truck with surrealists on my clients forums, thank you very much.

      And of course, I didn't give the pedant's option involving wavelengths, defraction, and the sky in fact being black.

      Nor did I include the other pedant's answer that the sky is really just looking out on the universe and so, obviously, is beige.

      --
      "A goldfish was his muse, eternally amused"
    14. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by BlueHands · · Score: 1

      A everyone knows, the oclor of the universe in mint...

      http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/01/10/colo r.cosmos/

      --
      I mod everyone down who says "I'll get modded down for this." I hate to disappoint.
    15. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

      That's not a bug. It's a feature.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    16. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by surprise_audit · · Score: 1
      The problem with blending images and so on is that blind people still cannot see them.

      You're talking about captchas in general, right?? Not about the specific example of blending images of a cat and a dog??

    17. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by richlv · · Score: 1

      that's what i thought - the most interesting aspect is not breaking captchas, but the possibilities of an improved ocr.

      ocrs are not good enough, but if there is software that can read some of these captchas with 100% precision (even though it is tailored for specific distortions), it might be a boost for ocr software.

      --
      Rich
    18. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by zby · · Score: 1

      I have proposed a similar measure for emails - you can publish your address together with some information how to pass your spam filters, and the spam filters generaly throwing away everything that does not comply to your rules.

      http://zby.aster.net.pl/kwiki/index.cgi?SafePublis hingEmailAddresses

    19. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My parents are dead you insensitive clod!

    20. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For personal blogs, that probably wouldn't be a bad thing. "Keeps out spambots AND stupid people!"

      On the other hand, Hotmail and AOL would go out of business if they tried something like that...

    21. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What cracked me up was the old Slashdot captcha. I think a computer would be the only one capable of decoding that - I couldn't! And I'm not even nearly blind.

    22. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by feargal · · Score: 1

      Actually, they had to retract that after it was found that there was a mistake in the calculations.

      The new colour was actually give the name "Cosmic latte", APOD had an entry about it.

      --
      "A goldfish was his muse, eternally amused"
    23. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by feargal · · Score: 1

      Image-based captchas, yes.

      --
      "A goldfish was his muse, eternally amused"
    24. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by BlueHands · · Score: 1

      that is soooooo disappointing! mint was so much...tastier!!

      --
      I mod everyone down who says "I'll get modded down for this." I hate to disappoint.
    25. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by feargal · · Score: 1

      The reasons sites still use it is that there is a difference between theory and practice. While it is true that bots could be programmed to crack them, few actually implement it, and they seem to be targetted at specific sites.

      I've seen bots that look for guestbooks and try spamming them, parsing the input names to guess where they can insert URLs. If you have a CAPTCHA and they can't post, they just move on to the next site.

      If somebody really wants to script up something to use your public forms, they will. It's a case of making it difficult enough that they just don't bother in the first place, and go pester somebody else.

      The first method I heard of for bypassing CAPTCHAs was to host free porn sites and present the image from the tarto a real human signing up to free

      --
      "A goldfish was his muse, eternally amused"
    26. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by Vombatus · · Score: 1

      and the link to GNAA

      --
      This sig is intentionally blank
    27. Re:Old news is no news. :-( by Vombatus · · Score: 1
      Someone has already mentioned the problems for blind users

      It would also cause problems for non-English speakers. The sky may be "b"lue in North America, England, Australia and the like, but it would be "blauw" in the Netherlands, "blu" in Italy and "azul" in Spanish speaking countries.

      How will your solution cope with these legitimate variations?

      You also assume that everyone will know the answer to "what is 2+2=".

      --
      This sig is intentionally blank
  2. mirrored by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
  3. Dear Fat Bas^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCmdrTaco by thenerdgod · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Thank you for the link to 'what Captcha is'. I'm glad you and the AC know.

    Why do we even have editors? Why not just have slashblog, where every anonymous user just posts "ZOMFG, HAXZ)R TEH PL4NETtt!!" links.

    1. Re:Dear Fat Bas^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCmdrTaco by calibanDNS · · Score: 0, Redundant

      have a looksie at Wikipedia.

    2. Re:Dear Fat Bas^H^H^H^H^H^H^HCmdrTaco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. How dare the editors use a term that is no doubt common knowledge for the vast majority of the visitor's to this site, and only a Google search away from the rest?

  4. From the site... by tcopeland · · Score: 0
    # Q. Where is the code?
    # A. No code is available yet. I am still pondering the pertinence of allowing code in the wild. The good old full-disclosure debate... If you think I should release the code for PWNtcha, feel free to explain your arguments to me.

    Ah well. Would have been interesting to see it... maybe he's using ImageMagick...
    1. Re:From the site... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And then again, maybe he isn't. It doesn't really matter which library he uses for image import, does it? I mean, the interesting part would be the data structures and algorithms used in the "reverse-mapping" from image data to text. It's doubtful that the rudimentary processing methods provided by ImageMagick (although often a god-send of convenience and compatibility) would help here.

      Not that this would stop you from plugging some random open-source software package. Even though your plug will probably do more Good-For-The-World than the rest of the discussion in this thread combined, your motives are still strange to me.

    2. Re:From the site... by tcopeland · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > It doesn't really matter which library he
      > uses for image import, does it?

      I'd be interested in knowing what it is... but I may well be the only person on the planet that is interested.

      > your motives are still strange to me

      Most of the time I don't understand them myself!

    3. Re:From the site... by the_mad_poster · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://www.gh-sts.com/captcha.txt

      This is what slashdot's previous iteration of a captcha looked like in an in-memory associative array after the intersecting lines had been removed and a de-skewing algorithm applied. There was actually a version of the code after that which properly picked out where the lines actually intersected the letters and didn't erase the intersecting section to create those gaps.

      Before they switched to the newest CAPTCHA system, I was breaking their CAPTCHAs with a modified SS.pl script with almost 100% accuracy (it had a little trouble properly splitting up the text when a j or other similar character wrapped partially under another letter).

      Of course, the new CAPTCHAs are much harder. I can't even read some of them myself, but the point is that breaking CAPTCHA that people can easily read usually isn't really that hard.

      Yes, I used ImageMagick's Perlmagick library.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    4. Re:From the site... by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      > breaking CAPTCHA that people can easily
      > read usually isn't really that hard

      Bummer! But I daresay for some purposes - like protecting a Wiki - CAPTCHA is still a decent first line of defense...

      > ImageMagick's Perlmagick library

      Cool, thanks for the info!

    5. Re:From the site... by cHiphead · · Score: 3, Informative

      THIS IS ONE GIANT TROLL ARTICLE! LOL!

      About 3/4ths down the page there is a goatse picture, and the caption at the top thanks the GNAA. Wake up slashdot.

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    6. Re:From the site... by solowlr · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. The editors must be snoozing. And submitted by anonymous no less.

      --
      -Solo
    7. Re:From the site... by shawb · · Score: 1

      I doubt the article itself was meant as a troll, but it is pretty obvious that it comes from someone in the trolling community. Who else would be so interested in breaking captchas? Maybe spammers, but then again the trolls probably appreciate spamming as it lowers the signal to noise ratio. Or maybe they view each other as competition...

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    8. Re:From the site... by eluusive · · Score: 1

      Funny the newer captchas are easier for me to read. They use to be illegible.

    9. Re:From the site... by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 1

      Obviously, the article's author is Sam Hocevar, also known as Gary Niger. He's French, which explains the rabid anti-semitism and the facination with gaping assholes that is the GNAA. Do a google search for gnaa.txt, and you'll have his home directory. It looks like he's well on his way to defeating the new Slashdot captcha.

    10. Re:From the site... by jrockway · · Score: 1

      What he really means is, "I made all this up. I didn't really write any code. If I did, I would have published in a scholarly journal and would gladly show you the code." That's how I read it, anyway. What the hell does he care if people break CAPTCHAs?

      In other news, I've solved every known open mathematical problem. Unfortunately, I can't publish the information because I don't want terrorists to get it.

      Riiiight.

      --
      My other car is first.
    11. Re:From the site... by MaGnA_at_Slashdot · · Score: 1

      GNAAtcha!

  5. What Captcha is... by geders · · Score: 5, Informative

    Whew, I had never even heard of Captcha before...

    A captcha is a type of challenge-response test used in computing to determine whether or not the user is human.

    1. Re:What Captcha is... by jd · · Score: 2, Funny
      A test for humanness will not be convincing until it cuts out 70% of AOL users and 58.2% of Belgium. (58.2% of Belgian users would work, too.)


      It would also have to be impossible for lawyers, tax collectors, marketroids and politicians to use. (Taxes are important, I'm just not convinced anyone in the IRS is biologically related to life on this planet.)


      As of this time, Captcha fails this test and therefore is quite unsuitable. A better test would be a short quiz on the meaning of that day's Dilbert cartoon.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:What Captcha is... by winkydink · · Score: 1

      A test for humanness will not be convincing until it cuts out 70% of AOL users and 58.2% of Belgium. (58.2% of Belgian users would work, too.)

      It would also have to be impossible for lawyers, tax collectors, marketroids and politicians to use. (Taxes are important, I'm just not convinced anyone in the IRS is biologically related to life on this planet.)


      You mean like desktop Linux?

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    3. Re:What Captcha is... by utnow · · Score: 0

      bazing...

    4. Re:What Captcha is... by dimator · · Score: 1

      Once again, the brilliant slashdot editors show their skills in explaining clearly what the fuck the article is about.

      --
      python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
    5. Re:What Captcha is... by DennisZeMenace · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      and also cuts off idiot americans that don't even know where Belgium is located...

      -dzm

    6. Re:What Captcha is... by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      A better test would be a short quiz on the meaning of that day's Dilbert cartoon.

      No fair... I find your anti-Vulcan bias to be discriminatory to say the least.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    7. Re:What Captcha is... by slavemowgli · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can understand AOL users, but... Belgians? Huh? Why Belgians? I've been to Belgium, and it's actually a very nice country with very nice (in general) people. Or are there any cliches I'm not aware of?

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    8. Re:What Captcha is... by toggleflipflop · · Score: 2, Informative

      >A test for humanness will not be convincing until it cuts out 70% of AOL users and 58.2% of Belgium. (58.2% of Belgian users would work, too.)

      Just got ditched by your Belgian girlfriend or what did we deserve this statement for?

      At least we got good-tasting beer that can help you feel less bad about whatever is bothering you :-)

      greets,
      Tom

    9. Re:What Captcha is... by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      I can understand AOL users, but... Belgians? Huh? Why Belgians? I've been to Belgium, and it's actually a very nice country with very nice (in general) people. Or are there any cliches I'm not aware of?

      That's the joke. Belgium is a very pleasant, mostly harmless country..on the whole Belgians themselves are extremely polite, well mannered, but just idiosynchratic enough to warrant notice by people from most english speaking countries.

      His comment was intended to be a sly remark on how irrelevant you can make your filter... there's no reason why you would want to specifically filter Belgians...and ESPECIALLY 52% of Belgians.

      /big fan of David Suchet

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    10. Re:What Captcha is... by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      OK - thanks for the explanation. :)

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    11. Re:What Captcha is... by Stanistani · · Score: 0

      I know where Belgium is!
      Ya just have to follow all the old German tank tracks!

      On a more serious, note, remember Bastogne?

      How many times do we have to free an area from vermin before people are grateful?

      Not all Americans support Bush.
      Heck, not all Americans are even from the US.

    12. Re:What Captcha is... by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Yep. As the site said, this one is particularly effective.

      When you saw this, did you:
      - Burst out laughing?
      - Sigh regretfully?
      - Cover your mouth and run for the toilet?

    13. Re:What Captcha is... by The-Bus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      God bless your monks.

      Literally.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    14. Re:What Captcha is... by La+Fortezza · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but those crazy Belgians put mayonnaise instead of ketchup on their french fries. Yuck!

    15. Re:What Captcha is... by jo42 · · Score: 1

      ...and I thought it was some new hippity-hoppity thing I had to learn...

    16. Re:What Captcha is... by DataSquid · · Score: 1

      Hey, they _invented_ french fries. They can put whatever they want on them! Try it some time with real mayo, it's really, really good.

      --

      DataSquid.net, a little about me.
    17. Re:What Captcha is... by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dunno what grandparent's problem is, but there's plenty of good beer here in the US too. We don't judge Belgian beer by Stella Artois, and y'all don't need to judge ours by Budweiser.

      So long as we're talking about beer and not politics, America is fine.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    18. Re:What Captcha is... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "That's the joke. Belgium is a very pleasant, mostly harmless country..on the whole Belgians themselves are extremely polite, well mannered..."

      And...they do make GREAT beers!! Strong beers...

      Which may in fact, explain the strange mayo on the french fries thing......

      :-)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    19. Re:What Captcha is... by name773 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      never talk about any country's politics unless you want to bash them

      political hogwash is such a dreary affair...

    20. Re:What Captcha is... by jkitchel · · Score: 1


      That's easy. Belgium is west of Russia, south of England, north of Africa and east of the US. It's around there somewhere...right? :)

    21. Re:What Captcha is... by DonnieD701 · · Score: 1

      Because they share a border with the Dutch?

      --
      A witty saying proves nothing. Voltaire (1694-1778)
    22. Re:What Captcha is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bzzzzz, wrong. It's east of england, not south. Maybe it helps if you look up england first...

    23. Re:What Captcha is... by macdo10 · · Score: 1

      Belgium is to France what Newfoundland is to the rest of Canada, what Ireland is to England, and so on.
      Nuff said.

      --
      macdo
      What's small, yellow, and very very dangerous?
      A canary with the super-user password.

    24. Re:What Captcha is... by dublin · · Score: 1

      So long as we're talking about beer and not politics, America is fine.

      Agreed. American politics has gone to hell in a handbasket since the Reagan administration. And with Newt out of the picture, what hope is there? ;-)

      Lone Star beer, and Bob Wills music...

      --
      "The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last ./ post
    25. Re:What Captcha is... by ndb82 · · Score: 1

      Judging from every map I've seen, though it is east of England, the majority of Belgium's landmass also falls south of the majority of England's. Perhaps it helps if you dig your head out of your ass and realize there might be two right answers.

    26. Re:What Captcha is... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      What California is to the US?

    27. Re:What Captcha is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A major source of wealth?

    28. Re:What Captcha is... by Nf1nk · · Score: 1

      "What California is to the US?"
      Vastly superior.

      --
      I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
  6. spammer's low-tech way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A while ago, I remember hearing about how some spammers whould post the Yahoo Mail (or other free email services) Captchas on the registration forms on pr0n sites. The pr0n registrants would have to fill out the Captcha, but this would then be used by the spammer to get around the Captcha without any fancy software.

    1. Re:spammer's low-tech way by merreborn · · Score: 2, Informative

      The best part is that *no* advance in captcha technology can really fix this. It's no longer a race against OCR technology, the whole can't be plugged by switching to object-based (rather than text based), neither can it be stopped by switching to audio-based captcha.

    2. Re:spammer's low-tech way by makomk · · Score: 1

      True. I'll leave you to figure out how Trusted Computing might help stop this attack - it's not difficult...

    3. Re:spammer's low-tech way by Doctor+Crumb · · Score: 0

      The way to get around that is to not allow hotlinking of captcha images, and to make sure never to re-use the same captcha images. Each and every visitor should see a new captcha image.

      I'm surprised that more papers haven't been written on the subject of captchas; it seems fairly similar to encryption/etc as far as ways to defeat it.

    4. Re:spammer's low-tech way by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1

      You know, that's a great idea. Don't allow the user to download the captcha image so they can't cheat. Ingenious.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    5. Re:spammer's low-tech way by jesup · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's trivial to hack a browser (hell, you don't even have to actually hack it, just know how it works) to snag the image for you. Then repeat as per grandparent (have a unwitting (or witting) human do it for you).

      Next stage: make the captcha Java code that generates the warped image dynamically. Reponse: send the JS to the unwitting human.

      Next stage: make the Java code generate the token using something intrinsic to the machine running it (IP, etc, etc). Response: snatch the image from display ram to present to the unwitting human.

      Next stage: include in the image information about what the image is for (site, etc). Response: block those parts, or use witting humans who don't care or are otherwise paid (in porn, 3rd-world wages, etc).

      You can make it progressively harder, but you can't make it impossible. You might be able to make it hard enough, though.

    6. Re:spammer's low-tech way by yasth · · Score: 1

      EvilServer waits for porn access attempt which it pauses on, runs out and grabs a page on yahoo (or whatever) saves the image locally, EvilServer sends porn user page referencing local to EvilServer image. EvilServer is setup so the invalidation time on the captcha is less then Yahoo's (which is I believe 10 min). Evil server use porn user input and continues session with yahoo.

      It also means that anyone can verify based on anyone elses captchas, so if you have more bandwidth then time, you can just use a bit of scripting to use some one elses captcha.

      It is rather disimiliar to encryption. It is just noisy input. lots of signal detection, and standard ocr practices can be used. Getting around them is pretty easy honestly, mostly because you don't have to be as good as an average human but only as good as a guy with bad glasses, and a fuzzy screen, otherwise known as a couple percentile points from bottom. Websites simply can't afford to be too demanding of visual or auditory accuity, as customers lost is profit lost.

      --
      I'd do something interesting, but my server can't handle a slashdotting.
    7. Re:spammer's low-tech way by Intron · · Score: 1

      LOL

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    8. Re:spammer's low-tech way by weevlos · · Score: 1, Informative

      I've heard this myth repeated on slashdot many times, but never seen any evidence of it being implemented in the wild.

    9. Re:spammer's low-tech way by JadeNB · · Score: 1
      It is rather disimiliar to encryption. It is just noisy input. lots of signal detection, and standard ocr practices can be used.


      Cryptographic ideas appear in the analysis of ancient languages (such as Linear B) all the time. Just because the techniques that prevent a computer from accessing the data aren't recognisable as `codes' in the familiar sense doesn't mean that what's happening isn't encryption; in fact the result is a `cryptogram' in the most literal sense, namely, `hidden writing'.
    10. Re:spammer's low-tech way by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By making everyone so pissed off at the state of the computer industry that they go back to using an abacus and slide rule?

      --
      ... I'm addicted to placebos
    11. Re:spammer's low-tech way by Goaway · · Score: 4, Informative

      It originated as an off-hand remark by someone - maybe Cory Doctorow, I forget - as an example for a theoretical way to break captchas. This was quickly misremembered and blown out of proportion by people wanting to seem clever on Slashdot.

    12. Re:spammer's low-tech way by Gordonjcp · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's very difficult to get around this. Even using things with no text at all, such as the Cwazymail images, you still have this gaping hole that ne'er-do-wells will get in through.

    13. Re:spammer's low-tech way by yasth · · Score: 1

      It is cryptography in a sense but in a far more important sense it is a standard AI/OCR/Signal problem. I mean the tools are in both cases math so they could both solve it, but the problems needed are much closer to other field's toolsets.

      --
      I'd do something interesting, but my server can't handle a slashdotting.
    14. Re:spammer's low-tech way by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Most of these techniques could be defeated with a simple color filter, sadly.... Regardless, crypto is a really good comparison because a lot of crypto can be broken with statistical techniques, and in that regard, getting past Captcha grids can be done using very similar methodology.

      Take a histogram of... say a hundred random subregious within the image of varying sizes and shapes. Sort colors by the number of these subregions in which they appear. Assume that colors that appear in every block (or above some threshold... say 90%) are background. Replace them all with white. Assume that colors that appear in only some of those blocks are foreground. Replace those colors with black. Do your OCR.

      To some extent, you can get around that by masking parts of the text using the same color or by adding chunks of background in the same color, but this is only of limited effectiveness. The only way you can really defeat even the most basic stochastic analysis is by making the color information change from one side of the picture to another. Even then, unless this is done randomly in a dynamic fashion, once you manually figure out the gradation once, the mechanism is broken.

      Basically, these things don't work even at a conceptual level. The fundamental problem is that you have a choice: either require the person to do something that doesn't require thought or require the person to solve problems that require logical thought.

      In the case of the former, it can be obscured easily, but the level of thought needed can be easily simulated by a computer program, and any algorithm one could write to fool that program is inherently reversible. If the noise level is sufficient to make this impractical, it also will be unlikely that a human can read it, though with multiple tests, this could still work---more on this later..

      In the case of the latter, the limitations to the reasonable size of the problem space mean that, while the computer can't simulate the intellect needed to actually figure out the example, it can trivially store a list of all of the problems and their answers and simply regurgitate the right answer on command, in much the same way that most lower animals can be trained to regurgitate an action on command even though they do not actually understand what the command means.

      The only potentially viable mechanism for doing this sort of thing involves dynamic creation of the images using random number generators to perturb the image in ways that are of similar color to the test, using color variation on the text to fool stochastic methods, using foreground masking of the text (i.e. lines that go in front of the text, not just behind it), and using a wide enough variety of fonts, some of which should be things like cursive fonts with variable baselines. That really makes OCR mad.

      If you do all of those things, you -might- have something that could only be broken by a computer a third of the time. The problem is that it could only be broken by a -human- about half of the time. If you do multiple tests, you should be able to establish a reasonable threshold above which the antagonist is likely to be a human rather than a piece of software, though even then, you will have to algorithmically change it frequently or else computers will eventually overtake humans no matter what your algorithm... because, quite frankly, computers are a lot better at DSP than we are. :-)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    15. Re:spammer's low-tech way by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      You seem not to have been exposed to anything newer in cryptography since the Gold Bug...

    16. Re:spammer's low-tech way by Paul+Crowley · · Score: 1

      It's pretty different from encryption as far as ways to defeat it go! But yes, I think it's a fascinating topic worthy of academic research.

      One way to get around it might to make the response to the captcha a URL that the user types in to the location bar directly.

    17. Re:spammer's low-tech way by Chris+Kamel · · Score: 1

      A spammer reading /. would be very thankful for the ideas...

      --
      The following statement is true
      The preceding statement is false
    18. Re:spammer's low-tech way by AnotherBlackHat · · Score: 1

        The best part is that *no* advance in captcha technology can really fix this.


      In theory, something like "What is the fifth letter of this website's URL?" could fix it.
      Even the "army of low paid workers" can be blocked in theory.

      In practice, virtually any specific defense can be beaten by some attack, and any specific attack can be beaten some defense.
      Since captchas have to go "first", they will always be vulnerable.

      -- Should you believe authority without question?
    19. Re:spammer's low-tech way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      rofl

    20. Re:spammer's low-tech way by fm6 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I saw a story earlier this week. And if you google for "free porn" you find many examples.

    21. Re:spammer's low-tech way by bobbozzo · · Score: 2, Informative

      Udi Manber (while he was chief scientist at Yahoo) mentioned it was happening to Yahoo, during a presentation at UCR.

      --
      Nothing to see here; Move along.
    22. Re:spammer's low-tech way by McGregorMortis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The thing is, then, the porn site asking you to solve the captcha doesn't know the answer themselves. You can screw 'em by giving the wrong answer.

      They'll waste their resources trying to spam with the wrong answer, and you'll still get your porn fix.

    23. Re:spammer's low-tech way by jesup · · Score: 1

      They're dumb, but they're not that dumb, and I'm not _that_ bright. One of them would think of those soon enough.

      Just like PWNtcha (though that's far worse) - hiding your head in the sand and not publishing these won't stop them from figuring it out - there's money to be made by defeating captcha tests, so there's considerable incentive. And it's not like it's that tough an idea to figure out.

      Like I said - make it annoying/painful/expensive enough and it no longer becomes worth their while. Of course, that can make it annoying for all of us too...

    24. Re:spammer's low-tech way by inkfox · · Score: 1

      The problem with this is that when cURL or any other decent HTTP library is used, you can fudge the referrers with ease. THINK, friend. CAPTCHAs are flawed.

      --
      Says the RIAA: When you EQ, you're stealing bass!
    25. Re:spammer's low-tech way by cyberformer · · Score: 1

      They already have. I remember hearing about it (probably right here on /., though I can't say for sure) earlier this summer.

    26. Re:spammer's low-tech way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ???

      Profit!

    27. Re:spammer's low-tech way by ZorbaTHut · · Score: 1

      Eh? How does this work? Porn site displays image, user types in false result, porn site dispatches back to the site giving the captcha, captcha site says "no", porn site says "no".

      Not really much harder to program.

      --
      Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
    28. Re:spammer's low-tech way by bedessen · · Score: 1

      Uh... no.

      The porn site proxies the image as well as the result. If the user does not identify the captcha correctly, they don't get access to the pics. The porn site doing the proxying need not know anything about the contents of the captcha or how to judge if the user got it right -- it just passes the data along to the yahoo mail signup (or whatever), and if successfull, let the user see the porn.

  7. rock paper scissors... by jpellino · · Score: 5, Funny

    captcha stops bots
    pwntcha breaks captcha
    slashdot cremates pwntcha

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:rock paper scissors... by stienman · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that bots beat slashdot?

      -Adam

    2. Re:rock paper scissors... by swelke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Working that backwards: Slashdot cremates pwntcha, un-breaking captcha. Un-breaking captcha un-stops bots. Therefore, slashdot un-stops bots. I was starting to think the whole slashdot system was just an automated method of destroying the internet; now I have proof. Thanks.

      --
      Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
    3. Re:rock paper scissors... by cHiphead · · Score: 1

      pwntcha is code for pwned you, its an entire troll article, the caption at the top thanks GNAA and 3/4ths of the way down the article is a goatse pic snuck in there

      --

      This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    4. Re:rock paper scissors... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's more of bots == Slashdot.

      There's still the occasional human poster, but searching through SRTP ('Soviet Russia' to Total Posting) ratios, they're slowly being stamped out.

  8. Axe to grind against Captcha? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 1, Interesting


    Interesting that an article talking about (among other things) why Captcha is a bad idea is submitted by an anonymous reader, who is forced to validate their human status every time they attempt to post.

    (And yes, I'm aware that the submitter may be a member who has merely chosen to submit the story anonymously, but where would the joke be then?)

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  9. Hmm by sexyrexy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While it is an interesting project from a hobbyist and academic standpoint, I'm not really sure what practical value it holds (unless the intent is to sell a mature algorithm to spammers, which is not the case since the project is being published). This is nothing more than a personal scripting project - no new forray into new concepts of computer science or pattern recognition; no new breakthroughs of computer-based heuristics.

    --

    Rex is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    1. Re:Hmm by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      While it is an interesting project from a hobbyist and academic standpoint, I'm not really sure what practical value it holds

      If a hobbyist can do it, so can a spammer with financial motivation. Showing weaknesses in Captcha will help sites to develop better systems so the spammers don't have such an easy time with it.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    2. Re:Hmm by barawn · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I'm not really sure what practical value it holds

      Well, if you read the site, there's a list of reasons why certain captchas are bad.

      For instance:
      • Too few fonts (or only one font)
      • Constant rotation (or no rotation)
      • No deformation
      • Constant colors


      And a list of reasons why certain captchas are good. It's a pretty good summary of the strengths (and weaknesses) of a lot of them.

      One thing you may notice is how complicated (and difficult to read as a human!) some of the broken ones are (like linuxfr.org, or vBulletin), and how easy to read (yet hard to defeat!) the ICQ one is.

      One easy thing to take away from this page would be: if you have to have one, for crying out loud, use a ton of fonts and a ton of backgrounds.
    3. Re:Hmm by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      Here's a practical, real-life application, exposing pin numbers

  10. ADA by dnoyeb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Having a legally blind mother that uses the web, I wonder how captcha complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act (when used by American companies of course)?

    Is it compatible with BLINUX? I think by definition it is not.

    Perhaps I should ask, what alternate method of identification do sights employ to take into account blind users and the ADA?

    1. Re:ADA by jpatters · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Audio captchas?

      --
      "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
    2. Re:ADA by donnyspi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Instead of an image based Turing test like Captcha, I just have the last question on a log in screen or form be a randomly selected super easy question. For example, "Spell the number 7" or "What is the next logical number in the sequence 1, 3, 5, 7, ...? Check it out here: http://www.donnyspi.com/contact.php

    3. Re:ADA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It also makes using links on a text terminal at school a PITA.

    4. Re:ADA by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      some sites have an alternative audio captcha, or instructions to email the admin for an override of the captcha

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    5. Re:ADA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm Helen Keller, you insensitive clod!

      haha. No no...

      Why couldn't Helen Keller drive?
      Because she was a woman! *rimshot*

    6. Re:ADA by guardian-ct · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Livejournal has a "If you can't read the text, type "AUDIO" and take a sound test instead." thing, and other sites have other ways around the visual test.

      Unfortunately, not all sites have non-visual humanity tests.

    7. Re:ADA by Tumbleweed · · Score: 5, Funny

      I wonder how captcha complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act

      Simple - they just use ALT text for the image! :)

    8. Re:ADA by perrin · · Score: 1

      > Instead of an image based Turing test like
      > Captcha, I just have the last question on a log in
      > screen or form be a randomly selected super easy
      > question. For example, "Spell the number 7" or
      > "What is the next logical number in the sequence
      > 1, 3, 5, 7, ...?

      The sad thing is that many humans will have problems solving these trivial puzzles, too. Especially when English is not your first language.

    9. Re:ADA by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hmm. Done right, you could weed out bots and stupid people. Excellent!

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    10. Re:ADA by donnyspi · · Score: 1
      If people are having trouble solving these puzzles, then they're probably not getting too much out of my website anyway and would be less likely to using the protected form to leave me a comment or email.

      I agree that if my method were applied to Yahoo Mail signup or eBay or something, then questions would have to be given in different languages.

    11. Re:ADA by La+Gris · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is a real problem for visualy impaired and not only blinds.

      Distored fonts, noisy lines, random dots and low contrast used in such pictures, makes it at least very hard or impossible to read.

      Accessibility recommandations and W3C standards would require such important content, to be backuped with alternate formats like an audio record.

      I believe these rules should apply not only to government sites.

      But, I know no site, providing alternativ audio captcha for now. My husband and I, require a tier person to read most captchas actualy.

      --
      Léa Gris
    12. Re:ADA by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      I think that is the reason that blogs.sun.com requires you to solve a simple math problem before you can post. The math proplem is simply written out in text.

    13. Re:ADA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! Those questions are from Who Wants to Be A Millionaire!! "Is that your final answer?"

    14. Re:ADA by JadeNB · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This solution is interesting, but surely not scaleable -- while captchas are, by design, easy for computers to generate but hard for them to solve, the same thing that prevents computers from solving `easy' problems will presumably also prevent them from generating `easy' problems.

    15. Re:ADA by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful
      For fun, I tried plugging five questions from your page into google. Of the five, three were answered directly by google, and one had the answer in the summary for the first result. Creating a parser to determine the right answer from the google results would take some work, but I would bet that a 50% accuracy rate is not unreasonable. A first, fairly obvious method, would be to take the summary of the first google result, remove all of the words that appeared in the original question, and pick from the remaining words.

      Of course, as long as your system isn't widely used, nobody will bother to create tools to defeat it.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    16. Re:ADA by avdp · · Score: 1

      Because computer are notoriously bad at math problems... Oh wait! That's what they excel at! That is yet the dumbest idea I have seen yet. Do you know just how fast I can write a script to solve "90 + 1" (which is the problem I just saw on blogs.sun.com)

    17. Re:ADA by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      Many sites will offer alternatives for that - things along the lines of "download a sound file and type in what it says". It's essentially the same thing as a captcha, when you think about it, only that it's not an image.

      Of course, things get hairy when you're both blind and deaf... and not all sites offer this kind of alternative, either. But that seems to be part of a more general problem where people don't make their sites accessible, and in fact often don't even realize that there might be a problem for some users.

      I'm sometimes bitten by this myself. Fortunately, I'm not fully blind or suffering from another major disability, but I'm colourblind (for certain colours), and there are surprisingly many sites which rely on colours to convey information. Often, it's red vs. green, which is exactly what I have difficulties with; it's highly annoying, but it's really a very minor thing in comparison. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for someone with bigger disabilities.

      Is there an awareness campaign dedicated to teaching webmasters about accessability?

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    18. Re:ADA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "What is the next logical number in the sequence 1, 3, 5, 7, ...?"

      11. Oh, wait, you're not using octal?

    19. Re:ADA by alienw · · Score: 1

      This is easy to work around. I can probably get a 60% success rate for your site just by writing a parser for the more common phrases. It's not hard to get a few thousand of these and program a parser that can answer most of these. These are very easy to break.

    20. Re:ADA by charon_1 · · Score: 0

      "What color does red and yellow make?"
      Well depends if you are talking about red and yellow light or red and yellow paint.
      Also, you only have a limited amount of questions that you had to type yourself. Im sure there aren't more than 50 of them. I could refresh the page and answer them myself, then write a script to use my answers and spam you 10000 times.
      That method does work very well on a small scale though.

    21. Re:ADA by gamlidek · · Score: 1

      What if you're both visually impaired *and* hearing impaired? and what if you have a disability with both of your arms that makes typing in a conventional way difficult? What if you're mental capacity is such that answering a question is complicated, or reading a word is extremely difficult? Or even if you're dislexic?

      I used to work as an assistive technologist at a college, and I certainly understand the plight of the disabled computer user. Securing a free web service from bots is certainly a challenge when it comes to accessibility. My guess is that any solution in this area would require the web site to provide an alternate method of verifying that the end-user is indeed human for these situations.

      One thing to note, however, is that the ADA does not cover this kind of access. It covers physical amenities, not electronic amenities. Maybe some day this will get added in, but for now businesses are not required to make their websites, or even their software, accessible-friendly. /johnny p./

      --
      "In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are not."
    22. Re:ADA by rot26 · · Score: 1

      You're right, I'm sure... just don't forget that "it's not hard" is not equivalent to "it's worth doing". Also, several weak security measures can be combined to form something much greater than the sum of its parts. (Sez I, adding "IANAC".) I.e. the lock on my front door is weak (pitiful.) My burglar alarm is cheap. My neighbors are incurious dolts. My dog is partially deaf. However, all these things, in combination, keep my property reasonably secure. That, plus I have nothing worth stealing. Uh, what was my point now, anyway? Never mind.

      --



      To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
    23. Re:ADA by Paul+Crowley · · Score: 1

      Won't work. It looks like you have about a hundred questions? A spammer only has to have a database of ten answers and reload the page ten times to get in. To defeat this, you'd need millions of questions, which would be far too much work to make up.

    24. Re:ADA by Baddas · · Score: 1

      I think if you're visually impaired AND hearing impaired, or have a problem with both of your arms that makes typing in a conventional way difficult, you've got bigger problems than being unable to post comments to blogs... like being blind and deaf or unable to type.

      I mean, really, here, putting things into perspective, what is someone who can't use a keyboard going to post? cat-walking-on-keyboard?

    25. Re:ADA by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      You can do something like generate simple math problems. Of course that has the weakness that the stupid may not pass and custom computer programs will be able to handle it but it would screen out the majority of wanker bots.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    26. Re:ADA by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      That's a good point. It makes me wonder about an anti-phishing method I use where the stored username and birthday are used to produce a custom background (with the name used as a slightly visible watermark and their birthstone color and the site logo). Not sure how that should work for blind users.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    27. Re:ADA by tepples · · Score: 1

      That is yet the dumbest idea I have seen yet. Do you know just how fast I can write a script to solve "90 + 1" (which is the problem I just saw on blogs.sun.com)

      But can it solve "ninety plus unity, in Roman numerals" (answer: XCI)? What about "the symbol for pornography, interpreted as a Roman numeral, in Arabic numerals" (answer: 30)?

    28. Re:ADA by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      It's useful because it's not widespread, so the blog spammers aren't going to be coding for it. When they do, Sun can change the captcha test.

      A good old fashioned arms race only demands that you stay one step ahead of your adversary, not that your adversary can never defeat what you have.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    29. Re:ADA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What is the next logical number in the sequence 1, 3, 5, 7, ...?"

      11. Oh, wait, you're not using octal?


      Yes, I was. 10.

    30. Re:ADA by rochlin · · Score: 1

      Several sites including Craigslist post an audio file in addition to the visual specifically for the blind.

    31. Re:ADA by Geekboy(Wizard) · · Score: 0, Redundant

      1, 3, 5, 7, ...?

      9 or 11, depending on if you are expecting odds or primes. you should really have another number in the sequence to clarify that.

    32. Re:ADA by Zarel · · Score: 1
      Of course that has the weakness that [...] custom computer programs will be able to handle it but it would screen out the majority of wanker bots.
      Isn't that exactly what the current CAPTCHAs do?
      --
      Want a high quality FOSS RTS game? Try Warzone 2100!
    33. Re:ADA by gamlidek · · Score: 1

      Well, that was part of what I was trying to say, although you were more direct. And that's also why the ADA doesn't require that companies provide these kinds of digital amenities. It's unreasonable. /gam/

      --
      "In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are not."
    34. Re:ADA by moeffju · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are several programs doing the TREC (Text REtrieval Conference) Question Answering track that give you an accuracy of 80% upwards, and that's for hard questions like historical data on a huge corpus.

      --
      follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/moeffju
    35. Re:ADA by ampathee · · Score: 1

      Audio captchas?

      Yes! Check out my bank's website!

      They've had the audio option for maybe 6 months now.

      I wonder how difficult an audio version is to break - this might be an easier route for a bot to take.
      Although I'd have thought current voice recognition tech is way behind OCR tech.. so maybe not.

    36. Re:ADA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps I should ask, what alternate method of identification do sights employ to take into account blind users and the ADA?

      Is that supposed to be a pun or just poor spelling?

    37. Re:ADA by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      Yes, but we were talking about something that could easily be generated and would still be usable by blind users. I think that CAPTCHAS are usually a little harder to write programs to bypass though as some image recognition is required. It's not to hard to parse a string holding a simple mathematical formula and compute an answer.

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    38. Re:ADA by Vulturejoe · · Score: 1

      I've actually seen this done before on a browser-based game. In addition to an extremely weak captcha (same font, simple blue gridlines, no skewing or distortion, re-use of images), they actually had the real text in a hidden form field.

      --

      Out of Cheese Error:
      Please reboot universe
    39. Re:ADA by B.D.Mills · · Score: 1

      Alas, this mathematical method is easily defeated.

      The first attack to try would be a birthday paradox attack. Suppose there were 100 different questions all based on numbers. It would only take about 11 tries before a repeated question had a greater than 50% chance of being served. The attacker could then have a good idea of the size of the question pool. Retry enough times, and the attacker would know the size of the question pool, and many of the basic questions. The only variable is the number and that is trivial to parse.

      If the question was "What is half of 20?" the attacker could pattern match the question, extract the number, and compute the answer.

      I have little experience with such attacks, but I'm sure I could defeat this particular test in a day should I choose to do it.

      --

      The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke
    40. Re:ADA by avdp · · Score: 1

      Yes, that would defeat a computer, and many many humans as well.

    41. Re:ADA by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > Is there an awareness campaign dedicated to teaching webmasters about
      > accessability?

      Several of them, but the only webmasters who pay any attention are the same ones who also care about making the site work in different browsers, at different screen resolutions, with Javascript turned off, and so forth -- in other words, the 10% (or so) of the web that is actually well-designed.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    42. Re:ADA by quokkapox · · Score: 1

      I can't be the only one who just sent you a test message, can I?

      --
      it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
  11. Consider the problem by ReformedExCon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is that people are using robots to work in an autonomous manner to find ways around typical human limitations (we can only send several hundred emails a day, robots are not so limited). So people want to stop these "cheater" by making the user prove that they are a human rather than a robot.

    Is this really a good thing, though? Even on a site like Slashdot, in a story about defeating bots, the very first comment in this story is posted by a bot. How ironic is that? What is accomplished by banning users who can't read these "captchas" (what a horrendous fake word)? Nothing, apparently, as the story says. It only serves to annoy legitimate users and does nothing to hamper illegitimate robots.

    The solution is not this sort of halfway measure. The solution is to make it simply not worth the effort to be a nuisance on a discussion forum. I suppose that requires a glut of intelligent posters, but with the entire citizenry of the Internet available, that can't be so hard.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:Consider the problem by TGK · · Score: 1

      Even if Capchas are broken in, say, 1 second by this system - we have greatly raised the cost of sending an email, posting a blog-spam comment, or some other such irritant.

      Sure, maybe they're not perfect.

      I use them on my website mostly because I want to avoid people posting advertisements on my blog. Individuals do it occasionaly, but those are easy enough to delete. When someone coded my blog comment form into a bot somewhere and I started getting 100+ spam comments a day I started useing captchas.

      I'm sure the one I'm using is one of the weakest ones out there - but it's free and required very little time and energy to deploy.

      I use Captchas.net's free service. Here is an example page rendered from my server.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    2. Re:Consider the problem by TGK · · Score: 1

      Love it when my "n" key doesn't work. Lets try that again. My Website. There we are. Much better

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    3. Re:Consider the problem by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "What is accomplished by banning users who can't read these "captchas" (what a horrendous fake word)? Nothing, apparently, as the story says."

      I actually disagree. The captcha method reduces spam load for most sites down to zero. Only the bigger sites need to worry, because spammers may set up a site to specifically target them by rerouting captchas. That's not the case with 99% of the websites using captchas, it's just not worth the effort.

      It's sorta like a copy protection: if it stops 90% of the people, then it's good enough.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    4. Re:Consider the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I suppose that requires a glut of intelligent posters, but with the entire citizenry of the Internet available, that can't be so hard.

      I nearly fell out of my chair laughing. Someone mod this guy +5 funny please.

    5. Re:Consider the problem by protoshoggoth · · Score: 1

      Really. What internet is this guy on, anyway?

    6. Re:Consider the problem by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      It's also extremely unfriendly to people with visual impairments, and hence illegal in some jurisdictions.

      If you must use a Turing test, use ones expressed in ASCII: "What is seven plus two?", should work just as well and without shutting out the visually impaired who rely on screen readers. (these are used on blogs.sun.com to great effect).

      --paulj

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    7. Re:Consider the problem by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      It's also extremely unfriendly to people with visual impairments, and hence illegal in some jurisdictions.

      The illegal argument really doesn't fly. If you think it does, please tell me how it could be prosecuted. So long as the actual server(s) and the company itself isn't/aren't in that jurisdiction, there is nothing that can be done from a legal standpoint except to write a polite letter explaining the issue and show them a better way.

    8. Re:Consider the problem by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      My personal opinion on this:

      Only governments should have compulsory support for visual impaired users. For the rest of the pages it's a bonus if they decide to support those people. That would be consistent with the disabled people's treatment in buildings owned by the government (at least here).

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    9. Re:Consider the problem by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      The illegal argument really doesn't fly.

      It very much flies.

      If you think it does, please tell me how it could be prosecuted.

      By an impaired user, or by a state body tasked with enforcing such a law.

      So long as the actual server(s) and the company itself isn't/aren't in that jurisdiction, there is nothing that can be done from a legal standpoint except to write a polite letter explaining the issue and show them a better way.

      Alternatively, if the disabled user and the company are in the same jurisdication, then they may be able to /sue/. Eg, see the UK legislation:

      http://www.disability.gov.uk/dda/

      Or the legislation in place in Ireland:

      http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000_8.html

      See the general EU site on disability discrimination:

      http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/di sability/index_en.html

      And:

      http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/social _protection/index_en.htm

      It is simply illegal to discriminate against impaired people when providing access to your services, in many jurisdictions, full stop. The EU is also active in seeing that all EU jurisdictions bring such legislation into place.

      So yes, Irish and British companies would *definitely* be in contravention of existing law and risk civil suits if they used image based Turing tests, and I suspect as would companies in many other EU countries.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    10. Re:Consider the problem by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      That's your personal opinion.

      However, the law in *my* country and the country neighbouring mine[1] most definitely says it is illegal for *any* company to discriminate in the provision of goods or services to people, other than for some reasonable (and specifically listed) exceptional cases, on the grounds of race, gender or disability. See my reply to the other person who replied to me.

      I suspect many other EU countries have similar laws.

      --paulj

      1. Some might add "and occupying a part of my country".

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    11. Re:Consider the problem by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      Then that law is just downright stupid. Noone forced newspapers yet to print in Braille, or did they?

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    12. Re:Consider the problem by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      Oh btw, if the websites would offer different content for disabled people, that is exactly discrimination, albeit positive one. The government does that afaik.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    13. Re:Consider the problem by kelnos · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I used to have a big comment spam problem on my blog (low traffic, mainly only read by a few people I know), but after implementing a captcha (yeah, it really is a terrible fake word), I haven't had a single comment spam. And they didn't go just coincidentally go away and stop trying: I updated from Wordpress 1.1 to 1.5 at one point, forgot to reinstall the authimage plugin, and had a comment spam waiting for me within 24 hours.

      Maybe it is an inconvenience to people reading my site, but I generally don't get too many comments, and I'd rather get only a few comments that are useful/amusing/whatever than a load of crap I have to delete.

      --
      Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
    14. Re:Consider the problem by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      Then that law is just downright stupid.

      If ever in the future you, for whatever reason, become impaired in some way, you will likely revise your opinion.

      Noone forced newspapers yet to print in Braille, or did they?

      No they don't, because that is not discrimination as the goods involved, newspapers, intrinsically, are not suited to those with visual impairments. If however the newspaper refused to sell the newspaper to blind people, that *would* be discrimination. Note that are newspapers who offer their paper online, where it is easily accessible to the visually impaired, and that there are companies who reprint newspapers and books in Braille and also on audio media for the visually impaired.

      It's simply about putting unreasonable obstacles in the way of people based solely on their gender, race or impairment (where none of those factors reasonably should affect the disposal of that service or good). See:

      http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA8Y2000S5.html

      for the relevant section of the statute in force where I live.

      Further, never mind whether or not there are laws. Any ethical person simply should not be in favour of excluding the visually impaired by using image-recognition based Turing tests when textual tests would do just as well without excluding such people. It's about having a basic level of consideration for your fellow man (whether or not your local statutes demand it in this particular respect).

      --paulj

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    15. Re:Consider the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>No they don't, because that is not discrimination as the goods involved, newspapers, intrinsically, are not suited to those with visual impairments.

      I would dare to say that computers are not well-suited to those with visual impairments, either. Also, couldn't you argue that technical sites (or sites heavily scientific in content) should be required to provide simpler explanations for its mentally-impaired viewers? Or iTunes having to provide content in a text form with some notation as to rhythm and meter to blind people?

      Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against anyone with any handicap, it just seems that we head down a slippery slope when forced to cater to everyone, when the media is (unfortunately) not suited for them.

    16. Re:Consider the problem by ZarkOmicron · · Score: 1

      It doesn't look like using simple questions has much hope:

      http://www.google.com/search?&q=What%20is%20seven% 20plus%20two?
    17. Re:Consider the problem by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      I would dare to say that computers are not well-suited to those with visual impairments, either.

      You can do quite well with a screen reader and/or braille display. Unix environment particularly is very well suited due to its long history and hence having a very rich text-orientated environment. There are visually impaired people who do quite well in computing.

      Also, couldn't you argue that technical sites (or sites heavily scientific in content) should be required to provide simpler explanations for its mentally-impaired viewers?

      You could, I wouldn't per se. However that would be a different argument (actively make your site better for the impaired) from asking sites to not put additional unnecessary obstacles in place to accessibility.

      it just seems that we head down a slippery slope when forced to cater to everyone, when the media is (unfortunately) not suited for them.

      It isn't about demanding sites to bend over backwards to accomodate visually-impaired. It's just asking them to not make things worse. ASCII Turing tests work just as well, and don't make things worse for the visually impaired.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
    18. Re:Consider the problem by tsalaroth · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new EU overlords.

  12. Mod parent up by XNormal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's a cheap and scaleable method to defeat such algorithms. There will always be enough humans willing to do this for very little reward (some free pics).

    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
  13. Another solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just make then nearly impossible to read... like slashdot does

  14. And a cluestick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  15. Rock paper scissors snorkel by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Uh, that game doesn't work unless, say, bots stop Slashdot. Otherwise everyone just picks Slashdot and it's fifth grade all over again.

    1. Re:Rock paper scissors snorkel by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      Hmmph - can you imagine how much damage a bot creating spontaneous accounts can do to the slashdot comment system? Of course, it would quickly get it's IP blocked, but still it would be an easy way to sidestep the AC karma penalty.

      So yes, bots break slashdot.

  16. It is patented by dmeranda · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is a good study of how hard it is to design secure systems. It's just like a non-cryptographer trying to create their own cipher, only in the visual processing world. Sadly, the article does not touch on non-visual captchas, which are alternatives for the blind. It would also be interesting to see what Jakob Nielsen might have to say on this technology from a usability perspective.

    Of course, one of the primary bad things is that the concept of a captcha is patented, and the patent language is very broad. US Patent# 6,195,698

    Also see the Wikipedia article for more information.

    1. Re:It is patented by dracvl · · Score: 1
      It would also be interesting to see what Jakob Nielsen might have to say on this technology from a usability perspective.

      Oh, you mean the man who is too arrogant to use mailto: links because he only wants mail from the people who go through the extra effort of manually entering his email address?

      Usability, right.

    2. Re:It is patented by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 1

      It would also be interesting to see what Jakob Nielsen [useit.com] might have to say on this technology from a usability perspective.

      Ugh, why is this guy any sort of expert? Even his ultra-simple website has issues.

      Just look at the search option on his page. Some pages have a search box, some have a link which, when clicked, take you to an almost empty page with just a search box. Sometimes you get lucky and get a page with advanced search options!
      If you want to get to the advance search options from one of the pages with the hyper links, you need to click the search link, then click search button on the empty page, then, woohoo, you're at the advanced search page.

      He also has broken links on his site.

      Personally, I think the site looks like ass, and the font and layout makes it very difficult for me to scan the content.

      --

      Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
  17. Re:Definition by RPI+Geek · · Score: 0, Redundant
    --

    - "Nobody came out that night, not one was ever seen. But Old Man Stauf is waiting there, crazy sick and mean!"
  18. why Captcha is a bad idea by hackstraw · · Score: 1

    Its a good enough idea. Even with a captcha defeating library, a fairly skilled person would have to write a script or something to parse the webform (optionally over SSL which is a little more difficult) and programatically decode the captcha and then fill in the form and submit it.

    Usernames and passwords are a bad idea, but we use them. Using cookies or special URLs like slashdot has (or had, not sure) to automatically login is a bad idea.

    But they are acceptable for now, relatively simple to implement and use. There have been captcha defeaters for a while. It shouldn't be that tough to do at least a decent percentage of the time and accept a high failure rate because it is automated. It does not have to be 100%. Hell, I've seen captchas that I could not read before, and I'm a human!

    1. Re:why Captcha is a bad idea by Miniluv · · Score: 1

      How exactly would parsing a form "over SSL" be harder than parsing it not over SSL? Are you trying to claim the SSL adds encryption to the form? It doesn't. SSL is transport layer, you're talking application layer. If you mean snooping it, then I challenge you to show a non-brute force implementation of breaking SSL, so its not "a little more difficult", its exceptionally more.

    2. Re:why Captcha is a bad idea by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Hell, I've seen captchas that I could not read before, and I'm a human!

      It's not inconcievable that an algorithm to defeat a particular type of captcha would be better at reading it than a human.

    3. Re:why Captcha is a bad idea by BeBoxer · · Score: 1

      No, I think he's saying that writing working SSL code is slightly harder than writing non-SSL socket code. And depending on the language/environment it is harder.

    4. Re:why Captcha is a bad idea by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Its a good enough idea. Even with a captcha defeating library, a fairly skilled person would have to write a script or something to parse the webform (optionally over SSL which is a little more difficult) and programatically decode the captcha and then fill in the form and submit it.

      It's fairly easy to work with the HTML dom over SSL or not using java, .net, perl and php (or even a firefox plugin)

      Usernames and passwords are a bad idea, but we use them.

      Agreed, only because of the human factor and the fact that it's impossible for most people to remember a different password and login for every site you need to register on, making you password only as secure as the weekest site.

      If you go to somewhere like www.nationwide.co.uk and register they will send you a set of 8 random numbers and ask you to type in three of them every login making it impossible for some to steal you 'passcode' in one attempt.

      Using cookies or special URLs like slashdot has (or had, not sure) to automatically login is a bad idea.

      Well if you using a random number generator with a good entropy then a link with a 20 or so 7bit characters it would take 2^27 attempts to brute force and I guess that would take more time than the human race has left on earth so there fairly secure.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    5. Re:why Captcha is a bad idea by bigtrike · · Score: 1

      Even with a captcha defeating library, a fairly skilled person would have to write a script or something to parse the webform (optionally over SSL which is a little more difficult) and programatically decode the captcha and then fill in the form and submit it.

      Decoding the captcha is the hard part, everything else you listed above takes less than 10 minutes by any programmer with half a clue. If code is available to easily decode them, then the whole process is fairly easy.

    6. Re:why Captcha is a bad idea by Miniluv · · Score: 1

      Ok, thats vaguely true. However, if thats what they were trying to say, they probably ought to have considered saying it, rather than making it look like some clever aside.

  19. Heh by hungrygrue · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well I'm glad someone is writing code to solve those "prove you aren't a script" images, because a lot of times I can't quite figure them out myself.

    • "Q. What is your favorite color?.. No on second thought, nevermind that. What is written in this blob?"
    • A. I'm not sure, is this a rorschach test? Oh, I know 4 - 3 - Two flies mating - U - V - Giant Nose - X."
    1. Re:Heh by Ann+Elk · · Score: 1

      Two flies mating? That's obviously Natalie Portman riding a tapir.

  20. This was made by the GNAA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I swear this is not a troll. It actually was.

  21. Its bad idea for several reasons by bogie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Chiefly among them is sometimes you can't tell what the fucking words are. Within the last few months on more than one occasion I simply could not read the letters because they were so distorted and the lines overlapped the letters too much. No fun redoing a web form over and over because you can't figure out what the hell the verification box says.

    I can't imagine how people with difficulties cope with this.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    1. Re:Its bad idea for several reasons by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The sites with really good captcha's should run anti-captcha's... to filter out the *reallly* hard to read ones. =P

      But there are still a lot of ways that haven't been used yet to make the image hard to read for the computer but less hard than the expreme distortions, such as overlapping letters and words. For example, if say only 25% of a word is covered up by another word on top of it, it should still be very easy for a normal person to read both words. Or use different colors and transparency. Or chain capchas together, for example one captcha that says "green" or "small" and another full of letters of various color/size/whatever. Then ask the user to enter the right code (ie, so they have to use reasoning instead of just pattern recognition).

    2. Re:Its bad idea for several reasons by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      Chiefly among them is sometimes you can't tell what the fucking words are.

      I've only encountered that once, and there was a link right below the image that said "If you can't read the text in the image, click here" and a new image came up. I don't remember if it preserved my form information or if it was necessary, but that was the first time I've come across a captcha that I could not read and the first time I saw a link that asked me if I could read it or not.

    3. Re:Its bad idea for several reasons by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No fun redoing a web form over and over because you can't figure out what the hell the verification box says.

      Yahoo! does this and it's asinine. I hit a captcha today that clearly had a ` character in it, but apparently it was a 'confuser' line, not a `. The rules for what character sets are valid are not given, so you don't know if punctuation is valid or not. Apparently it's invalid. How about case? A c and a C are pretty hard to discriminate when they're rendered along a Bezier curve.

      Clearing the web form is no hinderance at all to a robot, but makes life difficult for humans. There's no excuse for pissing off users unnecessarily.

      The Yahoo! web team is going down hill. The Groups code used to be able to register e-mail addresses with a '+' in it, but that broke recently. You can't get an e-mail into their bug support system. I've tried. I've argued with the helpbots. I lost.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Its bad idea for several reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems like you are having difficulties with this...;)

    5. Re:Its bad idea for several reasons by afidel · · Score: 1

      That gave me an awsome idea for a new Captcha system, send word pairs as images, then have an array of images where only one redirects to the correct URL when clicked on, the rest go to a dynamically generated failure page. For instance give the words green and ball as the hints and have a car, a green ball, a yellow triangle, etc as the images. This is not something that general machine vision and AI systems will do well at, unlike the somewhat easy fields of image processing and OCR.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    6. Re:Its bad idea for several reasons by 0xABADC0DA · · Score: 1

      It's a nice idea, but if there are just N links then by just trying randomly a bot has 1/N change of getting the right one, so you have to chain them.

      What you could do is do that several times, with Java Script (or multiple pages) building basically a password or code from several of these sets of images in a row. The images would have to be dynamically created like in other captchas, but you could do things like tell the user to click the image with the blue smurf, but then have lots of blue humanoids in it. Or whatever, you get the idea.

      But what would be even better would be to generate a large image will all sorts of junk in it and ask the user to click on different parts based on what they are. Then you can take the coords and make a long code out of it and the server checks each point for being in the correct location. Easy for people to do, but the computer basically has to be able to recognize any arbitrary thing that people can, as opposed to just highly regular shapes like characters. So if the user clicks on 6 shapes, and they take up as much as 1/20th of the area, that's 20^5 or 64 million possibilities. I believe this is what you were thinking.

      This method can be used to create arbitrarily good captchas and I bet is much easier for the common person to do (ie type in these weird distorted letters vs click on the monkey?). And if a spammer makes a program to recognize the images you are using, you just drop in different ones (unlike text capchas where you have to change your algorithm). The spammer would have to write a program that can differentiate arbitrary images from one another using some kind of AI. Awesome.

  22. Captcha a bad idea??? I disagree by davidwr · · Score: 1

    While captchas have drawbacks, notably they require special handling for the vision-inpaired, they are useful.

    In an era where every blog is a potential spam target, human verification systems are a requirement. Captchas are not the only way to do this, but they are a way.

    Since the main story is heavily /.'d and Coral Cache doesn't have it, here it is on mirrordot.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  23. A Necessary evil... by nweaver · · Score: 1

    A: Captchas are a necessary evil. Without it, many services can be horribly, horribly abused.

    B: ITs how lazy cryptographers do AI: The goal of a captcha is to get someone else to solve a hard vision/learning problem, and then you change the Captcha.

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:A Necessary evil... by tepples · · Score: 1

      Captchas are a necessary evil.

      Is it "necessary" to violate the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and foreign counterparts by shutting out blind people? Is it "necessary" to pay HP big bucks to license U.S. Patent 6,195,698 and foreign counterparts?

    2. Re:A Necessary evil... by alienw · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, the ADA didn't apply to websites. If it did, then most sites out there would be in major trouble, even without captchas. About 70% of all websites are at least partially broken if you use text magnification, and few sites have proper ALT tags.

  24. Use Coral ! by millette · · Score: 1

    Here's a link that will actually load and show you all the pretty pictures : http://sam.zoy.org.nyud.net:8090/pwntcha/.

  25. OCR wins by marked23 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Once all these new algorithms get integrated into OCR software... OCR software might just work.

  26. haha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you failed getting FP

    TMM pwned again

  27. Interesting flash-based captcha by fahrvergnugen · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just saw a great flash-based Captcha designed to combat just this sort of attack. The test was composed of white text on a white background. Colored shapes of various sizes swirled in the background behind the text in a pseudo-random pattern, and the text was visible or obfuscated depending on whether there was a shape behind it at the moment. After watching it for a few minutes to see if there were any obvious flaws, I noticed that the entire phrase was never visible all at once.

    A little patience was required, but I was able to verify in less than 10 seconds. Animation seems to be very useful for this kind of application.

    --
    Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
    1. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know how Flash works?

      Its just layers of images, vectors, and scripting to make it animate.

      It would be harder but not at all impossible to crack this in the same way.

      This stuff can be disassembled and the offending swirls removed and then re-rendered.

      The fact that off the shelf software can crack what people thought would be difficult shows that not much research is going into this stuff.

    2. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      So now not only do you descriminate against blind people, you prevent people without Flash from getting to whatever you are protecting.

      I got a flawless algorithm to prevent bots from accessing resources... chmod 000.

      At least then you don't tease people into thinking they might be able to use your site when in reality you lock out a good 1-2% of people for arbitrary and probably illegal reasons.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    3. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by JimmehAH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You could just write the bot to decompile the .swf file and grab the string (or vector/raster representation of the text) from that.

      Flash is a bad format to use for a CAPTCHA from a security and accessibility point of view.

    4. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 1

      You beat me to replying...

      This [flash based thing] is the easiest form of captcha to crack. I bet it would take just a few seconds looking around a flash extractor on CPAN or something.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    5. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by zakharin · · Score: 0

      Can this not be replicated with an animated GIF? (I'm sure merging layers into one isn't that difficult)

    6. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just curious, how does 'chmod 000' prevent, for example, bots creating thousands of free email acounts?

      Plus, I thought the ADA applied mainly (only?) to government sites?

    7. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      Plus, I thought the ADA applied mainly (only?) to government sites?

      Probably... there is some court precedent that says some corporate web sites may not fall under the ADA. But it's not completely settled.

      Just curious, how does 'chmod 000' prevent, for example, bots creating thousands of free email acounts?

      That's your problem. There are other ways than captchas. Like one guy suggested, there are plenty of very simple questions that it is hard for a computer to solve, that don't rely on vision.

      I'm all for more creative solutions, but not ones that lock out some small percentage of users for whatever reason.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    8. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      in reality you lock out a good 1-2% of people for arbitrary and probably illegal reasons.

      Unless you're a government agency, you can lock people out of your web site for any reason at all.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    9. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by stienman · · Score: 1

      If the browser can decode the flash file to play it, so too can an automated agent. Even if you have to look at 100 frames of animation, you can simply add them all together and the text will pop out.

      -Adam

    10. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by NeMon'ess · · Score: 1

      Then let's hurry up and get a system where e-mail costs half a cent to send to strangers, and free to people who are on each-others' white lists, or just simply waive the charge.

    11. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      Snap a series of pictures, and begin to compose them together.

      Composure process:

      Start with a white canvas the same size as the captcha for the composed image

      If a pixel is white on a picture, don't do anything to the composed image (keep it the color it is)

      If a pixel is non-white in a picture, then draw a black pixel on the composed image.

      After a while, you have a simple OCR problem with white text, on a black background.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
    12. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      Decompile the swf?

      Do you assume that because someone is using a swf to achieve a fairly difficult goal (effective CAPTCHA), that they would become morons in practical application?

      The configurations and string/image(s) would be read from a server-side source (file/db/netsock).
      Flash is a bad format for CAPTCHA if all you know how to do is make cute cartoons (apologies to Homestar).

      P.S.
      Why is Flash bad from an accessibility point of view?

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    13. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by Smallest · · Score: 1

      then the trick is to defeat your test for background color vs foreground color. so, instead of a solid background color, use a background that uses pixel_color[x,y] = ((x + y) & 0x01).

      even better, move the letters around a bit, so that your composite ends up as a big blur of moving letters.

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
    14. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by tepples · · Score: 1

      then the trick is to defeat your test for background color vs foreground color. so, instead of a solid background color, use a background that uses pixel_color[x,y] = ((x + y) & 0x01).

      Defeatable. On each frame of the animation, run a band-pass filter followed by a threshold to screen out noise and gradients and find edges. Or change the Flash content while it is being drawn.

      even better, move the letters around a bit

      And then watch autocorrelation techniques similar to those used in MPEG video's motion compensation filter out the motion.

    15. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by newandyh-r · · Score: 1

      That depends on the country whose laws applies. In the UK, now and in theory, all web sites providing goods or services to the public are supposed to be "accessible".
      At present there are clearly some that are not and sooner - rather than later - they may find themselves on the wrong end of a lawsuit.

    16. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by Seekerofknowledge · · Score: 1

      That's why you just make it an animated .gif. As hard as a still image, and as the GP said, no single frame has the entire phrase.

      Of course if you need a pretty 60fps you might have to use flash.

    17. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know exactly where you saw this flash-based gizmo. ;-)

    18. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by m0rphin3 · · Score: 1

      zorbelneck goons representin'

      --
      for great justice
    19. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by Smallest · · Score: 1

      then, pepper the background with lots of non-letter shapes that will pass both your band-pass and your threshold filter, but that are easily recognized by humans as non-letters (geometric shapes, etc)..

      or fill the background with noise that can't be killed by such simple filters.

      and, animate the letters to change from non-legible to legible, and back, at different rates, but in the same location(s) - zooms, blurs, distortions, etc..

      --
      I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
    20. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by AndreiK · · Score: 1

      That's assuming the person designing the flash has no idea what he's doing. Basically, layer the captchas. Have a random encrypted image being sent along with the flash.

    21. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by tepples · · Score: 1

      and, animate the letters to change from non-legible to legible, and back, at different rates, but in the same location(s) - zooms, blurs, distortions, etc..

      The space between "readable by a computer" and "unreadable by a sighted human" grows smaller by the month as research into captchanalysis continues. This suggestion begins to encroach on the latter.

    22. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by JimmehAH · · Score: 1

      What stops the bot from pretending to be the swf and just reading the string/images directly from the server side source? The problem with Flash seems to be (in this example) that the obsfucation is done client-side and thus can be easily circumvented. If it was done server-side then what would be the point of using it over an image or a sound file?

      Flash is bad from an accessibility point of view because not everyone has it (it might not be available for their platform for example) and even if they did I don't think there are many screen readers/braille interfaces that support it.
      I admit that I don't know a great deal about development in Flash. What would be the best way to go about making it accessible to those people who are deaf or blind?

      I apologise for taking so long to reply.

    23. Re:Interesting flash-based captcha by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      If I overload some functions, I can end up sending information to the client in a variety of ways to produce the same effect. Sending the "image" (which might be rendered as text) via plots, vectors, transforms, etc. With some actual work, I can probably make a completely random framework along with TTL on each method (with a blackout on that method random duration). This is all assuming we're using the original "swirling backlit text" described by the OP. Because the swf can be forced to re-d/l every time, we end up with a chimeric client. Now I have only done a tentative amount of Flash programming, but I have no doubt as to its capabilities as a language. It's as full featured as any other language, except better in some ways (worse in others). I don't think Flash is ubiquitous in browsershare, but IE and Mozilla each come with a form of it (the mozilla flash plugin d/l is streamlined). I don't think I can consider Flash a barrier anymore, but we may simply have a difference of opinion in threshhold.

      P.S. I do not advocate the use of flash. I am simply stating a belief...yet another crappy technology is mainstream.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
  28. but by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

    A million Indian websurfers paid for by spammers beats all three...

  29. Yet another problem hashcash can solve by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

    Hashcash doesn't care if you're blind and need special screen reading software.

    It makes bulk spamming expensive as well. That may not apply to blog spamming as much but it's still a good way to slow them down.

    Tom

    --
    Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    1. Re:Yet another problem hashcash can solve by ccoder · · Score: 1

      Hashcash values can be pre-computed as well as several other attacks... not very secure in the long run, but good for a stop-gap measure.  Since there is no exchange of information to make hashcash work, there is nothing from getting a spammer to pre-generate all the hashcash values and THEN send the spam in one fell swoop.

      --
      "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" -- George Orwell
    2. Re:Yet another problem hashcash can solve by xenocide2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm not sure what Hashcash does, but it sounds like I've already got a great idea for a counter-program: Hashcache.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

  30. ATTENTION MODS by radishes · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Just because the post begins with the word "Interesting" does not mean that you have to mod it interesting. Especially when it isn't.

    --
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    1. Re:ATTENTION MODS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agree, mod gp down modsies!

  31. Moneybookers by sugarmotor · · Score: 1

    He lists paypal.com as "broken"; how about https://www.moneybookers.com/app/login.pl

    Stephan

    --
    http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
    1. Re:Moneybookers by karnal · · Score: 1

      Holy hell, and just numbers to boot!

      In case you didn't click the link, this site is secured by a captcha - with horizontal lines. It only uses numbers, however, so it would be really really easy to get through this one....

      --
      Karnal
  32. Try AuthImage for WordPress with a little tweaking by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Having to wade through 60+ spam comments a day on a WordPress blog (with all the stock antispam options enabled) just sucked . . . and the blog didn't even get much traffic (PageRank of 4). I installed the AuthImage plugin and used it on its stock settings, and for awhile didn't get a single bit of spam. Then, magically, it started up again. It seems some industrious little script kiddies have written a crawler to massively bombard AuthImage-enabled blogs with words from the stock word list. I switched from the wordlist file to randomly-generated strings and increased the size of the image for readability, and I never had another piece of comment spam in that blog again.

    As for blind folks, I suppose every webmaster has to make that decision based on their target demographic, but I've seen a few text-only captchas that work well enough ("What color is an orange?") but will inevitably have the same limitation as the AuthImage word list above.

  33. Easiest way to Defeat Captchas by Bondolo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    1. Put up a "free" pr0n site.
    2. Require visitors to the pr0n site to process a captcha before viewing the pr0n. In reality they are proxy processing a captcha for another site (paypal, hotmail, yahoo, etc.) which they never see.
    3. Profit!

    Captchas are next to useless and for the visually impaired very frustrating. One more of a example of a technology which annoys everyone and yet doesn't really stop the determined miscreant. <cough>airport shoe inspections</cough>

    --
    -- "Most people prefer a popular myth to an unpopular truth"
    1. Re:Easiest way to Defeat Captchas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      airport shoe inspections
      I know this is off-topic (hence the anonymous post), but, God, these piss me off. What's the TSA's motto? `Your clever terrorist tricks will work, but only once or twice!' I'm a teacher, and would hate to have one of these people as a student -- they'd come to me the day after the test, saying `But I've got all the answers now ....
    2. Re:Easiest way to Defeat Captchas by This+is+outrageous! · · Score: 1
      1. Put up a "free" pr0n site.
      2. Require visitors to the pr0n site to process a captcha before viewing the pr0n.

      for the visually impaired ... very frustrating.

      B..b.. but then aren't the visually-impaired-trying-to-view-pr0n actually *asking* for frustration?

      (sorry...)

      --
      This is...

      O
      U
      T
      R
      A
      G
      E
      O
      U
      S

      !

    3. Re:Easiest way to Defeat Captchas by Squiddl3 · · Score: 1

      this has been on slashdot last year in january.

      http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/04/01/28/1344207.shtml

  34. Captchas = Turing test by G4from128k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As with the Turing test, the entire purpose of a captcha is to distinguish humans from machines. As captcha-defeaters improve, the captchas will need to become more and more sophisticated and require more and more human or human-like intelligence to process. This arms race will culminate in a Turing test-like approach for discerning natural intelligences from artificial ones.

    The ultimate irony may occur when the first human-intelligent computer is created by a spammer for the purpose of assaulting our collective intelligences with their commerical drivel. Given the increasing value of online commerce and Google page ranking, there's probably more money in AI for captchas than AI for academic research.

    But before captchas get that sophisticated, the system will become self-defeating as the number of real humans defeated by captchas exceeds the number of AIs repelled by them.

    --
    Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
    1. Re:Captchas = Turing test by evilviper · · Score: 1
      As with the Turing test, the entire purpose of a captcha is to distinguish humans from machines.


      Eliza: Why do you mention computers?

      As captcha-defeaters improve, the captchas will need to become more and more sophisticated and require more and more human or human-like intelligence to process.


      What is the airspeed of an unladen swallow?

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Captchas = Turing test by slyguy135 · · Score: 1
      But before captchas get that sophisticated, the system will become self-defeating as the number of real humans defeated by captchas exceeds the number of AIs repelled by them.

      Or it'll become self-defeating because the AI will be intelligent it'll become suicidal.

      (Please leave tips in the hat, not with the dog.)

  35. Using Captcha for distributed processing by greywire · · Score: 1

    Use captcha to encode math problems (IE, the captcha would have "sin(34) * 10" or whatever, and you have to type in the answer).

    This way, not only does it take a little longer to analyze, but you get them to do a little bit of work for you. Force the spammers to be part of your little distributed processing system.

    Of course the problems need to be simple enough for the users to figure out...

    --
    -- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
    1. Re:Using Captcha for distributed processing by jbum · · Score: 1

      Now you've created a puzzle that computers are really good at solving, but humans suck at.

      What's a human going to do when presented with sin(34)+10? Find a computer.

    2. Re:Using Captcha for distributed processing by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      Actually... first thing I'd do when presented with that would be to ask "is that Degrees, Radians, or Gradians?" Since there's no units, that would mean Radians, but as anybody who's taken math should (I hope) be able to tell you, that isn't a rational multiple of Pi, and as such, it isn't an easily solvable number and would require a calculator....

      An intelligence test, however, isn't a bad idea. Something much simpler might make more sense, though. Say a relatively simple CAPTCHA (that's 100% human solvable, and probably 95% machine solvable), but doesn't contain the answer you're looking for. A phrase like "if green means go, what does red mean?". Most children over the age of 5 can answer that, no matter where you are in the world (red = stop is pretty much universal), but a computer would have to be able to pass the CAPTCHA, *and* have sufficient AI to understand what it's looking for.

      And as always, provide an e-mail address for humans who aren't able to do the CAPTCHA to contact you for a manual account creation. I'm thinking of the blind, not the stupid here....

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    3. Re:Using Captcha for distributed processing by greywire · · Score: 1

      The idea wasn't to use a math problem as a better kind of captcha, but to purposely put it out there to attract the spammers and get them to do work for you. Its meant to be easy for a computer to solve (as opposed to normal captchas that are supposed to be hard for a computer to solve). That way at least you are getting them to do some work for you...

      Of course, this is probably a silly idea.

      Now, it may work well for email spam -- requireing the sender to solve a problem for you before you will accept the email. I'm pretty sure somebody is doing this already. The thing that would make it cool would be to actualy sell the computing time to somebody who needed the distributed computing power, and thus, you make a little bit of money from all that spam you get...

      Just a silly idea... :)

      --
      -- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
    4. Re:Using Captcha for distributed processing by alienw · · Score: 1

      You can't use this computing time to solve any problem you don't already know the answer to -- how would you verify the result?

    5. Re:Using Captcha for distributed processing by Wolfier · · Score: 1

      1. run text Captcha reading algorithm
      2. "search" for sin(34)*10 on google.

  36. for the blind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would it really be so hard to make an audio version of it too ? .. play with the peaks add extra noise so its hard for computers to recognize? .. sure they COULD recognize the audio as easily as .. well hell i cant even read the slashdot one at the bottom of my screen here .. hmmm - page reload - nvm found one i can read :P

  37. Defeating animated Captcha by tjwhaynes · · Score: 1
    The test was composed of white text on a white background. Colored shapes of various sizes swirled in the background behind the text in a pseudo-random pattern

    That is fairly easy to break if the text is stationary - simply keep taking pictures. Once you have enough (probably 10 seconds worth at 3fps) just stack all the images on top of each other and "add" them up. The moving parts will fade into the background and leave the text standing proud for some quick OCR.

    Now if the text moved as well, it would be better. But you still have create problems for platforms without Flash and for any blind users. Flash for captcha doesn't sound that bright to me.

    Cheers,
    Toby Haynes

    --
    Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
    1. Re:Defeating animated Captcha by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      Even if the text moved, you could use "markers" in the text to align the images around the text. Then once they're all alligned perform the compositing step again as you described and done.

      Fact is, that if you move ANY of the perterbation of the Captcha you eliminate a lot of it's effectiveness. This is because pulling non-random signal out of random noise in a moving system is a lot easier than in a static singular system.

      For instance: Try and pick out a well camo'ed soldier from a picture. Now, have a video tape where the same well camo'ed soldier is moving. I bet you'll spot him in an instant. This is why snipers have to learn how to move without producing visual movement. Movement == death.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
  38. Speaking of ADA by Loundry · · Score: 0

    You discriminator! Your alleged universal logic questions clearly discriminate against the moronically stupid. You will be sued by my team of kick-ass lawyers!

    --
    I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
  39. Commentary on w3's captcha-inaccessibility page by davidwr · · Score: 2, Informative

    The main article refers to Inaccessibilyt of Visually-Oriented Anti-Robot Tests, which deserves a read and commentary.

    Among the claims:
    - captchas are inaccessbile to the blind - true
    - a horde of human beings can decode the entire library over time - only true if the images are recycled, not if they are created on-demand or for one-time use.

    It also discusses some of the side-effects of making access to real humans harder, or harder for a class of users such as the visually impaired. For example, I've seen sites that say "If you cannot read this, call this phone number for access." Too bad for you if you don't have a phone.

    As alternatives, it offers
    - logic puzzles
    - sound output
    - credit-card validation
    - live operators
    - limited-use of unverified accounts, such as throttling for email
    - behavior and heuristic analysis
    - already-established credentials, such as single-sign-on systems or public-key-based systems
    - biometrics

    The article briefly discusses the pros and cons of each.

    I rate its conclusion

    "Visual verification alone is known to create problems with users. It is imperative that site designers take the needs of users with disabilities into account, and it is likewise hoped that one or more of these potential solutions can make that process easier."

    as: insightful +5 obvious -1.

    The article as a whole gets an "informative +5."

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Commentary on w3's captcha-inaccessibility page by Greg@RageNet · · Score: 1

      > - logic puzzles
      > - sound output
      That's fine for the blind, but now you are breaking it for the deaf and dumb.

      -G

      --
      Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!
    2. Re:Commentary on w3's captcha-inaccessibility page by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      For example, I've seen sites that say "If you cannot read this, call this phone number for access." Too bad for you if you don't have a phone.

      Hmm. How many people have an internet connection but no telephone? Stop me if I'm wrong here, but most people still get their connection from a phone line, though ADSL has largely superseded dialup these days...

      So, that captcha cuts out those people who have an internet connection AND have no phone AND are blind. Pretty small segment there.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:Commentary on w3's captcha-inaccessibility page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might as well use that excuse to say that "there are only a small tiny fraction of handicapped people - why should I spend $10,000 to make my facilities handicap accessible if there is no net profit to me?".

    4. Re:Commentary on w3's captcha-inaccessibility page by Idealius · · Score: 1

      for the cable internet & cellphone crowd, such as myself.

  40. Anyone read this notice on the top of the page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Many thanks to the VideoLAN project for hosting my page during the /. effect, to the GNAA for providing me with a massive amount of Captcha samples, and of course to every other contributor to this project."

    Is this the same GNAA that trolls slashdot on a regular basis?

    1. Re:Anyone read this notice on the top of the page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sure is - follow the link.

    2. Re:Anyone read this notice on the top of the page? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes it is the same GNAA that trolls slashdot, I think the author of that program is a GNAA member, probably used to flood slashdot.

  41. Re: Disabilities by chato · · Score: 2, Informative

    The W3C proposed in 2003 a number of Solutions for the Inaccessibility of Visually-Oriented Anti-Robot Tests, including logic puzzles, audio captchas, credit card validation, etc. It is interesting that they also show how a federated identity system can help users with disabilities.

  42. GNAA? WTF? by EiZei · · Score: 1

    There must be at least some irony found that an article that's creation was furthered by the infamous GNAA is posted on the front page..

  43. This is a GNAA troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notice this is written by the same guy who coded LMOS (GNAA's Last Measure Operating System). Combine this with the fact that there is no proof-of-concept code available, it makes me think this is just another GNAA attempt to get Slashdotted. The page would probably redirect to goatse or Last Measure right now if the server wasn't slashdotted. YHBT by the GNAA.

  44. 90% is not "good enough" by benhocking · · Score: 1

    But, and this is probably your point, it's better than nothing! Or, to put another way, if it stops 90% of the people, then it's probably worth its minor cost. (Cost being the effort of humans to read the captchas, etc.)

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
  45. **WARNING** THE PWNTCHA LINK IS NSFW - GOATSE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    scroll down to the bottom, eegh O_O

  46. Is that goatse I see? by themightythor · · Score: 3, Funny

    In the table for "Cwazymail", I was trying to figure out what the pictures were. One's an elephant, one's an owl, and one is a man pulling apart his anus. Great!

    1. Re:Is that goatse I see? by Sporkinum · · Score: 1

      YIKES! Yep.. looked like goatse to me..

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    2. Re:Is that goatse I see? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That god damn asshole!! How dare he posts asshole on /.

  47. Cwazymail one has Goatse image by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone catch the Goatse image in the linked article? Look at the images for the Cwazymail captcha. *shudder*

  48. obligatory Simpsons quote by timster121 · · Score: 1

    Lisa: Poor predictable Bart. Always picks rock.
    Bart: Good old rock. Nothing beats that!
    Bart: Rock!
    Lisa: Paper.
    Bart: Doh!

    1. Re:obligatory Simpsons quote by -brazil- · · Score: 1

      I see your Simpsons and raise you one Azumanga Daioh!

      Yomi: It's so great here. You just want to stay here and never go home.

      Chiyo: That's right. But if possible, I want to go home - alive!

      Yomi: The Yukari-mobile?

      Chiyo: I'm no good at rock-paper-scissors!!

      --

      The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
      --Henry Kissinger

    2. Re:obligatory Simpsons quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Without the context (of the Yukarimobile) that's just an inside joke.

  49. GOATSE captcha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    scroll down, it's the picture near the elephant

    And the comment kills me:
    "An excellent idea, but a critically buggy implementation"!!!

  50. A better captcha? by MobileMrX · · Score: 1
    Why don't they make a captcha that has not only a code, but garbled instructions as well.

    For example, A captcha images contains the following text:
    "Please enter the first three and last four letters of the following sentence: There is man with a small plan"

    The application would expect "Theplan"

    Have the instructions be variable, along with the modded text. Ask for the third word or the last two words, or the last 5 letters in reverse order.

    Instructions written for humans along with the ability to read the garbled image/instructions would make it many times more difficult for a machine to figure out what to enter.

    1. Re:A better captcha? by kisrael · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but how many variants of "first X this" and "last Y that" and "first Wth letters of the Zth" word would you code in? Someone could probably see all the "sentences" you coded in after reloading 10-20 times, and have a script deal with each case. It's only one thin layer better than a traditional captcha image, not "many times more difficult". (So it will probably work if you homebrew it and do it all yourself, but if it gets popular someone will spread the countermeasure.)

      Lots of token- or javascript-based authenticator ideas make similar mistakes...the people suggesting tokens assume that the form is only loaded once, but a spammer might as well get a fresh form each time. And they might as well run clever form-building javascript through a javascript engine.

      So finally, I used the blogspammers own copiousness idiocy (hundreds of thousands of the same F'in links, not for human viewing but just to crank up googlejuice) against them:

      If you don't have http:/// in your comment, no problem, your post goes through. If you do, you can't use one of a list of "forbidden words", mosty pharmaceutical and gambling based.

      You can see the words and further thoughts on my site:
      http://kisrael.com/viewblog.cgi?date=2005.07.15

      In theory content based filtering goes against the free speech grain, but in practice the combo of badword PLUS link doesn't seem to block real stuff too much, and a human gets a clear explanation and can try again. Over the last month and a half its had a low false-positive rate and a perfect success rate.

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    2. Re:A better captcha? by jimwelch · · Score: 1

      I recently toured our brand new Wal-Mart Distribution Center. Their are two main types of fork lifts. The big ones stock the racks and the little ones ("hand pulled") pull just enought to fill an order for the individual stores. The little ones wear a computer with only a headset/mic. The computer slects randomly 3 out of the 6 check digits on the shelf for them to read aloud to verify they are in the right place! Captcha in the warehouse!

      --
      Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
    3. Re:A better captcha? by bani · · Score: 1

      much easier to just block anyone who posts a url which resolves to an IP in china.

    4. Re:A better captcha? by MobileMrX · · Score: 1

      Someone could probably see all the sentences, the hook is that the sentence/instructions will be part of the captcha image. Not only does the program have to deal with all of the many different situations, but it will have to be able to positivley identify the instructions in the captcha to begin with.

    5. Re:A better captcha? by kisrael · · Score: 1

      So what?
      If this becomes popular, a human sits down, reloads your captcha w/ instructions plus sentences 20-30 times, finds out all or most of the instruction patterns, and writes the 10 lines of Perl to perform the instructions on a given sentence.

      So if the software can get the text out of the captcha, it's then only a smidge harder to follow some instructions then to just bounce the text back to the form. Therefore, this isn't much more protection than a normal captcha. If used on a small number of sites it will probably be secure, but once it moves out to the outside world would only be about as strong as its graphic encoding.

      This is assuming you don't have some wacky AI finding always new ways of expressing the instructions that a human can usually understand but need super complex parsing...I'm guessing most implementations would be simple "madlibs" style Nth letters from Mth word stuff.

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    6. Re:A better captcha? by MobileMrX · · Score: 1
      It's a lot more complicated than "10 lines of perl" to interpret instructions written in English, especially if the verbage varies, along with the sentence structure. If it were so easy to interpret instructions in standard human languages, no one would need to program in programming languages. Someone would have already wrote a program that works extremely well at understanding things like:

      "Put all of these numbers in order: Instead we have to write computer code to do it. Why? Because it is extremely hard for a computer to interpret instructions written in English.

    7. Re:A better captcha? by kisrael · · Score: 1

      It's a lot more complicated than "10 lines of perl" to interpret instructions written in English, especially if the verbage varies, along with the sentence structure.

      Right, but as difficult as it is to *parse* that kind of sentence (at least if you have no idea of its structure) it's even more difficult to GENERATE that kind of sentence (unless you follow a simple formula or two or three or ten.)

      See what I mean? A catchpa-generator would have to be SUPER sophisticated to come up with a new style of instructions by itself, like "sort these numbers, but alphabetically by their english name". Basically, to come up with a lot of those, you'd have solved a *tough* AI problem. You can slightly confuse things by substuting different words for the instructions (" all these numbers" "all the digits" "all these figures" "all this" "these" etc) but still a few hours of work and you can decode this. 10 lines of Perl.

      Tell me, in a high level way, how you're going to generate NEW instruction types and forms, and I'll either tell you how the 10 lines of perl would basically work, or say "you've just described the computer HAL making the problems", or admit I'm wrong.

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
  51. The GOATSE picture is NOT in the mirrordot by davidwr · · Score: 1

    In the mirrordot version, the picture between the elephant and the owl is NOT there.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:The GOATSE picture is NOT in the mirrordot by SoCalChris · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nice, the site owner probably added it when he added the notice to slashdot readers.

    2. Re:The GOATSE picture is NOT in the mirrordot by vinnythenose · · Score: 1

      I wish I had looked in the mirrordot... I would have been all that much better for it... *shiver*

      --
      --- I used to moderate, then I read the -1 articles and decided having to filter through them was not worth it.
    3. Re:The GOATSE picture is NOT in the mirrordot by 50m31sl4sh. · · Score: 1

      I guess videolan guys added the picture later, after being slashdotted.
      Very funny.

      --
      Rediculous is ridiculous!
    4. Re:The GOATSE picture is NOT in the mirrordot by Wonko42 · · Score: 1
      Look at the CVS id at the bottom of the page.

      Live site: $Id: index.html 915 2005-08-24 17:32:04Z sam $Host: 81.57.248.96
      Mirrordot: $Id: index.html 861 2005-04-27 09:16:33Z sam $Host: 140.99.200.2

  52. Is one of those pics the goat guy? by Buran · · Score: 1

    Could swear it is.

    1. Re:Is one of those pics the goat guy? by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      Oh horribly yes...

      That's some pretty impressive trolling to get the goatsex onto a front page article

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    2. Re:Is one of those pics the goat guy? by cryogenix · · Score: 1

      Ya. He's "The Receiver"

  53. Did anyone else notice... by philodox · · Score: 1

    that one of the captchas still being worked on is a distorted goatse image (Cwazymail)? Is that for real or is that a cleverly disguised joke? haha...

    1. Re:Did anyone else notice... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Read the text at the top of the page:
      Note to /. readers: this article comes in a quite untimely fashion. Though I have been making tremendous progress with many other captchas, I have not updated this webpage for months! Please come back in a few days when I have had time to make a nicer webpage. Many thanks to the VideoLAN project for hosting my page during the /. effect, to the GNAA for providing me with a massive amount of Captcha samples, and of course to every other contributor to this project.
      And yes, it is named goatse-captcha.jpg.
  54. Article NSF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article is NSF for that slightly distorted . . . uh . . . picture of the man.

    I'm tempted to go to "cwazymail" and see what other wonderful captchas are waiting for me.

    1. Re:Article NSF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am eagerly awaiting for /. to implement such a wonderful captcha :)
      That would surely freak out those trolling AC's!

      Wait, I'm AC and I'm trolling...

      <runs away>

  55. Outsourcing? by JJC · · Score: 1

    I was thinking about captchas (didn't know they had a name) when signing up for a Gmail account today. I wondered if it would be profitable to set up a company somewhere where labour is cheap to employ people to read captchas on demand. Apparently the British postal service scans images of letter envelopes and sends them abroad where the postal codes are read and sent back. If a person could read, decipher and type, say, 3 captchas a minute, and you paid them 50 cents an hour, you could make a profit charging half a penny per captcha to nefarious blog spammers etc.

    1. Re:Outsourcing? by jimwelch · · Score: 1

      It is already being done. Can't find the story from work, too many blocks in place.

      --
      Never trust a man wearing a coat and tie!
  56. In 2005... by Digz · · Score: 1

    ..the bots became self-aware..

    --
    SYS 64738
  57. NSFW by Kloog · · Score: 0

    The summary should include a warning that one of the captcha examples features goatse.

  58. BFD by Safety+Cap · · Score: 0, Troll
    At least we got good-tasting beer ~.
    American beer is about the same as the 'yellow water' that comes out of a Republican Elephant when you threaten it with a military draft.

    At least Canada is close, but not much better.

    --
    Yeah, right.
    1. Re:BFD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      American beer is about the same as the 'yellow water'...

      I assume you aren't including micro-brews in that statement.

      Besides, when I was in college, 40s of malt liquor got me more booty than I could shake a stick at, so American beer is just fine by me. Hot girls and a couple bottles of OE go together very nicely.

    2. Re:BFD by SComps · · Score: 3, Funny

      that would be a draft beer yes?

    3. Re:BFD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      American beer is...
      of widely varying quality. There are thousands of American beers, and many of them are of very good. Don't go around dismissing all American beers becuase you drank a PBR once and thus consider yourself an expert on the subject.
    4. Re:BFD by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      GP: Just got ditched by your Belgian girlfriend or what did we deserve this statement for? At least we got good-tasting beer that can help you feel less bad about whatever is bothering you :-)

      P: American beer is about the same as the 'yellow water' that comes out of a Republican Elephant when you threaten it with a military draft

      I realize that bashing America is fun (hey, I do it, and I'm American!), and I can even appreciate a good non-sequitur, BUT... Why are you responding to a Belgian's boast about his country's beer with an attack on America's beer?? I'll never understand women...

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    5. Re:BFD by StalinsNotDead · · Score: 1

      Taste that smooth and smoother flavor
      Zest and sparkle millions favor
      "what'll you have?" the answers clear
      pour me Pabst Blue Ribbon beer

      --
      Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
  59. Okay, I know I'm going to feel like an idiot, but by swelke · · Score: 1

    A test for humanness will not be convincing until it cuts out 70% of AOL users and 58.2% of Belgium. (58.2% of Belgian users would work, too.)

    I don't get the Belgium/Belgian users reference. Did they do something wrong to not be considered humans? Are they dumber than average? Is "Belgium" just a funny word? I don't get it. Somebody (preferably one who knows the answer) please enlighten me.

    --
    Have you ever wondered How to Take Over
  60. well that's easily worked around by davidwr · · Score: 0

    First off, put a time-bomb on such captchas - if they aren't solved within 2 minutes then abort and issue a new one.

    Second off throttle based on IP traffic - if more than X% of traffic from an IP address is registrations AND there are more than 10 registrations in 5 minutes, assume something is up.

    Third off, don't reuse captchas - generate them on the fly or if you must, in-advance for one-time use.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:well that's easily worked around by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, put a time-bomb on such captchas - if they aren't solved within 2 minutes then abort and issue a new one.

      When the visitor hits the page, request a CAPTCHA immediately, and expire it in less than 2 minutes. (Yahoo has a 10 minute limit, but spammers simply use a limit of 9 minutes.)

      Second off throttle based on IP traffic - if more than X% of traffic from an IP address is registrations AND there are more than 10 registrations in 5 minutes, assume something is up.

      Use open proxies, and throttling "10 registrations in 5 minutes" won't scale.

      Third off, don't reuse captchas - generate them on the fly or if you must, in-advance for one-time use.

      The spammer doesn't reuse the CAPTCHAs either.
  61. You're a bit confused by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1
    ~ make the captcha Java code that generates the warped image dynamically. Reponse: send the JS to the unwitting human.
    Sorry, man. JS != Java.
    --
    Yeah, right.
    1. Re:You're a bit confused by jesup · · Score: 1

      Sorry, typing quickly. (And it could be JS code ala AJAX/Google Maps/etc, in theory - might be harder, though, but more compatible.)

  62. Some captchas are TOO strong by meditation_dude · · Score: 1

    Anyone else had the experience of not being able to read the captcha on a web site? Seriously... if a human brain can't read it, I really doubt a program (at least at today's levels) could do so. Of course, part of the problem is that English has too many letters that look alike. Lower case "l" and capital "I" for instance.

    1. Re:Some captchas are TOO strong by hemlockz · · Score: 1

      yeah i hate them. S vs 5, l vs I vs 1, Z vs 2, C vs G, O vs 0, q vs 9, 8 vs B and so on.... There has to be a better way to detect humans. How about if they take less than 5 seconds to fill out the form, its probably a bot. duh!

    2. Re:Some captchas are TOO strong by HAMgeek · · Score: 1

      I can read the simple ones but when you throw in extraneous junk like lines and squiggles, plus distort the letters I have extreme difficulty with them. A pox on captchas and the ungodly spammers who make them necessary.

      --
      "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." --Pericles
    3. Re:Some captchas are TOO strong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      part of the problem is that English has too many letters that look alike. Lower case "l" and capital "I" for instance.

      A simple solution for that would be to switch to i.e. french. Lower case "l" and capital "I" look so different in another language.

  63. Warning, link is NSFW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's a goatse image in it.

  64. Prime Numbers? by uberdave · · Score: 1

    What is the next logical number in the sequence 1, 3, 5, 7, ...?

    11 is the next odd prime in the sequence listed.

    1. Re:Prime Numbers? by benwb · · Score: 1

      The numbers 0 and 1 are neither prime nor composite.

    2. Re:Prime Numbers? by jonfelder · · Score: 1

      True...but why would you assume this is a list of odd prime numbers?

      1 is not prime.

    3. Re:Prime Numbers? by ChadN · · Score: 0, Redundant

      1 is not prime, bot.

      --
      "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
    4. Re:Prime Numbers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aha, thanks for clarifying that. I was looking for the next even prime!

    5. Re:Prime Numbers? by idkk · · Score: 1

      Suddenly I am puzzled. What, other than 1 and itself divides 1? That - I thought - is the definition of a Prime. Hence 1 is prime. And (by the same definition) 0 is composite.
      And, yes, IAAM (I Am A Mathematician)

      --
      Ian D. K. Kelly

      idkk Consultancy Ltd.

      "Quality through Thought"

    6. Re:Prime Numbers? by slug359 · · Score: 1

      A prime number is a natural number that has exactly two factors, 1 has only one, therefore it is not a prime number.

    7. Re:Prime Numbers? by JakusMinimus · · Score: 1

      A prime number is a natural number that has exactly two factors, 1 and itself.

      That is how I remember reading and hearing the definition of a prime number. So judging the statement semantically, 1 is a prime because it is divisible by 1 (duh) and itself (which is 1).

      --

      You can be an atheist and still not want to succumb to some weird cross-over sheep disease -- AC
    8. Re:Prime Numbers? by ChadN · · Score: 2, Informative

      1... is... not... a... prime...

      For info on why, see the mathworld prime number entry.

      Interestingly, it says that, at one time, 1 was considered prime and 2 was not. Pretty amazing, considering importance of the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic.

      --
      "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
    9. Re:Prime Numbers? by uberdave · · Score: 1

      The number 1 is a special case which is considered neither prime nor composite (Wells 1986, p. 31). Although the number 1 used to be considered a prime (Goldbach 1742; Lehmer 1909; Lehmer 1914; Hardy and Wright 1979, p. 11; Gardner 1984, pp. 86-87; Sloane and Plouffe 1995, p. 33; Hardy 1999, p. 46), it requires special treatment in so many definitions and applications involving primes greater than or equal to 2 that it is usually placed into a class of its own.

      So, 1 was prime in 1984, and not prime in 1986. Obviously when they changed the definition of prime in 1985, they neglected to notify me.

    10. Re:Prime Numbers? by ChadN · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you are joking. Those references are supplied to support the assertion that 1 was considered prime at some point. But just because the reference was written in (say) 1984, doesn't mean that 1 was still considered prime in 1984. Just that it talked about the issue at that time. I googled around to try to find a more definitive time for when 1 came to not be considered prime, and couldn't find anything enlightening.

      However, I found a reference in a paper by Eric Temple Bell, "The Queen of Mathematics", that the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic was proved by Ernst Zermelo in 1912, and I would have to speculate that "1 is prime" must have been going out of favor at least by then.

      Interestingly, as 1 was considered prime at the time of the devising of the Goldbach Conjecture, and now is not, it seems the changeover may have made the conjecture less likely to be true (ie. possibly a very significant change). Mersenne Primes also needed a more complex definition when 1 was prime.

      I would like to know more about how 2 was NOT considered prime...

      --
      "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
    11. Re:Prime Numbers? by uberdave · · Score: 1

      I don't know what they're teaching now, but I've never heard about 1 not being prime until this thread. I concluded that this must have been a recent development in the field of mathematics. Of course, like all the 'recent developments' I've become aware of, it is old news to most people, especially those in the field. However, I was definitely taught that 1 was prime.

    12. Re:Prime Numbers? by ChadN · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to remember what I was taught, before I took a number theory course in college, and I can't honestly recall (I'm now mid-thirties)... It may well be that high-school and elementary curriculum went on teaching this long after "mathematicians" had abandoned it; I can't say, although it hardly seems to be contentious enough of an issue outside of professional math circles to force new printings of textbooks. :)

      Thanks for responding with your experience, btw; I do find it interesting.

      --
      "It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
    13. Re:Prime Numbers? by ticklemeozmo · · Score: 1

      Grandparent: "What is the next logical number in the sequence 1, 3, 5, 7, ...?"

      Parent: 1... is... not... a... prime...

      What does 1's primeness have to do with the sequence of "1 + 2(k 1)"?

      --
      When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
    14. Re:Prime Numbers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing. It was in response the assertion that 1,3,5,7 are a sequence of the first four odd primes.

  65. That's why by Phil+John · · Score: 2, Interesting

    all captchas should timeout after, oh, say 10 minutes?

    In all honesty, do you really think you're going to get that many people to regularly visit a pr0n site? The sector is extreemly cut-throat and vastly bigger than the market can justifiably support (hence why many pr0n sites close each month).

    The only way to get to the top of the engines in the first few months would be to use PPC advertising (costs money). After that, even if you get to the top of the SERPS by using nefarious means, you'll need to give people a viable reason to sign-up to your service, i.e. you'll need content which costs money (unless you want to steal it, at which point you can probably expect some real mean types to track you down and kill you, them porn businesspeople are crazy).

    --
    I am NaN
    1. Re:That's why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you'd fetch the captcha only when there's somebody ready to decode it, get it?

    2. Re:That's why by Misagon · · Score: 1

      A timeout would have no effect if the attack is initiated by the user's visit to the pr0n site.

      I wonder about watermarking, though. It could alert the user that something isn't right. The watermark has to survive filtering, of course.

      --
      "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
  66. The linked page is NSFW by poincaraux · · Score: 4, Informative

    Editors -

    Please don't link to the goatse man without at least some warning.

    Thanks.

    1. Re:The linked page is NSFW by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      You can barely even see it. Are you really going to get fired for clicking on that page? It's pretty tame considering it's a GNAA sponsored page, as indicated at the top.

    2. Re:The linked page is NSFW by Spit · · Score: 1

      Looking at goatse may be business as usual for you, but it's hardly fitting as headline material.

      --
      POKE 36879,8
  67. Picture Captcha? by Calyth · · Score: 1

    Was it just me or did I just saw goatse.cx being used as captcha?

  68. with friends like these who needs enemas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *groan*

    mod +5 funny
    mod -6 lame

  69. Just in time for Google/Blogger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google's Blogger.com just recently implemented captchas in its built-in commenting system, and is crowing pretty loud about it to its members; seems to be a behind-the-curve move, in light of this.

    -CT
    http://www.populationstatistic.com/

  70. Ah so it's called "captcha" ! by MrP-(at+work) · · Score: 1

    Ah so that's what they call that. I used to have a mailer on my site that I wanted to protect from spammers/bots and I was trying to find a pre-made script on google but I had no clue what they were called so I just ended up writing my own Oh well its about a year too late now and I don't even have that mailer form on my site anymore. P.S. I bet my awesome captcha script would have been un-crackable! =P

    --
    [an error occurred while processing this directive]
  71. Well then by Safety+Cap · · Score: 1

    Next up, the end of the internets!!!eleventyone

    --
    Yeah, right.
  72. ugh by rayde · · Score: 1

    all i know is that someone managed to get a front page link on slashdot to a site that has an image of the goatse guy (next to the elephant and the owl in the Cwazymail captcha) AND a link to gnaa.us. well done. :-P

  73. Is this for real? by IHawkMike · · Score: 1

    If you look at the middle image of the Cwazymail examples, it looks likes... well you can make your own judgement.

    Do you have to be 18 to sign up?

    1. Re:Is this for real? by IHawkMike · · Score: 1

      Okay, I get it now. Damn goats.

  74. Re:Okay, I know I'm going to feel like an idiot, b by Fedallah · · Score: 1

    I don't get the Belgium/Belgian users reference. Did they do something wrong to not be considered humans? Are they dumber than average? Is "Belgium" just a funny word? I don't get it. Somebody (preferably one who knows the answer) please enlighten me.

    I thought the answer was obvious: they share a border with the Dutch.

  75. Be warned by dtfinch · · Score: 1

    There's a goatse image on that page.

  76. blocking blog comment spam by SethJohnson · · Score: 1



    I don't feel so bad using a Captcha on my site regarding the inconvenience it causes to vision-impared visitors. You only need to fill in the Captcha for posting comments. Otherwise, blind people can access the rest of my site unhindered.

    I'd also like to point out that since I've implemented my Captcha, this level of obscurity has blocked 100% of the comment spam I was dealing with in my Wordpress-powered site.

    I do think it presents an undesireable hurdle for blind people accessing other sites like registering for email accounts and the like.

  77. gross by hemlockz · · Score: 1

    Thanks a lot /. for that wonderful link. an otherwise wonderful lunchbreak now is now for lack of a better experssion... down the tubes.

    1. Re:gross by loqi · · Score: 1

      Ya know, I first saw goatse almost exactly five years ago on a lunch break following a link from /.
      MEEEMMMMORIEEEES...

      --
      If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
  78. zoy.org!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article is a troll ... note how the code is withheld and the general lack of details or substance ... finally, note that this person hosts a Lastmeasure mirror on their domain; http://traceroute.zoy.org/ (DO NOT CLICK, except in links/lynx).

    1. Re:zoy.org!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article IS a troll but the software actually exists. It is only avaliable to GNAA members. Why would we give our tools away?

    2. Re:zoy.org!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fair point.
      Assuming you're a real live GNAA member ... got a question for you;
      Why? Why fill forums and 'blogs with crap? Is their a conscience aspect to it, or is it just done for an amoral thrill?

    3. Re:zoy.org!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disruption. Chaos. We get a thrill out of seeing people freak out, especially when they are forced to view lots of gay porno and obscene pictures.

    4. Re:zoy.org!? by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      Firefox too is immune from LastMeasure.

    5. Re:zoy.org!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No its not!

    6. Re:zoy.org!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not by default, but go into about:config (copy/paste into location bar) and set privacy.popups.disable_from_plugins to 2. This will disable all Flash popups (which Last Measure uses), pwning it if you ever get redirected there again.

      In Firefox 1.5, this option will be set to 2 out of the box.

    7. Re:zoy.org!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how you managed to find this particular website (the LM one) without finding the other, interesting stuff that would make you think this might be serious.

      The guy is a Debian developer, a VLC developer (and has been since a long time), he wrote libcaca (which, incidently, has already made /. too), genethumb.sh (which is quite widely used), etc. He obviously can code.

      If I had coded such a thing, I'd probably think thrice about publishing it. Think about the legal problems (ask jlj), the unpleasant surprise to see your code used by script kiddies everywhere, etc., etc. And what details would you want? He details weaknesses of the different captchas. Detailing the algorithms used for exploiting them would be as bas as releasing the code, at least from a legal POV.

    8. Re:zoy.org!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not by default means its vulnerable.

  79. Goatse Man by Inda · · Score: 5, Informative

    Thanks for linking the Goatse Man image in the article. Oh how I've missed being tricked into viewing thee.

    The link is not work safe.

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
    1. Re:Goatse Man by Siva · · Score: 3, Funny

      But the image is distorted, so while you might be able to determine what it is, your Manager-Bot won't.

      --

      Keyboard not found.
      Press F1 to continue.
    2. Re:Goatse Man by greed · · Score: 1

      Until you pointed it out, I hadn't figured out what that image was supposed to be....

      Without colour, he just isn't the same.

      Fortunately.

    3. Re:Goatse Man by Spit · · Score: 1

      It is my manager

      --
      POKE 36879,8
  80. Give this guy a medal... by Gruneun · · Score: 1

    I don't care if his code works or not. He got every person to look at the goatse picture, whether they realized it or not.

    In fact, I kinda hope the whole site was an elaborate practical joke just for that purpose.

  81. Nice discussion here on /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is one of the few cases when goatse jokes are on topic.

  82. So how do blind people post? by tepples · · Score: 1

    You only need to fill in the Captcha for posting comments. Otherwise, blind people can access the rest of my site unhindered.

    So you have intentionally shut out blind people for posting comments. Prepare for some heated e-mails from the first blind person who really, really wants to post a comment. They only start polite.

  83. Monopoly by tepples · · Score: 1

    Only governments should have compulsory support for visual impaired users. For the rest of the pages it's a bonus if they decide to support those people.

    I assume your argument is that a competitor could make money by picking up the disabled customers that the discriminatory company left behind, but that's not always the case. Take as an example the company providing electric power. In many familiar jurisdictions, the power company holds a local monopoly. If the power company discriminates against blind people, then do you expect blind people to go without electricity?

  84. Instead of CAPTCHA... by m3j00 · · Score: 1

    Why not just show a picture of an object and you a multiple choice answer of what it is?

    1. Re:Instead of CAPTCHA... by schmiddy · · Score: 1

      Why not just show a picture of an object and you a multiple choice answer of what it is?

      Well, an obvious problem is you'd have to spend time manually compiling a database of objects and their corresponding pictures. And then it'd only take one spammer to continually load your form, and create a hash of all (or even just many) of the picture->word pairs and your system would be defeated.

      However.. this game called Guess the google made me think of a new possibility.. You could have a list of a a few thousand simple words, and automatically pull up the first 20 google images for that work (like in the game) and just have people guess the word. Would be much harder for a spammer to create a table of all the image->word correlations, because you'd be able to use most simple words in the dictionary. Possibly even give users a few guesses in the case of a hard-to-guess word. And a lot more fun than having to squint at mangled random letters in colorful font to boot.

      --
      http://cltracker.net -- powerful craigslist multi-city search
    2. Re:Instead of CAPTCHA... by MrP-(at+work) · · Score: 1

      Or.. you could read the damn article and see that a pictures are also shown as examples (elephant, owl, goatse)

      --
      [an error occurred while processing this directive]
    3. Re:Instead of CAPTCHA... by KingNaught · · Score: 1

      Any scheme that had multiple choice answers would be inherently crackable a certain percent of the time. If there were 5 multiple choice answers the odds of the crack succeading would be 1 in 5.

  85. Re:Okay, I know I'm going to feel like an idiot, b by operagost · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm from Holland. Isn't that veird?

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  86. Weed out stupid people? Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot would only have maybe ten posts per article...

    (and I can barely read the capcha here, is it "chapels?" They're only weeding out old people!)

  87. Defeating SS Captcha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This is because pulling non-random signal out of random noise in a moving system is a lot easier than in a static singular system."

    Spread-Spectrum Communications.

    1. Re:Defeating SS Captcha by Krach42 · · Score: 1

      ok, you misread. Partly because I spoke poorly.

      static singular system = a single snapshot of time from a system.

      Try doing Spread-Spectrum Communications when given a singular RF pulse. Tell me who sent what, and what they were trying to say.

      Can't be done. But now give them regular modulations and movement, and add a time factor, and you can pick it up.

      --

      I am unamerican, and proud of it!
  88. Even if you're not a government agency by tepples · · Score: 1

    Unless you're a government agency, you can lock people out of your web site for any reason at all.

    If you use a web site to engage in commerce among the states, the web site falls under congressional jurisdiction. If you use a web site to engage in commerce related to a contract with the U.S. Government, the web site even more obviously falls under congressional jurisdiction. Likewise, if your business has a government-granted monopoly such as a public utility franchise, the web site falls under the jurisdiction of the agency that granted the franchise.

  89. i doubt it ... by Heisenbug · · Score: 1

    Hashcash is useful, perhaps, in stopping spam, which is only worthwhile when sent in the millions. Things protected by CAPTCHA systems, like new email accounts and slashdot posts, tend to be worthwhile to the attacker in thousands instead. The maximum I'm going to tolerate as a user is about one minute of hashing, which works out to 1440 solutions per day ...

    Do you think yahoo mail will be happy if a particular blackhat box only registers 1440 new accounts per day? Will you and I be happy if a particular slashdot troll only posts 1440 comments per day? Will an average user prefer sitting there doing nothing for 60 seconds, instead of typing in a few letters in a picture?

  90. Cwazymail by davidpmacdonald · · Score: 1

    Which of the following would be the textual description of the second pic (http://www.videolan.org/pwntcha/goatse-captcha.jp g) for the Cwazymail implementation?
    ASSRIPPING
    OUCH!
    DEARGOD!
    I_CAN_SEE_HIS_TEETH

  91. Limit rate of account creation too by tepples · · Score: 1

    Do you think yahoo mail will be happy if a particular blackhat box only registers 1440 new accounts per day?

    By the time a single IP address has generated enough hashcash to create ten new accounts in 24 hours, red flags should go off that this machine is either a spam bot (bad), an open proxy (bad), or an ISP's proxy (which can be verified by a human being).

    1. Re:Limit rate of account creation too by Heisenbug · · Score: 1

      By the time a single IP address has generated enough hashcash to create ten new accounts ..

      Sure, but that technique applies whether you're using hashcash or captcha or neither (my, what annoying names). It doesn't say anything about which of *them* we should use to deter bots, if we've found that setting a reasonable IP limit doesn't work.

      Another good example: captcha is often used to stop bots in online computer games. In this example, hashcash and IP filtering would be useless -- only a functional test of real-humanness will have the desired effect.

  92. Dictionary attack by tepples · · Score: 1

    You suggested asking an easy trivia question, basing your example on traffic law. Watch a computer just build up a database of all the possible questions. In addition, how would a fellow with a red-green color deficiency, who sees "top light, middle light, bottom light" in a traffic signal, be able to answer your question correctly?

    1. Re:Dictionary attack by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      Even if you're red/green blind, you still know that red = stop and green = go. It's something that gets emphasized in all of the traffic books I've seen. None of my colourblind friends have ever had a problem knowing that concept at an intellectual level, even though they can't personally see the difference... besides which, it was an example.

      As for watching a computer build up a database of all the possible questions... a human still has to answer the questions if the computer isn't intelligent enough to know what is being asked of it. Sure, a computer could build up a database of all of the possible questions, but it would have to be smart enough to understand the instructions given (do you want me to type the phrase I see, or answer it?), and there's nothing to stop you from expanding the dictionary.

      The only way to lock something like that down and prevent spammers it to make it by invitation only. If the messageboard/blog/whatever isn't invitation only, then anybody can log in and post.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
  93. potentially NSFW by bugnuts · · Score: 1

    There's a perturbed image (aren't they all?) of goatse embedded in possible captcha implementations. Browse carefully.

    Reminds me of the old days of slashdot landmines!

  94. Fines by tepples · · Score: 1

    why should I spend $10,000 to make my facilities handicap accessible if there is no net profit to me?

    Because you run the risk of being fined $50,000 under anti-discrimination laws if you don't.

  95. Does "phone" include a TTY with a braille wheel? by tepples · · Score: 1

    So, that captcha cuts out those people who have an internet connection AND have no phone AND are blind.

    I'm assuming that a TTY connected to a braille wheel counts as a "phone" in your analysis, right?

  96. Ugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else notice the center image under the "Cwazymail" entry? It's rather disgusting, once you figure it out.

  97. It's much easier if you just invert the test... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just display a jpeg with a Steganograph message. If the client can decode it, then it's not human.

    Ok, I'm off to the PTO...

    1. Re:It's much easier if you just invert the test... by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      But the spambot could just _pretend_ that it didn't understand.

      Plus you're discriminating against autistic people who can read the steganographic messages in jpg files ;-)

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  98. Jingoism ahoy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were grateful for being liberated. However, gratefulness isn't a blank check to do and say whatever you want and it doesn't last forever. Too be honest I don't recall any Americans clamering for the liberation of Belgium, it just happened to lie in the way to Berlin.

    I assume you weren't in WWII yourself and are an armchair general.

  99. One problem about Captchas. by SharpFang · · Score: 1

    They are just as good at filtering off bots, as at stopping me from registering when I'm drunk.

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  100. It takes time to expand a dictionary by tepples · · Score: 1

    a human still has to answer the questions if the computer isn't intelligent enough to know what is being asked of it.

    And once humans have fed correct answers for at least 25 percent of the 10,000 questions into the spam bot's database, the computer can handle the rest.

    and there's nothing to stop you from expanding the dictionary.

    Except human time. It would take nearly as long to build up a spam bot resistant dictionary as it would to moderate comments the old fashioned way.

  101. D'oh! by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    And I just added captcha to the comment posting system on my blog! >_

    Oh well, atleast my other antispam measures will still work.

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  102. Audio by phorm · · Score: 1

    Some sites include an "audio" link by the captchya. I believe that it was yahoo I recently visited to download messenging software, and the captcha had an option to listen to an audio clip that would tell you what to enter.

  103. Irony by JCY2K · · Score: 1

    This article about captcha being unnecessary and useless needed to pass one. Does anyone else find that as funny as I do?

  104. Here's an idea by 5n3ak3rp1mp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought about this problem on a recent trip to the urinal and here's what I got.

    1) Get (or construct) a large database of nouns of well-known objects (car, orange, bottle, phone, pencil, brick, cup, etc. etc.)

    2) Retrieve image references from a (safesearch-enabled) Google image search for a random noun from your database. Pick randomly from the result set.

    3) Present images to the user. "These are pictures of a..."

    4) My next strategy was to figure out a combinatorial way to increase the number of possible replies so that an attacker couldn't simply create a database of knowns (such as a hash database of images)

    What do you smart fellers think? other than google being pissed for scraping their site

  105. Don't make them too hard by assassinator42 · · Score: 1

    A while ago, Slashdot was using captchas so messy that I didn't even know what they said. I'd pretty much always get the "try your reply again" thing, until I sent an email and stopped having to do the captcha. Now, I see they're easier. But still annoying. On yahoo, I fail, oh, lets say, 1 out of 8 times to correctly imput the word. Now, I do have bad vision, but I'm not blind.

  106. To cure the suspense... by jd · · Score: 1
    Belgium is, as correctly noted by another poster, a realtively harmless country. This has made it the butt of satire in England for a great many years. (IIRC, Douglas Adams' "Meaning of Liff" defines Belgium as a swearword.)


    It DOES have its problems - members of the Government and police force are suspected of being directly involved in human trafficking, for example - but it is certainly no worse than any other.


    To most English, though, Belgium is mostly associated with beer, chocolate and Hercule Poirot. Other than that, the only thing exceptional about Belgium is how utterly unexceptional the country is.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:To cure the suspense... by tylernt · · Score: 1

      "IIRC, Douglas Adams' "Meaning of Liff" defines Belgium as a swearword"

      Maybe he did in that book too, but 'Belgium' is the most dreadfully profane thing that a person can say in HHGttG. One guy at a flying party even won an award for the most Gratuitous Use of that word in a Serious Screenplay -- the Rory, IIRC.

      --
      DRM 'manages access' in the same way that a prison 'manages freedom'
  107. Eye-'CU' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The only potentially viable mechanism for doing this sort of thing involves dynamic creation of the images using random number generators to perturb the image in ways that are of similar color to the test, using color variation on the text to fool stochastic methods, using foreground masking of the text (i.e. lines that go in front of the text, not just behind it), and using a wide enough variety of fonts, some of which should be things like cursive fonts with variable baselines. That really makes OCR mad."

    Or use Optical Illusions*. Or homonyms to increse problem space.

    *Same works for the other senses.

    1. Re:Eye-'CU' by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      The problem with homonyms are that they fall into the category of something requiring human effort to generate, and thus you will only be able to reasonably come up with a certain number of them. With a limited problem space, caching all of the answers for the possible problems becomes more effective than actually trying to solve the problem.

      You'd be hard-pressed to find an optical illusion that works on a computer screen and generates something human-readable, though I can think of one that might---the use of negative space. Alternate between positive and negative space to generate letters. Of course, this still can be figured out by more sophisticated use of statistics, and still falls into the category of color variation, albeit a more subtle variation of it....

      Other optical illusions (dot patterns and "tell me what image pops out") fall into the same category as the homonyms---that the problem space is limited. Now if someone could come up with a mechanism to take arbitrary photos, determine the most critical lines, and convert those into dot-pattern illusions in an automated fashion without human intervention, then the entire world-wide web could be the problem space, using google's image search for random words out of a dictionary.

      Of course, again, you'd sometimes have problems where the words wouldn't match what you were really seeing, and more importantly, if someone could figure out your source dictionary, one could still reverse-engineer the problem space... it would just take a lot longer and require a lot more storage and bandwidth. You -might- be able to make it impractical to do, although probably not impossible... and maybe that would be good enough. I'm not sure..

      Of course, once we get holographic storage, even that approach is pretty much screwed. Once you superimpose two copies of the image with a relatively trivial 3d transform, you will make the image stand out. Then do some statistical analysis to separate the image from the noise and feed that to holographic storage, which will them essentially tell you the locations of the images most closely matching. Expect Google to do this sort of image matching by 2010 or so, as it is the obvious next step in search technology. At that point, you'd be able to fully reverse even something as extreme as the above....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Eye-'CU' by BlueHands · · Score: 1

      It's funny because looking at a number of the comment regarding escalation, it is obvious (to me) that in the very near future,5 or 10 years at most, that you can have automated systems that will be equal to or out perform most people on most tests.

      If (When?) that happens all of these tests will be worse then useless. There must be another, better answer established that will allow for anonymous verification of people. I don't know what that better method is but more of the same is not going to do it.

      --
      I mod everyone down who says "I'll get modded down for this." I hate to disappoint.
  108. Rehabilitation Act by tepples · · Score: 1

    Last I checked, the ADA didn't apply to websites.

    Possibly. But section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act does apply to web sites of companies that sell products to the U.S. Government.

  109. Avoiding defeat... by Spudley · · Score: 1

    Suggested additional methods of preventing CAPTCHA defeat:

    1. Change the instructions so that it isn't always "type these characters". Maybe "type the first three characters", etc. Randomise this element.

    2. Use the technique that spammers love: replace characters in your CAPTCHA with similar-looking, but non-standard ones; the word will still be readable, but will foil font-based algorithms.

    3. Divide the image into small blocks, cutting across characters, and with randomised cutting points. Display them together on the page, and the user need never know the difference, but a bot is much more likely to choke.

    4. Use Javascript to load the image, so that a bot that doesn't process JS won't ever see the image.

    5. Better still, load a dummy image in HTML, and overlay it with another in JS. Legitimate users will see the overlaid image; bots will see the original one, and therefore get it wrong in a predictable way, even if they can decipher the graphic. Could be a good way to spot the dodgy user right from the beginning (yes, it would also catch users with JS turned off... but in these days of Ajax, who does that?)

    6. Use hieroglyphics rather than alphabetic characters: show a couple of easily recognised icons or pictures, and ask the user to identify them.

    7. Trap IP addresses, etc of users that fail the test. Increase the difficulty of the test for IPs that have previously failed.

    That's all I can think of for now. I'm sure some of them won't really be workable (and I'm sure the slashdot crowd will gleefully tell me so!), but hopefully there's something useful and new in that lot. :)

    (btw - is it deliberate that CAPTCHA sounds so similar to GOTCHA?)

    --
    (Spudley Strikes Again!)
  110. omg Cwazymail's BLINDINGLY image! by Maxhrk · · Score: 0

    when i read that website by scrolling down to observe each examples...

    WHen i came across 'defeated' section and find mind-blowing Cwazymail's second image next to elephant...

    it promptly make me remember since that day i click on that OTHER site and it scars me forever. Tragedy.

    (excuse my crappy grammar)

  111. your problem is similar to DMCA proponents by jbellis · · Score: 1

    you say, "textual tests would do just as well."

    DMCA advocates say, "content protection can stop bad guys without inconveniencing good guys."

    Both are flat-out wrong in the real world.

    The good news is, you have a potentially bright career ahead of you in politics.

    1. Re:your problem is similar to DMCA proponents by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 1

      I said textual tests would do just as well as the visual ones.

      I have not at any time said anything about whether Turing tests to filter out non-humans are generally a good idea or not.

      I'm not sure what politics has to do with this, other than that tending to put words in other people's mouths is one trait you share with them.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  112. I have an idea by Eightyford · · Score: 1

    I've been thinking about a good way to defeat Captcha. When the bot sees the captcha image it automatically displays it at a 'helper' site. This site could be some random pop-up from a spyware program that asks the user to then write down the word in the Captcha image. The bot then uses the entry from the Spyware affected person to enter the original website.

    I don't need to break any sites myself, but I'm sure that this would work.

  113. I am sympathetic by SethJohnson · · Score: 1



    It will be interesting if a blind person does post a comment on my site. I do advocate for the ADA and am a web programmer for a govt. agency where I have to argue against my co-workers using non-ADA compliant content types like PDF, FLASH, POWERPOINT, and MS Word docs on our web sites. I think that for a blind person, the internet can really expose them to a lot of stuff that's difficult to interpret in hardcopy.

    So, I'm not saying that the visually impared are unwelcome on my personal website. It's just that I've made a judgement call between suffering comment spam and excluding a minority of people who would ever be interested in the stuff on my website. Similarly, I was plagued by Brazillian script kiddies attacking my server, so I put firewall rules in place that block all connections from Brazil. Just to save bandwidth, I also eliminated connections from Australia, China, Taiwan, and a few other countries. My website is about skateboarding in Austin, and the intended audience isn't really people in those countries. This may seem like an arbitrarily unfair case of discrimination on my part, but that's my right as an independent internet publisher.

    Seth

  114. ADADADADADADADADADALOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Having a legally blind mother that uses the web, I wonder how captcha complies with the Americans With Disabilities Act (when used by American companies of course)?


    Is it compatible with BLINUX? I think by definition it is not.


    Perhaps I should ask, what alternate method of identification do sights employ to take into account blind users and the ADA?



    Fuck off

  115. Multi-color or grayscale is a mistake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    A lot of the captchas using colors and grayscale. The incorrect reasoning behind this is a) they are harder to read and therefore harder to AI-read and b) those are good anti-counterfieting measures so they must make the system more secure!

    Wrong wrong wrong. For the human eye, the difference between gray_level = 123 and gray_level = 124 is almost imperceptible but for software, they're as different as a one and a zero. Color is the same situation. If you try to make a captcha difficult by putting in a nice color background, well, the software can just threshold out the color and threshold out grayscale.

    The best format would be one-bit images, with letters that are not evenly spaced, not all the same font, not all the same alignment, and yes, with some noise thrown in. The noise should not be in the form of simple straight lines. But it should be one bit, not grayscale or color.

  116. Totally fake by VAXGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This article is a fraud. No source is presented, and goatse.cx is displayed in the examples. This whole thing was contrived just to get goatse.cx in a legitimate front page post. Best troll in years.

    --
    this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
    1. Re:Totally fake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your claim is bogus : as you can check on the footer on mirrordot, the page had not been modified for four months (2005-04-27) before making Slashdot. The author was obviously not prepared for /., or he'd have immediately set up a mirror. Plus, he gives good reasons for not releasing the code - I'm sure nobody in their right mind would say he would not face legal threats if he released the source code.

      The goatse was added later, as a joke probably. There is nothing to support your assertion that the article was meant to lead to Goatse.

  117. In other news... by Media+Tracker · · Score: 1

    In other news, here's the world's most secure captcha (as seen on this page), and here's the world's sickest captcha (as seen on Google).

  118. Goatse in TFA by shaitand · · Score: 1

    There is a not so distorted goatse image about 3/4 of the way down the page. Beware.

  119. Offtopic: Belgians by Sique · · Score: 1

    As the Belgians are the inventors of French fries (they should in fact be called Belgian fries!), deal with the fact that they probably know how to handle fries correctly. I myself don't like either ketchup or mayonaise on my fries, just a little salt.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
    1. Re:Offtopic: Belgians by nzhavok · · Score: 1

      They are called french fries because of the way the potato is cut, not because they are french.

      --

      He who defends everything, defends nothing. -- Fredrick The Great
    2. Re:Offtopic: Belgians by Sique · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are often completely understandable reasons why something is misleadingly called. It doesn't change the fact, that the naming is misleading.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  120. Re:Okay, I know I'm going to feel like an idiot, b by jonadab · · Score: 1

    > Is "Belgium" just a funny word?

    Well, say it a few times. Does it _sound_ funny? Think about whether it sounds funny, while you're saing it, repeatedly. *Now* does it sound funny?

    (This trick works with most words, BTW.)

    Actually, the real issue with the word "Belgium" is that Douglas Adams wrote things about it that could be interpreted as disparaging, so all real geeks have to think it's a bit off, or they lose their geek card.

    --
    Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
  121. Not Fake at All by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a GNAA member.

    Sam does not release his code becuase it may very well give websites we target a "heads up". The fact that there are naysayers like you just proves this point - why give away the code if it would belay skepticism?

    I do have a copy of the code in question. Its nothing fancy. It uses off the shelf open source software and graphics libraries. This is the fact that should be alarming - that a single individual can put only a little bit of effort to defeat what people seem to think is the pinnacle of anti-spam security on the WWW.

    But hey, if no one belives me, then its still advantageous for me. I can continue signing up thousands of accounts and no one will ever be the wiser.

  122. No, that would be me by FatAssBastard · · Score: 1

    Thanks so much...

    --
    /.: why the hell am I here?