Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Researchers Dare AI Experts To Crack New GOTCHA Password Scheme

Posted by samzenpus on from the broken-in-3-2-1 dept.

alphadogg writes "If you can't tell the difference between an inkblot that looks more like 'body builder lady with mustache and goofy in the center' than 'large steroid insect with big eyes,' then you can't crack passwords protected via a new scheme created by computer scientists that they've dubbed GOTCHA. GOTCHA, a snappy acronym for the decidedly less snappy Generating panOptic Turing Tests to Tell Computers and Humans Apart, is aimed at stymying hackers from using computers to figure out passwords, which are all too often easy to guess. GOTCHA, like its ubiquitous cousin CAPTCHA, relies on visual cues that typically only a human can appreciate. The researchers don't think that computers can solve the puzzles and have issued a challenge to fellow security researchers to use artificial intelligence to try to do so. You can find the GOTCHA Challenge here."

14 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I feel like they mind as well have asked me to paint a picture which best conveys my ex-girlfriend's LiveJournal post from 2001.

  2. tried it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Turns out i am a computer. Couldn't have figured it out myself!

    1. Re:tried it by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Turns out i am a computer. Couldn't have figured it out myself!

      This. Even with the answers, I can't recognize the features those descriptions supposedly refer to... "Little birdies facing eachother on the bottom and little bees flying away from eachother on top"??? WTF? Does anyone actually see the birds and bees the captions keep referring to?

      Dear security researchers - Any clever scheme that humans have trouble dealing with, will fail, no matter how "secure" you consider it. I can remember "correct horse battery staple" (with 1 through 9 tacked on at the end to get around annoying domain password history restrictions, of course - Case in point!). ln TFA's case, I'd probably need to keep a goddamned picture of my password in my wallet to compare against each time I log in.

    2. Re:tried it by Dachannien · · Score: 5, Informative

      Presumably, in a real-world scenario, you give your own labels when you register for an account. This would hopefully mean you would form a persistent correlation between the labels and the images. But their multicolor inkblots are so indistinct from each other that I think I would have difficulty labeling each image in the first place.

    3. Re:tried it by CastrTroy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Carrying around your password in your wallet is probably safe enough for most people. People carry money, credit cards, all kinds of valuable things in their wallet. Probably safer than using an insecure password.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  3. You've gotta be kidding me by artor3 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did the researchers ever try having someone not on their team pass this test? There's no way anyone could figure out which ink blot is which unless they were involved in the naming process.

    1. Re:You've gotta be kidding me by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find it rather hard as well. Imagine how well color-blind people will do at this test. Or people from other cultures / countries. People for whom English is a second language.

      Not to mention the fact that if I'd find something this convoluted on an account creation page, I'd most likely leave and never come back. CAPTCHAs are already bad enough.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    2. Re:You've gotta be kidding me by blane.bramble · · Score: 5, Informative

      That is the whole point I believe - as part of the process *you* name the ink blots that were generated for you. Then next time you log in you match them back up.

    3. Re:You've gotta be kidding me by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Funny

      And I go over to the psychologist, and he says, "Emo, what does this inkblot look like to you?"
      I said, "Oh, it's kind of embarrassing."
      He said, "Emo, everyone sees something, so don't be embarrassed. Tell me what the inkblot looks like to you."
      I said, "Well, to me it looks like standard pattern #3 in the Rorschach series to test obsessive compulsiveness."
      ..and he gets kind of depressed.
      I said, "Okay, it's a butterfly." and he cheers up.

      He said, "What does this inkblot look like?"
      I said, "It looks like a horrible ugly blob of pure evil that sucks the souls of man into a vortex of sin and degradation."
      He said, "No, um, the inkblot's over there. That's a photo of my wife you're looking at."
      "Oh," I said, "was I far off?"
      He said, "No. That's the sad part."

      - Emo Philips

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  4. Bwahaha! by Ignacio · · Score: 5, Funny

    I dare them to take their scheme to the streets and fairly find 1000 people that can get them right.

  5. Re:hooray, eggheads by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It might actually be worse, since the scheme describes providing a list of descriptions to choose from, one of which is the one that the user originally provided when the inkblot was generated.

    Any CAPTCHA-style scheme that has to rely on a list of options (either because the cues are too vague, or because the answers aren't trivially expressible with a mouse and keyboard(or, now, a touchscreen...) inherently runs into the issue that even a bot of essentially zero skill can now achieve a 1/n success rate, for an n length list of options; by pure chance. Unless you want to piss off your users a lot, 1/n is probably actually going to be unnervingly good starting odds, for a trivial scraper-level bot, and the options list also means that any more sophisticated AI approach has a relatively small and discrete universe of possibilities to deal with.

  6. Re:Challenge Declined by Alarash · · Score: 5, Funny

    Too bad for you, because C# is an awesome language that absolutely doesn't require Windows or .NET or Mono.

  7. Re:hooray, eggheads by tftp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A common man who cares about being able to remember an inkblot later on would describe it with specifics, like "five blue on top and three blue on bottom." This is quite parseable by a computer. The associative descriptions that the authors are hoping for are just not going to happen. Never. An association is a fleeting thing, especially when you are dealing with a random inkblot.

    Far more importantly, the inconvenience of matching those images will be so great that the web sites will lose audience, and the site owner will drop this stupidity.

    Most importantly, the method does not protect the customer - it only protects the web site owner. (A hacker can always figure out, with patience and time, which description fits what inkblot.) This means that millions of customers will be forced to endure this torture just for convenience of the site operator. This isn't going to fare well.

  8. like bad cryptography by stenvar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is kind of like people used to design cryptography before there were sound mathematical and information theoretic results: "Hey, this looks complicated to us. It must be a good crypto algorithm. Bet you can't break it."

    Unlike cryptography, this actually looks like a solution in search of a problem.