Somewhere on teh intarweb "Chris Lim" typed:
> On Jul 3, 1:48 pm, "~misfit~" <misfit6...@hooya.com.au> wrote:
>> Somewhere on teh intarweb "Cima" typed:
>>
>>> Gotta love these things, **** poor images that can't be read:
>>> http://i25.tinypic.com/98gkty.png
>>> Too many hoops, not worth the hassle!
>>
>> Yup. As cracking software gets better, CAPTCHAs have to get more
>> complex. Definitely a PITA.
>
> They are definitely a pain. Surely it can't be that hard to make
> something easily recognisable by a human but not a computer?
I've seen one which had line drawings of animals and you had to say what
animal it was. However, brute-force cracking would probably sort that one
out pronto. As soon as "they" what set of animals you're using it's probably
easier to crack than the one in the URL above.
> There are
> heaps of optical illusions that show how great the brain is seeing
> patterns which a computer would have trouble recognising (or is the
> cracking software really that sophisticated now?)
That's an interesting idea, I'm sure someone will be working on it. However,
I would have thought that image processing software is far better at finding
things in images than the human brain.
I think that it'll come down to email/response for places where CAPTCHAs are
used, with perhaps a question in the email that need to be answered
correctly. However, that'll probably get 'cracked' quite quickly too.
Whoever finds an answer for this dilemma will stand to make some real money
from it.
Cheers,
--
Shaun.
DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me
offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it.
If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to
me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate...