[159816] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Suggestions for the future on your web site: (was cookies, and
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (oscar.vives@gmail.com)
Wed Jan 23 07:20:41 2013
In-Reply-To: <20130123084542.GB17249@gsp.org>
From: " ." <oscar.vives@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:20:07 +0100
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 23 January 2013 09:45, Rich Kulawiec <rsk@gsp.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 02:23:53AM -0600, Jimmy Hess wrote:
>> that sort of abuse is likely need to be protected against
>> via a captcha challenge as well,
>
> Once again: captchas have zero security value. They either defend
> (a) resources worth attacking or (b) resources not worth attacking. If i=
t's
> (a) then they can and will be defeated as soon as someone chooses to
> trouble themselves to do so. If it's (b) then they're not worth the
> effort to deploy. See, for example:
CAPTCHAS are a "defense in depth" that reduce the number of spam
incidents to a number manageable by humans.
Not all bot writers have the same quality. A lot of them are crappy.
Because of this, maybe are worth the effort.
--
--
=E2=84=B1in del =E2=84=B3ensaje.
