[159853] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Suggestions for the future on your web site: (was cookies, and
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Barak)
Thu Jan 24 12:33:43 2013
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:33:19 -0800 (PST)
From: David Barak <thegameiam@yahoo.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <20130124160050.GH10784@dyn.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
=0A=0A=0A=0A--- On Thu, 1/24/13, Andrew Sullivan <asullivan@dyn.com> wrote:=
=0A> Lately, AFAICT, most CAPTCHAs have=0A> been so=0A> successfully attack=
ed by wgetters that they're quite easy=0A> for machines=0A> to break, but d=
ifficult for humans to use.=A0 For=0A> example, I can testify=0A> that I no=
w fail about 25% of the reCAPTCHA challenges I=0A> perform,=0A> because the=
images are so distorted I just can't make them=0A> out (it's=0A> much wors=
e on my mobile, given the combination if its small=0A> screen and=0A> my mi=
ddle-aged eyes).=0A> =0A> So it's now more like airport security: a big has=
sle for=0A> the=0A> legitimate users but not really much of a barrier for a=
=0A> real=0A> attacker.=A0 A poor trade-off.=0A=0A+1000=0A=0AI routinely fa=
il CAPTCHAs, and am certainly less accurate than a decent machine at the OC=
R required. Those of us whose eyes don't correct to 20/20 would greatly ap=
preciate some other form of "slow down the spammers" than this. =0A=0ADavi=
d Barak=0ANeed Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: =0Ahttp://www.listentothefran=
chise.com
