×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Research Unveils Improved Method To Let Computers Know You Are Human

Unknown Lamer posted about 4 months ago | from the until-computers-improve dept.

Security 91

An anonymous reader writes CAPTCHA services that require users to recognize and type in static distorted characters may be a method of the past, according to studies published by researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Researchers focused on a broad form of gamelike CAPTCHAs, called dynamic cognitive game, or DCG, CAPTCHAs, which challenge the user to perform a gamelike cognitive task interacting with a series of dynamic images. For example, in a "ship parking" DCG challenge, the user is required to identify the boat from a set of moving objects and drag-and-drop it to the available "dock" location. The puzzle is easy for the human user to solve, but may be difficult for a computer program to figure out. The game-like nature may make the process more engaging for the user compared to conventional text-based CAPTCHAs. There are a couple research papers available: "A Three-Way Investigation of a Game-CAPTCHA: Automated Attacks, Relay Attacks and Usability" and "Dynamic Cognitive Game CAPTCHA Usability and Detection of Streaming-Based Farming."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47700815)

Just like playing a game of Warioware...

Re: I get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701241)

Except this means I probably have to have the buggy piece of shit known as flash enabled. If any site does this, I'm out. So don't you dare think of doing this Slashdot, or you'll lose more users than when you implemented beta.

Re: I get it (1)

bombman (87339) | about 4 months ago | (#47701311)

Im sure such a simple game could be done in html5 ...

Re: I get it (1)

AC-x (735297) | about 4 months ago | (#47701739)

HTML5? You don't need HTML5 to animate a few divs moving around, hell it'd be easy enough to make something that works as far back as IE6.

Re:I get it (3, Insightful)

Inconexo (1401585) | about 4 months ago | (#47701323)

Those games may be "engaging" when you want to play a game. When I want to do something different in the Internet, I feel more like annoyed.

I... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47700821)

I generally just close the page whenever I see one of those awful text based captcha, where you have to squint at the screen to even be able to tell 10% of the time what is written on those awful blurry squiggles.
Whatever you're selling, unless I can read it and type it easily/quickly, it ain't worth my time.

Re:I... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47700849)

I generally just close the page whenever I see one of those awful text based captcha, where you have to squint at the screen to even be able to tell 10% of the time what is written on those awful blurry squiggles. Whatever you're selling, unless I can read it and type it easily/quickly, it ain't worth my time.

you sound like the helpless baby boomers that bug the staff and ask questions when the answer to those questions is right in front of them. dont you have a homeowners association to run, a voting booth to visit, or a AARP magazine to read?

Re:I... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701099)

you sound like the helpless University Students that bug the staff and ask questions when the answer to those questions is right in front of them.

There...fixed that for you.

Re: I... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701271)

That's because nowadays everyone "should" go to university. Universities are no longer places of higher learning, but rather just four years to waste daddy's money partying while "studying" women's studies or literature. And with grade inflation, these students get 4.0s and graduate without having even the basics of critical thinking. And that's why weverything is getting dumbed down (reality TV, Apple products, common sense disclaimers and warnings on everything, etc.)

And our corporate masters love it.

Re: I... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47703617)

You, Sir, have clearly not seen the first ten minutes of the movie Idiocracy.

Re:I... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701443)

1) Bad eyesight is a real thing, like any disability, and you don't have to be old to suffer from it. Some people find captchas simply impossible to read, no matter how bright they are;

2) Captchas are merely evidence that techies are not smart enough to think of any way to solve a problem but by burdening the user. I suppose it goes with the territory that they'd also blame the user who doesn't like them. "It's your problem now and it's your fault if you don't like it!" - great pride in your work there, chump;

3) A homeowners' association is one of those things that contributes Community and ultimately Society, both of which which Reagan tried to pretend didn't exist. A generation or two later, and we have one dying empire and world laughing stock. Well played, idiots!

4) When you criticised voting, you lost entirely.

I'm in my early 30s, so I'm far from Baby Boomer, but I'm not an ignorant, ungrateful little shit either.

Re:I... (2)

jgdnavy (3688251) | about 4 months ago | (#47701709)

While I mostly agree with you, and have seen more than one CAPTCHA that I can't solve no matter how many times I refresh, I have to disagree with you on the homeowners' association. While I agree that community is a good thing, and am in favor of community leagues that actually focus on community issues instead of rules about paint colors and whether basketball goals are allowed, almost every homeowner's association I've seen has been a way for the couple of people with the time and desire for control to override individual's property rights. Two homes ago, we were not allowed to use anything besides standard white mini-blinds in our houses, and at my last place there were only two colors that shutters and doors were allowed to be painted, and my landlord (an individual homeowner, not a complex) had to strip and restain his deck because at some point after he originally stained it they decided the previously allowed colors were no longer allowed.

Re:I... (1)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 4 months ago | (#47702373)

at some point after he originally stained it they decided the previously allowed colors were no longer allowed.

Homeowners associations have very little actual power. I would have told the home owner's association to take a hike.
You can't make a law after the fact. If this is true there is no way this would have held up in court. I've heard rumors of
crazy homeowner's associations demanding crazy stuff but to actually enforce it is expensive as you have to take
them to court to enforce it and many times the court will still decide in the actual homeowner's favor.

Re:I... (1)

sudon't (580652) | about 4 months ago | (#47705479)

Off topic, but, are you kidding? These homeowners associations are in the news all the time for the egregious stuff they perpetrate. Just one memorable example: They took the paid-for home of a soldier who missed some assessment because he was busy fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. He only got it back when the media caught on to it, and his congressman stepped in. Do you really think that contract you signed isn't enforceable?

Re:I... (1)

Wycliffe (116160) | about 4 months ago | (#47708937)

The only news story I've ever seen was one in florida where an old person's neighborhood was attempting to evict someone
because they had a "no children" policy. The media was as usual making a big deal about it but the homeowner's association
had spent months trying to evict her. Yes, the contracts are enforceble and if you're in the wrong then you can be found guilty
in court but it's a long drawn out process for both sides. Where I'm from (middle of missouri), there are all kinds of crazy
clauses like how many bushes you are suppose to have but most people take them as suggestions instead of rules and you
can go through any neighborhood and see dozens of violations. Which by the way is how it plays out in court. If you can
show that the rule is selectively enforced (for instance your neighbor already has a fence) then the court will throw out the
rule.

Re: I... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701915)

1) Audio captchas.
2) Techies? Do you know what website this is? If you're reading it, you probably should be in that peer group. If you aren't in that peer group, I understand your frustration with all the voodoo we do. People thought the idea of oral hygiene was pretty kuh-razy and inconvenient at first.
3) Homeowner's associations benefit some people in some communities. I don't care for such a homogenous and bland type of neighborhood, personally. See other responses to your post, they did it better.
4) I forgot what your fourth point was, but I'm done pooping now so I have to wrap this up.

Good luck!

Re: I... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47705055)

1) Not everyone works from mom's sound-proof basement. (Also, while I'm okay with visual captchas , I find audio captchas almost impossible, even though I don't have any measured hearing problems. I assume they've not been subject to so much user testing vs. visual captchas, since they're only used as alternatives for specific circumstances, so the average brain isn't necessarily good at deciphering them);

2) I've developed web sites on and off since late 1995. When I come across a limitation in my skill or the collective ability of my profession, I don't blame the user. Captchas are a sign of our profession's lack of skill at solving a particular problem, and we should make the best effort to make them usable - usability complaints highlight /our/ need to do better, not the user's need to change;

3) Yeah, they acknowledged that some associations can be good, while some can behave ridiculously. But the edicts the latter issue are often unenforceable. On balance - and I've had more experience with similar schemes in Spain than in the US, the former nation being less individualistic and having "owner communities" creating funds for shared amenities from gardens to swimming pools - they've been of great benefit;

4) Well done on your quick transit!

Re:I... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701957)

So you were at most 8 years old when Reagan left office... You sound like all those 20-somethings who were celebrating Thatcher's death, because all they really knew about her was that one of daddies friends lost their job while she was in power.

Re:I... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47702473)

you know what? fuck you, is what...
1. i'm not sure WHAT the intention of the idiotic captchas are, but it is inconveniencing 100% of us for .000001% of the abusers, its simply TSA useless security theatre on the inertnet tubes that annoys us all, and leaves us no 'safer'...

2. frankly, WHY am i made to feel "INHUMAN" because i CAN NOT read some blurred up distorted crap and many times have to cycle through 4-5-6 to get one that is readable... i COMPLETELY sympathize with the original poster who said they simply close the window... i do too, if it isn't something i actually want/need for some reason...

3. so, yeah, i too simply DUMP any site which is not critical to my use, when they show the idiotic captcha crap... there have been more than a few times when i contact some company (IF THEY ACTUALLY MAKE THAT POSSIBLE), and one of the first things i bitch about is the annoying captcha and the postage-stamp-sized 'email' dialog boxes they generously provide for us instead of a stupid fucking email address...

oh, and fuck you again, dingleberry...

Re:I... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47702683)

1. i'm not sure WHAT the intention of the idiotic captchas are, but it is inconveniencing 100% of us for .000001% of the abusers, its simply TSA useless security theatre on the inertnet tubes that annoys us all, and leaves us no 'safer'...

Because even a very small percentage of abusers can have more impact than 100% of the legit users on some sites? Have you not seen some of the sites that don't implement such things and end up with dozens of spam posts for every legit post? Is that somehow less inconvenient, digging through many useless posts to just read comments, compared to something that has to only be done when posting? That sounds like an inconvenience to a larger number of people since there are more readers than posters, so I guess if we are supposed to inconvenience only the smaller group...

Re:I... (1)

GenaTrius (3644889) | about 4 months ago | (#47703007)

Visiting voting booths should not be an old people stereotype.

Re:I... (1)

sudon't (580652) | about 4 months ago | (#47705359)

Since when are insults "informative?"

I'm with the O.P. I can't make out a large percentage of captchas.

How about a way to prove you're a human once (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47700853)

And then never have to do it again?

Re:How about a way to prove you're a human once (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47700911)

Good idea, proven human. Now I'll just identity-theft your ass and I'll be a proven human too!

Re:How about a way to prove you're a human once (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47700923)

It doesn't really cost a lot to buy tons of accounts. Just did some small research, twitter accounts go for 15$ per 1000 on the first site I found.

Captchas help stop that. Perhaps a system like here on slashdot where bad comments get out of view quickly helps even more against spam.

Re:How about a way to prove you're a human once (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 4 months ago | (#47700957)

That's a good idea, I'd really like to see if this AC guy is human. Maybe there's a way for him/her to prove it.....

Re:How about a way to prove you're a human once (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 4 months ago | (#47703921)

Brilliant! Then the next time you log in, you just have to prove you're the same human from last time! Wow, that's so much easier!

Humans are part of the problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47700885)

Not hard for Indonesians paid pennies a day.

Re:Humans are part of the problem (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 4 months ago | (#47701355)

no, they are too busy writing Windows 8.2

Exploiting semantic gap (1)

schreiend (1092383) | about 4 months ago | (#47700917)

to solve a reverse Turing test. Totally new idea.

Re:Exploiting semantic gap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47700945)

to solve a reverse Turing test. Totally new idea.

Are you being sarcastic?

Watch them get ignored (3, Interesting)

boondaburrah (1748490) | about 4 months ago | (#47700937)

Man if these start showing up, They're going to look exactly like those "hit the target 3 times to win" flash-based advertisements. I'll probably glaze over them multiple times trying to submit a form before I notice that a 'completing the game' captcha is what's preventing me from leaving my incredible razor wit splattered all over someone's comments section.

Re:Watch them get ignored (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701039)

You you just wait. They'll start putting advertisements in the captchas.

They'll soon figure out it's more profitable to make you find the $(NameBrand) ship and drag it from the $(NewProduct) port to the $(TownNearYou) port.

Re:Watch them get ignored (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701085)

You you just wait. They'll start putting advertisements in the captchas.

So that's why my last one said "be sure to drink your ovaltine."

Re:Watch them get ignored (1)

Renozuken (3499899) | about 4 months ago | (#47701819)

That's already a thing though, they make you watch an ad and some words pop up and that's the captcha.. it's awful.

Re:Watch them get ignored (1)

Wandering Idiot (563842) | about 4 months ago | (#47714283)

Apparently you don't use many free file download sites, sticking the CAPTCHAs or human-proving codes inside ads of various types has been a thing for a while now.

Weak (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47700949)

Looks like this is based on a fixed set of games and images. Just teach the bot all of them, and you are done. If this is self contained software I can install on my site, all the info you need to feed the bot is already packaged up in the source.

For things like this to defeat bots they have to rely on hard to invert functions, like rendering randomly warped things. Picking a few items from a lookup table is easily inverted by a bot.

Resisting replay attacks is cute, but it can't resist basic forwarding attacks (inherently impossible to prevent you from sending it to someone else to solve live: trivial proof, RDP exists.) and it is trivially solved by a bot. I see nothing useful here.

Re:Weak (1)

FyRE666 (263011) | about 4 months ago | (#47701671)

Something that has to be interacted with, through a view controlled by Javascript will not be trivial for a bot to solve. I know the typical response to this is "well I don't enable Javascript!!!" but these voices are now a tiny minority of users, who doubtless have all sorts of problems using the web now. Disabling JS in a browser is like disabling Excel's ability to automatically perform calculations on cells.

For deaf users, the choice could be from a number of sounds - maybe with filters added to prevent them being piped through an audio search engine.

I think this idea will make it harder and less profitable to run spam bots, which is always a good thing.

Re:Weak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47702707)

If the images are assembled client side by js, then it might be far easier to just have a bot watch what the variables in the js are doing and ignore processing the image all together.

Weak (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47702361)

For things like this to defeat bots they have to rely on hard to invert functions, like rendering randomly warped things. Picking a few items from a lookup table is easily inverted by a bot.

Sure, but much of this is easy. If "parking ships", then make ships and other items with variable length. A selection of end pieces, a random number of mid pieces. Then take the finished image, apply some stretch, blur, recoloring and noise. The human will still distinguish ships, trains and sofas - I am not so sure about the bots.

Re:Weak (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 4 months ago | (#47703351)

Yeah! Or why not use a string of numbers, render it in a warped way, apply some distortion and noise.
The human will still distinguish the individual digits - I am not so sure about the bots.

Oh, wait.

My only question: does it work at Google-scale? (5, Interesting)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 4 months ago | (#47700989)

The nice thing about current text-based CAPTCHAs is that they can be applied to any website, whether large or small, and require very little input or tinkering from individual web administrators. The other nice thing about this is that they have an infinite number of possible variations, what with the different ways you can transform text.

This new idea would work great for a small site that will never be a target of a directed attack, but we already have hundreds of different CAPTCHA variations that can be used for that sort of thing. I use a simpler but similar idea on one of my sites, where I have new registrants drag words into matching categories that I set up. I've had zero bot registrations since I set it up a few years back, and a number of comments from actual users that love the system.

But if you apply something like what I use or this new idea to a site like Google, the folks trying to break in will inevitably code up algorithms to handle each of the finite number of minigames they set up with their finite number of items in them, rendering the whole thing pretty useless. The only way to get infinite variation out of it is to start applying image transformation to the items being used so that they can't be as easily identified, and if you start doing that, you're right back where we are now.

My only question: does it work at Google-scale? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701091)

I fear that we will find out that it's not so different from the situation for securing trash from bears at Yosemite, where the overlap between the smartest bears and the dumbest tourists is considerable.

Re:My only question: does it work at Google-scale? (1)

jxander (2605655) | about 4 months ago | (#47701235)

So, you're telling me that we can get the spammers to program better AI for us?

Re:My only question: does it work at Google-scale? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701703)

obligatory xkcd
http://xkcd.com/810/

Re:My only question: does it work at Google-scale? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47702381)

So, you're telling me that we can get the spammers to program better AI for us?

That will be their undoing. When the spammers create an AI good enough to solve any human-solvable captcha, then the AI is smart enough to tell spam from non-spam. So we'll use their AI as a forum moderator. Anyone can post, the spam will just not be seen.

To help with this, lets make a captcha that ask the user "is this message spam?" With an ever-growing database of spam and nonspam. As soon as the spammers make an AI for that . . .

Re:My only question: does it work at Google-scale? (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 months ago | (#47701667)

the finite number of minigames they set up with their finite number of items in them, rendering the whole thing pretty useless.

There might not be a benefit to that outcome, but a "good" CAPTCHA system does have a good outcome when it's broken.

I was talking to the guy who started reCAPTCHA many years ago, and his idea was that the OCR work they were farming out was too tough for algorithms to beat. As long as bots could not do better than humans, reCAPTCHA would be offering a valuable service. As soon as the bots were as good as the humans, accurate OCR had been solved, and reCAPTCHA had made that happen, so it was also a win, and he'd have to come up with another CAPTCHA.

I tend to shy away from helping Google StreetSpy on people, and use the audio CAPCHA when available now, but more people are doing the street number thing, which could still be used for good (if we trust Google). And if the bots solve that, maybe their algorithms could be applied to ambulance services, or whatever.

I'm not sure that the TFA's proposals "solve two problems" the way that great engineering solutions universally do. But there are certainly worthy ones out there.

Re:My only question: does it work at Google-scale? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701765)

AI shape recognition.

It could help one very new and very now thing: automatic driverless cars.
It could improve them significantly over time, not to mention other general robotics that exist now.

In time, it could improve image searches to be able to find fuzzy things that aren't entirely logical to computers presently.

Re:My only question: does it work at Google-scale? (2)

StripedCow (776465) | about 4 months ago | (#47701779)

The problem with the current CAPTCHAs is that they are prone to a Mechanical Turk attack.
This new type of CAPTCHA could in principle solve this issue.

Re:My only question: does it work at Google-scale? (2)

dcollins117 (1267462) | about 4 months ago | (#47702109)

The problem with the current CAPTCHAs is that they are prone to a Mechanical Turk attack.

That's a problem with CAPCTHAs, not the only one. I've encountered several that I couldn't solve, even after trying several times, eventually leaving me no choice but to give up and go elsewhere.

It's a problem when your human detector fails to detect humans.

Re:My only question: does it work at Google-scale? (2)

blane.bramble (133160) | about 4 months ago | (#47702187)

It's a problem when your human detector fails to detect human

Says the bot!

Re:My only question: does it work at Google-scale? (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 4 months ago | (#47702203)

Its not just working at google scale, its human-nets paid pennies by spammers to solve captchas. If it is machine-unsolvable this will happen as long as there are people poor enough to work at such menial tasks for low wages.

Not so good if you are blind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701045)

So, by the logic behind these things, blind people aren't human?

Re:Not so good if you are blind (1)

Rigodi (1000552) | about 4 months ago | (#47701407)

And mentaly disabled ones too...

Re:Not so good if you are blind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701625)

I'm someone is so mentally disabled that they cannot figure out a simple puzzle, maybe we don't want them to be posting on a forum, or opening an email account or whatever it is they're trying to do. They are NOT valued customers. In fact, they are likely as bad or worse for our business than the spam-bots.

Re:Not so good if you are blind (1)

linuxgurugamer (917289) | about 4 months ago | (#47702029)

There are many different types of disabilities. Some people can't watch a moving picture, but otherwise are still perfectly functional. Having friends who have some disabilities, it is very wrong to pidgin-hole someone, because while they may be disabled in one area, they may be genious in another. Look at Stephen Hawking, for example. One of the smartest people alive, and can't move anything. Any sort of moving captca will totally eliminate him.

Re:Not so good if you are blind (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 4 months ago | (#47701825)

More to the point the web site needs to comply with disability legislation. In the UK blind/partially-sighted people must, by law, be able to use the web site. This is one of the advantages of CSS - you can keep the site clean so that it works well with a screen reader. In theory a web site (owner) can be prosecuted for disciminating against people who have sight problems, in practice this does not happen very often.

So: all the bot would need to do is to claim to be blind and so avoid the game playing CAPTCHA.

Reminds me of ASIRRA from Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701053)

Microsoft made a CAPTCHA with pictures of cats and dogs. It's surprisingly hard for a computer to differentiate, but humans find it easy. It's one of the few truly innovative things Microsoft has done:

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/projects/asirra/

Reminds me of ASIRRA from Microsoft (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701103)

It's one of the few truly innovative things Microsoft has done:

You mean apart from revolutionising the work and home environment by bringing cheap and easy to learn/use computers to market?

Re:Reminds me of ASIRRA from Microsoft (2)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about 4 months ago | (#47701471)

I think you will find that was Dell and Amstrad. Microsoft are the ones that made the appallingly inconsistent software that routinely leaks your data to criminals, and crashes with a BSOD.

I am not a human. (1)

antdude (79039) | about 4 months ago | (#47701061)

I am an ant! :P

Re:I am not a human. (1)

necro81 (917438) | about 4 months ago | (#47702053)

I am not a computer, but neither am I classified as human. I am a meat popsicle [youtube.com] .

Re:I am not a human. (1)

antdude (79039) | about 4 months ago | (#47703565)

I thought you're a Necro. :P

As with all other CAPTCHA 'alternatives', (3, Informative)

Beck_Neard (3612467) | about 4 months ago | (#47701067)

The problem is that you can really only come up with a finite number of these, and once an attacker has a large enough sample of them (say, 10%), he can simply write a bit of code to 'solve' each one.

The thing about CAPTCHAs that makes them great is that you can randomly generate a huge bunch of them.

Anyway, the headline so completely misrepresents this research that it basically says the opposite of what the researchers are saying. The researchers, in fact, created an automated system to solve DCGs! Their contribution was a system that detects 'crowd-sourcing' attacks - attacks where shady companies pay volunteers pennies to solve CAPTCHAs by hand. The researchers said they are going to work on improved DCGs that can't be solved automatically, but nothing of the sort is being unveiled here.

Re:As with all other CAPTCHA 'alternatives', (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701121)

Or just use a service like deathbycatchca, it sends them overseas to get cracked then sends them back to you solved. you get about 1000 captchas cracked for $1.50.

Re: As with all other CAPTCHA 'alternatives', (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701433)

Call me when I can forward captchas to a team of monkeys and the only cost is a banana.

Re:As with all other CAPTCHA 'alternatives', (1)

dns_server (696283) | about 4 months ago | (#47701561)

Related to this is the idea someone proxying captcha.

Instead of providing your own captcha solve google's captcha. When someone creates an on your site connect to google and try and create an account, you then forward the google captcha to the user.

Re: As with all other CAPTCHA 'alternatives', (1)

Steven Clark (3641409) | about 4 months ago | (#47702055)

Then you can use all the google accounts as free, distributed storage space.

Re:As with all other CAPTCHA 'alternatives', (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47715945)

"i'm sorry dave, you didn't enter the correct captcha to gain access to the computer bay."

the alternative ending to 2001 a space odyssey.

Disability (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701089)

I haven't read the article, but I do wonder... why about those with disability? Like poor vision, poor hand-eye coordination, etc.?

I'd rather they continue to think I'm a bot! (5, Funny)

EzInKy (115248) | about 4 months ago | (#47701125)

Proving I'm human just subjects me to more ads I don't want to see.

Solve this puzzle for him. (3, Funny)

weilawei (897823) | about 4 months ago | (#47701149)

When he comes back, I'll hit him with a paradox [youtube.com] .

I'll prove I'm human, alright: (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 4 months ago | (#47701351)

...I'll threaten to shove its chips up its fanhole if it doesn't let me in.

Re:I'll prove I'm human, alright: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47702935)

...I'll threaten to shove its chips up its fanhole if it doesn't let me in.

Your comment makes me think of a new way to prove one is a human. Obfuscated obscenities.

Re:I'll prove I'm human, alright: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47703811)

until they invent Bender.

Improved MTLCKYAH (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701383)

Somehow CAPTCHA seems captchier.

Pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701423)

Captcha solving services are dirt cheap and the majority of people running bots use them. I haven't filled a captcha in ages and now you can even do it for free with captcha exchange services like 9kw or captcha brotherhood where you get credits for each captcha you solve.

Duh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701639)

Yet another stupid trick to force active content down our throats: *NO!*

When will they learn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701645)

Anything that will be "trivial" for a human to solve(and it has to be, or else most people will hate it even more) can be solved by a computer within a short time span.

Ah...no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701919)

Are you seriously going to expect someone with motor neurone disease (such as Stephen Hawking) to park a bloody boat in a dock? Sheesh! The man has much more important things to do than prove he's human.

Re:Ah...no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701967)

Well, to be fair - he doesn't SOUND human...

more crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47701951)

Great. Another garbage waste of time that everyone is going to throw on their websites even though (a) it can be beaten with a mechanical Turk, (b) research will progress and computers will eventually be able to beat it more efficiently than people, (c) it isn't even useful to many sites not targeted for automated logins/posts/whatevers.

Is it accessible for disabled people? (1)

xanadu113 (657977) | about 4 months ago | (#47702239)

Yes, but is it accessible by disabled people, i.e., blind users that need screen readers..?

Won't it be ironic... (1)

RealGene (1025017) | about 4 months ago | (#47702349)

..that the first truly successful AI will be developed by spammers and phishers to defeat this?

Worse than CAPTCHA (1)

nrjperera (2669521) | about 4 months ago | (#47702359)

"For example, in a "ship parking" DCG challenge, the user is required to identify the boat from a set of moving objects and drag-and-drop it to the available "dock" location." This is worse than CAPTCHA

Re:Worse than CAPTCHA (1)

PPH (736903) | about 4 months ago | (#47703447)

Not only that, but they are discriminating against Italians [cruiseastute.com] .

Already spotted in the wild - thought it was an ad (1)

ReverendLoki (663861) | about 4 months ago | (#47703153)

I can't remember where, but I've seen this in use this past week. When I saw it, first thing I thought was that this was one of those annoying ads disguised as a game that are out there. Still, once recognized for what it was, it was simple, much less a pain in the a$$ than the text based CAPCHAs.

The Blind (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47703597)

This is extremely useless to blind humans.

Doomed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47704569)

Unless implemented as an interactive live video stream, this is doomed to fail. A bot won't look at how the game looks, instead it'll look at the puzzle data the server sends to the code that renders the game client side. Once it sees {ship: [50, 50], distraction: [[40, 40], [20, 20], [60, 60]], background: "solution1.tiff"} or whatever, it'll just send the required response.

They can try to obfuscate it, but I really doubt it'll end up being harder to solve for a bot than current captchas.

Obligatory not-XKCD cartoon (1)

rpstrong (1659205) | about 4 months ago | (#47713647)

Speed Bump [gocomics.com]

Third party pass through (1)

Keybounce (226364) | about 4 months ago | (#47716575)

And how will even the best, most fool-proof Capcha protect you from a spam bot system that passes that game, or other capcha, to some people farm in a foreign country? Or just to visitors to some other website that gets high enough traffic for the spammers to post sufficient volume of spam?

This, by itself, cannot solve the issue.

The issue is not "Prove that there is a human there".

The issue is "Prove that you, right there, right now, are a human, and not being passed to someone else, elsewhere".

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?