Re: human validation on post comments
От | Dave Page |
---|---|
Тема | Re: human validation on post comments |
Дата | |
Msg-id | E7F85A1B5FF8D44C8A1AF6885BC9A0E4011C9697@ratbert.vale-housing.co.uk обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | human validation on post comments (Travis Hein <travis.hein@travnet.org>) |
Список | pgsql-www |
> -----Original Message----- > From: David Fetter [mailto:david@fetter.org] > Sent: 21 March 2006 17:16 > To: Dave Page > Cc: PostgreSQL WWW > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] human validation on post comments > > I see I didn't explain it well enough. Here's the flow: > > 1. Spammer generates spam and queues it up for sites. > 2. A person arrives at the porn site. > 3. The spam system generates a request including the spam to the > target site. Clock starts ticking. > 4. The spam system presents the resulting capcha to the porn surfer. > Less than a second has elapsed. > 5. Porn surfer types in the string as asked. Time elapsed is > probably still under 5 seconds. > 6. Spam system sends the string to the target site. Time elapsed is > under 10 seconds for >90% of cases. Ahh, gotcha. > > > > But apart from its ineffectiveness on spammers, as others have > > > mentioned, capcha excludes blind people. :( > > > > Yes - it's a shame none of us thought about it when Gevik was > > originally working on it. > > > > There is the audio option I suggested which Paypal use IIRC - > > alternatively we could use some sort of puzzle - such as 'enter the > > third, second from last and 2nd character from this string'. > > That lends itself to exactly the same attack I sketched out above. Undoubtedley, but unless they write something specifically to work with our site which is a lot of effort... And all we do then is fall back to how things are now until we've broken whatever they were doing by modifying the regexps in the auto-reject code or re-jigged the puzzles. Of course, doing any of this we mustn't make it too difficult for the user to submit things. Regards, Dave.
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: