On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 23:24 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote: > On Aug 29, 2008, at 11:16 PM, Robert Cummings wrote: > > > On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 23:05 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote: > >> On Aug 29, 2008, at 9:40 PM, Robert Cummings wrote: > >> > >>> On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 17:28 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote: > >>>> On Aug 29, 2008, at 5:19 PM, Robert Cummings wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 16:54 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote: > >>>>>> On Aug 29, 2008, at 4:42 PM, Robert Cummings wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 16:21 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2008, at 4:09 PM, Robert Cummings wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 2008-08-29 at 15:52 -0400, Eric Gorr wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Aug 29, 2008, at 3:41 PM, Stut wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> I completely agree, but as far as I know it's only (and I > >>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>> word carefully) people with both visual and audio > >>>>>>>>>>> impairments > >>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>> you cannot cater for. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I cannot see any reason why a person with both visual and > >>>>>>>>>> audio > >>>>>>>>>> impairments could not be presented with a test to prove they > >>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>> human. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Go on, I'm all eyes and ears... describe such a test. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha#Attempts_at_more_accessible_CAPTCHAs > >>>>>>>> discusses this. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> And, I look forward to see what those doing research in this > >>>>>>>> area > >>>>>>>> come > >>>>>>>> up with in the future. It does seem obvious that since they are > >>>>>>>> human, > >>>>>>>> that a good test can be designed which does not rely on > >>>>>>>> security > >>>>>>>> through obscurity. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I said describe such a test... I didn't say describe current > >>>>>>> thoughts > >>>>>>> about such a test that have no practical implementation. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I pointed to such tests. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Pay special attention to the word "practical" used above before > >>>>>>> shooting > >>>>>>> something back off the top of your head. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Of course they have a practical implementation. They have been > >>>>>> implemented. > >>>>> > >>>>> Implementation does not imply practicallity. > >>>>> > >>>>> Implementations for space travel exist. Does it make space travel > >>>>> for > >>>>> everyone practical? > >>>>> > >>>>> Now please return to paying special attention to the word > >>>>> practical. > >>>>> Feel free to dust off a dictionary if you must. > >>>> > >>>> What is impractical about about an implementation asking a question > >>>> such as: > >>>> > >>>> what is 3 + 5? > >>>> what color is the sky? > >>>> > >>>> and then processing the answer entered? > >>> > >>> The answer lies in the very article to which you referred me. These > >>> are > >>> easily crackable, and thus impractical. > >> > >> By that illogical conclusion, all captcha's are impractical for all > >> are easily crackable and yet they have the very practical ability to > >> prevent an amount of spam that is quite beyond comprehension. > >> > >> Care to try again? > > > > All CAPTCHA's are not easily crackable. Some are quite difficult. > > All someone has to do is hire someone to sit there and solve the > captcha's. There are places in this world which, unfortunately, employ > slave or virtually slave labor. If someone wants to fire that missile, > it is certainly possible. > > They are _all_ easily crackable. A human tending to a CAPTCHA is not cracked, the human is performing the action for which the CAPTCHA was intended. While CAPTCHA's may be weak to this kind of exploitation, this exploitation does not constitute a crack. Cheers, Rob. -- http://www.interjinn.com Application and Templating Framework for PHP -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
