From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computer Security / Computing  (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (marked as Mid-importance).

User difficulties with captchas?[edit]

I'm surprised that a section hasn't been written about how difficult captchas are to read for humans. I know I'm not alone in voicing how the need to stop automated programs from reading the captcha has made it harder for humans to use. The words and numbers have gotten longer, more warped, and now we have short time limits to enter the captcha. It's an unfair tradeoff: We're minimizing automated programs from reading the captcha, at the expense of inconveniencing human users who can spend over a minute just trying to enter the correct captcha. And no, I'm not interested in writing about it, but here's some info to help whoever wants to.

I'm not. The very nature of CAPTCHA being a nightmare to humans but easy for bots to slip past is so much of a problem that I doubt the alleged purpose of CAPTCHA. They're also not talking about it because they don't want us to know the real purpose. If this managed to slip into Wikipedia (or worse, a reputable mainstream source), people would realise they're being lied to about why they have to type in some cryptic code 50 times every time they sign up to a website or send a message. If the purpose were what they say it is, it would no longer exist because it's extremely broken. My speculation is that the purpose is to keep humans out and let bots in, but that's just speculation. I know, however, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that it's not about keeping bots out and letting humans in. I also know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, due to the fact its real purpose is kept secret, that its real purpose is a shady one. (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
YES! This article shouldn't perpetuate the demonstrably fake "purpose" of CAPTCHA, and has a duty to its readers and neutrality to report on the facts about CAPTCHA, alongside the claims of its proponents to discredit them. CAPTCHA proponents don't really believe CAPTCHA does what they say it does. They just know people hate spam, so if you say something is anti-spam, no one questions it. But, CAPTCHA is demonstrably not anti-spam. On the contrary, it's PRO-spam. Why does it exist at all? We may never know. But we at least have a duty to report on what we know is NOT the reason. (talk) 18:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree this would be a good section to have if properly sourced. Captchas do seem to be getting out of hand, and I wonder if using them makes sites much more difficult to use, especially for older folks. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 17:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I have to "+1" this. You are faced with unusually long timeouts if you miss these captchas at certain sites and I cannot even make out what to do with the few sound captchas that I have attempted because the text ones are starting to become too difficult (considering you face a long timeout on a single failed attempt). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely: latest captchas, such as those implemented by Blogger since 2011 or so, are so complicated that even highly intelligent people need to take their time to think what the heck is written there and may need to reload the captcha several times. Distorted audio is no help, specially if English is not your native language. Personally I have removed all captchas from my blogs because I do not wish to handicap readers who wish to comment - incidentally I do not get any more spam at all (and the little that comes you just need to police it).
I believe that something should be written about this "extremism" of modern captchas. --Sugaar (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I never knew what to call these until today. I just thought of them as a security scramble. Anyway I hate these things. Besides the upper and lower case problems the letters are so distorted that a "u" looks like a "v" or a k is an lc or such. the example showing "following" looks like it could be "fellawing". There's times I've tried a six or more attempts to get it. (talk) 00:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

One time I tried an audio CAPTCHA and it was completely unintelligible. The visual ones on some websites are difficult, but the audio one was just garbled noise. (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

They are hard for me. The 1st puzzle is not possible. After 15 flips I just type. I get 'okayed', so maybe I am too attentive. Or have poor hand eye coordination. Aren't they easy for 'normal' people? Maybe the difficulty is spacial or relates to abnormal visual processing. most of us have autistic traits. Or is it just me again?Romanfall (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
They're nightmares for the dyslexic or anyone who can't read a doctor's handwriting. Sometimes you get wingdings or foreign alphabet segments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Minor edit "to meld"[edit]

Changed: "where it melds with" to "where it fuses with" The author probably wanted to say "where it melts with" in the sense of "to blend into" The verb to melt is intransitive and cannot be used here. (something melts; you cannot melt something with something else) "To meld" means "to announce" in a game of cards. (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Reverted as MELD == blend; combine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Remove "Smart CAPTCHA" paragraph?[edit]

For the life of me, I can't figure out what this paragraph means:


A method of improving the CAPTCHA to ease the work with it was proposed by ProtectWebForm and was called "Smart CAPTCHA".[13] Developers advise to combine the CAPTCHA with JavaScript support. Since it is too hard for most of spam robots to parse and execute JavaScript, using a simple script which fills the CAPTCHA fields and hides the image and the field from human eyes was proposed.

The reference link takes the reader to a website that may well have been written by the same person as the one who wrote the paragraph here. The English in both places is clearly non-native, which doesn't help matters, but the basic gist of the sentence is also unclear. Doesn't hiding an image from human eyes defeat the very purpose of a CAPTCHA?

I would like to remove the paragraph entirely. What do others think? -AlanUS (talk) 19:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Human Circumvention section complete nonsense[edit]

The section on circumventing using humans talks as if it's a theoretical idea dismissed by all major players, which is 100% nonsense. There are plenty of extremely cheap and reliable services, presumably profitable, which make it completely trivial to bypass any captcha. It's not like any of this is new, so... what the hell? This section needs to accurately document the actual fact of the situation. Ellisthion (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)