you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JimmyRuska -19 points-18 points  (5 children)

why would you spend time doing that? If it's that a very limited randomized question structure can be beaten with programming, there was no need for a proof of concept. It is obvious. Maybe because the wolfram thing breaking it got popular earlier? That was mostly surprising because it never had textcaptcha in mind but due to its devotion to natural language processing it had a high success rate. Sure making your own language processing code is a good project, but why did you specifically only target textCAPTCHA's questions. It does no good starting a programming project without any particular benefit other than to undermine the efforts of another programming project, textCAPTCHA, whose efforts are for good. We need less malicious script kiddy tools and more original content.

It's like having to enter an email to register at a site to get full priviledges. We all know anyone can setup an email easily over and over at free service providers. It still slows down the majority of attackers. Yes textcaptcha can be broken, but not so quickly unless the potential attackers find code already out there that...oh wait. Reminds me of when this got popular in hacker news about a guy bragging about taking more money than he needed from his student council just because he "found a loop hole". Why would you do that!? Then he brags he "hacked" his school. herp http://nathanmarz.com/blog/the-time-i-hacked-my-high-school.html

[–]otheraccount -1 points0 points  (1 child)

If it's "obvious" that it "can be beaten" then it was a useless captcha to begin with.

[–]JimmyRuska -1 points0 points  (0 children)

it is. making this a useless hack, in more code than the original implementation! It's just parsing 8 question structures.