[nfbcs] {Disarmed} Captchas
Jim Barbour
jbar at barcore.com
Mon Apr 2 03:45:51 UTC 2012
Hey Everybody,
Steve, I'm not at all sure I get your point.
You seem to be saying that people who set up ways to gather user
generated content are responsible for policing it. Perhaps, but then
again that's what captcha is, a way to police user generated content.
You say that you're sure your bank has really easy to solve captchas.
I don't know anything about that, but I rather suspect they have some
good way of keeping bots from trying to guess their member's
passwords, and I'm guessing that includes some kind of more difficult
captcha. As I say though, this is totally supposition.
You say that Captchas are a lazy solution to this problem. In fact,
captchas are an excellent solution to the bot problem. One way I
know they're a great solution is that the computer can't read them,
much less solve them, for us blind folks.
I know that captchas suck for us, and I'd love to see something better
come along. However, so far nothing has come along that does as good
as job as captchas do of automatically telling if you are a human
being, capable of picking patterns of color or sound from a complex
background, or a bot who is not capable of these things.
For a long time I've felt that technology will catch up to the
captcha. I'm pretty sure that a cloud based captcha solver,
accessible to the public, will be available in the next few years.
Until that happens though, we're going to have to rely on readers,
audio captchas, and customer service desks.
Take Care,
Jim
On Sun, Apr 01, 2012 at 01:55:30PM -0500, Steve Jacobson wrote:
> Jim,
>
> I don't completely agree. There are some holes in this article, but I also think there is a bit of a double standard where the internet and software is
> concerned. Let me give you an example. One of the people responding to this article complained how he put up a forum and after a few days had
> something like 250 spammers there. What would happen if you put up a microphone and loudspeaker on a street corner and then just let anyone talk.
> What would happen if you allowed an open microphone on a high power radio station that had national and international coverage? Without some kind
> of supervision, it would most certainly get abused. Part of the problem is this idea that the internet is a free distribution medium where anyone has the right
> to just throw up anything without investing any significant time and money in supervising how it is being used. You talk about people whining. I see
> people responding to this article whining how maybe some people on the internet don't want to be identified. We should be careful as to how much
> privacy we give up, but where can you speak to an international audience without itentifying yourself in some form? What can you buy in person without
> some sort of an ID. Why is it so unthinkable that if I were to choose to identify myself in some verifiable way that I should be exempted from having to
> prove via a CAPTCHA that I'm not a criminal? That's pretty much what I have to do off the internet in real life, identify myself in a verifiable manner. My
> credit union has a CAPTCHA with no audio alternative that is displayed in very nice readable block letters. I've looked at them with my Optacon. There is
> just no way that CAPTCHA is detouring any hacker with access to very basic OCR technology. I haven't tried it yet, but I'll bet JFW 13 probably can read
> that CAPTCHA. In that case, I think I can safely say it is a lazy solution designed solely to give someone a false sense of security with all customers being
> inconvenienced to a likely greater degree than any serious hacker. This might not be a representative case but I doubt it is unique, and it also is
> becoming a more common scenario as the ability for hackers to get around CAPTCHAs becomes more sophisticated.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I don't think the solutions are easy, but I also don't think it is my job to come up with a solution. If we just accept the status quo as a
> given, though, there won't be any insentive for those who are capable of coming up with solutions to develop them. An article like this does serve that
> purpose.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Steve Jacobson
>
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 14:48:58 -0700, Jim Barbour wrote:
>
> >Well said Curtis. I don't understand the point of this article accept
> >that it whines about captchas and pre-supposes there's a better
> >solution that "they" are too lazy to implement.
>
> >Those of us who have explored this problem mostly feel differently.
> >It turns out to be a tough problem with not-pretty solutions.
>
> >Jim
>
> >On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 03:07:34PM -0500, Curtis Chong wrote:
> >> Greetings:
> >>
> >> Is this supposed to suggest an improvement that works better for the blind? It does not appear so from what I see here<grin>.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >>
> >> Curtis Chong
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbcs-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Nicole B. Torcolini at Home
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2012 1:21 AM
> >> To: NFBCS Mailing List List
> >> Subject: [nfbcs] {Disarmed} Captchas
> >>
> >> I was going to just post the link, but, when I read the last line, I just had to post the article instead.
> >>
> >> Time to Kill Off Captchas
> >> How the bot-proofing of the Internet is bringing humans down
> >>
> >> By David Pogue | February 28, 2012 | 18
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> a.. Share
> >> b.. Email
> >> c.. Print
> >> d..
> >> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=time-to-kill-off-captchas
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Time to Kill Off Captchas
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Whenever thereG??s a problem in the modern world, we try to solve it by building barriers. Music piracy? Copy protection. Hacked Web sites? More
> complicated passwords.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, these barriers generally inconvenience the law-abiding citizen and do very little to impede the bad guys. Serious music pirates and Web
> hackers still find their way through.
> >>
> >> Maybe all the hurdles are enough to thwart the casual bad guys. That seems to be the thinking behind the Web blockades known as Captchas.
> (ItG??s a contrived acronym for Completely Automated Public Turing Test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart.) Surely youG??ve seen them: visually
> distorted wordsG??sometimes real English ones and sometimes nonsense wordsG??represented as a graphic when you try to sign up for something
> online. YouG??re supposed to type the words you see into a box.
> >>
> >> Captchas were designed by their Carnegie Mellon University inventors to thwart bots (automated hacker programs) that might bring online services to
> their knees. For example, some bots sign up for Hotmail or Yahoo e-mail accounts by the thousands for the purpose of spewing spam. Some post bogus
> comments in hopes of raising a siteG??s search-results ranking.
> >>
> >> In theory, only an actual human being can figure out what word is in the Captcha graphic. The letters are just twisted enough and the background is
> just cluttered enough that a person can read them, but not a computer. Good guys in, bad guys outG??the perfect barrier.
> >>
> >> In practice, Captchas have just replaced one public nuisance with another. First of all, the images are often so distorted that even a human canG??t
> read them. ThatG??s a particular problem in nonsense words like G??rl10Ozirl.G?? Are those lowercase Ls or number ones? Zero or letter O? Second,
> thereG??s the vision thing. If youG??re blind, you canG??t do a visual Captcha puzzle.
> >>
> >> The best Captchas (if thatG??s not an oxymoron) offer alternatives to fix these problems. There might be a button that offers you a second puzzle if
> the first is too hard to read or an audio Captcha option for blind people. Above all, though, increasing evidence shows that Captchas are losing the
> technology war. Researchers and spammers have both been able to get around them.
> >>
> >> There have been efforts to replace visual Captchas with less user-hostile puzzles. Some ask you to take an easy math test, answer a simple question,
> identify a photograph or listen to garbled audio. All of them exclude one group or another, thoughG??such as non-English speakers or deaf people.
> >>
> >> Overall, the Carnegie Mellon team estimates that we spend a cumulative 150,000 hours at the gates of these irritating obstructions every single day. In
> a newer variant, called reCaptcha, at least that time is put to public use. You see a muddied-looking word that comes from a wonky scanned Google
> book; when you type what it really says, youG??re actually helping out with the process of cleaning up and recognizing an actual text.
> >>
> >> Nevertheless, we the law abiders are still wasting 17 person-years every single day. ThatG??s a disgraceful waste of our lives. Surely there are better
> solutions worth exploring.
> >>
> >> Maybe we should invent a voluntary Internet identity card so weG??re already known when we sign up for something. Maybe Web sites should
> enforce a short-term limit of one new account or posted comment per G??person.G?? Or the Web site should look at the speed or irregularity of our typing
> to determine if weG??re human.
> >>
> >> Or fingerprints. Or retinal scans. Something.
> >>
> >> Spammer bots are a problem, yes. But Captchas are a problem, too. TheyG??re a bother, theyG??re not foolproof and they assume that everyone is
> guilty until proven innocent. What Captcha really stands for, in other words, is Computers Annoying People with Time-Wasting Challenges That Howl for
> Alternatives.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Image: Illustration by Thomas Fuchs
> >>
> >> Supplemental Material
> >> a.. Overview Use It Better: 8 Alternatives to the Hated Captcha
> >> Whenever thereG??s a problem in the modern world, we try to solve it by building barriers. Music piracy? Copy protection. Hacked Web sites? More
> complicated passwords.
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, these barriers generally inconvenience the law-abiding citizen and do very little to impede the bad guys. Serious music pirates and Web
> hackers still find their way through.
> >>
> >> Maybe all the hurdles are enough to thwart the casual bad guys. That seems to be the thinking behind the Web blockades known as Captchas.
> (ItG??s a contrived acronym for Completely Automated Public Turing Test to Tell Computers and Humans Apart.) Surely youG??ve seen them: visually
> distorted wordsG??sometimes real English ones and sometimes nonsense wordsG??represented as a graphic when you try to sign up for something
> online. YouG??re supposed to type the words you see into a box.
> >>
> >> Captchas were designed by their Carnegie Mellon University inventors to thwart bots (automated hacker programs) that might bring online services to
> their knees. For example, some bots sign up for Hotmail or Yahoo e-mail accounts by the thousands for the purpose of spewing spam. Some post bogus
> comments in hopes of raising a siteG??s search-results ranking.
> >>
> >> In theory, only an actual human being can figure out what word is in the Captcha graphic. The letters are just twisted enough and the background is
> just cluttered enough that a person can read them, but not a computer. Good guys in, bad guys outG??the perfect barrier.
> >>
> >> In practice, Captchas have just replaced one public nuisance with another. First of all, the images are often so distorted that even a human canG??t
> read them. ThatG??s a particular problem in nonsense words like G??rl10Ozirl.G?? Are those lowercase Ls or number ones? Zero or letter O? Second,
> thereG??s the vision thing. If youG??re blind, you canG??t do a visual Captcha puzzle.
> >>
> >> The best Captchas (if thatG??s not an oxymoron) offer alternatives to fix these problems. There might be a button that offers you a second puzzle if
> the first is too hard to read or an audio Captcha option for blind people. Above all, though, increasing evidence shows that Captchas are losing the
> technology war. Researchers and spammers have both been able to get around them.
> >>
> >> There have been efforts to replace visual Captchas with less user-hostile puzzles. Some ask you to take an easy math test, answer a simple question,
> identify a photograph or listen to garbled audio. All of them exclude one group or another, thoughG??such as non-English speakers or deaf people.
> >>
> >> Overall, the Carnegie Mellon team estimates that we spend a cumulative 150,000 hours at the gates of these irritating obstructions every single day. In
> a newer variant, called reCaptcha, at least that time is put to public use. You see a muddied-looking word that comes from a wonky scanned Google
> book; when you type what it really says, youG??re actually helping out with the process of cleaning up and recognizing an actual text.
> >>
> >> Nevertheless, we the law abiders are still wasting 17 person-years every single day. ThatG??s a disgraceful waste of our lives. Surely there are better
> solutions worth exploring.
> >>
> >> Maybe we should invent a voluntary Internet identity card so weG??re already known when we sign up for something. Maybe Web sites should
> enforce a short-term limit of one new account or posted comment per G??person.G?? Or the Web site should look at the speed or irregularity of our typing
> to determine if weG??re human.
> >>
> >> Or fingerprints. Or retinal scans. Something.
> >>
> >> Spammer bots are a problem, yes. But Captchas are a problem, too. TheyG??re a bother, theyG??re not foolproof and they assume that everyone is
> guilty until proven innocent. What Captcha really stands for, in other words, is Computers Annoying People with Time-Wasting Challenges That Howl for
> Alternatives.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Subscribe Buy This Issue
> >>
> >> Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
> >> If your institution has site license access, enter here.
> >> ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)
> >> David Pogue is the personal-technology columnist for the New York Times. He is the host of "Hunting the Elements" on NOVA, which airs April 4 on
> PBS.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Post a Comment | Read Comments (18)
> >> Reprints and Permissions -+
> >> inShare37
> >>
> >> Articles You Might Also Like
> >> a.. Use It Better: 8 Alternatives to the Hated Captcha
> >> b.. Use It Better: The Worst Tech Predictions of All Time
> >> c.. Use It Better: The Smart Ways to Pick Passwords
> >> d.. How Siri Makes Computers (and Coders) More Human
> >> e.. How to Predict the Future of Technology
> >> 18 Comments
> >> Add Comment
> >> Show All | Jump To: 1-10 | 11-20 | Next
> >> View Oldest to Newest Newest to Oldest
> >> 1..
> >> 1. bikerusl 02:10 AM 2/17/12
> >> This article is so incredibly wrong I felt compelled to go on the internet and comment on it after reading it in print.
> >>
> >> This is supposed to be a scientific magazine, where is the evidence that Captcha is failing? I might as well be reading this on about.com or some
> other robot created website. How did you come up with that 17 years per day figure, is that really counting accurately?
> >>
> >> Captcha is annoying, the only thing more annoying would be all of the suggestions you propose. All of your suggestions have more problems - and
> serious ones - instead of annoying ones.
> >>
> >> Internet identity card? Retina scan? Fingerprint? Privacy? Free speech? Simplicity? Do you mean like a password username combo? The point of a
> captcha is to be something quick that doesn't require that sort of commitment. I think it is telling that this article has no other comments but mine - there is
> no possible quick way to post one. Such as a captcha would afford.
> >>
> >> Time limit? Single post only? Heuristics of words used or typing style? Have you ever failed those things? I have. It is a heck of a lot worse than
> having to redo an illegible captcha. Because it is mysterious. I have no idea what is causing me to be flagged by mistake - is it a link? Am I too fast a
> typer? Too slow? The mechanism is not transparent and they are totally intolerant of false positives. At least with a captcha the system is transparent. I
> know why I pass or fail. I know what I have to do to pass. (at least for a properly implemented captcha system like reCaptch - which is also the most
> popular and easy for websites to install)
> >>
> >> Just because you are annoyed by using captchas you can't just write an article about something you haven't really thought through. I'm thankful
> when I see a Captcha as I know that the security mechanism is going to be transparent and honest. The alternatives (so far) are far worse and might even
> bring up more serious concerns of privacy, free speech and censorship if they were to be implemented.
> >>
> >> Your opening line about making too many barriers on the internet is right on. However I think that, upon closer examination, something like captcha
> that is transparently enforced - is the better way to avoid real barriers including spam - compared to the highly questionable alternatives you have (so far)
> proposed.
> >>
> >> The Internet is an amazing thing. Just because it can
> >>
> >> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> >> 2..
> >> 2. crashbrown 11:01 AM 2/19/12
> >> I am guessing David Pogue does not have first-hand experience with any of the internet entities (blog, forum, etc) that are being hit the hardest by
> spammers. If he did, he would not think of -- let alone suggest -- doing away with captcha unless he had an actual, functioning alternative ready to take its
> place.
> >>
> >> I am part of a team that runs an online forum (bulletin board). It is both tiny and obscure, and yet it averages over three dozen registration attempts
> per day by both human spammers and spambots. We go through phases when we are hit hundreds of times each day. Captcha is one of three methods
> we employ to keep them out.
> >>
> >> The article states, "Spammer bots are a problem, yes. But Captchas are a problem, too." I am a little agog at this. I feel like a front-line combat soldier
> listening to a rear echelon desk jockey compare artillery shells to the hassle of wearing a helmet. The latter is occasionally uncomfortable. The former can
> drop your site by overloading your server, and once the spambots are gotten in, the amount of work to get rid of them is many times greater than the brief
> nuisance of asking people to decipher some twisty letters.
> >>
> >> I eagerly await a better alternative; but for the moment, captcha remains a highly effective element in the defenses required to fend off the
> spambarian hordes.
> >>
> >> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> >> 3..
> >> 3. bob_easton 08:29 AM 2/20/12
> >> Yes, Mr. Pogue's article is a bit light from the "Scientific" point of view. The figure of 150,000 hours per day comes directly from the home page for
> Google's captcha product, reCaptcha. (http://www.google.com/recaptcha/learnmore) Simple math divides 150,000 by 24 and then by 365, to yield 17
> days.
> >>
> >> Proof of CAPTCHAs decreasing usefulness is easy to find. Google's own actions are prime evidence. On Feb 16, 2012 they changed Blogger's
> CAPTCHA technique from something almost usable to a much more complex reCaptcha scheme. Why would they annoy millions of readers? Likely
> because the older CAPTCHA was no longer useful! All across the Internet we see service providers upgrading their CAPTCHAs to ever more complex
> versions. It is implicit evidence that the spammers are effective. The CAPTCHA arms race is on and the innocent humans are losing.
> >>
> >> For a more concrete example, researchers at Newcastle University in the UK have developed automated methods that solve even the latest
> reCaptchas easier than humans. Read "The Robustness of Google CAPTCHAs" at http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/jeff.yan/google.pdf. One need not be
> a geeky doctoral candidate in academia to do this. We see evidence of it's reality in that war of escalation.
> >>
> >> Solutions? The best are behind-the-scenes engines that use massive collaborative filtering to recognize and reject spam. Once these systems reach
> a viable size, in terms of network deployment and sampling scope, they become extremely effective. Two that have reached that high level of
> effectiveness are AKISMET and the Spam-Be-Gone feature of Disqus commenting systems. (hint: search easily finds these tools.)
> >>
> >> A small business, an individual blogger, the community bulletin board owner can all fare well with Akismet. Larger firms often replace their content
> management system's entire commenting facility with Disqus. Neither of these systems challenge readers / visitors / customers with annoying CAPTCHAs.
> They allow security to be implemented by the service provider, not a task left to the end user.
> >>
> >> Other solutions? For those who develop their own code, there are a number of useful "client side" techniques that spammers can't see or subvert.
> Too little space to describe here, so search for "hidden input field."
> >>
> >> Lastly, as for being "thankful" when I see a CAPTCHA, I get about the same feeling as when I see a blue uniformed TSA agent. They both share
> two traits: the ability to stop one's travel, and an unnecessary level of annoyance.
> >>
> >> Bob Easton, author of the blog "CAPTCHAs Must Die"
> >>
> >>
> >> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> >> 4..
> >> 4. sagamore9 12:08 PM 2/27/12
> >> I agree with the other commentors here. An internet ID card. I know Sci Am is an establishment magazine and while I enjoy the knowledge imparted
> here, please don't try to condition the public into big brotherism. While captchas are annoying, I haven't found one that I couldn't decipher after a few
> reloads. I too question the statistics quoted, a quick footnote of his sources would clear that up. My main complaint is the social concerns he raises. I
> know liberals would love the gov't to ensure all is safe, just let me opt out of that totalitarianism, we still live in a free america (maybe).
> >>
> >> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> >> 5..
> >> 5. jtdwyer 08:38 AM 2/28/12
> >> I find it ironic that SA should attack Captcha use by other sites, when this site was infuriatingly cursed by advertiser spamming of its comments for
> many, many months! Personally, I would have gladly endured the inconvenience of Captcha use to have prevented that prolonged spamming of
> scientificamerican.com.
> >>
> >> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> >> 6..
> >> 6. Paleoecologist 11:03 AM 2/28/12
> >> I'm really surprised that the awesome crowd-sourcing side of Captchas haven't been mentioned yet! reCaptcha is a book digitization project that's
> helped digitize 20 years of the New York Times, among other things. Whenever I do one of those, I get a little warm and fuzzy inside.
> >>
> >> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> >> 7..
> >> 7. nogero 12:24 PM 2/28/12
> >> It is worth noting that comment giant craigslist.org has recently eliminated captcha when posting. At least they did for me.
> >>
> >> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> >> 8..
> >> 8. silvrhairdevil in reply to sagamore9 02:16 PM 2/28/12
> >> You are not accounting for the facts that,
> >>
> >> first - not all internet users are Americans
> >>
> >> second - not all internet users want their real identities on record
> >>
> >> Third - most spammers are not Americans either. The vast majority are from the Far East.
> >>
> >> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> >> 9..
> >> 9. scottpatrickwright 09:40 AM 2/29/12
> >> The captcha process could probably be improved. A good test would be very easy for a human and hard for a computer. I think most people find
> that the average captcha is both hard for a human AND hard for a computer. I remember hearing about a new idea under development at Microsoft (of all
> places) called a 'catcha'. The idea was to present, for instance six pictures, 5 are puppies and 1 is a cat. The user's job is to select the cat from the group.
> Hence 'catcha'. While realizing that technology will likely (hopefully)catch up I think this idea is closer to the easy for humans hard for computers mark.
> >>
> >> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> >> 10..
> >> 10. Steve D 12:39 PM 2/29/12
> >> Instead of criminalizing spam and going through the tedium of prosecuting spammers, there's a simpler approach. Tax it. A buck a message. Per
> addressee.
> >>
> >> But that will penalize legitimate e-mail ads? Too bad. If people want something, they can take the initiative to find out about it. The advertising
> business model needs to die - period.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> >> 11..
> >> 11. Steve3 01:37 PM 2/29/12
> >> Yeah yeah yeah Dave -- er -- we all waste time everyday- What's new?
> >> Taking the key out of my pocket unlocking my door, my file cabinet etc.Locking the keypad on my NOT iPhone etc.
> >> Come to think of it reading the column was a waste of time and so was typing this..............
> >>
> >> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> >> 12..
> >> 12. mhenriday in reply to silvrhairdevil 03:23 PM 3/1/12
> >> n++Third - most spammers are not Americans either. The vast majority are from the Far East.n++, Perhaps, silvrhairdevil, you would care to produce
> some evidence for this interesting claim (in which, I suspect, the term Far East is a metonym for China) ? According to the latest figures from ICSA Labs'
> Spam Data Center (https://www.icsalabs.com/technology-program/anti-spam/spam-data-center#top10), which relate to the week from 13 to 19 February
> 2012, the country of origin at the head of the list of the top ten was the US, at 10.1 % of the total, with India second at 7.5 %. While geography seems to
> be poorly taught today (consider, for example, how the term n++the Westn++ is employed), I think we can agree that neither of these two countries are
> located in the Far East. The first East Asian country to appear on the list is South Korea, in fourth place at 4.8 %. Taiwan is seventh (3.5 %) and Vietnam
> (3.0 %) ninth. China, with its huge internet population doesn't even make the top ten....
> >>
> >> Generally speaking, it is wise to do one's research before posting, rather than afterwards....
> >>
> >> Henri
> >>
> >> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> >> 13..
> >> 13. northernguy 12:59 AM 3/2/12
> >> I am amazed at the arrogance of posters on this topic. Captchas are not an inconvenience for me. They are an insurmountable obstacle.
> >>
> >> The hundreds of captchas that I have run across over the years have blocked my access on every occasion except two. I refresh them dozens of
> times to no avail. The audio alternatives are even worse.
> >>
> >> I have no issue with those people who design their sites in such a way as to exclude people because the programmers are not capable or not
> inclined to program their site to be inclusive. However, I do have an issue with those designers who say it is not a problem at all because it is not a
> problem for them.
> >>
> >> If you don't want me to visit or use your site then fine. Just don't say it's me that has a problem.
> >>
> >> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> >> 14..
> >> 14. rksudhir 05:02 PM 3/2/12
> >> Wow.. 17 person-years wasted every single day which could've been spent on Facebook!
> >>
> >> May be we should come up with Captchas that are fun and brain-teasers.. so people will just want to solve them again and again, instead of
> Scrabble, or Sudoku.
> >>
> >> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> >> 15..
> >> 15. PolishMartian in reply to mhenriday 07:19 AM 3/3/12
> >> When you told silvrhairdevil: "Generally speaking, it is wise to do one's research before posting, rather than afterwards...." you forgot to mention
> something important upfront from your reference to "the latest figures from ICSA Labs' Spam Data Center (https://www.icsalabs.com/technology-
> program/anti-spam/spam-data-center#top10)..." That is, that ICSA Labs is not a non-profit organization (.org) like some labs which do (anti)virus and other
> (anti)malware testing, but rather a commercial for-profit company (.com), an independent division of Verizon Business. They do efficiency tests for
> customers that produce anti-spam products. This information and that below comes from the report "ICSA Labs Anti-Spam Testing Revealed" dated 18
> May 2011 [Copyright 2011 by Cybertrust, Inc.] (https://www.icsalabs.com/sites/default/files/AntiSpamTestingExplained_110518x.pdf).
> >>
> >> Customers can choose from either daily live testing or certification testing. I saw no prices listed, but why would two different choices be offered
> otherwise and why would there be any comparisons between ICSA Labs and its competitors? I saw no endorsements or list of user companies to use as a
> guide. So, why should we trust just one company's statistics over another's? Do you have some similar percentages from another company to help prove
> your point? Some security products (free and paid) are rated much higher or lower than others, so couldn't the same be true for some of the paid labs?
> >>
> >> The ICSA Labs material describes how it gets its data from a honeypot, which sources of email it samples and which sources it doesn't use at all. I
> don't feel completely comfortable with their sampling techniques, some of which they called negotiable for the future.
> >>
> >> Also, I don't believe they or their competitors test spam found in comments on various forums, blogs, etc. Those may not be emails that we have to
> remove from our Inbox or Junk/Spam folders, but they're still spam (not just stupid comments) which we users have to waste time reading (and hopefully
> flagging).
> >>
> >> Percentages by country MIGHT differ if this other spam were counted, based on samples other users and I have tracked back manually using
> linguistic analysis, Whois, user comments, etc. That's probably where some impressions of higher Chinese amounts arise, but I know of no plausible way to
> get accurate stats on that manually or otherwise. The U.S. and Russia are bad spammers (both kinds), but no area has a majority, so silvrhairdevil's actual
> claim isn't supportable and my estimates would only be unprovable guesses.
> >>
> >> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> >> 16..
> >> 16. silvrhairdevil 02:52 PM 3/3/12
> >> My "guesstimates" are derived from empirical experience cleaning spammers out of an online forum, not the ones that put Viagra offers in your email.
> >>
> >> Far Eastern spammers, to which I loosely ascribe China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan are the ones that join a forum and dump a load of spam. They are
> mostly spambots, churned out by the thousands.
> >>
> >> Russia and Germany both contribute a lot of spam and African spammers are usually email harvesters who will sell your email to the Nigerian lawyer
> who wants to give you your inheritance.
> >>
> >> Very little of the spam I deal with is from the US or Canada.
> >>
> >> I did my research - YMMV
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> >> 17..
> >> 17. ThomasWeb 11:04 PM 3/3/12
> >> I once made the mistake of establishing a non-captcha forum. Within a day it was deluged with over 250 spam entries.
> >>
> >> Ironic: In order to post this comment, I had to:
> >> - Register
> >> - Go to my e-mail to verify
> >> - Return here to log in.
> >> That required a great deal more time than a captcha.
> >>
> >> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> >> 18..
> >> 18. ctisn 06:40 PM 3/7/12
> >> Here's an alternative to CAPTCHA that I really like: http://demo.confidenttechnologies.com/captcha/
> >>
> >> Just click the "Click Here" button to launch it and then follow the instructions to click on the correct pictures. It's so much faster and easier than
> trying to decipher warped letters.
> >>
> >> They say it's more secure than using words because bots aren't able to make a judgement about what the subject matter of each picture is.
> >>
> >> Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
> >> | Jump To: 1-10 | 11-20 |
> >> Leave this field empty
> >> Add a Comment
> >> You must log in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.
> >> Ads by Google
> >>
> >> Network Analysis Software
> >> Monitor Your Business' Network w/
> >> Live Maps & Alerts. Get Free Trial!
> >> InterMapper.com
> >>
> >> Learn to Hack
> >> Learn Hacking Skills & Get A Cert.
> >> Degree in Network Security!
> >> UAT.edu
> >>
> >> University of Phoenix-?
> >> Official Site. College Degrees for
> >> the Real World. Learn More Today.
> >> Phoenix.edu
> >>
> >>
> >> Advertisement
> >> Follow Scientific American
> >> a.. Emailb.. RSSc.. Facebookd.. Twittere.. YouTubef.. iTunes
> >> Scientific American Newsletter
> >> Get weekly coverage delivered to your inbox.
> >>
> >>
> >> Latest Headlines
> >> a.. Smells Like Old Times
> >> Scientific American Mind 1 hour ago
> >> b.. Edges of Perception
> >> Scientific American Mind 1 hour ago
> >> c.. The Secrets of Self-Improvement
> >> Scientific American Mind 1 hour ago
> >> Most Read
> >> a.. The Inspiration Paradox: Your Best Creative Time Is Not When You Think
> >> Mind Matters Mar 6, 2012 | 14
> >> b.. In-Your-Face: Can Computers Catch You Telling a Lie?
> >> Features Mar 5, 2012 | 10
> >> c.. Could a Penny Dropped Off a Skyscraper Actually Kill You?
> >> News Mar 5, 2012 | 13
> >> Most Commented
> >> a.. Japan's Post-Fukushima Earthquake Health Woes Go Beyond Radiation Effects
> >> News Mar 2, 2012 | 58
> >> b.. New Storage Projects Turns CO2 into Stone
> >> Climatewire Mar 5, 2012 | 38
> >> c.. Recent Snowy Winters Possibly Set Off by Rapidly Melting Arctic
> >> Climatewire Feb 28, 2012 | 31
> >> Latest Posts by SA Editors
> >> a.. What is: Petridish.org?
> >> STAFFThe Network Central 13 hours ago
> >> b.. What is: SciBarCamb?
> >> STAFFThe Network Central Mar 6, 2012
> >> c.. #SciAmBlogs Monday - ponytail physics, hydra eyes, Bronx zoo monkeys, caracals, Glee, color pink, and more.
> >> STAFFThe Network Central Mar 6, 2012
> >> d.. Open Laboratory 2013 - submissions so far
> >> STAFFThe Network Central Mar 5, 2012
> >> e.. Clocks in Bacteria V: How about E.coli?
> >> STAFFA Blog Around The Clock Mar 5, 2012
> >> Latest from SA Blog Network
> >> a.. Chemical relaxers, fibroids and black women: how it ALL started
> >> The Urban Scientist 4 hours ago
> >> b.. Combination of "Deaf and Mute" May Have Neural Underpinnings
> >> Observations 9 hours ago
> >> c.. M lange et Trois: A Trip Across Subduction Zone Madness
> >> Guest Blog 13 hours ago
> >> d.. Deafening Birdsong
> >> The Scicurious Brain 13 hours ago
> >> e.. Disease Prone on FiSTChat!
> >> Disease Prone 15 hours ago
> >>
> >> YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
> >>
> >>
> >> Email Address Name
> >>
> >> Advertisement
> >> Science Jobs of the Week
> >> a.. Institute Research Investigator MD Anderson Cancer Center
> >> b.. Histotechnician - IHC CBLPath
> >> c.. Postdoctoral Fellow - Chemistry / PDM Pfizer Inc.
> >> d.. Postdoctoral Scientist (Immunobiology) APCure
> >> e.. Managing Editor, The Lancet Journals Elsevier
> >> f.. More jobs from Naturejobs.com -+
> >> Advertisement
> >>
> >> Scientific American is a trademark of Scientific American, Inc., used with permission
> >>
> >> -? 2012 Scientific American, a Division of Nature America, Inc. View Mobile Site All Rights Reserved.
> >> a.. Advertise
> >> b.. About Scientific American
> >> c.. Subscribe
> >> d.. Special Ad Sections
> >> e.. Press Room
> >> f.. Renew Your Subscription
> >> g.. Science Jobs
> >> h.. Site Map
> >> i.. Buy Back Issues
> >> j.. Partner Network
> >> k.. Terms of Use
> >> l.. Products & Services
> >> m.. International Editions
> >> n.. Privacy Policy
> >> o.. Subscriber Customer Service
> >> a.. Contact Us
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> nfbcs mailing list
> >> nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> >> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
> >> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/jbar%40barcore.com
>
> >_______________________________________________
> >nfbcs mailing list
> >nfbcs at nfbnet.org
> >http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbcs_nfbnet.org
> >To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for nfbcs:
> >http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbcs_nfbnet.org/steve.jacobson%40visi.com
>
>
>
>
More information about the NFBCS
mailing list