|
|
|
| Breaking CAPTCHA |
|
Anonymous
Member #3,724
July 2003
|
William Heatley: It doesn't exactly have a way of grabbing the server-side puretext check... |
|
Billybob
Member #3,136
January 2003
|
Well if the coder was stupid then he put the random code generator in the wrong spot. If it isn't in the right place you might be able to get past it. Either completely getting around it, or hitting it when it isn't initalized or stuck at 0.
|
|
Michael Jensen
Member #2,870
October 2002
 |
Quote: Good, let's hope no one helps you either. You might be up to do something illegal. As far as I know spamming the crap out of people on the web isn't legal. What site are you trying to screw over? Quote: Sometimes the license text is in a text file, which you can edit using a text editor. Do you erase the file contents in such cases and then "read it"? that's different, you accept those licenses by their terms which might say "upon using" or "upon download" this software -- at that point, you've accepted the license. If you press I accept the license that's in that textbox (and there isn't one there...) well that's different. Anyway... If it's a fairly simple kaptcha, is there a reason you can't compare every block of the image for maybe a 50-75% match to a bunch of cut-out blocks from kaptchas that the site has generated previously?
|
|
Kitty Cat
Member #2,815
October 2002
 |
Quote: If you press I accept the license that's in that textbox (and there isn't one there...) well that's different. I believe it'd be a void contract at that point. A change in the contract has to be noted by both parties, and by hand-editing the text file (changing the contract), the licensing party does not approve the changes, thereby making the contract null and void. -- |
|
Anonymous
Member #3,724
July 2003
|
Quote: What site are you trying to screw over? Let's just say that it would be... unwise for me to post it here, in a public forum. In fact, this entire thread is pretty "risky", but the people running that crap site has no clue about anything (except about implementing pre-written script solutions and producing invalid HTML output), so they wouldn't find this place anyway. Quote: If it's a fairly simple kaptcha, is there a reason you can't compare every block of the image for maybe a 50-75% match to a bunch of cut-out blocks from kaptchas that the site has generated previously? Just loading it 10 times reveals that it's very static and should be damn easy for OCR software to detect, given certain variables. I have only tested with gocr/jocr (and another one), and it sucked. I even asked the author, and he told me it was too hard for it to read. The other software was too complicated to get to work for me to even bother. Plus I actually have better things to do. Maybe working around this somehow would be a better idea. It shouldn't be possible, though. William Heatley said some potentially interesting stuff, but tricking it with speed doesn't sound too realistic... |
|
Michael Jensen
Member #2,870
October 2002
|
Quote: I believe it'd be a void contract at that point. A change in the contract has to be noted by both parties, and by hand-editing the text file (changing the contract), the licensing party does not approve the changes, thereby making the contract null and void. Exactly. As in you never accepted their contract. Try converting the image to grayscale, and different color settings (ie filters) increasing/decreasing hues, reds, etc. If the text is always rotated at the same angle try to use a sin/cos to unrotate it... etc. If it's a preavilable solution that renders the CAPTCHA, you could find the solution, and render a key of every possible output it might have, no? or at least most of them, and have it do a compare on the whole image (still I'd make it only check for 80% equality.) Anyway. What kind of vendetta are you trying to settle? You're mad because their html is funky?
|
|
Billybob
Member #3,136
January 2003
|
Their site isn't W3 compliant! Yarg, what cruel people would do that. They must be stopped by any means possible.
|
|
Anonymous
Member #3,724
July 2003
|
Hey! Who said anything about... |
|
BAF
Member #2,981
December 2002
 |
Wouldn't happen to be gamingnews.com or something like that, would it? |
|
Anonymous
Member #3,724
July 2003
|
BAF: Nope. It's a pretty general solution and something I would like to get working, really. |
|
Michael Jensen
Member #2,870
October 2002
|
Will you make a profit by doing this? If so, what kind of cut do we get?
|
|
Tobias Dammers
Member #2,604
August 2002
 |
Can't believe this thread is still open... --- |
|
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
 |
Maybe this will help... |
|
Anonymous
Member #3,724
July 2003
|
Quote: Will you make a profit by doing this? No, for the 725th time. |
|
kentl
Member #2,905
November 2002
|
Quote: No, for the 725th time. Why do you want to do this then? And why do you look dead in your avatar? |
|
Anonymous
Member #3,724
July 2003
|
Quote: Why do you want to do this then? Maybe you'll one day realize that there are more things in life than money. Quote: And why do you look dead in your avatar? Why don't you dare to have an avatar? |
|
kentl
Member #2,905
November 2002
|
Quote: Maybe you'll one day realize that there are more things in life than money. I'm just trying to look at it from your perspective. Someone who wants to spam people gets a certain stereotype when I imagine them. It might be a scurrilous portrait but it's how it works as I think it's vicious to contribute more to the spam infestation on the Internet. Quote: Why don't you dare to have an avatar? I dare but I choose not to. |
|
Anonymous
Member #3,724
July 2003
|
Kent Larsson: I am pushing Web standards and good browsers. I type correct English (AFAIK). Do I sound like a person who crappifies the Web? |
|
Avenger
Member #4,550
April 2004
|
It's the ones who hack and mess which crappifies the Web (hint hint). Give them a single hate mail instead, telling them to improve their site::) EDIT: Not exactly hate mail, more like a complaint.
|
|
kentl
Member #2,905
November 2002
|
Quote: Do I sound like a person who crappifies the Web? You sound like two persons combined into one, the qualities you mentioned are good but spamming is very bad. I really hate all forms of spam. |
|
Michael Jensen
Member #2,870
October 2002
|
crappifies != "correct English"
|
|
Anonymous
Member #3,724
July 2003
|
Roar. |
|
FMC
Member #4,431
March 2004
 |
Legal or not i think that making a program able to read CAPTCHAs would be both educative and entertaining. [FMC Studios] - [Caries Field] - [Ctris] - [Pman] - [Chess for allegroites] |
|
kentl
Member #2,905
November 2002
|
Quote: Legal or not i think that making a program able to read CAPTCHAs would be both educative and entertaining. To create a program which read capchas isn't illegal. To use it to spam the web is immoral and most likely illegal (in Sweden). |
|
|
|
