Has anyone here seen the latest test from Microsoft for determining if the user of an email service is a human? It is a set of mazes, and in each maze is a mouse and a piece of cheese. The task is to select the mazes in which the mouse can reach the cheese. To make the task more difficult, there is a time limit. The problem is that the time limit is too short for anyone other than a savant to be able to complete the task. If you are elderly or have a disability, then forget it! Fortunately, an alternative task is provided that can be completed, and that may actually be the intended solution to the original problem (as in, from the movie WarGames, “the only winning move is not to play”).

It seems to me that in the battle against the bots, Microsoft has lost the plot. Bots may be getting smarter, but humans are not. Once bots become as smart as humans, the game is over. But Microsoft seems to think that the goal is to outsmart the bots, regardless of how smart the bots get, forgetting that the true goal is to provide tasks that ordinary humans can actually do.

I suppose that’s what happens when you have to rely on automated tests to distinguish between automated and human responses.

Bubblecar said:

I suppose that’s what happens when you have to rely on automated tests to distinguish between automated and human responses.

Oh, the irony!

Perhaps they are only interested in how effective their bots are by using many humans to compete with them, might be just a cheap but good scientific experiment.

PermeateFree said:

Perhaps they are only interested in how effective their bots are by using many humans to compete with them, might be just a cheap but good scientific experiment.

Well, captcha is just humans training bots…

KJW said:

Has anyone here seen the latest test from Microsoft for determining if the user of an email service is a human? It is a set of mazes, and in each maze is a mouse and a piece of cheese. The task is to select the mazes in which the mouse can reach the cheese. To make the task more difficult, there is a time limit. The problem is that the time limit is too short for anyone other than a savant to be able to complete the task. If you are elderly or have a disability, then forget it! Fortunately, an alternative task is provided that can be completed, and that may actually be the intended solution to the original problem (as in, from the movie WarGames, “the only winning move is not to play”).

It seems to me that in the battle against the bots, Microsoft has lost the plot. Bots may be getting smarter, but humans are not. Once bots become as smart as humans, the game is over. But Microsoft seems to think that the goal is to outsmart the bots, regardless of how smart the bots get, forgetting that the true goal is to provide tasks that ordinary humans can actually do.

No I have not seen it.

Bubblecar said:

I suppose that’s what happens when you have to rely on automated tests to distinguish between automated and human responses.

Maybe they should just ban humans from having email accounts

PermeateFree said:

Perhaps they are only interested in how effective their bots are by using many humans to compete with them, might be just a cheap but good scientific experiment.

The task had to be completed in order to be able to send an email. Is the problem of bots sending emails so great that you have to prove you are human to send an email?

welcome the digital craposphere, only little while ago was grizzling about my phone being spammed, it’s showing a different send number each time with very similar content, spoofed probably rolling the numbers

I can’t wait until the human population expands another few billion, more meaningful lives looking to the craposphere for whatever

dv said:

Maybe they should just ban humans from having email accounts

I’m finding it increasing necessary to have a valid email address, even in the real world. And for some email accounts you need another valid email address for authentication purposes.

transition said:

welcome the digital craposphere

It is becoming increasingly evident that computer security is a house of cards.

Surely the point at which humans themselves are unable to distinguish humans from bots, id est now, is the point at which we should stop complaining about the failings of the technology.

SCIENCE said:

Surely the point at which humans themselves are unable to distinguish humans from bots, id est now, is the point at which we should stop complaining about the failings of the technology.

provocatively framed proposition, but has some truths about it, perhaps uncomfortable truths, considered

SCIENCE said:

Surely the point at which humans themselves are unable to distinguish humans from bots, id est now, is the point at which we should stop complaining about the failings of the technology.

I don’t think the problem is with the technology per se. The problem is with decisions made by humans behind the technology.

KJW said:

transition said:

welcome the digital craposphere

It is becoming increasingly evident that computer security is a house of cards.

actually I reckon it, security and the internet have been cleaned up massively since I started out with computers(1999), much improved

Its got so bad even the AI bots designed to outwit ALL security devices and thinking at trillions of processes a second is complaining about this problem. The other problem is that if the system even gets a snifter of a human trying to use it, it locks them out.

where are all these bots? Do they get bot breaks? do they get bot health insurance for all this work they are doing? are there bot benefits? bot maternity and paternity leave? bot mental health supports? are the bots being looked after?

KJW said:

dv said:

Maybe they should just ban humans from having email accounts

I’m finding it increasing necessary to have a valid email address, even in the real world. And for some email accounts you need another valid email address for authentication purposes.

I just let my bots handle all that

transition said:

KJW said:

transition said:

welcome the digital craposphere

It is becoming increasingly evident that computer security is a house of cards.

actually I reckon it, security and the internet have been cleaned up massively since I started out with computers(1999), much improved

Security is becoming stronger, but stronger security makes users more vulnerable to being locked out of their own accounts. This is especially true if the security is unexpectedly stronger than previously. For example, not long ago, in order for me to login to an email account, Microsoft demanded that I provide a mobile phone number. I say “demanded” because there was no alternative option for me to login to the email account. The point is that Microsoft assumed I had access to a mobile phone (Microsoft had no record of me having a mobile phone), and if I didn’t have a mobile phone, then I would have been denied access. Now, if that email account was required for authentication of some other account, then it becomes clearer why security is a house of cards.

KJW said:

transition said:

KJW said:

It is becoming increasingly evident that computer security is a house of cards.

actually I reckon it, security and the internet have been cleaned up massively since I started out with computers(1999), much improved

Security is becoming stronger, but stronger security makes users more vulnerable to being locked out of their own accounts. This is especially true if the security is unexpectedly stronger than previously. For example, not long ago, in order for me to login to an email account, Microsoft demanded that I provide a mobile phone number. I say “demanded” because there was no alternative option for me to login to the email account. The point is that Microsoft assumed I had access to a mobile phone (Microsoft had no record of me having a mobile phone), and if I didn’t have a mobile phone, then I would have been denied access. Now, if that email account was required for authentication of some other account, then it becomes clearer why security is a house of cards.

yeah I had that recently, logged in from a new service while visiting and spooked the outlook server, it sent a code to an old email address which I thought would have expired, I did manage to find the password for the old email account, and at some point it sent a code to my mobile, fortunately I still had the same number, and I was back in

it didn’t turn out such a hassle

KJW said:

SCIENCE said:

Surely the point at which humans themselves are unable to distinguish humans from bots, id est now, is the point at which we should stop complaining about the failings of the technology.

I don’t think the problem is with the technology per se. The problem is with decisions made by humans behind the technology.

Fair enough, rereading it all your point about how this all applies to computer security is significant.

We haven’t really thought through the alternative options. Occasionally it is indeed quite frustrating.

transition said:

yeah I had that recently, logged in from a new service while visiting and spooked the outlook server, it sent a code to an old email address which I thought would have expired, I did manage to find the password for the old email account, and at some point it sent a code to my mobile, fortunately I still had the same number, and I was back in

it didn’t turn out such a hassle

In your case, you had everything you needed. But it seems to me that your house of cards could easily have collapsed.

KJW said:

Security is becoming stronger, but stronger security makes users more vulnerable to being locked out of their own accounts. This is especially true if the security is unexpectedly stronger than previously. For example, not long ago, in order for me to login to an email account, Microsoft demanded that I provide a mobile phone number. I say “demanded” because there was no alternative option for me to login to the email account. The point is that Microsoft assumed I had access to a mobile phone (Microsoft had no record of me having a mobile phone), and if I didn’t have a mobile phone, then I would have been denied access. Now, if that email account was required for authentication of some other account, then it becomes clearer why security is a house of cards.

Security researchers are advancing the subject rapidly, but the people who are implementing security aren’t following the research, and usually don’t actually know anything about computer security. I keep seeing the same basic mistakes, showing that the implementors learn nothing from history, with them even making the same elementary mistakes the Germans made with Enigma.

Le chiffre

dual layer or whatever authentication works well, I just hope the platform I frequent doesn’t send me a bill for all the text messages oneday

wookiemeister said:

Le chiffre

C’est chic

dv said:

wookiemeister said:

Le chiffre

C’est chic

Puisque tu fais de la géométrie et de la trigonométrie, je vais te donner un problème : Un navire est en mer, il est parti de Boston chargé de coton, il jauge 200 tonneaux. Il fait voile vers le Havre, le grand mât est cassé, il y a un mousse sur le gaillard d’avant, les passagers sont au nombre de douze, le vent souffle N.-E.-E., l’horloge marque 3 heures un quart d’après-midi, on est au mois de mai…. On demande l’âge du capitaine?

Arts said:

where are all these bots? Do they get bot breaks? do they get bot health insurance for all this work they are doing? are there bot benefits? bot maternity and paternity leave? bot mental health supports? are the bots being looked after?

Wont anyone think of the bots.

> Bots may be getting smarter, but humans are not.

If bots are getting smarter, how come they can’t stop spamming and phreaking?

To stop the current wave of phreakers, all a bot would have to do is shut down phone lines that make more than a thousand phone calls an hour. That’s not all that difficult as an intellectual exercise.

mollwollfumble said:

> Bots may be getting smarter, but humans are not.

If bots are getting smarter, how come they can’t stop spamming and phreaking?

To stop the current wave of phreakers, all a bot would have to do is shut down phone lines that make more than a thousand phone calls an hour. That’s not all that difficult as an intellectual exercise.

The police hackers should set up a Pac Man army of bot gobblers.

mollwollfumble said:

> Bots may be getting smarter, but humans are not.

If bots are getting smarter, how come they…

If bots are not getting smarter, then why are the tests for humanness becoming more difficult?