5 ms·
I question the assertion that this is expensive for spammers. The whole premise is that a spammer would not consider this worth the cost, and do something else
by diego 7y ago
I question the assertion that this is expensive for spammers. The whole premise is that a spammer would not consider this worth the cost, and do something else with the computing power instead. Why? It completely depends on what the captcha is being used for.
- luhn 7y agoYeah, thats the same state of affairs as traditional captchas. There are sites where you can pay under a cent apiece to have real humans solve your captchas. This is just shifting the cost from human capital to compute, it will suffer the same limitations.
- theferalrobot 7y agoPay humans? You can install a browser extension to solve it for you. ReCaptcha is totally ineffective against spam.
- hombre_fatal 7y agoNot in my experience on large websites. If "all it takes" is round tripping the audio component through speech-to-text, then it's apparently annoying enough at scale to stop the vast majority of spam. Also, automating something in a browser extension is basically the easiest place to automate something because it's just done once per user, with their cookies/sessions/ipaddr, very infrequently. So that a browser extension exists for something doesn't mean it's trivial at larger scale. I doubt Google cares about the usage pattern that Buster gives people since it alone is not abuse, just normal people filling out the someodd <form>.
- judge2020 7y agoHave you not used it enough to get the "your computer is performing automated queries" audio block? Because it can be a common problem after using Buster for long enough https://github.com/dessant/buster/issues/56#issuecomment-481655521 https://github.com/dessant/buster/issues/56#issuecomment-481....