Captcha Seminar report 2014

CAPTCHA 2014
Computer Engineering R.M.D.Sinhgad School Of Engg, warje
A
Seminar Report
On
“CAPTCHA SECURITY”
In partial fulfillment of Requirements in
Degree of Computer Engineering
SUBMITTED BY
Ganesh B. Dhage
GUIDED BY
Prof. Vaibhav Dhore.
DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF PUNE
Sinhgad Technical Educations Society’s
RMD SINHGAD SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, PUNE-411 058
2013 – 2014

CAPTCHA 2014
Sinhgad Technical Educations Society’s
RMD SINHGAD SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING, PUNE-411 058
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that student Mr. GANESH BHAIRINATH DHAGE
studying in Third year Computer Engineering course in SEM II and he
has successfully completed and submitted the seminar, entitled
“CAPTHCA SECURITY”.
Guide Head of the Department
Prof. Vaibhav Dhore Prof. Deepak Rewadkar

CAPTCHA 2014
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all let me thank our Director Prof: Deepak Rewadkar
RMDSSOE, Dept. of Computer Engineering who provided with the
necessary facilities and advice. With great pleasure I remember Prof.
Vaibhav Dhore, Dept. of Computer Engineering, and RMDSSOE for
her sincere guidance.
Also I am thankful to all of my teaching and non-teaching staff in the
department and my friends for extending their warm kindness and help.

CAPTCHA 2014
ABSTRACT
One common application of CAPTCHA is for verifying online polls. In fact, a former
Slashdot poll serves as an example of what can go wrong if pollsters don't implement filters
on their surveys. In 1999, Slashdot published a poll that asked visitors to choose the graduate
school that had the best program in computer science. Students from two universities --
Carnegie Mellon and MIT -- created automated programs called bots to vote repeatedly for
their respective schools. While those two schools received thousands of votes, the other
schools only had a few hundred each. If it's possible to create a program that can vote in a
poll, how can we trust online poll results at all? A CAPTCHA form can help prevent
programmers from taking advantage of the polling system.
Registration forms on Web sites often use CAPTCHAs. For example,
free Web-based e-mail services like Hotmail, yahoo mail or gmailallow people to
create an e-mail account free of charge. Usually, users must provide some personal
information when creating an account, but the services typically don't verify this
information. They use CAPTCHAs to try to prevent spammers from using bots to
generate hundreds of spam mail accounts.
HowStuffWorks Yahoo uses alphanumeric strings rather than words as CAPTCHAs when
you sign up for a Yahoo! account. Ticket brokers like TicketMaster also use CAPTCHA
applications.

CAPTCHA 2014
INDEX NO
Content Page No.
1. Introduction ………………………………………..……..1
1.1 Overview
1.2 Motivation
1.3 Background
1.4 CAPTCHAs and the Turing Test
2. Types of Captchas……………………………….………5
2.1 Text Captchas
2.1.1 Gimpy
2.1.2 Ez-Gimpy
2.1.3 Baffle Text
2.1.4 MSN Captcha
2.2 Graphic Captcha
2.2.1 Bongo
2.2.2 PIX
2.3 Audio Captchas
2.4 ReCaptcha and Book Digitization
3. Application…………………………………………….12
4. Constructing Captchas……………….….……………..15
4.1. Things to know
4.2. Implimentation
4.3. Guidelines for Captcha implimentation

CAPTCHA 2014
5. Breaking Captchas……………………………………24
5.1. Breaking Captchas Without OCR
5.2. Breaking a Visual Captcha
5.3. Breaking an Audio Capctha
5.4. Social Engineering
5.5. Captcha Cracking As a Business
6. Issues with Captchas………………………………..30
6.1. Usability issues with text based captcha
6.2. Usability of Audio Captchas
7. Conclusion…………………………………………..33
8. References…………………………………………...36

CAPTCHA 2014
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Overview:
You're trying to sign up for a free email service offered by Gmail or Yahoo.
Before you can submit your application, you first have to pass a test. It's not a hard
test -- in fact, that's the point . For you, the test should be simple and straightforward.
But for a computer, the test should be almost impossible to solve.
This sort of test is a CAPTCHA. They're also known as a type of Human
Interaction Proof (HIP). You've probably seen CAPTCHA tests on lots of Web
sites. The most common form of CAPTCHA is an image of several distorted letters.
It's your job to type the correct series of letters into a form. If your letters match the
ones in the distorted image, you pass the test.
CAPTCHAs are short for Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell
Computers and Humans Apart. The term "CAPTCHA" was coined in 2000 by Luis
Von Ahn, Manuel Blum, Nicholas J. Hopper (all of Carnegie Mellon University,
and John Langford (then of IBM). They are challenge-response tests to ensure that the
users are indeed human. The purpose of a CAPTCHA is to block form submissions
from spam bots – automated scripts that harvest email addresses from publicly
available web forms. A common kind of CAPTCHA used on most websites requires
the users to enter the string of characters that appear in a distorted form on the screen.
CAPTCHAs are used because of the fact that it is difficult for the computers to
extract the text from such a distorted image, whereas it is relatively easy for a human
to understand the text hidden behind the distortions. Therefore, the correct response to
a CAPTCHA challenge is assumed to come from a human and the user is permitted
into the website.
Why would anyone need to create a test that can tell humans and computers
apart? It's because of people trying to game the system -- they want to exploit
weaknesses in the computers running the site. While these individuals probably make

CAPTCHA 2014
up a minority of all the people on the Internet, their actions can affect millions of
users and Web sites.
For example, a free e-mail service might find itself bombarded by account requests
from an automated program. That automated program could be part of a larger
attempt to send out spam mail to millions of people. The CAPTCHA test helps
identify which users are real human beings and which ones are computer programs.
Spammers are constantly trying to build algorithms that read the distorted text
correctly. So strong CAPTCHAs have to be designed and built so that the efforts of
the spammers are thwarted.
1.2 Motivation:
The proliferation of the publicly available services on the Web is a boon for
the community at large. But unfortunately it has invited new and novel abuses.
Programs (bots and spiders) are being created to steal services and to conduct
fraudulent transactions. Some examples:
Free online accounts are being registered automatically many times and
are being used to distribute stolen or copyrighted material.
Recommendation systems are vulnerable to artificial inflation or deflation
of rankings. For example, EBay, a famous auction website allows users to
rate a product. Abusers can easily create bots that could increase or
decrease the rating of a specific product, possibly changing people‘s
perception towards the product.
Spammers register themselves with free email accounts such as those
provided by Gmail or Hotmail and use their bots to send unsolicited mails
to other users of that email service.
Online polls are attacked by bots and are susceptible to ballot stuffing.
This gives unfair mileage to those that benefit from it.

CAPTCHA 2014
In light of the above listed abuses and much more, a need was felt for a facility that
checks users and allows access to services to only human users. It was in this
direction that such a tool like CAPTCHA was created.
1.3 Background:
The need for CAPTCHAs rose to keep out the website/search engine abuse by
bots. In 1997, AltaVista sought ways to block and discourage the automatic
submissions of URLs into their search engines. Andrei Broder, Chief Scientist of
AltaVista, and his colleagues developed a filter. Their method was to generate a
printed text randomly that only humans could read and not machine readers. Their
approach was so effective that in a year, ―spam-add-ons‘‖ were reduced by 95% and a
patent was issued in 2001.
In 2000, Yahoo‘s popular Messenger chat service was hit by bots which
pointed advertising links to annoying human users of chat rooms. Yahoo, along with
Carnegie Mellon University, developed a CAPTCHA called EZ-GIMPY, which chose
a dictionary word randomly and distorted it with a wide variety of image occlusions
and asked the user to input the distorted word.
In November 1999, slashdot.com released a poll to vote for the best CS
College in the US. Students from the Carnegie Mellon University and the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology created bots that repeatedly voted for their
respective colleges. This incident created the urge to use CAPTCHAs for such online
polls to ensure that only human users are able to take part in the polls.
1.4 CAPTCHAs and the Turing Test:
CAPTCHA technology has its foundation in an experiment called the Turing
Test. Alan Turing, sometimes called the father of modern computing, proposed the
test as a way to examine whether or not machines can think -- or appear to think --
like humans. The classic test is a game of imitation. In this game, an interrogator asks
two participants a series of questions. One of the participants is a machine and the

CAPTCHA 2014
other is a human. The interrogator can't see or hear the participants and has no way of
knowing which is which. If the interrogator is unable to figure out which participant is
a machine based on the responses, the machine passes the Turing Test.
Of course, with a CAPTCHA, the goal is to create a test that humans can pass
easily but machines can't.
It's also important that the CAPTCHA application is able to present different
CAPTCHAs to different users. If a visual CAPTCHA presented a static image that
was the same for every user, it wouldn't take long before a spammer spotted the form,
deciphered the letters, and programmed an application to type in the correct answer
automatically.
Most, but not all, CAPTCHAs rely on a visual test. Computers lack the
sophistication that human beings have when it comes to processing visual data. We
can look at an image and pick out patterns more easily than a computer. The human
mind sometimes perceives patterns even when none exist, a quirk we call pareidolia.
Ever see a shape in the clouds or a face on the moon? That's your brain trying to
associate random information into patterns and shapes.
But not all CAPTCHAs rely on visual patterns. In fact, it's important to have
an alternative to a visual CAPTCHA. Otherwise, the Web site administrator runs the
risk of disenfranchising any Web user who has a visual impairment. One alternative to
a visual test is an audible one. An audio CAPTCHA usually presents the user with a
series of spoken letters or numbers. It's not unusual for the program to distort the
speaker's voice, and it's also common for the program to include background noise in
the recording. This helps thwart voice recognition programs.
Another option is to create a CAPTCHA that asks the reader to interpret a
short passage of text. A contextual CAPTCHA quizzes the reader and tests
comprehension skills. While computer programs can pick out key words in text
passages, they aren't very good at understanding what those words actually mean.

CAPTCHA 2014
CHAPTER 2
TYPES OF CAPTCHAS
CAPTCHAs are classified based on what is distorted and presented as a
challenge to the user. They are:
2.1 Text CAPTCHAs:
These are simple to implement. The simplest yet novel approach is to present
the user with some questions which only a human user can solve. Examples of such
questions are:
1. What are twenty minus three?
2. What is the third letter in UNIVERSITY?
3. Which of Yellow, Thursday and Richard is a colour?
4. If yesterday was a Sunday, what is today?
Such questions are very easy for a human user to solve, but it‘s very difficult to
program a computer to solve them. These are also friendly to people with visual
disability – such as those with colour blindness.
Other text CAPTCHAs involves text distortions and the user is asked to identify the
text hidden. The various implementations are:
2.1.1 Gimpy:
Gimpy is a very reliable text CAPTCHA built by CMU in collaboration with
Yahoo for their Messenger service. Gimpy is based on the human ability to read
extremely distorted text and the inability of computer programs to do the same.
Gimpy works by choosing ten words randomly from a dictionary, and displaying
them in a distorted and overlapped manner. Gimpy then asks the users to enter a

CAPTCHA 2014
subset of the words in the image. The human user is capable of identifying the words
correctly, whereas a computer program cannot.
Fig 2.1 Gimpy CAPTCHA
2.1.2 Ez – Gimpy:
This is a simplified version of the Gimpy CAPTCHA, adopted by Yahoo in
their signup page. Ez – Gimpy randomly picks a single word from a dictionary and
applies distortion to the text. The user is then asked to identify the text correctly.
Fig 2.2 Yahoo’s Ez – Gimpy CAPTCHA

CAPTCHA 2014
2.1.3 Baffle Text:
This was developed by Henry Baird at University of California at
Berkeley. This is a variation of the Gimpy. This doesn‘t contain dictionary words, but
it picks up random alphabets to create a nonsense but pronounceable text. Distortions
are then added to this text and the user is challenged to guess the right word.
This technique overcomes the drawback of Gimpy CAPTCHA because,
Gimpy uses dictionary words and hence, clever bots could be designed to check the
dictionary for the matching word by brute-force.
finans
ourses
Fig 2.3 Baffle Text examples
2.1.4 MSN Captcha:
Microsoft uses a different CAPTCHA for services provided under MSN
umbrella. These are popularly called MSN Passport CAPTCHAs. They use eight
characters (upper case) and digits. Foreground is dark blue, and background is grey.

CAPTCHA 2014
Warping is used to distort the characters, to produce a ripple effect, which makes
computer recognition very difficult.
XTNM5YRE
L9D28229B
Fig 2.4 MSN Passport CAPTCHA
2.2 Graphic CAPTCHAs:
Graphic CAPTCHAs are challenges that involve pictures or objects that have
some sort of similarity that the users have to guess. They are visual puzzles, similar
to Mensa tests. Computer generates the puzzles and grades the answers, but is itself
unable to solve it.
2.2.1 Bongo:
Bongo. Another example of a CAPTCHA is the program we call BONGO [2].
BONGO is named after M.M. Bongard, who published a book of pattern recognition
problems in the 1970s [3]. BONGO asks the user to solve a visual pattern recognition
problem. It displays two series of blocks, the left and the right. The blocks in the left
series differ from those in the right, and the user must find the characteristic that sets
them apart. A possible left and right series is shown in Figure 2.5
Fig 2.5 Bongo CAPTCHA

CAPTCHA 2014
These two sets are different because everything on the left is drawn with thick lines
and those on the right are in thin lines. After seeing the two blocks, the user is
presented with a set of four single blocks and is asked to determine to which group the
each block belongs to. The user passes the test if s/he determines correctly to which
set the blocks belong to. We have to be careful to see that the user is not confused by
a large number of choices.
2.2.2 PIX:
PIX is a program that has a large database of labeled images. All of these
images are pictures of concrete objects (a horse, a table, a house, a flower). The
program picks an object at random, finds six images of that object from its database,
presents them to the user and then asks the question ―what are these pictures of?‖
Current computer programs should not be able to answer this question, so PIX should
be a CAPTCHA. However, PIX, as stated, is not a CAPTCHA: it is very easy to write
a program that can answer the question ―what are these pictures of?‖ Remember that
all the code and data of a CAPTCHA should be publicly available; in particular, the
image database that PIX uses should be public. Hence, writing a program that can
answer the question ―what are these pictures of?‖ is easy: search the database for the
images presented and find their label. Fortunately, this can be fixed. One way for PIX
to become a CAPTCHA is to randomly distort the images before presenting them to
the user, so that computer programs cannot easily search the database for the
undistorted image.
2.3 Audio CAPTCHAs:
The final example we offer is based on sound. The program picks a word or a
sequence of numbers at random, renders the word or the numbers into a sound clip
and distorts the sound clip; it then presents the distorted sound clip to the user and
asks users to enter its contents. This CAPTCHA is based on the difference in ability
between humans and computers in recognizing spoken language. Nancy Chan of the
City University in Hong Kong was the first to implement a sound-based system of this

CAPTCHA 2014
type. The idea is that a human is able to efficiently disregard the distortion and
interpret the characters being read out while software would struggle with the
distortion being applied, and need to be effective at speech to text translation in order
to be successful. This is a crude way to filter humans and it is not so popular because
the user has to understand the language and the accent in which the sound clip is
recorded.
2.4 reCAPTCHA and book digitization:
To counter various drawbacks of the existing implementations, researchers at
CMU developed a redesigned CAPTCHA aptly called the reCAPTCHA. About 200
million CAPTCHAs are solved by humans around the world every day. In each case,
roughly ten seconds of human time are being spent. Individually, that's not a lot of
time, but in aggregate these little puzzles consume more than 150,000 hours of work
each day. What if we could make positive use of this human effort? reCAPTCHA
does exactly that by channeling the effort spent solving CAPTCHAs online into
"reading" books.
To archive human knowledge and to make information more accessible to the
world, multiple projects are currently digitizing physical books that were written
before the computer age. The book pages are being photographically scanned, and
then transformed into text using "Optical Character Recognition" (OCR). The
transformation into text is useful because scanning a book produces images, which are
difficult to store on small devices, expensive to download, and cannot be searched.
The problem is that OCR is not perfect.
reCAPTCHA improves the process of digitizing books by sending words that
cannot be read by computers to the Web in the form of CAPTCHAs for humans to
decipher. More specifically, each word that cannot be read correctly by OCR is placed
on an image and used as a CAPTCHA. This is possible because most OCR programs
alert you when a word cannot be read correctly.
But if a computer can't read such a CAPTCHA, how does the system know the
correct answer to the puzzle? Here's how: Each new word that cannot be read

CAPTCHA 2014
correctly by OCR is given to a user in conjunction with another word for which the
answer is already known. The user is then asked to read both words. If they solve the
one for which the answer is known, the system assumes their answer is correct for the
new one. The system then gives the new image to a number of other people to
determine, with higher confidence, whether the original answer was correct.
Currently, reCAPTCHA is employed in digitizing books as part of the Google Books
Project.
Fig 2.6 First line shows scanned text, second line shows text read by OCR

CAPTCHA 2014
Chapter 3
Applications
CAPTCHAs are used in various Web applications to identify human users and
to restrict access to them.
Some of them are:
1. Online Polls: As mentioned before, bots can wreak havoc to any unprotected
online poll. They might create a large number of votes which would then
falsely represent the poll winner in spotlight. This also results in decreased
faith in these polls. CAPTCHAs can be used in websites that have embedded
polls to protect them from being accessed by bots, and hence bring up the
reliability of the polls.
2. Protecting Web Registration: Several companies offer free email and other
services. Until recently, these service providers suffered from a serious
problem – bots. These bots would take advantage of the service and would
sign up for a large number of accounts. This often created problems in account
management and also increased the burden on their servers. CAPTCHAs can
effectively be used to filter out the bots and ensure that only human users are
allowed to create accounts.
3. Preventing comment spam: Most bloggers are familiar with programs that
submit large number of automated posts that are done with the intention of
increasing the search engine ranks of that site. CAPTCHAs can be used before
a post is submitted to ensure that only human users can create posts. A
CAPTCHA won't stop someone who is determined to post a rude message or
harass an administrator, but it will help prevent bots from posting messages
automatically.

CAPTCHA 2014
4. Search engine bots: It is sometimes desirable to keep web pages unindexed to
prevent others from finding them easily. There is an html tag to prevent search
engine bots from reading web pages. The tag, however, doesn't guarantee that
bots won't read a web page; it only serves to say "no bots, please." Search
engine bots, since they usually belong to large companies, respect web pages
that don't want to allow them in. However, in order to truly guarantee that bots
won't enter a web site, CAPTCHAs are needed.
5. E-Ticketing: Ticket brokers like Ticketmaster also use CAPTCHA
applications. These applications help prevent ticket scalpers from bombarding
the service with massive ticket purchases for big events. Without some sort of
filter, it's possible for a scalper to use a bot to place hundreds or thousands of
ticket orders in a matter of seconds. Legitimate customers become victims as
events sell out minutes after tickets become available. Scalpers then try to sell
the tickets above face value. While CAPTCHA applications don't prevent
scalping; they do make it more difficult to scalp tickets on a large scale.
6. Email spam: CAPTCHAs also present a plausible solution to the problem of
spam emails. All we have to do is to use a CAPTCHA challenge to verify that
an indeed a human has sent the email.
7. Preventing Dictionary Attacks: CAPTCHAs can also be used to prevent
dictionary attacks in password systems. The idea is simple: prevent a computer
from being able to iterate through the entire space of passwords by requiring it
to solve a CAPTCHA after a certain number of unsuccessful logins. This is
better than the classic approach of locking an account after a sequence of
unsuccessful logins, since doing so allows an attacker to lock accounts at will.
8. As a tool to verify digitized books: This is a way of increasing the value of
CAPTCHA as an application. An application called reCAPTCHA harnesses
users responses in CAPTCHA fields to verify the contents of a scanned piece

CAPTCHA 2014
of paper. Because computers aren‘t always able to identify words from a
digital scan, humans have to verify what a printed page says.
Then it‘s possible for search engines to search and index the contents of a
scanned document. This is how it works: The application already recognizes
one of the words. If the visitor types that word into a field correctly, the
application assumes the second word the user types is also correct. That
second word goes into a pool of words that the application will present to
other users. As each user types in a word, the application compares the word to
the original answer. Eventually, the application receives enough responses to
verify the word with a high degree of certainty. That word can then go into the
verified pool.
9. Improve Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology: Luis von Ahn of Carnegie
Mellon University is one of the inventors of CAPTCHA. In a 2006 lecture,
von Ahn talked about the relationship between things like CAPTCHA and the
field of artificial intelligence (AI). Because CAPTCHA is a barrier between
spammers or hackers and their goal, these people have dedicated time and
energy toward breaking CAPTCHAs. Their successes mean that machines are
getting more sophisticated. Every time someone figures out how to teach a
machine to defeat a CAPTCHA, we move one step closer to artificial
intelligence.
As people find new ways to get around CAPTCHA, computer scientists like
von Ahn develop CAPTCHAs that address other challenges in the field of AI.
A step backward for CAPTCHA is still a step forward for AI – ―every defeat
is also a victory‖.

CAPTCHA 2014
Chapter 4
Constructing CAPTCHAs
4.1 Things to know:
The first step to create a CAPTCHA is to look at different ways humans and
machines process information. Machines follow sets of instructions. If something falls
outside the realm of those instructions, the machines aren‘t able to compensate. A
CAPTCHA designer has to take this into account when creating a test. For example,
it‘s easy to build a program that looks at metadata – the information on the Web
that‘s invisible to humans but machines can read. If you create a visual CAPTCHA
and the images‘ metadata includes the solution, your CAPTCHA will be broken in no
time.
Similarly, it‘s unwise to build a CAPTCHA that doesn‘t distort letters and
numbers in some way. An undistorted series of characters isn‘t very secure. Many
computer programs can scan an image and recognize simple shapes like letters and
numbers.
One way to create a CAPTCHA is to pre-determine the images and solutions it
will use. This approach requires a database that includes all the CAPTCHA solutions,
which can compromise the reliability of the test. According to Microsoft Research
experts Kumar Chellapilla and Patrice Simard, humans should have an 80 percent
success rate at solving any particular CAPTCHA, but machines should only have a
0.01 percent success rate [source: Chellapilla and Simard]. If a spammer managed to
find a list of all CAPTCHA solutions, he or she could create an application that
bombards the CAPTCHA with every possible answer in a brute-force attack. The
database would need more than 10,000 possible CAPTCHAs to meet the
qualifications of a good CAPTCHA.
Other CAPTCHA applications create random strings of letters and numbers.
You aren‘t likely to ever get the same series twice.

CAPTCHA 2014
Using randomization eliminates the possibility of a brute-force attack the odds
of a bot entering the correct series of random letters are very low. The longer he string
of characters, the less likely a bot will get lucky.
CAPTCHAs take different approaches to distorting words. Some stretch and
bend letters in weird ways, as if you‘re looking at the word through melted glass.
Others put the word behind a crosshatched pattern of bars to break up the shape of
letters. A few use different colours or a field of dots to achieve the same effect. In the
end, the goal is the same: to make it really hard for a computer to figure out what‘s in
the CAPTCHA.
Designers can also create puzzles or problems that are easy for humans to
solve. Some CAPTCHAs rely on pattern recognition and extrapolation. For
example, a CAPTCHA might include series of shapes and ask the user which shape
among several choices would logically come next. The problem with this approach is
that not all humans are good with these kinds of problems and the success rate for a
human user can go below 80 percent.
4.2 Implementation:
Embeddable CAPTCHAs: The easiest implementation of a CAPTCHA to a
Website would be to insert a few lines of CAPTCHA code into the Website‘s HTML
code, from an open source CAPTCHA builder, which will provide the authentication
services remotely. Most such services are free. Popular among them is the service
provided by www.captcha.net‗s reCAPTCHA project.
Custom CAPTCHAs: These are less popular because of the extra work
needed to create a secure implementation. Anyway, these are popular among
researchers who verify existing CAPTCHAs and suggest alternative implementations.
There are advantages in building custom CAPTCHAs:
1. A custom CAPTCHA can fit exactly into the design and theme of your
site. It will not look like some alien element that does not belong there.

CAPTCHA 2014
2. We want to take away the perception of a CAPTCHA as an annoyance,
and make it convenient for the user.
3. Because a custom CAPTCHA, unlike the major CAPTCHA
mechanisms, obscure you as a target for spammers. Spammers have little interest in
cracking a niche implementation.
4. Because we want to learn how they work, so it is best to build one
ourselves.
CAPTCHA Logic:
1. The CAPTCHA image (or question) is generated. There are different
ways to do this. The classic approach is to generate some random text, apply some
random effects to it and convert it into an image.
2. Step 2 is not really sequential. During step 1, the original text (pre-
altered) is persisted somewhere, as this is the correct answer to the question. There are
different ways to persist the answer, as a server-side session variable, cookie, file, or
database entry.
3. The generated CAPTCHA is presented to the user, who is prompted to
answer it.
4. The back-end script checks the answer supplied by the user by
comparing it with the persisted (correct) answer. If the value is empty or incorrect, we
go back to step 1: a new CAPTCHA is generated. Users should never get a second
shot at answering the same CAPTCHA.
5. If the answer supplied by the user is correct, the form post is successful
and processing can continue. If applicable, the generated CAPTCHA image is deleted.

CAPTCHA 2014
Now, a sample implementation is presented. This is an implementation of a
CAPTCHA that resembles PIX. This uses Jungle Dragon, which is a wildlife image
sharing site, as its image database. A first step in designing a custom CAPTCHA is to
think about your user base in order to find a way to blend a CAPTCHA check into the
user experience. Users are presented an image of an animal and then have to guess
what it is. When they fail, a new random image is pulled up, as well as a fresh set of
answers, their order and options shifted each time. The CAPTCHA back-end is
implemented into a PHP class. To map the images to the answers, an associative array
is used.
Var $images = array (1=>"parrot", 2=>"panda", 3=>"lion", 4=>"dog",
5=>"cat”);
We may have more collections in the database. The method that generates the
CAPTCHA is as follows:
1: function generate_captcha($num_answers)
2: {
3: // get random image
4: $image_num = rand(1,sizeof($this->images));
5: $image_name = $this->images[$image_num];
6:
7: // set the correct answer in the session
8: $this->CI->session->set_userdata('captcha', $image_name);
9:
10: // build up list of possible answers
11: // we'll start by including the correct answer
12: $answers = array();
13: $answers[] = $image_name;
14:
15: // next, we need to find num_answers - 1 additional options
16: $count = 0;
17: while ($count < ($num_answers-1)) {
18: $currentanswer = rand(1,sizeof($this->images));

CAPTCHA 2014
19: if (!in_array($this->images[$currentanswer],$answers)) {
20: $answers[] = $this->images[$currentanswer];
21: $count++;
22: }
23: }
24:
25: // shuffle the array so that the first answer is not
26: // always the right answer
27: shuffle($answers);
28:
29: // build data array and return it
30: $data = array(
31: "image_num" => $image_num,
32: "image_name" => $image_name,
33: "answers" => $answers
34: );
35:
36: return $data;
37: }
The relevant lines of the above code are explained below:
1. The method signature. Note how we can pass in $num_answer, to indicate
how many possible answers are showed for each image.
4. Randomly select an image number based on the options in the associative
array discussed earlier.
5. Get the name corresponding with the randomly selected image number
from line 4
8. This is an important step. Here we are persisting the correct answer (image
name) of the currently generated CAPTCHA. We need to persist this securely. In this

CAPTCHA 2014
case, using encrypted cookies, but server-side session variables, a file, or a database
can also be used.
12. With the image selected and the correct answer persisted, we now need to
generate a set of possible answers. We'll store them in the $answers array.
13. Are set of options always has to contain the correct answer, so we'll
include that in the array
16-23. Next, we will generate the additional answers, which are all wrong.
We'll keep looping until we have found the number of unique answers requested by
$num_answers minus 1, since we already included one answer: the correct one.
27. We do not want the correct answer to be at the same position in the answer
list, therefore we shuffle the answer list.
30-36. Here we are building up an array of values that the calling code needs
to work with the CAPTCHA, and then return it.
There is another method check_captcha. This method checks if the answer that
is passed to it corresponds to the persisted answer:
function check_captcha($answer)
{
// check if captcha is correc
return ($this->CI->session->userdata('captcha') === $answer) ? true : false;
}
That's it. We can now start using this class. From our script that renders our front-end
pages, we call:
// generate a new captcha
$this->load->library('captcha');
$captchadata = $this->captcha->generate_captcha(5);

CAPTCHA 2014
It is to be noted that this syntax of class loading and calling the method is specific for
the CodeIgniter PHP framework. Alternatively the classic PHP syntax can be used if
this framework is not used.
With $captchadata in our pocket, we can then assign it to our presentation
ayer, which will render it:
<?
foreach ($answers as $answer)
echo "<input type="radio" name="captcha_answer"
id="$answer" value="$answer" />n
<label for="$answer">$answer</label><br/>n";
?>
Finally, in the postback code, we will call the check_captcha to see if the user
has entered the correct answer based on the field value of captcha_answer. It depends
on the validation library we use, how to call it, but we need to make sure that a new
CAPTCHA is generated if the answer was empty or incorrect. Also, we need to insert
validation messages that inform the user whether his is solution to the CAPTCHA
was correct.
4.3 Guidelines for CAPTCHA implementation:
If your website needs protection from abuse, it is recommended that you use a
CAPTCHA. There are many CAPTCHA implementations, some better than others.
The following guidelines are strongly recommended for any CAPTCHA code:
Accessibility: CAPTCHAs must be accessible. CAPTCHAs based solely on reading
text — or other visual-perception tasks — prevent visually impaired users from
accessing the protected resource. Such CAPTCHAs may make a site incompatible
with disability access rules in most countries. Any implementation of a CAPTCHA

CAPTCHA 2014
should allow blind users to get around the barrier, for example, by permitting users to
opt for an audio or sound CAPTCHA.
Image Security: CAPTCHA images of text should be distorted randomly before
being presented to the user. Many implementations of CAPTCHAs use undistorted
text, or text with only minor distortions. These implementations are vulnerable to
simple automated attacks.
Script Security: Building a secure CAPTCHA code is not easy. In addition to
making the images unreadable by computers, the system should ensure that there are
no easy ways around it at the script level. Common examples of insecurities in this
respect include:
1. Systems that pass the answer to the CAPTCHA in plain text as part of
the web form.
2. Systems where a solution to the same CAPTCHA can be used multiple
times (this makes the CAPTCHA vulnerable to so-called "replay attacks").
Most CAPTCHA scripts found freely on the Web are vulnerable to these types of
attacks.
Security Even After Wide-Spread Adoption: There are various "CAPTCHAs" that
would be insecure if a significant number of sites started using them. An example of
such a puzzle is asking text-based questions, such as a mathematical question ("what
is 1+1"). Since a parser could easily be written that would allow bots to bypass this
test, such "CAPTCHAs" rely on the fact that few sites use them, and thus that a bot
author has no incentive to program their bot to solve that challenge. True CAPTCHAs
should be secure even after a significant number of websites adopt them.
Should I Make My Own CAPTCHA? In general, making your own CAPTCHA
script (e.g., using PHP, Perl or .Net) is a bad idea, as there are many failure modes.
We recommend that you use a well-tested implementation such as reCAPTCHA.
Beating spammers is not a hard science; you need to have multiple layers of
defense. What you see above is in fact the most successful strategy against
spammers: obscurity. Simply because we have a CUSTOM CAPTCHA, makes us
less of a target. Spammers go for mass targets, as their success rate is typically

CAPTCHA 2014
extremely low. Even if we would have a single animal image with just two answers,
and the answers would be in the same order each time, we would drastically reduce
spam submissions.
An example of this effect is the site www.codinghorror.com/blog; it has a
custom CAPTCHA check that simply lets you enter the word "Orange" to post a
comment. Orange. Each time. Nothing is random, and there is only one answer.
Still, it has drastically reduced the spam on that blog, and it's a big blog.
Obscurity works. Not for security, but against spammers.
It is extremely important to have CAPTCHAs based on a variety of sensory
abilities. All CAPTCHAs presented here, except for the sound based CAPTCHA, rely
on the user being able to see an image. However, since there are many visually
impaired people using the Web, CAPTCHAs based on sound are necessary for
accessibility. Unfortunately, images and sound alone are not sufficient: there are
people who use the Web that are both visually and hearing impaired. The construction
of a CAPTCHA based on a text domain such as text understanding or generation is an
important open problem for the project.

CAPTCHA 2014
Chapter 5
Breaking CAPTCHAs
The challenge in breaking a CAPTCHA isn't figuring out what a message says
-- after all, humans should have at least an 80 percent success rate. The really hard
task is teaching a computer how to process information in a way similar to how
humans think. In many cases, people who break CAPTCHAs concentrate not on
making computers smarter, but reducing the complexity of the problem posed by the
CAPTCHA.
Let's assume you've protected an online form using a CAPTCHA that displays
English words. The application warps the font slightly, stretching and bending the
letters in unpredictable ways. In addition, the CAPTCHA includes a randomly
generated background behind the word.
A programmer wishing to break this CAPTCHA could approach the problem
in phases. He or she would need to write an algorithm -- a set of instructions that
directs a machine to follow a certain series of steps. In this scenario, one step might be
to convert the image in grayscale. That means the application removes all the color
from the image, taking away one of the levels of obfuscation the CAPTCHA employs.
Next, the algorithm might tell the computer to detect patterns in the black and
white image. The program compares each pattern to a normal letter, looking for
matches. If the program can only match a few of the letters, it might cross reference
those letters with a database of English words. Then it would plug in likely candidates
into the submit field. This approach can be surprisingly effective. It might not work
100 percent of the time, but it can work often enough to be worthwhile to spammers.
What about more complex CAPTCHAs? The Gimpy CAPTCHA displays 10
English words with warped fonts across an irregular background. The CAPTCHA
arranges the words in pairs and the words of each pair overlap one another. Users
have to type in three correct words in order to move forward. How reliable is this
approach?

CAPTCHA 2014
As it turns out, with the right CAPTCHA-cracking algorithm, it's not terribly
reliable. Greg Mori and Jitendra Malik published a paper detailing their approach to
cracking the Gimpy version of CAPTCHA. One thing that helped them was that the
Gimpy approach uses actual words rather than random strings of letters and numbers.
With this in mind, Mori and Malik designed an algorithm that tried to identify words
by examining the beginning and end of the string of letters. They also used the
Gimpy's 500-word dictionary.
Mori and Malik ran a series of tests using their algorithm. They found that
their algorithm could correctly identify the words in a Gimpy CAPTCHA 33 percent
of the time [source: Mori and Malik]. While that's far from perfect, it's also
significant. Spammers can afford to have only one-third of their attempts succeed if
they set bots to break CAPTCHAs several hundred times every minute.
Another vulnerability that most CAPTCHA scripts have is again in their use of
sessions; if we're on an insecure shared server, any user on that server may have
access to everyone else's session files, so even if our site is totally secure, a
vulnerability on any other website hosted on that machine can lead to a compromise
of the session data, and hence, the CAPTCHA script. One workaround is by storing
only a hash of the CAPTCHA word in the session, thus even if someone can read the
session files, they can't find out what the CAPTCHA word is.
5.1 Breaking CAPTCHAs without OCR:
Most CAPTCHAs don't destroy the session when the correct phrase is entered.
So by reusing the session id of a known CAPTCHA image, it is possible to automate
requests to a CAPTCHA-protected page.
Manual steps:
Connect to CAPTCHA page
Record session ID and CAPTCHA plaintext

CAPTCHA 2014
Automated steps:
Resend session ID and CAPTCHA plaintext any number of times, changing
the user data. The other user data can change on each request. We can then automate
hundreds, if not thousands of requests, until the session expires, at which point we just
repeat the manual steps and then reconnect with a new session ID and CAPTCHA
text.
Traditional CAPTCA-breaking software involves using image recognition routines to
decode CAPTCHA images. This approach bypasses the need to do any of that,
making it easy to hack CAPTCHA images.
5.2 Breaking a visual CAPTCHA:
Greg Mori and Jitendra Malik of University of California at Berkeley‘s
Computer Vision Group evaluate image based CAPTCHAs for reliability. They test
whether the CAPTCHA can withstand bots who masquerade as humans.
Approach: The fundamental ideas behind our approach to solving Gimpy are the
same as those we are using to solve generic object recognition problems. Our solution
to the Gimpy CAPTCHA is just an application of a general framework that we have
used to compare images of everyday objects and even find and track people in video
sequences. The essences of these problems are similar. Finding the letters "T", "A",
"M", "E" in an image and connecting them to read the word "TAME" is akin to
finding hands, feet, elbows, and faces and connecting them up to find a human. Real
images of people and objects contain large amounts of clutter. Learning to deal with
the adversarial clutter present in Gimpy has helped us in understanding generic object
recognition problems.
Breaking an EZ-Gimpy CAPTCHA: Our algorithm for breaking EZ-Gimpy
consists of 3 main steps:

CAPTCHA 2014
Fig 5.1 Breaking CAPTCHAs
1. Locate possible (candidate) letters at various locations: The first step is to
hypothesize a set of candidate letters in the image. This is done using our
shape matching techniques.The method essentially looks at a bunch of points
in the image at random, and compares these points to points on each of the 26
letters. The comparison is done in a way that is very robust to background
clutter and deformation of the letters. The process usually results in 3-5
candidate letters per actual letter in the image. In the example shown in Fig
5.1, the "p" of profit matches well to both an "o‖ or a "p", the border between
the "p" and the "r" look a bit like a "u", and so forth. At this stage we keep
many candidates, to be sure we don't miss anything for later steps.
2. Construct graph of consistent letters: Next, we analyze pairs of letters to see
whether or not they are "consistent", or can be used consecutively to form a
word.
3. Look for plausible words in the graph: There are many possible paths
through the graph of letters constructed in the previous step. However, most of
them do not form real words. We select out the real words in the graph, and
assign scores to them based on how well their individual letters match the
image.
Similar algorithms are also devised by Mori and Malik to evaluate other image
based CAPTCHAs like Gimpy, etc.

CAPTCHA 2014
5.3 Breaking an audio CAPTCHA:
Recent research is suggesting that Google's audio capture is the latest in a
string of CAPTCHA's to have been defeated by software. t has been theorized that
one cost-effective means of breaking audio captures and image captures that have not
yet had automated systems developed is to use a mechanical turk and pay low rates
for per-CAPTCHA reading by humans, or provide another form of motivation such as
access to popular sites for reading the CAPTCHA. However, it always required a
significant level of resources to achieve. The development of software to
automatically interpret CAPTCHAs brings up a number of problems for site
operators. The problem, as discovered by Wintercore Labs and published at the start
of March is that there are repeatable patterns evident in the audio file and by applying
a set of complex but straight forward processes, a library can be built of the basic
signal for each possible character that can appear in the CAPTCHA. Wintercore point
to other audio CAPTCHAs that could be easily reversed using this technique,
including the one for Facebook. The wider impact of this work might take some time
to appear, but it provides an interesting proof of breaking audio CAPTCHAs. At the
least, it shows that both of Google's CAPTCHA tools have now been defeated by
software and it should only be a matter of time until the same can be said for
Microsoft and Yahoo!'s offerings. Even with an effectiveness of only 90%, any failed
CAPTCHA can easily be reloaded for a second try.
5.4 Social Engineering used to break CAPTCHAs:
Spammers often use social engineering to outwit gullible Web users to serve
their purpose. Security firm, Trend Micro warns of a Trojan called
TROJ_CAPTCHAR, which masquerades as a strip tease game. At each stage of the
game, the user is asked to solve a CAPTCHA. The result is relayed to a remote server
where a malicious user is waiting for them. The strip-tease game is a ploy by
spammers to identify and match solutions for ambiguous CAPTCHAs from legitimate
sites, using the unsuspecting user as the decoder of the said images.

CAPTCHA 2014
5.5 CAPTCHA cracking as a business:
No CAPTCHA can survive a human that‘s receiving financial incentives for
solving it. CAPTCHA are cracked by firms posing as Data Processing firms. They
usually charge $2 for 1000 CAPTCHAs successfully solved. They advertise their
business as ―Using the advertisement in blogs, social networks, etc significantly
increases the efficiency of the business. Many services use pictures called
CAPTCHAs in order to prevent automated use of these services. Solve CAPTCHAs
with the help of this portal; increase your business efficiency now!‖ Such firms help
spammers in beating the first line of defence for a Website, i.e., CAPTCHAs.

CAPTCHA 2014
Chapter 6
Issues with CAPTCHAs
There are many issues with CAPTCHAs, primarily because they distort text
and images in such a way that, sometimes it gets difficult for even humans to read.
Even the simplest, but effective CAPTCHA, like a mathematical equation ―What is
the sum of three and five?‖ can be a pain for cognitively disabled people.
6.1 Usability issues with text based CAPTCHAs:
Are text CAPTCHAs like Gimpy, user–friendly? Sometimes the text is
distorted to such an extent, that even humans have difficulty in understanding it.
Some of the issues are listed in table 6.1
Fig 6.1 Usability issues in text based CAPTCHAs
Distortion becomes a problem when it is done in a very haphazard way. Some
characters like‗d‘ can be confused for ‗cl‘ or ‗m‘ with ‗rn‘. It should also be easily
understandable to those who are unfamiliar with the language.

CAPTCHA 2014
Content is an issue when the string length becomes too long or when the string is not
a dictionary word. Care should be taken not to include offensive words.
Presentation should be in such a way as to not confuse the users. The font and colour
chosen should be user friendly.
6.2 Usability of audio CAPTCHAs:
In audio CAPTCHAs, letters are read aloud instead of being displayed in an
image. Typically, noises are deliberately added to prevent such audio schemes from
being broken by current speech recognition technologies.
Distortion: Background noises effectively distort sounds in audio CAPTCHAs. There
is no rigorous study of what kind of background noises will introduce acceptable
sound distortion. However, it is clear that distortion methods and levels, just as in text
based CAPTCHAs, can have a significant impact on the usability of audio
CAPTCHAs. For example, an early test in 2003 showed that the distorted sound in an
audio CAPTCHA that was deployed at Microsoft‘s Hotmail service was unintelligible
to all (four) journalists, with good hearing, that were tested. Due to sound distortion,
confusing characters can also occur in audio CAPTCHAs. For example, we observed
that it is hard to tell apart ‗p‘ and ‗b‘; ‗g‘ and ‗j‘, and ‗a‘ and ‗8‘. Whether a scheme is
friendly to non-native speakers is another usability concern for audio CAPTCHAs.
Content: Content materials used in audio CAPTCHAs are typically language
specific. Digits and letters read in a language are often not understandable to people
who do not speak the language. Therefore, unlike text-based schemes, localisation is a
major issue that audio CAPTCHAs face.
Presentation: The use of colour is not an issue for audio CAPTCHAs, but the
integration with web pages is still a concern. For example, there is no standard
graphical symbol for representing an audio CAPTCHA on a web page, although many
schemes such as Microsoft and reCAPTCHA use a speaker symbol. More
importantly, what really matters for visually impaired users is that the html image

CAPTCHA 2014
alternative text attached to any of the above symbol should clearly indicate the need to
solve an audio CAPTCHA.
When embedded in web pages, audio CAPTCHAs can also cause compatibility
issues. For example, many such schemes require JavaScript to be enabled. However,
some users might prefer to disable JavaScript in their browsers. Some other schemes
can be even worse. For example, we found that one audio scheme requires Adobe
Flash support. With this scheme, vision-impaired users will not even notice that such
a CAPTCHA challenge exist in the page, unless Flash is installed in their computers -
apparently, no text alternative is attached to the speaker-like Flash object, either.

CAPTCHA 2014
CONCLUSIONS
We believe that the fields of cryptography and artificial intelligence have
much to contribute to one another.
Captchas represent a small example of these possible symbiosis reductions, as
they are used in cryptography, can be extremely useful for the progress of algorithmic
development, they are crucial to preventing bot attacks.
We encourage security researchers to create captchas based on different AI
problems, hopefully they will become more user-friendly to people with disabilities
(visual/mental).
CAPTCHA‘s are mainly produced from Asynchronous Java-script And XML
(AJAX) & using a bit of Hypertext Preprocessor (PHP) technology, various
algorithms are present.

CAPTCHA 2014
REFERENCES
[1]. Luis von Ahn, Manuel Blum, Nicholas J. Hopper and John Langford. The
CAPTCHA Web Page: http://www.captcha.net. 2000.
[2]. Luis von Ahn, Manuel Blum and John Langford. Telling Humans and Computers
Apart (Automatically) or How Lazy Cryptographers do AI. To appear in Commu-
nications of the ACM.
[3]. Mihir Bellare, Russell Impagliazzo and Moni Naor. Does Parallel Repetition
Lower the Error in Computationally Sound Protocols? In 38th IEEE Symposium on
Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS' 97), pages 374-383. IEEE Computer
Society, 1997.
[4]. Mikhail M. Bongard. Pattern Recognition. Spartan Books, Rochelle Park NJ,
1970.
[5]. A. L. Coates, H. S. Baird, and R. J. Fateman. Pessimal Print: A Reverse Turing
Test. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Document Analysis and
Recognition (ICDAR' 01), pages 1154-1159. Seattle WA, 2001.
[6]. Scott Craver. On Public-key Steganography in the Presence of an A ctive
Warden. In Proceedings of the Second International Information Hiding Workshop,
pages 355-368. Springer, 1998.
[7]. Nicholas J. Hopper, John Langford and Luis von Ahn. Provably Secure Steganog-
raphy. In Advances in Cryptology, CRYPTO' 02, volume 2442 of Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, pages 77-92. Santa Barbara, CA, 2002.
[8]. M. D. Lillibridge, M. Abadi, K. Bharat, and A. Broder. Method for selectively
restricting access to computer systems. US Patent 6,195,698. Applied April 1998 and
Approved February 2001.
[9]. Greg Mori and Jitendra Malik. Breaking a Visual CAPTCHA. Unpublished
Manuscript, 2002. Available electronically:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~mori/gimpy/gimpy.pdf.
[10]. Moni Naor. Veri_cation of a human in the loop or Identi_cation via the Turing
Test. Unpublished Manuscript, 1997. Available electronically:
http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~naor/PAPERS/human.ps.

Captcha Seminar report 2014

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Captcha Seminar report 2014 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Captcha Seminar report 2014