> I am much more confident in ReCAPTCHA of stopping bots compared to any roll your own solution.
I'm much more afraid of ReCaptcha blocking bonafide users. It's a harmful obstacle that punishes legitimate users for not sharing as much data as possible with Google.
Even if you really need a captcha, there are better solutions out there.
> I am much more confident in ReCAPTCHA of stopping bots compared to any roll your own solution.
I am as well. We enabled Recaptcha on one site and had spam signups drop by 99%. Unfortunately, regular signups also dropped by 20% because people give up when they hit Recaptcha and don't absolutely, seriously need what it's protecting. To us, joining the arms race against the spammers (which, so far, we've easily won) was much more profitable than turning away legitimate customers.
For 20$ you can solve a few million ReCAPTCHA's using Buster and a paid-for STT engine. Atm Buster works about 95% of the time, so you'd see significant amounts of spam even with ReCAPTCHA.
I'd love to pay $20 for a firefox extension that makes this problem go away. I use lots of privacy extensions on Firefox, and those Captchas are annoying as hell. Tor is even worse.
Just install Buster, it's free on the Mozilla Addon Site, you can set it to a STT provider other than Google, which I recommend since they seem to detect using their STT engine now.
You can pay for Azure and other STT engines to solve it for you an dthe results are usually a bit better.
Some have never cared or either stopped caring altogether because of the average user's apathy. Not that I agree with it, but I can see why someone would ignore that con in favor of the pros.
Most of the times when I encounter recaptcha I don't even bother filling it out - it's a huge pain in the ass and apparently I look scary because I always have to jump through way too many hoops before I'm allowed into the crappy walled garden that it's probably protecting. I can't be the only one that feels this way, that is something you should consider when picking a captcha solution as well.
How much does ReCAPTCHA's aggressively targeting non-Chrome and/or privacy-enabled browsers and making completing captchas exceedingly difficult factor in your decision?
Do you want your site "protected" from those users, too?
What's an alternative that works at scale, though? It's easy to say "this is bad for these reasons, don't use it" while ignoring that there's not really better options once you get targeted.
I used a bunch of randomized questions with single word answers (case insensitive and typo tolerant) and hidden fields for years now.
You can use common knowledge or simple ambiguity of language. You can use simple math arithmetic, written in properly obfuscated html. and randomly generated on each page load. You can use custom question about the content of the article (helps with informed answers).
On a small blog of mine just one question with one answer on the contact form prevented all spam for over 5 years already although it would be trivial to exploit in a targeted attack.
Targeted attacks are rare unless your captcha protects a juicy target that is worth a targeted attack at some point.
Yeah but to be fair he did ask for alternatives in case you are targeted. It happened at work here too, someone with a grudge and a botnet waged a multi-month targeted campaign, and reCAPTCHA was the only thing that helped.
To clarify, I do think that this post gives good alternatives because most spam is not targeted. However, you must do something like this if you're a big site or a small site who pissed someone off
The reasonable thing to do would be to initially create challanges with multiple levels/difficulties so you can quickly change the mechanism when you are really targeted.
For my personal blog I managed to be spam free with a simple question/answer pair for 5 years. Took me a minute to implement and leaves my user data where it belongs.
I am fairly certain that ReCAPTCHA does many things behind the scenes. It probably is using webGL and many other browser features to "fingerprint" your browser, OS, graphics card, sound card, etc. This is simple by just for example drawing some polygons in the background then reading the frame buffer, because different graphics cards / drivers may output different buffers slightly. Then it can store that fingerprint to show you less ReCAPTCHA in the future if you successfully pass the first one. This will also link that fingerprint with all other websites which use google analytics and now they have your full browsing history. The TOS may specify they are not _sharing_ that information, but they can do whatever they want internally to fully mine that data.
ReCAPTCHA basically looks up your google account and checks your browsing history and if your IP looks "spammy" to determine if you are a bot. The actual challenge is just a data mining operation and isn't meant to actually prove if you are a human because if it has determined you are not a human it won't let you through even if you do 10 challenges correctly.
No, that's how it used to be. Now with ReCaptcha v3 the recommend you load it on all your pages, not just the forms you are trying to protect, so they can predict friend vs foe more accurately.
Firefox and uMatrix[0], and then never go to those sites again, because you won't be able to use them anyway. Whether or not you want to contact the owner of the site and tell them what's up is up to you.
I am much more confident in ReCAPTCHA of stopping bots compared to any roll your own solution.
I dont want to hope that an alternative is good enough for my needs. I want the best when it comes to protecting my site.
Any alternative needs to have a proven track record and support to make consider replacing ReCAPTCHA.