Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
New Human-Test: KittenAuth
thepcspy.com — Say goodbye to annoying "are you a human being?" human-checkers that make you decipher cryptic fonts on cryptic backgrounds. And say hello to kittens! Its a win-win situation. Out with the annoying and in with the cute!
podgey22- 1243 diggs
- digg it
- nanos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20This is a really cool idea. Way better than usual captchas.
Scroll down to the bottom of the page to see the kittens.- TreasureChest, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41Yes but how long until Optical Kitten Recognition renders this useless, the kittens in those pictures are far too obvious.
What you need is some obscured kittens, maybe mix them up with puppies like so:
http://www.plunder.com/Kitten-and-Puppies-download-593.htm - ThankTheCheese, on 10/12/2007, -24/+10@ TreasureChest:
Always gotta be someone who critisises. It's a great idea, and I don't think it's too obvious at all. I doubt there is an automated system that could pick them out. Perhaps one could be built, but who would bother? If all websites uses this system, but with different pics -- some say "find the kitten" others say "find the banana" others say "find the seinfeld character" -- spammers could never create a consistently reliable way of automating posts. It's brilliant.
The only problem with it is that it is a little tacky. A serious website wouldn't implement this, but the idea can be tweaked to make it more appropriate. - stokestack, on 10/12/2007, -18/+3WTF does "captcha" mean?
- w0rd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@ThankTheCheese
Maybe you should take a look at the picture. It was a joke. - w0rd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@stokestack
http://www.captcha.net/ - atrerra, on 10/12/2007, -23/+16I usually hate diggers who post really nasty comments here, but I'm going over to the dark side for a moment because I just can't take it.
1. There is a fair amount of prior art on this idea
2. You can't frickin license an "idea". That's even more retarded than software patents. You did a crappy little demo on your blog and want someone to pay you if they develop a working commercial version. WTF!?
3. Unless you have access to a database of several thousand kitten images, this will not work. Even with several thousand images it will eventually be defeated.
Score: -3 Diggs
Did you actually refer to something you thought of as a "Genius moment"? I really hope that was tongue in cheek.
/rant - olegk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21This can be easily cracked. All you have to do is collect all the images that your system uses, then categorize them once (using a human). Then a script will simply compare images you show us to categorized, and check the kittens.
- mdd4696, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@olegk
Unless the images are modified in some way, such as changing the hue, or warping them slightly, or blacking out random parts of the image. - loudmax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10@olegk
The same permutations applied to text can be applied to images. This doesn't mean that the system can't be defeated, but the limitations are no worse than those which exist currently, and it's easier on the end user. - voodooVince, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2It is great, and if you own a cat you have way better security.
I love this, for once, ONCE*, the cat earns its keep!
good job.
this might also work for goldfish and dogs!
*(I don't have mice) - asplodzor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You failed to click 3 kittens
- rdivilbiss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Nevermind
- TreasureChest, on 10/12/2007, -7/+41Yes but how long until Optical Kitten Recognition renders this useless, the kittens in those pictures are far too obvious.
- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14If you want to play with it, there's also a test page that doesn't submit anything but works as the real one does here:
http://www.thepcspy.com/kittenauthtest- jcmaco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Also available at the end of the article
- lteague, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10LOL @ the result when you successfully choose 3 kittens:
OMG PONIES!!! YOU CLICKED 3 KITTENS!!!!!!
Who would have thought Slashdot would create a new cliche with their April Fools gag? - podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Glad you like it =)
- LiquidPenguin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+26I would like to point out something that wasn't mentioned.
When a person is selecting the images for this purpose they need to ensure that they need to have a large enough pool of both images (kittens vs non-kittens). If you choose too few images, a well designed bot can eventually obtain a large enough sample of images to determine what imgaes to select.
Some ideas I'd like to throw out there. One idea that can be put in is to expand this to not only include kittens but cycle through other animals or creatures. For instance, on one session, the user will be told to select kittens, another session, the user will be told to select puppies.
Expanding it even further, you can have a "Select the animals most like the animal shown in this picture." Which would help defeat any OCR software.
Of course, those two ideas add complexity and development time to the whole scheme, so you can take them for what they're worth :)- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9There are certainly some good extension ideas there.
I particularly like the cycling of images so instead of using 2 image folders you could have a folder for each "type of image" then randomally pick 1 folder to be the "correct" answer and build the rest of the images from any folder apart from that one.
I've posted a summary of this as a comment under the article:
http://www.thepcspy.com/articles/security/the_cutest_humantest_kittenauth#com - olliholliday, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23the idea i came up with to replace captchas was to have a single submit image, eg. of a city, and lots of different areas defined (server side only of course :)
the user is then asked to "click on the dog's nose" or "click the horserider's helmet" etc. and the server determines whether you're right using the x-y coords of the click passed by the client. (which is part of the http spec).
it saves the multiple http requests too. - Cirieno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@olliholliday
now *that* is a genius idea. Seriously: develop it, if it hasn't already been done.
Only downsides are:
a) would need some javascript if the image isn't the submit button itself, which many sites might not like.
b) not accessible
How do text-readers handle Captchas anyway? - voodooVince, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I am envisioning a real-time kitten image generator...
1. kitten lies in box lined with green-screen material...
2. computer captures webcam images throughout the day and chroma-keys random pics from the web on to the green background...
3. crack open VICTORY beer!
(once in a while it might be advisable to tie-dye the kitten with edible vegetable inks)
(yeah, the fun in that //is// debatable)
- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9There are certainly some good extension ideas there.
- dtfinch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Just match the thumbnails against a set of previously seen kitten thumbnails.
- rishubhav, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Or how about you are shown the same kitten from two different angles mixed up with other pictures?
- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2A good idea... But rotation is going to seriously add to server side processing... One of the things I'm trying to avoid...
- duckworth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I agree that you definitely need to introduce some randomness into the equation so you can eliminate the possibility of cataloging all of the images. The idea of different camera angles is good, but what about some simple combination of photoshop type filters with random parameters just to tweak the picture enough to make it different?
- ani-pockdotnet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13*
*
That reminds me of a flash game:
http://homepage.mac.com/pockyrevolution/meow.html
*
*
Get clicking! Or dragging?- PathDaemon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2BEST GAME EVER!
- addisonj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2wow... just wow... thats amazing
- wilf_brim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That game just freaked my cat out. She kept walking around the screen trying to figure out where the meowing was coming from. Kept ruining my score by tromping on the keyboard.
- ohgr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19Spambots naturally hate kittens.. they've been known to be mortal enemies for years. so this will definitely work.
- tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Had an idea similar to this once ... props to you for getting off your bum and actually implementing it, you're a better man than I! haha
- Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Still not accessible.
Better to use (one of a set of) common sense questions.
Things that make sense to humans, but computers can't answer.
Accessible, and easier then trying to read the @#$@# captchas. (I HATE the digg one with a passion.)- stokestack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I HATE the digg one with a passion"
Yes, it sucks royally. Especially since, contrary to what Digg stated, some IDs are perpetually forced to enter them. They were supposed to be used "for a while" until it was apparent that your ID was valid. That turned out to be *****.
- stokestack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"I HATE the digg one with a passion"
- mistshadow2k4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Not only is it a great idea because of the kitten factor, but it should be far less annoying than those text-based images. All too often it's difficult to read the text in the image, let alone when there is an "O" and you can't tell whether it's supposed to be the letter or the number.
- skaz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I like the idea, but I try not to use my mouse too much. After trying it out a couple times I'm a little disappointed, kinda counter-intuitive for people who thrive on keyboards.
- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah its true and something I didnt factor into my original specs.
Also its useless for people with sight disability (unless it plays a sound based on the image)
- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah its true and something I didnt factor into my original specs.
- bani, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5too easy to defeat. you'll need a huge database of images, not easily publically available, for this to be reasonable as an auth system.
- tepidpond, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not really...
combine that with a google image search.
Hey presto, problem solvo!
- tepidpond, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not really...
- dongiaconia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15So does God kill one of the kittens every time you guess wrong?
- Poddo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I find it kind of ironic, as Ahnteis said, that Digg's verification is the one I hate the most.
But this is some good thinking, a little tweaking and I think they may be on to something - MatttK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8This will never fly. Consider this: we all know porn drives the internet. Do people really want to be faced with images of the kittens they're about to kill when they're trying to log into their favourite porn site?
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6That's funny, but you could easily replace kittens with porn stars and all would be happy again.
- oboreruhito, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5What, click the three Bunnies you want to submit to?
- deej5871, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, maybe some people are into that...
- allstar255, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1digg effect - any mirrors?
- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm taking meatures to rectify this now =
- maverick999, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Captchas are very difficult for visually impaired users to deal with. This kitten solution would also be a problem. Maybe an audio solution might work best? Just a thought...
Here's a mirror as well: http://www.thepcspy.com.nyud.net:8080/kittenauthtest- Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Audio doesn't work for aurally impaired users, not to mention people who have sound turned off.
Something in simple text is easiest. - brandizzle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Just impaired users? It doesn't work very well for me and I have fine vision.
What would be even more fun? Go through the maze! Like those flash games. That way it can be keyboard or mouse controlled.
- Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Audio doesn't work for aurally impaired users, not to mention people who have sound turned off.
- felby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As is, not a great idea. All someone has to do is grab the verification images and checksum them, then run a bot against the images that can verify the checksums of each image link. This means it doesn't matter how many images you use, it matters how many different images "pass" verification.
Better solution:
The system would have to generate random data to tack on to passable images to change the checksum randomly. - groogs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6One problem with this is spammers are turning to other methods besides OCR to beat captchas.. there are reports that they'll post them on their own site, and ask their users to enter the code to see porn or download a game. Once the user enters it, their system automatically goes back and posts to the original site. This system would be vulnerable to the same sort of attack. (one way to minimize the risk is to time-limit each set that gets generated, but this can also be pretty user un-friendly .. ie, it has to be a larger time than the time they spend writing a post).
Someone really determined could also download all your images, pick out the kittens, then compare md5()'s of the file, or use another image comparison technique. Even if you start to generate dynamic pieces on top, they can compare that say, 80% of it matches.. You can also do things like flip, invert, change hues.. but again, it only raises the stakes - maybe now they have to identify 120 unique images vs 30. it's still doable.
Now, all that said, I think this is still a good idea. It's just not the be-all end-all solution.- Web_Weasel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's still no worse then the standard captcha.
- Sababaaa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Cool idea, i like it. Anything that doesnt require me to take my hand off my mouse is better than the current system imo
- waylandchin, on 10/12/2007, -12/+0i got brown rings around my anus
- Seumas, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4!!! OMG KITTENZ !!!
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5People have purposed hundreds of captcha ideas in the last decade, most of them better than this. None of them have been adopted. I think that says something.
If you're interesting in reading the expert opinion on captcha from the web standards body (these are the guys who standardize HTML, etc. etc.), instead of some random kid's "great idea", there's a great writeup here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/turingtest/
A few applicable statements:
"External projects ...have shown methodologies and results indicating that many of the systems can be defeated by computers with between 88% and 100% accuracy, using optical character recognition"
"Even 10% accuracy by a computer amounts to system failure, just at a slower rate"
Now, this kids system offers 84 possible answers for a given captcha. For a 8 character text captcha, there are (36 ^ 8) over _two trillion_ possible answers! Even assuming "Optical Kitten Recognition" never takes off, best case, you can still break this kid's captcha over 1% of the time, brute force. For many applications, that's totally unacceptable! And of course, it's totally inaccessible to those using a text- or audio- based browser (the blind, etc.).
In fact the w3 paper mentions that the graphical captcha method used by ING direct (https://secure.ingdirect.com) has already been compromised.
Crappy captcha ideas are a dime a dozen, just like crappy anti-spam techniques. People come up with 'em every day, and they're 99.99% crap.
Wake me up when someone suggests something revolutionary.- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3>> If you're interesting in reading the expert opinion on captcha from the web standards body, instead of some random kid's "great idea"...
Ok enough with the "kid" nonsense. The idea of this is to supposed to stop the current trend of telling your users "YOU ARE A BOT!!! If you think you can prove otherwise, complete this test". Its supposed to be fun and cute instead of taxing. It is not supposed to replace a bank's pin input system.
>> "External projects ...have shown methodologies and results indicating that many of the systems can be defeated by computers with between 88% and 100% accuracy, using optical character recognition"
Whoops bad quote there kiddo. What do you think an OCR system is going to get from a picture of a kitten? Its name off its collar?
>> this kids system offers 84 possible answers for a given captcha. For a 8 character text captcha, there are (36 ^ 8) over _two trillion_ possible answers!
I'm not a "kid" already.
The problem with captcha is that if its given to a OCR system, it knows what its looking for in the image. It KNOWS there are letters there.
>> In fact the w3 paper mentions that the graphical captcha method used by ING direct has already been compromised.
Its a completely different concept.
>> Crappy captcha ideas are a dime a dozen, just like crappy anti-spam techniques. People come up with 'em every day, and they're 99.99% crap.
And 99.99% of them are all trying to confuse OCR.
If you're not happy with this, dont use it -- carry on forcing your users to compete against the latest OCR technology.
- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3>> If you're interesting in reading the expert opinion on captcha from the web standards body, instead of some random kid's "great idea"...
- cybershrike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I actually really like it, it's a slightly more *fun* way to do it, because the whole text-***** background thing really is a bad system is impossible to use
- forger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I simply love it.
- benc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3From the article: "If you do make a reusable system for wordpress and you're thinking of selling it, I just want to remind you that this information is given under a noncommercial share alike Creative Commons license."
Bzzt -- wrong! You can't copyright ideas. If someone wants to come up with a commercial captcha based off this idea (which, as others have pointed out, isn't that great a system to begin with), they can do so freely and without attribution, as long as it's their own code and their own images.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for OSS. But ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted (or copylefted).- Eidola, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Unless, of course, it is a business plan! ;)
- purpleplatyduck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Ideas can't be copyrighted...unless you're Microsoft.
- Eidola, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Unless, of course, it is a business plan! ;)
- Zampa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What about putting a sequence of UP, LEFT, RIGHT, and DOWN arrows over a grid pattern. Then the user would just push the arrow keys in the sequence shown. All of the angles would be impossible for a computer to decipher what combination would work - but a human could distinguish the arrows and press accordingly.
It would be like entering the Contra code as a captcha.- mahmoodsdotjpg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+04*3*2*1
- Zampa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1how would it be 4*3*2*1 if the number of arrows changed every time?
- Zampa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://img334.imageshack.us/img334/148/arrowcaptcha1rb.gif - that's sorta the idea
- StealthTomato, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You forgot to allow for repetition. Thusly, it'd be 4 raised to the power of however many arrows there are.
- GuineaPig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Um, aren't there only 504 combinations to this? That's nothing for a script to break.
- rspeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It changes every time. There's less than a 0.2% chance of ever getting the right combination.
- SmartITGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You know, that's not that far off from tic-tac-toe.
Why not make it that you have to beat the authentication software
at a game of tic-tac-toe to pass authentication.- purpleplatyduck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Nah, there's too much of a chance of a computer brute-forcing that system. It'd decrease the chances greatly to make you play a complete game of Monopoly against the computer. Or for the more strategically minded, Risk.
- Spec8472, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Playing tic-tac-toe isn't a good approach.
Google "tic tac toe strategy", the first result gives this information:
If you know what you are doing, you can't lose at Tic-Tac-Toe. If your opponent knows what they are doing, you can't win at Tic-Tac-Toe. The game is a zero sum game. If both players are playing with an optimal strategy, every game will end in a tie.
Some other game might be better. But still - if I had to do this just to post a short message, I wouldn't be bothering. - ggko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wouldn't you perfer a nice game of Global Thermonuclear War, Professor Falken?
- rspeed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2GENIUS!!!
This is a much better method than the text fields, and is presented in a humorous fashion. Kudos! - aluminumpork, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This sounds like a great idea, certainly not perfect, but a creative way to go about it none the less.
In case it goes down, or become simply too slow, here is a barebone non-css version of the page:
http://frostyle.servehttp.com/misc/kitten.html - StealthTomato, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Critical problem: his method for randomly choosing pics that are sans kittens. He randomly picks pictures from either a "0" (no kittens) directory or a "1" (kittens) directory. No problem: Image source. Write a bot that determines whether the image comes from a 0 or a 1 directory.
- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I believe I went over that (albeit briefly)...
The images are just physically stored in a folder called "0" or "1"
The client doesnt see any of this because of extensive URL Rewriting. They just see something like this:
http://www.thepcspy.com/images/dynamic/kitty/2/0.541016659019988
the /2/ represents which grid location and the is just a random double to stop browsers caching - StealthTomato, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1But note that all of the pics have a file url that begins with either 0.**************** or 1.*****************
Pretty simple to haxx0rz.
- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I believe I went over that (albeit briefly)...
- myFriendDerrik, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4This would be better with boobies...but, I say that about everything.
- pratman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Can someone explain with some pictures?
- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There's a test at the bottom of the linked page and there's also a separate test page (posted in the #2/#3 comment)
- MrBabyMan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Genius!! This guy deserves a Nobel Prize!
- Ardvaark, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Cool idea. What about mixing it with Flickr?
http://ardvaark.net/kitten_captcha_needs_to_be_mashed_with_flickr.html- rideagain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, the adversary can then just download all kitten pictures from flickr and feed them to an image recognition algorithm. Then he'll pass your captcha 99% of the time. He can even do it the easy way, and just keep the md5 of all kitten pictures if you don't modify them at all.
- hobophobe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The idea shouldn't be to just show static kitten images. It should be about combining this with captcha.
Rather than "click three pictures of kittens," it should be "click the randomized captcha-like images with kittens." That way the images are random and you have no need for a gazillion kittens (not that anyone wouldn't want a gazillion kittens). - listrophy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1http://www.kittenwar.com (pick the cutest kitten)
I personally think the kitten with the helmet should win all contests.- JeffD, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Or you could do what all the cool people do and go to puppywar.com instead. Puppies are way cooler than kittens.
- pairanoyd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oops.. Danger Will Robinson! Malfunction!
I checked the live demo example and I hit reload about 30-40 times. EVERY TIME the kittens are in the same exact place. The pictures do change but the kitten locations do not change.
row 1 first pic
row 2 first pic
row 3 second pic.
I can't believe no one else snapped to it already.
Try it and see.
Besides, kittens? Ugh. How about puppies?? Sheesh..- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The kittens only change location after a submission has been made. I made that cleat in the article.
I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing at the moment...
- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The kittens only change location after a submission has been made. I made that cleat in the article.
- WayneGoode, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1MailFrontier's 'Count the Cats' is very similar: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1306805,00.asp
I saw a news article about 10 days ago about a company describing the same method mentioned here, although I think the context was passwords. If it can work for a password though, it would be more than enough for a captcha. Can't remember where I saw the article and can't find it in quick search. - falcon707, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I know a way to fool the bots! Have the "Select all of the kittens" text as an obscured image, this way image readers don't know what they're supposed to be looking for in the first place. Also have it randomized so sometimes you're looking for llamas, donkeys, goats and cows. I love the idea of using just using my mouse hand to verify I am human. I'm sure a lot of other geeks out there are just as lazy...
- MikeCampo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That would work unless some bot wants to spend quite a long time trying thousands of combinations until it gets it right...but if the image to be found was changed after every single guess, then that wouldn't matter.
- kweber103, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wow i love this!
I all ways get the random letters and numbers wrong :( - alasdairdf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This won't stop a bot, it's no problem to programme them to keep ramdomly hitting it until they eventually get it right. The random letters have billions of possibilities, this method has only a few. Anyone who uses this method is merely going to waste their bandwidth with all the extra bot hits.
- PhAdE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Listen, it's been said a billion times. You wouldn't be able to brute force it, because it would be incredibly easy to stop someone from repeatedly failing more than x number of times. So the brute-forcing would fail 3 times, and then there would be a 24 hour ban or something on the originating ip. Just enough to frustrate the cracker into giving up and finding another site to break.
- Jolene, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2But...I'm allergic to cats.... :(
- ZombieCreep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Brilliant.
How many times have you been defeated by authentication? CD-Key or posting on Digg.
Err. Is that a o or a 0, or a p or a q, or a S or 5.
I propose: How about pics of chocolate covered puppies wrapped in kitten bacon?
Bots won't pick that up.- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Haha I'll consider it...
- MeridianBlade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Now if they would only implement this for myspace, i wouldnt be so bored typing in the code every 5 profiles I add...
- ShaDoWwork, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0nothing really new here this is just a different twist on the password auth thing with all the icons that was floating around about 6 months ago you had to set it up with at least 4 icons and then it gave you a random select in a sqaure and you hade to click near at least 3 i think to make a triangle and that logged you in it was a lot better and more harder to break that would have been a better option as you could give users there own login and that would be the end of it i really dont see why we have to log in with a passwrod and still have to type that ***** to make a comment.
- naisanza, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2oneof the dudes replied:
"God kills a kitten every time I...
nevermind."
LMAO - DoubtfulSalmon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13I wrote two perl scripts. One hammered away at the kittenauth test for a while until it got all the pictures. Calculated md5 sums. I manually sorted them into kittens and non kittens, and came up with this list:
# md5 sums for kitties and non kitties...
{
# OMG KITTIES!
$kitties{'21ffbeb8772f8b554b1a5e9c3fbabb8f'} = 1;
$kitties{'31030a2c0932d146e3dd40323c301232'} = 1;
$kitties{'38a4cc604ef8058760b2c0ec9368c7bf'} = 1;
$kitties{'4cd3542a2a7749fff73329e5c531fd94'} = 1;
$kitties{'4dde2a7b0d1c192ac183fbed674308fe'} = 1;
$kitties{'5134a1cec32fbad2720ccc8a985ca009'} = 1;
$kitties{'7ec870482a1f0556db5200f341893538'} = 1;
$kitties{'80d9cda549fbf9684bb70f0600959e4a'} = 1;
$kitties{'8621dd7a9594018a8eade0d36a9a1c3e'} = 1;
$kitties{'8dd586bf3d5c29ca7d5944b1b5525ba6'} = 1;
$kitties{'9e8d24fed541ab70153be60ed805a772'} = 1;
$kitties{'a3fa937dd9063f7e901590a056931d60'} = 1;
$kitties{'b1f190471f448a66ad8e805c5b87c246'} = 1;
$kitties{'c93b7afd4ea1ef40946fe8318b469cb5'} = 1;
$kitties{'d676ffe22c0a0380ff161a230eef7da8'} = 1;
$kitties{'d787f3622325d3e7a1a36179a8039e4a'} = 1;
$kitties{'f41524d69c0aba2ef8c060768cbf956c'} = 1;
# OMG NOT KITTIES :-(
$kitties{'038b3be9a0619ab5a9f324975fb9631b'} = 0;
$kitties{'047866758c9e8493c6c0debf11fccecd'} = 0;
$kitties{'114e4ddbc93e9802a0034a8fb0771796'} = 0;
$kitties{'1840e8c8e00a0e051ed3a7aebc9d1f44'} = 0;
$kitties{'210f44ad03c16527944b0264eb18890e'} = 0;
$kitties{'25339aaa96c8b04706fd71f4032fef37'} = 0;
$kitties{'2ccb6ac3d0be1d3002f1843de108d927'} = 0;
$kitties{'5ab1f4e0c04df22a154ba55aa071d4ca'} = 0;
$kitties{'65b341e6523b093b903e0aae68a1cde1'} = 0;
$kitties{'67c926112d8f47d3555d577c628df79f'} = 0;
$kitties{'71f5f7e5fe05c99137b497c54beaa51d'} = 0;
$kitties{'720b916abc1e9b1b06a8281e197b1e9b'} = 0;
$kitties{'7529642a9a05a38cac32daf170004d6d'} = 0;
$kitties{'859c349829fd99f26be5d7f84dea2826'} = 0;
$kitties{'892442cd77e103847be1dd6d8cb3ece8'} = 0;
$kitties{'90a993b5ac146eddacb444d8e45744bb'} = 0;
$kitties{'923cb8b1236b1baab917ec325550011f'} = 0;
$kitties{'9c2b8c5bed051d6ea1b4e4d2c55471a8'} = 0;
$kitties{'9f928723152ed23691e3c6cf3140e503'} = 0;
$kitties{'a124ddcb5df67c38bbfaba1a64a318ab'} = 0;
$kitties{'a5b952ccf056b5bdfe8ed1d60d653ece'} = 0;
$kitties{'b1aaae2da6bf78a80849612ca30e061c'} = 0;
$kitties{'bad498dec1bb48f007719582d42a53ce'} = 0;
$kitties{'ce980aa59362442823dde65c0b5e90f1'} = 0;
$kitties{'cf02ecef0ca6dd1700d5d22480d44e5d'} = 0;
}
A second perl script loads a kittenauth page, and correclty identifies which positions have kittens each time, output something like this:
Not at position 1
Kitty at position 2- DoubtfulSalmon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1As an aside, you'll all be pleased to know that Oli's sample implementation of kittenauth has a total of 42 (count 'em!) unique images of kittens and non-kittens!
- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The next version will corrupt image data slightly and randomly by injecting a random size, random contents block of data into the end of the image as its being streamed out... Hopefully this will stop your evil (albeit clever) programming
- DoubtfulSalmon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1my previous post got truncated... sample output thus:
Not at position 1
Kitty at position 2
Not at position 3
Not at position 4
Not at position 5
Kitty at position 6
Kitty at position 7
Not at position 8
Not at position 9 - spikes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why not just feed it through your image parser and change the compression quality randomly. Server load on images that small shouldnt be a big deal.
- podgey22, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1At the moment the image isnt passing in to an editable image object and ideally that's how I want to keep it because that's keeping my load down... But yes... Compression would probably prove the least intrusive way of changing the MD5 on the fly... if I cant thread some random bytes into the string
- DennisLaumen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Pretty funny test! Not so great stuff for the visually impaired though...
-
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
