Removal lines vertical?
Convert, Edit, or Compose Bitmap Images
Which should be the assumption here.snibgo wrote:Even if I thought the OP had honourable intentions,
You've unwittingly taken a stance against humanity. The status quo is a loss for humans. Machines are putting man to work. Progress on the arms race is in fact the only way out of it.snibgo wrote: I wouldn't help for reasons I've explained a few times. I won't contribute to the captcha arms race.
This presumes you know the purpose. Someone who uses imagemagick to create a captcha would be a fool not to also use imagemagick to reverse the process. Not testing ones own security tool would be like a firewall maker neglecting to pen-test their own product, and then hoping no one notices. You have no idea if the OP is defeating his own captcha, or someone else's.snibgo wrote: But I won't assist when I know I disapprove of the purpose.
How so? The vertical lines on the OPs image don't seem to differ significantly from the vertical lines on a document printed from a defective drum.snibgo wrote: From an image-processing perspective, the original problem is trivial and the obvious solution has no relevance to old laser printers.
Even if that were true, it would make no difference. I won't help either side.atariZen wrote:You have no idea if the OP is defeating his own captcha, or someone else's.
Agreed. It is increasingly difficult for me to pass these inverse-Turing tests where I have to persuade a computer that I'm not a computer.atariZen wrote:The status quo is a loss for humans.
I'll be delighted when some alternative mechanism removes the problem. I don't share your faith that increasing the difficulty of captchas for both humans and computers will do so.atariZen wrote:Progress on the arms race is in fact the only way out of it.
When you said "I won't assist when I know I disapprove of the purpose," it was ambiguous. I thought you meant to disapprove of the purpose of breaking captchas, when in fact you really meant to disapprove of advancement of the arms race on both sides, correct? Is this why you now say there's no moral difference between defeating ones own captcha and someone else's?snibgo wrote:Even if that were true, it would make no difference. I won't help eitheratariZen wrote:You
have no idea if the OP is defeating his own captcha, or someone
That's not agreement. I said the status quo is a loss for humans. You said you agree, but then immediately argued against the advancement of security -- IOW, in favor of the status quo.snibgo wrote:Agreed. It is increasingly difficult for me to pass these inverse-TuringatariZen wrote:The status quo is a loss for humans.
tests where I have to persuade a computer that I'm not a computer.
No "faith" needed. It's already happened. The distorted text variety of captcha has already been superceded by images that are easier for the human and more difficult for machines. E.g. "click on all the images that contain street signs." More progress is still needed, but the mutual increase in difficulty for both humans and bots is already behind us.snibgo wrote:I'll be delighted when some alternative mechanism removes the problem. IatariZen wrote:Progress on the arms race is in fact the only way out
don't share your faith that increasing the difficulty of captchas for
both humans and computers will do so.
The answer to your own question is right there in the next statement.fmw42 wrote:Why
should we assume the actual intent is honorable? As snibgo has said,
there are plenty of available resources out there that can be Googled.
Security experts at best, not image processing experts. But it's alsofmw42 wrote: If this is honorable research, then those people would already be
Not in the slightest. You describe a minority of cases. If any webfmw42 wrote: or very knowledgeable already and would not need our help or
could use existing research and techniques to do the job.
You're taking a chance either way. Here you've opted to take a chancefmw42 wrote: I do not think
a public forum should take a chance on the actual intentions of the
To be clear, it's anti-security to hinder discussion of creating orfmw42 wrote: Better to err on the side of security. My opinion.
What do you mean "see if it fit"? You mean to see if the key fits?fmw42 wrote: If someone you did not know came to your door and asked if he could have
the key to your parents home or apartment to see if it fit, would you
give it to them?
The OP only needs to validate himself to his customer. And that's afmw42 wrote: Make the person validate himself, before risking security.