Sure two additional cases not that bad, now just keep adding them up. Like anything security related it's not 100% perfect you just have to make it annoying to break.

[–] uis@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Meanwhile mathematicians working on cryptography: the universe will die before you get even 10% chance of cracking encryption.

Security by obscurity is no security.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

No. Security through obscurity is bad security, but it's still an additional layer. And since there's literally no way to 100% ensure that a machine is being controlled by a human, there's literally no other way except saying "fuck it" and not doing any security at all.

[–] Mubelotix@jlai.lu -1 points 2 months ago

Security by design is 100% perfect. Security by obscurity is far from it

[–] dev_null@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago

They were used as example heuristics by Google marketing when they launched the checkbox reCaptcha. They were just simple to understand things for marketing purposes, but in reality Google checks many different signals and isn't based on mouse movements. But people keep repeating the example from the ad.

[–] arin@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 2 months ago

Yup they are called humanizers