• Shanedino@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

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

    • dev_null@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      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.