Security and usability challenges of moving-object CAPTCHAs: decoding codewords in motion
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explore the robustness and usability of movingimage object recognition (video) captchas, designing and implementing automated attacks based on computer vision techniques. Our approach is suitable for broad classes of moving-image captchas involving rigid objects. We first present an attack that defeats instances of such a captcha (NuCaptcha) representing the state-ofthe-art, involving dynamic text strings called codewords. We then consider design modifications to mitigate the attacks (e.g., overlapping characters more closely). We implement the modified captchas and test if designs modified for greater robustness maintain usability. Our labbased studies show that the modified captchas fail to offer viable usability, even when the captcha strength is reduced below acceptable targets—signaling that the modified designs are not viable. We also implement and test another variant of moving text strings using the known emerging images idea. This variant is resilient to our attacks and also offers similar usability to commercially available approaches. We explain why fundamental elements of the emerging images concept resist our current attack where others fails. 1
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it