One exciting thing about this: the entire model of reCaptcha (at least the text ones; I assume the audio ones are similar) is to make people do useful work when solving captchas by having them complete tasks that they consider too hard for computers to do well (in the text reCaptcha case, OCR). If someone writes software that can defeat the captcha, it does mean the security model is broken, but it also means the state of OCR technology (or audio recognition or whatever) has been advanced, and the digitization of books that had previously required human intervention can now be accomplished by automated means. In other words, spammers are incidentally creating the tools to expand the scope of digital human knowledge. Win-win, really.
Unfortunately, this attack does nothing to advance the state of the art in OCR (or audio recognition). It's basically the same story as every other CAPTCHA attack to date: take advantage of some accidental statistical regularity in the generation function. As soon as this kind of flaw is discovered, it only takes a few hours for the generation code to be patched in such a way that completely prevents this sort of attack from working.
Not really... Even if the code is difficult to patch, speech/audio recognition doesn't advance much when an attacker figures out how to remove the (non-random) noise added by a machine over the sound file. Actual speech recognition relies on the ability to filter out background noise - which is a lot more complex/random - added by surroundings, not a machine.
It's very difficult to generate some sort of noise via algorithm that a) humans can filter out and b) can't be removed by some algorithm. As a result, audio captchas are a huge vulnerability and the weakest link in almost any captcha system, although you can't get rid of them by law.
Hypotheticals aside, the code was easy to patch - note the footnote:
> In the hours before our presentation/release, Google pushed a new version of reCAPTCHA which fully nerfs our attack.
Could one take real recorded noise and add that rather than noise generated via algorithm? Wouldn't that force attackers to solve a real problem (removing background noise from an speech sample)?
It's not really solving the "real" problem... If I'm just mashing two audio files together, that's going to be different than someone talking in the middle of a train platform and there will likely be algorithmicly-determinable difference from the artificially generated words and the naturally generated noise.
All of this aside, removing background noise is not a huge issue anymore. We have pretty decent noise-cancellation technology. Speech recognition - the other big component - has advanced a lot in recent times and is actually pretty good, although not for every company/product.
Even if it would be helpful, you'd have to record an incredible amount of noise in the first place, seeing as you're getting millions of hits a day and if you have a small sample set, the attackers will just figure out the solutions to that sample set and be done.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but I am saying it's probably not worth it at this point. Captchas (in their traditional forms) don't make sense as a long-term strategy anyways.
If the attacker manages to obtain all the random noise, they could index every window in the noise in a k-d-tree and perform an efficient nearest neighbour search for the exact background from the CAPTCHA audio, and then simply subtract the background, giving perfect segmentation in O(log(N)) asymptotic average time complexity for N windows (at 64kHz and 2000 hours of audio, N=460800000, log N = 19.95).
> If someone writes software that can defeat the captcha, it does mean the security model is broken, but it also means the state of OCR technology (or audio recognition or whatever) has been advanced, and the digitization of books that had previously required human intervention can now be accomplished by automated means.
No it doesn't. reCaptcha only checks one of two words it displays (the other one being what OCRs can't handle themselves), so naturally you only need to crack one and input garbage as the other, thus actually making the world a worse place.
Probably not substantially worse. You would need to be able to tell which was which, since they're not consistently ordered and the "good" one is deliberately obfuscated/smudged/whatever, and, since recaptcha depends on multiple users agreeing on the right answer, you and other attackers would need to be consistent in your garbage in order for it to make it into the canonical book transcript.
For ReCAPTCHA, you only have to type the known word almost-correctly. You can just type anything for the word they don't already know. Even if someone had tech that could pass visual ReCAPTCHA reliably, it wouldn't need to be capable of doing useful work.
Are the audio versions sourced from recordings that need transcription as the visual versions are sourced from scanned documents? I assumed that was just to improve access.
Looking at how the hacked it, we can safely deduce the audio version is only to improve access.
Useless for transcription, because it 'validates' phonetically. This is part of the attack : Whether audio is "wagon" or "van", the 'word' "wagn" validates.
Same for "Spoon" and "Teaspoon", which both can be validate by entering "Tspoon". (Since Ts can be said "Ss" as in "Tsunami" (Sunami) and "T S" as in T-Rex.)
That's a shame. I would imagine that a productively similar audio task could be devised around humans helping to transcribe hard-to-auto-transcribe audio recordings, and that it could use a similar strategy to the visual one: a known-good clip and an ambiguous one, requiring the user to transcribe both.
Well, I'm not a linguist or anything like that, but I'm not sure it would work so well, if it was useful at all.
1/ Homophony. Knowing how to write a word you hear often needs contextualisation. Giving two whole sentence for the user to hear is too long and takes too much time for the user.
'Right, but no need for a whole sentence, a few words suffice' Right, but if the computer knows where to cut these sentences, it can also transcribe it itself.
2/ You have to assume good spelling from user.
3/ Is it useful ? I mean, 100M recaptcha are done everyday, what part of these 100M are audio recaptcha ? 0.0005% ? Less ? Transcribing 2 sentences every week makes no sense. Keep in mind that homophony+bad spelling are two factors increasing hugely the number of times the same 'unknown clip' will have to go through 'human validation' until we can assume with a certain level of confidence that it has been transcribed.
Funny 4/, take a look at the [cc] button on some youtube videos : on the fly transcription. Thanks Google. :)
Oh, and also on the fly translation of on the fly transcription, btw.
Google even said they were working on Voice to voice translation for Google Voice : English speaker calls Chinese speaker, english voice transcribed, then translated, then synthesized, same the other way. :)
