Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Spellfucker

spellfucker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 146 posts

Re: Spellfucker

#121

Post by cknoxrun »

jheriko wrote: post #71
deanclatworthy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect there is some part of their algorithm using levenshtein distance behind the scenes (or something similar). Spellfucker would not help with this.

actually it does deal with this particular metric somewhat in a bunch of cases. e.g. replacing one letter with three that sound similar but are different adds 4 to the distance - which is quite a significant distance already.

So perhaps an algorithm that combines soundex with Levenshtein distance would handle this?

Re: Spellfucker

#123

Post by saimiam »

emodendroket wrote: post #116
saimiam wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the stated goal of the project is > The goal of the project is to make text hard to read for computers yet fairly easy to read for humans it has to be close to bulletproof. Humans should be able to decipher obfuscated text while computers should never be able to decipher the same obfuscated text. This is going to be impossible since AI is a fast follower to human ingenuity.

That's a pretty narrow reading of making it "hard for computers" to do something. Think of it this way: the security measures on most homes are completely inadequate to stop a determined attacker. Nevertheless, they work because most attacks are opportunistic.

There are far, far, far more incompetent home burglars than competent ones. On the other hand, only a handful of AI's exist and by definition, they are getting better and better.

So, using your analogy, when it comes to AI every attacker is a determined attacker so your security needs to be ~100% bulletproof.

Re: Spellfucker

#124

Post by Markoff »

xixixao wrote: post #23

Ju kud tejk ej lengvich from ej diferent lengvich femili tu erajv et samfink similr. For furdr obfaskejshn ju kud juz diferent transliterejshn. Slavik pipl shud fajnd dis kvajt ridebl.

indonesian/malaysian language is also phonetic with almost same pronunciation as slavic langiages, maybe except letter C and J, they literally write in Malaysia "bas" (bus), "kaunter" (counter), kolej (college), etc.

Re: Spellfucker

#125

Post by unabst »

Couldn't we scramble the font?

It would look completely normal, except the letters and their symbols would be swapped. When I type "a" it would show as "z" and so on.

The scrambled webfont could be embedded, and the scramble could happen per font. An OCR or some reverse engineering could decipher the page, but as far as google indexing and all the modern "reading web content" is concerned, it would all read as random text.

Call it pagefucker or something. You'd do it to a page, and the result would be the modified text and the webfont to render it.

Just a thought!

Re: Spellfucker

#126

Post by icelancer »

laumars wrote: post #22
icelancer wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A high, high percentage of the translated text is easily readable. A few edge cases doesn't make it unreadable.

> A high, high percentage of the translated text is easily readable Again, to you specifically . Different people have differing abilities at reading the English language. What you might find easy others would not. In my case I could not read about 80% of the example text. Which was why I made the point to discuss specific people (like myself) in my example rather than assuming everyone would be able to read that tex…

That's why I didn't respond to you specifically, and only the person asserting that it's straight-up unreadable. It isn't.

Re: Spellfucker

#127

Post by overcast »

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

https://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/cmabridge/

Plugging those words into google search, and it's not able to make any sense of it, besides linking to that one article. Wouldn't this be sufficient?

Re: Spellfucker

#128

Post by igorpavlov »

overcast wrote: post #127

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. https://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/cmabridge/ Plu…

The implementation of this is called bbboing http://www.oik-plugins.com/oik_shortcodes/bbboing-obfuscate-.... I mentioned it on the website:

"The goal of the project is to make text hard to read for computers yet fairly easy to read for humans (like bbboing, just differently)."

Re: Spellfucker

#129

Post by overcast »

igorpavlov wrote: post #128
overcast wrote: post #127

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. https://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/cmabridge/ Plu…

The implementation of this is called bbboing http://www.oik-plugins.com/oik_shortcodes/bbboing-obfuscate-... . I mentioned it on the website: "The goal of the project is to make text hard to read for computers yet fairly easy to read for humans (like bbboing, just differently)."

Like bbboing, but in my opinion, it's not anywhere near as easy to read as a human. Yes you can do it, but the link I pasted is nearly indistinguishable in reading speed.

Re: Spellfucker

#130

Post by igorpavlov »

unabst wrote: post #125

Couldn't we scramble the font? It would look completely normal, except the letters and their symbols would be swapped. When I type "a" it would show as "z" and so on. The scrambled webfont could be embedded, and the scramble could happen per font. An OCR or some reverse engineering could decipher the page, but as far as google indexing and all the modern "reading web content" is concerned, it would all read as random…

"When I type "a" it would show as "z" and so on". Someone mentioned http://www.rot13.com/ - is it what you loukyngue phor? :)
Post reply on HN