Patent Application
20130347067
A data service may provide services for free on the internet. A malicious entity may take advantage of these services using a “bot”, a software application that may run automated tasks on the internet. The hot may overtax the server for the data service, hijack the data service for nefarious use, or interrupt normal use of the data service. For example, the bot may set up fake free e-mail accounts to send out spam, purchase event tickets for “scalping”, or may strip mine a public database.
This Summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that is further described below in the Detailed Description. This Summary is not intended to identify key features or essential features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used to limit the scope of the claimed subject matter.
Embodiments discussed below relate to controlling access to an online data service. A communication interface may establish a human interactive proof session with a client user by presenting a proof challenge set having multiple proof challenges. A clock may record a challenge response time for each proof challenge. A processor may provide access to an online data service based on the human interactive proof session.
In order to describe the manner in which the above-recited and other advantages and features can be obtained, a more particular description is set forth and will be rendered by reference to specific embodiments thereof which are illustrated in the appended drawings. Understanding that these drawings depict only typical embodiments and are not therefore to be considered to be limiting of its scope, implementations will be described and explained with additional specificity and detail through the use of the accompanying drawings.
a-b illustrate, in block diagrams, alternate embodiments of proof challenges.
Embodiments are discussed in detail below. While specific implementations are discussed, these implementations are for illustration purposes only. A person skilled in the relevant art will recognize that other components and configurations may be used without parting from the spirit and scope of the subject matter of this disclosure. The implementations may be a machine-implemented method, a tangible machine-readable medium having a set of instructions detailing a method stored thereon for at least one processor, or a human interactive proof portal.
An online data service may use a human interactive proof (HIP) system, also called a completely automated public Turing test to tell computers and humans apart (CAPTCHA) system, to prevent automated actors from using or abusing a free online data service. A human interactive proof system has a user perform a task that an automated system would not be able to easily perform. A human interactive proof system may use a human interactive proof portal to provide the user with a proof challenge, such as an image or a distorted text word. To solve the proof challenge, the client user may have to identify an object in the image or read the distorted text word. With complex proof challenges, the human interactive proof system may distinguish more accurately between a human and a software application, while conversely providing a more unpleasant experience for the client user. Once the client user solves the proof challenge, the human interactive proof portal may grant the client user access to the online data service.
Malicious agents have found many ways to circumvent the human interactive proof system. Optical character recognition (OCR) has advanced to the point that given enough time many of the proof challenges may be solved automatically. Additionally, the malicious agents may forward the proof challenge to shops of human users dedicated to just solving the proof challenges, referred to as “human sweatshops”.
However, these circumventions tend to be time consuming. Therefore, a human interactive proof system may identify time delays that signify optical character recognition applications and human sweatshops. Further, the human interactive proof portal may iteratively provide a proof challenge set having multiple proof challenges during a human interactive proof session, even as the client user correctly solves the proof challenges. A proof challenge set size describes the number of proof challenges presented to the user. As multiple proof challenges are used, the proof challenges may be both shorter and more complex. The proof challenge may have one or two challenge characters for the client user to identify. The challenge characters may be overlaid with a high non-Gaussian noise background, providing a pattern with a non-normal distribution to obscure the challenge characters. The high non-Gaussian noise background may make the challenge character hard to read by an optical character recognition application.
The human interactive proof portal may record a challenge response time for each challenge response. The challenge response time measures the elapsed time from when the proof challenge is sent to when a challenge response is received. The human interactive proof portal may use the challenge response time to identify client users that are using optical character recognition applications and human sweatshops.
The human interactive proof portal may use an adjustable reference response time to determine if the challenge response time is acceptable. The reference response time may be an acceptable upper bound response time, or a model response time with an available range above and below the reference response time.
The proof challenge set size may be increased or reduced based on the user success history or the user timing history. The user success history describes how often the client user correctly identifies the challenge characters. The user success history may give partial credits for near misses, such as identifying a “P” as an “R”. The user timing history describes the challenge response time for each challenge response. The user timing history may describe an average challenge response time, or record each average challenge response time. The reference response time may be adjusted based on the user success history or the user timing history.
The human interactive proof portal may use the internet protocol address and a geo-location database to identify the location of the client user. The human interactive proof portal may use the geo-location information to determine the reference response time and the challenge proof set size.
Thus, in one embodiment, a human interactive proof portal may control access to an online data service. A communication interface may establish a human interactive proof session with a client user by presenting a proof challenge set having multiple proof challenges. A clock may record a challenge response time for each proof challenge. A processor may provide access to an online data service based on the human interactive proof session.
The processor 220 may include at least one conventional processor or microprocessor that interprets and executes a set of instructions. The memory 230 may be a random access memory (RAM) or another type of dynamic storage device that stores information and instructions for execution by the processor 220. The memory 230 may also store temporary variables or other intermediate information used during execution of instructions by the processor 220. The ROM 240 may include a conventional ROM device or another type of static storage device that stores static information and instructions for the processor 220. The data storage 250 may include any type of tangible machine-readable medium, such as, for example, magnetic or optical recording media, such as a digital video disk, and its corresponding drive. A tangible machine-readable medium is a physical medium storing machine-readable code or instructions, as opposed to a transitory medium or signal. The data storage 250 may store a set of instructions detailing a method that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform the method. The data storage 250 may also be a database or a database interface with the geo-location traffic database 150.
The input device 260 may include one or more conventional mechanisms that permit a user to input information to the computing device 200, such as a keyboard, a mouse, a voice recognition device, a microphone, a headset, a gesture recognition device, a touch screen, etc. The output device 270 may include one or more conventional mechanisms that output information to the user, including a display, a printer, one or more speakers, a headset, or a medium, such as a memory, or a magnetic or optical disk and a corresponding disk drive. The communication interface 280 may include any transceiver-like mechanism that enables computing device 200 to communicate with other devices or networks. The communication interface 280 may include a network interface or a transceiver interface. The communication interface 280 may be a wireless, wired, or optical interface. The clock 290 may provide timing information for various functions performed by a client user device 110 or a human interactive portal 140.
The computing device 200 may perform such functions in response to processor 220 executing sequences of instructions contained in a computer-readable medium, such as, for example, the memory 230, a magnetic disk, or an optical disk. Such instructions may be read into the memory 230 from another computer-readable medium, such as the data storage 250, or from a separate device via the communication interface 280.
The human interactive proof portal 140 may establish a human interactive proof session with the client user 110 to determine whether to grant access to the online data service 122. The human interactive proof portal 140 may send a proof challenge set having multiple proof challenges for the client user 110 to solve.
The proof challenge 300 may be designed to be immediately recognizable by a human user, creating enough of a time differential to distinguish between a real human user and a bot or a human sweatshop. As multiple proof challenges are used, each proof challenge 300 may use fewer challenge characters 302. In addition to fewer challenge characters 302 improving the user experience of the proof challenge 300, the proof challenge may be solved quickly by a human user. The high non-Gaussian noise background 304 may prevent optical character recognition from solving proof challenge 300, causing any malicious actor wanting to solve the proof challenge 300 to send the proof challenge to a human sweatshop. The transmission time to the human sweatshop may increase the solving time, alerting the human interactive proof portal 140) to the involvement of the human sweatshop.
For example, the proof challenge may have one to two challenge characters 302.
The geo-location database 150 may store a location record to indicate optimum use parameters at each geo-location.
The human interactive proof portal 140) may maintain a user record of the client user 110.
The human interactive proof portal 140 may present a successor proof challenge 608 of a proof challenge set to the client user 110 upon successful completion of the predecessor proof challenge (Block 812). A successor proof challenge 608 is a proof challenge that follows a successor proof challenge. The human interactive proof portal 140 may present a successor proof challenge 608 having one to two challenge characters 302 and a high non-Gaussian noise background 304 obscuring the challenge characters 302. The human interactive proof portal 140 may receive a successor proof response 610 from the client user 110 (Block 814). The human interactive proof portal 140 may record a successor challenge response time to the successor proof challenge 608 (Block 816). The human interactive proof portal 140 may adjust the reference response time 408 based on the successor challenge response time and a user timing history 506 (Block 818). The human interactive proof portal 140 may adjust the proof challenge set size 406 based on the successor challenge response time and a user success history 504 (Block 820). If each challenge proof in the challenge proof set has not been shown (Block 822), the human interactive proof portal 140 may present a successor proof challenge 608 of a proof challenge set to the client user 110 as part of the human interactive proof session (Block 812).
Although the subject matter has been described in language specific to structural features and/or methodological acts, it is to be understood that the subject matter in the appended claims is not necessarily limited to the specific features or acts described above. Rather, the specific features and acts described above are disclosed as example forms for implementing the claims.
Embodiments within the scope of the present invention may also include non-transitory computer-readable storage media for carrying or having computer-executable instructions or data structures stored thereon. Such non-transitory computer-readable storage media may be any available media that can be accessed by a general purpose or special purpose computer. By way of example, and not limitation, such non-transitory computer-readable storage media can comprise RAM, ROM, EEPROM, CD-ROM or other optical disk storage, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to carry or store desired program code means in the form of computer-executable instructions or data structures. Combinations of the above are also included within the scope of the non-transitory computer-readable storage media.
Embodiments may also be practiced in distributed computing environments where tasks are performed by local and remote processing devices that are linked (either by hardwired links, wireless links, or by a combination thereof) through a communications network.
Computer-executable instructions include, for example, instructions and data which cause a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or special purpose processing device to perform a certain function or group of functions. Computer-executable instructions also include program modules that are executed by computers in stand-alone or network environments. Generally, program modules include routines, programs, objects, components, and data structures, etc. that perform particular tasks or implement particular abstract data types. Computer-executable instructions, associated data structures, and program modules represent examples of the program code means for executing steps of the methods disclosed herein. The particular sequence of such executable instructions or associated data structures represents examples of corresponding acts for implementing the functions described in such steps.
Although the above description may contain specific details, such details are not meant to limit the claims in any way. Other configurations of the described embodiments are part of the scope of the disclosure. For example, the principles of the disclosure may be applied to each individual user where each user may individually deploy such a system. This enables each user to utilize the benefits of the disclosure even if any one of a large number of possible applications do not use the functionality described herein. Multiple instances of electronic devices each may process the content in various possible ways. Implementations are not necessarily in one system used by all end users. Accordingly, the appended claims and their legal equivalents define the invention, rather than any specific examples given.
