Until now i used to believe that recaptcha was entirely secure.
But, i have concluded my research that - recaptcha can only reduce flood protection - it cannot really distinguish between human
and computers like that.
Even after google bought the recaptcha thinggy, they still introduced other means of verification, otherwise, spams go just dey
flood gmail - as in automatic registrations by bots.
I will like to hear the views of board members on this.

As I have stated on another thread, as long as humans created something, it is subject to flaws, because humans are flawed.

Any piece of code is as secure as the day it was made. There is no such thing as 100% secure website. It's just like the sinner who is lucky simply because he hasn't been caught - no one has set their sites on that particular site,that's all.

The aim of writing "secure" code isn't to eliminate security loopholes (that is impossible as a practicality) but to mitigate such holes.

Exacta, es asi

I've read long ago that a group broke recaptcha and aside from that, i get a lot of bot posts from some of my forms protected by recaptcha.
I still use it because it is intended to reduce and not eliminate bot posts. recaptcha serves me better than my own captcha that gives issues on servers without gd library installed.

Recaptcha uses two words to protect but in reality, you only need one to get access. you can read up on it.

An image that has failed to be readable using OCR - that is where it is better than most captchas we use.
It only helps to reduce flooding, that is all there is to it.

google recaptcha + intel's openCV = Spammers' happyday

with Haar-like features, google needs to "re" their re-captcha

At first, i thought the recaptcha was the best captcha. . .