tal@lemmy.today to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 months agoCatbox.moe got screwed 😿blog.catbox.moeexternal-linkmessage-square41fedilinkarrow-up11arrow-down10cross-posted to: technology@beehaw.orgtechnology@lemmy.world
arrow-up11arrow-down1external-linkCatbox.moe got screwed 😿blog.catbox.moetal@lemmy.today to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 2 months agomessage-square41fedilinkcross-posted to: technology@beehaw.orgtechnology@lemmy.world
minus-squareNateNate60@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·2 months agoHash matching is really easy to get around. Literally modify 1 bit of the image or just re-encode the video and you’ve gotten around it.
minus-squareWarl0k3@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·2 months agoYes, it’s the bare minimum precaution you can implement. But at the same time, it’s the bare minimum precaution you can implement. There’s really no excuse for not doing it, and it catches a shocking number of images.
minus-squaretomsh@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·2 months agohttps://blog.cloudflare.com/the-csam-scanning-tool/#fuzzy-hashing
minus-squarecatloaf@lemm.eelinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up0·2 months agoThey’ll be using perceptual hashes, not file hashes.
Hash matching is really easy to get around. Literally modify 1 bit of the image or just re-encode the video and you’ve gotten around it.
Yes, it’s the bare minimum precaution you can implement. But at the same time, it’s the bare minimum precaution you can implement. There’s really no excuse for not doing it, and it catches a shocking number of images.
https://blog.cloudflare.com/the-csam-scanning-tool/#fuzzy-hashing
They’ll be using perceptual hashes, not file hashes.