Security question reminder for new member registrations

[Dave W]

A reminder for those registering to join the Forum.

We welcome new members but due to the large number of bogus/ spam applicants it's crucial new members answer the security question - naming your favourite WW1 aircraft model.

Too many new members are not addressing this question and providing vague answers that means their application is rejected.

Most of those seeking to join use pseudonyms and vague email addresses so we don't really know who you are. The security question is designed to weed out the bogus and the scammers to protect forum members from being blitzed by those pushing non hobby products.

Just recently I deleted the membershp of a member who was posting links to Bitcoin dealing sites.

Every day I process dozens of applications, the great majority of which fail the security question and are rejected.

Sometimes the new registration seems fine but the member has a pseudonym and the security question answer is a bit vague. Typing "Jenny" for example may seem okay to you but if there's the slightest uncertainty, I hit the 'reject' button.

The object of all this is to keep our forum safe from scammers and dodgy product pushers.

If you're thinking about joining us, and we'd love to have you join, have a thought about that security question. It's the key that unlocks the front door.

Dave Wilson
Gold Coast
Australia

[PrzemoL]

Dave, thank you for guarding us and devoting your time too sieve out the unwanted entries.

[masterKamera]

Security passwords are ok on the front end, but in general they suck.

Heres for example, how many times have you had to choose three security questions from a drop down list, come up with a seperate answer for each.  And then been screwed over a year later when you cant remember what questions you answered and thus get locked out of an email or website account?

Worse look at gmail security. To get access to an account you get locked out of in one of the many ways... ie you create the account on your home PC, and then when you log into the account on your nifty new cellphone...  youve created a security issue that locks you out of your account until you can provide the exact date, hour, minutes, and seconds that appear on the sent/recieved slot of the "thanks for creating a gmail account" email they send when you create one.

[Rookie]

And in some instances it's just a case of PEBCAK

[Dave W]

Let's keep this on topic please folks.

The subject is answering the security question for new member registrations, not a wider debate about passwords.

Dave Wilson
Gold Coast
Australia

[KiwiZac]

Sometimes the new registration seems fine but the member has a pseudonym and the security question answer is a bit vague. Typing "Jenny" for example may seem okay to you but if there's the slightest uncertainty, I hit the 'reject' button.

People on the internet have used screennames since the beginning - a pseudonym isn't necessarily a sure sign that someone has ill intent.

Likewise not everyone knows manufacturer names and designations. Someone may have seen a Jenny at an airshow and just had the name stick in their head (were this a WW2-focused forum would we decline someone who said "Texan"?). I help to run a couple of helicopter-themed groups on Facebook and one of the security questions is "What's your favourite helicopter?": the number of people who say "rescue" or "[sponsor] rescue" was initially surprising but shows one can be genuinely interested without knowing details.

Just my two cents.

[Dirigible-Al]

If there were no trolls and scammers there would be no security, if there were no car thieves I would not have to lock my car and occasionally have a key finding trauma (hands up whose had one of those) and if there were no burglars I wouldn't have on a couple of occasions locked myself out my house. If in the future someone invents a telepathic device that sits on your head and connects you telepathically to the rest of the world you would still get idiots finding ways to spoil that. Just thank Dave for his vigilance.