Of course, this is not fool-proof at all and can be circumvented by simply using older versions, or self-compiled versions lacking this "feature".
"Circumvent" is really an inappropriate word here. By default, all image processing software will "fail to fail" unless the programmer goes to extra trouble to add the defect. I wouldn't even know that I "should"(?) make my projects not work correctly if I hadn't stumbled onto this thread. And I wouldn't know off the top of my head how I would make it fail, though I suppose I could Google it, not that any customer has ever asked for the bug. And then even if I Google it, the chances that I might find as sufficiently easy-to-call library to help my code fail (or a sufficient description so that I can implement the bug myself), aren't that good. And who is going to pay for my time, working on it? Nobody, that's who.
Please don't call it "circumvent!" Not-having this "feature" is the normal, default, assumed, cheapest, fastest, easiest case.