Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sign Your Name Online With A Mouse

Posted by simoniker on from the signing-mickey-mouse-frowned-upon dept.

icke writes "Soon, the way you use your mouse could help prove who you are. According to a BBC News article, scientists have found a way for people to sign their name online using a mouse instead of a pen. The technology, based on the research from Queen Mary College, University of London by Peter McOwan, 'uses a neural network to pick out the unique features of the way that someone uses a mouse.'"

4 of 236 comments (clear)

  1. This would be easy to fake by Megor1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You could just record the mouse movements with some macro software and then play it back whenever it asks for their signature.

    --
    Everyone that disagrees with me is a paid shill
  2. Your John Handcock is not secure by Dancin_Santa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While it may be a huge flourish that impresses the ladies, your signature is not as secure as it would seem. Forgeries are easy to make by skilled criminals.

    Use a cryptographic key to sign. You'll be glad you did.

    1. Re:Your John Handcock is not secure by OmnipotentEntity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The added fact that most skilled forgeries are identified by the depth of the pit in the paper (ie how hard you press down at certain points, you can imitate a shape but if you imitate it you're not doing it naturally and that shows in the patterns of heavy vs. light inking), and not by the shape of the writing, that makes the mouse signature doubly insecure. Any idiot can trace a pattern of pixels if they see it a few times.

      ___________

      --
      "Build a man a fire warm him for a day, set a man on fire and warm him for the rest of his life."
  3. Similar biometrics don't work by thepacketmaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After recently studying for the CISSP, I learned a great deal about biometrics. The most accurate biometrics include things like iris scans, palm scans, retina scans, etc. These are so accurate because they measure characteristics that are totally unique to individuals. Signature dynamics and keystroke dynamics are some of the most ineffective biometrics around. A big problem is they can be faked. While the article states that early trials are 99% accurate, it doesn't detail how many people have actually tried this system. (A test group of 10 wouldn't be very good.) It also doesn't mention if they tried to fake it out. The real world is a harsh place on biometrics.

    --

    --

    Luck is just skill you didn't know you had.