Slashdot Mirror
Biometrics: Prepare to be Scanned
npistentis writes "From an
article in the Economist: It has been a long time coming. But after years of false starts, security systems based on biometrics--human characteristics such as faces, hand shapes and fingerprints--are finally taking off. Proponents have long argued that because biometrics cannot be forgotten, like a password, or lost or stolen, like a key or an identity card, they are an ideal way to control access to computer networks, airport service-areas and bank vaults. But biometrics have not yet spread beyond such niche markets, for two main reasons. The first is the unease they can inspire among users. Many people would prefer not to have to submit their eyes for scanning in order to withdraw money from a cash dispenser. The second reason is cost: biometric systems are expensive compared with other security measures, such as passwords and personal identification numbers. So while biometrics may provide extra security, the costs currently outweigh the benefits in most cases."
I think they may be able to steal my finger with a big knife!
i'm all in favor of it, but it still does bring my mind back to minority report. Some people have a right to be uneasy.
Here you'll be treated with dignity. Now strip naked and get on the probulator!
You can't take the sky from me...
The main problem in my eyes is the fact that a biometric system turns a fingerprint or retina scan into a string of ones and zeros. If the software is cracked to reveal this string, then the person who belongs to the fingerprint is *permanently* compromised. You can't change fingerprints like you can passwords.
I find it hard to justify the cost of using biometrics, at least in this airport example. The airlines in are in decline, the government has just bailed them out with a couple billion, and revenues are still falling. Does the TSA really need to scan my finger before I step onto a plane? Like the quote says, biometrics wouldn't have made a difference on 9/11.
I would LOVE to have one for my Linux computer, that would be the perfect way to control access to it.
Does anyone know if there are any that are compatible with Linux and are available for consumers?
The two main reasons being unease and cost?! That is wrong. The simple truth is poor performance. So far, no system has been able to match faces better than 60-80% in real life tests. That is still far too poor to be really useful for police work and other, similar purpose.
Whether you consider this a good thing or not, if and when it is implemented we need to remember that just like anyother form of security, the weak link will still be the human factor.
Even if you have the best biometric system, but it is not monitored for tampering (and its database) regularly, who is to say a malicious person didn't add or change a users information. And because biometrics are supposed to be so good, who will the people in charge believe, someone saying they are john smith the computer tech, or the computer that reported them being as being some criminal?
So what happens when someone who has lost one or both eyes tries to withdraw money from their bank account? Or when a burn victim passes through a face recognition checkpoint?
That means, once your identity is compromised, it stays compromised... and there is little to nothing that you can do about it.
That is why I don't like biometrics...
This makes me think of a movie. In the movie Minority Report, biometrics are used to identify criminals (as well as future criminals) walking down the street in public. That's kind of scary to think about, but realistically, the government would never spend the insane amount of money to install cameras all over the public area of America, especially not high-tech eye-scanning ones.
Now imagine walking into a store, like in the movie, and the computer hologram instantly recognizes you and greets you and talks to you about your last purchases. Wouldn't that be extremely annoying? Anonymity is actually quite nice when dealing with strangers, especially the kind who don't trust you enough not to scan your eyes. Don't we all hate that spam that calls us by name?
As long as this technology doesn't go beyond use in criminal records and other instances where fingerprints are used now (driver's licenses for example), it should be acceptable.
Esoteric reference.
With passwords, all they had to do is torture me, but with biometrics they just cut off my hand...
|>>?
This of course, next to waisting huge amounts of money, can create a false sense of security or even lower security as in the example they cite: on an airport, if every 10000th passenger is screened for second testing, the odds are high that guards will not be very optimistic about the system and make mistakes, diss the system, etc.
in the mean time, terrorists travel by sea, land, etc. Even most of 9/11 went by their real names....
Becuase you can change your password a whole lot easier than you can change your DNA.
The flip side of not being able to lose or forget your biometrics is that you can't change it when it gets stolen. And, yes, people will find ways to spoof biometric authentication schemes into believing that they have your data. Whether it's fake fingerprints, or (more likely) some sort of data hack that sendst the computer the right bitstream for a given person's biometric data, once yours is gone, you're just hosed forever.
If your password or PIN gets stolen, you can make a new password, or get a new ATM card and a new PIN, and cancel the old ones. Once your biometric info is stolen or spoofed, you have the choice of cancelling it and not being able to authenticate anywhere, or just accpeting that your identity is stolen and will stay stolen.
Biometrics are great if *combined* with a password. But by themselves, they're foolish for strong authentication. Just because your fingerprints are on your hand doesn't mean that there isn't a pattern there that could be stolen and stored somewhere by bad actors.
-Rob
Proponents have long argued that because biometrics cannot be forgotten, like a password, or lost or stolen...
I heard a rumor that the CIA used to use finger print scanners as a security measure. The problem was that their agents were being killed and their hands cut off to gain access to secure areas/information. Whether or not the rumor is true, the problem is still real. Biometrics can be stolen, it's just a bit more gruesome.
47% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Digital Biometrics Inc. provides live-scan systems from the Los angeles County Sheriff's Department. These systems are installed in Los Angeles County Courthouses to verify the identity of persons being released from custody. These systems are also installed in Los Angeles Sheriff's Department booking stations.
Miros Inc. ,developers of the world's easiest ad most reliable personal
identification systems, have announced that they will demonstrate the first
biometric technology to secure Internet access employing face-recognition:
TrueFace Web. This technology employs a live video image previously recorded.
XL Vision Inc. a leading provider of fingerprint have announced the Human Authentication Application Program Interface (HA-API) for companies and electronic commerce applications.
Eltron and 3M have announced their collaboration for secure identification-printing systems. Eltron International Inc. leading global designer and manufactor of thermal-label and plastic-card printers.
PenOp Inc. is a privately-held international software company specializing in electronic signature capture and verification for on-line business transactions. While some vendors, including IBM Corp., have been quietly researching the viability of this type of software, PenOp Inc. is one company that has taken an agressive role in promoting it to the financial services market. The company's software allows signatures to be written onto a penabled computer screen or a digitizer (a computer pen and pad), then encrypted and tran
I would have posted this under my own ID but I can't remember my password. -- CapnCarrot
Sure, you can't forget your retinas, or lose your fingerprints. And good biometrics could, in theory, be extremely difficult or expensive to counterfeit.
However, if anyone ever *does* compromise your biometrics, what then?
You could have a society where access to so much is based on it (because it worked so well) and then all of a sudden, all the passwords are out in the open. Except that unlike a password list disclosure, you can't change your password!
Sure, probably no one will ever compromise your retinas, but what do you do if it *does* happen? You can't argue that it's not possible, and just because it isn't practical doesn't mean it won't ever be. You always must be able to change your password. Always!
Is only a swipe of the card, weigh of my body, entering of my pin, and scanning of my hand.
Whats funny though, is that my right hand down in the scanner works the same as my left hand upside down. guess it only scans proportions?
As it was said time over and over here,
The Problem is that if somebody menace at pinpoint you can give a password or a pin and they will go on statisfied. You loose money but after you can change the in or apssword and that's it.
With biometric you CANNOT change those data. Meaning once you are compromised this is over. For ever.
Furthermore criminal aren't exactly known to be Sissy which would repugn or be afraid of , let us say, chopping a handor an arm. Or getting an eye out of that socket. Even worst it was proved that for many system with caoutchouc , rubber or high res photo scan , you can foolsome of those system. And I bet that you could hack you way thru if you have physical access like any password system.
The only way to go would be a DOUBLE system. password *and* biometric. Biometric cannot replace the password system with more security. On the contrary it has too many disadvantage.
So what is my point ? Seeing biometric as more than an extension of the password system will bring a lot of problem as well as a false sense of security. And a false sense of security is far worst than anything weak security.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Bioscrypt now claim an error rate of 0.1% on fingerprint IDs.
I suppose it depends how large your access list needs to be. It would be pretty good for a server room inside a secure building with 2 staff members on the access list, but with 10,000 on site (such as some places have) a false positive would be almost assured unless they had to carry a token of some kind. (Physical or otherwise, eg pin or swipe card.)
Beep beep.
We already have a fairly reliable biometric system set up. Its called a security guard (or cop) looking at a stored picture of you and your weight/height and looking at you.
I am looking for a fingerprint scanner that I can use to authenticate users for a custom windows app that currently authenticates employees with barcode ID badges.
The fingerprint scanners we have seen can only be used for logging users into windows.
Is there a fingerprint scanner that comes with drivers/software so it will work with a custom application? In other words, it should send the person's ID to the application or as keyboard input when the user scans their fingerprint.
That article was more or less product placement. Biometric passwords, while looking very cool in sci-fi flicks, have the following misfeatures:
I would say these are the real reasons no one else than gadgeteer type bosses would ever consider using biometric passphrases.
instead of looking in your desk and finding out that your password is 'pencil', Rutger Hauer types are going to rip your eyes out. Yay for progress!
How long until someone sets up a phony ATM to capture retinal patterns? And unlike passwords, your retinal pattern is not something you can change as needed.
Don't get me wrong, biometrics has its place but that place is part of a multi-factor security system. I predict that we will eventually see ATMs that require a card, password and biometrics. Three factors: something you have, something you know and something you are.
Biometrics by itself is useless for security.
In 50 years time we will have to give all kinds of bio information for everything, so we will carry a handy machine readable card with every bit of data on it to make it more convenient...
Thus defeating the entire purpose, and a stunning testament to human nature.
Beep beep.
the ultimate biometric would (i think) be handwriting. although many systems currently are not adequate to deploy, handwritten signature verification is a lot better (albeit also more noisy) than retina scans or fingerprints. unlike other biometric data, you can't steal a person's signature the way you can chop off a finger. remember gattaca?
detecting forgeries is quite a difficult task, but most human experts don't have any temporal data to work with: they have to infer it all from the off-line data. the other big problem (that i have seen from my own research) is that in order to get a very low false acceptance rate you also have to be pessimistic about accepting real signatures (which tends to piss people off when they have to enter their signature an average of about 2 times before it is authenticated)
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
If for some reason a system doesn't work properly, or an injury or natural change over time makes the system unable to identify you, how will you ever prove you're really you? If you lose your password and can't get it back, maybe you lose your email. If you lose your biometric identity and can't get it back, you lose everything you've done in life to that point!
A third main reason that biometrics haven't taken off is irrevocability. Bad guys can forge your fingerprints, and you can't counter this by changing fingers. DNA is particularly noxious in this regard: there's a lot one can do with stray hairs from a hat and some PCR.
The oldest biometric still in widespread use is the signature. Ironically, we are moving away from signatures because of the problems with biometrics. IMHO it is unlikely that newer biometrics will be better. The best seems to be the intelligent combination of biometrics with other methods---as with signatures now.
"Biometrics can be stolen, it's just a bit more gruesome."
Whew! I sure hope they don't come up with the dick print.
The problem with using body parts like fingers, retinas, or faces for access control security is that one's physical body can be coerced. No one can force me to reveal my secure password. I can choose to die rather than reveal it, and if I die, the protected data will die with me.
A few scenarios come to mind. I'm walking in a city late at night near an ATM. A thief puts a gun to my head and tells me to go to my ATM and withdraw funds for him. I can refuse, but if he kills me he will get no money. With a fingerprint, retina, or facial scan, he can shoot me first and just drag my body to the ATM.
Another scenario is private data on my computer that I want to be kept safe from everyone including governments. A government can physically coerce a citizen into using his fingerprint scanner to retrieve the data that they want. They can do nothing about a strong password, and, again, if they kill you they lose any chance of getting the data.
Of course, this is where torture comes in, but I'd rather have the choice of being tortured or even dying to protect sensitive data. Biometrics take away that choice.
Having said all this, voice print ID avoids many of these pitfalls. It seems the most promising since no one can physically force you to speak your password, and if you die the data remains protected.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
would you like Windows to change your retinas now?
Creepy.
to pay some sort of monthly fee to my bank for biometric identification at ATMs, especially in these days of fake atms, false fronts, and cameras seeing your PIN.
The economist article fails to mention the other major reason these systems have not taken off - comparability.
Or, I should say, the Lack of it.
Each fingerprint device on the market uses its own format for storing it's data - making each device incompatible. At first, this would seem to be an easily surmountable problem - but then you must realize that until recently, Every device on the market had its own API for development.
Let me give you an example to illustrate this issue: company X has 2000 employees, and it goes to look at biometric systems - they are either faced with the choice of paying for very expensive equipment from 'long time players' in the industry - who would be around in 2-5 years when the devices start failing due to wear and tear - or choose from some of the 'upstarts', and risk being out in the cold if the company they choose isn't around in several years. a hardware switch down the line not only would incur the cost of re scanning everyone, but the application itself would need to be modified to work with the API for the new device.
Enter the BioAPI (www.bioapi.org) - which proposed a standard api - now widely adopted. You may notice that the Bioapi page mentions it was founded in 1998. It has taken several years for this standard to come to the foreground and there are still roadblocks - not all manufacturers participate freely.
As an example: one rather large manufacturer, Identix (www.identix.com) seems to have been stonewalling for years. Why would a manufacturer do such a thing against what is good for the industry? Because they were leading the industry. When you have all of the high end government contracts coming your way, a standard the opens the doors for the little guy is a Bad Thing for your business - or so they thought.
Take a look at the members list on the bioapi site - identix is listed - then take a look at the supported devices list... not a single identix product.
In 1999 I witnessed this stonewalling firsthand at a meeting in washinton DC. This meeting had manufacturers and interested parties from all over the globe in attendance, including representatives from the US military. The whole agenda for the meeting was how to promote/define standards so that the industry could grow.
I had the unfortunate luck to be seated next to the Identix representative. He had apparently flown in just so he could stonewall - every opportunity he got, he grabbed the microphone and ranted about how we should let the free market dictate standards - that they would come about naturally in the free market (he loved the term free market).
Meanwhile the rest of the group was discussing issues about how to resolve device inter operability - even so far as to discuss how data could be shared between devices. No concrete decisions were made at the meeting, but it did get people talking.
Anyway, my whole point is, one of the major reasons the biometric security industry hasn't grown (as fast as has been predicted for the past 8 years) is because without standards no one wanted to invest in writing applications. It was just too risky.
Note: I am flipping a coin as to wether to post this anonymously or not, since Identix could decide to try and silence this sort of talk...
man is machine
So let me get this straight, an industry expert whose job is to sell these things, thinks its premature, and we (americans as a whole) and our political representatives want to make these requirements? What happens when we found out there are errors, or exploits, its not like you can just reissue 100,000 visas, or maybe you can?
Having said that, if someone is taking my picture and storing it in a database, there should be a sign by the entrance warning people of that.
Something else from the link that I find disturbing:
In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001, however, these objections have been swept aside. After all, if you are already being forced to remove your shoes at the airport, and submit your laptop for explosives testing, surely you will not object to having your fingers scanned too?
I think this is really dangerous that every law that takes away civil liberties is linked to September 11th. And they give those laws such nice names, like "the patriot act".
American citizens will also be affected, as new passports with a chip that contains biometric data are issued from next year.
This is something that will be too easy to abuse. Remember, our government illegally bugged black panther offices, and did all sorts of illegal crap. I wonder if our government will use this kind of data to track private groups, such as those that protest the WTO. Could it be that if you show up to protest the WTO, then you will get audited by the IRS the next year?
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Until there are social (legal and business) safeguards that require the verifier to discard my personal identity info once verified, this will be another false start to a real security model. A standard license that prohibits storage and transmission of my personal data beyond the limits of the verification transaction might be sufficient, if it had enforcement teeth. Where's a transactional security component whose documentation includes a license requiring interoperation with a law that protects the software user?
--
make install -not war
is a big problem, partially real and partially imagined. The real issue is transmission of viruses and bacteria through body fluids - what if I have an eye infection when I peer into the retina scanner? What if I pick my nose, then scan my fingerprint? The imagined issue is the 'cootie factor', where you wont want to touch something that 1,000,000 other people touched (think toilet seat).
Lastly, our new biometric overlords (The US Govt) will undoubtedly put 1,000,001 policies and procedures in place creating a huge barrier to market entry, unless of course you're the gov't approved contractor. None of which will be followed by the unscrupulous, thus continuing the tradition of fucking the honest and awarding (by default) the sketchy.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
As has been mentioned before at many places and on this site a few times, but not in this article, bio metrics are great for ID but lousy for trusting. If any security device is compromised for a given user, e.g fake finger, fake face, fake eyeball, stolen tissue with DNA, stolen biometric data, that user cannot be revoked without locking out that user for life!
The article claims to address the authentication step, briefly mentioning "one-to-one comparison" but fails to define what that would mean for a given situation.
Bruce Schneier said it back 1998, and updated with application to airports.
Someone is getting rich, and I bet it is someone affiliated with a politician. Could it be politicians see this as the goose that laid the golden egg? We already know some of the ways George Bush is connected to the oil industry and how he helped his friends. We remember how he was given a controlling interest in the Texas Rangers when nobody else would have had that oppertunity, and they paid him out millions of dollars becuase he had political connections that the owners of the Rangers wanted to influance. We know how Senator Orin Hatch's kid is an influential lawyer getting millions with the music piracy legislation. Here is another way that they can make their friends rich.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
Here are some good links about the security of fingerprint based systems:
Even if you can get the technology to the point where false positives occur less than 1% of the time
airports etc will be made unusable because there will be more candidates for a intensive search and id check than can be dealt with in a day.
But the real killer will be the problem of persistant false positives. How many times will someone who looks a bit like a known terrorist have to be taken out of queue and subjected to intensive questioning and searches before the lawyers and courts get involved?
I'll never use em. Sorry. I'm blind in my left eye (birth defect). I have no retina at all in that eye, so all a scanner will see is a flat white surface.
And my good eye, my right eye, is very dear to me. I will not be letting anyones laser or scanner look into it other than my Dr. The risk of the laser power being out of spec, etc is just too great for me to risk.
--Rob
You are not your eyes, or your fingers or the shape of your face. You are the conciousness that arises from a collection of memories that belong to you and the freedom you possess to create new ones out of your own free will. Without these two things, free will, and the impenetrable nature of memories, human identity cannot exist.
- these are not the droids you are looking for -
If you haven't read this book, rush out and do so now. It explains a lot of things very clearly, though it does make you sick to your stomach when you hear the politicos talk...
Now, here is the perfect way to keep my wife away from my porn! :)
Proponents have long argued that because biometrics cannot be forgotten, like a password, or lost or stolen, like a key or an identity card, they are an ideal way to control access
From what I have read and understood about security, it is inherently insecure to rely on a single form of validation. In general a secure system, like an ATM, one should require a token and a secret, or perhaps, two tokens. So on tv you see the secret agents required to swipe a card, and speak a code word. This uses biometrics as the second token. The advantage to biometric, therefore, is that one could go to an ATM and use a fingerprint and card to access the account, thus saving the PIN.
The disadvantage i have read the most is that once you lose control of the biometric, say your voice, or fingerprint, or whatever, security is forever compromised. You can't call you bank and ask for a new fingerprint.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
...now rather than just taking my ATM card and pistol-whipping me until they get my PIN, the muggers are going to have to lop off a finger or spoon out an eyeball!
Make me aerodynamic in the evening air
Will just cut off your hand instead of demanding your wallet.
Or maybe head too- for facial scans.
Would you want it raised to that level?
That is effectively what biometric security is. Consider then that the entire network must be physically secure or my (eye/finger/etc.) "password" will quickly be known and re-used. The "password" I used decades ago is still valid!
Also, I'd rather give a mugger my wallet & pin, than my wallet & thumb...
Two big problems with biometrics are (1) the inability to change passwords, and (2) the inability to use a pseudonym.
The first has been pretty well covered. The second less so. Whenever I register for something (NYT for example) that has no business knowing my personal information (name, address, phone number, email, etc.) I lie. I don't want their marketing junk. I don't trust what they'll do with my personal information. What they are offering is not so valuable that I'll overcome my reluctance. I am not giving anything to them.
And, I can be a different person on Monday than I was on Tuesday.
Eh, I am tried of writing...
Think of your biometric signature as a private key. The when registering at the central database, what shoul be stored is a PIN/Password passed through the key. If the central database is compromised, all you need to do is re-register with a new PIN/Password. If the reader is compromised, the PIN is changed at the central database making it a bit more difficult.
Not a great solution, but better than just holding the original biometric signature.
Biometrics could totally be messed with. I can think of a hundred ways to mess with them. Start with simple magnetic underwear and work your way up to skin-suits with other-peoples-DNA.
Technology can always be worked around. When are you people going to get it through your sick heads that you can't and never will have a secure universe?
One of the fundamental laws of this universe is that it is predatory in nature. So why are putting stock in anything that claims to be safe?
Suppose Biometrics become a staple. Now imagine the spammers get a hold of your key.
Add water.
Stir.
All who are familiar with the ATM scams know why it is inherently insecure. The more likely scenario is that eventually you will all be tagged like cattle. GPS tracking will ensure security by monitoring to make sure you are never in two places at the same time, or making quantum leaps through space-time.
Funny that nobody else has pointed this out - its well known that fingerorint scanners are fairly easily foolable - in fact if one has the finger available, leaf gelatine and a paperclip are all you need.
Shit, you can strip a print off a pint glass and use that to make a copy...
Ben Elton indicated a perfectly feasible way to fool DNA testing in This Other Eden, one would imagine a variation on coloured contact lense could be used to dupe a retina scanner.
Nevermind the obvious issue of chopping off body parts, and sticking pens in eyes, if I can forge a fingerprint right now and it can fool 80% of scanners, for under $5?
Yeah. Sounds infallible to me.
fortune -o
I'll be able to pick up a free case of pinkeye from the eye scanner at the local Wal-Mart. My life is complete
...just becasue you HAVE the technology, and COULD use it... ...doesn't mean you necessarialy SHOULD.
another creepy-ass thought
Retinal scanners: Remember that Tom Cruise sci-fi flick where everyone was constantly getting retinally scanned wherever they went? You guys think DoubleClick are a bunch of scumbags now, just wait 'till they link up with RetinAll Marketing.
Coming out of a big speaker in the near future:
"Welcome to Blockbuster, Mr Slappyjack. You may be interested in the Jenna Jameson collection we have in the back room. We did notice you were looking at internet porn about her all day while your wife was out. We do not, however, have any Ass-Reaming-Mature-Tranny-Bukkake videos, which we know you enjoy. If you like we'd be glad to order one for you. Have a nice day."
yeah. nice.
Remember when we all thought RadioShack asking for our addresses just becasue we needed a couple of AA batteries was high annoyance? NOTHING compared to what the future holds.
s'wut i sed.
I once had a Biometric, but it escaped.
I couldn't think of a sig.
Who is going to be identifying me, and why should they be allowed to?
there are risks associated with living, I hate this shitty society where 'safety' is the be-all-and-end-all.
Taking reasonable safety measure is fine- this is not reasonable. I feel like a cow in a stock yard.
Several years ago login (PAM) support was seemingly unavailable under *nix. All the Biometric vendors did have a proprietary Windows implementation, but no *nix. The closest was a U. of Michigan project; it then trailed off. Sun, other *nix vendors either had no solution or were unwilling to make info available. It appeared that the US Gov. was such a huge potential customer, that giving info, code, etc. was not in their best interest.
Strange; I never did figure it all out.
Now cutting other people's fingers, hands and taking out their eyes will be involved to steal their biometric "password". Great!
"So what happens when someone who has lost one or both eyes tries to withdraw money from their bank account?"
Well, that gives the mob/bookies/dealers/etc a real way to get you back. "Pay up or we'll take your eyes/fingers." Not only do you experience major pain/permanent disability, but you lose your identity and they can clean out your bank account.
GL
You can definately steal the "keys" with biometrics like you can steal passwords. You can cut off hands and remove eyes from sockets can't you? I think biometrics just makes it tougher for the "cleaner" criminals to steal your stuff/bypass security.
Repeat after me....
Biometrics are unique but not secret.
I used to make fun of them. Not anymore.
The time it takes to make a perfect duplicate is about 15 minutes (with special material it can be reduced to less than 10 minutes). To make a duplicate of a lifted fingerprint took me several days in 1992 and I had to do a lot of experiments to find the right process/technique. Now it takes me half an hour and the material costs are $20 (also sufficient for about 20 duplicates), the only equipment you need is a digital camera and an UV lamp. Not only do I now make the duplicates in a fraction of the time, but also the quality is better.
No electrons were harmed creating this post, though some may have been subjected to electrical and/or magnetic fields.
Israel has had it at its Airport for a few years now. As like everyone else who had to do the army, the Govt already has my fingerprints.
Unlike everyone else who needs to wait up to 30 minutes to get through passport control to leave and sometimes even longer when arriving, its so nice to know that it only takes two minutes. (Two minutes bec you have to try so many times until it authenticates you, even though it knows ahead of time who you should be).
The only thing is, now instead of worying about loosing your passport, you need to worry about loosing you credit card, otherwise its time to join the queue with everyone else. (2 factor authentication ?)
Cost is not always measured in dollars and cents, and these days time is money.
The funny thing is that when you live in a society where the Govt is supposed to know everything about you (but is so inept that it takes them 4 years to update your address), you end up realizing that its not what they have on you, but rather who is incharge of the information. When someone bad is incharge, a little is more then enough [think Southern Hemisphere].
[This is not a troll, just a different perspective]
the key thing is.. to remember your password... because people cant steal your knowledge.. depending on how strong your will power is.. however.. they can steal your body parts.
and your fingerprints CAN be duplicated.
so biometrics is an expensive technology with too many vulnerabilities
now.. for the common home user, who wants it for the hell of it... or medium level security.. yeah...
but for bank vaults, and other things.. murder would be on the rise.. and theft would be more successful.
In the movie "Sneakers", the girl tricked the guy into saying his passphrase. Yes, I know it's just a movie, but I'm sure, in the intervening years, something better has come up.
Fire marshal orders freeze on ice hotel
Go to your nearest retina scan ATM and smear rim of scanning eyepiece with indelible black ink. The next person who goes to use it they'll scan it will go away with a big black ring around their eye
The problem I see with retina scan is that enterprising criminals may pop out your eyes with a grapefruit spoon.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
I don't care if it's fingerprints, voice print, retinal scan, or even DNA. What technology gives with one hand it takes away with the other. Before "big" ID systems are even fully deployed you can bet there's going to be a bit weenie somewhere thinking, "I wonder if...." Enough of them doing that and one of them will think of something you didn't.
One of these days we'll wake up to the fact there is no magic technology we'll ever be able to trust. But we always seem to want push-button solutions.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
... the glasses of the president he drinks from in public are smashed.
That'll be US$500k (with a US$50k/annum license fee), please.
Yeah, right.
And what if you yourself are no longer able to authenticate using the appropriate biometrics, because of accidents etc.?
A cornerstone of safe authentication is that it needs to be safe even if any unalterable or hard to alter parts are compromised. Imagine a world where your username was your password - if someone found out your username on a system they had free access, and the only way to prevent it would be to get a new account and tell everyone you've changed.
Now imagine that all or a significant part of the username was tattoed on you, and it could only be done once.
That is in effect the security level of biometrics the moment someone finds a way to fool the machine.
The second problem caused by this is that even if additional verification is required, such as a passphrase PLUS your fingerprint, it still now means that a potential violent person that wants access to something you have will either NEED or find it significantly easier to use force to get you to authenticate for him instead of "just" stealing your wallet.
I for one would prefer that all my authentication tokens can be easily and quickly disposed of so that I could get away from a robber as quickly as possibly before something goes wrong.
So stick the fake thumb in your pocket for five minutes to warm it up to body temperature first. Probably that's what you'd do anyway - it would look pretty weird if you walked up to a bank machine with a rubber thumb in your hand or the brim of your hat...
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
Your idea has problems for several reasons:
- biometric data is not stored as a simple image. It's not stored as a compressed image, or a md5 of the image. It is most often stored as a series one-way-hash values, each of which is derived from some characteristic inherint in the scan. Someone could steal this data, but creating the original image is near impossible, like breaking a 100 kilobyte rsa key.
- biometric data is stored in a different format by every manufacturer. There is no standard - heck, they can barely get a standard API for how to interface with the hardware and drivers (www.bioapi.org), let alone agree on a standard format. Thus, if visa were to start using scanners, and your fingerprint scan were stolen, only visa systems would be affected.
- most authentication systems (other than the implied example of logging onto a computer) use multiple pieces of information, usualy two or more of the following type:
- something remembered ( a password or pin)
- something kept (a security card, a credit card)
- somethign intrinsic (a biometric)
Now, how useful is that fingerprint scan if the visa card it's associated with is not in the theif's hands? How useful is it if you cancel your card and get a new one?
- if someone did manage to steal an image of your fingerprint or retina, it won't do much good: systems these days are able to tell the difference between a dead/living finger, a photo, and even a plastic mold (many systems look for temperature of what is scanned, and can even look for capilary blood flow).
- if someone gets access to a computer system where they can use the information stolen and bypass the scanning device, well, you have much bigger problems: such a breakin would probably compromise things to the point where they can simulate a positive authentication from the driver/hardware, for any user.
- (this one only applies to fingerprints): you have ten fingers, use a different one. For eyes, switch eyes.
Having said all of that, please realize that biometrics are intended to enhance security by adding another layer to the authentication systems in place, not to replace them. A bankcard+pin+fingerprint is more secure than a bankcard+pin.
Anytime you hear/read the mass media promoting the death fo passwords via biometrics, realize that either A) the reporter doesn't get it or B) they have talked to a marketing person at one of the manufacturers who is (most likely in my experience) pandering to the media in an attempt to grow the market and get sales, despite the falsehoods involved.
By the same token, anyone who tells you a password by itself is secure, is also wrong.
man is machine
While biometrics methods may help to increase security, they are certainly not foolproof by any means. Any determined hacker/criminal can fake actual results without too much difficulty (if they have the proper equipment/tools). However, by far the most secure (as in hardest to fool) biometrics device is the faceprint scanner (sorry, I can't seem to remember the actual real name). In any event, it does an infrared scan of the human face and maps the network of blood vessels under the surface of the skin. While it is quite secure, it is also probably ridiculously expensive (can someone verify that?)
# fuser -v
#
To paraphrase Bruce Schneier; Once your key is stolen, it stays stolen.
Talk about identity theft. If your scan (the key) is compromised, it's not like you can get another eye ball, or finger tip from the government. And even it you could, your DNA would code for the exact same pattern (in theory anyway.)
And then there's the whole:
"Why did you change your identity citizen?"
"My identity was stolen Mr. Beaurocratic Overlord."
"And how do I know you're not the thief, citizen?"
It gets harder to prove you're you, when the government defines who you are.
This week's issue has a story about Linux becoming adopted as an OS in many parts of the world because it supports twice as many languages as one of its major competitors. And not a peep about this one on slashdot. No, instead we have to resort to anecdotes about minority report.
Beats probbing everyday of the week.
Keystroke timings have been shown to be a reliable, cheap biometric, and was first proposed as early as 1980. The only problem is that NetNany owns the "patent portfolio" on these methods, and agressively threatens not only competitors, but academics who do research in this area.
Remember the system where you memorize faces and pick them out to authenticate yourself? That too cannot be taken from you -- even with torture, or a butcher knife. You could tell someone, "Well one of the faces is this little guy, kinda funny looking, in a general sort of way". But you could never truly pass on your 'passwords'. And you never forget them. The whole thing relies on the fact that a huge portion of our brain is decidated to memorizing and remembering faces.
I think it's a great idea. It's sort of like biometrics that uses the software in our brain, instead of the hardware in our flesh.
Bring in the Anal Probe!
Most (some?) of them read the iris. A bunch of German guys figured out that a digital picture of the iris held in the right spot would fool some scanners. This sort of picture would be easy to steal using a camera. I wish I still had the link...
Biometrics can be used to improve security, but it's not a substitute for careful design.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
A password is really more than just authentication in real life. It is also effectively a signature indicating a degree of voluntary co-operation to validate a transaction. It needs active brain power.
;=)
Biometrics (at least all the ones so far, except perhaps speech) need no such co-operation. So you may be able to authenticate the subject, but there is no record in any way that the subject is co-operating with the transaction.
This does raise a subtle issue. While banks in theory disapprove of the sharing of pin numbers, ATM cards etc. it is now an established part of the financial system. How can you order your spouse/partner/etc. out to stock up on booze etc. when (s)he needs to take your thumb or retina? The faces may be similar though
Oh yeah. Hand shape never changes. Right. Hi, my name is Dan. I have broken each of my fingers at least three times in the last ten years. My fingers have noticeably changed shape over that stretch of time.
And what happens if I develop rheumatoid arthritis? Am I no longer myself?
blog |
And what the hell am I supposed to do when someone steals one of my fingers?? It's not like the government can issue me a new fingerprint.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
Don't like the bank's ATM that has a hand or eye scanner? Just use some opaque spray paint or something similar to "smudge" the scanner. That will help to keep the scanning costs down:)
I used to work for one of Australias leading supermarkets, Safeway (aka Woolworths), which i may need to make a return too :( But to get back ontopic, i was working there 3+ years ago and to "log on" to "time" i would walk up stairs every shift, type my pin on the pad and place my left index finger on the screen to be scanned. I guess i didnt think about it that much but when itold people about this they were very surprised and though it was very "Star Treck" of them to be so "futuristic".
Truth is, i reckon these have been in use for a long time, and im surprised to hear they're only starting to take off! Very Surprised!
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
Here is my opinion on the subject. I haven't written a stylesheet yet (I hadn't even published it yet), maybe check here later once I've translated to xhtml.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
"Many people would prefer not to have to submit their eyes for scanning in order to withdraw money from a cash dispenser."
Pfffft whatever.
The reason I don't want to press my baby blues up against a retinal scanner is because I'm relatively sure a needle will pop out and pierce my eyes.
I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way.
Knunov
Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
The article talks about implementing passports incorporating biometric data.
THIS IS TRUE OF EVERY SINGLE PASSPORT TODAY!
Every passport contains a photo of the person to who it belongs. This photo is (supposedly) certified by the government who issues the passport. Incorproating additional biometric data won't make it more secure, it just increases the cost.
Why don't these people actually get someone who knows something about security to check these ideas over before they get turned into laws?
I recently saw someone in a computer lab working on face recognition software... Tons of faces were being scanned through, all in a grainy, crappy resolution. It reminds me of trying to make voice recognition software work with telephone-quality audio (~ 8kHz). I must honestly admit that I wanted to shove the guy out of his chair and reset the computer. Why, oh why, must we make 1984 a reality?! Because the facial recognition algorithms are interesting?
Just because you can do something doesn't necessarily mean you should do it.
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
`Something instrinsic' is a biometric sellers way to tell you that that
I have to scan my finger print go get into our datacenter and into our NOC because we work with and store very sensitive information and it has become an everyday thing for me. I did not occur to me however that it was just converted into one's and zero's but when you think about it, it makes perfect sence.
Most credit cards have the same problem. You may be able to get your picture on them, but it costs extra. You might think the banks would just pay for it anyway, since it works to their benefit that people are less capable of defrauding them. But as it turns out, the cost of adding everybody's picture to their cards is more than what they spend on fraud. So they say screw the pictures and security cause it's cheaper to continue being robbed.
I really hope someone who knows the difference gets involved in this before it's integrated into our lives. How would you change your fingerprint if it were copied?
I'm thinking a pervasive system where you:
1. scan your fingerprints for identification
2. enter a PIN for authentication
3. enter an alert PIN if you're being forced to authenticate
This would prevent people from chopping off fingers for authentication since they'd need the PIN, and even if they forced you to give them the PIN you could give them the alert PIN. Things would function normally (money dispensed, etc.) but the system would know something was wrong and would take some type of action.
Just thinking off the top of my head.
Cheers.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
Even worse than that is the fact that much of the process for obtaining a US visa is being outsourced. As with a lot of the post 9/11 measures, there is little real effect other than to reduce overall security and allow some more port to be distributed.
See my journal, I write things there
I'd like to thank all the young souls who argued in favor of the police state.
Thanks guys! Because you and millions like you were naive enough to get the wool pulled, life is going to suck hard for everybody. I hope you are paying strict attention to the lesson, because it's going to happen again and again until you wise up.
Welcome to the Wisdom Engine.
-FL
Fingerprints are the absolutely least secure method of biometric authentication.
You leave your fingerprints everywhere. It has been demonstrated a number of times by several individuals that there exist zero fingerprint readers that you can't fool with a fake finger manufactured from a fingerprint that you got somewhere, and manufacturing fake fingers is easy and cheap.
Even if someone implements better liveness tests for fingerprint readers, it still will be just a matter of making the attacker go to a bit more trouble.
Repeat after me - I will never trust a fingerprint reader as a method of authentication, the manufacturers of these devices should be convicted of fraud
Fingerprint readers as authentication are as fundamentally flawed as software DRM.
The closest you can get to real security using them is if you have a human guard who checks your finger (for any layer modifying your print) and watches you press your finger against the reader.
You change it ?
Link to a previous thread about that topic.
No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
Again.. We have a problem with errors, even with these "perfect" fingerprint scanners... Both my gf and I have "healthy" body temperatures about 2 degrees C BELOW "normal." During winter, my hand is about as warm as that of a corpse, especially because I don't believe in gloves. Instant fuck to the scanners. Same w/ capilary blood sensors.. The margin of error would have to be set too high to accomidate abnormally high or low blood pressure. Even if only 10% of the population is affected by either of these issues, that 10% could easily file lawsuits from hell against the companies making/using these systems for invasive "extra scrutiny" their non-matches would give.
The only thing I could possible trust biometrics for, is that if the information was in my user field on my *nix box... It'd be harder to figure out than "root," although not much.
The problem with biometrics is, that they are symmetric in nature, this allows anyone you ever authenticated against to effectively take over your id.
Of course, that's harder with biometrics than with passwords, but why take the chance?
I'd much rather use challenge based authentication, and the use my own, bio-metric and password protected, device to store the information (usually private keys) for answering the challenges.
SLOGEN [ http://ungdomshus.nu : Sebastian cover music]
Two examples:
You do it every time you recognize a face.
Really good CW operators recognize other operator's "fists".
Weird how mangled idiom seems to come in waves. This is at least the third or fourth time I've seen this phrase mistyped the same way.
The phrase is "cut off your nose TO SPITE your face". Not "despite".
Think about what it means, grasshopper, and it will all become clear.
Thank you.
How the hell is a password 'proof of voluntary cooperation?'
Or do you think that nobody holds guns on people and says 'gimmie your pin number and your bank card?'
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
The real problem is that biometrics cannot be changed if they are compromised. This makes them the worst idea for security since hiding your key under your welcome mat. Fact: locks will always be compromised, no matter how good. If you can't re-key the lock you WILL be screwed over someday.
is how is this any different (in quality) from the other ways that rich people get things that poor people have/need? how is it different (again, qualitatively) from women having kids for wealthy couples? okay, so the poor woman could have more kids, but it taxes her body (no pun intended). this is a capitalist society, folks. it isn't even necessary to say that rich people "prey on" anybody. it's just how the system works. poor people don't get what they need. rich people get more than they need.
L. Crania (-?). NL., fr. Gr. ????; akin to ??? head.
The skull of an animal; especially, that part of the skull,
either cartilaginous or bony, which immediately incloses the
brain; the brain case or brainpan. See Skull.
Resonant Res"o*nant (-nant), a. L. resonans, p. pr. of
resonare to resound: cf. F. r'esonnant. See Resound.
Returning, or capable of returning, sound; fitted to resound;
resounding; echoing back.
Through every hour of the golden morning, the streets
were resonant with female parties of young and old.
--De Quincey.
Resonant Res"o*nant, a. (Elec.)
Adjusted as to dimensions (as an electric circuit) so that
currents or electric surgings are produced by the passage of
electric waves of a given frequency.
If you are interested in biometrics, you can join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biometrics/ which is an open, unmoderated yahoo group, or, goto
www.biometrics.org, which is the US government-sponsored/moderated site and try to join their listserv