Fingerprint Scanners Still Easy to Fool

Anlan writes "A Swedish student wrote her Master's thesis about current fingerprint technology. After a thorough literature study some live testing took place. Simple DIY fingerprint copies were used (detailed how-to in the thesis). Have current commercial products improved as much as proponents claim? Well, this qoute from the abstract says it all: 'The experiments focus on making artificial fingerprints in gelatin from a latent fingerprint. Nine different systems were tested at the CeBIT trade fair in Germany and all were deceived. Three other different systems were put up against more extensive tests with three different subjects. All systems were circumvented with all subjects' artificial fingerprints, but with varying results.' You can guess how happy the sales people at CeBIT were - most systems claim to be spoof proof..."

Comments

Great minds think alike

[VinceWuzHere]

From the document abstract... "A description of different liveness detection methods is presented and discussed. Methods requiring extra hardware use temperature, pulse, blood pressure, electric resistance, etc., and methods using already existent information in the system use skin deformation, pores, perspiration, etc."

Re:Could someone explain 4.5.3 to me?

[Apocalypse111]

I myself have an identical twin brother, and our fingerprints are nothing alike. Fingerprints are a developmental feature, not a genetic one.

calcium hydroxide burns

[SuperBanana]

In a former career I spent time mixing cement. One day I was mixing a small amount in a 5 gallon bucket. At the time I had nothing to mix it with so I used my hand. After mixing I washed my hand and it was amazingly smooth. I didn't think much more about it. I looked at it and noticed that the mixing had worn down the top layes of skin on my hand.

Uh, that's because calcium hydroxide -burned- it off, not "wore it down". It's actually quite common, because there is a delay between exposure and reaction. Well, that and people think "hey, it's just rocks and dirt and stuff, i don't have to wear gloves..."

Re:Airport Police

[jrumney]

Just like when they had the national guard monkeys running around with M16s. Absolutely no use whatsoever, but makes the American public go "Gee - we're so protected! I love our President(tm)!

Granted, I'm not an American so maybe my perception is different, but the sight of nervous 19 year olds with M16s at Logan airport in late 2001 did not make me feel "protected".

Re:Airport Police

[LaCosaNostradamus]

{sigh} So much Limbaugh-esque mythology, so little time.

A significant factor in Afghanistan and Iraq was oil. You assert price as some sort of proof against it. But price increases are to the benefit of the producers, which the Bush family have been known to dabble in from time to time. As well as their family friends, the House of Saud.

The whole issue of invading an oil-rich country is to control it for the current set of Oil Barons. Bush's administration is packed with folks like that. (Duh.) Price is simply not an issue.

Iraq was no world threat. About the only sovereign place that would really find Iraq threatening was Israel. And the last time I checked, Israel wasn't the 51st American state, and had no legal representation in any American legislature. If there's anything to be said for American fears of being controlled by foreign interests, then why won't we deal with Israeli influence upon the American military?

As for criminal negligence, you are in direct hypocritical peril considering how much of that charge can be levelled at the American CIA, FBI and military command (specifically the Commander in Chief, whom you may have heard of) when 911 was being planned and executed. Libya is far more at fault for harboring terrorists, but after Bush's speeches on Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran and North Korea, you'll note a sound basis to my skepticism about Bush's due diligence. At any rate, any lax policy in Iraq about terrorist assholes cannot justify: invading Iraq, killing tens of thousands of her citizens (remember, she had an army, not of terrorists, but of Iraqi citizens who were defending against invaders), and taking control of her infrastructure.

The summary of my statements here would revolve around the idea that America attacked Iraq twice in 12 years for no valid reason. America cannot make the case that it was acting in self-defense, since Iraq made no moves onto American territory. And as for WMDs, we only have to look at Israel to speculate on the term "double standard".

Face facts, Ace: you've been bamboozled into thinking that America's assaults in the Middle East are not the Imperialist moves that they actually are. Perhaps when you find that you can't even afford to bury your own war-dead sons, then you'll wake up to realize the murderous and barbaric culture that you had been supporting.