Slashdot Mirror
Hashing Out the Next Step in Biometric Security
ergo98 writes "CNN is running a story about biometric hashing. Using this technique, biometric inputs (such as facial characteristics) are altered based upon individual characteristics in a hopefully one-way process. The goal is to continue to reduce the risk of a back-end data exposure."
I don't like this. Say that someone discovers the "password" (the hash), then you're done. You can't change it (unless you grow a moustache). Same goes with fingerprints, etc. I think a password (passphrase) is much more practical.
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
The goal is to continue to reduce the risk of a back-end data exposure. Surely you didn't think that photocopying your ass wouldn't get patented, did you.
are reluctant to adopt biometrics because they're afraid a crook will rip out their eyes.
Seriously.
They cited Demolition Man.
For real.
Heck, they need billion dollar research grants to figure out these "techniques"? Bubba, Sparky and his pals downtown would irreversibly alter an individual's facial characteristics given $100.00, 10 minutes and enough motivation.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
The goal is to continue to reduce the risk of a back-end data exposure.
Sure, today they promise that they only want to do biometrics on my face and fingers. But its just the tip of the slippery slope. You know we can't trust them. Just like the social security cards used to all say "not to be used for identification" and look what good that did.
I say that if we don't fight these biometric overlords, it is only a matter of time before they are forcing us to sit naked on copiers so they can xerox our asses! Make a stand now while you still have some dignity, and your pants!
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I have a very hard time believing it is possible to encrypt something one way. It is only a matter of time before some genius figures out a way to reverse it.
You've obviously never seen what happens when the marketing department, accounting department, and human resources department intercept and edits the requirements report from senior executive management for new software before it gets to the programming department have you?
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Then I'll just XOR all my disc's file's bytes with one another. Someone will surely be able to reconstitute all the files given the one bit. In fact, I'll give you access to my entire disk; the hash is 1.
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
Dude, you MUST study basic cryptography. Even MD5 is one way. Sure, you can guess WHICH strings can produce a determinate hash. But of those thousands (maybe millions) of combinations, can you really guess which one was ACTUALLY used?
Anyway, the RSA is constantly working on getting better and better hashes. We got SHA-256, SHA-512 and SHA-1024. And these are way more advanced than SHA1.
Unless of course, you're running quantum cryptography.
Anyway, all it has to be done to create a "virtually unbreakable" hash is to make it large enough so that it can't be "cracked", so to speak. When SHA-2 collisions are found, we'll have SHA-3 and its variants, which will probably be 2048, 4096, 8192 bits... and so on.
It seems like DNA already is a fairly unique method of hashing.
This actually seems easy to do. Combining various biological inputs to derive a unique identitfier.
It doesn't seem like a GOOD idea quite yet, but it certainly seems like something that companies will pursue since I'm sure there are people willing to pay money for it.
Ignore Alien Orders
Say what you will about passwords, the thing is the require *NO* extra equipment to keep running(well, a keyboard, but you probably need that for other purposes anyway) However, all sorts of biometric scanners need equipment to keep running, equipment that will fail one day, and of course it will be the day that you have to log into your account to fix a critical problem in a critical production system....
Monstar L
A story that is still relavent whenever biometrics is brought up:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/7242_1301216,00 180008.htm
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
Crooks aren't that smart. After Mercedes implemented fingerprint readers in some of their cars, there were several reports that some owners got their fingers cut off by thieves. These fingers, of course, could not start the car (no self-respecting fingerprint reader relies on fingerprint alone anymore), but that was not much of a relief for folks whose fingers got cut off.
Dude.. MD5 (or any hash) maps an INFINITE space to a FINITE space!
:P
Think about it: it's basically a check-sum.
Example: I'm thinking of 10 numbers from 0 to 255 inclusive. The sum of those numbers modulo 256 is 123. Now tell me what those numbers are, in the same order that I was thinking of.
"some possible duplications" indeed
I find it interesting that IBM choose to distort the date in their biometric scanners before storage. Since the type of distortion is likely to be secret, proprietary, or just plain difficult to duplicate it effectively locks in any organization into the IBM scanners. Since their system database would only contain IBMs hashes of biometric data buying even one none IBM scanner would require rescanning every user.
Now perhaps I am jumping to conclusions and IBM has implemented some kind of removable card interface for hashing but I find that doubtful. Moreover, hashing biometric data is of questionable benefit in any case. Most biometric data is more easily collectable by simple investagatory techniques (covert photography, dusting for prints) than reconstructing a face from the security data. Moreover, since biometric characteristics are necessarily unchangeable potential hackers could merely use the data from some other less secure biometric security system one of your users also uses. Heck, creating a fake biometric id system and using social engineering to get someone to use it would be way easier than reversing these hashes.
Furthermore designing a secure hash to accomodate the inexact nature of biometric identification seems difficult. By it's very nature a secure hash cannot be guaranteed to map similar inputs to similar hashs. Thus either the hash will be insecure, the system too prone to false negatives to be usefull, or the biometric data must first be rounded to exact values (or for borderline cases just hash both possible ways to round). Yet a rounding scheme which avoids too many false negatives will significantly reduce the 'password' space.
In a normal system the sensor would report all the biometric measurments to the authorization server which would compare the measurements to the stored measurements and see if they are sufficently close to an authorized user. Since a secure hash can't be 'close enough' the measurements must be rounded sufficently to always give the same value for the same user. The net result will be a reduction, not increase, in security. I actually suspect IBM isn't using a secure hash in the cryptographic sense.
A more promising option in my opinion would be to implement a distinct algorithm in the sensor to check that the person had normal human features. Thus even if a hacker steals the biometric info and attempts to produce a fake he must not only duplicate those particular measurements but incorporate them into an image/texture which is otherwise human normal. Since these two algorithms can use different information it would be difficult to defeat. Furthermore since the human detection can be isolated in the sensor no vendor incompatibility issues arise and the algorithm can even be upgraded.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
In my school's library, they have a fingerprint scanner instead of library cards (which I still think is bizarre overkill and no better than cards for stopping theft).
They gave me a sheet of paper to sign, with small print that most people probably ignore. As I was interested, I looked through to find out how they protect my information. It turns out that they store a "hash" of the fingerprint which cannot be used to recover the print except by a method which only certain people at the company which sold the system know.
So rather than a real secure hash, my fingerprint is protected by security through obscurity. I suspect it's much more like weak encryption than a hash, and that anyone who was really interested could get my fingerprint out, if they had the library's software available to reverse engineer.
There's very little motive in a school, but if this type of system spreads to offices or even banks, there are going to be real problems.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
...if everyone everywhere was totally honest and always told the truth at all times? Now I fully realise that nobody is about to make this happen any time soon, and from that perspective I think it is interesting to note that with human institutions the more pervasive the influence and control they have over us the more they seem to be disposed toward lying. There is just *so* much stuff around us today that is necessary because so many are dishonest to a greater or lesser degree. If we all woke up one morning and this wasn't the case then I think it would take quite some getting used to.