Slashdot Mirror


The Problem With Windows 8's Picture Password

alphadogg writes "The Windows 8 feature that logs users in if they touch certain points in a photo in the right order might be fun, but it's not very good security, according to the inventor of RSA's SecurID token. 'It's cute,' says Kenneth Weiss, who now runs a three-factor authentication business called Universal Secure Registry. 'I don't think it's serious security.' The major downside of the picture password is that drawing a finger across a photo on a touch screen is easy to video record from a distance — making it relatively easy to compromise, he says."

206 comments

  1. Video?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just look at the greasy finger marks

    1. Re:Video?! by pclminion · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Right. Because other than logging in, nobody ever touches the screen of their touchscreen device. Furthermore, typing a password on a touchscreen keyboard doesn't leave smudges that could be seen by anyone... Come on dude.

      I actually have a BUILD tablet (the ones MS handed out in September) and I use the picture login. It keeps the tablet private enough for my purposes. Of course, my password is to simply triple-tap on a particular spot on the image, so it doesn't leave a grease trail that stands out, particularly.

    2. Re:Video?! by adonoman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even in the worst-case scenario where the computer was used for nothing but logging in with the picture password, the math works out that it's still more reliable than the 4-digit pin that many other devices use.

    3. Re:Video?! by hawguy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Even in the worst-case scenario where the computer was used for nothing but logging in with the picture password, the math works out that it's still more reliable than the 4-digit pin that many other devices use.

      I'm not so sure I trust the math, since the math is only part of the equation. (no pun intended...well, maybe it was)

      They claim that a 3 tap password has 2.7M combinations, but that's only true if each of the coordinates on the screen was equally likely to be tapped.

      But if the security image is a photo with 2 people and a dog, against a white wall it's pretty likely that I can guess where the taps are, so I only have to guess the order.

      Likewise, instead of a single line resulting in 1,949 unique gestures, in reality there are only 6 likely candidates. (and I bet most of the time if I draw the line from the face of the guy holding the dog's leash to the dog, then I'll have guessed correctly)

      Sure, someone may decide to tap on the lower left corner of the blank wall to make their passcode more secure, but the average person will probably stick with the faces.

    4. Re:Video?! by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Its not about the probability of other fingerprints on the device - all you need is a fairly good idea of where someone has been tapping on a photo, and from the photo you will probably be able to guess which points they've used.

    5. Re:Video?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I touch the screen of my Android phone all the time but the greasy finger marks of its picture password are clearly visible. I expect a tablet screen to timeout and lock itself about as much as my phone does, but I might be wrong. From what I see the gestures on a Windows tablet lock screen are different from the Android ones but the problem should be the same. Furthermore the screen is bigger so the gestures are longer.

      Anyway, whoever steals my phone will be able to break its security even if I'd use a PIN. If they don't, they'll sell it to somebody with the required expertise so I think that the only real security is keeping the phone in my pocket. I bet the same applies to a tablet or a computer. Maybe they can't read my encrypted data but they'll be able to flash and reformat it.

    6. Re:Video?! by FrootLoops · · Score: 2

      You'd need to do some studies to see how non-uniform combination probabilities are. Asserting without proof that most people will choose easy-to-guess gestures is just as fallacious as just giving the number of unique combinations (which does not change) without discussing the underlying probability distribution.

    7. Re:Video?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As someone who has owned several touch-screen devices over the last decade, I've noticed that it's a common occurrence for the oil on fingers to accumulate in a tell-tale trail on the screen if you're often swiping a particular pattern. It's the primary reason I switched to a numeric pin rather than the pattern-based authentication on my Android phone. Doesn't seem to happen with taps as it does with swiping.

    8. Re:Video?! by rsborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just look at the greasy finger marks

      You know, the OS could mitigate this quite easily by moving around the picture, reorienting or rotating it. This would eliminate the benefit of muscle-memory, but allow it to be more secure.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    9. Re:Video?! by peragrin · · Score: 4, Informative

      you must not use finger touch tablets very often.

      I can always tell when someone plays a certian game on my phone, ipad, nook color. why? because the oils streaks have a pattern to them. certain games leave specific patterns. you may not know which is the begining. but if 1/3 the screen doesn't have any oil on it then those parts are ones you dont' have to think about.

      Take a standard password of 12 keys. Now with a glance eliminate 75 out of 101 keys on the keyboard. It becomes a whole lot easier to brute force now.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    10. Re:Video?! by Mia'cova · · Score: 1

      That's why many of the gestures are directional. Compared to a pin, it's much better. And a 4-6 digit pin on a phone/ipad/etc is definitely the main comparison here.

    11. Re:Video?! by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      Why did my mental voice suddenly shift to a low monotone when I read that?

    12. Re:Video?! by KlomDark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, you can do that on a computer with a REAL screen, not those little iToys that all the cool kids have to carry around with them these days.

      Can't wait for this fad to die down a bit so we can quit hearing all these retarded stories about "The Desktop Computer is DOOOOOOMMMEEEDD!" all the time.

      Sure, it's eventually doomed, but not for a long time still. There are so many things that I do on a triple headed desktop that I would never want to attempt on a mobile or pad. (Coding, taxes, etc.) And some things are more convenient on a mobile device. (Driving directions, reading the news over lunch, etc.)

      CricKet MessageMate II WTF! ;)

    13. Re:Video?! by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      Ha! Oops, that was supposed to be FTW, not WTF... :)

    14. Re:Video?! by Mia'cova · · Score: 4, Informative

      The math used for comparison typically assumes that there are 10 points of interest in an image. Obviously there's a range depending on the image but most have at least 10. Just don't use Japan's flag as your image and you should be okay. Since lines are directional, when you say 6 likely candidates for lines, that works out to three points of interest: A->B, A->C, B->A, B->C, C->A, C->B. So that really isn't true at all.

      The meaty bit at the end of their math is this: "Assuming the average image has 10 points of interest, and a gesture sequence length of 3, there are 8 million possible combinations, making the prospect of guessing the correct sequence within 5 tries fairly remote."

      The table at the bottom is good to look through.
      http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/12/16/signing-in-with-a-picture-password.aspx

      Bottom line, for 3 gestures on a typical image, 8 million > [10,000 to 1,000,000] (possibilities for a 4 to 6-digit pin, the valid comparison for this)

    15. Re:Video?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      without proof that most people will choose easy-to-guess gestures is just as fallacious as just giving the number of unique combinations

      Considering the amount of evidence out there proving that, left to their own devices, a large majority of people already use easily guessable passwords (NYT, 2011 Worst Password Study, and on, and on...), this isn't a stretch at all.
      In fact, your non-logic deserves a spanking considering how easy a simple web-search is on this subject. Try a little harder next time.

    16. Re:Video?! by travisco_nabisco · · Score: 1

      You should go read the follow up post on the Building Windows 8 blog. It covers a lot of the probabilities assuming 1, 2, 5, or 10 points of interest in a pictures.

    17. Re:Video?! by swalve · · Score: 2

      Or they could do what non-idiotic security systems have been doing forever, and mix up the order of the pictures each time. Or use three pictures, and use a different pool of pictures for each "keypress". Once a user selects their first image, the screen redraws and displays a new set of pictures to choose from.

    18. Re:Video?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The number of combinations has nothing to do with the distribution. (Ok, you may have combinations with zero probability, but still the assertion is right).

    19. Re:Video?! by obeythefist · · Score: 1

      The smudge of an unlock pattern is pretty easy to spot, which is why I very quickly went back to using a pin on my Android.

      If you don't believe me, start looking at other people's Androids and you'll pretty quickly find a way in.

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    20. Re:Video?! by cbhacking · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The portion of the picture that is shown for Picture Password is cropped and moved around the screen, specifically to mitigate a "smudge attack".

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    21. Re:Video?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      i take it you haven't tilted your touchscreen to see the smooth path that is worn in at the most used points on the screen.

      This is a problem with androids pattern lock and the screen protector film overlays.

      Over time, the film develops a smoothness along the path where you're finger glides in order to trace out the lock pattern.

      guessing someones lock pattern is simple as tilting the device to make light reflect in a way that reveals the differences in roughness on the screen protector film.

    22. Re:Video?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The problem is that while the range of applications for the tiny computers is relatively small, the overall sensitivity of the information they're used to access, can get roughly into the same ballpark. Your computer makes it easy to enter a long enough passphrase to decrypt your email, but your iToy doesn't, so if you want to read emails on your iToy, your email ends up being insecure, because that's what's most convenient. Once that's happening, it doesn't matter how great your desktop PC is.

    23. Re:Video?! by pruss · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is still the question of getting the swipes in the right order.

      When I wrote a PictureLogin beta app for Palms (back in 2007; no, it's not prior art for the MS patent, as it was tap-only rather than swipe), I made PictureLogin act as a quick login screen, with an immediate fallback to the default passkey login if it failed. It would be very unlikely an attacker would get in on the first try, but it would allow users to have a very fast login with as few as two taps, or maybe even with only one if one was willing to take a risk. That would also help with the fingerprint problem. I think I was also thinking about some security-by-obscurity options, such as a user using some fake form as their PictureLogin image, so that someone who stole or found the device would not know that it's actually a PictureLogin login screen. You turn it on, and you see some normal Palm screen. You tap once or twice in the right place(s) and you're in, and you tap even once in the wrong place and fall back. I never got around to a full release of PictureLogin, though the code is open source.

    24. Re:Video?! by mysidia · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Its not about the probability of other fingerprints on the device - all you need is a fairly good idea of where someone has been tapping on a photo, and from the photo you will probably be able to guess which points they've used.

      So don't just have them tap on parts of a photo. Present a display showing 255 photos, each arranged into a little icon. And ask the user to "touch" the right icon.

      Once they've touched the first photo, show another display of 254 more photos, the photo they picked before can no longer be picked.

      After the user's chosen four different photos, from four disjoint lists of 255 photos, show a fifth photo that is algorithmically derived from their previous two choices.

      Their previous four choices combined with the points on the photo they select, form a password that is much more secure than what the average person uses and can remember as a password.

      there were at least 255 * 254 * 253 * 252 (4 billion) possible choices of photos they can pick, if the order of selection matters, and then after you add the unique points they chose on the fifth photo.

      You have a password that is much better than the person's daughter's name, or their middle name + phone number

    25. Re:Video?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why did my mental voice suddenly shift to a low monotone when I read that?

      The meds kicked in?

    26. Re:Video?! by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      Actually no. They considered this in the follow up blog post. Turns out it gets easier to spot patterns that way because of the relative position of multiple smudges. So you can isolate the password pattern from normal use easily.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    27. Re:Video?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do people like you get moderated up? Do you and your like thinking brethren think "oh here is another story about mobiles on Slashdot, that'd be a great place to complain about them".

      Here is the funny thing: most desktop computers in the world don't get used for anything more than screwing around either. So it isn't like desktops are the marker of Hardcore Hardworking Serious Computer Work Guy. People are fucking around on their phones F5ing craigslist and tmz.com and typing LOL a lot? Same shit they do on their quad core line powered 6GB 2TB full keyboard 27" IPS display computers.

      So fuck yeah bro with your badass REAL screen.

    28. Re:Video?! by Maow · · Score: 2

      Just look at the greasy finger marks

      I wish my Android swipe-unlock-pattern would present itself at different locations on the screen so the unlock swipe pattern would be more randomised.

      Hey, I should patent that!

    29. Re:Video?! by houghi · · Score: 1

      Obviously to forgo the 'smear' detection, all photo's need to be in random order each time. Sure people will hate to look for the photo in the list and won't want to use it anymore, but this is about security, not about user experience, right?

      It is because of this kind of thinking that people hate security. Perhaps you do not have problems scanning 255 photo's, but I do.

      What I rather have is one 16 key password that never changes and is absolutely random and one login. Instead I have (at work alone) around 10 logins. Passwords need to be changed for some in 30 days, for others they are set and yet others are 31 days.

      Not all are maintained by our company. Some are even shared ones. Stupid? Yeah, but it has been the reality of every place I have been to. Solve that first will ya?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    30. Re:Video?! by BloodAngel_Au · · Score: 1

      Johnny Mnemonic movie much ? Same idea :)

    31. Re:Video?! by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      If the order matters, and the lists are disjoint (as in, different every time), just a few fails on the first entry will quickly reduce the number of recurring thumbnails to barely a handful, no?

      Better to have the exact same list in each step, but maybe vary the location of the different icons.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    32. Re:Video?! by Erikderzweite · · Score: 1

      CyanogenMod's locker allows the usage of a gesture to unlock screen. Sure, most of the time you will be doing it centered, but not quite on the same spot.

      I have a single handwritten symbol as my unlock gesture (without visible trace), but even if my colleagues watch closely as I swipe it, they cannot reproduce it good enough for my handy to unlock.

    33. Re:Video?! by YojimboJango · · Score: 1

      When passwords first were introduced to the unwashed masses, how may people got away with three letter passwords. How many people still get away with it.

      Picture login is at that same stage. Pretty soon you'll see picture login policies like "Passwords must contain at least three swipes, four taps and a loop-de-loop, pictures must contain at least 6 faces and 12 different lines. blah blah blah." It's just a matter of time till everyone realises that this isn't a holy grail and people can still socially engineer obscenely weak passwords. Once the dust settles though, this will probably be a better solution to passwords.

    34. Re:Video?! by Pope · · Score: 1

      Yeah! Just like when those millions of desktop PCs came out in the 70s, man those were such a fad! I couldn't wait for it to die out so we could all go back to dumb terminals and a mainframe.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    35. Re:Video?! by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      but the average person will probably stick with the faces.

      Or the boobs!

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    36. Re:Video?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with that is that there's no way in hell the average person is going to remember which photo out of 255 photos they picked... let alone 4 of them. Unless they're always in the exact same place, which just turns it into a photo mosaic picture as the picture password descriped in the topic.

      Now if you drop that down to a display of say... 10 photos, you MIGHT have a chance of people remembering which 4 they selected. MIGHT.

    37. Re:Video?! by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but retired navy dolphins can easily crack image passwords! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Mnemonic

      --
      I8-D
    38. Re:Video?! by emddudley · · Score: 1

      Just look at the greasy finger marks

      The question of smudges was addressed by Zach Pace in the Building Windows 8 blog entry on picture passwords. He emphasizes that Microsoft's goal was to design a password mechanism that was easier to use than PINs on touch devices, with equal or better security.

      The picture password system is certainly vulnerable to the smudge factor, but it's no worse than existing PIN systems today.

    39. Re:Video?! by Kamiza+Ikioi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you can do that on a computer with a REAL screen, not those little iToys that all the cool kids have to carry around with them these days.

      Can't wait for this fad to die down a bit so we can quit hearing all these retarded stories about "The Desktop Computer is DOOOOOOMMMEEEDD!" all the time.

      Sure, it's eventually doomed, but not for a long time still. There are so many things that I do on a triple headed desktop that I would never want to attempt on a mobile or pad. (Coding, taxes, etc.) And some things are more convenient on a mobile device. (Driving directions, reading the news over lunch, etc.)

      CricKet MessageMate II WTF! ;)

      Yeah, I'll be happy when the desktop computer fad dies down and we can quit hearing all these stories about "The terminal is DOOOOOOMMMEEEDD!" all the time.

      Sure, it's gone for now, but it'll be back. There are so many things I can do on a virtualized server farm that I would never want to attempt on a desktop (Coding, taxes for an entire state, etc.) And some things are more convenient on a desktop. (Gaming, gaming, etc.)

      Just sayin'.

      --
      I8-D
    40. Re:Video?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who's going to spend five minutes flipping through a thousand pictures just to reply "lol" to someone on Facebook?

    41. Re:Video?! by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

      Leave smudge alone. He's a nice guy.

      --
      The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
    42. Re:Video?! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No, the desktop is not doomed, not eventually, not ever (well, unless they invent a direct brain-computer interface that renders keyboards and monitors, and cellphones and iToys too, obsolete).

      As you pointed out, you can't do things like coding, writing documents, editing videos, creating the latest $200 million Hollywood movie, etc. on a small touchscreen. Anyone who does real work with their computer, whether it's coding, office applications, etc., has to have a real screen and a real input device. The form factor of the machine behind it may very well change from today's ubiquitous mini-tower to something else, but you can't fit a keyboard and 24" monitor into a cellphone. When someone comes up with a better input device than a keyboard, maybe this will start to change, but touchscreens aren't it. They're great for a cellphone, or a limited-capability tablet, but they're not a replacement for keyboards.

    43. Re:Video?! by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This is really irrelevant. The dumb terminals of the 70s were the "desktop PCs" of that age. The fact that all the processing occurred on a mainframe in another location is mostly irrelevant to the user; they have a monitor, and a keyboard. The only difference between that and today's desktop PC is there's now a mouse.

      The big controversy now, between moronic Facebook-using 20-somethings and everyone else, is whether the desktop PC (or anything that resembles it) will disappear and be replaced by small, mobile touchscreen devices, namely cellphones and tablets. Apparently, there's a bunch of people who think that offices worldwide are going to abandon desktop monitors and keyboards, and give their cubicle-bound employees 10" touchscreen tablets to write documents on, create spreadsheets and presentations, etc., and that Hollywood studios will remove their quad-30"-monitor systems and give their graphics artists cellphones to do their FX work on.

      Who knows, maybe the "desktop PC" of the future will have a quantum-mechanical link to a "cloud" computer somewhere that does all the processing, it doesn't matter, but the idea that people are going to be using small touchscreens to do all their work is just stupid.

    44. Re:Video?! by mysidia · · Score: 1

      They'd be in the exact same relative position every time, and each photo would have some kind of symbol or character on it, so the person could write down the sequence on a sticky note for the short time until they memorized it.

      Then when they were confident they memorized their sequence of pictures, they could turn off the symbol/character assist.

    45. Re:Video?! by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      255 photos is still a pain. Why not just have a keyboard (much easier to resolve symbols then scaled photos).

      It does occur to me from your idea though that a simple anti-smear system would just be to display the photo at say, 50% size, with a random position and orientation each time. Easy for a person to resolve, but meaning that the smear pattern would become much more random (although I suppose one could consider an attack which correlates the spatial distribution, but I suspect it becomes much harder).

  2. Unlike any other authentication... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...which are obviously not prone to being videotaped, like passwords typed into a keyboard, 2 factor tokens that cannot be stolen, smart cards with super hard to guess 4 digit PINs, etc.

    1. Re:Unlike any other authentication... by Fluffeh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The interesting thing to me is that on a photo there would be obvious "points of interest". If you had a picture of a few friends, you would likely use their faces as touch points. If you had a picture of a hillside with some houses, those would likely be the points that get touched. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of this rather novel password concept, but I think that in terms of security (at least for the most part) that any photo would have obvious points that narrow down the possibilities.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:Unlike any other authentication... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you had a picture of a few friends, you would likely use their boobs as touch points. FTFY

    3. Re:Unlike any other authentication... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      Anybody who really wants in us going to find other ways. If the device is stolen, they're most likely to want to wipe it and pawn it. If somebody is after information, they wont mess around and take it to somebody with skills.

      That said, I still like KittenAuth. You could link to cheezburger and have an grid of constantly changing pictures. Then pick Kitten-puppy-turtle... Still easy to snoop with video, but again, anybody going to that trouble has done their homework.

    4. Re:Unlike any other authentication... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My friends are boobs!

    5. Re:Unlike any other authentication... by KlomDark · · Score: 0

      No, you are a boob! :)

  3. Passwords susceptible to surveillance, more at 11. by Anpheus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Surely an accomplished individual like him could put out a serious paper on why picture passwords aren't good security, if they aren't. The math seemed alright in the Microsoft blog, so I don't know what the problem is.

    Oh, I know what it is, he's the head of a company that offers alternative security products that use multi-factor authentication. *Of course* well implemented multi-factor auth is more secure than single-factor, but if he weren't in charge of a company trying to sell a product, would this article even exist? Probably not.

  4. Another problem by tripleevenfall · · Score: 0

    Another problem is that it's trivial to lock someone out by intentionally missing the password more than the allowed number of times.

    1. Re:Another problem by adonoman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Then you can use the actual password on the on-screen keyboard. The picture password is just an optional convenience feature.

    2. Re:Another problem by cyachallenge · · Score: 1

      Then you can use the actual password on the on-screen keyboard. The picture password is just an optional convenience feature.

      Thank you for being a sensible person. :) Not everybody needs a 12800000 bit security system to get into their windows touch screen device.

    3. Re:Another problem by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 3, Informative

      The WILL forget their password. We have laptops here with fingerprint scanners. Everyone who uses the scanner (optional) has forgotten their password.

      --
      If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    4. Re:Another problem by cyachallenge · · Score: 1

      Who set these limits anyway? How is anybody going to brute force a password within a few tries. The combinations for a 8 character pass are massive. Something more reasonable would be 50 for a timeout and reoccurance for a lockout.

    5. Re:Another problem by qbast · · Score: 5, Insightful

      - Hey, give it back your bastard! Eh, at least he is not going to get any of my secret data - it is fingerprint protected!
      - What are you doing with this knife?! Aaaaaaaargh...
      - You sick fuck! And what makes you so sure I use right index finger anyway? No, wait, this was just a joke!
      - Omg, he has an axe too ... Leave me at least left hand, pleeaseee!
      - Well, I can't use fingerprint scanner anymore so I will get a laptop with iris scanner. What could go wrong?

    6. Re:Another problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Simon says, 'Teddybear.'"

    7. Re:Another problem by Mia'cova · · Score: 1

      Those are two different problems. Typically a brute force attack would be carried out against the password hash. So you get access to the hard disk and you want to figure out some guy's domain credentials. That's the 8+ digit password that's slow to brute force. The comparison here is against 4 to 6 digit pins you find on most tablets, eg ipad. The hardware holds the encryption keys and only allows a few attempts before permanently destroying the decryption key. That effectively erases the device. So in cases such as phones and tablets where you have trusted hardware, you only need to worry about 5 attempts. If you're dealing with an older-style system where the password hash can be easily retrieved from the hardware to brute-force externally, you need a much larger set of password combinations.

    8. Re:Another problem by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Then you can use the actual password on the on-screen keyboard.

      And if they use the on-screen password to mistype the actual password intentionally, enough times to get the unit to lock out / self-destruct, as their form of deviousness ?

      The problem with entering an actual password using an on-screen keyboard, is that this is easily videotaped. And therefore insecure.... oh wait...

    9. Re:Another problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, I got one of them lenovo laptops with a fingerprint scanner.
      Scanned all my fingers at different angles, i have to try several times to log in.
      So good luck figuring that out with my chopped off fingers.

    10. Re:Another problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not the cold jello on my fingers!! AIIEEE!!!!!!

      Look the paper on "mpact of Artificial "Gummy" Fingers on Fingerprint Systems "

    11. Re:Another problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mythbusters has confirmed fingerprint security is easy to brake.

  5. In other news by Anrego · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The lock on your diary offers little protection from a skilled locksmith most can be opened with a simple bent piece of metal.

    If you have someone following you around with cameras trying to capture your login info to use later when they have physical access to your machine a traditional password probably isn’t going to cut it either. This provides the same kind of “guy walking by” protection as traditional passwords do. Ok, maybe less.. but still. Maybe this will actually push people towards more secure auth for serious things by highlighting how insecure a basic password is.

    All that said, I think it’s a pretty stupid feature ;p

    1. Re:In other news by mrclisdue · · Score: 4, Funny

      All that said, I think it’s a pretty stupid feature ;p

      Ah, but if you imagine goatse as the login photo...how brilliant is that?

      cheers,

    2. Re:In other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this a stupid feature? You can easily have 100 salient points in a photograph. Touching 8 of them in order is the same as typing an 8-character password on an ordinary keyboard, except maybe it's easier to remember.

      Or maybe it's harder.

    3. Re:In other news by ottothecow · · Score: 1

      depends what you have to poke it with

      --
      Bottles.
    4. Re:In other news by Billlagr · · Score: 1

      Wow..what an awesome deterrent! Who would want to be poking and making swiping gestures across THAT! Rather than making a difficult to crack password, just make the device so nobody actually wants to put their finger on it!

    5. Re:In other news by jimshatt · · Score: 1

      crack password

      hehe he

    6. Re:In other news by Billlagr · · Score: 1

      haha! Bazinga!

  6. Well of course not... by DrEldarion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course it's not "very good" security. Neither is Android's face unlock. Neither are PINs. Neither are passwords. etc. etc. etc.

    The whole point of things like this are that they're better than no security and that people will actually use them. You can have the best security setup in the world, but if users never enable it because it's too much of a pain in the ass, then it's worthless.

    1. Re:Well of course not... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I dare to disagree. Bad security can actually be worse than no security. For more than one reason.

      First, the obvious one: People rely on security and act as if they're protected even though they are in fact not.

      The less obvious one is that a faulty and flawed security mechanism actually offers another attack vector. To use an example from a real security problem, imagine a door without a lock and no handle, opening to the outside. Without handle or lock, the door cannot be opened from the outside, since there is no way for you to pull at it, and pushing it won't do you no good. And a good, solid oak door is quite hard to bash in. Add a lock and you not only offer a point where an attacker can actually put a hook, you also have to weaken the door to apply the lock. If the lock is now flawed and easy to pick, you actually lowered the security of the door by adding a lock.

      It's the same with flawed IT security mechanisms.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Well of course not... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. The weakest point in any security system will always be the user, and unfortunately, the user is the hardest weakness to combat.

      Consider forcing password changes at certain intervals: 99% of the time, the new password is the same as the old one with a variation of a single character; e.g., "Flower" becomes "Flower1". Then, next time there's a forced password change, they just set it right the hell back to "Flower", or go up to "Flower2".

      Then there's the systems where the password is provided, usually gibberish alphanumeric of a certain character length. Nobody can remember that shit, so what does everyone do? Write it the hell down somewhere, or store it in a text file; usually fucking called "Passwords", because people are retards.

      No matter how elaborate your security is, the user will find a way to fuck it up. A door won't be closed, a document won't be shredded, a workstation won't be locked, a security protocol won't be followed, and it's always for the sake of the user's convenience. The more of a pain in the ass it is, the more likely it will be compromised by laziness on the part of the user. That's just how people are; not all of them, but a lot of them.

      I mean, stories of people getting hacked or their identities stolen are in the news all the time, and the most common user-created passwords are still ridiculous shit like "1234" and "ABCDEFG". Clearly people would rather accept the risk of a weak password for the sake of convenience. Either that or they really are retarded.

    3. Re:Well of course not... by bherman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Taking your analogy a bit further..... While you may have a more secure door without the lock, you also have what is commonly referred to as a wall. Without a way to use the door it is no longer serving it's intended purpose. The most secure computer is one that is not on a network and cannot be physically accessed. Once you actually need to access it you are now weighing the tradeoff between usability and security. The picture password is intended to provide a way for users who wouldn't otherwise protect their device with a low impact way of doing so.

      --
      Error: Sig not found.
    4. Re:Well of course not... by Tom · · Score: 1

      "good" is a relative measure. A code of 4 numbers can be good security for your garden shed, and passwords are entirely sufficient for most stuff online (really, how much security do your various forum accounts need? What's the threat level?).

      Yes, making security hard is the wrong approach, it does make people circumvent it. No, dumbing it down so they use it, but it doesn't really provide any security anymore is the wrong answer, because it generates a false sense of security, and that is much worse then having no security, but knowing that you don't.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    5. Re:Well of course not... by Endo13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your door analogy is fundamentally flawed, because the user has to get in some way, otherwise the house (or PC) is useless. The same applies to both. On the house, sure that particular door is difficult to break into because you can't open it from the outside. But somewhere on another wall there's another door that can be opened from the outside, and will have traditional security measures.

      That's the whole point of security - to allow authorized entry while making it difficult for unauthorized entry. Your suggestion of making entry impossible is mind-bogglingly stupid in this context.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    6. Re:Well of course not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People rely on security and act as if they're protected even though they are in fact not.

      As we call it in our shop, "The Apple Effect".

    7. Re:Well of course not... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      You clearly forgot QWERTY and ASDFG!

    8. Re:Well of course not... by ghostdoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's just how people are; not all of them, but a lot of them.

      I mean, stories of people getting hacked or their identities stolen are in the news all the time, and the most common user-created passwords are still ridiculous shit like "1234" and "ABCDEFG". Clearly people would rather accept the risk of a weak password for the sake of convenience. Either that or they really are retarded.

      Since clearly most people are not retarded, but are using the system as if they are retarded, then the system is the problem. Blaming the users is pointless, you're not going to get better human beings to use your system, so you've got to change the system.

      As XKCD and many others have pointed out, we have a pointlessly hard method of specifying passwords...if it's 'strong' it can't be easily remembered, and will be written down or re-used on multiple occasions. If it's easy to remember then it's easy to guess. In other words, we have a system that is easy for computers to implement, but hard for humans to use.

      There must, surely, be better ways of doing this that work with the way the human brain works to encourage stronger security. After all, it's a lot easier to change the security implementation than it is to change the human brain. We need to find a better system and not just stick with the current broken one and blame the users for being retards.

      I'm glad someone is trying something different that might make security better.

      --
      Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
    9. Re:Well of course not... by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2

      Since clearly most people are not retarded...

      Excuse me, but that is not clear at all.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    10. Re:Well of course not... by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are correct. Things are more secure when they are inaccessible. Also, cars are less likely to be stolen when they have no tires or engines.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    11. Re:Well of course not... by cbhacking · · Score: 2

      Also, you're clearly not thinking about it enough. A suction cup will easily allow you to pull the door toward you. Security through obfuscation ("I can't figure out how to pull this door open, there's no handle!" or "I can't figure out how to decrypt this file; it's a custom crypt algoritm!") is about as useful as its name sounds. Anybody who bothers to really try will probably find more weaknesses in the method you used than in the well-known and widely-tested techniques.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    12. Re:Well of course not... by waveclaw · · Score: 1

      Bad security can actually be worse than no security.

      These types of arguments tend to run on one of two lines: people trusting that which they shouldn't and examples of simple broken systems.

      There is nothing you can do about people trusting systems they shouldn't. Houses have many ways in that are usually easier to open with tools than the doors. Windows are used for entry because you only need a fist to break most. Walls are just as easy with power tools. It's the social contract between people that prevents this type of security problem. Locks on your doors only keep out lazy opportunists checking doors for easy access. Sadly, the Gabriel's Greater Internet F*ckwad Theory implies that online the contract fails.

      The less obvious one is that a faulty and flawed security mechanism actually offers another attack vector.

      All security mechanisms suffer from this. Reference: http://xkcd.com/538/

      Add a lock and you not only offer a point where an attacker can actually put a hook,

      The obvious is to just use a tool that can attach things to doors. Even a harmless looking sharpened thumbtack defeats the 'handle-less' door yet is stymied by the presence of a lock.

      I think the equivalent in computer security is pop-up phishing. Such as putting up a webpage popup AD with a similar password requirement and appearance, hoping that some people will try their existing passwords from their existing systems. Or a fake screensaver overlay that kicks in after one minute of idle.

      If the lock is now flawed and easy to pick, you actually lowered the security of the door by adding a lock.

      It is a simple matter of application of non-obvious force: smack the door with your fist. One that is easier to do than even smashing windows. It not only leaves no trail, but makes it look like you know what you are doing so unaware bystanders will think you should be using that door. Unless it is badly fit to the frame and actually stuck to it, if pushed on such a door will bounce open. Materials are elastic to some degree and forces between joints will be partially reflected just due to the difference in material (the gap that comprises the joint between door material and frame.)

      To translate into security speak, this is shoulder-surfing someone who uses the same password everywhere.

      Fundamentally, security is about psychology and not technology. The lock should be the hardest part of the door to deal with so attackers focus on it and waste their time. This gives you time to discover and deal with them manually assuming the attacker just doesn't give up and go check other doors. Most people are dumb - well average or bellow - so this works well. You cannot keep the smart ones out - even if they ignore the window you left open they know how to use a battery-powered chain saw to make their own doors.

      --

      "You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
    13. Re:Well of course not... by Ambvai · · Score: 1

      I pick decently long and complex phrases that I already remember as my passwords. Song titles are a pretty good pick: TheGirlFromIpanema is decently long, already memorized, easy enough to read off to somebody else if necessary and has a few obvious mutations if needed for subsequent incarnations.
      *Disclaimer: Not good for all songs. I believe 'If' was a #1 song in the 70s...

    14. Re:Well of course not... by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      You know why people use stupid passwords like 1234 and abcd? Because it's only reasonable. My laptops password is 'yo'. It let's me log in or unlock quickly and still doesn't allow my roommate to snoop around in my laptop. That's it! That's all the security I need, that nobody can post shit from my facebook account. There's no secret data I'm carrying around.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    15. Re:Well of course not... by arose · · Score: 1

      While I generally agree, I don't think passwords really are that hard to memorize. People routinely remember telephone numbers for example. I believe the reason we are seeing a problem with passwords/paraphrases is twofold: there is the usual brain shutdown that people experience with computers even if they routinely deal with much more complex things and there is the fact that they don't get to train it. Make a system where the user can practice entering the password a few times before they actually have to remember (how people learn phone numbers), educate them why it's important and make sure that the people who's brain's shut down when they see a mixed case alphanumeric password with symbols (it looks scary, they won't try) get passphrases instead. That'd at least be a start.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    16. Re:Well of course not... by AngryDeuce · · Score: 1

      People routinely remember telephone numbers for example.

      To be fair, I only know one phone number by heart any more, and that is my father's cell phone number, and the only reason I have that one memorized is because he's had the same number for a decade and I memorized it back when land line telephones were common. I wouldn't be able to recall any phone number in my contact's list from memory if my life depended on it. If I ever get locked up I'm so screwed...

    17. Re:Well of course not... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Very true, no doubt about that. The original door in my example requires someone on the other side to open it for you, which is probably also not really feasible in most situations, but I guess we can agree it's more secure.

      Security is always a tradeoff between protection and accessibility. The point was rather that you should think twice before adding another layer of security, especially if it is put in parallel, not serial. A secondary access way is by default always lowering the security of a system (since, unless I got something terribly wrong here, this is supposed to be an additional, separate way of authentication, not one on top of an existing passphrase based one).

      I'm very much in favor of having ONE way into a system, not two or more just for the sake of convenience.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    18. Re:Well of course not... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I find it kinda scary to take security advice from Freefall...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:Well of course not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A password is not really harder to memorize than a phone number. Use it every day for a month or two, and you'll remember it just fine.

      However, many systems then require you to change your password after a month, and you can start over. When you know that when you've almost memorized your password, you'll have to change it, will make everyone but the most stubborn choose an easy to remember password, or write it down.

    20. Re:Well of course not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is ";,.pyf" bad as well?

    21. Re:Well of course not... by arose · · Score: 1

      You don't remember them because you don't have to, not because you wouldn't be able to. That's kinda the point, make sure users understand that they need to and give them the opportunity to practice without being locked out of the system.

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    22. Re:Well of course not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm am sure that in the future someone will come up with a way to look into the users very soul, see if they are the person destined to use that piece of hardware and if so, allow them to play Angry Birds on it.

    23. Re:Well of course not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I even hacked Androids face unlock with an iPad 2! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbH94oVYqew

    24. Re:Well of course not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since clearly most people are not retarded...

      Excuse me, but that is not clear at all.

      Of course it is. Most people are of average intelligence, by definition - if you're unable to understand that, then you're probably among the below-average I'm afraid.

    25. Re:Well of course not... by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      That made no sense.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  7. comment from the article by Brian+Boitano · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "It's more like a Fisher-Price toy than a serious choice for secure computer access,"

    Nuff said.

    --
    What would Brian Boitano do?
    1. Re:comment from the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. "Nuff said" is stunning ignorant. Take a look at the Windows 8 blog and the two articles concerning picture security and the maths behind it.

      http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/

      It is surprisingly secure. Even if you approx what the user did it gets hard to get the combination right. Look at the numbers, THEN comment.
      People have already demonstrated that on-screen touch keyboards are not secure - you can see the blip of light with each touch.

      This is just another login method and it is not as weak or trivial as people think. Don't take my word for it. Put your bias aside (as I did) and read the two blog articles on it.

      And of course, the author of this Fisher Price comment is running a company selling three factor security solutions, not single factor logins. He has an agenda. Its good publicity for him.

    2. Re:comment from the article by Hooya · · Score: 2

      The "things" that matter the most to me, my most valuable "things", are protected by a flimsy wooden door with easily breakable hinges and easily pickable locks - my wife and kids. I would think if you apply your logic, then unless your wife and kids were locked up in a vault in, say, fort knox, you would consider it unsecure?

      My point being that it's a risk/reward thing. If you have something on your tablet that needs 3 factor authentication, you would have 3 factor authentication. But not everything needs 3 factor authentication. I don't need to lock up my family in fort knox. Just like I don't need what I have on my tablet to be protected by a 3 factor auth.

    3. Re:comment from the article by BigSes · · Score: 1

      The "things" that matter the most to me, my most valuable "things", are protected by a flimsy wooden door with easily breakable hinges and easily pickable locks - my wife and kids. .

      Valuable to you, is what you meant to say.

  8. That's not the main problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A camera can also record someone typing in an alphanumerical password as well, so the same argument applies there. No, the main problem with any authentication system that doesn't require you to lift your finger from the screen is that if the owner of the phone is like most people, they'll probably leave a nice greasy streak right from start to finish. Or the other way around, not like it costs much to check...

  9. It also leaves smudges by Piata · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I could unlock my friend's Android phone just by studying the smudge patterns on the touchscreen. I imagine this would be just as easy.

    1. Re:It also leaves smudges by QuasiSteve · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered why Android's grid unlock function didn't allow a 'cell' to be hit more than once. ThrottleLock - a lock screen 'app' for Windows Mobile - does allow this.

      In addition, you would fail miserably with my pattern, even though it's only three swipes, because although you can't hit a 'cell' more than once, you can certainly swipe over it more than once - but you'd need more than a cursory glance at the light reflecting off of it to figure that one out.

      Plus this would only really work well if the user recently unlocked and didn't swipe the screen otherwise. Who does that?

    2. Re:It also leaves smudges by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Not if they used this

    3. Re:It also leaves smudges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would be even easier using basic psychology, people are more likely to choose certain parts of an image over others, usually parts that stand out.

    4. Re:It also leaves smudges by Mia'cova · · Score: 1

      Directional gestures like drawing lines and circles are a lot harder to figure out based on the smudges. You still only get max 5 attempts before the device self-destructs the decryption keys to its data. So even if you can see the exact smudges from the login perfectly, you're still unlikely to guess right with both order and direction.

    5. Re:It also leaves smudges by tftp · · Score: 1

      So you want to break into a tablet that belongs to your boss. He leaves the tablet on the desk but it's always locked. Here is the procedure.

      When the boss walks away, clean the tablet and put it back. Wait until he returns and starts using it. Wait until he is distracted by something and walks away again. Look at the smudges. If not enough, wipe and repeat. The unlock pattern will be always there, unlike other random touches.

      One way to plug this hole would be by using a numeric PIN and a numeric on-screen keyboard that has digits duplicated and shuffled on each presentation. Then the sequence of touches will be just as random as the RNG that controls the shuffling. If your keyboard has duplicate cells (0..9, 0..9) and you have duplicate digits in the password then each cell can be pressed only once.

      This wondrous algorithm is now in public domain, by the way. Apple, are you listening?

    6. Re:It also leaves smudges by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Trivial to mitigate. Each time the image is shown, crop it a little differently and show it on a different part of the screen. Maybe even scale it or rotate it. Win8 implements at least a few of these mitigations.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    7. Re:It also leaves smudges by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      Better would be to use colors. Easier to recognize than symbols (unless you're colorblind).

  10. Keyboard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Keyboard keystrokes aren't just as easy to record?

    1. Re:Keyboard by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yup. But way harder to guess.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. I seem to recall an old standard . . . by mmell · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "Something you have, something you know and something you are. Pick two out of three."

    Hence, RSA tokens + passwords (something you have + something you know)

    Smart cards + biometrics (not perfect, but something you have + something you are)

    Or even all three, for the truly paraniod (smart card + biometric scan + password)

    Even with all three, a sufficiently determined entity with sufficient resources can overcome it. Video recording + physical acquisition of the owned object + physical acquisition of the biometric object (hope it's just a fingerprint scan and not a retinal scan!) will get an intruder past the security trifecta.

    What next, DNA + mind scan + a password > 512 bytes?

    1. Re:I seem to recall an old standard . . . by Anrego · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It has to scale to the requirement for security.

      My slashdot account doesn't need three factor authentication, however I wish my bank would have at least 2 (seriously, I've yet to find any banks in Canada, let alone my province (Nova Scotia) that offer something beyond a password. The hell!).

    2. Re:I seem to recall an old standard . . . by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Every time I read something like this, Monkey Island and the escape from the cannibals comes to mind. People secure their door with ever increasingly complicated locks and ignore the fact that the burglar might just come through the wall.

      Seriously, I've had more audits where it was easier to just ignore the login procedure and punch a hole into the "wall".

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:I seem to recall an old standard . . . by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Biometrics are just another "something you have." George has a finger that unlocks his computer with . Sam has a knife. Now Sam has a finger that unlocks the computer formerly owned by George. The advantages of biometrics are that they are more difficult to lose and tend to be a bit harder to get away with stealing. The disadvantage is that they generally can't be changed and tend to have far worse implications if they are stolen. Biometrics are a good replacement for a username, not for a password.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    4. Re:I seem to recall an old standard . . . by PNutts · · Score: 1

      "Oprah, Barbara Walters, your wife. You gotta fuck one, marry one, kill one, go!"
      Hence...

      Fixed that for 'ya.

    5. Re:I seem to recall an old standard . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your bank may be using two-factor authentication without you realizing it. For example, my credit union also appears to just require a password (something you know). However, if you type the password with an unusual rhythm (something you are), the login attempt is rejected. Knowing the password isn't enough -- you need to type it the same way I type it.

    6. Re:I seem to recall an old standard . . . by Tom · · Score: 1

      mobile TANs are a relative of two-factor authentication, as they employ a secondary channel to transmit the TAN. You could say it's something you know (the password or PIN you needed to set up the transaction) and something you have (the phone that gets the SMS with the TAN), but that's a simplification.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    7. Re:I seem to recall an old standard . . . by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      You can compensate for password only by using randomly generated long passwords and save them with a program like Roboform so you don't have to remember or type them in.

      http://www.roboform.com/

    8. Re:I seem to recall an old standard . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My bank requires a pin and a password, but they are entered on the same screen, so not really layered security. I wish banks would give people the option of having higher security, so the dolts can continue to get ripped off and the rest can at least have a chance.

    9. Re:I seem to recall an old standard . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RBC uses two authentication levels and are talking about implementing a third. They're in Nova Scotia.

    10. Re:I seem to recall an old standard . . . by Anrego · · Score: 1

      Last I checked that was only available to corporate customers .. unless they've started rolling it out for everyone (which would be awesome) not much good to me.

    11. Re:I seem to recall an old standard . . . by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      That's nice. But even Canada's largest bank only allows passwords 12 characters in length, and you can only use alphanumeric's.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    12. Re:I seem to recall an old standard . . . by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      Nope. Royal bank allows more. I have a 21 character password.

    13. Re:I seem to recall an old standard . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RBC requires both a password and the answer to a security question.

    14. Re:I seem to recall an old standard . . . by Pope · · Score: 1

      Royal was also the first one to allow >4 digit PINs for ATMs.

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    15. Re:I seem to recall an old standard . . . by mmell · · Score: 1
      According to that logic, there can't even be a "something you are". Even, say, typing rhythms or voiceprint analysis can be defeated by a gun to the head and an order to get logged in. They took my (typing rhythm/voice) and made it theirs by force.

      Incidentally, I didn't come up with that "Something you have, something you are, something you know" bit . . . just mentioned it here because it seemed relevant. Let's face it, there is no such thing as perfect security - but when it's more trouble than it's worth to defeat security, that's pretty much good enough. If you have to spend a couple decades in jail for cutting off my finger to steal a few hundred dollars, I'd say it's not worth it.

      Unfortunately, not everyone will see it that way. Durn shame, I kinda like my fingertips right where they are.

    16. Re:I seem to recall an old standard . . . by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      I know you didn't come up with the have/know/are thing.
      And the entire point is that something you are and something you have are almost always the same thing. Biometrics are good enough for a few hundred dollars, but as the value of the item being protected increases the risk of acquiring one becomes more and more worth the effort.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  12. Re:Passwords susceptible to surveillance, more at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
  13. Who needs a video camera? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just look at the smudge pattern from the oils your fingers leave behind. Then you will see *exactly* where they were dragging their finger around to log in.

    I have to wipe my Android phone down every five minutes because I have oily skin.

  14. But what if.... by inode_buddha · · Score: 0

    But what if somebody used goatse for their picture password? Would you touch it? If so, where?

    --
    C|N>K
  15. Windows 8 security sucks, but... by HideyoshiJP · · Score: 5, Funny

    For only $99.95, you can buy our three factor authentication software for one year! That's right, keep criminals from stealing your digital camera pictures of your cat for a nominal fee! I'm willing to bet this picture security is no less secure than typing on a keyboard that's visible on the screen and combining it with the screen smudges. Domains probably won't use this authentication anyway, or at least it'll be optional.

    1. Re:Windows 8 security sucks, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My password is a digital picture of a cat you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Windows 8 security sucks, but... by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      It can be blocked using Group Policy, yes.

      (Seriously, does anybody bother to do even a little research before commenting? This was announced months ago!!)

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  16. How many memorable ways can one gesture a photo? by DanLake · · Score: 5, Funny

    So QUERTY becomes "Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes". I'm guessing in many cases that the picture itself would suggest how it was to be interacted with.

  17. Re:Passwords susceptible to surveillance, more at by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Good" is in this case equivocal. Are picture passwords highly secure? Probably not. SO they aren't very good in that sense. Are they easy to use and secure enough for most purposes? Yes, making them extremely good for the average user. Which makes them better security in many ways than multi-factor authentication, which would be absurd for a tablet device that isn't carrying top-secret documents. As people have pointed out many times, complex security often ends up being less secure, as the user has to find ways of remembering long passwords, gets sick of the wasted time and just used "1234" for the both of the redundant passwords, or just turns off the security as soon as they can or ignores it entirely (Windows UAC under Vista).

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  18. Only reliable for hackers, not users? by jelwell · · Score: 2

    Has he even tried this? I can't reliably login using the picture password setting, and I'm the one that set up the "password". I'm not convinced a video recording would suffice. I could, just as easily, video record your keyboard from a distance, but that's not going to net you my password very reliably either. Not unless you're a chicken pecker.
    Joseph Elwell.

    1. Re:Only reliable for hackers, not users? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      For that matter, you could always take a picture of the serial number on the back of an RSA key and use it to generate the correct number using the data stolen from RSA earlier this year.... combine that with video of the person entering their username and password, and you're set.

      Personally, I've found image-based passwords to be more secure than pad-based ones, where there are only 10 "pixels" on the screen. Of course, you have to pick a picture that has at least 10 points someone might touch for it to be as strong.

  19. What really makes that method bad by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

    You remember the passwords of the old days that your users had? That were the names of their loved ones, their birthday or the ever popular "test", "password" and "12345"?

    Guess what, they'll get a revival. For the same damn reason: People have no idea about security and they don't give a fuck about it. They prefer easy to remember passwords to secure ones. Just that with picture passwords, unlike standard typed ones, it's kinda hard to implement password security standards.

    Why it's more insecure than typed passwords? Well, take your average photo. Now imagine what 4 points a person might be touching in it. Can you spot more than 6 "sensible" spots? People will choose points in the picture that stand out, and there won't be many more than 4-6 points that stand out. Unless some kind of 3-strikes-rule gets implemented (not bloody likely on a private computer, or even corporate computers after helpdesk had to reset the password for the n-th time because people failed to hit the right spot on their picture), it just takes rather few attempts at "connect-the-dots" before you find one that fits.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:What really makes that method bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you didn't read the article.

      It isn't simply "touch the photo in X places". It's basically gestures; an example had a photo with four faces on it, and the "password" was "tap face #1, draw a circle around face #2, then draw a line between faces #3 and #4". Even if you assume those are the only possible gestures, that adds way more permutations than you can reasonably brute-force in the way you described.

    2. Re:What really makes that method bad by qualityassurancedept · · Score: 1

      I read an article although I can't find it by a simple google search just now that basically said that even though the 4 digit unlock code that gives access to iPhone's should have 10^4 permutations and therefore any given phone should be very hard to unlock, actually people generally only use a few of the possible number combinations and so the unlock code is pretty guessable most of the time. In other words rather than having to guess the unlock from every possible permutation between 0000 and 9999 in fact there is a small table of unlock codes that almost everyone will select from.

      --
      if your life is such a big joke then why should I care?
    3. Re:What really makes that method bad by Mia'cova · · Score: 1

      It's for devices with hardware security to enforce a ~5 attempt max and self-destruct the encryption keys. So any phone/tablet pretty much fits the bill. It's not intended for traditional desktop machines. Here's my current background image: http://i.imgur.com/eJqQF.jpg. I'm pretty sure I can spot more than 6 points of interest.

    4. Re:What really makes that method bad by tftp · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure I can spot more than 6 points of interest.

      Yes, if the picture is shown on a 22" LCD.

      However have you seen the iPhone 4S lately? Its screen is so small, compared to your finger, that it's hard to have more than a few unique points that stand out and don't interfere with each other. In your picture, for example, one group of red flowers would be one point, and another group - another point. The tree top could be recruited as yet another point, and that's about all. Other points, even though you can tell them apart in a 2,000 pixels wide JPEG, will be one amorphous gray mass on a smartphone, impossible to identify quickly or in bad lighting conditions.

  20. Re:How many memorable ways can one gesture a photo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    How the hell do you typo QWERTY?

  21. I have heard of a version of this that works.... by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

    I have heard about "image" password that sound like they could work.

    Your password could be "car" and "Flower". You would be presented with a "random" photo that had lots of things in it - but only a single car and flower. Humans can pick out the car and flower easily - even when presented with a new photo. Harder to automaticly hack.

    Of course it's not foolproof. For that I give you xkcd.
    http://xkcd.com/538/

  22. Re:joke by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    What makes me worry about Win8 is them pressing hard to merge Win8 with their next console OS. I sincerely hope this will not be pulled through. It's already bad enough that you need a Windows Live account for more and more games you try to play on your PC, but pretty much being forced to have one gets kinda ridiculous.

    And I fully expect that to happen. I just got a Windows OS based cellphone at work (not my choice, mind you...). No Zune account, no system update. Think it will be different with Win8?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  23. It's Worked Before! by morari · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one that has seen the film adaptation of Johnny Mnemonic? Only government-sponsored dolphins will be able to crack into Windows 8 with this enabled!

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    1. Re:It's Worked Before! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u beat me to it - mod parent up up and away!

  24. The same RSA token that was hacked this year? by PNutts · · Score: 2

    To be fair he *is* an expert in poor security.

    1. Re:The same RSA token that was hacked this year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That actually proves the point - compromising the RSA token only negates one of the two factors. You still have (some) security provided by the password, at least until you can replace the tokens.

    2. Re:The same RSA token that was hacked this year? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the details of the hack?

  25. Weaker than SAM?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, by simply running a utility off of a boot CD, such as Hiren's, you can delete the SAM file which stores Windows passwords. Can be done in just a couple minutes, and it works every time (all right, I have seen it fail - once).

    1. Re:Weaker than SAM?! by Bucky24 · · Score: 1

      Does that force Windows to allow any login? Seems to me like it would just lock up the entire system and no one would be able to get in.

      --
      All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
    2. Re:Weaker than SAM?! by sidthegeek · · Score: 1

      Well, if the computer is configured to even let a boot CD load up, then I don't see why they can't just use Knoppix to get their files off the system.

  26. Make the Picture Move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Have the picture move to different locations on the screen randomly, while also stretching and shrinking. This way no one can discern repeated heavy smudging on the screen, although on a touchscreen device the password smudges might get lost in the normal use gestures.

    But having the picture scale to different sizes and move itself about the screen at each individual login should increase security.

  27. windows 9 password system by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1
    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  28. Re:How many memorable ways can one gesture a photo by doshell · · Score: 2

    I do not use a QWERTY keyboard, you insensitive clod!

    --
    Score: i, Imaginary
  29. Children & dorms by GWBasic · · Score: 1

    I'm sure it'll keep young children out, and keep the prankster in your dorm from loading up your computer with gay porn.

  30. Lame - most people click on same things by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Lame - most people click on same things; years ago somebody did this on a website along with stats on the clicks and you could easily see that people picked the same stuff just like they do with passwords... except passwords are far more flexible than a few x/y coordinates.. sure you could save a ton of them trying to make a simple signature which would help greatly but it wouldn't be any greater than a signature, which is something that doesn't compare to a decent password.

    I'm sure we will hear of people having to calibrate their touch screens, wash their hands, configure a new touch screen, or leave wear marks on their login screen. At least with a keyboard you touch it to use it for a lot of purposes besides login and because its a simple array of buttons there is less to go wrong or configure (try configuring something when you can't login.)

  31. Re:How many memorable ways can one gesture a photo by dokebi · · Score: 1

    Because I get aoeu when I type ASDF.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, articles before post read *you*!
  32. The only real solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Keep the device in a time-lock safe, requiring that you and a trusted individual both turn your keys at the same time, and then you both enter your combinations. Awww fuckit. Nuke from orbit.

  33. Re:Passwords susceptible to surveillance, more at by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    or just turns off the security as soon as they can or ignores it entirely (Windows UAC under Vista).

    To be fair, UAC was probably the most annoying security feature I have used in the modern era. I don't know if the threshold is just set ridiculously low, or what, but with UAC on you can hardly do a fucking thing without a window popping up asking if you would like to allow the program to run.

  34. Microsoft implements something with poor security? by s.petry · · Score: 0

    Do we expect anything else from them? Nothing new to see here, but it is always refreshing to see the M$ Fanboys come out and say "really, it's the bestest thing ever!

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  35. Use a keyboard picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If youre not confortable with all this, you can place a keyboard photo and "type" a password.

  36. Obscured Passwords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    while we're on the subject, can we all agree that mandatory obscured password fields are a relic of antiquated thinking? Look, I get it...someone might look over my shoulder. But in reality nobody is. My work monitor faces a wall, my home PC's are...well, in my home, my smartphone is barely able to be read at my own arms length...frankly, it's the very unusual scenario where I have even the slightest concern of someone seeing me type a password. And yet at least a dozen times a day (no exaggeration) I'm forced to retype a failed login attempt because my company security policy requires 12 digit alphanumeric mixed case no dictionary word passwords. Would it really be so tragic if I were allowed to watch myself type a password?

  37. Simple solution... by stevenfuzz · · Score: 1

    Use a picture of a keypad.

    1. Re:Simple solution... by qualityassurancedept · · Score: 1

      Works fine for the pin numbers on debit cards.

      --
      if your life is such a big joke then why should I care?
  38. Re:Passwords susceptible to surveillance, more at by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

    Because the Android "connect the dots" is so much better. Not to mention using a standard 10 key on iPhone. At least somebody is trying.

  39. Re:How many memorable ways can one gesture a photo by DanLake · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How the hell do you typo QWERTY?

    Good question and thank you kind AC for pointing it out. I guess it happened because my fingers don't willingly type misspelled words and I type 'query' about a million times more often than I type qwerty.

  40. Re:How many memorable ways can one gesture a photo by Daimanta · · Score: 1

    How the hell do you typo QWERTY?

    ASDFG

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  41. Re:How many memorable ways can one gesture a photo by mabhatter654 · · Score: 2

    That could work if you had pictures with multiple objects. Something like cat-ball-car ... But you would need some crowd sourcing to generate the data. Or use something like Settlers of Cattan pieces, or Magic the Gathering cards. Click 3 roads or 5 mana symbols.

    Bonus points if you built a modular system.. So people can make their own image packs... Allowing for more "inside jokes".

  42. Next year by zammer990 · · Score: 0

    Next year what will we have? "Think of a word *scanned and recorded*, now think of a picture *scanned and recorded* now give us a skin sample *scanned and recorded* now enter a 755 digit password (note this password can contain any character and your smart phone will give you them all, from wingdings to hieroglyphics)" Then after all that anyone who wants to get your birthday pictures and home porno just has to grab your phone while your using it.

  43. You assume that designers are idiots by F69631 · · Score: 1

    But if the security image is a photo with 2 people and a dog, against a white wall it's pretty likely that I can guess where the taps are, so I only have to guess the order.

    In that case... don't choose an photo of 2 people and a dog.

    What you're saying is "This system has very poor security, if they choose the pictures poorly and each picture has very few probable combinations". Pretty obvious answer is: Don't choose such pictures. I'd guess that before they choose a picture for this purpose, they do some testing on what kind of patterns people use and discard the pictures where there is too little distribution. Of course, users may always use the most obvious pattern and they might be able to choose a picture themselves and use too simple picture... but users can also choose very stupid passwords.

    1. Re:You assume that designers are idiots by hawguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But if the security image is a photo with 2 people and a dog, against a white wall it's pretty likely that I can guess where the taps are, so I only have to guess the order.

      In that case... don't choose an photo of 2 people and a dog.

      What you're saying is "This system has very poor security, if they choose the pictures poorly and each picture has very few probable combinations". Pretty obvious answer is: Don't choose such pictures. I'd guess that before they choose a picture for this purpose, they do some testing on what kind of patterns people use and discard the pictures where there is too little distribution. Of course, users may always use the most obvious pattern and they might be able to choose a picture themselves and use too simple picture... but users can also choose very stupid passwords.

      That's my point exactly - in the lab, I'm sure this is a very secure system and can be made to be much more secure than a traditional passphrase. But in the real world, people see security as something that gets in the way, so they choose something easy to use, not something secure, so this ends up being not any more secure than any other system.

    2. Re:You assume that designers are idiots by neokushan · · Score: 2

      MS addressed the insecure picture idea in one of their blog posts. It's insecure if you have only one or two points of interest, but with 3 or more the security goes up quite a bit because each of the POI's has numerous things that can be attributed to them - taps, swipes from one to another in either direction and different sizes of circles. Then you have to get the order right on top of that. Yes, there are other issues for sure (Smudges, etc.) but the points of interest one isn't actually that bad.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    3. Re:You assume that designers are idiots by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      Choose Goatse. Most people wouldn't want to touch that.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  44. hmm by stevenfuzz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be prudent for the inventor of "RSA's SecurID token" to say that basically any security system other than his is ineffective?

  45. Well, shows what I know... by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    And here I thought the major problem would be "I'll feel stupid using it." ;)

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  46. Math by FrootLoops · · Score: 0

    The math at this MS blog post has a few holes.

    Minor: n! / (n-2)! is used instead of the simpler, equivalent n*(n-1). The number of passwords of length 2 in their calculation is actually defined (since 0! = 1 by convention); it should say 1040 instead of n/a. The circle-related calculation (95 - 5 + 1)^2 ... is oversimplified: for instance, a circle of radius 25 cannot have center (5, 5). The necessary modification is tedious, though, and not very significant. Tap reduction calculations are similarly oversimplified.

    More serious: I'm unable to determine how the "# of taps" table was generated. The first entry, 270, is approximately 10,000/(3+5+7+7+7+5+3), which makes sense--it uses a 100x100 grid where taps are allowed to be off by a few squares. If subsequent taps are independent, the remaining entries in the table should be approximately 270^n. Instead, the ratio between entries varies between 65 and 101 (non-monotonically, even). The # lines and # circles tables are similarly unclear to me.

    The number of unique lines count, 1949, is low, assuming the tap gesture recognition is used independently on each line endpoint. There are about 270 distinct grid positions, leading to about 270^2 = 72900 directed lines (alternatively, (100^2)^2 / 37^2 ~= 73000). Removing lines of length less than 5 is negligible.

    I am unable to compute more than the first entry in the "multi-gesture picture password" column. As they say, this should be computed by "summing up the unique gestures for all three gesture types for the specific gesture length n and raise [sic] it to the nth power". The entries should just be 2554^n given the previous data, but they're not--they're significantly smaller.

    At least all the holes underestimate the number of distinct gestures in cases I'm able to calculate, though without details on the circle and line recognition systems I can't independently calculate those figures. Everything I didn't mention was correct.

  47. *sticky* by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

    Your biometrics are mandatory and will appear on facebook or on the FBI most wanted list *eek*

    --
    All cows eat grass!
  48. Yeah -- already described in this paper by Qubit · · Score: 1

    http://cs.dartmouth.edu/~averyyen/CCP/project.pdf

    But seriously, wouldn't anyone actually coding this system up for production use quickly realize that some points in a picture are going to be chosen more often than others?

    --

    coding is life /* the rest is */
    1. Re:Yeah -- already described in this paper by NSN+A392-99-964-5927 · · Score: 1

      http://cs.dartmouth.edu/~averyyen/CCP/project.pdf

      But seriously, wouldn't anyone actually coding this system up for production use quickly realize that some points in a picture are going to be chosen more often than others?

      Windows 8 is the next evil I spoke about this in 2000 on irc.openprojects.net before it became freenode. Here we are; almost 12 years later and now I am not a troll, but was deemed one. Robert Cringely was deemed a troll but there you go; what the fuck do I know? apparently nothing.

      --
      All cows eat grass!
  49. Tactile Engineering by hyades1 · · Score: 1

    And that photo of Felicia Day the Slashdotter was using as his security picture? Eleven out of ten security specialists guessed two points on the touch screen in less than a second.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  50. Where to gooo by ramktw · · Score: 1

    where to goo from here .... .... * In case u lost password. * Or the OS goffed up with some issue which is more likely ....how to get back * In case some Crackers got in they can replace the Image. * two users using same Image?

  51. Isn't it the same thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Touching points on a picture of a keypad in a certain order and touching points on a picture of something else in a particular order.

  52. better than 'password' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well it's better than a regular password, since it can be keylogged. A touch screen can't be keylogged unless it has reactive touching (eg mouse cursors or "pressed" ripples) and is being screencapped at the time.

    There are worse. Most anyone that works in a call center has their passwords keylogged or screencapped from the QA teams, this results in the obvious implication that passwords are very insecure and should not be used to login to locally stored or accessed applications including the computer itself. But it gets stranger if you do have a touch system in place. As mentioned in other comments, the finger grease is the largest hole, forget video cameras (though those also exist as well. But you can just as easily video record someone typing.

    Look at people who swipe PIN's from ATM's. If it was simply a touch screen swipe, you have a problem. Now how do you fix it?
    - Touch screens need to be polarized so that the picture can't be seen from observers
    - The pictures used must cycle so that the same picture isn't used more than once in the same day, preferably not used more than once in the same month. Pictures of family or pets work best, because they aren't as easy to forget. Users can use a mnemonic like "ordered by age" or "ordered by height" or other personal details that work common to all the pictures that outsiders won't know without social engineering but work equally on pictures with missing people/pets.

  53. Equivalent to a 4 character password by swilver · · Score: 1

    Just using letters and digits, those 8 million combinations are roughly equal to a 4 character password (~2 million combinations, or ~15 million combinations if you also allow caps).

    So it would be 3 drags vs. 4 taps (on a keyboard)... wooptidoo.

    1. Re:Equivalent to a 4 character password by neokushan · · Score: 1

      Except that weak passwords are weak because they can be brute-forced, either directly or by comparing hashes. The picture password only has a limited number of attempts before the system will prompt you for your actual password. So yes, even Microsoft are admitting that it's no substitute for a good, strong password, but they're also saying that it's not meant to be - it's a half-way between a strong password and an easy way to log in securely. For it to be a risk, someone would need access to hundreds of machines that you're logged into.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
  54. No security is 100% by derfla8 · · Score: 1

    Security risks are never 100% prevented, it is all about risk mitigation. This is better as a user experience than password complexity rules that cause a user to right down his password on a sheet of paper. For the majority of regular users, nobody is going to go through the expense and trouble of these paranoid scenarios that security solutions companies try to convince you are an imminent threat. The more likely threat is what I call the 'gun to the head attack'. In all instances it is cheaper and easier to use the threat of physical violence to gain access. And nothing protects against that really. Moral of the story, do not keep sensitive data on an end point device.

  55. Here is how you make it more secure by DrXym · · Score: 3, Interesting
    1. Make the picture fairly small so people are not using pronounced movements to draw on it. i.e. don't fill the screen with the picture, use a part of it so the gestures are smaller.
    2. Distort the picture, e.g. scale, rotate, shear and offset by some random percentage each time so even if you observe the gesture or the smears on screen you cannot exactly reproduce them the next time. Apply a transform to turn the gesture back into coords relative to the original picture.
    3. Go one further and break the picture up into 8 or 9 pieces and while maintaining their relative position offset them from each other by some random spacing.
    4. Don't let users pick the picture. Ship some interesting pictures with lots of points of interest to minimize the chances someone could guess them.
    5. Provide a fallback mode that uses a password

    All of these would help secure picture passwords and protect against snoopers.

  56. Re:How many memorable ways can one gesture a photo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is typing on dvorak.

  57. Re:How many memorable ways can one gesture a photo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Brilliant - it has the advantage of scaling for more security

    Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes
    for a bit more security you just add
    Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes, Knees and Toes
    then, for your bank account:
    Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes, Knees and Toes and Eyes and Ears and Mouth and Nose, Head, Shouders, Knees and Toes

  58. More secure than pin by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

    Warning, incoming maths.

    Say you've a face photo, that's got 6 possible active areas (eyes, nose, mouth, ears). Four taps would mean 216 combinations. Not amazing.

    However what if you allowed multiple gestures? If you, for example, forced every tap two be a swipe between two of the possible areas that changes a 1/6 chance of getting it to a 1/30 chance (1 in 6 of getting the start, 1 in 5 of the finish). Add that to the taps, that's a 1/36, add a circle around an area, 1 in 42 (there are probably other motions you can do but I'll leave it at that.

    That means, provided a user doesn't stick to taps, you've odds of 1 in 3111696 of randomly guessing how a face was interacted with in 4 motions. Compared to 1 in 9999 for a pin

    It's less prone to shoulder search too. It's far easier to see and remember '1823' than 'circle around left eye, nose to right ear, left ear to mouth, tap right eye', the smudges and fingerprints on the screen are harder to understand too.

    1. Re:More secure than pin by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

      shoulder search = shoulder surfing

  59. I have never even thought the swipe to be secure by tommituura · · Score: 1

    Honestly, I have seen more than few of my friends using android phone enter the grid swipe only once... and I think still remember every single one of them. I myself use the grid swipe too, but I also enter the PIN for my SIM card when I boot the device up. I consider the swipe the grid to be more of a "keypad lock" function than anything even resembling actual security from data confidentiality standpoint.

    If I ever use my android device to hold anything really confidential (no, sorry, honey-bunny text messages with my girlfriend don't count in this sense of the word because, at the end of the day, no one really cares enough about those type of things [and our messaging is somewhat "innocent" stuff in any case]) I'm going to use some real measures like strong encryption. Until that day, I'm not going to be bothered and just keep good care of my device.

  60. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The major downside of the picture password is that drawing a finger across a photo on a touch screen is easy to video record from a distance...."

    Really? If someone is video recording you to gain the password to your computer, you are obviously in deep shit. I suggest you worry less about the password on your personal device, that contains no highly confidential CIA material, and worry about the guy following you. Security is great, but what do all of you have on your devices that is so important that you keep secret? I really can't imagine why anyone would want anything off my computer. There is literally nothing to be gained.

  61. Kinnect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not have people dance in front of a Kinnect to authentify???!!! Mornings in the offfice would be funnier...

    1. Re:Kinnect by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      I guess the Unix folk will need a dance pad, since it's purely command driven...

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  62. Re:How many memorable ways can one gesture a photo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only fags type on dvorak.
    Fags, and basement dwellers.

  63. Re:I have never even thought the swipe to be secur by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

    "trust, but verify"
    Passwords keep people on the honest side for the most part. If you don't use a password, you're open game.

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  64. What?! by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    Jeezus! Why not just use a keyboard and enter a password? I know that I would rather deal with a 101 key keyboard rather than a changing array of 256 random pictures!

  65. Not to mention it leaves fingerprints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not only is it easier to observe than a typed password, the user's fingerprints will be on the monitor. It would almost certainly reduce the complexity of cracking the user's account.

  66. Re:I have heard of a version of this that works... by Anpheus · · Score: 1

    Doesn't work. Just rerun the picture test enough times to deduce that the constant is that you always get cars and flowers, but other items are subject to change. So then by induction, you try one more thing. Three constant things. Well then there are only 6 ways to choose 2 elements. Fine, make all say, 9 pictures constant "things", one of which is a car and one of which is a flower. How many 2-permutations? 72.