Slashdot Mirror


Doctors Bypass Biometric Scanners With Fake Fingers

jfruh writes "At a Brazilian hospital, doctors were required to check in with a fingerprint scanner to show that they've showed up for work. Naturally, they developed a system to bypass this requirement, creating fake fingers so that they could cover for one another when they took unauthorized time off. Another good example of how supposedly foolproof security tech can in fact be fooled pretty easily."

139 comments

  1. Biometrics are not secrets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All the security experts who think that biometrics are the end-all-be-all of security are mistaken. Biometrics are not secrets, so once one knows your biometric id, they can impersonate you and you can't change your password!

    1. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      You're a homosexual rapist?

    2. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by TWX · · Score: 5, Funny

      A decade ago, a friend of mine suggested that if they *really* wanted foolproof biometrics, to use "colon terrain mapping".

      I told him that I wasn't sure that I could be his friend anymore...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    3. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by Terkanil · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Biometrics are not difficult. Others have commented on this as well. For demonstrations with Biometrics, there's an episode of Mythbusters that is right up you're alley. They laughably show how easy it is to bypass multiple biometric options.

      --
      "I do not suffer from insanity; I enjoy every minute of it!"
    4. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by Hentes · · Score: 2

      So how would using a password-based system prevent the doctors from sharing their passwords with each other and continue slacking off?

    5. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by virgnarus · · Score: 1

      I really thought you'd go out on a limb for your friend here and actively demonstrate to him why this is such a bad idea.

    6. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by PRMan · · Score: 2

      IIRC, Adam licked a photocopy of his finger and bypassed it.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    7. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by houghi · · Score: 5, Funny

      I hope he does not have a job selling hardware to the TSA.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    8. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So how would using a password-based system prevent the doctors from sharing their passwords with each other and continue slacking off?

      That's a social problem. There is no technological solution. I repeat, technology cannot solve every problem. How do you solve this problem? Check once and a while. The guys daughter was listed as being there every day for three years and never worked a single day. The people who just trusted a glorified punch card machine instead of once verifying it in person should be fired too.

    9. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by Molochi · · Score: 2

      Really it's no different than sharing a postit note with your password.

      I've never worked anywhere where biometric scans wouldn't involve a full fake hand and a PIN to go with it. I'm guessing doctors would just sharpie that on the back of a rubber hand... and the pin would of course be 1-2-3-4-5-6.

      --
      "The Adobe Updater must update itself before it can check for updates. Would you like to update the Adobe Updater now?"
    10. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      So how would using a password-based system prevent the doctors from sharing their passwords with each other and continue slacking off?

      Unique password dongle (like some companies use to grant vpn access) might help. Since only one at a time can exist for any particular doctor, it at least makes the logistics of covering for someone more difficult.

      But I think the person who suggested colon terrain mapping has a good idea. It'd go something like this. "The first time we catch someone trying to game the system, we're switching to colon terrain mapping to grant access to the building. And if we're feeling really magnanimous, you just might get private rooms.

      But as yet someone else said, then it becomes a social problem.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    11. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe the friend was hoping it would be demonstated on him

    12. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by bbelt16ag · · Score: 1

      so you might as well have a badge read and a guard with a gun? and screw the iris scanners and other biometrics..

      --
      NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER GIVE UP! "No limitations, no boundaries, there is no reason for them."
    13. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the guard may not know everyone, and id cards that are visually checked can be faked.
      A biometrics system could potentially be used to authenticate someone, provided that the guard with the gun checks that the user has not tempered with the device or himself.

      A biometrics system without a security guard is worthless.

    14. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by Ryanrule · · Score: 2

      I agree. Fire management who do not manage.

    15. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by swillden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Biometrics are good for two categories of applications: Super high security, James Bond type stuff, and casual semi-security, where you want something to keep out the lazy but don't care that much. In between, they're broken.

      They work great in high-security applications when you have a controlled environment, which generally means an attended environment -- a guard is standing there very carefully watching the scanning process, and the scanners and all of the support systems are tightly secured.

      And they're fine in circumstances where you don't care very much.

      In between, biometrics are not secrets, and the fact that some scanner reported an image which appears to match means very little.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    16. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by gweihir · · Score: 2

      This is actually one way to tell a good security expert from a bad one: The bad ones do not get that biometrics is more of a problem than a solution, while the good ones know this.

      There is a third class though: The immoral ones that want to sell you something that does not work, but they do not care.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    17. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by cusco · · Score: 1

      A bio-scanner on its own, no matter the type, is an incorrect use of the technology. It should be only one part of a multi-part authentication system, generally combined with a key card of some type. You can still fool the system, but now you have to work much harder to get two fake pieces instead of one, and those pieces have to match each other.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    18. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by swillden · · Score: 1

      A bio-scanner on its own, no matter the type, is an incorrect use of the technology.

      No, biometric scanners can provide good authentication on their own, as long as you can ensure that the object being scanned is actually the person, and that it's not possible to tamper with the scanner, data path, matching engine or template store. It's also important to understand the resolution of the scanning system, meaning its ability to distinguish between individuals. If you're using a single biometric for both identification and authentication, you're almost certainly doing it wrong, unless the number of authorized persons is very small, because the birthday problem will quickly erase the resolution. Of course, all of the factors can be calculated, so the system can be designed to provide whatever degree of assurance is necessary - though for high-security applications that may mean that multiple biometrics are required, or that you have to enter a username or something to provide the identification so the biometric is strictly used for authentication.

      But it only works if you can assure that what your scanning is the person, and there's no way that can be done in an unattended environment. This is true whether you're using multi-factor or not.

      Moderate levels of security can be achieved with an unattended biometric scan as one factor, but it's typically the weakest factor of the system; in fact it's usually so weak that the additional security it provides is debatable.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    19. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Or buying hardware for the TSA.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    20. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      That's amazing. I've got the same combination on my luggage.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    21. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by rwa2 · · Score: 1

      Heh, speaking of going out on a limb, one of the other security requirements for authentication techniques is having some kind of key revocation mechanism in case the key gets compromised. So in the case of biometric security, if someone manages to duplicate your fingerprint (or your colon), then it's time to revoke it and (somehow) issue you a new one! Snip snip.

    22. Re:Biometrics are not secrets. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This "story" is pathetic. I've been fooling biometric fingerprint readers with gummy fingers for decades now. This is absolutely nothing new.

  2. "supposedly foolproof security tech" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, alright, the security tech *is* foolproof, it's just that the doctors are no fools. :-) (Just like a bulletproof vest won't protect you from a baseball bat. See, it's not a bullet!)

    1. Re:"supposedly foolproof security tech" by Let's+All+Be+Chinese · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You'd have to be a right fool to be unable to fool these things. As in the link, as here, the application has very little to do with security. It's a people problem, and you can't fix those solely with technology.

      Worse, treating it as a technical problem and attacking it with security kit gives a strong signal to your own {doctors,pupils,*} that they're all criminals and need to be treated as such. This in turn creates a powerful incentive to game the system.

      What we have here is an incompetent administration trying to fix their mess through shitting on their underlings some more, using technology. Underlings know and dislike this.

      And so gaming the system is what they'll do. This quite apart from biometrics being inappropriate everywhere but in criminal forensics. Be careful what you ask for and all that.

    2. Re:"supposedly foolproof security tech" by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Let's face it, nothing will ever be secure as long as people are involved.

      Time to start getting rid of them. ;)

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:"supposedly foolproof security tech" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the English-speaking world they don't stop until you have only two options, They put it in a different way in a comment in the movie "Sin City": "sometimes you have to die, and sometimes you have to kill a hell of a lot of people".

    4. Re:"supposedly foolproof security tech" by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Time to start getting rid of them. ;)

      ...and that would solve their problem, right there.

      Of course, I don't mean get rid of them in the execution sense, but more in the "you're fired - pack your shit and get out while the security guard escorts you." sense.

      Find the most obvious slackers, fire them publicly and loudly, blackball the crap out of them using factual evidence (this isn't the US - good luck suing), and you may be impressed with how quickly the other doctors fall in line.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    5. Re:"supposedly foolproof security tech" by kilfarsnar · · Score: 2

      Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battlestation!

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
  3. Retina Scanners... by chad.koehler · · Score: 1

    Probably would have held out longer.

    1. Re:Retina Scanners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean iris scanners. Retina scanners are science fiction.

    2. Re:Retina Scanners... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you mean iris scanners. Retina scanners are science fiction.

      Why, you mean the doctors can't diagnose retina diseases because you can't see the retina through the pupil?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Retina Scanners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      retina scanners do exist, however iris scanning is more common because it is a simpler to do.

    4. Re:Retina Scanners... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      The AC a few posts above must've thought this was about Rectal scanners ..

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    5. Re:Retina Scanners... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Probably would have held out longer.

      A fingerprint scanner with a pulse detector (which many have) would have been fine too. Any security system can be bypassed with enough effort, so you need to consider what you are trying to protect, and make sure bypassing security is more trouble than it is worth. A doctor who wants an extra day off will obviously make a fake finger, but may not go to the trouble of making a pulse generator.

    6. Re:Retina Scanners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pulse generators are trivial... Its called an acoustic transducer.

    7. Re:Retina Scanners... by Vicarius · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Pulse detector can be fooled too. Check the end of this presentation, where he tried different molds and techniques, and finally succeeds opening a safe that detects pulse using a fake fingerprint: DEFCON 19: Safe to Armed in Seconds: A Study of Epic Fails of Popular Gun Safes.

    8. Re:Retina Scanners... by ctime · · Score: 4, Informative

      Iris scanners have lower false positive rejection rates and are more accurate than Retina scanners, which do exist. Retinas can become damaged and change with time, unlike the human iris which does not under normal circumstances change during lifetimes.

      Iris scanners considered the best biometric authentication, they are also typically the most expensive (look up the LG scanner pricing).

      http://www.lgiris.com/ps/products/previousmodels/irisaccess2200.htm

      http://web2.utc.edu/~Li-Yang/cpsc4600/6-Iris-DNA/IRIS-Retina.ppt has some good info on the differences.

    9. Re:Retina Scanners... by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 0

      A fingerprint scanner with a pulse detector (which many have)

      I would hope all the doctors at the hospital in question have a pulse.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    10. Re:Retina Scanners... by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      They will give the artificial fingers a pulse then. Put some tubes with a pump.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    11. Re:Retina Scanners... by jamiesan · · Score: 1

      Now doctors just give each other the finger.

    12. Re:Retina Scanners... by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      Iris scanners have lower false positive rejection rates and are more accurate than Retina scanners, which do exist. Retinas can become damaged and change with time, unlike the human iris which does not under normal circumstances change during lifetimes.

      Isn't one of the possible side effects of Latisse and LiLash changes in iris color? Some glaucoma meds can do this too. Do iris scanners look at color and pattern? Or just the patterns?

    13. Re:Retina Scanners... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Pulse detector can be fooled too.

      Of course it can be fooled. Any security system can be fooled with enough effort. You can duplicate a house key at any hardware store, but people still use house keys because they are "good enough". It is more trouble to duplicate a key than to just rob the neighbor's house with the unlocked window. Pulse checking fingerprint scanners can be fooled, face recognition can be fooled, iris scanners can be fooled. It is even possible to bypass 4096 bit encryption. You just need to consider what you are trying to protect, how much it inconveniences legitimate users, and choose something appropriate. For preventing doctors from taking a day off, a pulse detecting fingerprint scanner is probably good enough. For protecting smallpox viruses from Al-Qaeda, you should use something more robust.

       

    14. Re:Retina Scanners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In contrast, a carefully made cosmetic contact lense can bypass an iris scanner, while intentionally faking a retina is painful. Much like how fingerprint scanners are nicely non-invasive, but can be tricked by Gummy Bears.

      Biometrics are an interesting component to a security system, but even full variety biometrics is not sufficient to make a proper access control. However, 'biometrics as username' is a convenient way to apply any of the more conventient technologies to a generally workable system.

    15. Re:Retina Scanners... by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      Now doctors just give each other the finger.

      The Digita Impudenta security breach was known to the Romans.

    16. Re:Retina Scanners... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      They probably just look at the contrasts -kind of like a radial bar code.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    17. Re:Retina Scanners... by rickyars · · Score: 1

      Iris scanners have been fooled - in a laboratory setting - by using synthetic iris images:

      http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/reverse-engineering-iris-scans/all/

      That said, it's still considered to be one of the best performing biometric modalities.

    18. Re:Retina Scanners... by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 2

      The image on modern versions of cell phones is reportedly good enough to fool almost all such scanners.

      Sad, really.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    19. Re:Retina Scanners... by cusco · · Score: 1

      Only the pattern. Color is useless, the color of an individual's iris can change from one time of day to another, or even with mood.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    20. Re:Retina Scanners... by mrmeval · · Score: 1

      *sigh*

      In the 1990s kids I said

      "The problem with biometrics is keeping the body parts alive." --mrmeval

      Ask a medical student preferably one that's a surgeon and research scientist how they'd keep your finger alive and pulsing. There may still be a professor at the University of Texas Medical School who was on the cypherpunks list and listed what he could do to keep some body parts alive in the late 1990s I'm the technology has improved.

      --
      I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
    21. Re:Retina Scanners... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no need of a pulse generator if you make a conductive fake finger, the pulse from the imposter will work fine for most dectors.

    22. Re:Retina Scanners... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      "Any security system can be fooled with enough effort."

      I was thinking maybe death row is pretty secure. So I searched for it and found a 1984 case where 6 death row prisoners escaped.

    23. Re:Retina Scanners... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Insightful. Improved biometrics will be pretty hard to justify if it results in people getting murdered just to get their "security pass."

    24. Re:Retina Scanners... by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      "Retinal scanners are typically used for authentication and identification purposes. Retinal scanning has been utilized by several government agencies including the FBI, CIA, and NASA. However, in recent years, retinal scanning has become more commercially popular. Retinal scanning has been used in prisons, for ATM identity verification and the prevention of welfare fraud.[6]Retinal scanning also has medical application. Communicable illnesses such as AIDS, syphilis, malaria, chicken pox and Lyme disease as well as hereditary diseases like leukemia, lymphoma, and sickle cell anemia impact the eyes. Pregnancy also affects the eyes. Likewise, indications of chronic health conditions such as congestive heart failure, atherosclerosis, and cholesterol issues first appear in the eyes.[7]"

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_scanner

  4. An important reminder... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In addition to being a reminder that the people with a hard-on for 'biometrics' are either morons(Here you go, you were born with only ten passwords, so don't lose them!) or primarily interested in surveillance and tracking, or both; this is a useful reminder that 'security' is a system of interlocking parts Not a product you buy from your Solutions Vendor(tm) and set-and-forget.

    We have the one doctor, who was caught with the fake fingers, along with at least three others who were ghosting through their shifts. She claims that they leaned on her, threatened her job if she refused to help with the con, they probably claim that she was in on the con and was absent on other days. Regardless of which of those is true, how many other people at the hospital would be in the position to notice whether or not a doctor is present and doing stuff? Probably more than a few. The front-desk servitors had to know what patient flow looked like, restock requests for supplies in various exam rooms can't have looked right, there are a lot more details than the punch-card machine here. This hospital isn't so much suffering from a 'fingerprint scanners are oversold' problem; but a problem with either massive cheating and/or apathy toward cheating, or unaccountable abuse of authority to suppress people who could have blown the whistle.

    1. Re:An important reminder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you trust your health to doctors who would go so far to cheat on timesheets? Perhaps the hospital adminstrators deliberately used a weak security system to identify ethically-challenged doctors. Har. Har.

    2. Re:An important reminder... by sandytaru · · Score: 1

      Doctors are treated like kings at medical centers and hospitals, especially private hospitals where the doctors are the practice owners. It wouldn't be surprising if the entire support staff turned a blind eye to abuse of the clock in system.

      --
      Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
    3. Re:An important reminder... by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Technology cannot ever fix Sociological problems, it can only mask them.

      We design technology in ways so that it routes around failures, and then wonder why it fails when humans do the same thing. You want to solve the problem of people not showing up for work, you fire them or put them on 2 week unpaid leave, or doc their pay, or whatever. If you aren't going to do anything about it, then stop making noise and let them skip out.

      Why is this so hard?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re:An important reminder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A long time ago, a co-worker once told me it wouldn't be that long before employers would be using cameras and keystroke monitors to make sure employees were doing their jobs.

      I pointed out to him, that as soon as they did that, they would see me working long hours, typing lots of valid source code really fast, and I would be at the beach.

      If you are not going to trust your employees, you should just fire them. If that means firing everyone, then you should just shut your doors. Or maybe, just walk out and leave everything to the employees. They might surprise you.

      The captcha for this was typists. I think I've seen more relevant captchas on slashdot than I have relevant comments.

    5. Re:An important reminder... by Flavianoep · · Score: 1

      (...) apathy toward cheating, or unaccountable abuse of authority to suppress people who could have blown the whistle.

      Wow! How do you now so much about Brazilian public service?

      --
      Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
    6. Re:An important reminder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are ones that check for a pulse body temp blood pressure etc.

    7. Re:An important reminder... by SirGarlon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In addition to being a reminder that the people with a hard-on for 'biometrics' are either morons

      There's a difference between 'uninformed' and 'moronic.' Part of the problem with IT security is that it's full of self-proclaimed experts who heap scorn on the uninformed instead of trying to educate them. You're not one of those, are you?

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    8. Re:An important reminder... by SternisheFan · · Score: 2
      At least they used 'fake' fingers.

      I once worked with a pre-med student who would talk of the hijinks that would go on in the morgue. Goofy things like skipping rope with a body's intestines. One student left a dismembered hand holding money with a toll booth collector, he was expelled.

    9. Re:An important reminder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The real "important reminder" is that doctors are merely human beings, driven by self-interest, just like the rest of us. In other words, doctors are no more or less trustworthy than any other human being.

      Yet for some reason, there is a widespread belief that medical degrees are the product of altruism, rather than self-interest -- as if doctors are automatically more deserving of respect than other human beings. These people apparently didn't notice the doctor's $150,000 mercedes and $1,500,000 house.

    10. Re:An important reminder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You educate your sociopathic boss who reads Wired and thus (thinks he) knows more about this stuff than you. You can't, and he now hates you because you "subverted his authority". Guess what? He's moronic.

      At the other end of the spectrum: Go ahead and educate Johnny Salesman. His eyes glaze over, and he's now thinking about watching the big game with his Bud Lite in hand. He's not listened to a word you've said. You've wasted your time and his. Guess what? He's moronic.

      The vast majority of people aren't us. The vast majority of people look at a black box and don't wonder how it works, what's inside it, or if it can be bypassed somehow. They look at a black box, and all they see is a black box. They only care enough about how it works to be comfortable enough with so they do not actively have to think about it. I'm all for the altruistic spread of knowledge, but the only thing that happens whenever you try to get people to genuinely think is that they typically come off hating you in the end.

    11. Re:An important reminder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. It was a public hospital, paid by taxpayer money, and the director was involved in the scam. Typical third-world corruption.

    12. Re:An important reminder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My current partner is in mortuary school and does her labs at the morgue, I now fear strange things involving once living bodies will start to encroach on my life.

    13. Re:An important reminder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are doctors who have $150k cars and $1.5M houses. But there are not very many of them, and the money they make treating patients isn't what paid for those things - they either have family money or are earning it from other businesses.

      Medicine is a well-paid and interesting job, but in terms of lifetime earnings you're better off being a banker (and I mean a regular banker, not just the high end Wall Street finance guys). My wife and I are both doctors. We do take about two nice trips a year, but we don't have children, our house cost under $200k, our cars are 4 and 12 years old, and we eat dinner at home five or six nights a week. We have no worries about paying the bills, but we're a lot less well off than plenty of people our age because we spent our twenties working for peanuts. We'll pass many of them in earnings sometime in our fifties, which is nice but is enough of a tradeoff that I wouldn't encourage anyone to go to med school unless they just have a burning desire to be a doctor. That said, I'm sure glad I didn't go get a Ph.D. in chemistry, like I thought I wanted to do in high school.

    14. Re:An important reminder... by jodido · · Score: 0

      "Third-world" corruption? Of course there's no corruption in public or private enterprises in the (so-called) first world.

    15. Re:An important reminder... by flaming+error · · Score: 1

      It's the job of a physician to understand what systems do, how they work, and how to work around their problems. Defeating problematic obstacles should come to them naturally.

      Why would you trust your health to doctors who willingly sacrificed their own productivity in order to allow inept and gullible bureaucrats to sit on their asses, or have orgies with security vendors who are robbing the hospital blind?

    16. Re:An important reminder... by naroom · · Score: 2

      People hate feeling stupid, and if you pass information to them in a way that makes them feel smart, it will stick better. Your average undergraduate doesn't care about what you're trying to teach them, but they DO care about looking better than their peers, and looking good to employers. Knowledge isn't an end, it's a means to an end. Before you try to teach something, make sure it's something they want to know (even if it's for a stupid reason).

    17. Re:An important reminder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Previous AC here. I agree with your overall statement, if the premise that they want to look better than their peers and look good to their employers is true. In my corporate environment, a frightening number of people are completely happy with their station and would love for nothing more than to keep going, absolutely unnoticed one way or the other.

      I am your typical neckbeard with a superiority complex and stunted social skills (it's something I try to to correct for when I notice it) so I'm seldom the best person to try to teach my peers about anything, but in a lot of cases I've seen, mediocrity and the status quo seem to trump having an advantage in a competitive environment.

  5. Full hand 3D scanners are the only "good" ones. by Kenja · · Score: 1

    Granted, they can be thrown off by any change in the hands biometric signature, such as a new ring or even swelling due to allergies. But they are very hard to trick. Finger print scanners have been fooled by hot-dogs with xeroxed finger print swirls on them.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Full hand 3D scanners are the only "good" ones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got a system which is even harder to fool. It just always spits out "denied". Sure, it will be thrown off by even the most perfect match. But it is impossible to trick it.

      Bottom line: Both false positives and false negatives are bad.

    2. Re:Full hand 3D scanners are the only "good" ones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no good biometric systems because keys can't be revoked. Read the rest of the comments. Anyone who promotes biometrics is either clueless and/or just likes the idea because it feels "high tech", or have an agenda of surveillance.

    3. Re:Full hand 3D scanners are the only "good" ones. by disambiguated · · Score: 1

      There are no good biometric systems because keys can't be revoked.

      That's not a flaw, it's a feature. And it's not a key, it's an ID.

    4. Re:Full hand 3D scanners are the only "good" ones. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think those actually read the pattern of arteries and veins in your hands. Takes surgery to fool, but can still be done.

    5. Re:Full hand 3D scanners are the only "good" ones. by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Does it really take surgery to fool, or does it just take a photocopied piece of paper held with the toner side away from the scanner?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    6. Re:Full hand 3D scanners are the only "good" ones. by cusco · · Score: 2

      Hand key scanners are hideous. Anyone who has ever worked installing, configuring, servicing or maintaining them will tell you how much the hate the damn things. The false negative rate is terrible, they can be thrown off by hands swelling or shrinking because of temperature, exercise, menstrual water weight-gain, diets, or more. They get out of calibration if you breathe in their general direction. In case you haven't got it yet, I absolutely loathe them.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  6. Foolproof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who the hell thinks fingerprint scanners are foolproof? We've had "how to pass a fingerprint scanner" stories for a decade now.

    1. Re:Foolproof? by Lucky75 · · Score: 1

      Mythbusters even did it.

      --
      DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
    2. Re:Foolproof? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iTards.

      If Apple implements fingerprint tech, it's not going to be like useless and easily fooled face recognition tech that some Fandroids were boasting about a while ago. This finger print tech needs to be very secure and not easily bypassed, otherwise what's the point?

      LOL.

  7. Been done before. by TigerPlish · · Score: 1

    This has been done before.

    Prior Art.

    --
    The "Civilized World" jumped the shark ca. 1973.
  8. Soon to be heard in Brazillan Portugese by SpaceManFlip · · Score: 1

    "This fake finger smells like it has been up someone's butt!"

  9. What? by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    No one is dumb enough to claim that finger print readers are secure. It's one step up from a password. All you need to get is a finger print from the "doctor" you want to be for the day and with a little effort you can replicate access. Out of all bio-metric security systems, finger prints are pretty insecure.

    1. Re:What? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      NO!

      Biometrics aren't a replacement for passwords, they're a replacement for USERNAMES. They provide a "something you have" factor to authentication, there still needs to be a "something you know."

      Like usernames they aren't secret. They don't need to be secret, and they can be copied without ruining the security of the system. They don't need to be changed, and are unique to each user. Biometrics are great when used as usernames, and a security nightmare waiting to happen when used as a password.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one is dumb enough to claim that finger print readers are secure. It's one step up from a password. All you need to get is a finger print from the "doctor" you want to be for the day and with a little effort you can replicate access. Out of all bio-metric security systems, finger prints are pretty insecure.

      Actually biometrics are at least on order of magnitude worse than a password. They can't be kept secret, revoked easily, or differ between systems.

      Using a fingerprint as a user ID, is ok security wise, but raises privacy concerns.

      Truthfully biometrics is a pretty pointless area of research.

    3. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually it is not "something you have", but "who you are".
      A physical key, a dongle with one-time-passwords, a photo-id; is "something you have".

      There are two more security methods beyond the three well-known ones:
      - "Where you are" locations are often used for authentication, think a bank system which raises a fraud flag when two ATM withdraws happen close in time to each other in different countries.
      - "What everyone knows" The 'security' questions which you supposed to fill in with information everyone can find out about you, like you mother's maiden name. Or your favourite rock band.

    4. Re:What? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      No, it's something you have. Your finger is something you have. Your eyes are something you have. They can be removed. It's just a matter of how much effort the attacker is willing to put in to get that something you have. Depending on the kindness of your attackers is never a good security strategy.

      The very ability to duplicate fingerprints by making fake fingers is a clear example that a biometric is just another something you have.

      Confusing biometrics with being something you are is a common mistake.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    5. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DMUT,

      If an Iris or Fingerprint scanner is not something you are, what is? I don't think anyone makes a DNA scanner.. not yet anyway.

    6. Re:What? by Pav · · Score: 1

      Legally it's your brain. If you become brain dead you cease to be a person and can be allowed to die.

    7. Re:What? by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Your brain is probably the best bet.
      An easy way to think about it is imagine a society with more advanced medical technology, what parts of the body could be made prosthetic? We can already make limbs, glass eyes are old, dialysis can keep one alive without kidneys, there are artificial hearts and lungs, insulin can be produced synthetically, liver replacements are being worked on, etc. But there are no plans or ways to make a prosthetic brain.

      It's not terribly useful as an authentication factor unless you have people submit to an MRI, but it really is what makes you who you are.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  10. Old News by dragon-file · · Score: 2
    Mythbusters already did this http://blogs.technet.com/b/steriley/archive/2006/09/20/457845.aspx

    This happened almost 7 years ago

    --
    Whenever a player quits EVE to go play WoW, the Average IQ of both games increase.
    1. Re:Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot has covered it as well, and you didn't even need to be a doctor to do it.

      Aussie Kids Foil Finger Scanner With Gummi Bears

    2. Re:Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      uh, i don't think this story was posted because faking past fingerprint scanners is supposed to be something new, it was just a cool example of it happening IN REAL LIFE.

  11. Mythbusters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They must have watched mythbusters

  12. Biometric system is insecure by design by jd659 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It surprises me that many debate the “security” of the fingerprint scanners while omitting the major flaw of any biometric system – it is not revocable. You cannot simply reset someone’s fingertips if the system for that instance has been compromised. With pretty much all other authentication there’s some mechanism to delete the bad entry: a password can be reset, a certificate can be revoked, a compromised key can end up in the black list, etc. None of this is possible with any biometric system. Even if it takes an elaborate trickery and a lot of resources to duplicate a finger, a hand, or a mockup of the retina scan, once it’s done, it cannot be “cancelled” at the biometric system level.

    --
    There's no such thing as "illegal download"
    1. Re:Biometric system is insecure by design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Biometric system is insecure by design by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Funny

      It can be canceled at the biometric level...

      You are just squeamish about the organ replacement process.

      I bet you found it inconvenient to change your passwords every 90 days as well.

    3. Re:Biometric system is insecure by design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it can be revoked. That just requires deauthorizing a given print from any access at all.

      The problem then is, so what does that person use for access since their print is compromised? Especially since you've only got fingerprint readers at every checkpoint.

    4. Re:Biometric system is insecure by design by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      Well no, but it also can't be passed over the internet in bulk like passwords can. Also, if a fingerprint scanner gets compromised, it's not so much a matter of one instance being compromised - it's the system itself. So you either need to remove the individuals who compromised it (in this case they suspended the doctors) or revamp the system.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    5. Re:Biometric system is insecure by design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3D printers are a thing. In fact, thingverse is a thing. And the idea that there is no means for bulk physical transport of goods is just silly.

    6. Re:Biometric system is insecure by design by eth1 · · Score: 1

      It surprises me that many debate the “security” of the fingerprint scanners while omitting the major flaw of any biometric system – it is not revocable. You cannot simply reset someone’s fingertips if the system for that instance has been compromised. With pretty much all other authentication there’s some mechanism to delete the bad entry: a password can be reset, a certificate can be revoked, a compromised key can end up in the black list, etc. None of this is possible with any biometric system. Even if it takes an elaborate trickery and a lot of resources to duplicate a finger, a hand, or a mockup of the retina scan, once it’s done, it cannot be “cancelled” at the biometric system level.

      This is less a problem with biometrics, and more a problem with the way they're used. Using a fingerprint as the ONLY authentication is idiotic, but on the other hand (heh) which would you rather have on your bank's ATM? Card+PIN, or Card+PIN+fingerprint? I can't count the number of times I've rolled up to an ATM and found a card in it, or worse, the previous user left it on the "Do you want another transaction? Yes/No" screen. Replace the Yes/Enter button with a fingerprint scanner, and that's no longer an issue (until it gets vandalized and doesn't work...).

    7. Re:Biometric system is insecure by design by disambiguated · · Score: 1

      You're doing it wrong. The biometric data is not like a password -- it's like a username. Do you change your username whenever you change your password? Of course not. You don't want it to be changeable or revocable. The password is separate from the biometric id. That's what you change. And obviously permissions associated with the id are modifyable/revocable. If the biometric id is compromised, you change the password, and perhaps flag the account to notify security if it is used (and the swat team if it's used with the old "revoked" password.)

    8. Re:Biometric system is insecure by design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that's one of the paradoxes in all this. People think that because biometric features are "unchangeable", that makes them more secure. In reality, that makes them less secure.

    9. Re:Biometric system is insecure by design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never seen a 3D printer capable of fingerprint-level resolution.

    10. Re:Biometric system is insecure by design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot simply reset someone’s fingertips if the system for that instance has been compromised.

      Finger, meet grinder.
      Grinder, meet finger.

    11. Re:Biometric system is insecure by design by jd659 · · Score: 1

      Using a fingerprint as the ONLY authentication is idiotic, but on the other hand (heh) which would you rather have on your bank's ATM? Card+PIN, or Card+PIN+fingerprint?

      I still think that having two somewhat insecure systems is better than one insecure system + biometrics. A card+pin is a perfect example and the dual piece authentication is better than a single piece. What would be better though: a card+RFID or card+biometrics? RFID is inherently insecure, it can be cloned relatively easily. Even then, I would argue that a card+RFID is more secure than a card+biometrics. Why? Because if the biometrics is hacked, your NEXT card will be vulnerable and other places that use your biometrics will be vulnerable and you will not be able to do anything about it. Where is in case of card+RFID, both can be cancelled if any is hacked, so RFID, even if it is a joke of security, in combination is more secure than biometrics.

      --
      There's no such thing as "illegal download"
    12. Re:Biometric system is insecure by design by cusco · · Score: 1

      Really? You don't think that an image of a fingerprint or iris can be passed over the Internet "in bulk"?

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    13. Re:Biometric system is insecure by design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I read that summary, I pictured one doctor walking around with like 20 fingers on a string. LOL

  13. In all fairness... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    did they bypass the "foolproof security tech", or did they bypass a flawed implementation of the "foolproof security tech"?

  14. This is one reason I've always hated biometrics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These guys were just making fakes, no big deal. I've always been concerned that with everything being done this way, a violent criminal wouldn't hesitate to cut off my digits or pluck out my eyes. Best case scenario, you're violently compelled to place your body part wherever. I'd much rather surrender my key at gunpoint and let the insurance companies deal with it.

  15. Gummi Bears by Petron · · Score: 1

    Why to to all the trouble with making fake fingers when all you need are gummi bears

    Bypass security. Tasty snack. It's the two-in-one product of modern technology!

    --
    if (it != oneThing) it = another;
  16. Not a security issue by tgd · · Score: 1

    Attendance is not a security issue.

    If they're allowing biometric authentication as a single factor authentication to clinical data, there's cause for concern. In this case, this is biometric identification, and is still more reliable than punching an ID into a time system.

    In healthcare, biometrics are usually used, if at all, as a second factor for authentication. (And that usage is rare because certain demographics have fingerprints that are not reliably read by most scanners.)

    1. Re:Not a security issue by PRMan · · Score: 1

      (And that usage is rare because certain demographics have fingerprints that are not reliably read by most scanners.)

      I assistant coached my daughter's soccer team and they had the FBI at the orientation with a fingerprint scanner for all the coaches. I have sweaty hands and after the third try in 104 degree weather (that's 40C), he accepted the slimy unreadable print.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    2. Re:Not a security issue by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Yes, the FBI should be present at all soccer games to make sure you don't molest the 8 year old little league girls. Don't you watch the news? 87% of the country is pedophiles and the other 13% is kids.

  17. Basically... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...they gave the government the finger...

  18. Fake fingers are nothing by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    Here we use fake doctors...

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  19. Oh, uh, hey Jim. by JustAnotherIdiot · · Score: 1

    You appear to have dropped your finger there buddy, gotta be more careful with that!

    --
    What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
  20. Windows NT ® 4.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Windows NT ® 4.0 I will just hack the the out of date OS

  21. Brazilian banks also use finger prints by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In Brazil banks started to use ATM's with finger print reading.
    Only the finger print is necessary to withdraw money from your account...

    http://www.tecmundo.com.br/banco/34422-adeus-cartao-de-banco-itau-e-bradesco-autorizam-saques-via-impressao-digital.htm (in portuguese)

  22. Brazilians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Also goes to show how much effort Brazilians put into avoiding work.

    1. Re:Brazilians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was in Bahia. There is a lot of slackers there.

    2. Re:Brazilians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was in Bahia. There is a lot of slackers there.

      Ahh, that explains it. Must've been cutting into the 6 month long Carnival that happens twice a year there.

  23. Much better than the alternative by bl968 · · Score: 1

    Biometrics have one fatal flaw that has always scared the hell out of me. If someone wants past biometrics, they will either develop fake body parts that work as good as the original, or they will just remove the actual body part.

    --
    "GET / HTTP/1.0" 200 51230 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; Setec Astronomy)"
    1. Re:Much better than the alternative by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and I'm sure I've seen movies where that happened with eye scanners!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    2. Re:Much better than the alternative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try to go past a biometric a$$ scanner...

  24. Biometrics are not at fault here by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    it's the piss-poor AI. Even the dumbest human in the world can instantly tell if a person is actually sticking his own finger in the scanner or if he's holding a plastic fake, with 100% accuracy.

    Kurzweil may have wet dreams about singularity, but I don't think computers can ever achieve awareness. They lack atman, immortal soul, theta, life essence, the Force, or whatever you wanna call it.

  25. All the biometric criticism is missing the point. by ThisIsSaei · · Score: 2

    The fact that the doctors were trusted as both the authenticating-client and the key-holder was the issue here. Not biometric authentication. There was no promise that the doctors were not the malicious users themselves, but rather the authenticating-client here had an inherent incentive (getting paid without working) to help defeat the system. So, for all the criticism of biometric systems here -- we're missing the point, the implementation was incorrect to start. Attacking the medium is misguided, and also composed of (mostly) stupid arguments.

    If this was a story of doctors having others falsify their time-cards or sharing keys it wouldn't have the same "people who like x auth method are idiots", but since it involves some slightly higher tech punch-in... well, here we are.

    There's no such thing as a secure system. Just an inconvenient-to-defeat system; the weakest link/low-hanging fruit and all that. Biometric merely provides another authentication factor that can be used - so pointing to cases where people helped defeat their own locks is akin to saying that your buddy let me make copies of his keys, just look insecure keys are! It's silly. Correct implementation is key before you judge a system.

  26. Bogus Headline for semi bogus article by buybuydandavis · · Score: 2

    Buried in the article

    "Most current fingerprint scanners have technology that can detect whether the finger has a pulse, and some read fingerprints at a depth below skin level, which would render the silicon fingers useless. Apparently, that hospital is using an older type of scanner."

    Old, crappy technology fooled. Whoopie.

    And it appears that this was an organized criminal enterprise:

    "The mayor of Ferraz de Vasconcelos, Acir Fillo, said there might be as many as 300 hospital employees who do not exist, except for fake fingers with their prints, but who get paid anyway."

    And what grownup thinks any security technology is "foolproof", let alone "motivated criminal enterprise proof"? The technology isn't perfect, therefore it's crap?

    And by the way - "silicon" fingers? Bet you a dollar that should have been "silicone".

    If this guy is actually paid to write this crap, he needs to be fired.

  27. RTFA by westlake · · Score: 2
    Obsolete tech.

    When I first saw the headlines for this story I immediately went to a much darker place. I envisioned doctors going into the morgue and borrowing a few digits for use in fooling the machines. I mean, it's not like those guys needed them any more. Things like this have happened before.

    Then I realized this wouldn't work. For one thing, they'd have the wrong prints. For another, they'd be, well, a bit chilly.

    Most current fingerprint scanners have technology that can detect whether the finger has a pulse, and some read fingerprints at a depth below skin level, which would render the silicon fingers useless. Apparently, that hospital is using an older type of scanner.

    Giving biometric scanners the (fake) finger

    Inside job.

    The perfect example of corruption and conspiracy that begins --- and must begin --- at the top.

    Another television network said it was the head of the emergency room that ran the scam and that his daughter had not worked a day in three years but got paid all the time.

    Fake fingers to fool the boss at Brazil hospital

    Ferreira confessed to using different fake fingers bearing the prints of 11 fellow doctors and 20 nurses in order to pretend they were showing up to work five overnight shifts each month, instead of just one, police said.

    Ferreira also said the staff at the Ferraz Vasconcelos Hospital paid $2,400 per month to participate.

    The doctor will face charges of falsifying a public document and could get two to six years in prison.

    Brazilian doctor caught using fake fingers in biometrics scam

  28. I dunno. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like a good way to solve three problems with one stone:

    1. A less easily reproducable biometric map that changes over time.
    2. Free pollop/colon cancer screening for everybody having to work through the machine.
    3. Assuming it's used indisriminately: A sign to both members of the security community as well as the political community of where they should accept boundaries on security theater so they don't get fucked up the ass like the rest of us :D

  29. Done before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the '90s there was this "thumbprint ID" system that allowed registred folks to get through Dutch airport customs with no hassle.
    Until some folks discovered you could slip a copied print onto a thumb and slip someone else through instead.

  30. you get what you pay for by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    buy a vascular scanner or review security vamera footage to validate the fingerprint results.

  31. Signature not found by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The best biometric for doctors is obviously their handwriting - nobody can forge that shit (or read it).

  32. As Nelson says... by mattack2 · · Score: 1

    Ha haw!

  33. No hope for Brasil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just saying.....

    I do work in the city where it happened.
    Tech its not the problem.

    In fact, I'm so sick and tired of corruption here in Brasil that sometimes I wonder: how are we going to get rid of them? Man, they are in every layer of the system. if u become a politician, they will come have "the talk" with you. Same thing if u become a cop, a banker, and god! even a doctor now??? camon!