Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

LG's New Fingerprint Sensor Doesn't Need A Button (mashable.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the that-was-easy dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Mashable: LG Innotek has developed a fingerprint sensor that's placed under a glass surface instead of in a physical button, the company announced Sunday. The new sensor could lead to smartphones that you can unlock by placing your finger on the phone screen. The LG-owned electronics parts manufacturer achieved this by cutting out a 0.01-inch thick slot in the lower part of a smartphone's cover glass, and then inserting a very thin fingerprint sensor into it. In other words, the sensor is still under the cover glass, but the slot moves the sensor close enough to the surface to read a fingerprint. That way, the sensor is protected from water and scratches, and can be installed anywhere under the phone's glass surface.

65 comments

  1. who would've thought by supernova87a · · Score: 1

    Wow, the technology that was once shown in cheesily-uninformed future-guessing depictions in Mission Impossible and other action movies 10 years ago, is actually coming true...

    1. Re:who would've thought by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      you mean that actually existed and was use more than 10 years ago. Also Motorola was the first to have fingerprint reader in Atrix smart phone in 2011,

    2. Re:who would've thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Motorola was the first to have fingerprint reader in Atrix smart phone in 2011,

      neat.

  2. Groundbreaking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't need fingerprints either

  3. Expect to see someone breaking the glass by frnic · · Score: 2

    I expect some serious testing to see just how easy it is to break the glass with the hole has been cut into it.

    1. Re:Expect to see someone breaking the glass by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I doubt it will make much difference. The glass used on phones doesn't rely on thickness to be strong, it is tensioned and the microscopic imperfections in the surface which cause it to crack are filled. Essentially it is being permanently compressed, so that when it is impacted instead being stretched it actually just relaxes and doesn't shatter.

      There is usually a coating on top too, which adds additional protection and stuff like anti-glare and anti-fingerprint properties. A 0.25mm deep cut-out section isn't going to have much effect on strength, especially considering that it will be filled with a fingerprint sensor.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. That's useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now you can put sensors under any and all glass surface where random passers-by will put their fingers and safely and securely read their fingerprints, whether they like^Wknow it or not. Didn't we predict that fingerprints are the safest and securest passwords ever? I think this pretty well clinches it, don't you?

    1. Re:That's useful by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      I think that was just Hollywood movies and law enforcement trying to make out that fingerprint evidence was infallible. Both Google and Apple have been more sensible and only used fingerprints as a shortcut authentication mechanism under certain circumstances, not as the keys to the kingdom.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:That's useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fingerprints are usernames you don't need to memorize; not passwords.

    3. Re:That's useful by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      They make the difference null and void. They are like the giant secret Swiss bank account numbers where you only need the number to transact business.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    4. Re:That's useful by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Now you can put sensors under any and all glass surface where random passers-by will put their fingers and safely and securely read their fingerprints, whether they like^Wknow it or not. Didn't we predict that fingerprints are the safest and securest passwords ever? I think this pretty well clinches it, don't you?

      Like many (most?) you deeply misunderstand biometric security.

      Password authentication security is based on password secrecy. Revealing the password means that the attacker can enter it and authenticate as you, because anyone can enter a password.

      Biometric authentication security is based on measurement integrity. Revealing the biometric accomplishes nothing unless the attacker can arrange for the measuring device to receive the value and accept it as a real measurement. Secrecy of the biometric data is irrelevant to the security analysis.

      This, by the way, is why all those complaints about "you can't rotate/revoke your fingerprint more than 10 times!" are pointless. Rotating passwords is useful because it switches from a value that may no longer be secret to a new value which presumably is secret, restoring security. But biometric data is assumed to be known, so rotating it would have no purpose; you'd just substitute one known value for another.

      This means that the security (or lack thereof) of biometrics lies entirely in how hard it is to convince the system to accept fake data. If you can bypass the sensor and just feed it the image you want, then the security level can be no stronger than the difficulty of doing that bypass. If you can make a fake fingerprint and get the scanner to accept it as real, then the security level can be no stronger than the difficulty of making that fake fingerprint.

      How hard are those things? That depends on the details of the system. On consumer devices, the answer is "not all that hard if the attacker is willing to do some work". However, that doesn't make it useless, because most of the attackers who'd like to get into your phone aren't willing to work for it. The thief who stole your phone could probably lift a print from the surface of the phone, make a mask, create a gelatin finger and unlock it, but most people willing to work that hard will find it easier to get a job. Or at least go steal another phone that isn't locked. Your kids/spouse/etc. are also unlikely to be willing to go to that much trouble (on average; you know your own family and can judge your case).

    5. Re:That's useful by shawn2772 · · Score: 1

      Fingerprints are usernames you don't need to memorize; not passwords.

      Completely wrong. Fingerprints are neither.

      Fingerprints make terrible usernames; the birthday problem ensures that as soon as the database gets at all large, false matches will abound. A crucial characteristic of usernames is uniqueness, and fingerprints, and the fuzzy matching systems used to compare them, do not provide that.

      Fingerprints make terrible passwords, because they're public information. You leave them everywhere.

      Fingerprints can be useful authenticators, though, with security equal to the level of difficulty of getting the device to accept faked data as a valid measurement. See my other post in this thread.

  5. Warrants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long until we're stealing peoples fingerprints because they don't realize there's a fingerprint reader built in without their knowledge?

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

      Don't all these phones send your prints to Google immediately already?

    2. Re:Warrants by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      No.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  6. Motorola Atrix - 2011 by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    Apple announces breakthrough fingerprint ID tech that was on competitors smart phone five years ago

    1. Re:Motorola Atrix - 2011 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was it any good though? I mean, the Newton was a "tablet" but by all accounts it was pretty ordinary.

    2. Re:Motorola Atrix - 2011 by Desler · · Score: 1

      And the fact that 99% of people neither know nor cares shows just how great the Atrix was as a product. The 5s probably had more preorder sales than the Atrix had in its entire lifespan.

    3. Re:Motorola Atrix - 2011 by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just shows most people are fashion-tards that buy based on image rather than technical capability. I hate when I have my employer's on-call phone every six weeks, that stupid iphone is much thicker than my android, not to mention longer for same sized screen.

    4. Re:Motorola Atrix - 2011 by frnic · · Score: 1

      I completely sympathies with you, and I feel you should immediately sue your employer for cruel and unusual work conditions. It is awful for someone to be forced to use such a horrible hone.

    5. Re:Motorola Atrix - 2011 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This article has nothing to do with Apple. I doubt they will even use this specific tech. And there were things that had crappy fingerprint scanners even before the Atrix (palm pilots, etc). They were slow and annoying to use.

  7. Finger prit sensors NEED a button? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What it only works if it can move?
    More like LG thought putting the sensor under the glass was cool, or cheap, or even more usful.

    1. Re:Finger prit sensors NEED a button? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was wondering what the innovation was here. My LG Nexus 5X has a fingerprint sensor on the back, it isn't a button but has a surrounding ridge...for alignment purposes.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  8. Watch it get scratched by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most fingerprint readers are under sapphire glass because if it's scratched, it doesn't work any more. Are they going to use sapphire glass on the whole screen or is it a new kind of glass that is hard to scratch without being heavy and shatterproof.

  9. OPSEC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, now which 'member' should i use so governments, ad agencies, and corporations dont get my actual fingerprints.

    1. Re:OPSEC by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      If you are concerned about the government getting your fingerprints, you are doing things wrong.

      You do realize that you leave your fingerprints all over the place don't you?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  10. Re:Apple did it better by Desler · · Score: 1

    Who exactly was releasing phones with fingerprint sensors in 2008 (5 years prior to the 5s) as a mainstream, consumer product?

  11. The point is what? by chispito · · Score: 1

    File "phone with no button" along with "thinner phone." I don't need or want it. I don't care if my phone has one button, or three, or none. For that matter, I don't really care if my phone has a fingerprint reader due to legal and practical reasons.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    1. Re:The point is what? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      If the button is on the back I agree with you, if the button is on the front then no. I must be an outlier but I hate the hardware buttons on the iPhones and Samsungs. I prefer as small a bezel as possible.

      That said I would have a thicker phone for a bigger battery....

  12. How 'bout on the bottom? by SeaFox · · Score: 0

    The new sensor could lead to smartphones that you can unlock by placing your finger on the phone screen.

    And they couldn't put is someplace besides the one place people don't want extra fingerprints?

    1. Re:How 'bout on the bottom? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2

      How do you use your touch screen phone if not with your fingers?

    2. Re:How 'bout on the bottom? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      You... you don't want to know.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:How 'bout on the bottom? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I paid... actually, less, not extra, for buttons I can press. The buttons do things, correspond to letters, etc.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  13. Re:Uhhhh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep. I can either push it to wake it and unlock in the one action, or if it's awake just touch it.

  14. Well by liqu1d · · Score: 1

    As long as I can unlock it without a finger print I'll consider it

  15. Re:Apple did it better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Fujitsu FOMA F905i, released 2008.

    Apple iPhone 5s, released 2013.

    You do the math.

  16. Obligatory metric conversion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In metric, 0.25mm. This is easier to visualise in my mind's eye.
    ie. 1/4 of a millimetre rather than one hundredth of an inch.

    Not the submitter's fault. It seems LG's English language website gives the imperial measurement before the metric one.
    http://www.lginnotek.com/community/news_view.jsp?seq=611

    Half way down the press release "The adherend side of the sensor and glass is only 0.0098inches (0.25mm) thick,".

    Can't we say 0.25mm (0.0098 inches)? Or more reasonably, 0.25mm (0.01 inches)?
    Surely the engineering was in mm and the marketing Americanisation came second.

    What's next? We'll buy a 0.0019 Library-of-Congress (1TB) hard disk?
    (caclulated according to the congress size given at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terabyte)

  17. Bad idea in 5, 4, 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And then a nasty 'bug' comes along, and steals your fingerprints without you knowing...

    No thanks. I'll go back to crappy non-touch screens before biometrics ever get used on a phone.

  18. Didn't the recent court case teach us anything? by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

  19. No security in fingerprints and physical risk. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    I would never want a fingerprint secured device.

    a) the government can make me unlock it.
    b) Anyone with a rubber hose can make me unlock it.
    c) There is a non-zero inducement to cut off my finger.
    d) If someone figures out a way around it, you'll have a very hard time arguing it wasn't you who unlocked the device.

    It's more like risky performance theater art.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    1. Re:No security in fingerprints and physical risk. by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would never want a fingerprint secured device.

      a) the government can make me unlock it.
      b) Anyone with a rubber hose can make me unlock it.
      c) There is a non-zero inducement to cut off my finger.
      d) If someone figures out a way around it, you'll have a very hard time arguing it wasn't you who unlocked the device.

      It's more like risky performance theater art.

      And the reason to have a fingerprint sensor is the fact that a majority of smartphone users have no passcode or other security measure set. The reason is simple - a phone is accessed extremely often - I believe Apple quotes easily a thousand times or more a day. When you're using it that often (most of the time it's used for under 5 seconds), a passcode gets in the way - who wants to enter a passcode that many times? End result, they don't secure their phone at all.

      The fingerprint sensor lets a user choose a passcode and access their phone without taking significantly longer (it would suck if it took longer to enter your passcode than you were going to use it). So while the OS is resuming from low power state the sensor can be reading the fingerprint and the secure enclave can determine if it's a valid fingerprint, so when the OS is ready the decision is ready.

      Of course, Apple also has ways to ensure that the fingerprint is overridable - three bad reads triggers a passcode, a power cycle triggers a passcode and no unlocking for 48 hours also triggers a passcode request.

      The law is currently unclear as to what happens when this is triggered.- if you are forced to unlock the phone by fingerprint, but the phone now requires the passcode...

    2. Re:No security in fingerprints and physical risk. by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Fingerprint readers are not perfect, but they're good enough for 99.99% of the population for whom there's not much chance that a government or underworld thug will forcibly compel us to unlock our phone. The idea that a fingerprint reader puts you in any more physical danger than you are now is rather far-fetched. Sure, there are a handful of people in this would to whom that might actually apply, but it's highly likely that neither you nor I are among them, despite your dystopian ruminations.

      I'm looking forward to getting a fingerprint reader on my next phone, so I can say goodbye to PIN numbers which are arguably even less secure. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    3. Re:No security in fingerprints and physical risk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I believe Apple quotes easily a thousand times or more a day"

      Then is it NOT a phone. A phone is occasional use, not 1000 times a day. My kids have learned that the phone is a support device. We do not give them monthly plans, they are all prepaid. Whenm they first get the phone they a bruised them and then they "stop working" used up all the minutes. We refill during grades (6 time per year). The better the grades more minutes. Degrees of freedom. Now, they carry and use their phones mainly for portable music and a few free games. They understand that use and social response ability.

      I was at fast restaurant, while a new employee was being brought on... The new employee just looked at the phone all time even with the manager seaing at the table and talking to her.

      1000 times per day, go to rehab.

    4. Re:No security in fingerprints and physical risk. by Punko · · Score: 1

      Fingerprint is fine for telling the machine who I am. but without a following password to be entered, the information is simply not secured. The inability to change the passcode makes the use of a fingerprint generated hash pointless.

      --
      If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
    5. Re:No security in fingerprints and physical risk. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      The reason is simple - a phone is accessed extremely often - I believe Apple quotes easily a thousand times or more a day.

      That doesn't pass the litmus test of critical thinking.
      If a person sleeps for 8 hours, and spends 2 more hours doing things that should preclude using a phone (showering, driving, making love), that leaves 14 hours, or 840 minutes.
      You (or Apple) believe that users "easily" on average access their phone more than once a minute?

      That there are hardcore users who access it once every 10 minutes, I can buy. But not "easily a thousand times or more a day".

    6. Re:No security in fingerprints and physical risk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't stress about it, it is bullshit. 1000 unlocks a day is going to require at least one unlock per minute, assuming you are going to sleep for 8 hours. I would guess it is closer to 100 for active users (think teenagers).
      According to this it is 1500 per week: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2783677/How-YOU-look-phone-The-average-user-picks-device-1-500-times-day.html

    7. Re:No security in fingerprints and physical risk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would never want a fingerprint secured device.

      a) the government can make me unlock it.
      b) Anyone with a rubber hose can make me unlock it.
      c) There is a non-zero inducement to cut off my finger.
      d) If someone figures out a way around it, you'll have a very hard time arguing it wasn't you who unlocked the device.

      It's more like risky performance theater art.

      You've nailed it. It is a huge physical/personal security issue [as with all biometrics]. This path must never be trodden.

    8. Re:No security in fingerprints and physical risk. by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      If I was in a position to want to keep my iPhone contents secure in that scenario (E.G. I was a drug dealer, journalist or both) I would want a kill code too. Use a specific finger, wipe the device keys. Use a specific code, wipe the device keys.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    9. Re:No security in fingerprints and physical risk. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      If you can pay for items with your phone/watch/etc. and it uses a biometric the risk is non-zero.

      All they have to do is forcibly drag your finger across the finger reader or drag your handily detached finger.

      Criminals do bad things. It's not distopian, it's realistic.

      As for the government,

      http://www.latimes.com/local/c...
      "There, authorities obtained a search warrant compelling the girlfriend of an alleged Armenian gang member to press her finger against an iPhone that had been seized from a Glendale home. The phone contained Apple's fingerprint identification system for unlocking, and prosecutors wanted access to the data inside it.

      It marked a rare time that prosecutors have demanded a person provide a fingerprint to open a computer, but experts expect such cases to become more common as cracking digital security becomes a larger part of law enforcement work."

      We are talking about people happy to waterboard american citizens for information at the same time government officials are telling the Washington Post: âoeThey picked up the wrong people, who had no information. In many, many cases there was only some vague associationâ with terrorism.

      My point isn't that people do this. My point is fingerprint locks are security theater.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  20. No worse than our current idea by bug_hunter · · Score: 1

    Well the API for fingerprint detection is not going to be exposed to Apps. And there are already plenty of APIs for fingerprint detection (they just happen on a button instead of on the screen). I don't see any reason why this would be any less secure than what we have currently with a more dedicated fingerprint sensor on the button instead of on the phone. (Very true that a device with no finger print sensors would be more secure - but I haven't heard any cases of Apple's fingerprint sensor being hacked so far)

    --
    It's turtles all the way down.
  21. I read that Fujitsu's doing iris scanning now by John.Banister · · Score: 1

    If I'm doing biometric authentication, I think I like that better.

  22. Is AJAX broken for everyone? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Informative

    Am I the only one whose new posts don't insert themselves properly when submitting? The input box disappears, "Working..." appears, but it never goes away. A refresh shows my post in place as expected.

    Also clicking "Disable advertising" has no effect. Not that I should have to keep doing that every few weeks, anyway.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Is AJAX broken for everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's been broken for me for around a week. It's REALLY annoying.

    2. Re:Is AJAX broken for everyone? by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Nope, not just you. I assumed it's because the JavaScript is now coming from a domain that I haven't whitelisted, but I haven't cared enough to figure out for sure.

    3. Re:Is AJAX broken for everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only in chrome but yes

    4. Re:Is AJAX broken for everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Firefox + NoScript et al. Yes. Annoying. Problem with blacklisting perhaps.

    5. Re:Is AJAX broken for everyone? by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      I assume it is LEAN software development, or dysfunction in the morning SUM, or one of the other pox ridden processes. In general I blame modern software practices that eschew sitting down and thinking hard before writing important code.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  23. Scanner is also transparent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, cause you want to be able to see the screen and not have this sensor in the way....

  24. Re:Apple did it better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah that linear sensor on the F905i requiring you to move your finger at a set speed and always position it in the exact same place and orientation is amazing.... its a wonder apple didn't copy it for the first iphone....

  25. 2-factor by Kennon · · Score: 1

    Neat, we can finally do convenient two-factor auth on a smart phone. Looking forward to this coming to market.

    --
    "All those moments, will be lost in time...like tears in rain..."
  26. in the Pipeline by dasgoober · · Score: 1

    I guess we now know what Tim Cook now has in the "innovative" pipeline for Apple, errr ..... now.

    Then, they'll ignore all previous history and claim they invented it.

  27. Like that hasnt been done before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Water proof Fingerprint sensor, Sony Xperias all ready have that, granted in a button form..