Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Develop Master Fingerprints That Can Break Into Smartphones (digitaltrends.com)
Researchers at New York University and Michigan State University have recently found that the fingerprint sensor on your phone is not as safe as you think. "The team has developed a set of fake fingerprints that are digital composites of common features found in many people's fingerprints," reports Digital Trends. "Through computer simulations, they were able to achieve matches 65 percent of the time, though they estimate the scheme would be less successful in real life, on an actual phone." From the report: Nasir Memon, a computer science and engineering professor at New York University, explained the value of the study to The New York Times. Modern smartphones, tablets, and other computing devices that utilize biometric authentication typically only take a snapshots of sections of a user's finger, to compose a model of one fingerprint. But the chances of faking your way into someone else's phone are much higher if there are multiple fingerprints recorded on that device. "It's as if you have 30 passwords and the attacker only has to match one," Memon said. The professor, who was one of three authors on the study, theorized that if it were possible to create a glove with five different composite fingerprints, the attacker would likely be successful with about half of their attempts. For the record, Apple reported to the Times that the chance of a false match through the iPhone's TouchID system is 1 in 50,000 with only one fingerprint recorded.
Let's be honest, Android is incredibly vulnerable. A really secure fingerprint lock on an Android phone is like putting ten different locks on the back door of your house while leaving the front door open.
"ccessful in real life, on an actual phone."
They... didn't try it on an actual device? Eh?
"they were able to achieve matches 65 percent of the time, though they estimate the scheme would be less successful in real life, on an actual phone."
So... much ado about nothing?
#DeleteChrome
Maybe they did, and got awful results. Researchers play funny games with what they choose to publish or not publish.
Doctors say that Nordberg has a 50/50 chance of living, though there's only a 10 percent chance of that.
1) You leave perfect copies of them all around you.
2) Anyone that has possession of your body can instantly take them.
3) The police maintain huge records of many people's fingerprints and do NOT keep them secure.
4) You can not change it if it becomes compromised.
5) Sensors that detect them are not very accurate and make little if any attempt to prevent false copies (they don't check to see if they are body temperature or have the flexibility of human skin.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
To a guest I suggest password-protecting her computer logon. She thought that was a good idea, because she often leaves the laptop at home while she's away.
I said, Pick something only you would know. And DON'T TELL ME. She thought about it for a while, and then she entered what she thought only she would know. It was a number. A SINGLE NUMBER! One digit. It took me a while to get her to understand why that was not a good password.
A simulation doesn't suffer from the effects of creating fake fingerprints, but offers somewhat idealized ridges and gaps
Biometric authentication is a bad idea most of the time,because once someone managed to impersonate you, you cannot revoke authentication credentials: in other words, you cannot change your biometric fingerprint.
Just so happens that my company iphone finger print sensor appears to be accurate about 65% of the time with *my* finger. If that's the success they're getting, I'd say they're doing pretty good.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Maybe then people will stop using part of their body as an authentication tool.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.