Samsung S8 'eye security' fooled by photo
-
Samsung S8 'eye security' fooled by photo - BBC News[^] I always remember a long time ago Mythbusters set out to test fingerprint authentication as found on anything from laptops to bank vaults. To prep for the feature they had a range of devices that offered fingerprint authentication all the way up to very expensive vaults and they also had a range of possible solutions to try. No doubt they were planning on starting with the more basic bits of kit and the most basic tools to circumvent and they'd get more and more sophisticated with their tools until the device was cracked. They would then move up to the next more secure device and repeat the process. The simplest way they had to beat the system was a photocopy\printout of a fingerprint. The most complex involved a finger modelled in ballistic gel which matches the conductivity of human skin, and they had a mechanism to ensure the gel was also heated to body temperature. They basically tried to make the most realistic finger they could. The whole bit was a damp squib though as the result was that the most basic of methods (a printout of a fingerprint) cracked the most advanced of the devices (the professional safe). It's like the security industry is constantly looking for the next "big thing" and trying all these gimmicks and it's as if the gimmick is the most important thing....even more important than if the method actually works, and the end result is that things are getting less secure, not more.
-
Samsung S8 'eye security' fooled by photo - BBC News[^] I always remember a long time ago Mythbusters set out to test fingerprint authentication as found on anything from laptops to bank vaults. To prep for the feature they had a range of devices that offered fingerprint authentication all the way up to very expensive vaults and they also had a range of possible solutions to try. No doubt they were planning on starting with the more basic bits of kit and the most basic tools to circumvent and they'd get more and more sophisticated with their tools until the device was cracked. They would then move up to the next more secure device and repeat the process. The simplest way they had to beat the system was a photocopy\printout of a fingerprint. The most complex involved a finger modelled in ballistic gel which matches the conductivity of human skin, and they had a mechanism to ensure the gel was also heated to body temperature. They basically tried to make the most realistic finger they could. The whole bit was a damp squib though as the result was that the most basic of methods (a printout of a fingerprint) cracked the most advanced of the devices (the professional safe). It's like the security industry is constantly looking for the next "big thing" and trying all these gimmicks and it's as if the gimmick is the most important thing....even more important than if the method actually works, and the end result is that things are getting less secure, not more.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
It's like the security industry is constantly looking for the next "big thing" and trying all these gimmicks and it's as if the gimmick is the most important thing....even more important than if the method actually works, and the end result is that things are getting less secure, not more.
and not forget to say more expensive as they include the "latest" technologies :sigh: :sigh: :doh: :doh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Samsung S8 'eye security' fooled by photo - BBC News[^] I always remember a long time ago Mythbusters set out to test fingerprint authentication as found on anything from laptops to bank vaults. To prep for the feature they had a range of devices that offered fingerprint authentication all the way up to very expensive vaults and they also had a range of possible solutions to try. No doubt they were planning on starting with the more basic bits of kit and the most basic tools to circumvent and they'd get more and more sophisticated with their tools until the device was cracked. They would then move up to the next more secure device and repeat the process. The simplest way they had to beat the system was a photocopy\printout of a fingerprint. The most complex involved a finger modelled in ballistic gel which matches the conductivity of human skin, and they had a mechanism to ensure the gel was also heated to body temperature. They basically tried to make the most realistic finger they could. The whole bit was a damp squib though as the result was that the most basic of methods (a printout of a fingerprint) cracked the most advanced of the devices (the professional safe). It's like the security industry is constantly looking for the next "big thing" and trying all these gimmicks and it's as if the gimmick is the most important thing....even more important than if the method actually works, and the end result is that things are getting less secure, not more.
Well, at least the battery didn't catch fire. Are people really paying £800 for these?
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
-
Well, at least the battery didn't catch fire. Are people really paying £800 for these?
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
It cost no more than £650 - and the eye photo is free :laugh:
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
-
It cost no more than £650 - and the eye photo is free :laugh:
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
Well, if it's down to 6.5 times what I paid for my 'phone, I have to admit it starts to sound a little tempting. :)
98.4% of statistics are made up on the spot.
-
Samsung S8 'eye security' fooled by photo - BBC News[^] I always remember a long time ago Mythbusters set out to test fingerprint authentication as found on anything from laptops to bank vaults. To prep for the feature they had a range of devices that offered fingerprint authentication all the way up to very expensive vaults and they also had a range of possible solutions to try. No doubt they were planning on starting with the more basic bits of kit and the most basic tools to circumvent and they'd get more and more sophisticated with their tools until the device was cracked. They would then move up to the next more secure device and repeat the process. The simplest way they had to beat the system was a photocopy\printout of a fingerprint. The most complex involved a finger modelled in ballistic gel which matches the conductivity of human skin, and they had a mechanism to ensure the gel was also heated to body temperature. They basically tried to make the most realistic finger they could. The whole bit was a damp squib though as the result was that the most basic of methods (a printout of a fingerprint) cracked the most advanced of the devices (the professional safe). It's like the security industry is constantly looking for the next "big thing" and trying all these gimmicks and it's as if the gimmick is the most important thing....even more important than if the method actually works, and the end result is that things are getting less secure, not more.
Blimey - many times even my own fingerprint won't unlock my S6!
-
Samsung S8 'eye security' fooled by photo - BBC News[^] I always remember a long time ago Mythbusters set out to test fingerprint authentication as found on anything from laptops to bank vaults. To prep for the feature they had a range of devices that offered fingerprint authentication all the way up to very expensive vaults and they also had a range of possible solutions to try. No doubt they were planning on starting with the more basic bits of kit and the most basic tools to circumvent and they'd get more and more sophisticated with their tools until the device was cracked. They would then move up to the next more secure device and repeat the process. The simplest way they had to beat the system was a photocopy\printout of a fingerprint. The most complex involved a finger modelled in ballistic gel which matches the conductivity of human skin, and they had a mechanism to ensure the gel was also heated to body temperature. They basically tried to make the most realistic finger they could. The whole bit was a damp squib though as the result was that the most basic of methods (a printout of a fingerprint) cracked the most advanced of the devices (the professional safe). It's like the security industry is constantly looking for the next "big thing" and trying all these gimmicks and it's as if the gimmick is the most important thing....even more important than if the method actually works, and the end result is that things are getting less secure, not more.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
It's like the security industry is constantly looking for the next "big thing" and trying all these gimmicks and it's as if the gimmick is the most important thing....even more important than if the method actually works, and the end result is that things are getting less secure, not m
I think a lot of that is probably implementation - they also employ the cheapest workers they can to produce the software, and I suspect that means they get their code from questions in QA...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt -
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
It's like the security industry is constantly looking for the next "big thing" and trying all these gimmicks and it's as if the gimmick is the most important thing....even more important than if the method actually works, and the end result is that things are getting less secure, not m
I think a lot of that is probably implementation - they also employ the cheapest workers they can to produce the software, and I suspect that means they get their code from questions in QA...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
OriginalGriff wrote:
code from questions in QA
In that case you need no bother yourself with infrared images and contact lenses - just look at the phone with harassment... :laugh:
Skipper: We'll fix it. Alex: Fix it? How you gonna fix this? Skipper: Grit, spit and a whole lotta duct tape.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
It's like the security industry is constantly looking for the next "big thing" and trying all these gimmicks and it's as if the gimmick is the most important thing....even more important than if the method actually works, and the end result is that things are getting less secure, not m
I think a lot of that is probably implementation - they also employ the cheapest workers they can to produce the software, and I suspect that means they get their code from questions in QA...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
If they get their code from questions in QA is not what worries me. I think it is worst if they get the code just from somewhere in the net. At least here there still is a % of people really willing to help that do know what they say.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
If they get their code from questions in QA is not what worries me. I think it is worst if they get the code just from somewhere in the net. At least here there still is a % of people really willing to help that do know what they say.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
I didn't say they got their code from the answers! :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
I didn't say they got their code from the answers! :laugh:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
:doh: :doh: :doh: fair enough :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Samsung S8 'eye security' fooled by photo - BBC News[^] I always remember a long time ago Mythbusters set out to test fingerprint authentication as found on anything from laptops to bank vaults. To prep for the feature they had a range of devices that offered fingerprint authentication all the way up to very expensive vaults and they also had a range of possible solutions to try. No doubt they were planning on starting with the more basic bits of kit and the most basic tools to circumvent and they'd get more and more sophisticated with their tools until the device was cracked. They would then move up to the next more secure device and repeat the process. The simplest way they had to beat the system was a photocopy\printout of a fingerprint. The most complex involved a finger modelled in ballistic gel which matches the conductivity of human skin, and they had a mechanism to ensure the gel was also heated to body temperature. They basically tried to make the most realistic finger they could. The whole bit was a damp squib though as the result was that the most basic of methods (a printout of a fingerprint) cracked the most advanced of the devices (the professional safe). It's like the security industry is constantly looking for the next "big thing" and trying all these gimmicks and it's as if the gimmick is the most important thing....even more important than if the method actually works, and the end result is that things are getting less secure, not more.
There is a way to destroy the reputation of every mobile phone that does eye recognition. Let its camera face another phone (of the same model) with your eye photo, taken on the same phone. Now all outcomes fall in one category: - eye recognition sucks, - display sucks, - camera sucks. :-\ :-\ :-\
-
Samsung S8 'eye security' fooled by photo - BBC News[^] I always remember a long time ago Mythbusters set out to test fingerprint authentication as found on anything from laptops to bank vaults. To prep for the feature they had a range of devices that offered fingerprint authentication all the way up to very expensive vaults and they also had a range of possible solutions to try. No doubt they were planning on starting with the more basic bits of kit and the most basic tools to circumvent and they'd get more and more sophisticated with their tools until the device was cracked. They would then move up to the next more secure device and repeat the process. The simplest way they had to beat the system was a photocopy\printout of a fingerprint. The most complex involved a finger modelled in ballistic gel which matches the conductivity of human skin, and they had a mechanism to ensure the gel was also heated to body temperature. They basically tried to make the most realistic finger they could. The whole bit was a damp squib though as the result was that the most basic of methods (a printout of a fingerprint) cracked the most advanced of the devices (the professional safe). It's like the security industry is constantly looking for the next "big thing" and trying all these gimmicks and it's as if the gimmick is the most important thing....even more important than if the method actually works, and the end result is that things are getting less secure, not more.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
It's like the security industry is constantly looking for the next "big thing" and trying all these gimmicks and it's as if the gimmick is the most important thing....even more important than if the method actually works, and the end result is that things are getting less secure, not more.
Compounded with the fact they are asking forcing us to put more of our information into their hands. Big brothers not just watching, he's directing.
Sin tack the any key okay
