4 ms·

The problem with biometrics is not username vs password, biometrics are password. The problem is that these are client-side protections, and there's no data sen

The problem with biometrics is not username vs password, biometrics are password. The problem is that these are client-side protections, and there's no data sent to a server that can verify the identity. And you can't build a remote identity verification with this data, because there's no way for the user to change it and revoke it (let alone it's very privacy sensitive). The biometric access control systems (the one "in the movies", palm recognition, retina scanners...) implicitly assume that the connection between the sensor and the central server is secure, and that the user authorized it's data to be in the database. This model doesn't apply to "general users" and "internet companies". Research in biometric security aims at finding functions of your biometric data that can be revoked and it's not privacy sensitive. Edit: with "revoke" I don't mean remove it. I mean revoke one and set another one, like you can do for a password/pin, or for a phone number/hw device.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Fnoord 9y ago
> The problem with biometrics is not username vs password, biometrics are password. Yes, that is the problem. No, biometrics are not password. Please stop spouting this nonsense? Biometrics are akin to username; they suggest your identity, but don't authenticate you. They should not be used as password because they cannot be changed, and cannot be kept secret. A password (or better, TOTP authentication) can be changed, and can be kept secret; a hardware fingerprint scanner (or face or iris scanner) cannot be changed, and can be faked by any semi-intelligent person or organization. Fingerprint can already be stolen and used in identity theft. We saw this various years ago in CCC when a German minister got his/her fingerprints stolen as a way to prove the insecurity. It is only a matter of time when the common people learn about how to trick face recognition and iris recognition. In the meantime, strong passwords and (preferably) TOTP is secure. Use that instead. > Research in biometric security aims at finding functions of your biometric data that can be revoked and it's not privacy sensitive. Cat and mouse game, and wrong premise: biometrics cannot be revoked. They're permanent.
- dkonofalski 9y ago
  That's not entirely true either, though. Biometrics cannot be revoked but they don't need to be. Biometrics are just using your face/finger/etc to provide a basis for which to verify identity. If someone is able to fraudulently unlock FaceID on a consistent basis, then Apple just needs to change what information is being generated or secured. Infrared cameras and dot projection offer so many different variations of how that information can be used that the only way someone could break the security permanently would be to make a copy of your face 100%. Just because a specific infrared dot pattern of your face is copied doesn't mean that every dot pattern or feature of your face is useless. Maybe the next iteration of FaceID will also count the pores on your face or the number of hairs. A fingerprint/face cannot be revoked but the method of detection/recognition can be both revoked and changed.
- ecesena 9y ago
  You only read the first sentence and not the rest it seems. I said exactly that, that you can't use biometrics for an identification protocol. I still disagree on the username. You know my username here and on twitter, you don't know my fingerprint. And no, you can't repro my fingerprint so easily as you think because "fingerprint reader" is a short for a sophisticated piece of hardware that measures other things, e.g. blood pressure. On the research, I didn't say biometrics can be revoked. I said you can build a function of biometrics info, whose result can be revoked [1]. No one is disagreeing with your premises, but this doesn't mean that the problem has no solutions. [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=revocable+biometrics https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=revoca...
mtgx 9y ago
> biometrics are password Tell that to virtually all the governments around the world, who are now building databases of everyone's fingerprints, from "needing them" for passports to national IDs. Also that is the problem, because those biometric signatures can be hacked. It's way harder to hack into 1 billion devices to steal everyone's biometric signature. That is a feature not a problem.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Fnoord 9y ago

> The problem with biometrics is not username vs password, biometrics are password. Yes, that is the problem. No, biometrics are not password. Please stop spouting this nonsense? Biometrics are akin to username; they suggest your identity, but don't authenticate you. They should not be used as password because they cannot be changed, and cannot be kept secret. A password (or better, TOTP authentication) can be changed, and can be kept secret; a hardware fingerprint scanner (or face or iris scanner) cannot be changed, and can be faked by any semi-intelligent person or organization. Fingerprint can already be stolen and used in identity theft. We saw this various years ago in CCC when a German minister got his/her fingerprints stolen as a way to prove the insecurity. It is only a matter of time when the common people learn about how to trick face recognition and iris recognition. In the meantime, strong passwords and (preferably) TOTP is secure. Use that instead. > Research in biometric security aims at finding functions of your biometric data that can be revoked and it's not privacy sensitive. Cat and mouse game, and wrong premise: biometrics cannot be revoked. They're permanent.

dkonofalski 9y ago
That's not entirely true either, though. Biometrics cannot be revoked but they don't need to be. Biometrics are just using your face/finger/etc to provide a basis for which to verify identity. If someone is able to fraudulently unlock FaceID on a consistent basis, then Apple just needs to change what information is being generated or secured. Infrared cameras and dot projection offer so many different variations of how that information can be used that the only way someone could break the security permanently would be to make a copy of your face 100%. Just because a specific infrared dot pattern of your face is copied doesn't mean that every dot pattern or feature of your face is useless. Maybe the next iteration of FaceID will also count the pores on your face or the number of hairs. A fingerprint/face cannot be revoked but the method of detection/recognition can be both revoked and changed.
ecesena 9y ago
You only read the first sentence and not the rest it seems. I said exactly that, that you can't use biometrics for an identification protocol. I still disagree on the username. You know my username here and on twitter, you don't know my fingerprint. And no, you can't repro my fingerprint so easily as you think because "fingerprint reader" is a short for a sophisticated piece of hardware that measures other things, e.g. blood pressure. On the research, I didn't say biometrics can be revoked. I said you can build a function of biometrics info, whose result can be revoked [1]. No one is disagreeing with your premises, but this doesn't mean that the problem has no solutions. [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=revocable+biometrics https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=revoca...

mtgx 9y ago

> biometrics are password Tell that to virtually all the governments around the world, who are now building databases of everyone's fingerprints, from "needing them" for passports to national IDs. Also that is the problem, because those biometric signatures can be hacked. It's way harder to hack into 1 billion devices to steal everyone's biometric signature. That is a feature not a problem.