4 ms·
Not enough detail in the article. There is no discussion of what sensors were used to "fool". Now everyone will assume it works on all actual devices using fing
by coldcode 8y ago
Not enough detail in the article. There is no discussion of what sensors were used to "fool". Now everyone will assume it works on all actual devices using fingerprints, yet there is no information to support that conclusion. If this technique were applied to actual devices (with fingerprints not included in the study) and it worked reliably, then this would be a meaningful study.
- brian_herman 8y agoHere is the paper on arxiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.07386 https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.07386
- kbumsik 8y agoSo the experiment is done against VeriFinger [1], which seems like a software solution for fingerprint identification. No actual device is used in the paper, and I assume it is less sophisticated then Apple Touch ID or something. [1] https://www.neurotechnology.com/verifinger.html https://www.neurotechnology.com/verifinger.html
- ChristianBundy 8y ago> I assume it is less sophisticated then Apple Touch ID or something Why?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- kbumsik 8y agoMaybe "less sophisticated" is overreaction but I thought that because there is no dedicated hardware setup that can contribute to better accurarcy/security.
- jiveturkey 8y agoit’s a casual article and as such, it has enough detail. if you want more, follow the link to the study provided in the article. even if there are mitigations in products that you buy, the study is quite meaningful. it proves (eg) the need for such mitigations.