3 ms·

Your face, fingerprint, tokens... they are not good passwords, they are good identifiers. A password should not be public, only you should know and should be ea

Your face, fingerprint, tokens... they are not good passwords, they are good identifiers. A password should not be public, only you should know and should be easy to replace if compromised. Face or fingerprint don't satisfy any of these properties. They should be used as identifiers, since they are very good for it; but they're far from good passwords.

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
Biometrics nearly always weaken security due to needing a secondary unlock such as the usual pin code in the event that you can't use the bio-unlock. Getting into an accident and having your finger damaged or face rendered unrecognisable will require some secondary method, so biometrics can't be used as the sole unlock method for a personal device (a shared device can work around that by having multiple people authorised to unlock).
- acdha 3y ago
  That’s not weakening security – the worst case scenario is that you are no more secure than the password you would have used, and not having to enter the password so frequently improves security both directly by significantly reducing the number of opportunities for someone to watch you enter it and indirectly by removing the incentive to use a weaker password which is easier to enter or having a longer auto-lock grace period. Something like a pass phrase is much easier to sell people on if they don’t have to tap it in 30 times a day.
  - ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
    I consider it weakening security as there's additional ways that can be compromised along with the password. I agree that biometrics can increase convenience and likely reduce the visibility of the secret password, but the trade-off is using relatively public facts such as your public face and/or your fingerprints that are left on most surfaces that you touch.
    - acdha 3y ago
      Your public face isn’t enough: you’d need a 3-D scan. Similarly, fingerprints need more than a single image to pass a modern sensor. That’s not impossible, of course, but it raises the question of whether the comparison is fair. For example, how likely is it that someone can scan your face accurately at a coffee shop but wouldn’t be able to record you typing your password dozens of times during the same visit? If someone is collecting your fingerprints off of your water mugs, they can also plant cameras or have a drone record you. Very few people have to worry about targeted attacks like that and if they do, neither biometrics nor passwords are sufficient.
NikkiA 3y ago
I don't use my fingerprint because it's secure, I use my fingerprint because I can have the phone unlocked by the time it's out of my purse or jacket pocket rather than standing trying to unlock via pin unaware of my surroundings, and thus minimise the lack of focus on what is around me

ndsipa_pomu 3y ago

Biometrics nearly always weaken security due to needing a secondary unlock such as the usual pin code in the event that you can't use the bio-unlock. Getting into an accident and having your finger damaged or face rendered unrecognisable will require some secondary method, so biometrics can't be used as the sole unlock method for a personal device (a shared device can work around that by having multiple people authorised to unlock).

acdha 3y ago
That’s not weakening security – the worst case scenario is that you are no more secure than the password you would have used, and not having to enter the password so frequently improves security both directly by significantly reducing the number of opportunities for someone to watch you enter it and indirectly by removing the incentive to use a weaker password which is easier to enter or having a longer auto-lock grace period. Something like a pass phrase is much easier to sell people on if they don’t have to tap it in 30 times a day.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago
  I consider it weakening security as there's additional ways that can be compromised along with the password. I agree that biometrics can increase convenience and likely reduce the visibility of the secret password, but the trade-off is using relatively public facts such as your public face and/or your fingerprints that are left on most surfaces that you touch.
  - acdha 3y ago
    Your public face isn’t enough: you’d need a 3-D scan. Similarly, fingerprints need more than a single image to pass a modern sensor. That’s not impossible, of course, but it raises the question of whether the comparison is fair. For example, how likely is it that someone can scan your face accurately at a coffee shop but wouldn’t be able to record you typing your password dozens of times during the same visit? If someone is collecting your fingerprints off of your water mugs, they can also plant cameras or have a drone record you. Very few people have to worry about targeted attacks like that and if they do, neither biometrics nor passwords are sufficient.

NikkiA 3y ago

I don't use my fingerprint because it's secure, I use my fingerprint because I can have the phone unlocked by the time it's out of my purse or jacket pocket rather than standing trying to unlock via pin unaware of my surroundings, and thus minimise the lack of focus on what is around me