6 ms·

> usually people don't go around showing their passwords to any camera they walk by or surface they touch. That is why people say that it is more appropriate fo

> usually people don't go around showing their passwords to any camera they walk by or surface they touch. That is why people say that it is more appropriate for biometrics to identify someone than it is to provide their authentication. Yea i see the point, but there will always need to be an asterisk after the statement, "a biometric is a username, not a password", because it's only valid in the sense there are concerns about the security of the biometric template. Down the line maybe we'll figure out this spoofing/liveness test thing, but we won't find out while many instantly write off the merit of the system to begin with. > what do you do when these breaches happen if the data is biometric? You can't send out an e-mail asking people to change their fingerprints or face. I did mention this somewhat in the original post. Saving a raw biometric template (minutiae points or whatnot) is synonymous to keeping a database of plain text passwords. It's just wrong. The data breaches (Uber, Target, etc.) are proof that in 2015, we still have this problem. I would never trust a start-up or large corporation with consumer grade biometric authentication. However, on my laptop a different story...i've been using the Thinkpad fingerprint reader for years and love it.

fweespeech 12y ago
> Yea I see the point, but there will always need to be an asterisk after the statement, "a biometric is a username, not a password", because it's only valid in the sense there are concerns about the security of the biometric template. Down the line maybe we'll figure out this spoofing/liveness test thing, but we won't find out while many instantly write off the merit of the system to begin with. Any sensor accurate enough to perform biometrics is simultaneously accurate enough to create a spoof capable of fooling the authentication sensor. The only way to avoid this requires an active activity, at which case you've just duplicated the password [e.g. the act of typing is identical to the act of sufficient action to make it virtually impossible to duplicate] which has better known security characteristics. > I did mention this somewhat in the original post. Saving a raw biometric template (minutiae points or whatnot) is synonymous to keeping a database of plain text passwords. It's just wrong. The data breaches (Uber, Target, etc.) are proof that in 2015, we still have this problem. I would never trust a start-up or large corporation with consumer grade biometric authentication. However, on my laptop a different story...i've been using the Thinkpad fingerprint reader for years and love it. A single breach and you cannot rely on biometric data for life is the reason this is only safe to use as a "username" and not a password. You won't be able to significantly change your biometrics w/o breaking other identification issues. Biometrics are only valid as a username or secondary authentication factor.
- therobot24 12y ago
  >The only way to avoid this requires an active activity, at which case you've just duplicated the password [e.g. the act of typing is identical to the act of sufficient action to make it virtually impossible to duplicate] which has better known security characteristics. Only way is active activity? Or just the only way you can think of? >A single breach and you cannot rely on biometric data for life is the reason this is only safe to use as a "username" and not a password. You won't be able to significantly change your biometrics w/o breaking other identification issues. You're assuming all recognition algorithms of the same biometric produce the same raw template. That if I get one I can gain access on another. >Biometrics are only valid as a username or secondary authentication factor It's often frustrating to discuss things with those who clearly know little about the topic and yet declare their opinion as fact.
  - mejari 12y ago
    >You're assuming all recognition algorithms of the same biometric produce the same raw template. That if I get one I can gain access on another. Well, is that an unreasonable assumption? With passwords knowing what one person's password used to be or even knowing one hash of their current password tells you nothing about a different hash of their current password. With biometric data points presumably if they get accurate and detailed enough (which you already admit they would have to do to be a valid authentication mechanism) you can extrapolate. Faces are known quantities. Knowing how 999 points of your face are arranged does give you data about how other points on your face are likely to be arranged. We already have modelling software capable of this, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that such methods may be improved if facial recognition gains traction. At the very least it brings down the solution space to a much smaller size the more data points are used, which is the opposite of what happens when more data points (characters) are used in alpha-numeric passwords. >It's often frustrating to discuss things with those who clearly know little about the topic and yet declare their opinion as fact. I would agree. Especially opinions like how others "clearly know little about the topic". But is it as frustrating as someone explaining their reasoning for their statement and then you ignoring that reasoning to discuss their closing statement as the entire argument?

fweespeech 12y ago

> Yea I see the point, but there will always need to be an asterisk after the statement, "a biometric is a username, not a password", because it's only valid in the sense there are concerns about the security of the biometric template. Down the line maybe we'll figure out this spoofing/liveness test thing, but we won't find out while many instantly write off the merit of the system to begin with. Any sensor accurate enough to perform biometrics is simultaneously accurate enough to create a spoof capable of fooling the authentication sensor. The only way to avoid this requires an active activity, at which case you've just duplicated the password [e.g. the act of typing is identical to the act of sufficient action to make it virtually impossible to duplicate] which has better known security characteristics. > I did mention this somewhat in the original post. Saving a raw biometric template (minutiae points or whatnot) is synonymous to keeping a database of plain text passwords. It's just wrong. The data breaches (Uber, Target, etc.) are proof that in 2015, we still have this problem. I would never trust a start-up or large corporation with consumer grade biometric authentication. However, on my laptop a different story...i've been using the Thinkpad fingerprint reader for years and love it. A single breach and you cannot rely on biometric data for life is the reason this is only safe to use as a "username" and not a password. You won't be able to significantly change your biometrics w/o breaking other identification issues. Biometrics are only valid as a username or secondary authentication factor.

therobot24 12y ago
>The only way to avoid this requires an active activity, at which case you've just duplicated the password [e.g. the act of typing is identical to the act of sufficient action to make it virtually impossible to duplicate] which has better known security characteristics. Only way is active activity? Or just the only way you can think of? >A single breach and you cannot rely on biometric data for life is the reason this is only safe to use as a "username" and not a password. You won't be able to significantly change your biometrics w/o breaking other identification issues. You're assuming all recognition algorithms of the same biometric produce the same raw template. That if I get one I can gain access on another. >Biometrics are only valid as a username or secondary authentication factor It's often frustrating to discuss things with those who clearly know little about the topic and yet declare their opinion as fact.
- mejari 12y ago
  >You're assuming all recognition algorithms of the same biometric produce the same raw template. That if I get one I can gain access on another. Well, is that an unreasonable assumption? With passwords knowing what one person's password used to be or even knowing one hash of their current password tells you nothing about a different hash of their current password. With biometric data points presumably if they get accurate and detailed enough (which you already admit they would have to do to be a valid authentication mechanism) you can extrapolate. Faces are known quantities. Knowing how 999 points of your face are arranged does give you data about how other points on your face are likely to be arranged. We already have modelling software capable of this, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that such methods may be improved if facial recognition gains traction. At the very least it brings down the solution space to a much smaller size the more data points are used, which is the opposite of what happens when more data points (characters) are used in alpha-numeric passwords. >It's often frustrating to discuss things with those who clearly know little about the topic and yet declare their opinion as fact. I would agree. Especially opinions like how others "clearly know little about the topic". But is it as frustrating as someone explaining their reasoning for their statement and then you ignoring that reasoning to discuss their closing statement as the entire argument?