I guess it depends on the industry you are in and what type of information you are storing. It's been a good decade of computing advancement since they ran their tests, it's not remotely that easy these days unless the reader is crap (like on most cell-phones). They're still crackable, but not remotely as easily as they were able to do in the above video where the devices and the software were all still pretty rudimentary. Mythbusters tested fingerprint readers on/with XP devices, so many years ago (and WAY worse software and hardware ago). That said, they're still just password solutions ultimately, since virtually all of them just replace password entry with an option for biometric access attempt(s) to enter your password for you. Some implementations are better than others, and they're generally superior in business/industrial grade models than in consumer models as one might expect. but will it be valuable by the time it's cracked is the question. Like all encryption, it can be broken with enough time. Those are pretty tough to fool, which then puts the burden on the encryption quality of the vault within the machine. There are readers for computers that require a heat signature within a specified range (it measures on contact with the reader), a pulse, specific fingerprints, and even a movement pattern at a pre-set (by the user) speed. Purely digital ones ala-notebooks vary anywhere from your garbage phone-style quality, to pretty robust and complex readers, dependent entirely upon the specific implementation on the specific notebook. Door-style fingerprint readers/locks are also generally crap until you start getting to industrial or military-grade readers. Phone fingerprint devices pretty much suck. Other fingerprint readers look pretty easy to bypass: So, a 1 in 10 chance of being spoofed with a rubber print is OK? That's seems much too lax.ĭoes anyone test and verify how resistant fingerprint sensors are against being fooled with fake copies of fingerprints and provide ranking and ratings on which are best? I found articles from Microsoft stating that fingerprint sensors compatible with Windows Hello must have anti-spoofing technology, but it's saying that it only needs to have a 10% or less antispoof failure rate to meet their standards. An example of this would be the HP EliteBook Folio 1040 G3. Many more laptops have fingerprint sensors instead. It's mostly in the most recent Microsoft Surface devices and other laptops that are new models for 2017 that have Windows Hello compatible camera. I know the 3D IR camera for facial recognition in Windows Hello is supposed to be very secure, but most laptops only have a basic web cam. Theoretically, since a modern laptop has more processing power than a smartphone, they could make a scanner that reads prints to a level of detail that cannot be easily spoofed. I also haven't seen any tests done on enterprise-class laptops with fingerprint sensors using Windows Hello fingerprint login. The iPhone 5s and iPhone 6 has been mentioned many times as examples of phones with fingerprint sensors that can be easily bypassed with faked fingerprints, but I have not seen anyone do an update of these spoof/hacking tricks with the iPhone 6s or iPhone 7. I have read many articles about smartphone fingerprint sensors that say they are not secure and can be easily spoofed with anything from glue to tape to ballistics gel.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |