Fingerprint Scanners Still Easy to Fool 378
Anlan writes "A Swedish student wrote her Master's thesis about current fingerprint technology. After a thorough literature study some live testing took place. Simple DIY fingerprint copies were used (detailed how-to in the thesis). Have current commercial products improved as much as proponents claim? Well, this qoute from the abstract says it all: 'The experiments focus on making artificial fingerprints in gelatin from a latent fingerprint. Nine different systems were tested at the CeBIT trade fair in Germany and all were deceived. Three other different systems were put up against more extensive tests with three different subjects. All systems were circumvented with all subjects' artificial fingerprints, but with varying results.' You can guess how happy the sales people at CeBIT were - most systems claim to be spoof proof..."
Great minds think alike (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Something you have and Something you know (Score:3, Informative)
If you must fear something, fear sleeper agents more than known international terrorists. Besides, terrorists hit where you don't expect (so, planes should be safe for the foreseeable future).
Re:Airport Police (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Easy Solution (Score:3, Informative)
Fortunately for him, Spain independantly matched the fingerprint to a known terrorism suspect then in Spain. The only reason the fingerprint matched the American was because it was slightly smudged.
Re:james bond (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Could someone explain 4.5.3 to me? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Oh, come on.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Could someone explain 4.5.3 to me? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The CIA will love this (Score:3, Informative)
There is not such thing as an absolute proof of identity, only a trust relationship.
Re:Airport Police (Score:2, Informative)
You can force someone to enter a PIN and put their finger on the reader, but that's what duress codes are for (a PIN seperate from your own that indicates you are entering your PIN under threat/duress and will generate an alarm to security).
Our airports (or any other buildings) will never be totally secure, all we can do is keep making it harder on the people who are trying to gain unauthoriezd access.
calcium hydroxide burns (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, that's because calcium hydroxide -burned- it off, not "wore it down". It's actually quite common, because there is a delay between exposure and reaction. Well, that and people think "hey, it's just rocks and dirt and stuff, i don't have to wear gloves..."
Re:Okay. (Score:3, Informative)
Obviously, wearing the fake on your real hand is necessary if you want to fool the security guard as well.
Re:Easy Solution (Score:3, Informative)
That's why fingerprint databases don't store the full image of a fingerprint, only hashes which can verify a fingerprint, but not reconstruct it.
Re:Easy Solution (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Airport Police (Score:2, Informative)
Max
Re:Airport Police (Score:5, Informative)
Granted, I'm not an American so maybe my perception is different, but the sight of nervous 19 year olds with M16s at Logan airport in late 2001 did not make me feel "protected".
Re:Airport Police (Score:5, Informative)
A significant factor in Afghanistan and Iraq was oil. You assert price as some sort of proof against it. But price increases are to the benefit of the producers, which the Bush family have been known to dabble in from time to time. As well as their family friends, the House of Saud.
The whole issue of invading an oil-rich country is to control it for the current set of Oil Barons. Bush's administration is packed with folks like that. (Duh.) Price is simply not an issue.
Iraq was no world threat. About the only sovereign place that would really find Iraq threatening was Israel. And the last time I checked, Israel wasn't the 51st American state, and had no legal representation in any American legislature. If there's anything to be said for American fears of being controlled by foreign interests, then why won't we deal with Israeli influence upon the American military?
As for criminal negligence, you are in direct hypocritical peril considering how much of that charge can be levelled at the American CIA, FBI and military command (specifically the Commander in Chief, whom you may have heard of) when 911 was being planned and executed. Libya is far more at fault for harboring terrorists, but after Bush's speeches on Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran and North Korea, you'll note a sound basis to my skepticism about Bush's due diligence. At any rate, any lax policy in Iraq about terrorist assholes cannot justify: invading Iraq, killing tens of thousands of her citizens (remember, she had an army, not of terrorists, but of Iraqi citizens who were defending against invaders), and taking control of her infrastructure.
The summary of my statements here would revolve around the idea that America attacked Iraq twice in 12 years for no valid reason. America cannot make the case that it was acting in self-defense, since Iraq made no moves onto American territory. And as for WMDs, we only have to look at Israel to speculate on the term "double standard".
Face facts, Ace: you've been bamboozled into thinking that America's assaults in the Middle East are not the Imperialist moves that they actually are. Perhaps when you find that you can't even afford to bury your own war-dead sons, then you'll wake up to realize the murderous and barbaric culture that you had been supporting.
Re:Airport Police (Score:3, Informative)
Granted, I'm not an American so maybe my perception is different, but the sight of nervous 19 year olds with M16s at Logan airport in late 2001 did not make me feel "protected".
Don't worry, I read in Bruce Scheiner's Beyond Fear that there are no bullets in the M16s, it would be way too dangerous. It's really just for the show.
Damn, the guys with these empty weapons must feel like complete morons.
Re:Airport Police (Score:3, Informative)
Not to worry ... (Score:2, Informative)
USA's airports, they were never issued ammo.
The worst they could have done is install their
bayonet (for crowd control purposes(?)).
It was strictly a Bush PR move. And 2-1/2 yrs
later, the situation regarding the "war on
terrorism" hasn't evolved much. The USA still
has unguarded borders and seaports. Both
illegal immigration and the rate of identity
theft are both higher now than before 9/11/01.
It sure isn't any comfort that fingerprint
scanners are so ineffective, just as have
iris scanners also proven to be. What's
next? Maybe implanted RFID chips?