Doctors Bypass Biometric Scanners With Fake Fingers 139
jfruh writes "At a Brazilian hospital, doctors were required to check in with a fingerprint scanner to show that they've showed up for work. Naturally, they developed a system to bypass this requirement, creating fake fingers so that they could cover for one another when they took unauthorized time off. Another good example of how supposedly foolproof security tech can in fact be fooled pretty easily."
Biometrics are not secrets. (Score:5, Insightful)
All the security experts who think that biometrics are the end-all-be-all of security are mistaken. Biometrics are not secrets, so once one knows your biometric id, they can impersonate you and you can't change your password!
Re:Biometrics are not secrets. (Score:5, Funny)
I told him that I wasn't sure that I could be his friend anymore...
Re: (Score:2)
I really thought you'd go out on a limb for your friend here and actively demonstrate to him why this is such a bad idea.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe the friend was hoping it would be demonstated on him
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, speaking of going out on a limb, one of the other security requirements for authentication techniques is having some kind of key revocation mechanism in case the key gets compromised. So in the case of biometric security, if someone manages to duplicate your fingerprint (or your colon), then it's time to revoke it and (somehow) issue you a new one! Snip snip.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
So how would using a password-based system prevent the doctors from sharing their passwords with each other and continue slacking off?
Re:Biometrics are not secrets. (Score:5, Insightful)
So how would using a password-based system prevent the doctors from sharing their passwords with each other and continue slacking off?
That's a social problem. There is no technological solution. I repeat, technology cannot solve every problem. How do you solve this problem? Check once and a while. The guys daughter was listed as being there every day for three years and never worked a single day. The people who just trusted a glorified punch card machine instead of once verifying it in person should be fired too.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree. Fire management who do not manage.
Re: (Score:3)
Really it's no different than sharing a postit note with your password.
I've never worked anywhere where biometric scans wouldn't involve a full fake hand and a PIN to go with it. I'm guessing doctors would just sharpie that on the back of a rubber hand... and the pin would of course be 1-2-3-4-5-6.
Re: (Score:2)
That's amazing. I've got the same combination on my luggage.
Re: (Score:2)
So how would using a password-based system prevent the doctors from sharing their passwords with each other and continue slacking off?
Unique password dongle (like some companies use to grant vpn access) might help. Since only one at a time can exist for any particular doctor, it at least makes the logistics of covering for someone more difficult.
But I think the person who suggested colon terrain mapping has a good idea. It'd go something like this. "The first time we catch someone trying to game the system, we're switching to colon terrain mapping to grant access to the building. And if we're feeling really magnanimous, you just might
Re:Biometrics are not secrets. (Score:5, Insightful)
Biometrics are good for two categories of applications: Super high security, James Bond type stuff, and casual semi-security, where you want something to keep out the lazy but don't care that much. In between, they're broken.
They work great in high-security applications when you have a controlled environment, which generally means an attended environment -- a guard is standing there very carefully watching the scanning process, and the scanners and all of the support systems are tightly secured.
And they're fine in circumstances where you don't care very much.
In between, biometrics are not secrets, and the fact that some scanner reported an image which appears to match means very little.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A bio-scanner on its own, no matter the type, is an incorrect use of the technology.
No, biometric scanners can provide good authentication on their own, as long as you can ensure that the object being scanned is actually the person, and that it's not possible to tamper with the scanner, data path, matching engine or template store. It's also important to understand the resolution of the scanning system, meaning its ability to distinguish between individuals. If you're using a single biometric for both identification and authentication, you're almost certainly doing it wrong, unless the num
Re: (Score:3)
This is actually one way to tell a good security expert from a bad one: The bad ones do not get that biometrics is more of a problem than a solution, while the good ones know this.
There is a third class though: The immoral ones that want to sell you something that does not work, but they do not care.
Re:"supposedly foolproof security tech" (Score:5, Interesting)
You'd have to be a right fool to be unable to fool these things [slashdot.org]. As in the link, as here, the application has very little to do with security. It's a people problem, and you can't fix those solely with technology.
Worse, treating it as a technical problem and attacking it with security kit gives a strong signal to your own {doctors,pupils,*} that they're all criminals and need to be treated as such. This in turn creates a powerful incentive to game the system.
What we have here is an incompetent administration trying to fix their mess through shitting on their underlings some more, using technology. Underlings know and dislike this.
And so gaming the system is what they'll do. This quite apart from biometrics being inappropriate everywhere but in criminal forensics. Be careful what you ask for and all that.
Re:"supposedly foolproof security tech" (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's face it, nothing will ever be secure as long as people are involved.
Time to start getting rid of them. ;)
Re: (Score:1)
In the English-speaking world they don't stop until you have only two options, They put it in a different way in a comment in the movie "Sin City": "sometimes you have to die, and sometimes you have to kill a hell of a lot of people".
Re: (Score:2)
Time to start getting rid of them. ;)
...and that would solve their problem, right there.
Of course, I don't mean get rid of them in the execution sense, but more in the "you're fired - pack your shit and get out while the security guard escorts you." sense.
Find the most obvious slackers, fire them publicly and loudly, blackball the crap out of them using factual evidence (this isn't the US - good luck suing), and you may be impressed with how quickly the other doctors fall in line.
Re: (Score:3)
Retina Scanners... (Score:2)
Probably would have held out longer.
Re:Retina Scanners... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you mean iris scanners. Retina scanners are science fiction.
Why, you mean the doctors can't diagnose retina diseases because you can't see the retina through the pupil?
Re: (Score:2)
"Retinal scanners are typically used for authentication and identification purposes. Retinal scanning has been utilized by several government agencies including the FBI, CIA, and NASA. However, in recent years, retinal scanning has become more commercially popular. Retinal scanning has been used in prisons, for ATM identity verification and the prevention of welfare fraud.[6]Retinal scanning also has medical application. Communicable illnesses such as AIDS, syphilis, malaria, chicken pox and Lyme disease as
Re:Retina Scanners... (Score:5, Informative)
Iris scanners considered the best biometric authentication, they are also typically the most expensive (look up the LG scanner pricing).
http://www.lgiris.com/ps/products/previousmodels/irisaccess2200.htm [lgiris.com]
http://web2.utc.edu/~Li-Yang/cpsc4600/6-Iris-DNA/IRIS-Retina.ppt [utc.edu] has some good info on the differences.
Re: (Score:2)
Iris scanners have lower false positive rejection rates and are more accurate than Retina scanners, which do exist. Retinas can become damaged and change with time, unlike the human iris which does not under normal circumstances change during lifetimes.
Isn't one of the possible side effects of Latisse and LiLash changes in iris color? Some glaucoma meds can do this too. Do iris scanners look at color and pattern? Or just the patterns?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Iris scanners have been fooled - in a laboratory setting - by using synthetic iris images:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/reverse-engineering-iris-scans/all/ [wired.com]
That said, it's still considered to be one of the best performing biometric modalities.
Re: (Score:2)
The image on modern versions of cell phones is reportedly good enough to fool almost all such scanners.
Sad, really.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Retina Scanners... (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably would have held out longer.
A fingerprint scanner with a pulse detector (which many have) would have been fine too. Any security system can be bypassed with enough effort, so you need to consider what you are trying to protect, and make sure bypassing security is more trouble than it is worth. A doctor who wants an extra day off will obviously make a fake finger, but may not go to the trouble of making a pulse generator.
Re:Retina Scanners... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Pulse detector can be fooled too.
Of course it can be fooled. Any security system can be fooled with enough effort. You can duplicate a house key at any hardware store, but people still use house keys because they are "good enough". It is more trouble to duplicate a key than to just rob the neighbor's house with the unlocked window. Pulse checking fingerprint scanners can be fooled, face recognition can be fooled, iris scanners can be fooled. It is even possible to bypass 4096 bit encryption [xkcd.com]. You just need to consider what you are try
Re: (Score:2)
"Any security system can be fooled with enough effort."
I was thinking maybe death row is pretty secure. So I searched for it and found a 1984 case where 6 death row prisoners escaped.
Re: (Score:1)
A fingerprint scanner with a pulse detector (which many have)
I would hope all the doctors at the hospital in question have a pulse.
Re: (Score:2)
They will give the artificial fingers a pulse then. Put some tubes with a pump.
Re: (Score:2)
*sigh*
In the 1990s kids I said
"The problem with biometrics is keeping the body parts alive." --mrmeval
Ask a medical student preferably one that's a surgeon and research scientist how they'd keep your finger alive and pulsing. There may still be a professor at the University of Texas Medical School who was on the cypherpunks list and listed what he could do to keep some body parts alive in the late 1990s I'm the technology has improved.
Re: (Score:2)
Insightful. Improved biometrics will be pretty hard to justify if it results in people getting murdered just to get their "security pass."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Now doctors just give each other the finger.
The Digita Impudenta security breach was known to the Romans.
An important reminder... (Score:5, Interesting)
In addition to being a reminder that the people with a hard-on for 'biometrics' are either morons(Here you go, you were born with only ten passwords, so don't lose them!) or primarily interested in surveillance and tracking, or both; this is a useful reminder that 'security' is a system of interlocking parts Not a product you buy from your Solutions Vendor(tm) and set-and-forget.
We have the one doctor, who was caught with the fake fingers, along with at least three others who were ghosting through their shifts. She claims that they leaned on her, threatened her job if she refused to help with the con, they probably claim that she was in on the con and was absent on other days. Regardless of which of those is true, how many other people at the hospital would be in the position to notice whether or not a doctor is present and doing stuff? Probably more than a few. The front-desk servitors had to know what patient flow looked like, restock requests for supplies in various exam rooms can't have looked right, there are a lot more details than the punch-card machine here. This hospital isn't so much suffering from a 'fingerprint scanners are oversold' problem; but a problem with either massive cheating and/or apathy toward cheating, or unaccountable abuse of authority to suppress people who could have blown the whistle.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the job of a physician to understand what systems do, how they work, and how to work around their problems. Defeating problematic obstacles should come to them naturally.
Why would you trust your health to doctors who willingly sacrificed their own productivity in order to allow inept and gullible bureaucrats to sit on their asses, or have orgies with security vendors who are robbing the hospital blind?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Medicine is a well-paid and interesting job, but in terms of lifetime earnings you're better off being a banker (and I mean a regular banker, not just the high end Wall Street finance guys). My wife and I are both doctors. We do take about two nice trips a year, but we d
Re:An important reminder... (Score:4, Insightful)
Technology cannot ever fix Sociological problems, it can only mask them.
We design technology in ways so that it routes around failures, and then wonder why it fails when humans do the same thing. You want to solve the problem of people not showing up for work, you fire them or put them on 2 week unpaid leave, or doc their pay, or whatever. If you aren't going to do anything about it, then stop making noise and let them skip out.
Why is this so hard?
Re: (Score:1)
(...) apathy toward cheating, or unaccountable abuse of authority to suppress people who could have blown the whistle.
Wow! How do you now so much about Brazilian public service?
Re:An important reminder... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a difference between 'uninformed' and 'moronic.' Part of the problem with IT security is that it's full of self-proclaimed experts who heap scorn on the uninformed instead of trying to educate them. You're not one of those, are you?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At the other end of the spectrum: Go ahead and educate Johnny Salesman. His eyes glaze over, and he's now thinking about watching the big game with his Bud Lite in hand. He's not listened to a word you've said. You've wasted your time and his. Guess what? He's moronic.
The vast majority of pe
Re: (Score:3)
Full hand 3D scanners are the only "good" ones. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There are no good biometric systems because keys can't be revoked.
That's not a flaw, it's a feature. And it's not a key, it's an ID.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it really take surgery to fool, or does it just take a photocopied piece of paper held with the toner side away from the scanner?
Foolproof? (Score:1)
Who the hell thinks fingerprint scanners are foolproof? We've had "how to pass a fingerprint scanner" stories for a decade now.
Re: (Score:2)
Mythbusters even did it.
Been done before. (Score:2)
This has been done before.
Prior Art. [bbc.co.uk]
Soon to be heard in Brazillan Portugese (Score:1)
What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Biometrics aren't a replacement for passwords, they're a replacement for USERNAMES. They provide a "something you have" factor to authentication, there still needs to be a "something you know."
Like usernames they aren't secret. They don't need to be secret, and they can be copied without ruining the security of the system. They don't need to be changed, and are unique to each user. Biometrics are great when used as usernames, and a security nightmare waiting to happen when used as a password.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually it is not "something you have", but "who you are".
A physical key, a dongle with one-time-passwords, a photo-id; is "something you have".
There are two more security methods beyond the three well-known ones:
- "Where you are" locations are often used for authentication, think a bank system which raises a fraud flag when two ATM withdraws happen close in time to each other in different countries.
- "What everyone knows" The 'security' questions which you supposed to fill in with information everyone can
Re: (Score:2)
The very ability to duplicate fingerprints by making fake fingers is a clear example that a biometric is just another something you have.
Confusing biometrics with being something you are is a common mistake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An easy way to think about it is imagine a society with more advanced medical technology, what parts of the body could be made prosthetic? We can already make limbs, glass eyes are old, dialysis can keep one alive without kidneys, there are artificial hearts and lungs, insulin can be produced synthetically, liver replacements are being worked on, etc. But there are no plans or ways to make a prosthetic brain.
It's not terribly useful as an authentication factor unless you
Old News (Score:2)
This happened almost 7 years ago
Biometric system is insecure by design (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Biometric system is insecure by design (Score:4, Funny)
It can be canceled at the biometric level...
You are just squeamish about the organ replacement process.
I bet you found it inconvenient to change your passwords every 90 days as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Well no, but it also can't be passed over the internet in bulk like passwords can. Also, if a fingerprint scanner gets compromised, it's not so much a matter of one instance being compromised - it's the system itself. So you either need to remove the individuals who compromised it (in this case they suspended the doctors) or revamp the system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It surprises me that many debate the “security” of the fingerprint scanners while omitting the major flaw of any biometric system – it is not revocable. You cannot simply reset someone’s fingertips if the system for that instance has been compromised. With pretty much all other authentication there’s some mechanism to delete the bad entry: a password can be reset, a certificate can be revoked, a compromised key can end up in the black list, etc. None of this is possible with any biometric system. Even if it takes an elaborate trickery and a lot of resources to duplicate a finger, a hand, or a mockup of the retina scan, once it’s done, it cannot be “cancelled” at the biometric system level.
This is less a problem with biometrics, and more a problem with the way they're used. Using a fingerprint as the ONLY authentication is idiotic, but on the other hand (heh) which would you rather have on your bank's ATM? Card+PIN, or Card+PIN+fingerprint? I can't count the number of times I've rolled up to an ATM and found a card in it, or worse, the previous user left it on the "Do you want another transaction? Yes/No" screen. Replace the Yes/Enter button with a fingerprint scanner, and that's no longer an
Re: (Score:2)
Using a fingerprint as the ONLY authentication is idiotic, but on the other hand (heh) which would you rather have on your bank's ATM? Card+PIN, or Card+PIN+fingerprint?
I still think that having two somewhat insecure systems is better than one insecure system + biometrics. A card+pin is a perfect example and the dual piece authentication is better than a single piece. What would be better though: a card+RFID or card+biometrics? RFID is inherently insecure, it can be cloned relatively easily. Even then, I would argue that a card+RFID is more secure than a card+biometrics. Why? Because if the biometrics is hacked, your NEXT card will be vulnerable and other places tha
Re: (Score:2)
Gummi Bears (Score:2)
Why to to all the trouble with making fake fingers when all you need are gummi bears [slashdot.org]
Bypass security. Tasty snack. It's the two-in-one product of modern technology!
Not a security issue (Score:2)
Attendance is not a security issue.
If they're allowing biometric authentication as a single factor authentication to clinical data, there's cause for concern. In this case, this is biometric identification, and is still more reliable than punching an ID into a time system.
In healthcare, biometrics are usually used, if at all, as a second factor for authentication. (And that usage is rare because certain demographics have fingerprints that are not reliably read by most scanners.)
Re: (Score:2)
(And that usage is rare because certain demographics have fingerprints that are not reliably read by most scanners.)
I assistant coached my daughter's soccer team and they had the FBI at the orientation with a fingerprint scanner for all the coaches. I have sweaty hands and after the third try in 104 degree weather (that's 40C), he accepted the slimy unreadable print.
Re: (Score:2)
Basically... (Score:2, Funny)
...they gave the government the finger...
Fake fingers are nothing (Score:2)
Here we use fake doctors [cracked.com]...
Oh, uh, hey Jim. (Score:2)
Brazilian banks also use finger prints (Score:1)
In Brazil banks started to use ATM's with finger print reading.
Only the finger print is necessary to withdraw money from your account...
http://www.tecmundo.com.br/banco/34422-adeus-cartao-de-banco-itau-e-bradesco-autorizam-saques-via-impressao-digital.htm (in portuguese)
Much better than the alternative (Score:2)
Biometrics have one fatal flaw that has always scared the hell out of me. If someone wants past biometrics, they will either develop fake body parts that work as good as the original, or they will just remove the actual body part.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and I'm sure I've seen movies where that happened with eye scanners!
Biometrics are not at fault here (Score:2)
it's the piss-poor AI. Even the dumbest human in the world can instantly tell if a person is actually sticking his own finger in the scanner or if he's holding a plastic fake, with 100% accuracy.
Kurzweil may have wet dreams about singularity, but I don't think computers can ever achieve awareness. They lack atman, immortal soul, theta, life essence, the Force, or whatever you wanna call it.
All the biometric criticism is missing the point. (Score:2)
The fact that the doctors were trusted as both the authenticating-client and the key-holder was the issue here. Not biometric authentication. There was no promise that the doctors were not the malicious users themselves, but rather the authenticating-client here had an inherent incentive (getting paid without working) to help defeat the system. So, for all the criticism of biometric systems here -- we're missing the point, the implementation was incorrect to start. Attacking the medium is misguided, an
Bogus Headline for semi bogus article (Score:3)
Buried in the article
"Most current fingerprint scanners have technology that can detect whether the finger has a pulse, and some read fingerprints at a depth below skin level, which would render the silicon fingers useless. Apparently, that hospital is using an older type of scanner."
Old, crappy technology fooled. Whoopie.
And it appears that this was an organized criminal enterprise:
"The mayor of Ferraz de Vasconcelos, Acir Fillo, said there might be as many as 300 hospital employees who do not exist, except for fake fingers with their prints, but who get paid anyway."
And what grownup thinks any security technology is "foolproof", let alone "motivated criminal enterprise proof"? The technology isn't perfect, therefore it's crap?
And by the way - "silicon" fingers? Bet you a dollar that should have been "silicone".
If this guy is actually paid to write this crap, he needs to be fired.
RTFA (Score:3)
When I first saw the headlines for this story I immediately went to a much darker place. I envisioned doctors going into the morgue and borrowing a few digits for use in fooling the machines. I mean, it's not like those guys needed them any more. Things like this have happened before.
Then I realized this wouldn't work. For one thing, they'd have the wrong prints. For another, they'd be, well, a bit chilly.
Most current fingerprint scanners have technology that can detect whether the finger has a pulse, and some read fingerprints at a depth below skin level, which would render the silicon fingers useless. Apparently, that hospital is using an older type of scanner.
Giving biometric scanners the (fake) finger [itworld.com]
Inside job.
The perfect example of corruption and conspiracy that begins --- and must begin --- at the top.
Another television network said it was the head of the emergency room that ran the scam and that his daughter had not worked a day in three years but got paid all the time.
Fake fingers to fool the boss at Brazil hospital [france24.com]
Ferreira confessed to using different fake fingers bearing the prints of 11 fellow doctors and 20 nurses in order to pretend they were showing up to work five overnight shifts each month, instead of just one, police said.
Ferreira also said the staff at the Ferraz Vasconcelos Hospital paid $2,400 per month to participate.
The doctor will face charges of falsifying a public document and could get two to six years in prison.
Brazilian doctor caught using fake fingers in biometrics scam [theprovince.com]
Signature not found (Score:1)
The best biometric for doctors is obviously their handwriting - nobody can forge that shit (or read it).
As Nelson says... (Score:2)
Ha haw!