In Doom I had to rip off a dudes arm to gain access to the security controls on core cooling shutdown. If you don’t want to lose an arm to stop a demon horde, you’re better off just using your girlfriend’s fingerprints
Comment on Microsoft’s Windows Hello fingerprint authentication has been bypassed
Luci@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Stop using biometrics for authentication!!!
Bootheal0179@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Luci@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Exactly the point I’m trying to make!!
Bootheal0179@lemmy.world 10 months ago
No… I get it totally. That why I know my girl’s worth my time, she’s willing to potentially give up her arm for me to still play DOOM 8 days a week
Rustmilian@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Exactly, it’s fundamentally insecure.
BorgDrone@lemmy.one 10 months ago
As with all things security, it depends entirely on your thread model and the value of what you’re trying to protect.
Biometrics can be a much more secure option than using a PIN or password, depending in circumstances.
For example: when I’m working on my laptop on the train or in a coffee shop and I need to log into some website I’d rather use my fingerprint to unlock the passkey than type in a password in a public place where I have no idea who is observing me entering my password.
Same goes for paying with your phone, you can either enter your phone PIN in a crowded supermarket or you unlock with FaceID.
Mongostein@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Can you explain how?
seaQueue@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Biometrics can be spoofed, or the body part stolen in extreme cases.
Also, in the US at least, biometrics aren’t protected by the same rights that allow you to not incriminate yourself. IIRC they’re considered a thing you have, which you can be compelled to surrender or use to unlock a device, vs something you know (like a password or pattern) which you can withhold if it would be incriminating. Check with a lawyer on this one, I haven’t paid attention to the case law here for a bit.
Squeak@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Someone is stealing my body parts, what they access on my devices is the least of my worries!
AbidanYre@lemmy.world 10 months ago
All OPM how they plan on getting my fingerprints back.
0xD@infosec.pub 10 months ago
A username is not something “you are”, it’s something “you know”. Biometrics not nearly the same as usernames.
Luci@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
A username is something you are. It’s you! You are 0xD.
A password is something you know. A security key is something you have.When we interview security analysts you don’t get past the first round if you disagree.
feddylemmy@lemmy.world 10 months ago
If your interview involves telling me a username is “something you are” rather than “something you know”, I’m running away from that job as fast as I can.
Luci@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
Other people know your username.
How hard is this?
0xD@infosec.pub 10 months ago
No, this username is one of the names I’ve chosen for the accounts I use on lemmy. It does not identify me, it identifies the lemmy accounts that I just so happen to know the password for. I was just about to create an account with your username on another instance but meh, that’s too much work. Just imagine me having done that and think about what you just wrote.
I would be vary of the people agreeing with you on something so basic yet so wrong.
An authentication factor is a unique identifier that shows that you possess something that others don’t. Biometrics are something you are because your fingerprints, your retinas, or your DNA are (mostly) unique to you. A security key is something you have because unique cryptographic material is saved on the hardware device that cannot be replicated somewhere else (which is why many mobile authenticators really aren’t). And a password is something you know because… Bla bla bla.
To be pedantic, a username is not a factor in this sense at all; It is an identifier for an account that you have to prove authorization for by presenting some kind of factor, sometimes multiple.
MostlyHarmless@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Biometrics are perfectly fine! We probably don’t even live in the same country, I’m not going to get a hold of your fingerprints.
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what the biometrics actually do. The biometrics only unlock the device and give access to the security key. Once unlocked it’s exactly the same as using a yubikey, and far better than an authenticator app, as they use a crypto key, not a 6 digit number.
_s10e@feddit.de 10 months ago
Well
The biometrics only unlock the device
Yes
and give access to the security key
This is the goal, sure, but what does this actually mean on device that’s mostly governed by software?
There’s a chip (like a yubikey) in the device that can hold cryptographic keys.
That’s good because the key cannot (easily) be extracted from the device.
That’s good as long as no one has physical access to your device.
With physical access, you hope that the device’s unlock mechanism is reasonably secure. That’s biometrics OR password/pin.
The ‘or’ is the problem. For practical reasons you don’t want exactly one method hard-wired. You have a fingerprint scanner (good enough), the secure element (good enough) and lots of hard- and software in between (tricky).
I’m not against biometrics (to unlock a device) because it’s convinient and much better than not locking the device at all. I’m also not against device trust (which you need if you want to store crypto keys sonewhere without separate hardware), but the convience of a single-device solution (laptop or phone) comes with a risk.
If an attacker can bypass the unlock method or trick you into unlocking or compromise the device, your secrets are at risk. Having the key stored in the secure enclave (and not in a regular file on the hard disk) prevents copying the key material, but it does not prevent using the key when the attacker has some control over the (unlocked) device.
A yubikey is more secure because it’s tiny and you can carry it on your keychain. The same chip inside your laptop is more likely to fall into the hands of an attacker.
MostlyHarmless@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
If someone has physical access to you and your device, they are getting in
BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Not on my Lenovo. Fingerprint reader requires a swipe, no print left behind.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 10 months ago
I have a lot of questions about what this guy thinks the rest of your device is covered in. Because spoiler, it’s fingerprints.
derpgon@programming.dev 10 months ago
Mine does not work at all. I’d like to see the guy trying to take fingerprints for a few hours and realizing it won’t do shit lol.
TORFdot0@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Better put would be stop using biometrics for single factor authentication. A token can be stolen, or a passcode/push notification can be phished/bypassed as easy as biometrics can.
MostlyHarmless@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
Biometrics are two factor, because you need the fingerprint and the device they unlock.
You can’t use the device without the fingerprint and you can’t take someone’s fingerprint then use them from a different device.
_s10e@feddit.de 10 months ago
You are not wrong, but you we should understand what class of attacks we are protecting against. Will biometrics stop your maid from using your device? Probably less. Will it stop the FBI? Not so sure.
Now, you may say, an FBI raid is not what you worry about on a daily basis. Agree.
If you are trying to keep the photos on your device safe from snooping, your good. Attacker needs the device and your fingerprint.
When we talk online accounts, I’d count device+fingerprint as one factor. Sure, the maid from the example above can’t login into your gmail without your fingerprint, but most attacks are online. Your device sends a token to gmail, a cookie, a String; that’s like a password. One factor.
Technically, it’s slightly better than a password, because this token can be short-lived (although often it’s not), could be cryptographic signature to be used exactly once (although…), you cannot brute-force guess the token… But IF the token leaks, the attacker has full access (or enough to cause damage).
That’s why I would suggest an independent second factor, such as password. Yes, a password. Not for your daily routine (biometrics+device is much better), but maybe for high-risk operations.
barsoap@lemm.ee 10 months ago
A sufficiently motivated maid will be able to do it. The FBI eats that kind of stuff for breakfast.
Once upon a time, the then German minister of the interior wanted to collect all kinds of biometric data, in passports, in fully connected databases, whatnot. The CCC went ahead and swiped his print off a glass at a reception and published a DIY version to impersonate him in their magazine.
The good news? You can use ordinary gloves, no need for tinfoil.
MostlyHarmless@sh.itjust.works 10 months ago
No, wrong. Still two factor because your fingerprint plus your device.
These authentication methods aren’t as simple as the two factor Google Authenticator 6 digit number. They are cryptographically secure keys. Even if someone finds out what the token is, they still cannot send a valid request because they cannot generate a digitally signed request using the private key locked in your device’s hardware, unlocked by your biometrics.
TORFdot0@lemmy.world 10 months ago
You’re right. By most definitions of MFA biometrics would pass. A biometric is something you are, and the device is something you have. My comment is more for privacy zealous people, who are concerned that they could be compromised by governments without a “something you know” component.