Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #140838 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mickey D <mickeydavis078XX@ptd.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-05-05 14:47 -0400 |
| Last post | 2024-05-06 11:34 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 127 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Mickey D <mickeydavis078XX@ptd.net> - 2024-05-05 14:47 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-05-05 21:23 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Oliver <ollie@invalid.net> - 2024-05-05 13:42 -0600
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-05 17:06 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2024-05-05 19:04 -0500
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> - 2024-05-05 21:49 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com> - 2024-05-05 22:30 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-06 02:56 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-05 22:20 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-05 17:04 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-06 09:04 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-06 08:16 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-06 10:45 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 10:54 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-06 18:55 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 13:33 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-06 21:38 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-05-07 08:53 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-07 10:12 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-05-07 17:28 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-07 19:07 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-05-08 11:49 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-08 12:31 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-08 12:09 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-08 16:22 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-09 23:24 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-09 17:28 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Bill Powell <bill@anarchists.org> - 2024-05-10 19:16 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "Jan K." <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> - 2024-05-10 19:24 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Larry Wolff <larrywolff@larrywolff.net> - 2024-05-10 13:51 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-10 18:30 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Peter Piper <peterpiper@nospam.invalid> - 2024-05-10 19:01 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-10 20:54 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-05-10 22:40 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-10 11:34 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-10 13:47 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-05-06 10:04 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-05-06 10:23 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 11:41 +0100
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-05-08 12:36 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 10:59 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-06 18:24 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-06 13:49 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 17:04 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-05-07 09:05 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-05-07 17:33 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-05-06 16:28 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 17:02 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2024-05-06 21:44 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-10 01:39 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-05-07 09:08 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-07 08:27 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-05-08 12:43 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-05-07 08:53 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-06 11:51 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 11:02 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-06 16:24 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-06 19:13 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 13:37 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-06 22:08 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 16:56 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-07 09:17 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-07 08:29 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-10 01:38 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-06 23:49 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-07 09:40 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-07 15:18 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-07 18:42 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-05-07 18:35 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-07 22:11 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-05-08 13:53 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-08 17:36 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-08 16:17 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-05-08 17:37 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-08 20:26 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 09:05 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-08 09:39 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:16 +0100
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-08 15:31 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-08 12:57 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2024-05-08 17:23 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 12:10 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2024-05-08 16:38 -0500
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-08 16:21 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2024-05-09 14:01 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-09 08:57 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 09:13 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-09 16:27 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-09 09:32 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 11:07 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-09 11:24 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 17:31 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-09 17:43 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 18:06 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-10 09:58 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-08 02:08 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-10 21:34 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-10 14:55 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-10 22:21 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-11 04:08 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-11 04:38 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-11 13:58 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-11 15:51 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-11 16:59 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-11 19:39 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-11 20:00 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-11 21:21 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Andrew <andrew@spam.net> - 2024-05-11 22:10 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo danmin@danminart-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (Danart) - 2024-05-24 17:35 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jörg Lorenz <hugybear@gmx.net> - 2024-05-11 17:43 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2024-05-11 15:53 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-06 19:03 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 13:35 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-06 22:10 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> - 2024-05-06 16:59 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 16:19 +0100
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> - 2024-05-06 19:10 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-06 10:50 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> - 2024-05-06 10:49 -0700
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> - 2024-05-07 09:13 +0200
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Mickey D <mickeydavis078XX@ptd.net> - 2024-05-06 02:09 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 12:10 +0100
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Mickey D <mickeydavis078XX@ptd.net> - 2024-05-06 07:56 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 15:06 +0100
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Mickey D <mickeydavis078XX@ptd.net> - 2024-05-06 14:56 -0400
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 07:02 +0000
Re: Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 11:34 +0100
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 19:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v1dn6i$3ccfq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140922 |
Arno, >> You misunderstood : Its a very good idea to *try*. If it works you >> know that it failed its primary duty. :-) > > Ok, that makes more sense. Phew .... :-) > Of course. And this is the reason why unlocking a phone just providing > a picture of the owner is not possible with a Google Pixel 6a. Thats what I've ben told too. > Getting a picture of a persons face is much easier than getting the > fingerprints and replicating them in a way that the fingerprint sensor > will accept them. I wasn't trying to compare the two, I was just trying to convey that its quite likely that a face-ID can be fooled in the same way a fingerprint can : by duplicating the key - or just a well-enough faximile of it. And as the OP couldn't look further than a photograph - I mean - further than his nose is long I tried to tell him that making 3D likenesses of a head is well possibly older than our christian calendar. And as the intended victim is showing off his key every moment of the day I cannot escape the feeling that a few pictures (from diferent angles) would be enough for a 'puter (or a person) to construct a 3D model from it. Take few more pictures with an heat (IR?) camera and you likely have the mentioned heatmap for that face too. Did I forget anything ? No, I didn't say it would be easy. But I don't think its impossible either. Just, for the first few times(!), a lengthy and costly job. Regards, Rudy Wieser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 11:49 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <la105jF29p9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #140929 |
R.Wieser, 2024-05-07 19:07: [...] > And as the intended victim is showing off his key every moment of the day I > cannot escape the feeling that a few pictures (from diferent angles) would > be enough for a 'puter (or a person) to construct a 3D model from it. Take > few more pictures with an heat (IR?) camera and you likely have the > mentioned heatmap for that face too. > > Did I forget anything ? > > No, I didn't say it would be easy. But I don't think its impossible either. > Just, for the first few times(!), a lengthy and costly job. *Nothing* is impossible to break. It is *always* a question of how much effort is needed to break a thing. If anyone claims to have an "unbreakable" solution he lies. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "R.Wieser" <address@is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 12:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v1fkav$3tf5j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140937 |
Arno, > *Nothing* is impossible to break. It is *always* a question of how much > effort is needed to break a thing. If anyone claims to have an > "unbreakable" solution he lies. Absolutily. But what I tried to convey is that the "first rule" of keys is to keep them outof sight of other people - which you simply can't do with either finger or faceprints. *Thats*, as far as I'm concerned, the bloody stupid thing about it. People using such "broadcasted" biometrics just make it too easy for a malversant. Regards, Rudy Wieser
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 12:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <xsN_N.13027$yT%1.910@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #140937 |
On 2024-05-08 05:49, Arno Welzel wrote: > R.Wieser, 2024-05-07 19:07: > > [...] >> And as the intended victim is showing off his key every moment of the day I >> cannot escape the feeling that a few pictures (from diferent angles) would >> be enough for a 'puter (or a person) to construct a 3D model from it. Take >> few more pictures with an heat (IR?) camera and you likely have the >> mentioned heatmap for that face too. >> >> Did I forget anything ? >> >> No, I didn't say it would be easy. But I don't think its impossible either. >> Just, for the first few times(!), a lengthy and costly job. > > *Nothing* is impossible to break. It is *always* a question of how much > effort is needed to break a thing. If anyone claims to have an > "unbreakable" solution he lies. The problem is nitwits who suggest that because some YouTuber went out of their way to show a means to break the fingerprint feature of iPhones, that it is something anyone can do with little effort - when the truth is it is a hit or miss scheme that takes quite a bit of effort not to mention improbable steps such as lifting prints in the first place and having easy access to the target phone. Then there's the suggestion that one can construct a 3D face using a 3D printer (very plausible given a stereoscopic set of photos) PLUS a heat map embedded on that face that matches close enough to that taken by the iPhone sensor. (extremely non-likely). So - impossible? No. Likely? Very much no. -- “Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.” - Charles de Gaulle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 16:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <la1n6iF5kqmU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #140937 |
On 2024-05-08, Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> wrote: > R.Wieser, 2024-05-07 19:07: > > [...] >> And as the intended victim is showing off his key every moment of the >> day I cannot escape the feeling that a few pictures (from diferent >> angles) would be enough for a 'puter (or a person) to construct a 3D >> model from it. Take few more pictures with an heat (IR?) camera and >> you likely have the mentioned heatmap for that face too. >> >> Did I forget anything ? >> >> No, I didn't say it would be easy. But I don't think its impossible >> either. Just, for the first few times(!), a lengthy and costly job. > > *Nothing* is impossible to break. It is *always* a question of how > much effort is needed to break a thing. If anyone claims to have an > "unbreakable" solution he lies. I haven't seen anyone here make that claim - just a few trolls rehashing previous claims that Face ID is supposedly "insecure" just because someone could possibly construct a 3D model of someone else's face and somehow generate a heat map to lay over it in order to fool Face ID. Of course they haven't addressed Face ID's Attention Aware feature which would also have to be defeated. All of it is pie-in-the-sky and not easily achievable though. In reality, this isn't something most people who use Face ID worry about happening. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew <andrew@spam.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 23:24 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v1jlut$1gqb$1@nnrp.usenet.blueworldhosting.com> |
| In reply to | #140951 |
Jolly Roger wrote on 8 May 2024 16:22:42 GMT : > In reality, this isn't something most people > who use Face ID worry about happening. These marketing gimmicks make iPhone uses only *feel* safe, because the truth is the iPhone is by far the most exploited smartphone on the planet. https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 17:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v1jpoc$v3bs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140981 |
On 2024-05-09 16:24, Andrew wrote: > Jolly Roger wrote on 8 May 2024 16:22:42 GMT : > >> In reality, this isn't something most people >> who use Face ID worry about happening. > > These marketing gimmicks make iPhone uses only *feel* safe, because the > truth is the iPhone is by far the most exploited smartphone on the planet. > > https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog Are locks on your front door just "marketing gimmicks" because they can be defeated, Arlen?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bill Powell <bill@anarchists.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 19:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v1lkq1$9v8s$1@matrix.hispagatos.org> |
| In reply to | #140982 |
On Thu, 9 May 2024 17:28:59 -0700, Alan wrote: >> Jolly Roger wrote on 8 May 2024 16:22:42 GMT : >> >>> In reality, this isn't something most people >>> who use Face ID worry about happening. >> >> These marketing gimmicks make iPhone uses only *feel* safe, because the >> truth is the iPhone is by far the most exploited smartphone on the planet. >> >> https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog > > Are locks on your front door just "marketing gimmicks" because they can > be defeated, Arlen? You misunderstood. If you understood, you would have asked "Are BIOMETRIC locks on your front door just marketing gimmicks?" (which they would be).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jan K." <janicekoziol@nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 19:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v1ll7i$7dt$1$koziolja@news.chmurka.net> |
| In reply to | #141007 |
W Fri, 10 May 2024 19:16:48 +0200, Bill Powell napisal: >>> These marketing gimmicks make iPhone uses only *feel* safe, because the >>> truth is the iPhone is by far the most exploited smartphone on the planet. >>> >>> https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog >> >> Are locks on your front door just "marketing gimmicks" because they can >> be defeated, Arlen? > > You misunderstood. If you understood, you would have asked "Are BIOMETRIC > locks on your front door just marketing gimmicks?" (which they would be). Do they even make biometric locks for an average homeowner's front door?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Larry Wolff <larrywolff@larrywolff.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 13:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v1lmq8$nf18$1@novabbs.org> |
| In reply to | #141008 |
On 5/10/2024 1:24 PM, Jan K. wrote: >>>> These marketing gimmicks make iPhone uses only *feel* safe, because the >>>> truth is the iPhone is by far the most exploited smartphone on the planet. >>>> >>>> https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog >>> >>> Are locks on your front door just "marketing gimmicks" because they can >>> be defeated, Arlen? >> >> You misunderstood. If you understood, you would have asked "Are BIOMETRIC >> locks on your front door just marketing gimmicks?" (which they would be). > > Do they even make biometric locks for an average homeowner's front door? Apple would.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 18:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <la77e4FknjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #141009 |
On 2024-05-10, Larry Wolff <larrywolff@larrywolff.net> wrote: > On 5/10/2024 1:24 PM, Jan K. wrote: > >>>>> These marketing gimmicks make iPhone uses only *feel* safe, >>>>> because the truth is the iPhone is by far the most exploited >>>>> smartphone on the planet. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog >>>> >>>> Are locks on your front door just "marketing gimmicks" because they >>>> can be defeated, Arlen? >>> >>> You misunderstood. If you understood, you would have asked "Are >>> BIOMETRIC locks on your front door just marketing gimmicks?" (which >>> they would be). >> >> Do they even make biometric locks for an average homeowner's front >> door? > > Apple would. Apple doesn't. Smart door lock manufacturers do, and unlike iPhones with Touch ID, they are often easily compromised. -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter Piper <peterpiper@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 19:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tau%N.28849$ZZU.6279@usenetxs.com> |
| In reply to | #141009 |
Arlen has just brought three more of his sock puppets into this thread, within the last two hours. Previous Arlen sock-puppets in this thread (with UTC time of first posting to this thread). 1. 2024.05.05 18:47 (UTC) Mickey D <mickeydavis078XX ﹫ ptd.net> 2. 2024.05.05 19:42 (UTC) Oliver <ollie ﹫ invalid.net> 3. 2024.05.06 08:16 (UTC) Andrew <andrew ﹫ spam.net> More Arlen sock-puppets within the last two hours. 4. 2024.05.10 17:16 (UTC) Bill Powell <bill ﹫ anarchists.org> 5. 2024.05.10 17:24 (UTC) Jan K. <janicekoziol ﹫ nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> 6. 2024.05.10 17:51 (UTC) Larry Wolff <larrywolff ﹫ larrywolff.net> And, Arlen is also now talking to himself (with his sock puppets).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 20:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <la7fsjF1qagU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #141014 |
On 2024-05-10, Peter Piper <peterpiper@nospam.invalid> wrote: > Arlen has just brought three more of his sock puppets into this thread, > within the last two hours. > > Previous Arlen sock-puppets in this thread (with UTC time of first > posting to this thread). > > 1. 2024.05.05 18:47 (UTC) Mickey D <mickeydavis078XX ﹫ ptd.net> > 2. 2024.05.05 19:42 (UTC) Oliver <ollie ﹫ invalid.net> > 3. 2024.05.06 08:16 (UTC) Andrew <andrew ﹫ spam.net> > > More Arlen sock-puppets within the last two hours. > > 4. 2024.05.10 17:16 (UTC) Bill Powell <bill ﹫ anarchists.org> > 5. 2024.05.10 17:24 (UTC) Jan K. <janicekoziol ﹫ nie.ma.spamu.prosze.com> > 6. 2024.05.10 17:51 (UTC) Larry Wolff <larrywolff ﹫ larrywolff.net> > > And, Arlen is also now talking to himself (with his sock puppets). But guys, seriously, he isn't trolling or anything. He does this for "privacy", like all rational adults do (while slinging insults at anyone who dares to disagree with his trolls or call them out. 😉 😉 😉 -- E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter. I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead. JR
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 22:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <hbd2hkx9ll.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #141008 |
On 2024-05-10 19:24, Jan K. wrote: > W Fri, 10 May 2024 19:16:48 +0200, Bill Powell napisal: > >>>> These marketing gimmicks make iPhone uses only *feel* safe, because the >>>> truth is the iPhone is by far the most exploited smartphone on the >>>> planet. >>>> >>>> https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog >>> >>> Are locks on your front door just "marketing gimmicks" because they >>> can be defeated, Arlen? >> >> You misunderstood. If you understood, you would have asked "Are BIOMETRIC >> locks on your front door just marketing gimmicks?" (which they would be). > > Do they even make biometric locks for an average homeowner's front door? Maybe. I know that Securitas Direct is airing commercials about an electronic lock controlled with the phone, possibly with their app. The phone can be open with "biometrics", so the lock responds to biometrics, in a manner of speaking... :-) I haven't looked in detail at their offering, anyway. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 11:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v1lpc9$1gkdt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141007 |
On 2024-05-10 10:16, Bill Powell wrote: > On Thu, 9 May 2024 17:28:59 -0700, Alan wrote: > >>> Jolly Roger wrote on 8 May 2024 16:22:42 GMT : >>> >>>> In reality, this isn't something most people >>>> who use Face ID worry about happening. >>> >>> These marketing gimmicks make iPhone uses only *feel* safe, because the >>> truth is the iPhone is by far the most exploited smartphone on the >>> planet. >>> >>> https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog >> >> Are locks on your front door just "marketing gimmicks" because they >> can be defeated, Arlen? > > You misunderstood. If you understood, you would have asked "Are BIOMETRIC > locks on your front door just marketing gimmicks?" (which they would be). I understood just fine. You misunderstand what an "analogy" is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-10 13:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v1m14g$1ibig$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #141007 |
On 2024-05-10 10:16, Bill Powell wrote: > On Thu, 9 May 2024 17:28:59 -0700, Alan wrote: > >>> Jolly Roger wrote on 8 May 2024 16:22:42 GMT : >>> >>>> In reality, this isn't something most people >>>> who use Face ID worry about happening. >>> >>> These marketing gimmicks make iPhone uses only *feel* safe, because the >>> truth is the iPhone is by far the most exploited smartphone on the >>> planet. >>> >>> https://www.cisa.gov/known-exploited-vulnerabilities-catalog >> >> Are locks on your front door just "marketing gimmicks" because they >> can be defeated, Arlen? > > You misunderstood. If you understood, you would have asked "Are BIOMETRIC > locks on your front door just marketing gimmicks?" (which they would be). What you don't understand is the differences between the use cases. A normal lock on a front door is sufficiently convenient for almost everyone... ...because you're not expecting to unlock the door every few minutes. Smartphones are different. You pick up your smartphone and you want to start using it from a locked state, what... ...30, 50... ...maybe as many as 100 times a day. So a phone that unlocks with your finger print or face is suddenly much more convenient that one that requires you to enter a passcode. Smartphones have information on them that you don't want stolen, and they, and despite what that idiot, Arlen, claims, theft or loss of a phone doesn't just happen to people in slums.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Welzel <usenet@arnowelzel.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 10:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <l9rh8kF7d7iU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #140841 |
R.Wieser, 2024-05-05 22:20: > Mickey, > >> Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo. > > And thats just one of the more complex methods there are. > > You touch surfaces almost every day without even realizing it - hey, that is > what hands and fingers are for, right ? - effectivily broadcasting that > feature of yourself to everyone around you. > > Same goes for "faceprints". Even easier, as your faceprint can be "taken" > from literally tens of meters away. Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it. That's the reason why the "notch" in the iPhone displays is bigger since there is not only a camera but also a 3D sensor to capture the shape of your face. > To me whomever thought of using finger and faceprints for locks wasn't very > bright. Yes, in Android using *images* of a face to unlock a phone is indeed not a good idea. -- Arno Welzel https://arnowelzel.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 10:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ukgmgkxnbf.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #140856 |
On 2024-05-06 10:04, Arno Welzel wrote: > R.Wieser, 2024-05-05 22:20: > >> Mickey, >> >>> Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo. >> >> And thats just one of the more complex methods there are. >> >> You touch surfaces almost every day without even realizing it - hey, that is >> what hands and fingers are for, right ? - effectivily broadcasting that >> feature of yourself to everyone around you. >> >> Same goes for "faceprints". Even easier, as your faceprint can be "taken" >> from literally tens of meters away. > > Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image > of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it. That's the > reason why the "notch" in the iPhone displays is bigger since there is > not only a camera but also a 3D sensor to capture the shape of your face. What is a "3D sensor" actually? :-) -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 11:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <v1ac5i$2gr7m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #140861 |
On 06/05/2024 09:23, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2024-05-06 10:04, Arno Welzel wrote: >> R.Wieser, 2024-05-05 22:20: >> >>> Mickey, >>> >>>> Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo. >>> >>> And thats just one of the more complex methods there are. >>> >>> You touch surfaces almost every day without even realizing it - hey, >>> that is >>> what hands and fingers are for, right ? - effectivily broadcasting that >>> feature of yourself to everyone around you. >>> >>> Same goes for "faceprints". Even easier, as your faceprint can be >>> "taken" >>> from literally tens of meters away. >> >> Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image >> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it. That's the >> reason why the "notch" in the iPhone displays is bigger since there is >> not only a camera but also a 3D sensor to capture the shape of your face. > > What is a "3D sensor" actually? :-) It's an infrared projection of a known pattern onto your face which provides a 3D map of the shape of your face. By comparing the distortions of the pattern between known and unknown faces you can check whether a person is able unlock the phone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 12:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <971sgkxksu.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #140864 |
On 2024-05-06 12:41, Chris wrote: > On 06/05/2024 09:23, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2024-05-06 10:04, Arno Welzel wrote: >>> R.Wieser, 2024-05-05 22:20: >>> >>>> Mickey, >>>> >>>>> Be careful - they can lift a fingerprint off a digital photo. >>>> >>>> And thats just one of the more complex methods there are. >>>> >>>> You touch surfaces almost every day without even realizing it - hey, >>>> that is >>>> what hands and fingers are for, right ? - effectivily broadcasting that >>>> feature of yourself to everyone around you. >>>> >>>> Same goes for "faceprints". Even easier, as your faceprint can be >>>> "taken" >>>> from literally tens of meters away. >>> >>> Except that unlocking with your face in iOS is *not* only using an image >>> of your face but also the three dimensional shape of it. That's the >>> reason why the "notch" in the iPhone displays is bigger since there is >>> not only a camera but also a 3D sensor to capture the shape of your >>> face. >> >> What is a "3D sensor" actually? :-) > > It's an infrared projection of a known pattern onto your face which > provides a 3D map of the shape of your face. By comparing the > distortions of the pattern between known and unknown faces you can check > whether a person is able unlock the phone. Interesting. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web