On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Ross Walker <rswwalker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:03 PM, <m.roth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I can beat that: I read, a month or so ago, how a bunch of elementary
>> school kids discovered that wet Gummi Bears would hold a fingerprint,
>> *and* (they didn't understand this) have more or less the same electrical
>> conductivity....
>
> Fortunately I don't go sticking my fingers in wet gummy bears, so that
> risk is mitigated!
>
> While finger prints can be faked, it often requires access to the
> finger to fake. I haven't heard of someone lifting a latent oil print
> and creating a fake out of that. I'm sure with enough ingenuity it can
> be done. Then again if someone is that intent on accessing your data,
> well I'm sure they could figure another way as well...
Nope.
I found this link in a reference from 2002, and have seen nothing to
indicate any significant improvement of fingerprint scanners to ignore
gelatin based fake fingerprints, overlaid on a living person's finger
to fool the electrostatic or thermal sensors of some sensors, and and
with the fingeprints transferred from a Xerox of a police or other
official fingerprint.
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0205.html
This has me laughing my tail off at the insistence on including
fingerprint authorization as a default in RHEL 6, and the difficulty
of extracting the daemons and utilities from the base image. Too many
scattered RPM dependencies for other utilities. It's actually now a
default "enabled" feature in anaconda for kickstart installations.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
