• stom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    444
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is why I use Linux, the fingerprint device wouldn’t be supported so this wouldn’t be an issue /s

    • Gork@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      145
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Mmm yes security by non-functionality. A pillar of the modern cybersecurity framework.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The fun thing about Linux is your realize physical control is ownership. You can just throw a Bootable Linux image with some utilities and remove the password from a Windows account in a second. If you really need to keep something safe, it has to be encrypted.

      • smoothbrain coldtakes@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I got a T80s and the sensor doesn’t work. It’s an 8th gen Intel machine, that’s like four or five generations behind.

        • Hubi@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve got a T440p and I just set it up through the menu in the KDE settings, it worked right out of the box.

          • smoothbrain coldtakes@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Mine’s not in libfprint, libfprint-tod, or libfprint-goodix. Running GNOME because I heard fprintd was easier to implement instead of KDE, which is usually my pref DE.

    • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nah I use fprint on my arch laptop so there is fingerprint login technology. Hopefully that doesn’t have security vulnerabilities.

      • locuester@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It has vulnerabilities for sure. But they haven’t been found because no one cares about hacking you or the 1 other person on earth that use Arch and fingerprint security.

    • RFBurns@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Correct answer.

      Using any form of biometric ‘login’ under the US’s “justice” system is supremely ill-advised.

    • loutr@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s funny, on my XPS Windows crashed when I tried adding a fingerprint. Works flawlessly under Arch.

    • PeWu@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Today I was fucking around with this shit. I can’t even update my distro, otherwise ecryptfs will go adios, and fingerprinting will be broken.

    • ultranaut@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      One of the major reasons I gave up on trying to run Linux on my laptop was lack of fingerprint reader support.

      • El Barto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That would be a plus for me, actually. I never liked fingerprint authentication.

        • Treczoks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          So YES, from someone who was asked to do fingerprint authentication in a sensitive environment (and had to refuse, even to the salespeople pested me)

        • robotica@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          How is not having support for something a plus for you? I swear to god, some Linux users are so stuck up.

          • El Barto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Where to start…

            My dumb TV doesn’t support smart features. A plus.

            My coffee maker doesn’t support wifi. A plus.

            My games don’t support in-app purchases. A plus.

            My windows 10 laptop (did you read that?! Whaaat, I’m not a Linux user???!!!) doesn’t support Windows 11. Major plus.

            My MacBook’s OS version (no way!!!) doesn’t support unnecessary FaceTime features. A plus.

            • smort@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What TV did you get that doesn’t have smart features?

              I looked, but all the ones I could find were 1080p, no HDR, and either tiny or made for commercial/industrial installation.

              • El Barto@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                I got a Sceptre one a few years ago. Okay quality, terrible speakers (though an external soundbar takes care of that.)

              • El Barto@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sure, but that’s not the point of the conversation. The point is that some stranger is judging a whole community for the preference of one single person who may or may not belong to said community.

          • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            “what, you dont want to use the new door lock made from soggy white bread? You deadbolt losers are so stuck up”

    • umbrella@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I have a Microsoft fingerprint reader that works fine on Linux lol

  • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    108
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    It stopped working when I uninstalled Edge, and so did the face recognition. So it depends on WebView or some shit. Pretty sure it’s Microsoft’s way of getting around the new EU regulations and hastily integrating the browser into everything, regardless of it making sense or improving security. like they did with 98 after the browser anti-competitiveness lawsuit.

    • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Wtf. It shouldn’t even need those permissions. All it needs to do is scan if the fingerprint it stores matches you.

      • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It uses web view for web authentication for registering your Hello PIN to your Microsoft account. So it’s by design on Microsoft’s end. You can then use the Windows Hello credential as a passkey but if you don’t want that, you’d need another solution for biometric auth.

        • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Still, that does not explain the Edge dependency. Lots of programs can communicate with their respective servers without browser technology.

          • Unaware7013@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It kinda does though, if you look at it from a speed/competency aspect. I’m more and more convinced that the people who build out features only have tangential ideas on how it integrates into the overall system, so just throwing a browser at every problem gets you a cookie cutter backend with APIs and let’s you shove half baked features out the door without having to figure out how to wrap data in protocols since you just hand your payload so the browser and wait for a response.

      • Wooki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Oh sweet summer child. No. That would have been the intelligent approach. It could have been fast and secure but it wouldn’t have had all that delicious telemetry nor taken another step towards charging you rent just to use your computer.

        They locked it behind two online services. Welcome to the new Microsoft. If it doesn’t include charging you rent or using you & your private information to train a large ai model. They don’t care.

    • pycorax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      hastily integrating the browser into everything, regardless of it making sense

      So software development in general in the last couple of years?

  • ramble81@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    104
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Reading the article it doesn’t sound like it’s Microsoft’s issue but the vendor’s implementation and lack of using the secure communication protocol.

  • Luci@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Stop using biometrics for authentication!!!

    Edit: lots of opinions below. Biometrics are a username, a thing you are. Finger printed can be taken from your laptop with a little powder and masking tape.

    Use an authentacator app or security key kids!!

    • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Will biometrics stop your maid from using your device? Probably less. Will it stop the FBI? Not so sure.

            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. Fingerprint authorisation is the security equivalent of a sticky note with your password on your coffee mug.

            The good news? You can use ordinary gloves, no need for tinfoil.

          • MostlyHarmless@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year 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.

            Passwords are inherently insecure and relatively easy to break. Digital signatures and secure tokens are almost unbreakable

        • TORFdot0@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year 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.

    • Name is Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 year ago

      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

        • Name is Optional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year 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

    • 0xD@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      A username is not something “you are”, it’s something “you know”. Biometrics are not nearly the same as usernames.

      • Luci@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Other people know your username.

            How hard is this?

            • Blueteamsecguy@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I guarantee you I know thousands of people’s passwords as well, I just don’t know the username associated.

            • sirfancy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              By this same logic, other people could know your fingerprint since it’s “something you are”. No, other people cannot know your fingerprint. It’s a complex mathematical equation to a computer. This is such a terrible take.

              Source: CASP+ certified.

        • 0xD@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year 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.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not on my Lenovo. Fingerprint reader requires a swipe, no print left behind.

      • atrielienz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year 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.

  • psudojo@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    im all for the something you have + something you are , pb&j relationship, but i dont think lathering biometrics on top is a good idea,far too many spy movies have shown Tom Cruise doing the MOST for pictures of eyeballs and fingerprints for me to ever trust this type of auth

    • Herowyn@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      The main issue with biometrics is that you can’t change them. If your fingerprints or retina are compromised you’re fucked.

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          And yet, as a service member that was part of the 2013 OPM data breech, my finger prints (and an estimated 5.5 million other peoples) were part of the dataset that was stolen.

          So… What’s your point about “Global Internet”? If my data was stolen, and sent to the “Global Internet”(The fuck does this even mean?)… There’s no functional difference to an exposed password.

          • MostlyHarmless@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            My point is that I’m not worried about the relatively few people who could steal my fingerprint. I’m worried about the millions of people around the world who will try to steal my passwords and access my online accounts.

            If everyone secured their accounts with a biometrically secured security key, they would be far more secure than if they continue to just use a password.

            Tgose who go around spreading misinformed FUD over biometrics ensure people who don’t know better continue to use weak passwords.

            Even if someone gets your fingerprints from the OPM breach still can’t use them because they also need your phone. You are still protected from all of the hackers around the world.

            • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              My point is that I’m not worried about the relatively few people who could steal my fingerprint.

              This group is much larger than you’re assuming.

              I’m worried about the millions of people around the world who will try to steal my passwords and access my online accounts.

              Bio doesn’t stop people from setting bad passwords.

              If everyone secured their accounts with a biometrically secured security key, they would be far more secure than if they continue to just use a password.

              Except you should know better than this… They will simply do BOTH. Set a terrible password because they will be required to make one from the get-go AND use bio. There is no service on the face of the planet that strictly accepts tokens from Bio tools. Simply using Bio doesn’t stop those online from bruteforcing the underlying password.

              Tgose who go around spreading misinformed FUD over biometrics ensure people who don’t know better continue to use weak passwords.

              No. I “Spread FUD” because I understand that a good password MUST be revocable. Which Bio CANNOT be. Bio is a username.

              Even if someone gets your fingerprints from the OPM breach still can’t use them because they also need your phone. You are still protected from all of the hackers around the world.

              No… I’m protected because I use functionally impossible passwords to break that are truly randomly generated and of sufficient length. Further to protect things I use a Yubikey, when supported. Further I use services that monitor breeches and actively change those affected passwords. Bio adds nothing to my protection and in my case (and the case of millions of other people) would actively hinder it.

              You have the premise backwards though. It’s now, if someone has your device at all… you cannot presume it to be capable of securing anything since your prints are likely on the device itself anyway, oops…

              • MostlyHarmless@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                There is no service on the face of the planet that strictly accepts tokens from Bio tools. Simply using Bio doesn’t stop those online from bruteforcing the underlying password.

                https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/account-billing/how-to-go-passwordless-with-your-microsoft-account-674ce301-3574-4387-a93d-916751764c43

                https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/the-beginning-of-the-end-of-the-password/

                https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/12/apple-passkey/

                No. I “Spread FUD” because I understand that a good password MUST be revocable. Which Bio CANNOT be. Bio is a username.

                Incorrect because your bio is not the password, the private key is. The private key is revocable. Your bio just unlocks your hardware key store and makes the private key accessible to the software.

                This is what I mean when I say people do not understand biometric authentication.

                • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/account-billing/how-to-go-passwordless-with-your-microsoft-account-674ce301-3574-4387-a93d-916751764c43

                  Uh huh…

                  Once you remove your password from your account, you will need to sign in using a passwordless method like the Microsoft Authenticator app, Windows Hello, physical security keys, or SMS codes.

                  SMS

                  So which 2fa method do we NEVER ask users to use anymore? You know… because lying to a phone carrier and getting a new sim card sent to someone who isn’t on the account is the hardest thing in the world to do! Or cloning a sim card.

                  Windows Hello

                  Which just had some leaks about how insecure it is.

                  You’re going to have to do way better than this…

                  Regardless all three of these would then rely on your specific device to login, which MUST have a recovery method. Since you know… devices break, get reformatted, etc… What does that process look like? With a password… I simply change the password. Can you guarantee that I can revoke the key and replace it without having to buy new hardware?


                  https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/12/apple-passkey/

                  They sync shit using iCloud… The private key is not secure. I don’t care what your argument is if it’s in relation to apple. If you need further argument on this topic… Just look at all the leaked videos from Tesla cars. Big companies DO NOT DESERVE YOUR TRUST.


                  Incorrect because your bio is not the password, the private key is. The private key is revocable. Your bio just unlocks your hardware key store and makes the private key accessible to the software.

                  And you say I don’t have an understanding… It doesn’t matter how many keys deep you have to go. If the end of the line is an item that has been compromised, it DOESN’T MATTER how many steps you take after that. The compromised item is already obtained when you obtained the device.

                  Now… Can you tell me the process to revoke the private key from your fingerprint reader on your phone? You claim it’s revocable. Revoke it. Show me. I’ll wait. Can you prove that the blob in your phone is doing that? These chips are written once at the manufacturer with no oversight or validation. I’m not an idiot. I know your literal fingerprint isn’t sent up to the cloud. It’s used to tell a local chip to authenticate a public key against the private one contained within that typically never leaves the chip (except that the passkey standard actually allows key mobility, so it’s actually worse than the FIDO standard that it’s built upon). It’s a blob that you have no insight into and no control over.

                  If I were to bump into you, and lift your phone. I’d likely have your fingerprint just by lifting it off your phone and can sign into your phone. That’s it… It’s like you didn’t have a password at all because I simply HAVE it. I’ve found that theft is actually much greater risk in my life than my digital footprint. But that’s only because I can actually mitigate the digital stuff by not being retarded and putting everything into the internet. Theft on the other hand… Can’t do much about someone who willingly knocks me the fuck out (gasp! the XKCD comic strikes again!). But I can make sure that if they knock me the fuck out, they don’t just get to take my shit and unlock it without my brain remaining functional.

                  None of that even matters. This is a chain of trust that I can’t actually audit… So it’s worthless. This requires that I trust Google (android), Samsung(or other device manufacturer), their vendors(whoever makes the fingerprint reader), etc… You know who I have to to trust for my password? My password manager and myself. The fun part is that my password manager is actually audited… and opensource, AND I’ve looked at it enough to be happy with it. Who audited Windows Hello? https://www.theverge.com/2023/11/22/23972220/microsoft-windows-hello-fingerprint-authentication-bypass-security-vulnerability Ooops.

                  It’s funny, because you know what this does to authentication? It puts all the power into another companies hands… and takes ALL of it out of yours. Which is interesting that someone on Lemmy is gung-ho about this.

                  Let’s look at a real world example of something you might ACTUALLY have to do. You’re crossing the border into a country. You have data you really don’t want the government snooping into like hot nudes from your significant other. So you wipe your device before you cross the border to ensure the government can’t violate your rights. Oops, you no longer can access ANY account you own because you relied on that device to be what unlocks everything.

                  Also, whats more likely… that you break a device or that a user CANNOT learn how to use a password manager?

                  Edit: For shits and giggles I logged into my Google account to see what the passkey setup even looks like for them… Turns out that it’s automatically created keys for devices I’ve logged into… Including devices I don’t own anymore.

                  Really secure that is! Nothing screams security like creating methods to access my account without my fucking knowledge. What a joke.

        • Herowyn@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          It doesn’t need to be physical breach. If it’s stored somewhere it can (and might) be accessed by someone else and reconstructed.

          • MostlyHarmless@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            And still useless unless they also steal your phone. You are still safe from the hackers on the other side of the planet

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    Microsoft’s Offensive Research and Security Engineering (MORSE) asked Blackwing Intelligence to evaluate the security of fingerprint sensors, and the researchers provided their findings in a presentation at Microsoft’s BlueHat conference in October.

    The team identified popular fingerprint sensors from Goodix, Synaptics, and ELAN as targets for their research, with a newly-published blog post detailing the in-depth process of building a USB device that can perform a man-in-the-middle (MitM) attack.

    Blackwing Intelligence researchers reverse engineered both software and hardware, and discovered cryptographic implementation flaws in a custom TLS on the Synaptics sensor.

    The complicated process to bypass Windows Hello also involved decoding and reimplementing proprietary protocols.

    The researchers found that Microsoft’s SDCP protection wasn’t enabled on two of the three devices they targeted.

    Blackwing Intelligence now recommends that OEMs make sure SDCP is enabled and ensure the fingerprint sensor implementation is audited by a qualified expert.


    The original article contains 474 words, the summary contains 145 words. Saved 69%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

    • theneverfox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      … Did that say “custom implementation of TLS”?

      That’s like… The first rule of security. You don’t roll your own cryptographic implementation. Like, first you’re told that, then they tell you the difference between security and obscurity, say both those things in bold, and continue with whatever beginner topic

  • atocci@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Surface Pro X has a fingerprint reader? Is it on the keyboard or something? Mine sure doesn’t have one.