@@askleonotenboom A person's fingerprint that exists on a cup, glass or doorknob for example may be copied using transparent tape. Could this tape then be used as a substitute for an actual fingerprint to unlock a device? What about a high resolution life size photo of a human face. Could such a photo be used to fool facial recognition?
@@Wewoka Those techniques, popularized by fictional television shows, aren't nearly as easy or as possible as we might think. Unless you're a high value target (where you should be using different security anyway), this isn't an issue.
I have found that fingerprint ID seems to be unreliable if my hands are moist or wet or if I have recently put lotion on them. No matter how safe they are, you can be certain that someone somewhere is trying to find a way to circumvent the security process.
May I just add that this is just one layer of security, amongst others. All this really matters only if you're already sure you passed the hardware layer. So yeah, no such thing as safe. Some countries could have secret clauses to implement backdoors at hardware or OS levels. As a general consumer, you're up against basic hackers and criminals or not well-intended persons, that layer of security can fit in those scenarios. Now if you're person of interest or is up against government level scrutiny, just throw your piece of tech. As an example, the French government passed a law at their parliament to allow the government to use smartphone cameras for surveillance purpose, the bottom line being they technically have a way to do that at national scale.
Out of the two I would suggest that fingerprint ID is the most secure. Fingerprints are all unique and can't be duplicated. As for facial recognition, why can't I hold up a photo of the person I claim to be and log in that way? Having said that, right or wrong, I'll stick with passwords.
I would argue that a strong PIN code or password is safer than biometrics. For example, let's say you're drugged and you end up incapacitated. If you're using fingerprint access, then it's easy for someone to use your own finger to access the device and any other app that you've setup (likely a lot more, including banking) and access/use all of those things on the device.
This is a good point, I've heard of tourists being offered food with sleeping drugs added, then when they wake up on the train all their luggage is gone, but now with finger print ID they can open the tourist mobile phone.
Well done, Leo, many do not understand the concept of "safe". Believing that something is either safe or not, with no grey. Good, clear video.
Wish you would have included info on the vulnerability of facial vs. fingerprint recognition in regards to their ability of being hacked.
I don't understand ... that's actually what I was addressing. No one can "steal" your face or fingerprint or the data that saves it. What'd I miss?
@@askleonotenboom A person's fingerprint that exists on a cup, glass or doorknob for example may be copied using transparent tape. Could this tape then be used as a substitute for an actual fingerprint to unlock a device? What about a high resolution life size photo of a human face. Could such a photo be used to fool facial recognition?
@@Wewoka Those techniques, popularized by fictional television shows, aren't nearly as easy or as possible as we might think. Unless you're a high value target (where you should be using different security anyway), this isn't an issue.
I have found that fingerprint ID seems to be unreliable if my hands are moist or wet or if I have recently put lotion on them. No matter how safe they are, you can be certain that someone somewhere is trying to find a way to circumvent the security process.
May I just add that this is just one layer of security, amongst others. All this really matters only if you're already sure you passed the hardware layer. So yeah, no such thing as safe. Some countries could have secret clauses to implement backdoors at hardware or OS levels. As a general consumer, you're up against basic hackers and criminals or not well-intended persons, that layer of security can fit in those scenarios. Now if you're person of interest or is up against government level scrutiny, just throw your piece of tech. As an example, the French government passed a law at their parliament to allow the government to use smartphone cameras for surveillance purpose, the bottom line being they technically have a way to do that at national scale.
Out of the two I would suggest that fingerprint ID is the most secure. Fingerprints are all unique and can't be duplicated.
As for facial recognition, why can't I hold up a photo of the person I claim to be and log in that way?
Having said that, right or wrong, I'll stick with passwords.
Nothing is completely “safe”.
Which I state in the video and the companion article.
I would argue that a strong PIN code or password is safer than biometrics. For example, let's say you're drugged and you end up incapacitated. If you're using fingerprint access, then it's easy for someone to use your own finger to access the device and any other app that you've setup (likely a lot more, including banking) and access/use all of those things on the device.
This is a good point, I've heard of tourists being offered food with sleeping drugs added, then when they wake up on the train all their luggage is gone, but now with finger print ID they can open the tourist mobile phone.
@J lol. You have to think of these things :D.
He should have explain what a hash is. I understand it, computer savvy people understand it but the layman probably will not know what a hash is
askleo.com/glossary/hash/ and askleo.com/how-do-websites-keep-passwords-secure/