This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.
A research firm says that it has successfully spoofed the facial recognition technology used in Apple's flagship iPhone X.
Multi-factor authentication is becoming a "must" for many applications but questions remain about which factors are secure. A recent report from researchers in Vietnam has cast doubts on one promising new factor now available to millions.
In September, Apple announced the iPhone X with much fanfare and a flurry of new technology components. One of the most discussed is its facial recognition technology, which Apple has touted as being convenient, low-friction and very, very secure. Bkav, a security firm based in Vietnam, doesn't dispute the first two qualities but says that the security aspect may be somewhat over-stated.
In a test, researchers at Bkav said that they were able to defeat the iPhone X's facial recognition technology -- technology that Apple claims is not vulnerable to spoofing or mistaken identity -- using a mask made with approximately $150 in materials. While the spoof has yet to be confirmed by other researchers, the possibility raises some discomfiting possibilities.
The most troubling aspect of the demonstration is that the spoof was pulled off using a mask, after Apple went to great pains to show that their technology would only work with the living face of the device owner. In a blog post, Bkav said that they listened carefully to Apple's statements, worked to understand the AI used in the facial-recognition software, and found a vulnerability.
In a statement announcing the vulnerability, Ngo Tuan Anh, Bkav's Vice President of Cyber Security, said: "Achilles' heel here is Apple let AI at the same time learn a lot of real faces and masks made by Hollywood's and artists. In that way, Apple's AI can only distinguish either a 100% real face or a 100% fake one. So if you create a 'half-real half-fake' face, it can fool Apple's AI".
It has been pointed out that building the mask was not easy, requiring 3D scans of the owner's face, high-resolution 3D printing and multiple attempts to get the spoof right. That means that this is not a vulnerability likely to be used in any common scenario.
In the world of serious cybersecurity, though, unlikely is still possible and that's enough to take a technology out of the candidate pool for security covering high-value individuals and data. For most consumers (and for many users in business scenarios) the facial recognition technology in the iPhone X could be good enough. Before it can be considered a real replacement for more proven multi-factor authentication, though, the facial recognition technology may need more time to mature and improve.
The 10 Most Impactful Types of Vulnerabilities for Enterprises TodayManaging system vulnerabilities is one of the old est - and most frustrating - security challenges that enterprise defenders face. Every software application and hardware device ships with intrinsic flaws - flaws that, if critical enough, attackers can exploit from anywhere in the world. It's crucial that defenders take stock of what areas of the tech stack have the most emerging, and critical, vulnerabilities they must manage. It's not just zero day vulnerabilities. Consider that CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog lists vulnerabilitlies in widely used applications that are "actively exploited," and most of them are flaws that were discovered several years ago and have been fixed. There are also emerging vulnerabilities in 5G networks, cloud infrastructure, Edge applications, and firmwares to consider.
Enterprise Vulnerabilities From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability DatabaseCVE-2023-1142 PUBLISHED: 2023-03-27
In Delta Electronics InfraSuite Device Master versions prior to 1.0.5, an attacker could use URL decoding to retrieve system files, credentials, and bypass authentication resulting in privilege escalation.
In Delta Electronics InfraSuite Device Master versions prior to 1.0.5, an attacker could use Lua scripts, which could allow an attacker to remotely execute arbitrary code.
Delta Electronics InfraSuite Device Master versions prior to 1.0.5 contains an improper access control vulnerability in which an attacker can use the Device-Gateway service and bypass authorization, which could result in privilege escalation.
Delta Electronics InfraSuite Device Master versions prior to 1.0.5 are affected by a deserialization vulnerability targeting the Device-DataCollect service, which could allow deserialization of requests prior to authentication, resulting in remote code execution.
Heap-based Buffer Overflow in GitHub repository gpac/gpac prior to 2.4.0.
To save this item to your list of favorite Dark Reading content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.