Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

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.

Comments
Enterprises Must Consider Privacy Concern For Biometrics
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Joe Stanganelli
Joe Stanganelli,
User Rank: Ninja
5/31/2016 | 8:40:21 AM
Data Compromise
Maybe genetic engineering will evolve to the point where if our fingerprints or our iris scans get compromised, we can simply change them.

And then, because of the human incapacity for true entropy, we'll be making the same criticisms about biometrics that we've been making about passwords for years.  ;)
coolspot
coolspot,
User Rank: Apprentice
5/13/2016 | 3:27:29 AM
Re: I've been saying the same thing for a year now
Your assessment of server-side biometrics is incorrect. The systems I deal with do indeed use a secret salt to randomize the voiceprint and then further encrypt the print based on a system specific encryption key. Even if a print were stolen from one system, it would be unusable on another.

On device biometrics is subject to the quality and hardware provided by the device and potentially can allow for the hardware to be bypassed or modified. Also upgrades of the biometric algorithms on the client side is more difficult than a centralized system. Not to mention, device specific biometrics means that cross channel authentication is all but impossible. 

Obviously there are some benefits to on device versus on server as well - ultimately it will be up to each organization to decide which method they want to proceed with, but I don't think PwC findings were entirely accurate or representative of the state of biometrics technology/security.
AdamE896
AdamE896,
User Rank: Apprentice
5/12/2016 | 3:18:44 PM
I've been saying the same thing for a year now

I totally agree with the report findings. There are some researchers out there looking at how to properly protect user biometrics as an authentication factor in a central database utilizing a secret salt with a hash but no one is using that at all that I can find. Decentralized is the only truly secure way to deal with biometrics. At LaunchKey, we identified the inherent advantage of storing authentication factors on the device on day 1. As we added biometric factors, the decentralized strategy really proved to be fortuitous move. Even though it seems like a no brainer, I have been really surprised how push back we have received from the infosec community at large. The community as a whole seems skeptical and many are dismissive of decentralized authentication, biometric or not. I fear that the industry will decentralize at a much slower pace than it rolls out biometrics.



Edge-DRsplash-10-edge-articles
I Smell a RAT! New Cybersecurity Threats for the Crypto Industry
David Trepp, Partner, IT Assurance with accounting and advisory firm BPM LLP,  7/9/2021
News
Attacks on Kaseya Servers Led to Ransomware in Less Than 2 Hours
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  7/7/2021
Commentary
It's in the Game (but It Shouldn't Be)
Tal Memran, Cybersecurity Expert, CYE,  7/9/2021
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
How Machine Learning, AI & Deep Learning Improve Cybersecurity
Machine intelligence is influencing all aspects of cybersecurity. Organizations are implementing AI-based security to analyze event data using ML models that identify attack patterns and increase automation. Before security teams can take advantage of AI and ML tools, they need to know what is possible. This report covers: -How to assess the vendor's AI/ML claims -Defining success criteria for AI/ML implementations -Challenges when implementing AI
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2022-42247
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
pfSense v2.5.2 was discovered to contain a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the browser.php component. This vulnerability allows attackers to execute arbitrary web scripts or HTML via a crafted payload injected into a file name.
CVE-2022-41443
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
phpipam v1.5.0 was discovered to contain a header injection vulnerability via the component /admin/subnets/ripe-query.php.
CVE-2022-33882
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
Under certain conditions, an attacker could create an unintended sphere of control through a vulnerability present in file delete operation in Autodesk desktop app (ADA). An attacker could leverage this vulnerability to escalate privileges and execute arbitrary code.
CVE-2022-42306
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
An issue was discovered in Veritas NetBackup through 8.2 and related Veritas products. An attacker with local access can send a crafted packet to pbx_exchange during registration and cause a NULL pointer exception, effectively crashing the pbx_exchange process.
CVE-2022-42307
PUBLISHED: 2022-10-03
An issue was discovered in Veritas NetBackup through 10.0.0.1 and related Veritas products. The NetBackup Primary server is vulnerable to an XML External Entity (XXE) Injection attack through the DiscoveryService service.