I assert I am lifeisstillgood - and I enter my shared secret so that pg can make a reasonable assumption that the person he originally told the secret too has not shared it and therefore is at the other end if the transaction.
The problem with fingerprint recognition is it is a zero-factor authentication. What we have here is a very long username with say 44 bits of entropy(#). No matter how long that username, it's not a secret. I wonder around leaving it everywhere - just like "lifeisstillgood".
Without a shared secret, a username is not a sufficient security device - it's just what I am asserting - zero factor authentication is a problem.
(#) now this is an interesting issue. Fingerprints have been assumed to be 100% unique amoung humans. But with DNA fingerprinting came a confidence level, and now forensic scientists are resisting assigning confidence levels to fingerprints mostly I think for the apocalypse of having to review 30 years of convictions then made unsafe.
A fingerprint is only useful for authentication, not key derivation, which makes it effectively useless in protecting your secrets from a determined attacker. As it stands today, my data is encrypted with a key that isn't stored on my device. Unless Apple has developed some kind of fingerprint-based key derivation algorithm, that can't be the case for the hapless user who replaces his passcode with a fingerprint scan.
I fear that the innovation announced today is going to make people and their data less safe, not more.
[1]: http://images.apple.com/iphone/business/docs/iOS_Security_Oc...
exactly
That's 2.5 iPhone-years of computation, though. A speedy desktop could be 10 times as fast, and that's before we get to GPUs or multiple machines.
1) Not accounting for salting and variations of hashes, one can have at most 19 resets of core biometric assuming the normal number of fingers and toes.
2) Biometric fingerprinting merely proves that you have the digit. No proof if said digit is attached to human (see Hollywood blockbuster!).
3) Susceptibility to coercion. It's much harder to refuse to swipe your finger (willingly or otherwise) at the border than to refuse to give up a password.
Oh and one can also say "A password merely proves you know the password. No proof that you are the person associated with the password"
* Though since passwords can be stored in hashes, they can be harder to steal as compared to biometric data which must be stored in raw (though possibly encrypted)
Is there a reason that fingerprints can't be stored as hashes instead of the raw data? It would presumably involve re-enrolling if the fingerprint comparison algorithm gets changed, but how often does that happen?
It's like allowing a password that is close enough, in that case you would need the real password as well, not just a hash.
(This is used a fair amount in search, to cluster similar documents.)