Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Frank Hayes's picture
Frank Hayes

Frankly Blogging

Black Hat DC: Face time

Vendors hate Black Hat. It's a periodic opportunity for hackers to show off in front of their peers, and they make the most of it by breaking everything they can -- spotting security holes in software, hot-wiring hardware, find new ways to sneak onto networks.

As I said, vendors hate it, and their standard response is to deny, deny, deny. That's easier to do when the hackers behave responsibly and don't make it easy for everyone to replicate their hacks. (In 2006, I was suckered by exactly such a denial.)

And that makes corporate IT people unhappy. We don't know whether we're being lied to (again) by vendors, or seeing threats exaggerated by glory-hound hackers, or being put in real jeopardy because a Black Hatter gave everybody a skelton key to systems we thought were secure.

But sometimes we don't mind. Case in point: this week's Black Hat demo of how to break the face-recognition "security" built into laptops from Lenovo, Toshiba and Asus.

And how is it done? You hold a picture in front of the laptop's camera.

You may have to PhotoShop the image a little. Or jiggle it a bit, if the software expects a slightly moving image.

But mainly you just hold the picture in front of the camera. Just like you might expect, after all those years of movies and TV shows in which characters do exactly that sort of thing.

Is this a real security hole? You don't need to see source code or use special equipment to test it. If you think security researcher Nguyen Minh Duc rigged the demo, it's easy enough to replicate.

Chances are, you can hold up a picture in front of a new laptop to log in too.

I'm sure Lenovo, Toshiba and Asus won't be thanking Nguyen Minh Duc for driving a stake through the heart of this very, very bad idea.

But everyone else should. Right after we disable that face-recognition login from every new laptop that offers it.

What People Are Saying

actually it CAN be done well

Just like all security solutions - or even all software packages - it's not the technology concept itself that counts (as this article would seem to imply), but the specific implementation of that technology that really matters. While no security solution is or ever will be perfect, it's also true that not all packages have the same weaknesses.

I say this from experience. I've actually worked at a facial recognition firm (Sensible Vision) for several years. We've successfully protected PCs in security critical organizations such as hospitals and banks - even a maximum security prison - for years now. Our consumer platform on Dell systems (not examined in this study) is highly photo resistant, provides other security benefits such as locking the desktop when the user is NOT there, and - critically - has an optional, intelligent form of two factor authentication that effectively addresses virtually all remaining photo concerns while maintaing overall convenience.

Far from denying that any vulnerabilities exist, the way to a secure system is to minimize weaknesses as much as possible, publicize those that remain and then to provide tools to address them.

Clarification

Clarification - when I said "as this article would seem to imply" I was referring to the original Black Hat presentation, not the article by Frank Hayes which I find to be very reasonable. Sorry for any confusion.

Hysterically funny!

Thanks as always, Frank Hayes!!

Why disable it?

Does it get in the way of some more useful security software? If it does not, then leave it on. It's one more hoop that the data thief must jump through before he/she gets to your data. I say use it, but don't bet the farm on it.