On 2019-07-04, deloptes <delop...@gmail.com> wrote: > Renato Gallo wrote: > >> Fingerprints are a good option >> >> Renato Gallo >> > > No, they are not and it was explained previously why >
Sure they are (depending on the use case/implementation). These things are completely comparative and situational and your statement completely unqualified and universal. The OP desired having the password revealed in plaintext on the terminal/console. Another person thought an insecure password like 12345 might do the trick. Still another suggested a passwordless login for the OP's venerable paternal element. I was asking myself how the blind/visually impaired handle the problem. And the cognitively impaired. And those suffering from motor impairments which might render any "fine" use of the keyboard a painstaking affair. Reco's objections to fingerprints as an authentication method, to which you might be alluding above, called to mind what I'd previously heard from Schneier concerning biometrics years ago. Let's see what he said in 2009 (update to an essay written in 1998). https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/biometrics.html And a stolen biometric can fool some systems. It can be as easy as cutting out a signature, pasting it onto a contract, and then faxing the page to someone. The person on the other end doesn't know that the signature isn't valid because he didn't see it fixed onto the page. Remote logins by fingerprint fail in the same way. If there's no way to verify the print came from an actual reader, not from a stored computer file, the system is much less secure. A more secure system is to use a fingerprint to unlock your mobile phone or computer. Because there is a trusted path from the fingerprint reader to the stored fingerprint the system uses to compare, an attacker can't inject a previously stored print as easily as he can cut and paste a signature. A photo on an ID card works the same way: the verifier can compare the face in front of him with the face on the card.