To clarify:retinal scanning is about as effective as fingerprints. Retinal scanning uses a laser light, often in the green part of the spectrum to scan the blood vessels of the internal eye. Both methods scan around 90 metric points. They can easily read false depending on whether or not the biological sample (in this case eyeball or finger) is placed exactly in the same position as it was when it was initially scanned. There is, of course, with most software a threshold setting which will allow readings to require either a very precise ( a finger must be placed in exactly the same spot every time on a reader ) or very minimal ( a finger can be placed anywhere near the center of the reader, but the accuracy drops proportionately ) setting. The best way to go from everything I've seen and read is with iris scans. Whereas fingerprint and retina scans read around 90 metric points, an iris scan reads about 250. Iris scans are non-invasive whereas retina scans require a laser light or other strong light source directed through the cornea in order to read the vessel pattern in the back of the eye. While it's allot more expensive, if security, and not money is your concern, I think iris scanners are the way to go. If you can't "hack" it and you have to settle w/fingerprint or retinal scanners, I would go for the fingerprint scanner.
-J ----- Original Message ----- From: Naveed Ahmed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 11:05 AM Subject: RE: Biometric question > Michael is right. > the better ones are ( at least relatively more difficult to fake) retina > scans and voice recognition. > dont go by what tom cruise does in 'minority report' with the eye balls.!!! > rgds > -Naveed > > -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Sconzo [mailto:msconzo@;tamu.edu] > Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 10:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Biometric question > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > One of the more memorable things that I have read about fingerprint > scanners is: > http://www.counterpane.com/crypto-gram-0205.html#5 > > You can basically fake a fingerprint biometric machine with a gummi > bear. If I remember correctly, the majority of fingerprint scanners > are vulnerable to this type of attack. One of the big things to look > for is one that samples SHAPES not POINTS, and remember the more the > merrier. > > As for other types of biometrics, I am not too sure, hopefully > somebody else can shed some light on those. > > - -mike > > > - -----Original Message----- > From: Felix Cuello [mailto:felix@;qodiga.com] > Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 1:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Biometric question > > > > Hello list! > > I will work in a project where phisical security will be based on > biometrics, in fact only will be based on fingerprints biometric. > > How secure are fingerprints?, what biometric are more secure? > (voice, > eye, ??? what else). > > I'm not a security expert :-) > > Thanks a lot, > > Felix > [my english is bad... please sorry :-)] > > - -- > Felix Cuello > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Qodiga/its > Av.Santa Fe 882 P.13 Of. "E" > C.P. ABP1059C > Tel.: (54) 011 - 4312-1698 > Buenos Aires - Argentina > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com> > > iQA/AwUBPcqfKy76iJsaBRvcEQJ4GQCg8IIGDvldPOk6Bll7RV8spScjPDAAoPuy > DzeFhJhhlLBeyqWGS/NABATs > =kUtf > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >
