[HN Gopher] Fingerprints can be recreated from the sounds made w...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Fingerprints can be recreated from the sounds made when you swipe a
       screen
        
       Author : moose44
       Score  : 104 points
       Date   : 2024-02-20 15:18 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.tomshardware.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.tomshardware.com)
        
       | lvncelot wrote:
       | Firstly, wow, that is absolutely insane.
       | 
       | I'm wondering about this part though:
       | 
       | > The source of the finger-swiping sounds can be popular apps
       | like Discord, Skype, WeChat, FaceTime, etc. Any chatty app where
       | users carelessly perform swiping actions on the screen while the
       | device mic is live.
       | 
       | Is there really enough information left for this method after the
       | sound has been lossily compressed by any of those apps?
        
         | westmeal wrote:
         | that was my first thought too, this kind of reminds me of the
         | 'figure out which key was pressed by listening to keystrokes'
         | trick.
        
           | samatman wrote:
           | That attack is more about timing than about sound. There is
           | some information available from the sound of a keystroke,
           | with a very good microphone under ideal conditions each key
           | could be identified uniquely, but that's not the main vector.
           | Some sequences are easier to type than others by their very
           | nature, and individual typists have idiosyncratic variance in
           | how easily/fast/accurate they are at a given sequence. That's
           | the main trick used to derive what's typed from a recording
           | of it happening, and compression doesn't reduce that
           | information, so long as the keypresses are audible.
        
       | justinzollars wrote:
       | This reads like a thrilling bond film. Scary!
        
       | neontomo wrote:
       | I suppose I have to start shouting every time I swipe my screen
       | now.
        
         | qrobit wrote:
         | I am by no means competent but I believe frequencies of swiping
         | and frequencies of you shouting differ substantially which will
         | allow to separate them
        
           | neontomo wrote:
           | I would assume you're correct if they were the same level of
           | audio, but my joke was about overpowering the swiping sound
           | entirely, to the point where a microphone wouldn't be able to
           | pick it up anymore.
        
       | hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
       | This would be amazing if true, but after being burned on a bunch
       | of "too crazy to be true" tech stories recently (toothbrush bot
       | armies anyone?) I'm very skeptical. The idea that there is enough
       | resolution in the sound of a finger swipe to determine the
       | fingerprint ridges on that finger is really suspect to me.
        
         | arp242 wrote:
         | I also have to admit my skepticism. Skimming through the paper,
         | I don't think they emulated "real-world conditions" as claimed
         | in the conclusion. They had participants swipe the screen 25
         | times in a row. Real-world conditions would be giving them 12
         | hours of recording throughout the day, or something like that,
         | because knowing when and where to look is probably a major
         | challenge on its own.
         | 
         | I'll also add that even if true, it's probably not a huge
         | practical issue. Fingerprints are mostly used to secure
         | personal devices: phones, sometimes computers. If I were to
         | have your full fingerprints then that would be mostly useless
         | because I don't have access to your physical device. Even
         | things like "purchase on App Store with fingerprints" usually
         | works by having the fingerprint only secure a key on the device
         | itself (rather than sending the fingerprint data over the
         | network).
         | 
         | And if you have access to your physical devices, then I almost
         | certainly also have access to your fingerprints via the good
         | ol' "dust for prints" technique.
         | 
         | There was a "fingerprints for everything!" push a decade or so
         | ago, and that was harshly criticized because you leave
         | fingerprints _everywhere_ , and you can even lift them from
         | photographs.
         | 
         | Certainly the "enormous economic and personnel losses, and even
         | a potential compromise of national security" claim at the start
         | of the paper seems rather exaggerated, even hysterical.
        
           | PeterisP wrote:
           | I don't think that real-world conditions would be giving them
           | 12 hours of recording throughout the day - a malicious app
           | that explicitly asks people to swipe left/right on pictures
           | of kittens is a very realistic attack scenario and would know
           | exactly when and where to look for the swipes.
        
         | mzs wrote:
         | paper is pretty convincing: https://www.ndss-symposium.org/wp-
         | content/uploads/2024-618-p...
        
           | kurthr wrote:
           | Actually, there are two things that stick out to me in the
           | paper.                  1 The low FAR (False Accept Rate) is
           | unbelievably high at 0.01%        2 The "partial prints" are
           | described as single or "mixed" minutia
           | 
           | The FAR is 1-2 orders of magnitude off of even cheap mobile
           | device authentication.
           | 
           | The described size of the partial prints imply that the
           | relative location of partials is not extractable.
           | 
           | Since most fingerprint matchers rely on multiple (3-4)
           | minutiae _at a minimum_ and their relative location along
           | with ridge orientation and pitch correlations it seems like
           | this doesn 't provide necessary information. More
           | importantly, even with more information it can't construct
           | that relative information, because it can't resolve
           | symmetries (certainly not without knowing the direction of
           | motion for the swipes and the orientation of the finger)
           | correlated with those sounds. That requires other out of band
           | information.
           | 
           | It's interesting work, but there's probably a reason that you
           | don't see fingerprint matchers with decent FAR/FRR using only
           | the microphone on a mobile device and some software. There
           | are a $B reasons to develop that every year, and yet there
           | hasn't been one developed for 15-20 years.
        
             | PeterisP wrote:
             | Why wouldn't it know the direction of motion for the swipes
             | and the orientation of the finger? Any mobile app has
             | access to the touchscreen input which provides exactly that
             | information.
        
           | araes wrote:
           | As far as I can tell, they don't actually draw a fingerprint
           | from the point cloud they form, yet generally I agree.
           | 
           | Some seem to be saying its not that bad from a personal
           | credit card or phone unlocking thief perspective. However, my
           | main concern is with large nation state groups that have
           | access to pre-existing fingerprint database files.
           | 
           | There's something here that feels like the NSA, FBI,
           | FSO/Spetssvyaz, 3/4PLA, Unit 8200, GCHQ, BfV, DGSE, CSE,
           | TERM, and ISI would probably all have their "figurative" ears
           | perk up.
        
         | lynndotpy wrote:
         | The 'toothbrush bot armies' are entirely believable though. The
         | story was not real, but is completely within the realm of
         | reality.
         | 
         | E.g. Perhaps the toothbrush has a connectivity check to OralB
         | servers that triggers once per hour, but you can change it to
         | check a victim webpage once a millisecond.
         | 
         | Smart toothbrushes (and/or their docks) have little computers
         | inside of them. Oral B smart toothbrushes offered an API _eight
         | years ago_ https://github.com/dukescript/dukebrush as well as a
         | real-time web API:
         | https://web.archive.org/web/20160310121235/https://developer...
         | 
         | All there would need to be is an exploit that allows someone to
         | (1) identify and talk to the toothbrushes, (2) coerce the
         | toothbrush to ping an arbitrary IP, and (3) cause step 2 to
         | happen many times for just one trigger.
        
           | hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
           | > The story was not real, but is completely within the realm
           | of reality.
           | 
           | Of course. A good lie is defined by it being relatively
           | believable. Re: the viability of the exploit, my
           | understanding is that most smart toothbrushes do _not_
           | connect to the Internet, and even if they did, the huge
           | numbers originally presented in the story (3 million
           | toothbrushes) are astronomically high.
        
             | lynndotpy wrote:
             | Yeah; even ~300K or so (like Mirai in 2016) would be
             | surprisingly high.
        
           | kube-system wrote:
           | Yes it has an API, but that doesn't mean it's on the
           | internet. To connect via that API you have to connect to the
           | toothbrush via bluetooth.
        
             | TeMPOraL wrote:
             | Bluetooth is a PITA, low-budget "smart" devices are all
             | becoming Wi-Fi now.
        
               | kube-system wrote:
               | Nevertheless, no major toothbrush manufacturers use Wi-
               | Fi. Oral B and Philips connected brushes all use
               | bluetooth.
        
               | lynndotpy wrote:
               | I know someone who owns an "Oral-B iO series 10" and they
               | said they connected it directly via Wi-Fi. It's possible
               | they got it wrong, but multiple product reviews on the
               | internet explicitly mention difficulties getting their
               | Wi-Fi password onto the device.
        
               | ben_w wrote:
               | I can't help but feel blue _tooth_ is the wrong symbolism
               | for a _tooth_ brush.
        
             | lynndotpy wrote:
             | > Yes it has an API, but that doesn't mean it's on the
             | internet.
             | 
             | See the second link, the "Web API" section. This is the
             | part tells me that it's on the internet.
             | 
             | > WEB API
             | 
             | > The Oral-B cloud service offers fast and reliable real-
             | time access to Oral-B brushing activity. Fetch brushing
             | data ranging from session frequency and duration to
             | activity stats, achievements and more. Integrate brushing
             | activity data* with health or lifestyle applications.
             | 
             | I don't know about all the older models, but I know the
             | latest Oral-B smartbrush connects directly to the internet
             | using Wi-Fi.
        
         | yorwba wrote:
         | The toothbrush bot army story got started by a Swiss newspaper
         | writing about a scenario they heard from a cybersecurity
         | company and claiming that even though it sounds like a
         | Hollywood movie, "this really happened". When the company in
         | question was reached for comment, they said it was
         | hypothetical.
         | 
         | In the end, the story's spread can be explained by a
         | journalist's simple misunderstanding that made the story much
         | more virulent.
         | 
         | In this case, the journalist probably also doesn't understand
         | the technical details, _but_ we have a link to the researchers
         | ' own write-up right there in the article, which makes it much
         | easier to rule out simple misunderstandings. So the situation
         | is completely different.
         | 
         | That said, they're not reconstructing the fingerprint ridges
         | from the sound the way you're probably imagining. Instead, they
         | build on an existing attack exploiting fingerprint readers'
         | error tolerance with a set of "masterprints" that are unusually
         | likely to be accepted as a match, and the sound is used to
         | determine which masterprint to use first.
        
           | hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
           | > In the end, the story's spread can be explained by a
           | journalist's simply misunderstanding that made the story much
           | more virulent.
           | 
           | Bollocks, you're letting the "journalist" off way too easily.
           | That toothbrush story was simply "a story too good to vet",
           | meaning, sure, the author had a convenient excuse blaming it
           | on a "misunderstanding", and while I don't believe the author
           | was necessarily lying, I do believe they had no incentive to
           | dig any more deeply because the toothbrush bot army story was
           | already clickbait enough.
        
             | lupusreal wrote:
             | Journalists seem to do an awful job with the kind of
             | stories I understand, but surely they do better most of the
             | time...
        
               | CaptainFever wrote:
               | Ah, the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect.
               | 
               | https://theportal.wiki/wiki/The_Gell-Mann_Amnesia_Effect
        
           | tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
           | The newspaper claims that they explicitly asked for and
           | received confirmation.
        
         | yau8edq12i wrote:
         | The toothbrush botnet story was also spread by tom's hardware
         | in the English-speaking world. It seems like what they publish
         | should be taken with a spoonful of salt.
        
       | longwave wrote:
       | If this is true does this mean we don't need fingerprint scanning
       | hardware any more, but we can just use a microphone and software
       | to unlock a device when the user runs their finger over any
       | convenient surface?
        
         | amanj41 wrote:
         | Given the full fingerprint reconstruction rates, it would
         | likely be a while until the tech is reliable enough to do that,
         | if ever.
        
       | schaefer wrote:
       | >> Following tests, the researchers assert that they can
       | successfully attack "up to 27.9% of partial fingerprints and 9.3%
       | of complete fingerprints within five attempts at the highest
       | security FAR [False Acceptance Rate] setting of 0.01%."
       | 
       | I wonder if I'm in the lucky majority, and my fingerprints sound
       | secure
        
       | deadbabe wrote:
       | Pretty soon the sound of a heart beating when a person enters a
       | room will allow you to easily identify them.
        
       | nonrandomstring wrote:
       | Why bother when you can pick them up from any doorhandle, coffee
       | cup, pen, table surface, or just a photograph at super high-res.
       | 
       | Biometrics are form of (dubious) in-person identification, and
       | their use for access control belongs in the all-time stupidest
       | ideas in computing list.
        
         | tommiegannert wrote:
         | The nice thing about fingerprints is that if you refuse to give
         | it to an adversary, they'll just cut the finger off. If your
         | fingerprint doesn't work, you're clear.
         | 
         | If you refuse to give them your password, there's virtually no
         | limit to the possible extent of the torture. You can't prove
         | that further torture is pointless.
         | 
         | /s
        
           | nonrandomstring wrote:
           | Of course, but people who indulge in torture are not seeking
           | information. They're seeking satisfaction.
        
             | hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
             | I'm pretty sure that people who indulge in torture often
             | want information.
        
               | nonrandomstring wrote:
               | Sure they may want it. But let's talk about Afghanistan
               | and Iraq and how that worked out.
        
           | SushiHippie wrote:
           | https://xkcd.com/538/
        
             | nonrandomstring wrote:
             | {{Alt-Text: Actual Actual Reality: Nobody really cares
             | about his secrets. (Also, I would be hard pressed to find
             | that wrench for $5.)}}
             | 
             | If you're browing with javascript on and without text-only,
             | you're missing a lot on the web ;)
        
               | GrinningFool wrote:
               | You can get the alt-text from hovering over the image.
               | Even when js is on and text-only is off.
        
               | SushiHippie wrote:
               | And for xkcds you can also find it on
               | https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/538:_Security
        
         | whythre wrote:
         | Actually successfully pulling prints(and getting more than
         | smudgy partials) and then translating those lifted prints into
         | something useable is somewhat time consuming and is not a
         | trivial skill.
         | 
         | Like most security measures, biometrics are typically 'good
         | enough.'
        
           | nonrandomstring wrote:
           | > is not a trivial skill.
           | 
           | True. Today. Tomorrow you will still have the same
           | fingerprints.
        
         | giantg2 wrote:
         | "Why bother when you can pick them up from any doorhandle,
         | coffee cup, pen, table surface, or just a photograph at super
         | high-res."
         | 
         | Most of those require being loated in the same area and
         | generally even at a similar time (for high use areas). This
         | would be more like the photo attack where you can be located
         | far away.
        
         | anigbrowl wrote:
         | Because you don't always know where your subject is.
        
           | nonrandomstring wrote:
           | Aha, blind fingerprinting (literally) via audio? Yep that's a
           | vector that wasn't on my mind. If you have a database could
           | ID a remote user from swipes. That's a LE win. Fair do. I
           | also discovered (about 2016 while working on audio phone
           | apps) that we could already ID users from their tap patterns,
           | finger length, style etc - but there's no common database of
           | that, so less useful.
        
       | giantg2 wrote:
       | Should be easy to obfuscate if true - use gloves, use dirt/grit
       | on the screen, use oily fingers.
       | 
       | Edit:why disagree? I bet you could even create textured screen
       | protectors with randomized patterns to obfuscate they swipe.
        
       | karaterobot wrote:
       | > "up to 27.9% of partial fingerprints and 9.3% of complete
       | fingerprints within five attempts at the highest security FAR
       | [False Acceptance Rate] setting of 0.01%."
       | 
       | I wonder how "partial" is defined.
       | 
       | But anyway, the fact that you can even hear any sounds of swiping
       | feels odd to me. Is this just something Apple could filter out of
       | the audio data it provides to applications? I know nothing about
       | audio processing.
        
       | caymanjim wrote:
       | This reminded me of power line frequency[1] being used to
       | identify when and where recordings were taken. Governments keep
       | historical records of subtle changes in power frequency and can
       | extract the background hum to identify location and time.
       | 
       | 1:
       | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_network_frequency_a...
        
         | m463 wrote:
         | I wonder if they can do that with gps. Like record a short blip
         | of "unlocked" gps spectrum, then recreate the location offline
         | later using saved ephemerals and other data.
        
       | thanatosmin wrote:
       | Reading the paper, it looks like they just demonstrate
       | classification by left loop/right loop/whorl. That's a long way
       | from recreating a full fingerprint.
        
         | whatshisface wrote:
         | It's also a long way from what I had thought would have been
         | possible.
        
           | TeMPOraL wrote:
           | And a good reminder that everything you do radiates
           | information about it all the time, everywhere, at the speed
           | of light.
        
             | pixl97 wrote:
             | My less polite way of saying this is
             | 
             | "Entropy is a bitch"
        
               | ben_w wrote:
               | That's a very different point.
        
               | pixl97 wrote:
               | They are pretty similar. When you look at things like
               | privacy and security in light of human actions and
               | behaviors, then look at our ability to record the entropy
               | from those actions, a whole lot of what we thought was
               | private can be divined by those that can collect enough
               | of this waste.
        
               | whatshisface wrote:
               | They're related by the time reversibility of quantum
               | mechanics and the necessary implication that disorder is
               | the broad mixing of initial information.
        
             | dredmorbius wrote:
             | s/at the speed of light/no faster than the speed of light/
             | 
             | Information's radiation speed is variable. Lightspeed is
             | its upper limit.
             | 
             | Though yes, _some_ leakage occurs at lightspeed.
             | Fingerprint sound should be somewhat slower in most
             | instances.
        
         | thebeefytaco wrote:
         | >Extensive experimental results in real-world scenarios
         | demonstrate that Printlistener can attack up to 26.5% of
         | partial fingerprints and 9.3% of complete fingerprints within
         | five attempts at the highest security FAR setting of 0.01%
        
       | mathgradthrow wrote:
       | Fingerprints aren't secure. You literally leave them on anything
       | you touch.
        
       | tomasreimers wrote:
       | Reminds me of a sidechannel attack I demo'd in college:
       | 
       | https://medium.com/@tomasreimers/axolotl-a-keylogger-for-iph...
        
       | neonate wrote:
       | https://www.ndss-symposium.org/wp-content/uploads/2024-618-p...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-02-20 23:01 UTC)