Hacker News Reader

Would be nice, but biometrics have also been systematically made less secure. Apple, for example, no longer sells a phone with Touch ID.

View on HN

At first I read this as "Apple doesn't implement Touch ID, because they found it to be insecure", which really confused me. Was that the intent?

On second reading, I'm thinking this might mean, "since Apple only implements Face ID, biometrics on Apple devices is less secure", which makes more sense (to me).

Yeah, the latter. All kinds of reports of siblings (including fraternal twins and non-twins) being able to unlock each others phones.

https://duckduckgo.com/?origin=funnel_home_google&t=h_&q=fac...

Fingerprints are much more non-deterministic and therefore more secure.

Aren't fingerprints obsolete as biometrics? Last I remembered fingerprints can be lifted if high resolution pictures. I.e. any picture where your thumb is visible.

Vendors not using biometrics well doesn't mean biometrics are insecure. Apple not selling touch ID CERTAINLY isn't evidence of the security of biometrics.

If nearly all biometrics systems currently on the market are insecure, then it is fair to say biometrics have been made insecure.

Of devices currently sold, the only secure biometrics I'm aware of are on iPad mini/Air; Google Pixel; Honor Magic; and possibly Samsung Galaxy S21 and newer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com