If A Phone's Facial Recognition Security Can Be Defeated By A Picture Of A Face, What Good Is It?

from the a-thousand-logins dept

Mon, Apr 3rd 2017 5:34pm — Timothy Geigner

No technology is perfect and facial recognition software is obviously no exception. But whereas law enforcement groups use this flawed technology in too many instances, device manufacturers are beginning to ship out security features that rely on facial recognition software almost ubiquitously. Many might look at this modern technology and imagine defeating it and logging into another person's phone would resemble some kind of Mission Impossible style convolution. Sadly, as proven again recently with the release of Samsung's Galaxy S8, defeating the security feature is laughably simple.

With the public's first exposure to the Galaxy S8 happening a few days ago, it was only a matter of time until one of these biometric solutions had some holes poked in it.

One of those holes is that Galaxy S8's face recognition can be tricked with a photo. At least this is what a video from Spanish Periscope user Marcianophone purports. About 6 minutes into the 40-minute Spanish-language video, you can see the attendee take a selfie with his personal phone, then point it at the Galaxy S8, which is trained to unlock with his face. It only takes a few minutes of fiddling before the Galaxy S8 gives in and unlocks with just a picture, moving from the "secure" lock screen right to the home screen. Once the user dials in his technique, he shows the trick is easily repeatable.

This trick actually goes back quite a ways to earlier versions of the Android OS. Google had attempted to defeat this workaround by requiring users to blink during the facial recognition scan. That was almost immediately defeated by phone-breakers having to have two pictures instead of one, including one with the persons eyes closed and then switching between pictures during the scan. If you aren't laughing as you're picturing this in your head, your sense of humor is broken, because it's fairly hilarious.

Less funny is the obvious question: why bother with this stuff at all if it's so easily defeated? Samsung, to its credit, doesn't allow facial recognition to authorize Samsung purchases. If it's not good enough for that, why should it be good enough to serve as a locking mechanism for the phone at all? Other locks, including other biometric locks, perform far better. Maybe it would be best to table this security feature until it's, you know, secure.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: facial recognition, galaxy s8, security
Companies: samsung

50 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Rex Rollman, 3 Apr 2017 @ 5:46pm

What it comes down to, for me, is: can it be used if you are unconscious? Both face and fingerprint recognition can; meaning that it is a convenience feature and not a security feature.

No thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- OldMugwump (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 6:13pm
  
  Re: convenience feature and not a security feature
  As with all things security, it depends on how much security you need, the consequences of failure, and who your opponent is.
  
  There are lots of things for which minimal security is fine - when a breach involves minor consequences you can easily live with.
  
  For other things you need more security. If your phone can transfer away your life savings, for example.
  
  And if your opponent is the NSA you need stronger security than if it's the nosy guy in the next cube at work.
  
  Nobody should expect a single level of security to be right for everyone, or for everything.
  
  Stronger security has costs that you don't want to pay for trivial gains.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 6:31pm
    
    Re: Re: convenience feature and not a security feature
    Unless the nosy guy in the next cubicle works for the NSA. But then, if he works for the NSA, he's probably working *in* the NSA's buildings, which means that you're working in the NSA's buildings, which means that *you* also work for the NSA, which means that you must have the strongest possible encryption against your own access.
    
    Ok, that's done it. My head's exploded.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Eldakka (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 8:53pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: convenience feature and not a security feature
      
      Ok, that's done it. My head's exploded.
      
      That level of security is a bit excessive don't you think?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - orbitalinsertion (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 9:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: convenience feature and not a security feature
        Yeah, just the phone maybe. Oh wait, they already do that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Bergman (profile), 4 Apr 2017 @ 2:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: convenience feature and not a security feature
        Burn all documents before reading, shoot yourself before discovering something secret?
        
        Sounds about right.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Bamboo Harvester (profile), 4 Apr 2017 @ 7:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re: convenience feature and not a security feature
      That's not so far fetched. If you have a security clearance, you often don't have *enough* clearance to read your own personnel file.
      
      Yeah, I know....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Digitari, 4 Apr 2017 @ 2:40pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: convenience feature and not a security feature
        or like in my case you only can read a "Portion" of the file for logging purposes, you have the entire file but only can read the "Headers", to keep a log of said file. (date of file, from:, To:, and subject)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2017 @ 9:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re: convenience feature and not a security feature
      
      if he works for the NSA, he's probably working in the NSA's buildings
      
      You're not paranoid enough. We should assume they have moles working for companies with "interesting" data.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Digitari, 4 Apr 2017 @ 2:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: convenience feature and not a security feature
        the the Geek Squad......
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2017 @ 9:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re: convenience feature and not a security feature
      "if he works for the NSA, he's probably working *in* the NSA's buildings"
      
      Ummm... no, he could work at the Geek Squad, UPS, ANYWHERE.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 4 Apr 2017 @ 5:46am
  
  Re:
  Dear Mr. Comey,
  
  The brightest minds in our police department have discovered an amazing, incredible hack. As you know, once a suspect is arrested for resisting arrest, their mugshot is normally taken. Most police departments have someone of sufficient technical skill and capability who are able to somehow use the mugshot to unlock the suspect's phone. That enables the phone to be searched to provide additional basis for the the arrest.
  
  Just thought you would like to know. The federal government may be able to find people skilled enough to use this same sophisticated technique.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Chief Donut Eater
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Psilax (profile), 4 Apr 2017 @ 3:26pm
  
  Re: convenience vs security
  I'm with you, but it does depend on your threat model. At home, the primary threat to my phone is my horrible, attentive, shoulder-surfing kids who invariably work out every digital passcode after watching me for a few weeks. Fingerprint unlock is perfect for this scenario. At the US border, not so much. That's a time to depend on a passcode locked inside my head.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Wanderer (profile), 5 Apr 2017 @ 6:51am
    
    Re: Re: convenience vs security
    That's why the correct solution is to use both.
    
    In fact, that points back to one of the key things people keep saying (and other people seem to miss) about this: biometrics make excellent replacements for usernames, but very poor replacements for passwords.
    
    Require face- or fingerprint-recognition before the device asks for the passcode, then require the passcode before the device actually becomes unlocked. Slightly less convenient than either alone, but aside from that, more or less the best of both worlds.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AEIO_ (profile), 4 Apr 2017 @ 8:17pm
  
  Re:
  "...can it be used if you are unconscious? "
  
  But most of the population is unconscious. Or at least unthinking, which is the same thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 6:26pm

I don't know why people expect these commodity electronics companies to be concerned with security and fail to see these for what they truly are, gimmicks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 10:50pm
  
  gimmicks
  
  my thought to the letter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 6:27pm

At least the phone doesn't explode. That's gotta count for something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Eldakka (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 8:55pm
  
  Re:
  I don't know, a remote explode sounds like a good security measure.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2017 @ 7:18am
  
  Re:
  How do you know? It hasn't even been released to the public yet. Not like the Note 7 started exploding right off the bat. Have to give it at least a month after it's on sale to the public which is still a couple weeks away.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 6:29pm

>Maybe it would be best to table this security feature until it's, you know, secure.

In the absence of a threat model, the word secure has no meaning. Not everyone requires bars outside their windows.

If you lost your phone on the street, it's highly unlikely a thief would also happen to have a picture of you to defeat this system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 11:04pm
  
  Re:
  He will if it's on your google profile.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 6:31pm

Biometrics are not security, they're convenience!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
timmaguire42 (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 6:42pm

All biometric security suffers from the same fatal flaw--no matter how hard it is to steal or fake, once done, you're done.

You can change your password, but good luck changing your fingerprints, your iris, your face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cdaragorn (profile), 4 Apr 2017 @ 9:52am
  
  Re:
  Exactly. The security world needs to give up on biometrics. As flawed as passwords are, biometrics are NOT better.
  
  The very fact that you cannot change your biometrics breaks one of the basic requirements of security. To say nothing of the fact that anyone can grab them from you without needing your help in any way.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2017 @ 9:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    Biometrics actually would work well as a user identifier. Just also require a password. I lot more inconvenient to hack an account if you need both biometric information as well as a password.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AEIO_ (profile), 4 Apr 2017 @ 8:23pm
  
  Re:
  "You can change your password, but good luck changing your fingerprints, your iris, your face."
  
  That's what reincarnation is for. Just hope they don't wipe your mind in the process -- I don't think they've quite got the process down yet.
  
  (1) http://people.com/books/meet-the-boy-who-believes-he-was-lou-gehrig-in-a-past-life-his-mom-is-convin ced-too/ --- because if you can't convince your mom, you're sure not going to convince anyone else.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
rasz_pl, 3 Apr 2017 @ 7:45pm

iphone fingerprint reader can be defeated with a XERO/print of a fingerprint, and still millions of idio^^consumers use it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2017 @ 11:49am
  
  Re:
  Probably because for Millions of consumers the threat of someone lifting their fingerprint or finding a photograph with enough detail, printing it out using conductive ink is far lower than someone breaking in using their cleverly devised 4 digit PIN.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
K`Tetch (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 8:39pm

I used the facial recognition for a while on my galaxy tab 3 7.0

My (then) 11-yo daughter could unlock it half the time by looking at it.

Sure people say "you spit her out" to me, BUT ANDROID SHOULDN'T BE SAYING THAT!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
orbitalinsertion (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 9:05pm

Well, once it is secure, the governments will want a backdoor to your face.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 4 Apr 2017 @ 7:26am
  
  Re:
  They already have everyone's backdoor.
  
  It's called taxes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 9:17pm

The government and various LEO's would love for these easily defeated biometric "security" features to be the standard on all phones. No need to go to court or try to force someone to open the phone at the border or wherever, they can just show the phone your picture and they're in. These kinds of things just shouldn't be used for security or at the very least it shouldn't be the sole step for any security.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 9:21pm

I wondered where all of those IoT security engineers landed after they got fired from their last job securing things...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 11:03pm

It's the same (or worse) in windows.
Friend of mine showed me his cool facial recognition login on his Lenovo, I opened my phone, selected his phonebook entry which thanks to his google profile had his face on it and used it to log into his laptop.

He was kinda pissed. I laughed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jamie, 11 Apr 2017 @ 8:27pm
  
  Re: It's the same (or worse) in windows.
  The facial recognition built into Windows 10 ("Windows Hello") is really quite good. It requires a 3D camera system that can detect depth, and cannot be defeated by a 2D photo or video. However, the number of laptops/tablets out there that have this hardware is pretty small.
  
  It's quite possible that your friend's laptop is running Lenovo's Veriface software, which only requires a 2D camera. The lack of depth sensing makes it much easier to fool. Similarly, Dell laptops use SensibleVision's FastAccess software, which has the same limitations.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TKnarr (profile), 3 Apr 2017 @ 11:44pm

I'd like a variant of two-factor: my fingerprint can unlock the phone alone while connected to my headset or PC via Bluetooth, otherwise it requires the PIN or password in addition to the fingerprint.

To be nasty, let it ask for the PIN/password regardless of what fingerprint it scanned but too many failed PIN/password attempts with the wrong fingerprint presented would lock out all further attempts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cdaragorn (profile), 4 Apr 2017 @ 9:56am
  
  Re:
  I just want to make it so using my fingerprint instantly locks out the phone and double encrypts the data on it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Apr 2017 @ 11:55pm

Probably reason for this./
How do you get lots of faces to test such software with, why by using photographs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, I know I'm commenting anonymously, 4 Apr 2017 @ 3:59am

As Bruce Schneier mentioned on his blog: biometrics are equivalent to user names, not passwords.
If implemented correctly, after the facial recognition, the phone should ask for a password.
It could even keep checking and close down again when a new face appears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
peter, 4 Apr 2017 @ 5:57am

NSA's detailed instructions to exploit
SECRET.

Not for release to the general public as criminal elements may learn and use the exploit.

Step 1 - hold phone in front of owner
Step 2 - Er...nope. Thats about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2017 @ 6:13am

Why is it so hard for companies to get this right. Bio metrics should be replacing USERNAMES not passwords. So then suddenly the phone will not unlock without seeing your face and having a passcode. This makes it so the trivial picture trick isn't that important while at the same time making it more of a pain for someone to get into your phone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2017 @ 6:23am
  
  Re:
  Why is it so hard for companies to get this right.
  
  If you had ever tried discussing technical issues with a n MBA qualified manager, you would know the answer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AnonJr (profile), 4 Apr 2017 @ 6:14am

Worth Considering

Samsung, to its credit, doesn't allow facial recognition to authorize Samsung purchases. If it's not good enough for that, why should it be good enough to serve as a locking mechanism for the phone at all? Other locks, including other biometric locks, perform far better. Maybe it would be best to table this security feature until it's, you know, secure.

While I agree that it's good that Samsung isn't allowing this sort of authentication for financial transactions, I'm not sure we should go so far as to say "don't use it".

Don't forget, it wasn't that long ago that fingerprint scanners were quite the joke. (and to a lesser extent, still can be)

It's going to take time in the real world to refine the techniques for these sorts of systems. You can only do so much in the controlled lab settings, and only a small bit more with in-house testing.

That said, you would think they would have known that someone was going to try the photo thing... it's not like that's a new workaround for facial recognition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DebbyS, 4 Apr 2017 @ 7:49am

Funny face
I don't have a cell phone (well, I have a tiny Posh to play mp3s), so I don't know about facial recognition software. Could the phone's owner simply have the phone imprint (so to speak) on the owner making a funny face (sticks tongue out, crosses eyes/closes one eye, looks 3/4 profile at phone, holds hand over half of face, etc.)? Would then a normal picture (or holding phone to owner in a line up) then NOT work to unlock the phone? Just curious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Cdaragorn (profile), 4 Apr 2017 @ 10:01am
  
  Re: Funny face
  That would require too detailed a case to work. Basically, it would make it almost impossible for the person to ever unlock their phone again because they'd have to get that exact facial expression exactly right the second time, which is next to impossible for any person to do.
  
  Facial recognition attempts to analyze several generic data points to tell if it's likely the same face looking back at it. This actually describes part of the problem with biometrics. You never get 100% match accuracy, so you're always guessing and accepting some degree of inaccuracy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Apr 2017 @ 11:16am

what good is it?
It is a great feature for law enforcement and intelligence officers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digitari, 4 Apr 2017 @ 2:56pm

the answer....
DNA blood testing with facial recognition with 8 number pin, by the time you get your phone open you will forget who you were going to call. think of the data savings :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lady Gwyneth (profile), 6 Apr 2017 @ 8:40am

They're not. Those cameras on stoplights that use these types of technologies (I assume) had her speeding in a state across the country that she'd never been to before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Concerned consumer, 10 Sep 2017 @ 6:36am

With iPhone 8 on verge of release, this subject is extremely relevant and I hope it's revisited. Why wouldn't a mugger, violent criminal, or even law enforcement simply point the confiscated phone at the owner's face? The owner may not be in control of their own phone at the time, they may be victimized, beat down, or subdued in some way. Criminals may become more brazen, knowing they can immediately unlock the victim's phone at the point of confiscation. I prefer to keep my security sourced from the inside of my head, not what's on the outside of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]