Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Endpoint

12/7/2016
10:30 AM
Connect Directly
Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
50%
50%

Biometric Technology Is Not A Cure-All For Password Woes

No single authentication token is infallible. The only real solution is multifactor authentication.

Authentication is the cornerstone of information security. At the highest level, security is focused on providing access controls and protection to people or things you trust. If you can't reliably verify the identity of trusted users, access controls break down.

Our trust in authentication systems has eroded of late, largely because of the seemingly endless torrent of massive credential leaks from well-known Web service providers. For example, in mid-November we learned attackers accessed around 330 million AdultFriendFinder accounts, including plaintext and hashed passwords. Researchers have already cracked 99.3% of those passwords. This deluge of credential leaks has caused the security industry to re-examine our authentication systems, and especially our reliance on passwords.

At present, biometric tokens are the industry's solution to this problem. Whether it's a traditional fingerprint or face scan, or a more innovative option such as your heartbeat or brainwaves, the industry has turned to biometrics to solve two major password problems: convenience and difficulties creating a "strong" authentication token.

Image Source: Shutterstock by Chakrapong Zyn
Image Source: Shutterstock by Chakrapong Zyn

A strong authentication token is one that uniquely correlates to you, but others can't know, claim, guess, or replicate. That's why security experts recommend using long, almost random passwords. Unfortunately, it's difficult to remember strong and unique passwords. A biometric such as a fingerprint, on the other hand, is unique by definition.

The second issue is convenience. If you follow all the best practices, passwords are very strong. For example, if you use unique, 24-character, random passwords for every device and website you log on to, it would be very difficult for attackers to steal your credentials. As long as the organization storing your password hashed it, the length of your password would make it too time-consuming to crack. The problem is that no human will realistically do this without some sort of tool to help. Following security best practices results in passwords that are very difficult to memorize. Therefore, the idea that you could just pick up a device and look at it or touch it to log on with biometrics is very appealing to users.

So far, biometric technology sounds great! What's the problem?

First, I should note that biometrics will play an integral role in future authentication. However, we must realize the technology isn't a panacea. If implemented improperly, or without regard to some of the password problems that got us here in the first place, biometrics could just be the fresh coat of paint that hides the rot inside our walls.

Many of the issues with biometrics have been widely discussed, so I won't rehash them in detail. For instance, many researchers have proven it's not overly difficult to replicate certain biometrics. For instance, researchers have fooled fingerprint readers with Play-Doh and got past facial scanners with a special pair of glasses. Furthermore, early biometric solutions stored their "digital" biometric data on a server, rather than limiting it to the client. This could make those servers susceptible to the same types of data breaches that have leaked passwords. In fact, fingerprints of millions of government employees were stolen in a June 2015 data breach at the US Office of Personnel Management. Like passwords before them, biometrics aren't infallible.

The bigger issue here is that biometrics haven't replaced passwords; they've just hidden them. New operating systems such as Windows 10 with Hello and mobile devices with Touch ID are incorporating biometrics, but they still require you to set a password. This could be because biometrics aren't perfect yet and we need backup authentication options, or it could be that it takes time to phase out legacy technology before we can rely on biometrics alone. In either case, the password is still there, and it exposes the same risks it always did. Relying on biometric authentication could also lull users into following poor password practices, making them less secure overall.

What's the Solution?
I don't think passwords are the problem. Instead, I believe no authentication token is infallible. The only real solution to this problem is multifactor authentication (MFA). Right now, we use biometrics as a single token replacement for passwords. We need to use biometrics as one of at least two tokens.

Also, we can't forget the convenience problem. Users will bypass our security practices if they are too impractical, so we should remember that certain types of multifactor solutions could feel inconvenient. However, if we pair a biometric with, say, a proximity-based authentication token from a phone, then users get the benefit of MFA without the hassle.

In the end, biometric security methods are great, but not by themselves. If we simply replace one single-factor solution with another, we're dooming ourselves to relive past problems. If our devices retain backup authentication options, such as passwords, we still expose those legacy risks. The only solution in my opinion is to never accept any authentication token by itself. 

Related Content:

Corey Nachreiner regularly contributes to security publications and speaks internationally at leading industry trade shows like RSA. He has written thousands of security alerts and educational articles and is the primary contributor to the WatchGuard Security Center blog, ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
DevSecOps: The Answer to the Cloud Security Skills Gap
Lamont Orange, Chief Information Security Officer at Netskope,  11/15/2019
Attackers' Costs Increasing as Businesses Focus on Security
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  11/15/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-19037
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-21
ext4_empty_dir in fs/ext4/namei.c in the Linux kernel through 5.3.12 allows a NULL pointer dereference because ext4_read_dirblock(inode,0,DIRENT_HTREE) can be zero.
CVE-2019-19036
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-21
btrfs_root_node in fs/btrfs/ctree.c in the Linux kernel through 5.3.12 allows a NULL pointer dereference because rcu_dereference(root->node) can be zero.
CVE-2019-19039
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-21
__btrfs_free_extent in fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c in the Linux kernel through 5.3.12 calls btrfs_print_leaf in a certain ENOENT case, which allows local users to obtain potentially sensitive information about register values via the dmesg program.
CVE-2019-6852
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-20
A CWE-200: Information Exposure vulnerability exists in Modicon Controllers (M340 CPUs, M340 communication modules, Premium CPUs, Premium communication modules, Quantum CPUs, Quantum communication modules - see security notification for specific versions), which could cause the disclosure of FTP har...
CVE-2019-6853
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-20
A CWE-79: Failure to Preserve Web Page Structure vulnerability exists in Andover Continuum (models 9680, 5740 and 5720, bCX4040, bCX9640, 9900, 9940, 9924 and 9702) , which could enable a successful Cross-site Scripting (XSS attack) when using the products web server.