As some others mentioned, multifactor security is really the best way to go. If your facility is important enough to warrant fingerprint scanners, having the three basics covered (something you have, something you know, and something you are) should be backed up by human guards and there should be multiple levels of security to get through before even seeing the fingerprint scanner. For example, visitors would first have to get through a guarded lobby, through a well-traveled series of hallways, up some floors, and finally past another guard near the protected room.Regardless of the level of security, though, the protectors are more likely to make a mistake than the thief. The thief can wait forever, but corporate moneyholders get tired of paying for security that doesn't appear to be needed.
Sadly, you're not alone. Sometimes I have no clue whether a character is a "b" or a "6" or if it's capitalized or not. Are bots that smart that digg needs to make these unreadable to humans too?
How about a modification to that door lock assembly? PIN, wrong fingerprint, then route wall current through door lock while contact is made. The dead body will be enough to serve as a deterrent to further incursions until someone comes by to collect the remains. :) Better get that PIN and fingerprint dead on, no second chances. :)
If you think about it, this is not very realistic. They cheated quite a bit with lots of help and "inside" knowledge.1) They knew whose fingerprints were stored in the lock.2) They knew which finger was used as the key.3) They probably had the person's help in placing/obtaining a good copy of the target fingerprint. 4) They had the PIN code associated with the fingerprint. They just gloss over this and don't really mention it except for a brief second in the video you can see someone entering a PIN code on the lock keypad.5) They were in no danger of being caught either in efforts to obtain the fingerprint or to break the lock.Remove any one of these and the test becomes quite a bit more difficult. Remove all of them and they would probably still be working on it. Any lock can be beaten, with enough inside knowledge and effort.
Anyone looking to break into a secure location would have "inside" knowledge or be very dumb.1) A simple surveillance of the lock would give the information of who has access.2) Isn't this basicly the same as the first point made.3) I don't get your point so I'll guess. First, a technique is not limited to be used by a single person. Anyone number of people could know it. Second, a simple kidnapping gives you unlimited access to the fingers, eyes or other parts of the person with access.4) Kidnapping gives unlimited access to the person who would know this number and a simple, well used, hammer would get this information relatively quickly. 5) They did not try to break the lock and if done right there is little chance of being caught obtaining a fingerprint. Just don't try to pocket restricted materials that might have the finger print or gloat when you do obtain it.They had to do an easy test because it was about the lock specifically and not how evil you would have to be to do this for real.
montaggSep 18, 2006
The only real test of security is time.
theonesteveSep 18, 2006
As some others mentioned, multifactor security is really the best way to go. If your facility is important enough to warrant fingerprint scanners, having the three basics covered (something you have, something you know, and something you are) should be backed up by human guards and there should be multiple levels of security to get through before even seeing the fingerprint scanner. For example, visitors would first have to get through a guarded lobby, through a well-traveled series of hallways, up some floors, and finally past another guard near the protected room.Regardless of the level of security, though, the protectors are more likely to make a mistake than the thief. The thief can wait forever, but corporate moneyholders get tired of paying for security that doesn't appear to be needed.
drfranktmSep 18, 2006
Sadly, you're not alone. Sometimes I have no clue whether a character is a "b" or a "6" or if it's capitalized or not. Are bots that smart that digg needs to make these unreadable to humans too?
bluedepthSep 18, 2006
How about a modification to that door lock assembly? PIN, wrong fingerprint, then route wall current through door lock while contact is made. The dead body will be enough to serve as a deterrent to further incursions until someone comes by to collect the remains. :) Better get that PIN and fingerprint dead on, no second chances. :)
jqp123Sep 19, 2006
If you think about it, this is not very realistic. They cheated quite a bit with lots of help and "inside" knowledge.1) They knew whose fingerprints were stored in the lock.2) They knew which finger was used as the key.3) They probably had the person's help in placing/obtaining a good copy of the target fingerprint. 4) They had the PIN code associated with the fingerprint. They just gloss over this and don't really mention it except for a brief second in the video you can see someone entering a PIN code on the lock keypad.5) They were in no danger of being caught either in efforts to obtain the fingerprint or to break the lock.Remove any one of these and the test becomes quite a bit more difficult. Remove all of them and they would probably still be working on it. Any lock can be beaten, with enough inside knowledge and effort.
Closed AccountSep 19, 2006
HA HA HA, it will never be safe, there will always be a way until they test the blood and finger print and eye and everything
ozuwarudoDec 18, 2009
Anyone looking to break into a secure location would have "inside" knowledge or be very dumb.1) A simple surveillance of the lock would give the information of who has access.2) Isn't this basicly the same as the first point made.3) I don't get your point so I'll guess. First, a technique is not limited to be used by a single person. Anyone number of people could know it. Second, a simple kidnapping gives you unlimited access to the fingers, eyes or other parts of the person with access.4) Kidnapping gives unlimited access to the person who would know this number and a simple, well used, hammer would get this information relatively quickly. 5) They did not try to break the lock and if done right there is little chance of being caught obtaining a fingerprint. Just don't try to pocket restricted materials that might have the finger print or gloat when you do obtain it.They had to do an easy test because it was about the lock specifically and not how evil you would have to be to do this for real.