Ars is incompetent like 90% of the population. They left out the fingerprint registration step that is clearly shown in the original article video.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/10127908/samsung-galaxy-s10-screen-protector-ebay/
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Samsung Admits Major Security Flaw in Galaxy S10 Under-Screen Fingerprint Sensor
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ars is incompetent like 90% of the population. They left out the fingerprint registration step that is clearly shown in the original article video.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tech/10127908/samsung-galaxy-s10-screen-protector-ebay/
That's probably as reasonable an explanation as any I've heard. I can imagine that TouchID would get pretty jacked if you put a gel screen protector over the top on the finger print sensor.
I’d like a serious source for this - every single case reported was with someone in possession of the phone’s passcode.
[automerge]1571339545[/automerge]
If you do that, it just doesn’t work. It doesn’t allow the user to unlock the phone, and nobody else either.
These people have been trained by apple into thinking screen protectors are needed. Only iPhones need them. https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/iphone-11-series-scratch-gate.2204744/
They provided a warning about it so nothing to hide like Face ID with evil twins which actually turned out to be worse with false positive bypasses by non-evil twins and even unrelated people.
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...or.2206253/page-7?post=27884771#post-27884771
If an iPhone catches fire, and burns down a house, don't people jump on the "using unauthorised chargers" and admonishing Apple?
Meanwhile the Pixel 4 can be unlocked by holding it up to the owner’s unconscious face. There is no setting to require the user’s attention as with iOS.
www.theverge.com
Android sucks at biometrics.
Google’s Pixel 4 face unlock has one major privacy weakness
It works with your eyes closed — even if you’re asleep.
www.theverge.com
Android sucks at biometrics.
That’s about the funniest thing I’ve seen written in a while. “These people have been trained by Apple.” Ha-ha-hardy-har-har. To quote Ralph Kramden.
If I was a thief stealing Samsung phones, I would use a screen protector. The problem is not that this woman could unlock her phone with a finger that wasn’t registered, and her husband could, but now every thief knows how to do it.
Similar to the way the note 7 caught fire? There a reason to use authorized accessories because it’s been proven the copies are engineered poorly. So if you want to take a risk of the accessory bursting into flame or send you a shock, then go for it.
Apple gets a pass when it happens to them since they have a small marketshare.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...let-batteries-may-have-caused-egyptair-crash/
https://abcnews.go.com/US/alaska-airlines-passengers-phone-catches-fire-mid-flight/story?id=37775644
The problem is that the thief stealing your phone will use a cheap screen protector.
[automerge]1571340899[/automerge]
The problem is that QA tends to test that things _work_. Testing whether things don’t work when they shouldn’t is harder. You can’t think of all the situations. I would bet that nobody at Apple put a screen protector over the touchid sensor and made sure it doesn’t work.
A Brief History of Samsung's Troubled Galaxy Note 7
Some considered it the best smartphone ever made — now it's no longer being made
Samsung Recalls Top-Load Washing Machines Due to Risk of Impact Injuries
Consumers should contact Samsung immediately to receive one of the following remedy options. Consumers can choose (1) a free in-home repair that includes reinforcement of the washer’s top and a free one-year extension of the manufacturer’s warranty; (2) a rebate to be applied towards the...
Not like samsung isn’t getting proficient at dealing with recalls.
Still posting lies? Is that all you’re capable of?
The French Aviation Authority already debunked this. That and even the most basic common sense would tell you a fire starting on the cockpit dash isn’t going to set of smoke alarms in the lavatory or the under-floor avionics bay BEFORE the alarms in the cockpit went off.
Seriously, where do you come up with all this BS?
The problem isn’t unauthorised chargers, but unsafe chargers. If you have a charger that puts 220 volts straight into your phone when there is a tiny bit of humidity then you don’t blame the phone, whatever brand.
And with the only verified burning-Iphone-on-plane case someone had put a screw through the battery during a botched repair.
After the shoddy releases of iOS 13 and MacOS 10.15, requiring multiple patches already, I wouldn't bring up rushed testing.
If I had a Galaxy S10 and a thief got hold of it, how would my phone be at risk if this thief had a screen protector?
Bad day for Samsung AND Google. Surprised MR hasn't headlined this one that just appeared on the BBC.
Google Pixel 4 Face Unlock works if eyes are shut
Google Pixel 4 Face Unlock works if eyes are shut
They are not wrong. Fitting a case like the one in the news item, results in the original fingerprint not being recognised. The case material is quite thick and allows an air gap between the case and the phone's screen. After using one's passcode to allow a new fingerprint to be registered, the distortion to the ultrasonics probably results in an image that is lacking in detail. Other people's scans also lack in detail when attempting to unlock the phone, and these may allow the phone to be unlocked, being seen as sufficiently similar.
This is probably similar to the warnings Apple made about children under 13 not using the Face ID. They have fewer wrinkles etc as their skin is still smooth.
QUOTE from the time
Apple has warned that its new facial recognition tool, Face ID, shouldn't be used by children under the age of 13. The firm claims that their faces 'may not have fully developed' and are too similar, increasing the chance that their iPhone could be unlocked by someone else.
Sep 2017
From a programming perspective, when there's a bad fingerprint read, they're only rejecting fingerprints that are definitely NOT the user, but letting through anything else.
Basically, their tech isn't good enough to work consistently, so when they're not sure, they're just letting people through because otherwise it would be too annoying.
That's like a lock that only stops you if you have the wrong key, but if you stick a popsicle stick in there, it works just fine.
Basically, their tech isn't good enough to work consistently, so when they're not sure, they're just letting people through because otherwise it would be too annoying.
That's like a lock that only stops you if you have the wrong key, but if you stick a popsicle stick in there, it works just fine.
Just to be clear - the screen protector wouldn't help a thief get into the phone. The various reposts of the original article don't make this clear, but the original UK article specifically mentions that she registered her fingerprint after applying the 3rd party screen protector.
Scenario 1 - Person buys phone - there is a Samsung supplied screen protector already on it and a warning in the box that 3rd party screen protectors will interfere with the fingerprint sensor so don't use them. Whether they leave the original screen protector on or not, they register their fingerprint. The fingerprint works just fine.
The thief then steals the phone. It doesn't recognize their fingerprint. They apply a cheap screen protector - it still doesn't recognize their fingerprint. They give up and treat it like any locked phone. They would have to get the original person to unlock the phone - then apply the cheap screen protector - and then re-register a fingerprint - and then the newly registered fingerprint would be unreliable. That isn't likely to happen and it would involve the victim unlocking the phone anyway so why bother with the extra screen protector?
Scenario 2 - someone buys the phone. They ignore the warning and add a 3rd party screen protector on top of or instead of the supplied one. If they registered their fingerprint before they applied the 3rd party screen protector then it would no longer work. Sad face. If they then decide to register a new fingerprint with the new screen protector - then that fingerprint would be insecure.
It looks like the software update will likely just reject any fingerprint registrations that lack enough detail. This is in addition to the warning that was in the box not to use 3rd party screen protectors. But if someone doesn't heed that warning, then the software will now prevent them from believing in their fingerprint security in that case.
[automerge]1571348515[/automerge]
Not quite, it's like a lock that asks you which key you want to use and if you continually stick a popsicle in the hole they'll eventually allow that to be used as a key. But, if you stuck a regular key in then it would be as secure as any keyed lock.
The problem was that some people weren't aware that they were essentially asking the phone to believe that a popsicle was an adequate key because they ignored the warnings that were in the box telling them not to use a 3rd party screen protector. They thought they were putting a real key in the lock, but the screen protector was telling the phone "don't know, they just poked me with something stick-like" - and eventually the phone went with it. After a software patch it will require something that looks more like a key before it accepts the registration.