The answer is simple – the same reasons why even risk-averse investors were chasing after every Internet company in the late 90s – the attractiveness of the global scale and reduced costs of e-channels.

Over the years, payments and savings have always been a subject of the most advanced protection:

• Banknotes have watermarks and other security features to resist counterfeiting
• Cheques require the account holder's signature
• ATMs require both your card and your PIN, run secure software, and are physically tamper-resistant
• Point of Sale terminals in your favourite supermarket are protected from tampering and use dedicated secure connections to the payment processing network

These are all very sensible measures that work (to one degree or another) to protect customers' and banks' money.

Today, however, there is a huge imbalance between the value of electronically accessible funds and their security. This is being very effectively exploited by criminals and the banks are looking for a solution. Personal computers are not tamper proof sales terminals, therefore it is unfeasible to rely on the customer to keep them 100% secure. No one can take away online banking but banks can deploy new security measures, and solving this problem requires a new innovative approach that can equally address security, ease of use, and cost.

At Cronto, we identified this imbalance years ago. We also correctly predicted that the only solution to address this problem is transaction authentication (where the customer confirms each banking instruction). We then developed an innovative visual transaction signing solution. Based on our unique Visual Cryptogram, the Cronto solution supports multiple end user options allowing the bank to choose what is right for their customers whilst maintaining consistency in their backend systems.

By the way, you may notice that I'm making fewer posts over the next month or so. I'll be busy studying for the GRE, wish me luck.

In fact, I found the article to be rather upsetting. Not because of the article’s thesis that strong authentication through a national ID program would not necessarily pose a threat to privacy; but rather, because of their naive (and irresponsible) handling of the realities of the biometric authentication challenge. They gloss over the real security challenges with creating a national biometric infrastructure. Here are the two quotes that are most misleading:

• “Confusing privacy with anonymity has delayed implementation of robust, virtually tamper-proof biometric authentication to replace paper-based forms of ID that neither assure privacy nor reliably prove identity.”
• “This emerging technology makes it virtually impossible to assume someone else’s unique identity.”

The problem that the authors are glossing over is that no such technology exists today, and it is unlikely to ever exist. Now, to be fair, I am assuming that a critical success factor for any national biometric program, as described, would be that the authentication devices have to be available, and usable, anyplace paper-based IDs can be used today. This of course implies that the authenticator must be an inexpensive, commodity device, easy to purchase, maintain, and operate. Such a device would have to be even more ubiquitous than the electronic credit card machine.

The problem is that the authenticator itself may be in the possession of the attacker (Perhaps after you authenticate your legitimate purchase the clerk desires to use your identity herself…). In the history of security controls, when the attacker has unsupervised at-will physical access, the attacker wins. Here are a few examples:

• Defeated copy protection on DVDs ( more & more info)
• Cold Boot Crypto Attack on hard disk encryption (more info)
• MiFare RFID Cards (more info)
• Skimming devices attached to ATM machines to steal card and PIN data (more info)

Of course, all of these systems worked in the lab. But when a security system is widely deployed, it has to withstand an enormous amount of scrutiny, and minor flaws will be exploited. And of course, the greater the financial gain, the greater the time and energy attackers invest in trying to defeat the system. The authors of the article ignore these issues, idealistically assuming biometrics will just work.

Now, of course there are lots of examples where biometrics work very effectively. But I would propose that biometric authentication is most useful when the authentication device is physically secure and the authentication itself is supervised. The MiFare example above also demonstrates two other issues:

• The system chose not to implement a reviewed and standard cryptographic algorithm - always a bad idea
• MiFare was able to sell 1 billion cards and authenticators before the system failed

The cost of investing in a national biometric authentication program, and then having the security fail, is enormous. Can you imagine deploying a biometric authentication infrastructure to every bank, police car, restaurant, shop, etc. and then having video on YouTube of it being defeated ?

- Erik

BTW, Maybe the attacker doesn’t even need to tamper with the device -> ftp://ftp.ccc.de/pub/video/Fingerabdruck_Hack/fingerabdruck.mpg

Art of Information Security would love your feedback !

What do the Cold Boot Crypto Attack, DVD Players, and MiFare tell us about the Future of Biometrics?

Updated (20 Mar 2008) with new link.

Updated (20 Mar 2008) with new link.