Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Motorola Developing Pill and Tattoo Authentication Methods

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the slashdot-branding-authentication-coming-soon dept.

Security 194

redletterdave writes "In trying to solve the 'mechanical mismatch' between humans and electronics — particularly wearables — special projects chief Regina Dugan unveiled two new projects currently in development at Google's Motorola Mobility centered on rethinking authentication methodology, including electronic tattoos and ingestible pills. Of the pill, which Dugan called her 'first superpower,' she described it as an 'inside-out potato battery' that when swallowed, the acids in one's stomach serve as the electrolyte to power an 18-bit ECG-like signal that essentially turns one's body into an authentication token. 'It means my arms are like wires and my hands are like alligator clips [so] when I touch my phone, my computer, my door, I'm authenticated,' Dugan said. 'This is not science fiction.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Beowolf? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873451)

Imagine a beowolf cluster of digestible pills.

Tattoo Authentication Methods (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873461)

Didn't we have a problem with this in Europe last century?

Re:Tattoo Authentication Methods (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873751)

This time the tattoo goes on the forehead or the palm of your right hand.

Re:Tattoo Authentication Methods (4, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43874019)

I vote for the forehead tattoo with an "H" letter design.

Re:Tattoo Authentication Methods (1)

sudden.zero (981475) | about a year ago | (#43874181)

Awww, but I don't want to be a hologram!

Re:Tattoo Authentication Methods (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43873769)

This would be voluntary. That is a pretty big difference.

Re: Tattoo Authentication Methods (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873851)

Voluntary, if you want to use any of the services connected to it.

Just like cell phones and automobiles are voluntary yet essential services.

Re: Tattoo Authentication Methods (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43873941)

I have friends with no cell phones, and plenty with no automobiles. The last one depends highly on the public transit situation in your area though.

I would say where I live both are very convenient but not essential. When not on call I often disable the cellular connection of my phone. You should try it some time.

Re: Tattoo Authentication Methods (1, Informative)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year ago | (#43874073)

Yep, but most of the people are not sociopaths like your friend....

Re: Tattoo Authentication Methods (3, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | about a year ago | (#43874121)

Are there really people out there creating a market clamoring for pill swallowing transmitter ID for devices?

Seems like a strange idea, for a small market...I mean, we've seen how well the inject-able RFID chips have sold....

Re: Tattoo Authentication Methods (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43874327)

Hospitals would love this.
So would retirement homes and other care facilities.

not in prison if they want to have some thing like (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year ago | (#43873895)

not in prison if they want to have some thing like this.

Re:not in prison if they want to have some thing l (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43873921)

Having some form of ID in prison is already not voluntary. That is sort of the point.

Re:Tattoo Authentication Methods (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873955)

Tell that to the school kids in Florida who just got tattooed without their parent's permission.

Oh wait, that was something else...

Re:Tattoo Authentication Methods (3, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year ago | (#43874037)

This would be voluntary. That is a pretty big difference.

At first. It would be voluntary at first.
There are many people in power in this world today who would love to be able to tattoo some sort of ID on people from birth, or embed an RFID in their bodies at birth, and so on, so they can be tracked everywhere they go (with greater ease than we already are with goddamn fucking cameras everywhere. NO. JUST. NO.
Yes, I understand the article is talking about something like a henna tattoo or a sticker you wear.. but it would set a dangerous precedent. The line has to be drawn here, no farther!

Re:Tattoo Authentication Methods (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43874133)

So your right to be afraid trumps my right to get one of these devices for my own use?

Am I allowed to wear it outside or will you object to that as well?

Re:Tattoo Authentication Methods (3, Interesting)

jeffmeden (135043) | about a year ago | (#43874185)

This would be voluntary. That is a pretty big difference.

At first. It would be voluntary at first.
There are many people in power in this world today who would love to be able to tattoo some sort of ID on people from birth, or embed an RFID in their bodies at birth, and so on, so they can be tracked everywhere they go (with greater ease than we already are with goddamn fucking cameras everywhere. NO. JUST. NO.
Yes, I understand the article is talking about something like a henna tattoo or a sticker you wear.. but it would set a dangerous precedent. The line has to be drawn here, no farther!

Some perspective du jour...

Rewind 50 years:
"You mean those fuckers are going to require that they have my picture just so I can get a drivers license? Hell no! Let's draw the line in the sand! The MAN already knows too much about me, and it would set an unthinkable precedent!"

Fast forward 5 years (maybe less):
"Oh, wait, you mean it will make my email and phone and bank account basically un-hackable in the face of wave after wave of cybertheft? Yeah, well, ok let's draw the line just a little further out"

Re:Tattoo Authentication Methods (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | about a year ago | (#43874085)

Not that I believe in voodoo/magic... but the bible talks about something like this too... requirement for trade etc.

I also remember something similar in the movie Demolition Man as well... Are you an Oscar Mayer Weiner?

Frosty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873465)

First!

Re:Frosty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873507)

Fail!

Re:Frosty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873591)

First!

Fail!

Temporary token (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873475)

So I have to check my poop all the time for my auth token?

Eat it again? Renegotiate?

How do you authenticate yourself without the "inside out potato" - not science fiction maybe, but rather far out research - I like it ! :)

Re:Temporary token (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873731)

So I have to check my poop all the time for my auth token?

Eat it again? Renegotiate?

How do you authenticate yourself without the "inside out potato"

Parser failure. "Potato battery" is one token; "inside-out" modifies the whole thing.

And of course it doesn't fucking work for more basic reasons, because anything that touches your hand can read the whole 18 bits of the electric signal, then program their own pill to reproduce it. You need a way of proving you have the authentication secret without providing the authentication secret -- public-key cryptography is the answer, and it doesn't sound like this implements it, since public-key authentication normally requires two-way comms or a synchronized bit of variable data (e.g. synchronized real-time clocks) to prevent replay attacks.

Once you add two-way comms, then it's not hard to swallow another pill, and have the old one sign the new one's public key, so there's always at least one in your system, and it has a chain of trust going back to the first one. Add some infrastructure on the other side so once a longer chain is seen anywhere on the internet, a shorter chain is no longer valid, and now you don't have to worry about somebody else going through your poop for yesterday's auth-pill and using it to impersonate you.

Re:Temporary token (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873843)

And of course it doesn't fucking work for more basic reasons, because anything that touches your hand can read the whole 18 bits of the electric signal, then program their own pill to reproduce it.

The point of the research is to minimize the aggravation of human-computer interaction required for authentication and authorization, dumbass. If the prototype can deliver some 18 bits of electric signal, then it can (trivially) be modified to act as a second authentication factor or to implement PKI.

Try thinking *outside* your little box sometime.

Re:Temporary token (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43874081)

Try reading *past* the first sentence sometime.

2-way communication is not a trivial extension, but it's doable, and it's the right fix. Once you have that, AS I EXPLAINED, the other problems GP mentioned are trivially fixable.

Re: Temporary token (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873881)

So.. People keep chugging pills to authenticate??

That's dumb.

Re: Temporary token (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43873959)

Many people already take pills everyday, for them this would not be a big deal.

Re: Temporary token (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about a year ago | (#43874067)

That's not dumb for the manufacturer. In fact I'm going to guess that some USA politicians may have already received a cash bonus to vote in favour of this stupid idea.

Re: Temporary token (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43874141)

So.. People keep chugging pills to authenticate??

That's dumb.

But less dumb than keeping chugging the same fucking pill after it goes through your digestive tract, no?

Less disgusting, anyway.

I will take two pills! (2)

fredan (54788) | about a year ago | (#43873491)

So that I've got 36-bits of this securitybits!

Re:I will take two pills! (1)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about a year ago | (#43873525)

What happens if you get an evil bit by accident?

Re:I will take two pills! (3, Funny)

Nadaka (224565) | about a year ago | (#43873583)

You become a were-cyborg.

Re:I will take two pills! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43874345)

But you only transform at the 2038 integer overflow.

Re:I will take two pills! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43874295)

A red AND blue pill at the same time? Careful or you might end up like Violet (from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory).

I can't swallow a pill that big! (4, Funny)

AioKits (1235070) | about a year ago | (#43873495)

Good news! It's a suppository!

Re:I can't swallow a pill that big! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43874077)

Needs acid. Ow. Or is it Wow?

Automatic authentication by contact sounds bad (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873505)

So all i need to do to get into your stuff is knock you out and touch you to it?

Seems a bit insecure.

Re:Automatic authentication by contact sounds bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873555)

Better than a rubber hose.

Re:Automatic authentication by contact sounds bad (3, Interesting)

FooAtWFU (699187) | about a year ago | (#43873617)

It also sounds vulnerable to replay attacks. I can have you touch something that secretly records the signal, then play it back to the actual input device. Seems like a password you're always broadcasting from your skin...

Re:Automatic authentication by contact sounds bad (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year ago | (#43874365)

That's why you never depend on a single item. At least two of: something you have, something you are, something you know. this is sort of a bluring of something you have and something you are, but this combined with a PIN/Passphrase would make authentication quit secure.

Re:Automatic authentication by contact sounds bad (1)

jeffmeden (135043) | about a year ago | (#43874259)

So all i need to do to get into your stuff is knock you out and touch you to it?

Seems a bit insecure.

They have this thing we call "Two factor authentication"... as long as your remembered, short-term password is not exposed before they knock you out then you are still safe (at least your deepest darkest secrets are, maybe Facebook will ignore the two factor auth requirement). Then again if they are going to knock you out why not just resort to restraining you, while awake, and forcing you to hand over your credentials at the threat of torture or death? If violence is on the table, not much will save you (except a good guy with a gun).

Re:Automatic authentication by contact sounds bad (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#43874307)

you just need to shake the hand....
you know what's coming up? CUTS AT MOTOROLA.

how does one know that? the research labs start publicizing all kinds of crazy shit to news outlets.

that and the fact that they're overdue, because of money(shitty sales, really) and this is why google is keeping them as a separate entity, so that they can do the cuts with them still seeming like Motorola doing them and not Google since Google has money and doesn't have a pressing need to cut the staff.

Clip this! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43873531)

And there should be regulation to prevent all corporations, but not government, from surreptitiously reading your "alligator clip" ID because we have been trained, by government, to think of business as the Prime Evil of existance.

Re:Clip this! (1)

Farmer Pete (1350093) | about a year ago | (#43873589)

Are you shaking my hand because you're friendly, or are you secretly reading my ID, sending the information off to your ops center, and are now going to clone my ID and sneak into my secret lab that I shouldn't have just mentioned on Slashdot....crap

Re:Clip this! (2)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#43873613)

because we have been trained, by government, to think of business as the Prime Evil of existance.

I think I'm not alone here when I say: WTF?

Re:Clip this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873741)

I second your WTF. Especially on /. where people think governments are the biggest evil of all, while businesses should be allowed to do anything because "freedom".

Re:Clip this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873811)

Especially on /. where people think governments are the biggest evil of all, while businesses should be allowed to do anything because "freedom".

Hate to burst your bubble, but around these parts we don't like either of them.

Re:Clip this! (4, Insightful)

gorzek (647352) | about a year ago | (#43874093)

And yet the prevailing political philosophy I see expressed by Slashdot commenters falls somewhere in the anarchist/libertarian area of the political graph, where there's little to no government and virtually unfettered personal (and corporate) behavior. In concept, it's nice to imagine a world where everyone can do anything they want as long as it's not harming anyone else. In practice, we find that "harm" is not always easy to see, and can result from complex sequences of events and interactions that are not individually problematic but nevertheless result in systemic harms.

I am by no means saying that government is the perfect solution to every problem. In fact, there is no perfect solution to most problems. There's only bricolage and compromise. Some things are better managed by government. Some things are better managed by the private sector. Both need to be accountable, though: the business world is accountable to the government, and the government is accountable to the people. When any of those mechanisms fails, the system has failed.

That is to say, I am deeply unhappy with the current state of US politics, since any efforts at accountability for government are stymied by the total lack of accountability in the business world.

But there's no way I'm going to take that and conclude the option is to nearly get rid of the government and just trust the market to work everything out. That way lies insanity, or at least a whole lot of misery.

Re:Clip this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873987)

He's saying when you go all occupy and demand the Government rein in Evil Business, you've fallen for the oldest trick in the book.
(Which is true.)
What he's suspiciously not saying is that when you go all tea party and demand the Evil Government collapse and let Business do everything, you've also fallen for the same damn trick.
(Which is also true.)

In point of fact, Government is evil, and Business is evil*, and they each want you to see the other one as the enemy so you don't notice them raping you up the arse.

What to do? Be an anarchist! You get the good feeling you alone have the moral high ground, and you don't ever have to worry about a country actually implementing your beliefs and showing them to, in practice, enable evil (as the laissez-faire capitalists have the U.S. today and the socialists had Russia back in your parents' day). Failing that, a Jeffersonian liberal stance (with a bit less agrarian nuttiness -- odd how good farming looks when you have slaves to do the backbreaking work, eh?) could work, believing in both limiting government and not handing any business any special privileges, including incorporation.

*Can you figure out what Government and Business have in common? They're both bigger than about 20 people -- which is the biggest group where people can do anything like consistently getting along with one another. Above that order of magnitude, society simply doesn't work, and until someone comes up with a way to reprogram us sociologically (or it happens in advertently, a la Voyage from Yesteryear), we're terminally fucked when we get into larger groups -- and if you try to live some sort of small-group nomad life, you'll find yourself unable to defend adequately when the terminal fucked-up-ness of some much larger group turns outward.

Authentication In Pills = Dumb (2)

Farmer Pete (1350093) | about a year ago | (#43873541)

What goes in, must come out. I'm not sure if I'd like to swallow a pill every day for authentication. Besides, it doesn't seem that secure. What's to stop my friend from taking my pills and authenticating as me? The Tattoo idea may be better, but it better be secure. You can't exactly "Patch" a tattoo with a security fix.

Re:Authentication In Pills = Dumb (1)

kevkingofthesea (2668309) | about a year ago | (#43873665)

The pill itself isn't the auth - the pill uses your body to generate a signal which is used to auth.

Re:Authentication In Pills = Dumb (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43873681)

What goes in, must come out. I'm not sure if I'd like to swallow a pill every day for authentication. Besides, it doesn't seem that secure. What's to stop my friend from taking my pills and authenticating as me? The Tattoo idea may be better, but it better be secure. You can't exactly "Patch" a tattoo with a security fix.

C'mon, coward, the patching process is a routine inpatient procedure [wikipedia.org] , and isn't quite as gruesome, painful, or infection-prone as that picture makes it look.

Happy patch Tuesday!

Temporary authentication (1)

sjbe (173966) | about a year ago | (#43873825)

I'm not sure if I'd like to swallow a pill every day for authentication.

Doesn't have to be every day. The pill thing would be most useful for temporary authentication procedures. Issued to authorize someone for a limited time only. I could see some circumstances where the pill thing could be useful. I could see it being used as a second factor id for military, etc. Think similar to a visitor badge but harder to lose.

Idiocracy becoming more true. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873547)

Tattoo authentication...I just see Idiocracy.

erm (2)

Aryden (1872756) | about a year ago | (#43873581)

Because nothing at all could go wrong with changing your body chemistry to turn you into a battery for the purpose of unlocking a phone....

Re:erm (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#43873691)

I change my body chemistry all the time, just for recreation. If this thing is powered by booze, I'm all for it.

Re:erm (1)

Aryden (1872756) | about a year ago | (#43874219)

well sure, you change it for short (relatively) periods of time not for 24/7.

Re:erm (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about a year ago | (#43874333)

Using biological energy to make a device work, wasn't there a movie based on this?

Motorola no more (1)

subnomine (849148) | about a year ago | (#43873593)

Having worked in Motorola research (and later the cellular infrastructure), a long time ago, my first reaction was "Wow, Motorola has finally got some balls!" Then I remembered that it is now Google.

Re:Motorola no more (1)

fishbonz (246374) | about a year ago | (#43873833)

I initially thought it was some campaign to generate interest in Motorola for stock sales or something..then I remembered the same thing you did...it's Google

Re:Motorola no more (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | about a year ago | (#43874199)

Only Motorola Mobility (cell phone division) was sold off to Google... I don't know that the research division was with that though. This could still be Motorola of old.

Sounds unhealthy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873611)

What are they going to use in this proposed battery that won't be toxic? Remember, when a battery provides power, the anode is dissolved into the electrolyte.

Re:Sounds unhealthy (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year ago | (#43873711)

So use zinc?

Re:Sounds unhealthy (1)

compro01 (777531) | about a year ago | (#43873831)

Would 40mg (dietary upper limit for zinc) be enough anode to power the thing for ~24 hours?

Data in, data out (3, Funny)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | about a year ago | (#43873653)

I poop information!

MARK OF THE BEAST!!! (1, Offtopic)

RevWaldo (1186281) | about a year ago | (#43873663)

GOOGLE IS A TOOL OF THE ANTICHRIST!

It's true! I read it in this little pamphlet I found on the subway!! [chick.com]

.

Everyone uses google (1)

Marrow (195242) | about a year ago | (#43873939)

At this point, God, Santa, and the Easter Bunny use google.

Re:Everyone uses google (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | about a year ago | (#43874217)

God created Google to index everything so he wouldn't have to think about it all...

Medical Identification For Surgery (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873675)

I see this as a great benefit for proper patient IDing for surgeries. Just a quick scan of the patient to double check the proper one before commencing the procedure. Bonus points for including the correct body part and procedure in the authentication.

Re:Medical Identification For Surgery (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about a year ago | (#43874011)

That only moves the point of error into a computer being run by $8/hr admissions clerks. At least when someone's name is wrong on an armband, you can see it.

Re: Medical Identification For Surgery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43874063)

They will need to provide some sort of a carrier bag for organs and body parts that have been removed in the surgery and contain the identifier.

Overly complicated (1)

nickmalthus (972450) | about a year ago | (#43873687)

Instead of focusing on ergonomics they should simply force the user to wear a cattle ear tag. After all, cattle is what the government and corporate America think we all are.

Well, fuck. (4, Funny)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year ago | (#43873695)

What kind of shitty future did I wake up in where 'unlocking your cellphone' is a "superpower"?

Re:Well, fuck. (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year ago | (#43873743)

One in which marketing wants to convince us this is a good idea.

I for one have no intention of using either of these proposed methods, and Motorolla can go pound sand.

Re:Well, fuck. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about a year ago | (#43873875)

The kind where we are solving so many issues that this sort of stuff is what is left. Sure lots of disease and that sort of thing being worked on, but that is not what moto does.

People just don't notice how awesome 2013 is because they are jaded.

Re:Well, fuck. (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about a year ago | (#43874055)

One in which Google is running things. First their phones are sentient, now convincing them you're you is a superpower, but requires you tag yourself.

Re:Well, fuck. (2)

LordNightwalker (256873) | about a year ago | (#43874113)

What kind of shitty future did I wake up in where 'unlocking your cellphone' is a "superpower"?

Don't know man, humanity's changing and more and more people are waking up with new and strange powers. Take me, for example... A couple of weeks ago I discovered I have the power to look through solid windows!

666? (1)

Naatach (574111) | about a year ago | (#43873703)

I'd get the tattoo only if it goes on my hand or forehead. Can you hear Jerry Falwell & his type screaming yet?

Personalized Tattoos (1)

nickmalthus (972450) | about a year ago | (#43873771)

Maybe the electronic tattoos can be personalized, allowing a user to project a retro "holocaust concentration camp ID number" type vibe.

Well, my eyes are safe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873779)

I guess I won't have to worry about my eyes being plucked out of my skill for retinal identification spoofing after all!

Re:Well, my eyes are safe (2)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year ago | (#43873907)

Nope, now they have to route around in your stomach and intestines. Big win there, that will really show them!

Re:Well, my eyes are safe (1)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about a year ago | (#43874239)

Root, route would mean they were driving some sort of vehicle around in there.

Big "D" cell (1)

RedMage (136286) | about a year ago | (#43873827)

This is all well and fine, until they herd us all into some kind of processing center and then hook us up like some kind of "D" cell in series to power the mastermind machine...

Tattoo permanency (2)

DigitAl56K (805623) | about a year ago | (#43873835)

Tattoos are permanent, technology moves on at an incredible pace. This seems like a bad idea.

Re:Tattoo permanency (1)

swb (14022) | about a year ago | (#43874119)

Hey, obesity moves at a pretty rapid pace yet there's an awful lot of girls out there who thought they were going to have a lifetime "enter here" tattoo that's turned into a "wide load" sign.

MITM attack (2)

femtobyte (710429) | about a year ago | (#43873847)

'It means my arms are like wires and my hands are like alligator clips [so] when I touch my phone, my computer, my door, I'm authenticated,'

So, whenever you hold a metal hand rail walking down stairs, someone just needs to hook up a sensor to it to grab your authentication signal and relay it to your "secure" devices? This doesn't seem like a particularly more secure biometric than the "old fashioned" iris or fingerprint scans; anyone else can intercept your authentication signal any time you touch any object which they can insert sensors into.

Imagine being locked-out, (1)

AvgCsStudent (1646059) | about a year ago | (#43873871)

Would this require surgery?

What could possibly go wrong? (1)

Jahta (1141213) | about a year ago | (#43873915)

'It means my arms are like wires and my hands are like alligator clips [so] when I touch my phone, my computer, my door, I'm authenticated,' Dugan said. 'This is not science fiction.'

"I assume your handprint will open this door whether you are conscious or not." - Commander Data, Star Trek TNG episode "A Matter of Time"

mmmm (1)

houbou (1097327) | about a year ago | (#43873929)

interesting.. wonder how hacking a human is gonna be like? can somebody be turned into a cyber terrorist, simply because his signal was hacked and used for illegal activities? then you become a human beacon.. does that make sense?

Imagine this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873937)

... in the world of silly "password security" rules such as having to change your password every 30 days.

How to tattoo? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43873963)

Would they use e-ink for the tattoo ?

Doesn't have the problem of iris or fingerprints.. (1)

RobinH (124750) | about a year ago | (#43873991)

So you can't just cut off the person's finger to activate some lock somewhere, like you can with fingerprint ID. But it seems to me that you can easily make a device that copies the ID just by touching it to their skin. Unless it has challenge/authentication, of course. If so, then you need to physically kidnap the person.

MITM vulnerabilities (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about a year ago | (#43874009)

Brings a whole new meaning to the man in the middle attack.

Multiple Accounts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43874047)

As a security precaution, I generally use an account with limited access most of the time and only use accounts with elevated access for specific actions. If our authentication is based on a tattoo or pill, how feasible is it to indicate which account we want to use this session?

Obligatory (1)

Adm.Wiggin (759767) | about a year ago | (#43874049)

My body is my passport. Verify me.

I agree (0)

stanlyb (1839382) | about a year ago | (#43874057)

This BULSHIT. I just wonder, if your pill is compromised, what are you supposed to do to shut it down!!!

How do you limit authentication?! (1)

mprinkey (1434) | about a year ago | (#43874075)

This idea is terrible. It is even worse than RFID credit cards. Since it has active electronics, I assume this is able to do challenge/response authentication, which is good. But how do you disable it? Somebody just "bumps" into you with a scanner and pays their dinner bill with your gut. At least RFID-chipped cards can be stored in a conductive pouch to prevent walk-by theft.

Whatever shape these new authentication methods take, they need to be at minimum:

(1) Challenge/Response based, and
(2) Momentary ON

Requirement 1 kills most biometrics systems. And Requirement 2 kills most implant/ingested systems.

So, how are you holding up? (3, Funny)

freeze128 (544774) | about a year ago | (#43874083)

...Because I'm a potato!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?