[QUOTE=ChristineBCW;2701304]Jest, I’m not quite sure what this ‘hack’ is. It sounds like the group has merely duplicated the user’s fingerprint (“using a fabricated print” - basically, they obtained the user’s fingerprint, then photo’d it and made this ‘fake finger’).
Or maybe that’s just the published comments at this point, and that a true ‘hack’ is left unmentioned but used in the notification to Apple.
I thought they’d hacked into the so-called ‘secured kernal’ and replaced one user’s fingerprints with someone else’s, and thus could lock out the legitimate owner.
For me, a “complete hack” - as one analyst brags about - would be to leave the system in an “open to all” status yet appearing to have the fingerprint system left enabled. AND that the access was gained not thru a ‘fake finger’ but done via the device’s comms access - sending some file to replace the legitimate fingerprint and then altering the security settings.
But this article seems to claim a “complete hack” thru a “fabricated print”.
Is that what you read?
I guess this is a lot easier than the old eyeball-on-a-stick routine for retina scanning. I hope that bragging analyst would volunteer for THAT stunt, though.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I agree that thus far it appears merely that they were able to scan and duplicate the fingerprint. Yahoo has a tendency to screw up reports and I understand the information from the site itself is much more straightforward and explanitory, but I haven’t been able to find a link to the site. The point is though that this is a starting point for a major vulnerability to one’s identity.