• QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    While decentralized identity verification is a good idea, this approach is not.

    1. Your identity would be permanently compromised as soon as your palm print is stolen. It can also be stolen without you noticing, unlike well-kept passwords. Much less secure than, e.g., a memorable 30 character password.
    2. People lose parts of their palm print all the time. Touching a cast iron pan for a second shouldn’t lock you out of your accounts for a month.
    3. This requires quantizing the human palm print in a way that is not currently possible. Hashing algorithms require the “butterfly effect” to be effective at hiding the private key, meaning a small change in inputs should result in a large change in output. This is a problem for palm prints, where you’re unlikely to make the exact same measurements repeatedly.
    • VonReposti@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Palm prints and fingerprints are actually produced at the absolute lowest levels of the skin so you’d have to fry your hand all the way to the meat to permanently damage your prints. Otherwise it’ll regenerate fine with time. The biggest risks to your fingerprints is actually aging.

      Not that I think basing such stuff on prints are a good idea, but I just wanted to clarify the resilience of them.

      • QuaternionsRock@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        By “for a month” I meant to imply that it will grow back. it’s not very common for people to permanently lose their prints, but we have to consider things like cuts and burns here as well. You won’t be able to verify your identity through a system like this until it regrows, which is an obvious problem.