|
|
N_tro_P wrote: Since always.
That's why it always looks the same, right? Here's news, it's not.
N_tro_P wrote: FYI, passwords in many forms are NOT TO BE EXCHANGED (sometimes under penalty of law or loss of assets)
I'll happily challenge that in court.
A password is a key to a vault, not authentication. A heartbeat might do that, but I doubt it.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N_tro_P wrote: Maybe you should do some actual research before claiming as such. Its not that hard. Here is a simple link to guide you
The only thing that varies in the beat is its speed. That may vary in a person from time to time, and I have not yet seen any mathematical evidence that the amount of possible speed-variations is unique, or that it can be used to identify someone using a previously recorded heartbeat.
N_tro_P wrote: BTW, your employer, bank account, and every other password access to a network you do NOT own has such a rule or law.
My bank does not use a password, or I would change banks. My employer is a gray area, and yes, been there.
N_tro_P wrote: In an era where we are trying to build encryption you think a password is just a key.
We already have encryption and authentication. If you're trying to sell an alternative, you better be good at explaining why the alternative be better.
N_tro_P wrote: Again, maybe you should actually go read the OP link or material behind it rather than sounding like a proud ignorant fool.
I did. What I read is another rediculous claim that is bound to get funding, but which will have zero practical application.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N_tro_P wrote: Maybe you should actually read the posted link before claiming it is not possible.
I did. You can do the same with any kind of random noise, provided you can reproduce it accurately. Reproducing a heartbeat from a particular point in time would be somewhat harder. Not impossible, but at least impractical.
N_tro_P wrote: Dude, your bank DOES use a password or you could not use online banking.
It is not a password, but a combination of different algorithms.
N_tro_P wrote: First of all, you do realize what AUTHENTICATION is right????
No, this is the first time I hear the word 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N_tro_P wrote: You clearly did not read how they are translating the data into an authentication token.
The word 'token' is not mentioned, and even if it is, means that the user is already authenticated. Gimme some data that is unique and can be reproduced, and we'll do the same.
N_tro_P wrote: snickers
Even with my debit-card, and the token-generator, you'd still be unable to log in. You a bit stuck in the previous century or what? 
N_tro_P wrote: You earlier claimed a password is not authentication and then went on to imply it is and we use it successfully
I did not claim, I showed how it is not.
N_tro_P wrote: You seem to think authentication is not necessary and is not what passwords are for
No, just making a clear distinction between authorization, authentication and encryption.
N_tro_P wrote: The password is a token that validates an identities authentication and without it all users would essentially be anonymous as anyone could claim they are anyone.
Validating an identity is usually somewhat complexer than that.
N_tro_P wrote:
BTW, if you actually read how the heart is used as a password you would have realized it is NOT just the heart beat (interval etc.).
I scanned the article, and am not interested in pseudo-intellectual drivel. Regardless which variables are extracted from the hearts beating; it is very easy to point out that they may note be as unique as claimed, and if they are, will be used as either salt or pass - both already have simpeler and proven methods.
Let's digest the article, shall we? Here's the bulk of it;
Basically, scientists are proposing to replace random data (entropy) or static encryption keys with ECGs and use these unique parameters to secure a person's data. Which means, yes, simply taking the noise the heart makes.
You could do the same with farts 
--edit
You're welcome 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N_tro_P wrote: LMAO!!! NO it doesn't!!! Do you know what an ECG is???
Yes, and the article clearly states how it is used, doesn't it?
As random noise.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is random data. Doesn't matter how you present it, it stays that - random elephanting noise that can be replaced with the electrical signal of a recorded fart.
Seriously, come up with a decent argument instead of claiming that I did not read or don't understand a word.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N_tro_P wrote:
You clearly have no clue what an EKG is.
That's explained in school, and I can see my own heartbeat often enough.
N_tro_P wrote: If it was random data it would not be used for monitoring peoples vitals.
The ECG is not random data, I said it is used as random data. It states so literally in the article:
replace random data (entropy) or static encryption keys with ECGs
..which part of the quoted sentence is too complicated for you to understand? I'll happily explain each part of that sentence.
N_tro_P wrote: You seriously are quite arrogant about your ignorance which IMO is the worst trait a person can have.
I call it confidence and it is continuously fed by idiots proving me right. And yes, I'm enjoying this.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is however, used as a random string. Article says so, not me.
Perhaps your 9 year old can help you with understanding that sentence?
N_tro_P wrote: ITS NOT SOUND AND ITS NOT RANDOM
"Noise" was not referring to sound, but to random data. You'll find it a common term. And yes, it is USED as.
To make it simpeler for you; a spoon is not a knife, but it can be used as one.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N_tro_P wrote: As I said, if someone claims randomness is the same as entropy they likely have no clue what they are talking about and misread a scientific paper they was way above their head.
All that is required is a tiny bit of knowledge on encryption.
You're not going to bluff your way out with moving this to the difference between randomness and entropy.
N_tro_P wrote: Have you given up on the idea it is sound finally?
It is not a color. "Noise" is a normal reference to some sound with a random pattern.
N_tro_P wrote: which IS THEN UNIQUE (and btw NOT random)
The band of possiblities claims that you cannot claim it to be unique without at least defining a length. And yes, random, since even that bloody hot nurse could influence your current heartbeat.
Or in your case, this thread 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I merely replied to the personal message you sent. I would not have known your mail-adres, but to wit; below is the complete dump of what you sent me and what I replied to.
This is a direct email response to your message on the page "The Weird and The Wonderful". This message has not appeared on the discussion board for that page.
Do not hit 'reply' to this email: To reply, click send an email to the address below.
Message from N_tro_P <csjasnoch@gmail.com>:
Seriously, stop trolling me. You are getting annoying.
And no, I will not stop you from making a fool of yourself. Au contraire, please elaborate 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N_tro_P wrote: how an EKG works
How it works is not relevant for the application as described.
N_tro_P wrote: nor can he even read a crappy article correctly.
And you are still having trouble with that one sentence 
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N_tro_P wrote: Nope, you are right understanding how an EKG works is not relavant to a person claiming first that "SOUND" is not unique, then double backed to claim NOISE, which then he claimed was noise of sound which has NOTHING to do with an EKG.
Which is still all correct, also according to the article.
N_tro_P wrote: Then he stuck with this notion of NOISE to claim a person's noise is not unique WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE FLIPPING SCIENCE SHOWED HE IS WRONG ABOUT, but hey, yeah it is me that has the problem.
You should look up what a static key would be.
N_tro_P wrote: Seriously, you just sound like a bumbling idiot now and the fact that you have used CP email services to message me to troll is against their policy.
CP's log will show it was a reaction to your direct-mail, so you are the one who took that initiative.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
