A vain attempt at security

Caf: That is was but the (now fixed) typo in attempt was just a stuff up.

There are examples in the past of severed fingers being used for fingerprint recognition. This no longer works on most modern fingerprint recognition systems.

Sammy: I believe the original spelling “vein” was a pun on the use of “vascular recognition vein capturing technology”.

Compound bow – SWB 4WD and Brindabellas is my escape plan.

I now know where to go to, if the zombies attack.

if there was still fluid pumping through said system

Last time I checked, dead bodies didn’t pose much of a security threat. Unless they’re carrying an infectious disease, in which case the identity of the cadaver would be the smallest of concerns.

Or perhaps a vain attempt at spelling ‘atempt’.

I always find that when criticising others shortcomings, it’s usually a good idea to obscure your own.

This sort of approach gives a false sense of security. The vast majority of true security breaches in this space come from screw-ups in managing the basics (eg not managing access control on the underlying systems that host the application layer), or from people who come up with a smart scenario that wasn’t considered at design time. Having lots of biometrics or strong encryption won’t help a damn in these cases.

So by ‘creating greater safety’ they aren’t talking about pure grip car tyres, a motorbike that never falls over, police sensitive gun disarmers or knife blunters?