I would never consider fingerprints or face scans to be secure even for personal devices. I guess if theres literally nothing to protect, if thats possible.

[+] lud@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] rekorse@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I do understand the point that the biometrics are replacing very short pins usually, oftentimes 4 digits only but I dont quite see how that makes the passcodes worse than the biometrics.

I'd say even a 6 digit passcode with a randomized number pad, alongside an emergency wipe pin, would do better than biometrics, which also need to have a passcode setup as backup anyhow.

Maybe you could play out a few scenarios that illustrate your point?

[+] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] rekorse@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Randomized keypads are for touchscreens, although like you said sort of not common for desktop workstations.

Just comparing a password to biometrics though on say a laptop or desktop, there is the major drawnback that you can be forced either knowingly or unknowingly to put in a biometric to unlock a device. It would be easier to circumvent then a standard password (at my company and the clients we work with, 16 characters is standard) with an encrypted hard drive.

This is all deduction ive made from other things I know to be true though, if you happen to know of a resource that explains both methods of securing g a workstation and the risks associated, I'd love to read it.

I also do agree overall that password less makes the most sense now, as people are never going to get better at making secure passwords and remembering them.