Cell Phones

Mum discovers anyone could access her information on her Samsung Galaxy S10 after fitting £2.70 screen protector from eB

  • Last Updated:
  • Oct 20th, 2019 9:25 am
13 replies
Deal Addict
Feb 16, 2006
4167 posts
1259 upvotes
Vancouver
Oh ffs..... brilliant!

Something to be said then for phones with the fingerprint sensor being on the back and not through the glass.

edit.... does the Samsung Quick Install guide that is with the phone warn against this?

.
Deal Guru
User avatar
Mar 25, 2003
14655 posts
3598 upvotes
Markham
Is not a screen protector

is a full case that cover the screen and back
96TB Mediasonic H82-SU3S2 / 72TB Raid 50 on Mediasonic H8R2-SU3S2
48TB Node 304 / i5-3570 / Server 2016 Essentials
12TB HP Mediasmart EX 495 (E8400, 3.0GHZ, 4GB Mushkin), with Server 2016 Essentials
16TB Qnap TS-459 Pro
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 19, 2018
1224 posts
1321 upvotes
Pretty sure you only get in because they set up the finger print scanner with the with the screen cover on. So it doesn't see the finger print properly in the first place.

Just set your finger print without it and it will be fine. Not a Samsung issue but they probably should warn people to remove any attachment before setting up their finger print just in case.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 19, 2018
1224 posts
1321 upvotes
if you register a fingerprint while the cover is applied, then the phone can start unlocking itself for anyone’s fingerprint, not just those you’ve registered.
Just as expected. This is a relatively non-issue. People should just not use gel based screen protector and expect the finger print scanner would some how magically work properly.
[OP]
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Oct 8, 2005
5017 posts
903 upvotes
https://www.sammobile.com/news/samsung- ... int-issue/
The issue involves certain silicone covers that provide complete coverage for the device. They have 3-dimensional dotted patterns that can trip the ultrasonic fingerprint sensor in the Galaxy S10 and Galaxy Note 10 handsets. That’s because ultrasonic sensors work by transmitting ultrasonic waves at the user’s finger. The sensor uses these waves to read the ridges and pores of the fingerprint and matches them with the one stored on the device to provide access.

If a fingerprint is stored on the device with the cover in place, the sensor doesn’t read the fingerprint as much as it reads the case’s dotted pattern. So anyone can unlock a device with such a case by just pressing down on the fingerprint reader, it doesn’t matter if their fingerprint isn’t stored on the device.

Samsung advises that users should remove such covers and delete all previous fingerprints before registering their fingerprints on the device again. To ensure security, it advises users to refrain from using such covers on their device until the software update is released. Once the update is installed, Samsung recommends scanning your fingerprint in its entirety, so that all of the portions including the center and corners are fully scanned.
Deal Fanatic
Apr 25, 2006
5865 posts
931 upvotes
Cucumference wrote: Just as expected. This is a relatively non-issue. People should just not use gel based screen protector and expect the finger print scanner would some how magically work properly.
LOL

Non-issue? Stop using screen protectors? $1000 phone and cant handle a screen protector? Get outta here. Might as well ditch the in-screen scanner for a physical one instead if security is such a non-issue.
"If you make a mistake but then change your ways, it is like never having made a mistake at all" - Confucius
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 19, 2018
1224 posts
1321 upvotes
1xTiMeR wrote: Non-issue? Stop using screen protectors? $1000 phone and cant handle a screen protector? Get outta here. Might as well ditch the in-screen scanner for a physical one instead if security is such a non-issue.
It is non-issue cause only dumb people do that.

Do you wear glove when you scan your finger print? No? Then why would you ever put something in between the glass and your finger and expect it to work properly? I'm not saying the user is at fault, but expecting a fingerprint reader to read your fingerprint properly after you cover it with something is just silly. Vendor should just say "Don't use 3rd party unapproved screen cover" and leave it at that.

It has nothing to do with how much the device cost. You don't wear a mask when you do face recognition. You don't wear a glove when you scan finger print. You don't cover your key with something before inserting it into the keyhole. Putting something between you and your security device is just not a good practice. No amount of patching should tolerance this kind of stupidity.
Deal Addict
Nov 12, 2006
1685 posts
685 upvotes
London
Cucumference wrote: It is non-issue cause only dumb people do that.

Do you wear glove when you scan your finger print? No? Then why would you ever put something in between the glass and your finger and expect it to work properly? I'm not saying the user is at fault, but expecting a fingerprint reader to read your fingerprint properly after you cover it with something is just silly. Vendor should just say "Don't use 3rd party unapproved screen cover" and leave it at that.

It has nothing to do with how much the device cost. You don't wear a mask when you do face recognition. You don't wear a glove when you scan finger print. You don't cover your key with something before inserting it into the keyhole. Putting something between you and your security device is just not a good practice. No amount of patching should tolerance this kind of stupidity.
This isn't a case of wearing a glove and it won't read it.
This is a case of anybody can wear a glove, and access it.

In your analogy, if wearing a mask can circumvent facial recognition, it is a device issue, not a user issue.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 19, 2018
1224 posts
1321 upvotes
arisk wrote: This isn't a case of wearing a glove and it won't read it.
This is a case of anybody can wear a glove, and access it.

In your analogy, if wearing a mask can circumvent facial recognition, it is a device issue, not a user issue.
*only* if you record your face wearing a mask first.
*only* if you wear a glove to set your finger print first.

*then* you proceeds to leave your mask/glove right beside the device and let anyone else also use it.

Do you see the problem with any of that?
Deal Addict
Apr 5, 2016
4098 posts
2696 upvotes
Calgary/Vancouver
Or maybe don't be cheap and buy the official screen protector from Samsung and not some cheap crappy screen protector from ebay.
Current Fido customer.
Ex Koodo customer.
Sr. Member
Aug 17, 2018
546 posts
349 upvotes
Cucumference wrote: Vendor should just say "Don't use 3rd party unapproved screen cover" and leave it at that.
All them white stoners gonna be mad as heck

The problem with 3rd party market screen protector is if you want a full coverage one most are those garbage TPU film and not the official plastic flimsy one type. The TPU ones offer the self healing and a little thicker for drop protector.
Deal Fanatic
Dec 5, 2006
6730 posts
2444 upvotes
Markham
Cucumference wrote:
It is non-issue cause only dumb people do that.

Do you wear glove when you scan your finger print? No? Then why would you ever put something in between the glass and your finger and expect it to work properly? I'm not saying the user is at fault, but expecting a fingerprint reader to read your fingerprint properly after you cover it with something is just silly. Vendor should just say "Don't use 3rd party unapproved screen cover" and leave it at that.

It has nothing to do with how much the device cost. You don't wear a mask when you do face recognition. You don't wear a glove when you scan finger print. You don't cover your key with something before inserting it into the keyhole. Putting something between you and your security device is just not a good practice. No amount of patching should tolerance this kind of stupidity.
It does properly and let everyone access your information are two things

Top