As soon as the word "convenient" is used, you know it will affect security.
this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2026
247 points (91.6% liked)
Cybersecurity
10403 readers
289 users here now
c/cybersecurity is a community centered on the cybersecurity and information security profession. You can come here to discuss news, post something interesting, or just chat with others.
THE RULES
Instance Rules
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- No pornography.
Community Rules
- Idk, keep it semi-professional?
- Nothing illegal. We're all ethical here.
- Rules will be added/redefined as necessary.
If you ask someone to hack your "friends" socials you're just going to get banned so don't do that.
Learn about hacking
Other security-related communities !databreaches@lemmy.zip !netsec@lemmy.world !securitynews@infosec.pub !cybersecurity@infosec.pub !pulse_of_truth@infosec.pub
Notable mention to !cybersecuritymemes@lemmy.world
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
This is always the tradeoff. Security must always impose a cost.
Why do you think that? Public key authentication systems are invariably more secure, and a wide variety are also simpler for the end user to use.
It's a misconception that they are in opposition to each other. Why would they be? One's about knowing who's doing something and the other is about how much effort it takes to do it.
Because in general, making things more difficult for an adverse party has great potential for also having side effects for proper users. And conversely, making things easier for proper users very often also makes it easier for adversaries.
You're right that it's not a strict 100% rule, but it's so common a pattern that keeping it in mind when making security decisions (to avoid fulfilling it or at least weigh risks) is a good practice.
load more comments
(2 replies)
This has big "don't use a standard deadbolt on your front door; it's not as strong as reinforced titanium doors with time-release locks" energy
Like, not technically wrong, but does not fit the standard risk profile, it's overkill for most situations.
Also to everyone talking about US law enforcement, this is just so easy to protect from, not worth ditching biometrics: if you see cops approaching and are worried about a device being unlocked, just reboot it. If you need to do it surreptitiously, just hold the power button to force shut it off after ~10s. This will always require a password to unlock after
Okay and if you don't see the cops approaching? Because they use undercover cars, dress in plain clothes, and won't identify to anyone on demand? Yes even federal agents?
Again it's about risk profile. if you believe there is a chance that will happen to you, then go ahead.
Personally I just turn my personal phone off when approaching a border or attending a rally and that covers me. I'm not really worried about getting mugged from behind by a federal agent.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Do you really not use your phones fingerprint reader and type in your passcode every time?
I get that you can be compelled by law enforcement to give up your biometrics, but if you're gonna end up in that sort of situation it's 2 buttons and a tap to temporarily disable biometrics.
Do you really not use your phones fingerprint reader and type in your passcode every time?
Yes, yes I do. I like having friction between me and my addictive distraction rectangle.
Yes, strong password and no biometrics is basic security practice.
The grid pattern is way better than any password in terms of reasonable password lengths
load more comments
(3 replies)
Why?
It's not like they're literally using your face or fingerprint as a password. They're not even storing them, just a hash tied to an hsm key.
I can't speak for OP, but in the US, you can be compelled to unlock a phone via fingerprint or face ID. You can't be compelled to give over your PIN. That violates the right against self incriminating.
Totally true. That's not the common threat most people need to guard against however. Additionally, at least on Android, the device is relatively eager to force pin usage if the stars don't align for biometrics
load more comments
(3 replies)
I travel a few times a month to US, China, Hong Kong etc.
I shut down my grapheneos phone on the border. Graphene also allows you to set auto reboot to phone if unlocked from 10mins to like 72 hours.
I do use biometrics on my device. I think its a tradeoff I'm willing to make.
I love this "in the US" thing. Like we're the only country where that's true and there aren't whole European countries doing the exact same thing.
While I admit nothing exists in a vacuum and there's a lot of push toward a police state in the US, we also aren't the only country doing that, by far. We're just more open about it since Cheeto in Chief took office again.
Or maybe I don't have knowledge and experience in EU law and didn't want to pretend I do.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(17 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I think it depends. Some people might be inclined to use too short or simple password because they don't wanna constantly be typing a long password. It's much better to have a strong password and fingerprint/face rec for convince than just a insecure password.
In the USA, they can legally force you to unlock a device using biometrics.
Also, biometrics can be fooled in other ways.
Yes, but that's besides the point. If the convenient options for a normie user are
- Having a weak password
- Having a strong password and a fingerprint
Out of those the fingerprint with a strong password is way better option, imo.
In the USA, they can legally force you to unlock a device using biometrics.
Also, how does that work? Can't they legally force you to enter your password too? Or can you claim you don't remember it? If that works, can't you just have a band-aid on your finger or something? Surely they cannot force you to take it off and risk getting an infection on the large wound you just happened to get yesterday...?
Also, how does that work? Can’t they legally force you to enter your password too?
No, because forcing someone to enter a password is "compelled speech" and against the 1st Amendment. It's also testimonial, which means compelling that speech would also be self incrimination, which is against the 5th Amendment.
Don't ask me why forcing someone to make a hand gesture is not also compelled speech and not testimonial. The Constitution is mostly nonsense being interpreted by life appointed morons who interpret things however they like.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Haha, reading some of the responses in this thread actually reminded me of that xkcd but I couldn't immediately find it. Thanks!
A normal user will most likely never encounter a situation where their weak password would be at risk, but are much more likely to having their biometrics forced by law enforcement or border control.
They will rip your bandaid off and force your finger or face to scan while holding your device.
Any weak password at all would have been better in a situation like that.
load more comments
(21 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
The other underappreciated threat model is shoulder surfing, especially in an age of ubiquitous high resolution cameras. Punching in a numerical PIN within view of a camera potentially leaks that secret, and some high resolution cameras can even pick up letters and symbols from the on screen keyboards.
Being compelled to give biometrics doesn't do enough for an adversary (including government adversaries) to do everything with a phone, the way having the password or PIN does, and I would argue that governments would be better at tricking people into inadvertently giving up their PINs and passwords than they'd be at compelling biometrics within the time window that they still work (before the phones lockout biometrics as a valid unlocking method), or being able to do stuff to exploit extraction tools past the lock screen.
So the threat model needs to be understood for what it is.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Hot take: biometrics are often criticized for being less secure, but that ignores the deficiencies of passwords. Especially on phones, it's very doable to look over someone's shoulder while they're unlocking their phone or do the same with a camera. You can't do that with a fingerprint, at least not nearly as easily.
And yes, I understand that in the US (amongst others?) the legal situations with passwords and biometrics are different, but IMO that's more of a legal question, and not everyone lives in the US.
Android also has an "emergency lockdown" option, which disables biometrics for unlocking your phone - or you can shut it down (worst case scenario force shut down with a long hold on the power button) to get it into a BFU state, which is much harder to crack.
load more comments
(4 replies)
And typing in a password every time is the opposite of usability..
Oh look it's opposite day again.
normies will believe it tho
view more: next ›