>> A successful credential needs to be disposable.

I wonder if someone can elaborate on this. From a database perspective, the immediate security question is verifying the real identity of a specific user, and I would think that the best proof of “who I am” might be persistent attributes such as fingerprint, facial recognition, retina and DNA.

I don’t understand why security credentials need to be transient and “disposable”. Can you educate me on this?

A recent article out of Clarkson University talks about how something as simple as Play-doh can defeat many fingerprint scanners.

Obviously technology will improve in response to this, but as 2 cent solutions defeat million dollar research we should question why we’re bothering with such a flawed and expensive plan.

Gee, I hope not! I toured NORAD 18 years ago and they used it, as well as in many classified systems and areas.

http://dba-oracle.blogspot.com/2005/08/inside-norad-war-room.html

Personally, I think that the retinal scanners are also promising. Here is where I think the technology is going, JMHO:

http://www.dba-oracle.com/art_dbazine_2020_p1.htm

Look at the evolution of magnetic credit card readers. Twenty years ago it might have been just banks and stores that had them, but a year ago I made one of my own for less than $50.

I think you’d agree that it would be foolish to say this system could not be hacked. Most would even agree that it’s just a matter of time. Once hacked you can either change reader technology to compensate for the hack or abandon the biometrics. Either solution is expensive.

I wonder if that is where “hacker” originates?