Any of you jumping to the Pixel 4?

[munnarg]

There isn't enough innovation in the Pixel 4/ 4XL to warrant leaving my S10+ at this moment. Still too many compromises as far as battery capacity, processor and general design/ hardware. I keep waiting for Google to make a phone that I'd actually want to buy, but sadly it still hasn't happened.

 

[Dooki]

I think the pixel 4 is a bit rubbish, but it definitely DOESN'T have proprietary fast charging.

Sorry. I meant fast wireless charging.

 

[cknobman]

Nope.

I'm not in the habit of paying more for less.

 

[GrooveRite]

I keep waiting for Google to make a phone that I'd actually want to buy, but sadly it still hasn't happened.

Exactly how I feel.

 

[Mike Dee]

Quick and accurate doesn't equal secure.

There is a reason Apple invested so heavily in 3D facial scanning technology before they even bothered to introduce Face ID on an iPhone. And it wasn't so we could have cute animated 3D emojiis.

I'll the take the real and proven biometric security provided on my S10+, thank you very much.

Did you hear how there is an exploit to defeat the biometrics of the S10? It might apply to the Note 10 also.

 

[fuzzylumpkin]

Did you hear how there is an exploit to defeat the biometrics of the S10? It might apply to the Note 10 also.

It definitely does apply to the note 10. But to be clear, it affects phones that are using a third party screen protector with a silicone layer... If you pull the protector and rescan your prints the device is safe.

That said, shirt like this is one of the reasons i bought an S10e.

 

[Mike Dee]

It definitely does apply to the note 10. But to be clear, it affects phones that are using a third party screen protector with a silicone layer... If you pull the protector and rescan your prints the device is safe.

That said, shirt like this is one of the reasons i bought an S10e.

So is that soft film protectors or do you mean a glass protector with a silicone layer.

 

[fuzzylumpkin]

So is that soft film protectors or do you mean a glass protector with a silicone layer.

As far as I'm aware it's any screen protector that uses a silicone layer... Probably mostly tempered glass ones. I haven't looked into it too closely because the issue doesn't affect me.

Should be easy to test though, just try a finger that isn't registered.

 

[Mike Dee]

As far as I'm aware it's any screen protector that uses a silicone layer... Probably mostly tempered glass ones. I haven't looked into it too closely because the issue doesn't affect me.

Should be easy to test though, just try a finger that isn't registered.

From what I read it was a silicone case that compromised the biometrics. Was that expanded to include certain screen protectors? I haven't been able to defeat the Whitestone Dome.

 

[fuzzylumpkin]

From what I read it was a silicone case that compromised the biometrics. Was that expanded to include certain screen protectors? I haven't been able to defeat the Whitestone Dome.

It was a case with a built in screen protector. Obviously just a silicone case wouldn't affect the fingerprint sensor in any way.

Those Whitestone dome protectors should be fine, they use a liquid UV cure adhesive unless I'm mistaken, not a silicone layer.

 

[Mike Dee]

It was a case with a built in screen protector. Obviously just a silicone case wouldn't affect the fingerprint sensor in any way.

Those Whitestone dome protectors should be fine, they use a liquid UV cure adhesive unless I'm mistaken, not a silicone layer.

Correct a silicone case wouldn't do it. Maybe if it's I talked backwards.... Lol

 

[dendron01]

Did you hear how there is an exploit to defeat the biometrics of the S10? It might apply to the Note 10 also.

I heard about it. I also heard it was "fake news" I guess we will see. I'm certainly ready to trust Samsung's secure and certified fingerprint scanner sooner than I'll trust Google's mystery facial scan tech.

Interesting how this surfaces around the same time as the Pixel 4. I wonder whose customers Google is after?

 

[Mike Dee]

I heard about it. I also heard it was "fake news" I guess we will see. I'm certainly ready to trust Samsung's security rather and certified fingerprint scanner sooner than I'll trust Google's mystery facial scan tech.

Interesting how this surfaces around the same time as the Pixel 4. I wonder whose customers Google is after?

I'm not sure it's fake... although I'm curious if true, how something that confuses the sensor would allow entry when it's already tough to get in on a normal basis. I have both the S10+ and Note 10+.

 

[the_boon]

I'm so torn here. Now that my S10+ has Android 10, the only thing I'm gaining is a marginally better camera and a "worse" screen.

Your thought?

And you're gonna be losing a whole lot in the battery life department.

It's NOT an upgrade to go from a S10+ (or S10 or S10e) to a Pixel 4

 

[dendron01]

I'm not sure it's fake... although I'm curious if true, how something that confuses the sensor would allow entry when it's already tough to get in on a normal basis. I have both the S10+ and Note 10+.

From what I've read about it, people are concealing the screen with cheap 3rd party protectors and or covers which *can potentially* lead to a garbled scan (with said cover installed) which in turn allows it to be unlocked by a non scanned print with that same cheap cover on top. So I see this as much as a defeat by the user as an oversight by Samsung.

Don't use a cheap cover and screen protector. And certainly don't scan your prints with a cheap cover on top. Which I know Mike, you would NEVER do.

At any rate Samsung has acknowledged the "issue" and is working on a fix. Hopefully also to include a stern warning about avoiding cheap 3rd party accessories.

I don't even use a screen protector at all, so I'm not worried about it.

 

[Mike Dee]

From what I've read about it, people are concealing the screen with cheap 3rd party protectors and or covers which *can potentially* lead to a garbled scan (with said cover installed) which in turn allows it to be unlocked by a non scanned print with that same cheap cover on top. So I see this as much as a defeat by the user as an oversight by Samsung.

Don't use a cheap cover and screen protector. Which I know Mike, you would NEVER do.

At any rate Samsung has acknowledged the "issue" and is working on a fix. Hopefully also to include a stern warning about avoiding cheap 3rd party accessories.

I don't even use a screen protector at all, so I'm not worried about it.

Makes a little more sense. Sounds like during the recording process the silicone may cause it to record an almost blank or vague print if I interpreted it correctly.

 

[fuzzylumpkin]

I heard about it. I also heard it was "fake news" I guess we will see. I'm certainly ready to trust Samsung's secure and certified fingerprint scanner sooner than I'll trust Google's mystery facial scan tech.

Interesting how this surfaces around the same time as the Pixel 4. I wonder whose customers Google is after?

Given the original source was The Sun, I'd be willing to believe it was totally fake. However, the fact that Samsung acknowledged the problem and are working on a fix means you, I and everyone else should take this seriously.

I'm not sure it's fake... although I'm curious if true, how something that confuses the sensor would allow entry when it's already tough to get in on a normal basis. I have both the S10+ and Note 10+.

Silicone mimicks the properties of human flesh pretty well (look at the sex toy and breast implant industries), essentially the fingerprint reader is recognising the patterns and imperfections in the silicone layer instead of the patterns and imperfections on the finger above it.

It doesn't really matter if the protector we cheap or not.

 

[dendron01]

Silicone mimicks the properties of human flesh pretty well (look at the sex toy and breast implant industries)

So much that could be said here but I think I'll keep quiet before this thread gets completely derailed.

 

[Mike Dee]

Given the original source was The Sun, I'd be willing to believe it was totally fake. However, the fact that Samsung acknowledged the problem and are working on a fix means you, I and everyone else should take this seriously.



Silicone mimicks the properties of human flesh pretty well (look at the sex toy and breast implant industries), essentially the fingerprint reader is recognising the patterns and imperfections in the silicone layer instead of the patterns and imperfections on the finger above it.

It doesn't really matter if the protector we cheap or not.

I agree with everything you're saying and yes... Sounds like it's registering the silicone and not the print. Simply testing different fingers either locked or in the settings should identify if there's an issue. If youre just using the OEM protector or a certified by Samsung one it should be OK.

 

[fuzzylumpkin]

So much that could be said here but I think I'll keep quiet before this thread gets completely derailed.

Haha, it's not often you get the opportunity to say stuff like that and be 100% on topic! I'm taking it!