Hi! This is the ezmlm program. I'm managing the
bugtraq@securityfocus.com mailing list.

I'm working for my owner, who can be reached
at bugtraq-owner@securityfocus.com.

Messages to you from the bugtraq mailing list seem to
have been bouncing. I've attached a copy of the first bounce
message I received.

If this message bounces too, I will send you a probe. If the probe bounces,
I will remove your address from the bugtraq mailing list,
without further notice.

I've kept a list of which messages from the bugtraq mailing list have
bounced from your address.

Copies of these messages may be in the archive.

To retrieve a set of messages 123-145 (a maximum of 100 per request),
send an empty message to:
<bugtraq-get.123_145@securityfocus.com>

To receive a subject and author list for the last 100 or so messages,
send an empty message to:
<bugtraq-index@securityfocus.com>

Here are the message numbers:

13019
13029
--- Enclosed is a copy of the bounce message I received.
Return-Path: <>
Received: (qmail 18910 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2004 01:26:05 -0000
Received: from mail.securityfocus.com (205.206.231.9)
by lists2.securityfocus.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2004 01:26:05 -0000
Received: (qmail 17724 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2004 07:03:06 -0000
Received: (qmail 17712 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2004 07:03:05 -0000
Received: from freebsd.csie.nctu.edu.tw (140.113.17.209)
by mail.securityfocus.com with SMTP; 12 Feb 2004 07:03:05 -0000
Received: by FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw (Postfix)
id A7D79106C21; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:33:07 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:33:07 +0800 (CST)
From: MAILER-DAEMON@FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw (Mail Delivery System)
Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
To: bugtraq-return-13019-bugtraq=freebsd.csie.nctu.edu.tw@securityfocus.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/report; report-type=delivery-status;
boundary="7C693106C00.1076571187/FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw"
Message-Id: <20040212073307.A7D79106C21@FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu. tw>

This is a MIME-encapsulated message.

--7C693106C00.1076571187/FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw
Content-Description: Notification
Content-Type: text/plain

This is the Postfix program at host FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that the message returned
below could not be delivered to one or more destinations.

For further assistance, please send mail to <postmaster>

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the message returned below.

The Postfix program

<bugtraq@freebsd.csie.nctu.edu.tw>: Command died with status 255:
"/usr/local/news/bin/mail-post.pl mailing.unix.bugtraq". Command output:
mail-post.pl: can't find inews

--7C693106C00.1076571187/FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw
Content-Description: Delivery error report
Content-Type: message/delivery-status

Reporting-MTA: dns; FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw
Arrival-Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:33:07 +0800 (CST)

Final-Recipient: rfc822; bugtraq@freebsd.csie.nctu.edu.tw
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; Command died with status 255:
"/usr/local/news/bin/mail-post.pl mailing.unix.bugtraq". Command output:
mail-post.pl: can't find inews

--7C693106C00.1076571187/FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw
Content-Description: Undelivered Message
Content-Type: message/rfc822

Received: from localhost (localhost.csie.nctu.edu.tw [127.0.0.1])
by FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C693106C00
for <bugtraq@freebsd.csie.nctu.edu.tw>; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:33:07 +0800 (CST)
Received: from FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id 99177-06 for <bugtraq@freebsd.csie.nctu.edu.tw>;
Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:33:06 +0800 (CST)
Received: from outgoing2.securityfocus.com (outgoing2.securityfocus.com [205.206.231.26])
by FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C4C9106C26
for <bugtraq@freebsd.csie.nctu.edu.tw>; Thu, 12 Feb 2004 15:33:03 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lists2.securityfocus.com (lists2.securityfocus.com [205.206.231.20])
by outgoing2.securityfocus.com (Postfix) with QMQP
id 4EE8290B1A; Wed, 11 Feb 2004 04:02:08 -0700 (MST)
Mailing-List: contact bugtraq-help@securityfocus.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <bugtraq.list-id.securityfocus.com>
List-Post: <mailto:bugtraq@securityfocus.com>
List-Help: <mailto:bugtraq-help@securityfocus.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:bugtraq-unsubscribe@securityfocus.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:bugtraq-subscribe@securityfocus.com>
Delivered-To: mailing list bugtraq@securityfocus.com
Delivered-To: moderator for bugtraq@securityfocus.com
Received: (qmail 16288 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2004 07:46:25 -0000
Message-ID: <4028E17E.8040804@mightye.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:49:50 -0500
From: "Eric 'MightyE' Stevens" <mightye-removethis-@mightye.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Navaneetharangan <navaneeth@innsolutions.com>
Cc: markus-1977@gmx.net, bugtraq@securityfocus.com
Subject: Re: Hacking USB Thumbdrives, Thumprint authentication
References: <000801c3ec99$c6b073b0$0802a8c0@innsol4>
In-Reply-To: <000801c3ec99$c6b073b0$0802a8c0@innsol4>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Navaneetharangan wrote:

>2) With the arrival of optic based fingerprint scanners, the probability
>of getting authenticated on latent fingerprints (or by using a lifted
>fingerprint) is very minimal.
>
>
This is not true, there has been a fair amount of research done on
creating false finger print pads from latent fingerprints, which mostly
consist of defining the oils left behind with, eg, black printer toner,
capturing a high resolution image of the finger print with a digital
camera or scanner, touching up the image as necessary in a photo editing
suite, printing a negative of the finger print on to transparency, and
burning a "circuit" with ultraviolet light (common in the home
electronics scene). This makes a reusable mold in to which gelatin can
be poured to make a false finger pad which regularly fools fingerprint
scanners since it is of similar consistency to human finger print pads.

The largest covert advantage of the gelatin approach is that the false
pads can be applied almost invisibly over a person's existing finger
pads, and in the event of a panic of the operative, destruction of the
evidence is easy, simply tear off the false pads with your teeth and
consume the gelatin; within seconds there is no more trace as the false
pads completely dissolve.

For more information on this, check out Google:
http://www.google.com/search?q=defea...canner+gelatin

>3) And you can use all the ten fingers of yours for authentication; it
>need not always be your thumbprint alone.
>
>
>
This is true, and this increases the effort required on the part of the
covert operative in order to capture a successful identification,
however the underlying problem still exists: once a user's prints are
successfully compromised, they have no opportunity to alter their key
(finger prints). If my password is guessed, I can change it. If my SSH
key is broken, I can change it. If my fingerprints are captured, I have
no such opportunity.

-Eric "MightyE" Stevens
To reply to me, please remove "-removethis-" from my email address.
http://lotgd.net -- Slay a dragon... over lunch!


--7C693106C00.1076571187/FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw--