With the sole intention of keep the fragile screen of your brand new Samsung Galaxy S10 safe, Lisa Neilson decided to do what most smartphone users have done on occasion: buy a screen protector for your mobile phone. What he didn't imagine is that this innocent decision would soon lead to a risk to its safety.
This is reflected in The Sun, where the protagonist of this story tells that, after placing a protective sheet for the screen of her Galaxy S10, any fingerprint could unlock your device on the first try, so that, in the words of those concerned, "anyone could access financial applications and transfer funds".
After discovering that her husband had also managed to unlock the terminal with your fingerprint - despite obviously not being registered on the phone - and without knowing that the cause of this problem was the accessory she had bought on eBay days ago for £ 2,70, Lisa decided to contact Samsung technical support. After looking into the problem, the company determined that this could be a vulnerability in the system:
"The customer service agent took over the phone remotely and went into all the settings and finally admitted it looked like a security breach."
However, when testing the same gel protection on another device of the same type, they were able to see how the problem had come back and therefore they concluded that the cause was the accessory. Samsung, for its part, claims to be at the case study and, meanwhile, remember that it is not recommended to use unauthorized accessories, which due to their incompatibility with the brand's devices can lead to this type of problem.
Ma how can a simple piece of plastic become the cause of such a situation? I'm afraid the answer lies in the technology to base of the ultrasonic fingerprint reader of the Samsung Galaxy S10.
Unlike optical readers - such as the one included in the OnePlus 7T - this type of sensors a ultrasound emit ultrasonic waves from under the screen, and return to the sensor with the fingerprint information after bouncing off the user's finger. If the information matches the stored fingerprint, the mobile phone is unlocked. That is why, from the beginning, the use of a screen protector was discouraged as it has been proven that it may affect the effectiveness of the sensor.
In the case that concerns us today, we are talking about a gel screen protector, the application of which requires water in order to "activate" the adhesive which will allow the sheet to remain adherent to the screen. It is likely that, due to this adhesive, the sensor received biased readings while trying to identify fingerprints, so that the terminal could be unlocked by anyone.
Although it is still a curious case, it serves as a reminder of the the importance of using accessories whose compatibility is certified, and brands of a certain notoriety. In the end, cheap is almost always expensive.
Most Interesting Articles
- best sites and apps to watch live soccer from pc tv android ios free and paid
