0pp0

16 hours ago, AbydosOne said:

A few problems I see:

1. Thunderbolt 4 is still the 40Gbps of TB3; we're not close to PCIe Gen4 speeds over TB, let alone Gen5; the cable and connector specifications would likely need to be revised to account for that much bandwidth with so few conductors
2. PCIe switch/mux chips run extremely hot, and require a lot of power, require very specific engineering, and I think eGPUs will fall to the wayside because of this
3. Internal laptop GPUs are getting more efficient/capable; driving 4K displays >60Hz displays with a laptop GPU is realistic now where it wasn't when TB was introduced
4. Aside for perhaps extremely niche industrial applications, there's no other need for that much bandwidth in a laptop 

I did not talk about Thunderbolt 4, what I was asking is if doing without a pcie x4 slot (instead of using it for an ssd) through an external extension cord it is possible to insert a PCI 2 x16 graphics card, this allows you to have a laptop maybe a very light ultrabook that if connected to a fixed location can provide a power comparable to a fixed.
The fact that PCIe switch/mux heat up I don't see it as an extremely serious problem since they could be placed outside the laptop (maybe in the case of the egpu).
This would in my opinion be very useful in niche environments, both for casual gamers and for professionals who need to have an extremely portable and efficient device on the move but with high power in a fixed location when needed (other than apple ).

is there a pcie gen 5 x4 to pcie gen 3 x16 converter? such a device would allow you to have real egpu or am I wrong?

4 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

For the Average Jane and Joe, the biggest security-risk is malware and phishing, not physical unauthorized access to their devices. This is to say, for those people, it's unlikely to matter much, if at all.

 

If, on the other hand, the person handles or has access to any sort of critical/valuable data or is in a position of power, I'd actually recommend using a strong password. Even better, if one uses two-factor authentication.

Yes, this is true but losing the phone is not that unusual and if from this then comes a loss of all the money in the current account is not so negligible. 

11 minutes ago, Boomwebsearch said:

 

 

 

 

 

In two-factor authentication, you need both measures of sign-in to be correct in order to allow the user to gain access. Think of it this way, there are chances of your password getting compromised and there are chances of biometrics getting compromised, in two-factor authentication (using password and biometric), the chances would be multiplying the percent of chance that your password getting compromised by the chance of biometrics getting compromised (or vice versa). For example, if there is a 50 percent chance that your password will get compromised, and a 25 percent chance that your fingerprint will be compromised, using double-factor authentication with the password and fingerprint would mean that overall there would be a 12.5 percent chance that both systems will get compromised and unauthorized access will happen.

 

 

This is true if for 2-factor authentication, but in common use biometric systems are used as an alternative access mechanism

So if one method has a 50% chance of being compromised and the other has a 25% chance of being compromised, the probability of the system being compromised is equal to 1-(0.5*0.25) to 87.5%

3 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

Depends on the quality of implementation. Facial-recognition for authentication, for example, is typically not implemented well enough and thus can be fooled with a printed picture or a video-clip shown on a mobile-phone or a tablet. Even facial-recognition that uses some sort of depth-perception to increase its security can often be fooled with minimal effort. Similarly, fingerprints are easy to lift off of items -- even from the device that someone's trying access! -- and used to gain access. It has even been shown that you can lift one's fingerprints from a sufficiently high-resolution picture!

 

The security of each system actually goes along the lines of: no security < bad password < typical biometric system < good password

I do not know if you can make a questionnaire within the blog, would you recommend using biometric systems for access to sensitive data such as current smartphone account and computers? 

4 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Biometric is convenient. A lot of people would put a weak or no password at all if it wasn't there becasue nobody wants to take 5 seconds to type a complex password dozens of times per day.

 

It definitely makes access very quick, but if you use it in combination of a 4-digit pin from a security point of view it's useless

7 minutes ago, SkyHound0202 said:

Biometric authentication, if implemented correctly, is comparably more secure than password-only. When combined with traditional username/password mechanism (Biometric as 2FA), will make a system more robust.

 

Then again, as long as there's an pathway, however hard you try to secure it, there's always a flaw somewhere. You can always brute force or social engineer a compromise a password, or extract someone's fingerprint from an object or just cut it off to spoof biometric authentication.

I agree that cascading them leads to a lot of security, but using them in parallel in my opinion diminishes it. Think in everyday use such as in Windows hello or in the unlocking of smartphones, biometric authentication is carried out in parallel. 

4 minutes ago, Kilrah said:

Sou you say either/or, not both needed to enter.

 

All depends on how people use them. Being able to use biometric in a pinch means you can set a more robust password, so...

If you set a stronger password than an access with biometric data then the biometric data in if it does not increase security.

A concrete example is in mobile applications, think of applications like PayPal or banking applications, if you skill access with fingerprints is equivalent to authenticating with the unlock code of the phone (I tested it on iOS) 

Just now, Boomwebsearch said:

 

 

 

 

Yes, I believe that biometric authentication increases security as an access mechanism in comparison to a password, although unless your biometric system or other authentication methods is completely secure, having more than one method to access an account is recommended (such as if the user forgets their password) although will go against the overall security of the account. Are you asking about two-factor authentication with password and biometrics, having both options, or having biometrics only?

 

 

The problem is: Does having password access and biometric authentication improve security compared to having only the password as a sign-in mechanism? 

In my opinion, no because password attacks remain valid and attacks against biometric systems are added

Do you think that using biometric data to access applications and operating systems increases security compared to just password access? 

11 hours ago, Renton577 said:

That is a portable desktop by all accounts. The 9900KF if literally a 9900K with the integrated graphics disabled by cutting the connection or they don't include the integrated graphics at all, so its a portable desktop haha

I know it's a desktop computer inside a laptop case, but do you think it's the most powerful on the market? Can you find better? And especially what score would come on cinebench, considering it has the bios unlocked and then you could overclock it

What do you think is the most powerful laptop on the market? 

I found a site https://eurocom.com/ec/modelsg(7)MobileSupercomputers Where you can buy a laptop that has the components of a tower computer:

Cpu: I9-9900KF

GPU: Dual gtx 2080

RAM: 128Gb DDR4 

Unlocked bios

3 m2 ssd

2 stata ssd

Display or 4K 60Hz or FHD 144Hz

2 LAN ethernet port

780W power supply

Do you know if there is a more powerful laptop?