Measuring and mitigating targeted biometric impersonation

This study is concerned with the reliability of biometric verification systems when used in forensic applications. In particular, when such systems are subjected to targeted impersonation attacks. The authors expand on the existing work in targeted impersonation, focusing on how best to measure the reliability of verification systems in forensic contexts. It identifies two scenarios in which targeted impersonation effects may occur: (i) the forensic investigation of criminal activity involving identity theft; and (ii) implicit targeting as a result of the forensic investigation process. Also, the first partial countermeasure to such attacks is presented. The countermeasure uses client-specific Z-score normalisation to provide a more consistent false acceptance rate across all enrolled subjects. This reduces the effectiveness of targeted impersonation without impairing the systems accuracy under random zero-effort attacks.

[1]  Bruce A. Draper,et al.  Overview of the Multiple Biometrics Grand Challenge , 2009, ICB.

[2]  Max M Houck,et al.  CSI: reality. , 2006, Scientific American.

[3]  Almantas Kakareka,et al.  What is Vulnerability Assessment , 2013 .

[4]  Julian Fiérrez,et al.  An evaluation of indirect attacks and countermeasures in fingerprint verification systems , 2011, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[5]  Mark S. Nixon,et al.  Targeted biometric impersonation , 2013, 2013 International Workshop on Biometrics and Forensics (IWBF).

[6]  Alice J. O'Toole,et al.  FRVT 2006 and ICE 2006 Large-Scale Experimental Results , 2010, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[7]  Satoshi Hoshino,et al.  Impact of artificial "gummy" fingers on fingerprint systems , 2002, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

[8]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Open source biometric recognition , 2013, 2013 IEEE Sixth International Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS).

[9]  Anil K. Jain,et al.  Attacks on biometric systems: a case study in fingerprints , 2004, IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging.

[10]  Douglas A. Reynolds,et al.  SHEEP, GOATS, LAMBS and WOLVES A Statistical Analysis of Speaker Performance in the NIST 1998 Speaker Recognition Evaluation , 1998 .

[11]  Bruce A. Draper,et al.  An introduction to the good, the bad, & the ugly face recognition challenge problem , 2011, Face and Gesture 2011.

[12]  Matti Pietikäinen,et al.  Can gait biometrics be Spoofed? , 2012, Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Pattern Recognition (ICPR2012).

[13]  Hyeonjoon Moon,et al.  The FERET verification testing protocol for face recognition algorithms , 1998, Proceedings Third IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition.