Analysis of user-specific score characteristics for spoof biometric attacks

Several studies in biometrics have confirmed the existence of user-specific score characteristics for genuine and zero-effort impostor score distributions. As an important consequence, biometric users contribute disproportionately to the FRR (false reject rate) and FAR (false accept rate) of the system. This phenomena is also know as the Doddington zoo effect. Recent studies indicate the vulnerability of unimodal and multibiometric systems to spoof attacks. The aim of this study is to analyze the score characteristics for spoof attacks. Such an analysis will 1) help improve our understanding of the Doddington zoo effect under spoof attacks; and 2) allow us to design biometric classifiers that are more robust to such attacks. The contributions of this paper are as follows: a) examining the existence of user-specific score characteristics for spoof attacks and b) analyzing the correlation between user-specific score characteristics obtained on genuine (as well as zero-effort impostor) and non zero-effort impostor (spoof) score distributions. Experiments conducted on the LivDet09 spoofed fingerprint database confirms that biometric user-groups exhibit different degrees of vulnerability to spoof attacks as well. Further, moderate negative correlation may exist between users who are difficult to recognize and their vulnerability to spoof attacks.

[1]  Stephanie Schuckers,et al.  Spoofing and Anti-Spoofing Measures , 2002, Inf. Secur. Tech. Rep..

[2]  Subhabrata Chakraborti,et al.  Nonparametric Statistical Inference , 2011, International Encyclopedia of Statistical Science.

[3]  Patrick J. Flynn,et al.  Empirical Studies of the Existence of the Biometric Menagerie in the FRGC 2.0 Color Image Corpus , 2006, 2006 Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshop (CVPRW'06).

[4]  Harald Bergstriim.  Mathematical Theory of Probability and Statistics , 1966 .

[5]  Arun Ross,et al.  Learning user-specific parameters in a multibiometric system , 2002, Proceedings. International Conference on Image Processing.

[6]  Richard Von Mises,et al.  Mathematical Theory of Probability and Statistics , 1966 .

[7]  S. Buxbaum.  Sheep , 2004 .

[8]  Samy Bengio,et al.  Performance Generalization in Biometric Authentication Using Joint User-Specific and Sample Bootstraps , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[9]  Gian Luca Marcialis,et al.  Robustness analysis of likelihood ratio score fusion rule for multimodal biometric systems under spoof attacks , 2011, 2011 Carnahan Conference on Security Technology.

[10]  Massimo Tistarelli,et al.  Exploiting the “doddington zoo” effect in biometric fusion , 2009, 2009 IEEE 3rd International Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications, and Systems.

[11]  Stephanie Schuckers,et al.  Multimodal fusion vulnerability to non-zero effort (spoof) imposters , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security.

[12]  Venu Govindaraju,et al.  Robustness of multimodal biometric fusion methods against spoof attacks , 2009, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[13]  Josef Kittler,et al.  On the Use of Log-Likelihood Ratio Based Model-Specific Score Normalisation in Biometric Authentication , 2007, ICB.

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

[15]  Bill Ravens,et al.  An Introduction to Copulas , 2000, Technometrics.

[16]  J. Fierrez-Aguilar,et al.  On the Vulnerability of Fingerprint Verification Systems to Fake Fingerprints Attacks , 2006, Proceedings 40th Annual 2006 International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology.