Fake Fingerprints - Liveness Detection Solutions

By: Brian Rhodes, Published on Oct 19, 2015

One of the biggest concerns with fingerprint readers is how easy they can be fooled. While biometrics are typically more difficult to steal or fake, headlines still break news of fake fingers or stolen prints being used to fool sensors.

For this reason, many access control fingerprint readers include live finger or liveness detection that checks the finger being scanned is authentic.

In this note, we examine the four common methods (tissue reflection, heartbeat detection, dermal electric resistance, unnaturalness analysis), what HID, Morpho and Suprema use and why you need to beware of ambiguous claims.

*** ** *** ******* concerns **** *********** ******* is *** **** **** can ** ******. ***** biometrics *** ********* **** difficult ** ***** ** fake, ********* ***** ***** news ** **** ******* or ****** ****** ***** used ** **** *******.

*** **** ******, **** access ******* *********** ******* include **** ****** ** liveness ********* **** ****** the ****** ***** ******* is *********.

** **** ****, ** examine *** **** ****** ******* (tissue **********, ********* *********, dermal ******** **********, ************* analysis), **** ***, ****** *** Suprema *** *** *** you **** ** ****** of ********* ******.

[***************]

Stealing ************ ** ***** **********

*** **** ***** ** the ******* ** **** while ************ *** ******, they *** ** ****** or **** ******* **********. Throughout *** *****, ******* methods ** ******** ******, by ***************** ******** ** ****** tips, ********** **** ***** *********,*****-**** ******* ** ****** prints, ** **** ***** cadaver ******* **** **** reported.

***** *** ****** ** producing ******* ****'* ***** takes **** ****** **** stealing * ****, ***, or ***, *** **** is *** **** - unauthorized ****** **** **** access ** ********* ***** they ** *** ******.  

Four Common *******

***** *********** ****** ************* frequently *** ******** ********* methods, **** ** *** always ******* **** **** are ** *** **** work. ** *******, *** number *** **** ** methods * ************ ******* vary *** ********* **** into **** ********* **********:

  • ****** **********:*** **** ****** ****** (sometimes ****** ************* *******) typically **** ** ***** to ******* *** ********* contrast ** * ******'* skin. **** ****** ****** on *** **** **** normal, ****** **** ******** IR ***** ** * consistent *** **** ***** different ** **** ** covered ** ********* ********. Especially *** ******* ***** sensors, **** ***** ** done ** *** **** time ** *** *********** is '****', ** ***** is ** ***** ****** the ****. 
  • ********* *********: *** ** *** strongest ******* **** * high ******* ******** **** to ****** *** *********, rhythmic ******** ** *********** coursing **** *****. **** impulse *********** ** * beating *****, *** ******* it ******* *** ******** attempt ** *******.  ***** both ******* ** ******** and ******** ***** **** particular ****** *** ** the **** ********* ******* for ************* ** ***.
  • ****** ******** **********:*** ********** **** ** sensors, ******* ***** **** carries * ***** *** consistent ********** **********. ** a ****** ** ********* and *** ****** ** unable ** ******* ******* skin **********, ** ** invalidated. **** ** *** cost ********** ***** ******, this ******** ***** ** common, *** ** *** not ** ******** ** wet ** **** ************ that ****** *** ******* of **** *** ***** in ******.
  • ************* ********: **** ****** ***** ** the *******, ** ** relies ** ******** ****** alone ** ********* ************. This ****** ******** * print ******* ******* *************** of ***** ** ******* *******. ***** ** ****** checks **** *******, ****** or ***** *****, ***** print *****, ** ******** clarity ** *** *****, if *** ******* ** the **** ***** ******* a ******* '*********' *****, the ***** ** *********** as ****.

***** *** **** ****** of ******* ** *** market, * **** ******* Liveness ********* ******* $***, ***** * **** **** layers ******* ******* *** cost *** ****.  *** addition ** ******** ********* is **** *** ****** of ***** ***** **** drive ***** ******, ***** with ****** ****, *********** support, *** ************* *********** of *** ******.

Liveness ******* ****

** ****** *** **** of **** ** ******* prints, **** ********** *********** scanners *** ******* *** checks ** ******* **** are real.  ***** ** * list ** '******** *********' or '**** ****** *********' on ****** *********** ******* specsheets:

  • ********/*** ******: **** ********* ********* and ****** ********** ** validate ******* *** ****.
  • ******: ********* ** *** reader, ****** **** ****** reflection, ****** **********, ******* up **** ************* ********.
  • *******: **** * ****** of ************* ********** ** determine ** ****** *** faked ** *********** ** they *** ******.

** *******, ***** ********* implement **** **** * single ****** ** **** on *******- * *** point ** ******** *** wide ***** ** ********* fake/spoofed ***** ********.  

Beware ******** ******

*** *** '******** *********' methods *** ******* *********. For ******* *****'* ***** ** *** ****** *********** ****** (**** release) ** * ****** fingeprint *****. ***** ******* the ****** **** '******** detection ******** *** **********' (unnaturalness ********) ** ********** models. *******, ******* ***** ****** ****** effective *****, **** ***** ***** updates. ** *** **** of *****'* *********** ******, spoofed ** ***** ****** are ***** * **** with ******** ******* *****.

** *******, ********* ******* that *** ******** *** software **** *** ****** performing (**: *********, ****** Resistance, *** ****** **********). Take **** ** ***** methods ************* **** **** use, *** ** ********-**** (like ************* ********) ** unclear, ** ****.

Comments (6)

Thanks, Brian, for a really informative article.

It would be interesting to hear about hyperspectral's robustness to skin color variations. It seems reasonable that natural variation has been considered and accommodated, without substantially reducing ability to discriminate false presentations. In fact, it would be interesting (and probably more secure) if hyperspectral skin tones added another dimension to the fingerprint signature.

There must be a reasonably wide variation in acceptable conductivity to accommodate routinely varying conditions. Knowing that skin conductivity is relevant, how hard could it be to replicate a static resistance within a dummy finger, or even on a dummy image? Naively, considering that many laserjet inks are conductive, could you print a target resistance by varying print darkness? Who knows what is possible?

For heartbeat, one could print onto a flexible substrate (something like acetate), then glue it onto a bladder such as a balloon. While presenting that image to the reader, one could gently squeeze the bladder slightly more frequently than once per second.

If hyperspectral IR has a reasonable resolution, it seems as if it could be the most difficult to faithfully replicate, and that fingerprint augmentation with hyperspectral signature could even enhance security.

IMHO, one could obtain, at the expense of authorization delay, a higher level of confidence by using a challenge and response mechanism.

Something where the reader would display randomly changing "challenge", like a gesture, that would one mimic in response.

Of course, this is easier said than done, but could be useful since all static biometrics are, if someone is willing to spend enough $, vulnerable to the attack vector of 'fool the sensor'.

IMHO, it is too expensive (and usually affects accuracy) and can be solved by employing other methods. For instance, a couple of possible options:

  • enroll all fingers and request a different one each time or a combination
  • in the same price range it is more efficient (accurate, robust) to use palm vein or iris verification
  • the easiest (and probably the best) way is to use multi-factor authentication (PIN / Card / Fingerprint / Voice / Face)

[Request for Update (Suprema)]

Hi John / Brian,

Check this out: https://www.supremainc.com/en/AccessControl-TimeandAttendance/Biometric/BioStation-A2

Not all fingeprint devices from Suprema are using that advanced feature thought:

BioStation A2 is implementing advanced Live Finger Detection based on:

- Dynamic Pattern Analysis

- Unnaturalness Analysis

- Dual Source Light Imaging

BioStation A2 was tested and compared to nop notch fingerprint vendors as below:

#pushingthelimits

Best regards,

baud

Who would dig up grandma just to look at a bunch of military floppy discs?

Some people just need a hobby...

once again it seems like it comes down to adding layers to decrease risk. all about the how much the customer is willing to spend to protect their assets.

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Most Recent Industry Reports

How To Quickly Assess An Unknown Company on Jul 23, 2019
There are hundreds of companies in the physical security markets, ranging from a flood of new startups to small companies that may or may not be...
Bosch Starlight 8000i Cameras Tested on Jul 23, 2019
Bosch has released their new Flexidome IP Starlight 8000i cameras, claiming "exceptional detail even in extreme low-light situations." To see...
Responsibility Split Selecting Locks - Statistics on Jul 22, 2019
A heated access debate surrounds who should pick and install the locks. While responsible for selecting the control systems, integrators often...
Vivotek Trend Micro Cyber Security Camera App Tested on Jul 22, 2019
Vivotek and Trend Micro are claiming five million blocked attacks on IP cameras, with their jointly developed app for Vivotek cameras. This new...
Avigilon ACC7 VMS Tested on Jul 22, 2019
Avigilon's Control Center 7 boldly claims it will "transform live video monitoring" with the new Focus of Attention "AI-enabled" interface. We...
History of Video Surveillance on Jul 19, 2019
The video surveillance market has changed significantly since 2000, going from VCRs to emerging into an AI cloud era.  The goal of this history...
Mobile Access Usage Statistics 2019 on Jul 18, 2019
The ability to use mobile phones as access credentials is one of the biggest trends in a market that historically has been slow in adopting new...
New GDPR Guidelines for Video Surveillance Examined on Jul 18, 2019
The highest-level EU data protection authority has issued a new series of provisional video surveillance guidelines. While GDPR has been in...
Wyze AI Analytics Tested - Beats Axis and Hikvision on Jul 17, 2019
$20 camera disruptor Wyze has released free person detection deep learning analytics to all of their users, claiming users will "Only get notified...
Anyvision Aims For 2022 Revenue of $1 Billion on Jul 17, 2019
Only 3 video surveillance manufacturers do a billion dollars or more in annual revenue - Hikvision, Dahua, and Axis. Now, Anyvision plans to join...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact