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

Amazon Ring Public Subsidy Program Aims To Dominate Residential Security on May 20, 2019
Amazon dominates market after market. Quitely, but increasingly, they are doing so in residential security, through a combination of significant...
LifeSafety Power NetLink Vulnerabilities And Problematic Response on May 20, 2019
'Power supplies' are not devices that many think about when considering vulnerabilities but as more and more devices go 'online', the risks for...
Facial Recognition Systems Fail Simple Liveness Detection Test on May 17, 2019
Facial recognition is being widely promoted as a solution to physical access control but we were able to simply spoof 3 systems because they had no...
Inside Look Into Scam Market Research on May 17, 2019
Scam market research has exploded over the last few years becoming the most commonly cited 'statistics' for most industries, despite there clearly...
Maglock Selection Guide on May 16, 2019
One of the most misunderstood yet valuable pieces of electrified hardware is the maglock. Few locks are stronger, but myths and confusion surround...
Panasonic 32MP Multi Imager Camera Tested (WV-X8570N) on May 16, 2019
Panasonic has released their first multi imager models including the 32MP (4x4K) WV-X8570N, claiming "Extreme image quality for evidence capturing...
Trump Signs 'Huawei Ban' - Executive Order Targeting Foreign Adversary Technology on May 16, 2019
US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order targeting technology provided by 'foreign adversaries', in what is widely being called a...
Bank Security Manager Interview on May 15, 2019
Bank security contends with many significant threats - from fraudsters to robbers and more. In this interview, IPVM spoke with bank security...
Milestone XProtect 2019 R1 Tested on May 15, 2019
For the past few years, Milestone has released quarterly software updates XProtect VMS platform. What is new and how much impact do the updates...
San Francisco Face Recognition Ban And Surveillance Regulation Details Examined on May 14, 2019
San Francisco passed the legislation 8-1 today. While the face recognition 'ban' has already received significant attention over the past few...

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