Biometrics - Spoofing and Liveness Detection

Summary: 'Spoofing' of body features is an additional factor that raises false acceptance/match rates, while a 'counter-spoofing' measure is an additional factor that raises the false rejection/non-match rates. 

 You are perhaps aware of this news - http://www.forbes.com/sites/daveywinder/2019/11/02/smartphone-security-alert-as-hackers-claim-any-fingerprint-lock-broken-in-20-minutes/

In view of such big incidents, ‘Liveness-Detection’ as a counter-spoofing measure is reportedly a hot topic now among certain biometrics people. It's not worth it. 

 We are focusing on the problems arising from the trade-off relation between false match/acceptance (FM/FA) and false non-match/rejection (FNM/FR) inherent in the measurement of body features.

* The relation between FM/FA and FNM/FR is closely examined with graphs in this article - http://www.valuewalk.com/2018/02/biometrics-aadhaar-danger/

 You may recall that we had already heard of liveness detection 15 years ago. It was a built-in thermometer and an infra-red sensing to measure the warm temperature of genuine or spoofed hands, fingers and faces. We were not surprised to hear that those measures were fooled within hours by curious students who started to warm the spoofed objects. Sensing the presence of heartbeats was also defeated very quickly by smart students. Motion-detection beaten by video as well. We could be watching what will happen between the ‘advanced liveness detection’ and the ever more inquisitive students.

 We should not forget that, even if someone comes up with a perfect liveness detection technology, it would solve just one aspect of the spoofing problem. There would still be the spoofing for which liveness detection may not be relevant. And, even if someone miraculously comes up with a perfect solution to eliminate the spoofing altogether, biometrics still has the fundamental problem of having the trade-off relation between FM/FA and FNM/FR due to the nature of body features inherent in living animals.

 The trade-off relation of FM/FA and FNM/FR inevitably brings this security problem - Early models of smartphones were safer than newer models - How come? – https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/early-models-smartphones-were-safer-than-newer-how-come-kokumai

By the way, liveness-detection is sometimes discussed as if it were a second layer of security. It is not the case. Body features of living animals are variable. What would the user be expected to do if they got wrongly rejected by the liveness detection? Give up the login altogether? 

If something gets brought in as a fallback measure, it means that the liveness detection works as a second entrance, not a second layer. Liveness detection is not outside the scope of FM/FA and FNM/FR.

< Related Articles and Video >

Summary and Brief History - Expanded Password System

External Body Features Viewed as ‘What We Are’

Negative Security Effect of Biometrics Deployed in Cyberspace

Removal of Passwords and Its Security Effect

Video Biometrics in Cyber Space - "below-one" factor authentication