Vulnerabilities of fingerprint reader to fake fingerprints attacks

• Published in: Forensic science international Vol. 204; no. 1; pp. 41 - 49
• Main Authors: Espinoza, Marcela, Champod, Christophe, Margot, Pierre
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Kidlington Elsevier Ireland Ltd 30.01.2011; Elsevier; Elsevier Limited; Elsevier Sequoia S.A
• Subjects: Adhesives; AFIS; Artificial fingers; Biological and medical sciences; Biometric Identification - instrumentation; Biometrics; Comparative analysis; Cooperation; Dermatoglyphics; Devices; Experiments; Fake fingerprints; Fake fingers; Fingerprinting; Fingerprints; Fingers; Fingers & toes; Forensic medicine; Forensic science; Forensic sciences; General aspects; Humans; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects); Latex; Medical sciences; Methods; Pathology; Proximity; Public health. Hygiene; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine; Query processing; R&D; Readers; Research & development; Silicon; Software; Spoof attack; Studies; AFIS; Fake fingerprints; Artificial fingers; Spoof attack; Fake fingers; Fingerprint; Forensic science; Legal medicine; Fingerprint method; Finger; Forensic aspect; Vulnerability
• ISSN: 0379-0738; 1872-6283; 1872-6283
• DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2010.05.002

The purpose of this research is to assess the vulnerabilities of a high resolution fingerprint sensor when confronted with fake fingerprints. The study has not been focused on the decision outcome of the biometric device, but essentially on the scores obtained following the comparison between a query (genuine or fake) and a template using an AFIS system. To do this, fake fingerprints of 12 subjects have been produced with and without their cooperation. These fake fingerprints have been used alongside with real fingers. The study led to three major observations: First, genuine fingerprints produced scores higher than fake fingers (translating a closer proximity) and this tendency is observed considering each subject separately. Second, scores are however not sufficient as a single measure to differentiate these samples (fake from genuine) given the variation due to the donors themselves. That explains why fingerprint readers without vitality detection can be fooled. Third, production methods and subjects greatly influence the scores obtained for fake fingerprints.