Challenges for Fingerprint Recognition—Spoofing, Skin Diseases, and Environmental Effects

Is Fingerprint Recognition Really so Reliable and Secure?
  • Martin DrahanskýEmail author
  • Ondřej Kanich
  • Eva Březinová
Part of the Advances in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition book series (ACVPR)


This chapter tries to find answers to the questions whether the fingerprint recognition is really so reliable and secure. The most biometric systems based on fingerprint recognition have very low error rates, but are these error rates really telling us everything about the quality of such a biometric system? What happens when we use spoofs to deceive the biometric system? What happens when the genuine user has any kind of skin disease on his fingertips? And could we acquire a fingerprint with acceptable quality if there are some distortions on a finger or there are some environmental effects influencing the scanning technology? Reading this chapter brings you an introduction of preparation of finger fakes (spoofs), spoof detection methods, summarization of skin diseases and their influence on papillary lines, and finally the environmental effects are discussed at the end.


Epidermolysis Bullosa Relative Dielectric Constant Biometric System Latent Fingerprint Secondary Syphilis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work was supported by The Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic from the National Programme of Sustainability (NPU II); project “IT4Innovations excellence in science”—LQ1602; “New solutions for multimodal biometrics—enhancement of security and reliability of biometric technologies”—COST LD14013 (CZ); “Reliability and Security in IT”—internal Brno University of Technology project FIT-S-14-2486 (CZ).


  1. 1.
    Ambalakat P (2005) Security of biometric authentication systems. In: 21st Computer Science Seminar, SA1-T1–1 (2005), p 7Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Daugman J (2001) Biometric Decision Landscapes, University of Cambridge, p 13Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Drahanský M (2011) Fingerprint Recognition Technology—Related Topics. Saarbrücken, DE, LAP, 2011, p 172. ISBN 978-3-8443-3007-6Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Drahanský M, Funk W, Nötzel R (2006) Liveness detection based on fine movements of the fingertip surface. In: IEEE—The West point workshop, West Point, New York, USA, pp 42–47. ISBN 1-4244-0130-5Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drahanský M, Hejtmánková D (2010) New experiments with optical liveness testing methods. J Inf Hiding Multimedia Signal Process 1(4):301–309. ISSN 2073-4212Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Habif TP (2004) Clinical dermatology, 4th edn. Mosby, China, p 1004. ISBN 978-0-323-01319-2Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Habif TP (2004) Clinical dermatology, 4th edn. Mosby, China, p 1004. ISBN 978-0-323-01319-2Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jain AK, Flynn P, Ross AA (2008) Handbook of biometrics. Springer, p 556. ISBN 978-0-387-71040-2Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kanich O (2014) Fingerprint damage simulation—A simulation of fingerprint distortion, damaged sensor, pressure and moisture, LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing GmbH & Co. KG, p 57. ISBN 978-3-659-63942-5Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kluz M (2005) Liveness testing in biometric systems. Master Thesis, Faculty of Informatics, Masaryk University Brno, CZ, p 57Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lodrová D (2013) Security of biometric systems. Dissertation thesis, FIT BUT, Brno (CZ), p 152Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maltoni D, Maio D, Jain AK, Prabhakar S (2009) Handbook of fingerprint recognition, 2nd edn. Springer, p 494. ISBN 978-1-84882-253-5Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Malý T (2013) Detekce živosti prstu pomocí osvětlení různé vlnové délky (Detection of Finger Liveness using Illumination with Different Wavelengths), Diploma thesis, FIT BUT, Brno (CZ), p 59Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martinsen ØG, Grimnes S, Haug E (1999) Measuring depth depends on frequency in electrical skin impedance measurements. In: Skin research and technology, No. 5, pp 179−181. ISSN 0909-752XGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Matsumoto T, Matsumoto H, Yamada K, Hoshino S (2005) Impact of artificial “Gummy” fingers on fingerprint systems. In: Proceedings of SPIE, Optical Security and Counterfeit Deterrence Techniques IV, vol 4677, p 11Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rowe RK (2008) Spoof Detection. Summer school for advanced studies on biometrics for secure authentication. Italy, Alghero, p 43Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schuckers S, Hornak L, Norman T, Derakhshani R, Parthasaradhi S (2003) Issues for liveness detection in biometrics. West Virginia University, Presentation, CITeR, p 25Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tan B, Lewicke A, Schuckers S (2008) Novel methods for fingerprint image analysis detect fake fingers. In: SPIE, p 3. doi: 10.1117/2.1200805.1171
  19. 19.
    Organism Identifying Method and Device. US Patent 6,314,195, Nov 2001Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wolff K, Johnson RA, Suurmond D (2005) Fitzpatrick’s Color Atlas and Synopsis of Clinical Dermatology, 5th Edition. McGraw-Hill, USA, p 1085. ISBN 0-07-144019-4Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhao Q, Jain AK, Paulter NG, Taylor M (2012) Fingerprint image synthesis based on statistical feature models. In: 2012 IEEE Fifth International Conference on Biometrics: Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS). IEEE, pp 23–30Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Drahanský
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ondřej Kanich
    • 1
  • Eva Březinová
    • 2
  1. 1.Brno University of TechnologyFaculty of Information TechnologyBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.1st Department of Dermatovenereology, St. Anne’s University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine & Masaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations