Advertisement

Review of Fingerprint Presentation Attack Detection Competitions

  • David YambayEmail author
  • Luca Ghiani
  • Gian Luca Marcialis
  • Fabio Roli
  • Stephanie Schuckers
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition book series (ACVPR)

Abstract

A spoof or artifact is a counterfeit biometric that is used in an attempt to circumvent a biometric sensor. Presentation attacks using an artifact have proven to still be effective against fingerprint recognition systems. Liveness detection aims to distinguish between live and fake biometric traits. Liveness detection is based on the principle that additional information can be garnered above and beyond the data procured by a standard authentication system, and this additional data can be used to determine if a biometric measure is authentic. The Fingerprint Liveness Detection Competition (LivDet) goal is to compare both software-based and hardware-based fingerprint liveness detection methodologies. The competition is open to all academic and industrial institutions. The number of competitors grows at every LivDet edition demonstrating a growing interest in the area.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first and second author had equal contributions to the research. This work has been supported by the Center for Identification Technology Research and the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1068055, and by the project “Computational quantum structures at the service of pattern recognition: modeling uncertainty” [CRP-59872] funded by Regione Autonoma della Sardegna, L.R. 7/2007, Bando 2012.

References

  1. 1.
    Cappelli R (2007) Fingerprint verification competition 2006. Biom Technol Today 15(7):7–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0969-4765(07)70140-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alonso-Fernandez F, Bigun J (2013) Halmstad university submission to the first ICB competition on IRIS recognition (ICIR2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marcialis GL et al (2009) First international fingerprint liveness detection competition–livdet 2009. In: International conference on image analysis and processing. Springer, Berlin.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04146-4_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yambay D et al (2012) Livdet 2011 - fingerprint liveness detection competition 2011. In: 5th IAPR/IEEE International conference on biometrics (ICB 2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marcialis G et al (2013) Livdet 2013 - fingerprint liveness detection competition 2013. In: 6th IAPR/IEEE International conference on biometrics (ICB2013)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marcialis G et al (2014) LivDet 2015 - fingerprint liveness detection competition 2015. In: 7th IEEE international conference on biometrics: theory, applications and systems (BTAS 2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Coli P, Marcialis G, Roli F (2007) Vitality detection from fingerprint images: a critical surveyGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chakka MM et al (2011) Competition on counter measures to 2-D facial spoofing attacks.  https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCB.2011.6117509
  9. 9.
    Galbally J et al (2012) A high performance fingerprint liveness detection method based on quality related features. Future Gener Comput Syst.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2010.11.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Marasco E, Sansone C (2012) Combining perspiration- and morphology-based static features for fingerprint liveness detection. Pattern Recognit Lett 33(9):1148–1156 (1 July 2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Galbally J et al (2014) Image quality assessment for fake biometric detection: application to iris, fingerprint, and face recognition. IEEE Trans Image Process 23(2):710–724.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2013.2292332MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marasco E, Sansone C (2010) An anti-spoofing technique using multiple textural features in fingerprint scanners. In: 2010 IEEE workshop on biometric measurements and systems for security and medical applications (BIOMS), 9 September 2010, pp 8–14.  https://doi.org/10.1109/BIOMS.2010.5610440
  13. 13.
    Ghiani L et al (2014) Experimental results on fingerprint liveness detection. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on articulated motion and deformable objects (AMDO 2012). Springer, Berlin, pp 439–441.  https://doi.org/10.1049/el.2013.4044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gragnaniello D et al (2014) Wavelet-Markov local descriptor for detecting fake fingerprints. Electron Lett 50(6):439–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nogueira R et al (2014) Evaluating software-based fingerprint liveness detection using convolutional networks and local binary patterns. In: 2014 Proceedings of the IEEE workshop on biometric measurements and systems for security and medical applications (BIOMS), 17 October 2014, pp 22–29.  https://doi.org/10.1109/BIOMS.2014.6951531
  16. 16.
    Jiang Y, Xin L (2015) Spoof fingerprint detection based on co-occurrence matrix. Int J Signal Process Image Process Pattern Recognit 8(8):373–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jia X et al (2014) Multi-scale local binary pattern with filters for spoof fingerprint detection. Inf Sc 268:91–102 (1 June 2014). ISSN 0020-0255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gragnaniello D et al (2015) Local contrast phase descriptor for fingerprint liveness detection. Pattern Recognit 48(4):1050–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poh N et al (2014) Anti-forensic resistant likelihood ratio computation: a case study using fingerprint biometrics. In: Signal processing conference (EUSIPCO), pp 1377–1381Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sequeira AF, Cardoso JS (2015) Fingerprint liveness detection in the presence of capable intruders. Sensors (Basel) 15(6):14615–14638.  https://doi.org/10.3390/s150614615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jia X et al (2013) Multi-scale block local ternary patterns for fingerprints vitality detection. In: 2013 International conference on biometrics (ICB), 4–7 June 2013, pp 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ICB.2013.6612964
  22. 22.
    Zhang Y et al (2014) Fake fingerprint detection based on wavelet analysis and local binary pattern. In: 2014 Biometric recognition (CCBR 2014), vol 8833, pp 191–198Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rattani A et al (2015) Open set fingerprint spoof detection across novel fabrication materials. IEEE Trans Inf Forensics Secur 10(11):2447–2460.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2015.2464772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johnson P, Schuckers S (2014) Fingerprint pore characteristics for liveness detection. In: Proceedings of the international conference of the biometrics special interest group (BIOSIG), pp 1–8Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jia X et al (2014) One-class SVM with negative examples for fingerprint liveness detection. Biometric recognition. Springer International Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gottschlich C et al (2014) Fingerprint liveness detection based on histograms of invariant gradients. In: 2014 IEEE international joint conference on biometrics (IJCB). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chugh T, Cao K, Jain A (2017) Fingerprint spoof detection using minutiae-based local patches. In: 2017 IEEE international joint conference on biometrics (IJCB). IEEE.  https://doi.org/10.1109/BTAS.2017.8272745
  28. 28.
    Watson C et al Users guide to NIST biometric image softwareGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Yambay
    • 1
    Email author
  • Luca Ghiani
    • 2
  • Gian Luca Marcialis
    • 2
  • Fabio Roli
    • 2
  • Stephanie Schuckers
    • 1
  1. 1.Clarkson UniversityPotsdamUSA
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Electronic EngineeringUniversity of CagliariCagliariItaly

Personalised recommendations