Non-reference Image Quality Assessment for Fingervein Presentation Attack Detection

  • Amrit Pal Singh Bhogal
  • Dominik Söllinger
  • Pauline Trung
  • Jutta Hämmerle-Uhl
  • Andreas Uhl
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10269)

Abstract

Non-reference image quality measures are used to distinguish real biometric data from data as used in presentation/sensor spoofing attacks. An experimental study shows that based on a set of 6 such measures, classification of real vs. fake fingervein data is feasible with an accuracy of 99% on one of our datasets. However, we have found that the best quality measure (combination) and classification setting highly depends on the target dataset. Thus, we are unable to provide any other recommendation than to optimise the choice of quality measure and classification setting for each specific application setting. Results also imply, that generalisation to unseen attack types might be difficult due to dataset dependence of the results.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been partially supported by the Austrian Science Fund, project no. 27776.

References

  1. 1.
    Marcel, S., Nixon, M., Li, S. (eds.): Handbook of Biometric Anti-Spoofing. Springer, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gragnaniello, D., Poggi, G., Sansone, C., Verdoliva, L.: An investigation of local descriptors for biometric spoofing detection. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 10(4), 849–861 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Menotti, D., Chiachia, G., Pinto, A., Schwartz, W., Pedrini, H., Falcao, A.X., Rocha, A.: Deep representations for iris, face, and fingerprint spoofing detection. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 10(4), 864–879 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Galbally, J., Marcel, S., Fierrez, J.: Image quality assessment for fake biometric detection: application to iris, fingerprint, and face recognition. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 23(2), 710–724 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wen, D., Han, H., Jain, A.: Face spoof detection with image distortion analysis. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 10(4), 746–761 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tome, P., Vanoni, M., Marcel, S.: On the vulnerability of finger vein recognition to spoofing. In: 2014 International Conference of the Biometrics Special Interest Group (BIOSIG), pp. 1–10, September 2014Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Raghavendra, R., Avinash, M., Marcel, S., Busch, C.: Finger vein liveness detection using motion magnification. In: 2015 IEEE 7th International Conference on Biometrics Theory, Applications and Systems (BTAS), pp. 1–7, September 2015Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tome, P., Raghavendra, R., Busch, C., Tirunagari, S., Poh, N., Shekar, B.H., Gragnaniello, D., Sansone, C., Verdoliva, L., Marcel, S.: The 1st competition on counter measures to finger vein spoofing attacks. In: 2015 International Conference on Biometrics (ICB), pp. 513–518, May 2015Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nguyen, D.T., Park, Y.H., Shin, K.Y., Kwon, S.Y., Lee, H.C., Park, K.R.: Fake finger-vein image detection based on fourier and wavelet transforms. Digit. Signal Proc. 23(5), 1401–1413 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tirunagari, S., Poh, N., Bober, M., Windridge, D.: Windowed DMD as a microtexture descriptor for finger vein counter-spoofing in biometrics. In: 2015 IEEE International Workshop on Information Forensics and Security (WIFS), pp. 1–6, November 2015Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Raghavendra, R., Busch, C.: Presentation attack detection algorithms for finger vein biometrics: a comprehensive study. In: 2015 11th International Conference on Signal-Image Technology Internet-Based Systems (SITIS), pp. 628–632, November 2015Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kocher, D., Schwarz, S., Uhl, A.: Empirical evaluation of IBP-extension features for finger vein spoofing detection. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of the Biometrics Special Interest Group (BIOSIG’16), Darmstadt, Germany, p. 8 (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mythily, B., Sathyaseelan, K.: Measuring the quality of image for fake biometric detection: application to finger vein. In: National Conference on Research Advances in Communication, Computation, Electrical Science and Structures (NCRACCESS), pp. 6–11 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nouri, A., Charrier, C., Saadane, A., Fernandez-Maloigne, C.: Statistical comparison of no-reference images quality assessment algorithms. In: Proceedings of the Colour and Visual Computing Symposium (CVCS 2013) (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Charrier, C., Saadane, A., Fernandez-Maloigne, C.: Comparison of no-reference image quality assessment machine learning-based algorithms on compressed images. In: Image Quality and System Performance XII. Prooceedings of SPIE, vol. 9396 (2015)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mittal, A., Soundararajan, R., Bovik, A.C.: Making image quality assessment robust. In: Proceesings of the 46th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers (ASILOMAR) (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saad, M., Bovik, A.C., Charrier, C.: Blind image quality assessment: a natural scene statistics approach in the DCT domain. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 21(8), 3339–3352 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gabarda, S., Cristobal, G.: Blind image quality assessment through anisotropy. J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 24, B42–B51 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mittal, A., Moorthy, A.K., Bovik, A.C.: No-reference image quality assessment in the spatial domain. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 21(12), 4695–4708 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moorthy, A.K., Bovik, A.C.: Blind image quality assessment: from natural scene statistics to perceptual quality. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 20(12), 3350–3364 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moorthy, A.K., Bovik, A.C.: A two-step framework for constructing blind image quality indices. IEEE Signal Process. Lett. 17(5), 513–516 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rattani, A., Scheirer, W., Ross, A.: Open set fingerprint spoof detection across novel fabrication materials. IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Secur. 10(11), 2447–2460 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amrit Pal Singh Bhogal
    • 1
  • Dominik Söllinger
    • 1
  • Pauline Trung
    • 1
  • Jutta Hämmerle-Uhl
    • 1
  • Andreas Uhl
    • 1
  1. 1.Visual Computing and Security Lab (VISEL), Department of Computer SciencesUniversity of SalzburgSalzburgAustria

Personalised recommendations