1230-7483

Performance evaluation and forensic examination of common fingerprint spoofing materials

Ocena wydajności i badanie kryminalistyczne popularnych materiałów do fałszowania odcisków palców

Joy

Angel

author Choudhary

Sumit Kumar

author

Rashtriya Raksha University

Correspondence to: Angel Joy Correspondence to: Sumit Kumar Choudhary dr.choudhary.sk@gmail.com

10 10 2024

138 2024 123 135

2024

Nie zgłoszono żadnego konfliktu interesów.

Fingerprints are the most common evidence found at crime scenes and the most relevant biometric feature for personal identification. The persistence and uniqueness of fingerprints make them one of the most definitive biometric traits, which has led to their wide promotion in secure identity recognition systems. Due to its reliability, it is imperative to maintain its authenticity. The common usage of fingerprinting systems across the world in almost all kind of organizational set-ups have encouraged criminals to turn to fingerprint spoofing and a few other means to break through identity-based security barriers. Major crimes associated with fingerprint spoofing includes biometric data breach, financial frauds, and impersonation. The present research uses common fingerprint spoofing materials to evaluate their performances on a set of available fingerprint biometric machines. Finger impressions were developed on commonly available spoofing materials, which were then subjected to available fingerprint biometric scanners. For those fake prints that successfully bypassed biometric scanners, forensic examinations were performed. Realizing the likelihood of the use of such spoofed finger impressions in the commission of a crime, that exists and continues to evolve in modern society, a proactive forensic approach is imperative. Thus, the ability of these spoofed prints to create inked impressions on paper was also examined vis-à-vis the original inked finger impressions on the paper.

1. Abhishek K, Yogi A. A minutiae count-based method for fake fingerprint detection. Procedia Computer Science, 2015;58,447-452.

2. Gao Q. A preliminary study of fake fingerprints. Int J Comput Net Inf Security, 2014;6(12),1-8.

3. Arunalatha G, Ezhilarasan M. Fingerprint spoof detection using quality features. Int J Security Appl. 2015;9(10),83-94.

4. Jain A, Hong L, Bolle R. On-line fingerprint verification. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence. 1997;19(4),302-314.

5. Kauba C, Debiasi L, Uhl A. Enabling fingerprint presentation attacks: fake fingerprint fabrication techniques and recognition performance. 2020;arXiv preprint arXiv: 2012.00606.

6. Feng J, Jain AK, Ross A. Fingerprint alteration. MSU Technical Report, MSU-CSE-09-30. 2009; Submitted to IEEE TIFS.

7. Maro EA, Kovalchuk MM. Bypass mobile lock systems with gelatin artificial fingerprint. Int J Comput Sci Eng. 2018;6(6),32-36.

8. Chugh T, Cao K, Jain AK. Fingerprint spoof buster. 2017;arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.04489.

9. Galbally J, Fierrez J, Ortega-Garcia J, Cappelli R, editors. Fingerprint anti-spoofing in biometric systems. In: Marcel S, Nixon M, Li SZ. Handbook of biometric anti-spoofing: trusted biometrics under spoofing attacks. London: Springer-Verlag; 2014. p. 35-64.

10. Kulkarni SS, Patil HY. Survey on fingerprint spoofing detection techniques and databases. Int J Comput Appl. 2015;975,8887.

11. Rattani A, Scheirer WJ, Ross A. Open set fingerprint spoof detection across novel fabrication materials. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security. 2015;10(11),2447-2460.

12. Chugh T, Jain AK. Fingerprint spoof detection: temporal analysis of image sequence. In: 2020 IEEE International Joint Conference on Biometrics (IJCB). IEEE; 2020. p. 1-10

13. Saharan S, Yadav AK, Yadav B. Novel C stain-based chemical method for differentiating real and forged fingerprints. Egypt J Forensic Sci. 2020;10(1),1-8.

14. Sharma MK. Detection and prevention of fingerprint altering/spoofing based on pores (level-3) with the help of multimodal biometrics. Int J Sci Res. 2014;3(7),344-350.

15. Nayak SK, Punyasloka Pati SS, Nayak S, Debata T, Bhuyan L. Artificial finger with dental alginate impression material can fool the sensor of various finger print systems. J Indian Acad Forensic Med. 2019;41(1),02-06.

16. Rattani A, Ross A. Minimizing the impact of spoof fabrication material on fingerprint liveness detector. In: 2014 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP). IEEE; 2014. p. 4992-4996.

17. Rousan MA, Intrigila B. A comparative analysis of biometrics types: literature review. Journal of Computer Science. 2020;16(12),1788. Retrieved April 26, 2022.

18. Hildebrandt M, Kiltz S, Sturm J, Dittmann J, Vielhauer C. High-resolution printed amino acid traces: a first-feature extraction approach for fingerprint forgery detection. Proceedings SPIE, Media Watermarking, Security, and Forensics. 2012;83030(152-162).