Research Article

Attack Potential Evaluation in Desktop and Smartphone Fingerprint Sensors: Can They Be Attacked by Anyone?

Table 5

PAD evaluation characteristics for each study: desktop sensors, mobile devices (1 expert), and mobile devices (15 laymen). Details are given according to ISO/IEC 30107-3 requirements.

Desktop sensorsMobile devices (1 expert)Mobile devices (15 laymen)

Capture subjects67 (3 female + 4 male)3 (more for extra points)53

Sources for artefacts36 fingers, 6 capture subjects (index, middle and thumb, both hands)42 fingers, 6 capture subjects (index, middle and thumb, both hands)4 per capture subject (both thumbs, indexes)212

Number of attempts3 per transaction, 2 transactions per finger, 4 sensors (4672 in total)10 per finger, 5 mobile devices (2669 in total)10 per finger5,481

Evaluator’s accessGray box (pass/fail result + NFIQ quality).Black box (only pass/fail result).
Very slight quality feedback on some devices (MD1 and MD3) (“finger too wet”).

Artefact species7 (Play-Doh, gelatin, latex, silicone, white glue, latex with graphite, silicone with graphite)3 (Play-Doh, gelatin, latex with graphite)2 (Play-Doh and gelatin), more for extra credit10 (Play-Doh, gelatin, gelatin with glycerin, silicone, TAC adhesive, wax, clay, wood glue, conductive ink, latex)

Attack typeCooperative and non-cooperativeCooperative