Fingerprint Spoofing Detection: A Review

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) in Forensic Science

by
Anubrati Modak
[Reg. No. 213002459210024]
Hritika Garai
[Reg. No. 213002459210049]
Shreya Chakraborty
[Reg. No. 213002459210009]

Under Supervision of
Ms. Ashmita Paul

Department of Forensic Science & Technology

Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology, West Bengal

July, 2024

1
 Dedication

Dedicated to our family, our professor and to all the little minds interested in
fingerprints and their detection methods.

2
 Declaration

We, Anubrati Modak [Reg. No. 213002459210024], Hritika Garai [Reg.

No.213002459210049] and Shreya Chakraborty [Reg. No. 213002459210009],
hereby declare that the entire dissertation work entitled “Fingerprint Spoofing
Detection ” submitted to the Department of Forensic Science & Technology (D-FS&T),
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology, West Bengal (MAKAUT-WB),
is the outcome of original research work/review work undertaken and carried out by us
under the guidance of Ms. Ashmita Paul, Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic
Science & Technology Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology, West
Bengal. This work has not been submitted to any other institute/university for
producing any other degree.

----------------------- -------------------------- -------------

Anubrati Modak Shreya Chakraborty Hritika Garai
B.Sc.3rd Year B.Sc.3rd Year B.Sc.3rdYear
D-FS&T D-FS&T D-FS&T
MAKAUT-WB MAKAUT-WB MAKAUT-WB

3
 Author’s Contribution

Anubrati Modak, Hritika Garai and Shreya Chakraborty carried out the experiment.
Hritika Garai, Shreya Chakraborty wrote the manuscript themselves. Literature review
and Methodology is done by Shreya Chakraborty. Results and Discussion is written by
Anubrati Modak. The ideation for the future outlook is a joint effort of both Shreya
Chakraborty and Anubrati Modak, and also written by them. Lastly, Conclusion,
Referencing and Document formatting are done by Hritika Garai. Ms. Ashmita Paul
helped supervise the project Fingerprint Spoofing Detection.

---------------------------- ----------------------------
(Signature of the Authors) (Signature of the Supervisor)
Anubrati Modak Ms. Ashmita Paul
Shreya Chakraborty Assistant Professor
Hritika Garai D – FS &T
MAKAUT, WB.

Date:

Place:

4
 Certificate

This is to certify that the dissertation entitled “Fingerprint Spoofing Detection” being
submitted by Anubrati Modak (Registration No. 213002459210024), Hritika Garai
(Registration No. 213002459210049), Shreya Chakraborty (Registration
No.213002459210009) to the Department of Forensic Science and Technology,
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology (MAKAUT), West Bengal, for
the partial fulfillments of the degree of B.Sc. in Forensic science, is a record of bonafide
research work carried out by Anubrati Modak, Hritika Garai, Shreya Chakraborty under
the supervision of Ms. Ashmita Paul. This work has not been submitted to any other
institute for procuring any other degree.

-------------------------------- -----------------------------
(Signature of the Authors) (Signature of the Supervisor)

Date:
Place:

5
 Acknowledgment
We would like to take this opportunity to express our thanks to those who helped us
with various aspects of conducting research and the writing of this dissertation. Firstly,
we would like to convey our sincere and heartfelt gratitude to our teacher and
dissertation supervisor Ms. Ashmita Paul, Department of Forensic Science &
Technology Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology, West Bengal, for
her continuous support, guidance and inspiration in our dissertation work. Her
dynamism, incredible stamina and vigilant supervision on every minute detail are
constant sources of inspiration to us. We record our acknowledgement to our university,
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology, West Bengal for aiding through
books and digital research paper in the library, and all other opportunities to pursue the
research work, including the administrative support during the tenure. We would like
to dedicate this thesis to our family specially our parents and brother/ sister who have
given us enough time and sincere support to accomplish our study. We are especially
thankful to our seniors for sharing their understandings and giving correctional inputs
regarding our task in the early stage of the dissertation work. We would like to thank
all our juniors for the contribution to the atmosphere of our laboratory. Finally, we want
to thank all our teachers of the Department of Forensic Science and Technology of
MAKAUT-WB who made themselves available to us for constant guidance and
mentorship in any hardship we faced.

Signature of Authors:
Authors:
Date:

Place:

6
Abstract

Systems for biometric authentication, especially those that use fingerprint recognition,
are vulnerable to spoofing attacks, in which malicious actors try to trick the system by
using a fake fingerprint. Robust anti-spoofing technologies are required since traditional
fingerprint sensors frequently fail to distinguish between real and spoof prints. Under
these circumstances, real-time fingerprint spoof detection with sophisticated image
processing methods becomes an essential field of study. This work investigates the use of
state-of-the-art image processing techniques for real-time fingerprint spoof detection. To
identify complex patterns and features inside fingerprint photos, we combine deep
learning models with high-resolution photographs. Our method correctly distinguishes
between real and fake fingerprints by combining the processes of feature extraction,
classification, and verification. Of all the biometric features—face, iris, voice,
fingerprints, gait, etc. fingerprints are said to be the most well-known because of their
distinctiveness, ability to hold up over time, inability to duplicate, and ability to retain
identity. Unfortunately, though, the advent of counterfeit fingerprints is creating new
difficulties. As a result, fingerprint spoof detection systems have grown in significance.
Systems are in place to verify if the input source is a real finger image or a fake one. This
improves the fingerprint recognition system's security. In forensic, civilian, and
commercial applications, the use of fingerprints as biometric features is widely employed
and developed for fingerprint recognition. Numerous studies have developed liveness
fingerprint detecting algorithms using various methodologies. Our research intends to
analyse various strategies and discuss the many studies proposed in liveness fingerprint
detection systems that can use machine learning approaches to distinguish between real
and false fingerprint photos. Based on particular metrics, a comparison of the datasets
utilized in the literature was done. The findings show that BSIF and LPQ are the most
extracted features. SVM, or the support vector machine algorithm, is a popular classifier.

Keywords: Biometric authentication, Fingerprint recognition, Spoofing attacks, Anti-

spoofing technologies, Real-time detection, Deep learning models, Counterfeit
fingerprint, Liveness fingerprint detection, BSIF (Binarized Statistical Image
Features), LPQ (Local Phase Quantization), SVM (Support Vector Machine)

7
 Table of Contents

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................ 14

1.1 Fingerprint Security System ............................................................................... 16

1.2 Aim ..................................................................................................................... 26

1.3 Objective ............................................................................................................ 26

2.Literature Review ................................................................................................... 27

2.1 Fingerprint Spoof Liveness Detection................................................................ 27

2.2 Anti -Spoofing Detection using Machine Learning ........................................... 28

2.3 Spoof Detection using Minutiae Based Local Patches and Biometric System .. 28

2.4 Fingerprinting Using Lightweight Network and Neural Network ..................... 29

3. Methodology ........................................................................................................... 31

3.1 Review Method .................................................................................................. 31

4. Results and Observations ...................................................................................... 33

4.1 Techniques ......................................................................................................... 34

4.2 Common Types of Security Attacks .................................................................. 38

5. Discussion................................................................................................................ 39

5.1 Effectiveness of Techniques............................................................................... 39

5.2 Performance Evaluation ..................................................................................... 39

5.3 Experimental Results.......................................................................................... 39

5.4 Comparison of Models ....................................................................................... 39

5.5 Effectiveness of Liveness Detection .................................................................. 39

5.6 Predicted Increase in Biometric Transactions .................................................... 40

5.7 Design Goals for Anti-Spoofing Technology .................................................... 40

5.8 Methods of Machine Learning (ML). ................................................................ 43

5.9 Methods for Deep Learning (DL). ..................................................................... 43

5.10 Thick Sample Analysis .................................................................................... 44

8
 5.11 Thin Sample Analysis ...................................................................................... 44

5.12 Spoofing Detection ........................................................................................... 45

5.13 Factors .............................................................................................................. 46

6. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 53

7. Future Outlook ....................................................................................................... 55

References ................................................................................................................... 58

9
 List of Figures

FIGURE 1: EXAMPLE LIVE AND SPOOF FINGERPRINTS IN BIOMETRIKA SENSOR FROM

LIVDET 2015 DATASET ......................................................................................... 15

FIGURE 2: TYPES OF FINGERPRINT FEATURES .............................................................. 17
FIGURE 3: FINGERPRINT SAMPLES USING CROSS MATCH. THE FIRST ROW IN FIG SHOWS
THE REAL FINGERPRINTS. THE SECOND ROW SHOWS FAKE ONES WERE ACQUIRED

FROM ARTIFICIAL FINGERS WHICH MADE BY DIFFERENT FABRICATE MATERIALS . . 33

FIGURE 4: FINGERPRINT IMAGES CAPTURED FROM A DRY COMPARED WITH AN IMAGE

CAPTURED FROM A NORMAL FINGER. .................................................................... 37

FIGURE 5: STATIC BASED ANTI - SPOOFING ANALYSIS. LEFT: IMAGE CAPTURED BY A

FINGERPRINT RECOGNITION SYSTEM PRESENTED BY A FINGERPRINT SPOOF CREATED

WITH GLUE. WHITE AIR BUBBLES CONTAINED IN THE GLUE ARE VISIBLE AND IT

EXHIBITS FEWER MINUTE DETAILS. RIGHT: IMAGE CAPTURED WITH A REAL FINGER
WITH MINUTE DETAILS BUT NO AIR BUBBLES ........................................................ 37

FIGURE 6: FAKE FINGERPRINT IMAGES FROM CASIA DATASET ................................... 46

FIGURE 7: REAL FINGERPRINT IMAGES ......................................................................... 49
FIGURE 8: FAKE IMAGES FROM ATVS DATASETS ....................................................... 49

10
 List of Tables

TABLE 1: INFORMATION OF LIVDET DATASETS 2013 AND 2015 .................................. 36

TABLE 2: EXPERIMENTAL SETUP.................................................................................. 36
TABLE 3: PUBLIC DATASETS FOR LIVENESS FINGERPRINT RECOGNITION .................... 41

11
 List of Abbreviations and Symbols

Abbreviations Expansion

Reg Registration
Dept. Department
DFST Department of Forensic Science and
Technology
B.Sc. Bachelor of Science
Fig Figure
Doesn’t Does not
e.g. Exempli gratia
i.e. That is
etc Et cetra
BSIF Binarized Statistical Image Features
LPQ Local Phase Quantization
SVM Support Vector Machine
ID Identification
LivDet Liveness Detection
FPAD Fingerprint Presentation Attack
Detection
TLF Transient Liveness Factor
CNN Convolutional Neural Networks
ATVS Ability to Verify
CASIA Chinese Academy of Science Institution
of Automation
KNN K – Nearest Neighbors
GLCM Gray Level Co-occurrence Matrix
TIR Total Internal Reflection
3D 3 Dimensional
2D 2 Dimensional
PIN Personal Identification Number
AI Artificial Intelligence
PA Presentation Attacks
DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid
SIFT Scale – Invariant Feature Transform
FRR False Reject Rate
FAR False Accept Rate
SDR Spoof Detection Rate
NN Neural Networks
PAD Presentation Attack Detection
IAPER Impostor Attack Presentation Accept
Rate
APCER Attack Presentation Classification Error
Rate
BPCER Bona – fide Presentation Classification
Error Rate
12
DBN Deep Belief Networks
THz Terahertz
TDS Time – Domain Spectroscopy
SQL Structural Query Language
IT Information Technology
NIST National Institute of Standards and
Technology
NFIQ NIST Fingerprint Image Quality
EER Equal Error Rate
NFC Near – Field Communications
RTV Room Temperature Vulcanizing
ML Machine Learning
DL Deep Learning
FVC Fingerprint Verification Competition
RQs Review – guiding Research Questions

13
1. Introduction

A crucial component of biometric security systems meant to detect and stop the use of
fictitious fingerprints for illegal access is fingerprint spoof detection. Because
biometric-based verification has so many uses in the security and access control
domains, researchers are taking it into account. In particular, fingerprint-based
verification is often accepted as the most distinctive form of individually identifiable
proof due to its low acquisition costs and uniqueness. Its widespread use encourages
fraudsters to use easily obtained materials, such as silicon, gelatin, Play-Doh, etc., to
generate fake fingerprints. Even once a legitimate person has registered, there are ways
to compromise a system. An intruder can create a counterfeit clone of a fingerprint by
placing any object on top of an original fingerprint in order to circumvent the fingerprint
system. Presentation attacks are the name given to these kinds of attacks. These days,
biometric recognition systems are used in many different ID domains due to their ease
of use and strength in comparison to conventional methods like a secret phrase.
Recognition frameworks for biometric rely on an individual's physiological and social
attributes. The finger impression validation framework is widely used due to its high
precision in identifying proof, affordability, and ability to handle large image datasets.
These characteristics enable finger impression recognition systems to be used in a wide
range of applications, including banks, criminology, medical services, cell phone
identification, participation, and so forth. Nevertheless, those systems are not immune
to harmful attacks. Biometric systems are vulnerable to two types of attacks: direct and
aberrant. The most well-known type of assault is the direct one since no information is
anticipated to guide the attack. The unique mark acknowledgment framework is
typically implemented in a sensor device using simple and practical tools such as wood
sticks, Play-Doh, silicon, and so on. On the other hand, backhanded attack requires deep
information about the module of the framework. Scientists are working to develop a
framework that can assess and provide a response for liveness identification of finger
impression frameworks in light of the increased scope of attack instruments [1].

14
Figure 1: Example live and spoof fingerprints in Biometrika sensor from LivDet
2015 dataset [14]
In order to detect live fingerprint samples and stop spoofing attempts in high-security
situations, Sandya Rani K S and B. Muthuramalingam's work "Fingerprint Spoofing
Detection Using Machine Learning" focuses on creating a safe and self-learning
approach. The study highlights the necessity of strong fingerprint anti-spoofing
techniques because biometric systems are susceptible to direct and indirect attacks. To
demonstrate a live fingerprint sample-based fingerprint presentation attack detection
(FPAD) technique. To create a "Transient Liveness Factor" (TLF), six distinct image
quality measures are collected from live samples. To validate the model, the method
employs three exception detection algorithms: local outlier factor, isolation forest, and
one-class convolutional neural network (CNN). The study lists a number of publicly
accessible datasets that are used to test and train fingerprint anti-spoofing methods,
including: LivDet 2009, LivDet 2011, LivDet 2013, LivDet 2015, ATVS dataset,
CASIA dataset. [2]
The study contrasts various machine learning models that are applied to the detection
of fingerprint spoofing, such as: support vector machines (SVM), neural networks
(NN), and K-nearest neighbours (KNN).
The comparison demonstrates that the most widely used classifier is SVM. The usage
of local phase quantization (LPQ), Gray level co-occurrence matrix (GLCM), and
binarized statistical image features (BSIF) for feature extraction in various models is
also covered in the review. The efficacy of deep learning methods, in particular
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), in liveness detection has been investigated.
Models including max-pooling layers, fully connected layers, and multilayer
15
convolutional layers are mentioned in the article as ways to extract and categorize
characteristics from fingerprint photos. Using ATVS datasets, the study provides a
thorough analysis that contrasts the effectiveness of several machine learning
algorithms. According to the study, the suggested FPAD method successfully detected
spoofs with 100% detection accuracy. The study concludes that: The proposed FPAD
scheme using live samples and multiple image quality metrics is highly effective. SVM
remains a robust classifier in fingerprint spoofing detection. Future work will involve
developing a machine learning-based methodology for detecting and classifying fake
fingerprints using new public liveness fingerprint datasets. The research highlights the
superiority of deep learning approaches over conventional machine learning models
and offers a thorough evaluation and analysis of fingerprint spoofing detection
methods. The great accuracy of the suggested FPAD technique suggests that it could
be used to improve biometric security systems. Future areas of the research will focus
on utilizing fresh datasets to enhance the resilience of anti-spoofing methods. [3]

1.1 Fingerprint Security System

1.1.1 Fingerprint Features

A fingerprint is a flowing pattern made up of ridges and valleys found on a person's
fingertip. It is possible to express fingerprints using either local or global data. There
are three levels to the hierarchical order in which ridge details are often stated. Macro
features, such as the kind of ridge and valley structure, can be identified on a global
scale. Ridges have one or more areas where they take on a characteristic shape that falls
into the loop, delta, or whorl categories. At the local level, the details are made up of
several abnormalities known as minutiae points or Galton features, such as ridge
terminating and ridge bifurcation. [1]

16
 Figure 2: Types of Fingerprint Features [1]
1.1.2 Fingerprint Sensing
Many technologies can be used to obtain fingerprints. With optical sensors, a camera
captures the image once the finger is put on a clear prism. Ridges and valleys are
photographed in contrast by total internal reflection (TIR) sensors. The ridges are in
contact with a glass platen, and light entering the prism is reflected at the valleys and
absorbed at the ridges when the surface is illuminated through one side of the prism.
Generally speaking, spoof artefacts created using materials with a light reflectance
comparable to skin can fool sensors built on this technology. Furthermore, optical
instruments made by several manufacturers typically have physical variations across
units (i.e., lenses). As a result, different units may have different rates of fake
fingerprint detection. [11]

1.1.3 Fingerprint Spoofing

The term "fingerprint spoofing detection" describes methods and tools for spotting and
stopping the use of phony fingerprints to get around fingerprint authentication systems.
The process of fabricating a fake fingerprint in order to fool a biometric recognition
system is known as fingerprint spoofing. Spoofs can be created with substances that
mimic the ridges and valleys of a true fingerprint, such as silicone, gelatin, or other
materials.

17
1.1.4 Liveness Detection
Optical Sensing: Measures the light's reflection off the skin's surface to find
characteristics such as blood flow and sweat pores.
Capacitive Sensing: Detects the electrical properties of living tissue, which differ from
those artificial materials.
Thermal Sensing: Measures the heat emitted by a living finger, distinguishing it from
non-living materials.
Ultrasonic Sensing: Uses sound waves to capture detailed 3D images of the fingerprint,
including subsurface layers.

1.1.15 Texture Analysis

Surface Roughness: Analyses the fine details and texture of the fingerprint surface,
which can be different in artificial fingerprints.
Pore Detection: Examines the distribution and depth of pores on the fingerprint, which
are typically absent or different in fake fingerprints.

1.1.6 Dynamic Features

Sweat Patterns: Monitors the dynamic patterns of sweat secretion, which are unique to
living fingers.
Micro-Movements: Observes natural finger movements and skin deformations during
the fingerprint scanning process.

1.1.7 Multi-factor Authentication

Combining fingerprint recognition with other authentication methods, such as PIN
codes, facial recognition, or behavioral biometrics, to increase security.

1.1.8 Machine Learning and AI

Using advanced algorithms to analyze fingerprint images and detect anomalies or
patterns indicative of spoofing attempts. Chemical Detection: Identifying the chemical
composition of the fingerprint to distinguish between human skin and artificial
materials

18
1.1.9 Importance of Fingerprint Spoof Detection
Verifying the authenticity of fingerprints is essential since fingerprint recognition
technology is widely used in security systems, access controls, and cellphones. By
differentiating between authentic fingerprints and counterfeit copies, spoof detection
seeks to improve the security and dependability of these systems.

1.1.10 Enhanced Security

Prevents Unauthorized Access: Spoof detection stops unwanted people from accessing
private data, networks, or physical locations by identifying and rejecting phony
fingerprints.
Protects Against Identity Theft: Robust spoof detection helps safeguard personal and
financial information, reducing the risk of identity theft and fraud.

1.1.11 Trust and Reliability

Increases Users Confidence: Users' confidence in the security and dependability of the
biometric system grows when they are aware that the system is capable of successfully
identifying spoofing attempts.
Maintain System Integrity: Over time, the effectiveness of the authentication system is
sustained by reliable and precise spoof detection, which guarantees the system's
integrity.

1.1.112 Economic Benefits

Reduces Fraud Costs: Organizations can save a substantial amount of money by
thwarting successful spoofing attacks, which would otherwise result in fraud losses and
related recovery costs.
Minimizes Operational Disruption: The possibility of security breaches, which can
cause expensive downtime and interrupt business operations, is decreased by effective
spoof detection.

1.1.13 Types of Fingerprint Presentation Attack

Depending on the attack method (coercion, online theft, hacking, etc.) and presentation
attack instrument (actual, fake, or created fingerprints), fingerprint presentation attacks
can be launched in a variety of ways.
Optical: The most basic scanning technique is this one. Because it only takes a picture
of a fingerprint, it is highly susceptible to PA's.
19
Capacitance: This technique provides more precise and dependable anti-spoofing by
utilizing capacitors included into smartphones. However, an electrostatic discharge
from the user's fingertips could cause the capacitors to malfunction.
Ultrasound: Ultrasound can be used to scan, capturing a fingerprint's friction ridge.
Theoretically, this kind of scanning is the least susceptible to PA's.
Severed Finger Scenario: A unique situation when a finger can be amputated and used
as identification. Many academics, however, dismiss this approach as being ineffectual.
Experience demonstrates that a finger lacking vital signals is unable to be recognized
since it does not produce any electrical conductivity.
Spoofing attack: A more prevalent kind that uses a wide range of Presentation Attack
Instruments (P AIs). These include silicone, gelatin, Play-Doh, latex, wood glue, soft
rubber Eco Flex, latex body paint, and elastomeric impression materials used in
dentistry to create artificial fingerprints. [12]

The literature on fingerprint spoofing detection highlights significant advancements in

using machine learning techniques for anti-spoofing measures. Various models,
datasets, and feature extraction techniques have been proposed to improve the accuracy
and robustness of fingerprint recognition systems. The continuous development in this
field aims to enhance the security and reliability of biometric systems, addressing both
direct and indirect attack vulnerabilities. The study concludes that while there have
been substantial improvements in fingerprint spoofing detection, there is still a need for
further research and development to address the evolving challenges in biometric
security. Future work may focus on integrating more sophisticated machine learning
algorithms, expanding public datasets, and developing more comprehensive anti-
spoofing measures.

Biometric recognition systems are used in many different ID domains due to their ease
of use and strength in comparison to conventional methods like a secret phrase.
Recognition frameworks for biometric rely on an individual's physiological and social
attributes. The finger impression validation framework is widely used due to its high
precision in identifying proof, affordability, and ability to handle large image datasets.
These characteristics enable finger impression recognition systems to be used in a wide
range of applications, including banks, criminology, medical services, cell phone
identification, participation, and so forth. Nevertheless, those systems are not immune
to harmful attacks. Biometric systems are vulnerable to two types of attacks: direct and
20
aberrant. The most well-known type of assault is the direct one since no information is
anticipated to guide the attack.

The increasing use of fingerprint recognition systems in various daily applications,

including international border security, financial transactions, smartphone unlocking,
and so on, has raised concerns about the system's susceptibility to presentation assaults.
These attacks can be realized through a number of methods including, but not limited
to -
(i) gummy fingers, i.e. fabricated finger like objects with accurate imitation of another
individual’s fingerprint ridge: valley structures
(ii) 2D or 3D printed finger: print targets
(iii) altered fingerprints, i.e. intentionally tampered or damaged real fingerprint
patterns to avoid identification
(iv) cadaver fingers.
Among them, fingerprint spoof attacks are the most prevalent kind of presentation
assaults. They can be made using a variety of fabrication techniques, from simple
casting and molding to employing advanced 2D and 3D printing methods. Common
materials like play doh, silicone, gelatin, and others have been used to create
fingerprint spoofs that can successfully bypass the security of a fingerprint recognition
system with a reported success rate of over 70% [17].
The several anti-spoofing strategies put forth in the literature can be largely divided
into two categories: software-based and hardware-based solutions. In hardware-based
solutions, the fingerprint reader usually has to be enhanced with one or more additional
sensors in order to identify vitality-related features like blood flow, skin deformation,
odor, and so on. The software-based solutions that have been documented in the
literature generally employ one of the subsequent methodologies:
(i) texture-based features, such as Local Phase Quantization (LPQ), Binarized
Statistical Image Features (BSIF), and Weber Local Descriptor,
(ii) physiological features, such as sweating,
(iii) anatomical features, such as pore sites and their distribution. [17]

Some abnormalities, including missing friction ridge regions, can be produced by the
randomness inherent in the spoof fabrication process. The fingerprint's production of
fictitious minutiae is the main effect of such noise. Salient indications to distinguish a

21
fake fingerprint from a real fingerprint can be found in the vicinity of these false
minutiae.

Numerous studies have developed liveness fingerprint detection schemes using various
methodologies. Our paper aims to review the various studies proposed in liveness
fingerprint detection systems that can use machine learning techniques to distinguish
between real and fake fingerprint images, as well as to analyze various schemes. Based
on particular metrics, a comparison of the datasets used in the literature was made. The
findings show that BSIF and LPQ are the most extracted features. SVM, or the support
vector machine algorithm, was a popular classifier. [2]

Applications for fingerprint recognition technology are numerous in the forensic,

civilian, and commercial domains. Because these systems are so widely used,
researchers have examined how vulnerable they are to various adversary attacks,
including as impersonation and fingerprint obfuscation. fingerprint obfuscation by a
person who wishes to evade system recognition. A person on a watch list, for instance,
might try to change their finger print pattern so that it doesn't match their entry. Both
large-scale national identity or border control systems and law enforcement have met
mutated fingerprints. [7]

1.1.14 Fingerprint Features

A fingerprint is a flowing pattern made up of ridges and valleys found on a person's
fingertip. It is possible to express fingerprints using either local or global data. There
are three levels to the hierarchical order in which ridge details are often stated. Macro
features, such as the kind of ridge and valley structure, can be identified on a global
scale. Ridges have one or more areas where they take on a characteristic shape that falls
into the loop, delta, or whorl categories. At the local level, the details are made up of
several abnormalities known as minutiae points or Galton features, such as ridge
terminating and ridge bifurcation. [1]

1.1.15 Fingerprint Sensing

Many technologies can be used to obtain fingerprints. With optical sensors, a camera
captures the image once the finger is put on a clear prism. Ridges and valleys are
photographed in contrast by total internal reflection (TIR) sensors. The ridges are in
contact with a glass platen, and light entering the prism is reflected at the valleys and
22
absorbed at the ridges when the surface is illuminated through one side of the prism.
Generally speaking, spoof artifacts created using materials with a light reflectance
comparable to skin can fool sensors built on this technology. Furthermore, optical
instruments made by several manufacturers typically have physical variations across
units (i.e., lenses). As a result, different units may have different rates of fake
fingerprint detection. [19]

1.1.16 Fingerprint System Security

There are several points in time between gathering biometric data and presenting a
result where an attack could take place and jeopardize a biometric system's overall
security.
Presentation Attack: A reproduction of the biometric modality is presented as in- put to
the sensor.
Biometric Signal Replication: The sensor is bypassed and biometric data previously
stored or intercepted is resubmitted.
Feature Modification: The feature extractor is substituted with a Trojan horse in which
features are preselected by the attacker.
Replacing Features: The set of features extracted from the input biometric trait is
replaced with a fraudulent set of features.
Overriding the Matcher: The matcher is corrupted and forced to output match scores
preselected by the attacker.
Replacing Templates: One or more templates are modified by an attacker such that an
authorized identity is associated with a fraudulent template.
Modifying Data through the Channel: The templates transmitted through the channel
are intercepted and corrupted.
Altering the Decision: The final match result is overridden by an attacker.

Adversaries may use spoofing attacks to get around an authentication mechanism,

regardless of the application domain. The difficulty of tricking a biometric sensor is a
process known as circumvention that can be combined with another feature that is
dependent on how simple it is to spot ongoing presentation attacks, which may aid in
choosing the best features for a biometric system. Only authorized users should be able
to interact with a given system in many key applications and systems. This is why user
authentication is the act of confirming the identification that a human being claimed is
intended. Conventional methods of authentication typically depend on either the user's
23
possession (such as a security token) or their knowledge (such as passwords or PIN s).
A system's suitable biometric feature should be carefully chosen based on
predetermined standards. The intrinsic qualities of traits such as universality,
distinctiveness, durability, collect-ability, performance, acceptability, and
circumvention usually serve as the basis for these standards.
Biometric characteristics are divided into:
i) physiological, which are related to the shape of the body (e.g., fingerprint, palm
veins, face, DNA, palm print, hand geometry, iris)
ii) behavioral, which are related to the behavior of a person, (e.g., keystroke, or gait).
[20]

In order to determine whether the input finger is real or artificial, the fingerprint
liveness detection process examines various aspects of the finger. Numerous fingerprint
identification systems are in use and deployed in numerous significant locations,
including immigration and border services. The makers of these systems do not,
however, state whether liveness detection is used in practice. The only sources of
potential liveness detection methods are published literature and patents. The literature
on fingerprint liveness reports on three main schemes. The goal of these is to confirm
the liveness of submitted fingerprints by using them in conjunction with extra hardware,
software, or fingerprints combined with other forms of identification. While software-
based methods make use of changes in physical properties that occur in the early stages
of pressing the finger, hardware-based methods use auxiliary sensors to detect
biological and physiological measurements from the finger. This paper investigates a
variety of voluntary and involuntary fingerprint liveness detection techniques. These
categories rely on distinct responses from either voluntary (passwords or multiple
biometrics) or involuntary (blood pressure or pulse oximetry) liveness detection is to
ascertain the presence of a user. This paper's primary goal is to critically evaluate the
voluntary and involuntary fingerprint liveness detection methods that have been put
forth in the literature, as well as to talk about their potential drawbacks and efficacy.
[1]

Numerous studies have developed liveness fingerprint detection schemes using

various methodologies. Our paper aims to review the various studies proposed in
liveness fingerprint detection systems that can use machine learning techniques to
distinguish between real and fake fingerprint images, as well as to analyze various
24
schemes. Based on particular metrics, a comparison of the datasets used in the
literature was made. The findings show that BSIF and LPQ are the most extracted
features. SVM, or the support vector machine algorithm, was a popular classifier. [7]

Technology development has made it more important than ever to offer sufficient
security. Thus, the first password-based security system was created. As these
systems have developed, biometric features have replaced passwords. However,
people have discovered various ways to get around these systems. There are
numerous ways to stop this security flaw, but most of them are difficult to use or
highly sophisticated. Fingerprints are the most often utilized biometric attribute for
authentication, and they are also the most easily faked. The goal is to develop a
simple method for identifying phony fingerprints. The suggested system makes use of
fingerprints and takes a picture of the fingernail as light passes through. After
processing the fingernail image, SIFT is used to extract features, which are then
compared to feature vectors that are kept in the database. Next, the correlation is
computed. The system determines whether or not the fingerprint is phony based on
the correlation. It was discovered that the system responded well to variations in the
fingernail's pattern and intensity. This approach offers a reliable and easy way to
identify fingerprint spoofing.

25
1.2 Aim

To comprehensively address the critical aspects related to fingerprint liveness in

biometric systems.

1.3 Objective

To identify phony fingerprints, fingerprint spoofing detection seeks to identify and stop
illegal access attempts with silicone, gelatin, or other materials that resemble the ridges
and valleys of real human fingerprints could be used to manufacture these imitations.
The primary goal of fingerprint liveness detection is to distinguish between genuine
live fingerprints and spoofed (fabricated) fingerprints. Spoofing attacks involve
presenting artificial fingerprint replicas to deceive biometric systems. By accurately
detecting liveness, we enhance the security and reliability of fingerprint-based
authentication.

Key objectives include:

i) Preventing unauthorized access: Ensuring that only live, legitimate users are
granted access.
ii) Mitigating spoofing attacks: Identifying and rejecting fake fingerprints created
from materials like gelatin, silicone molds, or Play-Doh.
iii) Improving system robustness: Enhancing the resilience of biometric systems
against identity fraud.

26
2.Literature Review

2.1 Fingerprint Spoof Liveness Detection

Sepasian, Mares, & Balachandran, (2009), “Liveness and Spoofing in Fingerprint

Identification: Issues and Challenges”. In order to determine whether the input finger
is real or artificial, the fingerprint liveness detection process examines various aspects
of the finger. Numerous fingerprint identification systems are in use and deployed in
numerous significant locations, including immigration and border services. The makers
of these systems do not, however, state whether liveness detection is used in practice.
The only sources of potential liveness detection methods are published literature and
patents. The literature on fingerprint liveness reports on three main schemes. The goal
of these is to confirm the liveness of submitted fingerprints by using them in
conjunction with extra hardware, software, or fingerprints combined with other forms
of identification. While software-based methods make use of changes in physical
properties that occur in the early stages of pressing the finger, hardware-based methods
use auxiliary sensors to detect biological and physiological measurements from the
finger. This paper investigates a variety of voluntary and involuntary fingerprint
liveness detection techniques. These categories rely on distinct responses from either
voluntary (passwords or multiple biometrics) or involuntary (blood pressure or pulse
oximetry) liveness detections to ascertain the presence of a user. This paper's primary
goal is to critically evaluate the voluntary and involuntary fingerprint liveness detection
methods that have been put forth in the literature, as well as to talk about their potential
drawbacks and efficacy. [1]
Ali, S. F., Khan, M. A., & Aslam, A. S. (2021), “Fingerprint matching, spoof and
liveness detection: classification and literature review.” The most popular biometric
techniques are fingerprint matching, spoof mitigation, and liveness detection, mostly
due to their stability over time, uniqueness, and low danger of compromise. A number
of methods have been proposed in the last ten years to handle these difficulties with
popular data sets. The fingerprint algorithms and approaches that have been developed
in the last few decades are thoroughly reviewed in this article. The research on
fingerprints is separated into nine categories: latent, conventional machine learning,
deep learning, picture enhancement, fuzzy logic, feature-based, template matching, and

27
other methodologies. Deep learning is one of these that has performed better than the
others and is receiving a lot of attention for further study. [8]

2.2 Anti -Spoofing Detection using Machine Learning

Alqahtani, & Zagrouba. (2020, September), “Fingerprint Spoofing Detection Using

Machine Learning.” Numerous studies have developed liveness fingerprint detection
schemes using various methodologies. The paper aims to review the various studies
proposed in liveness fingerprint detection systems that can use machine learning
techniques to distinguish between real and fake fingerprint images, as well as to analyze
various schemes. Based on particular metrics, a comparison of the datasets used in the
literature was made. The findings show that BSIF and LPQ are the most extracted
features. SVM, or the support vector machine algorithm, was a popular classifier. [2]
Uliyan, D. M., Sadeghi, S., & Jalab, H. A. (2020), “Anti-spoofing Method for
Fingerprint Recognition Using Pmatch Based Deep Learning Machine.” Todays with
increasing identity theft, biometric systems based on fingerprints have a growing
importance in protection and access restrictions. Malicious users violate them by
presenting fabricated attempts. For example, artificial fingerprints constructed by
gelatin, Play-Doh and Silicone molds may be misused for access and identity fraud by
forgers to clone fingerprints. This process is called spoofing. To detect such forgeries,
some existing methods using handcrafted descriptors have been implemented for
assuring user presence. Most of them give low accuracy rates in recognition. The
proposed method used Discriminative Restricted Boltzmann Machines to recognize
fingerprints accurately against fabricated materials used for spoofing. [5]

2.3 Spoof Detection using Minutiae Based Local Patches and Biometric System

Chugh, Cao, & Jain, (2017, October), “Fingerprint Spoof Detection Using Minutiae-
Based Local Patches.” Numerous commonplaces use, such as international border
security and smartphone unlocking, are making use of fingerprints' uniqueness.
Although ensuring a trustworthy and accurate user authentication is the main goal of a
fingerprint recognition system, spoof attacks can compromise the recognition system's
security. The challenge of creating precise and broadly applicable algorithms for
28
identifying fingerprint spoofing attacks is addressed in this work. They suggest a
method based on deep convolutional neural networks that makes use of local patches
that are extracted from the fine details of fingerprints. Test findings conducted on three
public-domain LivDet datasets (2011, 2013, and 2015) demonstrate that the suggested
method offers state-of-the-art accuracy in fingerprint spoof identification for testing
scenarios involving intra-sensor, cross-material, cross-sensor, and cross-dataset. For
example, on LivDet 2015 datasets, the suggested method reduces average classification
error for spoof detection by 69% under both known material and cross-material
scenarios. [4]
Salman, & Salman, (2020). “Spoofed/unintentional fingerprint detection using
behavioral biometric features.” Because they are utilized for application authentication
or device access, fingerprints are a common biometric on smartphones. Despite all of
its advantages, fingerprints are susceptible to spoofing attacks. This study looks into
ways to thwart spoofing attacks that utilize real fingerprints obtained through theft or
coercion. They distinguished between forced and purposeful fingerprint authorization
attempts using behavioral biometrics. Data was gathered from multiple sensors, with
the accelerometer exhibiting the highest degree of discrimination. Six data subsets
total—two for calibration and four for testing—each containing roughly 100 examples.
In addition to one test on the combination of feature vectors from all sensors before and
after applying Correlation-based Feature Selection (CFS) to lower the number of
combined features, a matching six tests were conducted on the subsets. They employed
Deep Neural Network (DNN) classifiers, Linear-Kernel and Cubic-Kernel Support
Vector Machines (SVMs), and Naïve Bayes classifiers. The classifiers' scores for the
accelerometer-combined data were 61%, 81%, 88%, and 94%, respectively, indicating
that the DNN was the most effective classifier. Individual runs also performed better.
It was successful for the inquiry to distinguish between forced and purposeful
applications of fingerprint authentication systems. [7]

2.4 Fingerprinting Using Lightweight Network and Neural Network

Nogueira, de Alencar Lotufo, & Machado (2016), “Fingerprint liveness detection

using convolutional neural networks.” Fingerprint spoof detection has grown in
significance in light of the increased use of authentication systems in recent years.
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) are used in this model to detect fingerprint

29
spoofs. The datasets from years' worth of The Liveness Detection Competition are
utilized to train our algorithm. 2009, 2011, and 2013, which total around fifty thousand
photos of both actual and fraudulent fingerprints. The CNN is fine-tuned using
fingerprint pictures, a traditional Local Binary Pattern method, a CCN with random
weights, and pretrained on natural images. The experiment demonstrates that state-of-
the-art outcomes can be achieved with pretrained CNNs without the need for
architecture or hyperparameter selection. The performance of the classifier is improved
by dataset augmentation for both shallow and deep designs. Using these massive pre-
trained networks, they also find high accuracy on extremely small training sets (400
samples). When compared to the best previously published findings, the model obtains
an overall rate of 97.1% of correctly categorized samples, which is a relative
improvement in test error of 16%. [6]
Abdullahi, S. M., Sun, S., Malik, A., Khudeyberdiev, O., & Basheer, R. (2022,
January), “Spoofed fingerprint image detection using local phase patch segment
extraction and a lightweight network.”
Fingerprint spoofing is one of the most successful attacks on fingerprint biometric
systems. It involves the presentation of a fake fingerprint to a biometric sensor, which
recognizes it as the original template and consistently uses it to authenticate an impostor
as the genuine owner of the template. This chapter presents a methodology for
combating fingerprint spoofing that employs local phase patch segment extraction and
a lightweight triple-dense network. The methodology segments an input fingerprint
image using local phase patch segment extraction, which also assists in extracting
texture information so that each segment contains a consistent number of patches and
each patch contains adequate minutiae information. The segmented image is fed to the
lightweight triple-dense network, which is designed to generate discriminative
information that helps distinguish between live and spoofed fingerprint images. This
ensures optimum recognition accuracy and fast processing time while eliminating
overfitting. Experimental evaluations using the LivDet 2013 and LivDet 2015
fingerprint datasets reveal that the methodology accurately classifies live and spoofed
fingerprint images with an overall accuracy of 95.5%. Intra-class variation and inter-
class similarity are eliminated by generalization without any accuracy degradation. [11]

30
3. Methodology

3.1 Review Method

A review paperwork can be done in qualitative method. The goal of qualitative research

is to collect and evaluate non-numerical or descriptive data in order to comprehend

people's attitudes, beliefs, and motivations in relation to their social reality. In-depth
interviews, focus groups, or observations are frequently used in this kind of study to
gather information that is rich in context and detail.

3.1.1 Methods of Data Collection

The classification of data types includes two different categories, namely primary data
collection and secondary data collection. This review has adopted the secondrary data
collection.

3.1.2. Secondary Data Collection

The process of obtaining data that has previously been gathered, examined, and
published by others is defined as secondary data collection. This kind of information is
commonly located in sources like academic papers and research projects, government
reports and data, industry and market reports, media publications, historical documents,
online databases and repositories. The main benefit of secondary data is that, in most
cases, it may be obtained more easily and at a lower cost than primary data, which must
be directly collected through experiments, surveys, or other direct means. secondary
data might offer context, validate findings, guide future study, or provide insights that
would be challenging to get directly from the source. Fingerprint identification systems
play a pivotal role in various domains, including border control, immigration services,
and access control. Thus, the standard of reqirement of our paper is to ensure the
authenticity of fingerprint inputs especially in contactless scenarios remains a
significant challenge due to potential spoofing attacks. Researchers have proposed
various techniques to address challenges related to fingerprint matching, spoof
mitigation, and liveness detection. This study provides a comprehensive review of
fingerprint algorithms and methodologies, categorizing them into different approaches.

31
3.1.3 Data Analysis Method
Comparative examination of the features that were found to be similar and different.
The nature of data consumption, which includes secondary sources of information, has
been adequately taken into account in the current study. The process of acquiring web
articles, research papers, publishers, and scholarly publications has made it easier to
compile secondary data. Comparative analysis is utilized to produce effective results
and research based on the research papers.

32
4. Results and Observations

The researchers used the state of art LivDet datasets: LivDet 2013, and LivDet 2015
for fingerprints spoofing benchmark. The real images captured by four fingerprint
scanners: Biometrika, Crossmatch, ItalData and Swipe, Spoofs are created using a
gelatin materials like latex, Play-Doh and wood glue. LivDet 2013 utilized for use of
the non-cooperative method without user interference for creating spoof images.
Machines used only Biometrika and ItalData due to high resolution of their images. The
second dataset is livDet 2015 which contains a set of images were captured by four
optical scanners; these scanners are Digital Persona, Green Bit, Biometrika and
Crossmatch.
Artificial fingerprints in Biometrika and Italdata have been created without user
assistance, while fake ones in CrossMatch were created by user cooperation. Several
materials for creating the synthetic fingerprints were applied, such as: gelatin, wood
glue, silicone and latex. More concisely, experimental evaluation of the proposed
method is applied on a collection of a large and challenging LivDet 2013 and 2015
dataset. [6]

Figure 3: Fingerprint samples using Cross Match. The first row in fig shows the
real fingerprints. The second row shows fake ones were acquired from artificial
fingers which made by different fabricate materials. [5]
Robust testing and certification protocols ensure that any product meets the latest
protections benchmarked against best-in-class solutions. In this way, synthetic data is
helping to enhance certification programmes – and by extension to combat fingerprint

33
spoofing attacks – by allowing test protocols to evaluate a much wider range of spoofs
at lower costs.
Hybrid evaluation methods, certification can lead to more accurate, trusted biometric
PAD systems with an optimized IAPAR (impostor attack presentation accept rate),
APCER (attack presentation classification error rate), and BPCER (bona-fide
presentation classification error rate). [10]

4.1 Techniques

There are various techniques and approaches to detect fingerprint spoofing:

4.1.1 Sensor- Level Techniques

These techniques concentrate on identifying physical characteristics that set authentic
fingerprints apart from fakes utilizing hardware sensors.
(i) Multi-spectral imaging- Take pictures at various wavelengths to evaluate how
genuine skin differs from fake materials in terms of absorption and reflection.
3D imaging- The surface and underlying structures of the fingerprint are difficult to
duplicate using fake materials; instead, use 3D sensors to capture them.

(ii) Capacitive Properties:

Electrostatic measurements- Determine how the electrical characteristics of artificial
materials and human skin differ from one another.
Conductivity and capacitance- Assess the skin's inherent capacitive and conductive
qualities, which are different from those of fake materials.

(iii) Thermal imaging:

Heat patterns- Examine the thermal patterns that genuine fingers make because of body
heat and blood flow, which are not present in manufactured reproductions.

4.1.2 Software-Level Techniques

These methods involve processing the fingerprint images and data to detect signs of
spoofing.

34
Image quality analysis:
(i) Texture analysis- Utilize algorithms to find abnormalities and textural patterns in
the fingerprint image that point to fake materials.
(ii) Moisture and elasticity- Examine the distortion of images brought on by the
suppleness and dampness of real skin.

4.1.3 Machine Learning Techniques

Supervised learning- To categorize fresh samples, train models on labeled datasets of
actual and fake fingerprints.
Deep learning- Convolutional neural networks (CNN's) can be used to automatically
identify and understand intricate patterns linked to spoofing.

4.1.4 Liveness Detection

Pulse detection- Track variations in pressure or colour over time to identify the pulse,
which denotes a living finger.
Sweat Analysis- Detect the presence of sweat pores and their activity, which are
difficult to replicate in spoofs.

4.1.5 Hybrid Approaches

Combining sensor-level and software-level techniques for robust spoofing detection.

4.1.6 Fusion Methods

Multimodal fusion- Integrate data from various sensors (thermal, capacitive, optical) to
improve the accuracy of spoof detection.
Feature- level fusion- Prior to categorization, combine features (such as texture and
temperature analysis) from several analyses.

4.1.7 Evaluation and Testing

Testing and evaluation of the spoof detection system to ensure reliability and accuracy.

4.1.8 Database and Bench-Marking

Spoof database- Use standardized databases containing various types of spoof materials
for training and evaluation.
Performance metrics- Evaluate performance using metrics such as False Rejection Rate
(FRR), False Acceptance Rate (FAR), and Spoof Detection Rate (SDR).
35
4.1.9 Multi-spectral Imaging
Capture fingerprint images under different lighting conditions and wavelengths,
providing a more comprehensive analysis that can identify spoofing attempts.

Table 1: Information of LivDet datasets 2013 and 2015 [14]

Dataset LivDet 2013 LivDet 2015

Fingerprint scanner Biometrika ItalData CrossMatch
Scanner model FX2000 ET10 L Scan Guardian
Image size 315 × 372 640 × 480 640 × 480
Resolution in dpi 569 500 500
Training/testing for 1000/1000 1000/1000 1510/1500
live image
Training/testing for 1000/1000 1000/1000 1473/1473
spoof images
Cooperative Subject No No Yes
Materials used for Eco flex, Gelatine, Body Double, Eco flex,
spoofing Latex, Modasil, Wood Play-Doh, OOMOO,
Glue Gelatin

Table 2: Experimental Setup [4]

Parameter Value
Size of input image 750 × 800
Patch size 40 × 40
Patch numbers 10 patches
GB- RBM 864 visible, 1000 hidden neurons
Maximum epochs 500

Using of AI and deep learning to transform genuine fingerprint images into spoof
images similar to the ones made from the spoof materials commonly used in anti-
spoofing tests. The dataset was composed of a training set and a testing set, each
containing 2,000 images (1,000 genuine images and 200 of each spoof material for each
set). Extraction and randomly cropped multiple 224 x 224 patches from each image and
injected them into the system to see if they were detected as spoofs under the NIST
36
Fingerprint Image Quality (NFIQ) algorithm. To assess the validity of the digitally
synthesized fingerprint spoofs, the NIST Fingerprint Image Quality (NFIQ) algorithm
- which provides an overall score on a scale of 0 to 100 - was used. The result of this
technique leads to determine whether the quality of the presentation attack instruments
was similar to that of the synthetic presentation attack images. [8]

Figure 4: Fingerprint images captured from a dry compared with an image

captured from a normal finger. [4]

Figure 5: Static based anti - spoofing analysis. Left: Image captured by a

fingerprint recognition system presented by a fingerprint spoof created with
glue. White air bubbles contained in the glue are visible and it exhibits fewer
minute details. Right: Image captured with a real finger with minute details but
no air bubbles. [4]

37
4.2 Common Types of Security Attacks

4.2.1 Social Engineering Attacks: Social engineering attacks exploit human psychology
to trick individuals into revealing personal information like PINs, passwords, and
financial details. These attacks can take various forms, such as phishing, where an
attacker sends an email that appears to be from a legitimate source, prompting the
recipient to provide sensitive information.

4.2.2 Phishing Attacks: Phishing is a common form of social engineering that involves
sending deceptive messages designed to look like they come from trusted entities, such
as banks. These messages often contain links to fake websites or forms where victims
are asked to enter confidential information.

4.2.3 SQL Injection Attacks: SQL injection involves inserting malicious SQL
statements into entry fields (e.g., on a website) to manipulate databases. Successful
SQL injection attacks can lead to the exposure, modification, or deletion of sensitive
data.

4.2.4 Malicious Programs: Malicious programs include various types of malwares such
as viruses, worms, spyware, and ransomware. These programs can damage IT systems,
steal information, or demand ransom to unlock encrypted data.

4.2.5 Packet Sniffers: Packet sniffers are tools that capture and analyse packets of data
transmitted over networks. They can be configured to capture all packets or only those
containing specific data. Captured data can be used for malicious purposes, such as
intercepting sensitive information. [13]

38
5. Discussion

5.1 Effectiveness of Techniques

The paper presents results from various studies showing that machine learning and deep
learning-based anti-spoofing techniques have produced state-of-the-art results,
particularly when trained on large datasets.

5.2 Performance Evaluation

Different evaluation methods are used, including cross-dataset, cross-sensor, and cross-
material evaluations. These methods test the robustness of fingerprint liveness detection
models under different conditions.

5.3 Experimental Results

Some models achieved notable accuracy rates. For example, one method using an
optical Identix scanner reported an Equal Error Rate (EER) of 0.9% [16], indicating
high effectiveness in distinguishing real fingerprints from spoofed ones.

5.4 Comparison of Models

The paper compares various models and algorithms, highlighting their strengths and
weaknesses in terms of computational efficiency, accuracy, and complexity. [20]

5.5 Effectiveness of Liveness Detection

Liveness detection is currently the only technique with independent benchmark testing.
LivDet competitions provide benchmark data to evaluate the effectiveness of anti-
spoofing technologies implemented in fingerprint and iris scanning solutions.
Devices incorporating robust anti-spoofing technologies are increasingly preferred by
users due to their enhanced security.

39
5.6 Predicted Increase in Biometric Transactions

The number of transactions authenticated by biometrics is expected to grow

significantly, from fewer than 130 million in 2015 to more than five billion by 2019.
This growth is driven by the convenience of biometric authentication and the increasing
use of smartphones and near-field communications (NFC).

5.7 Design Goals for Anti-Spoofing Technology

A design goal for anti-spoofing technology might include achieving a false reject rate
of 0.35% [6] and a false accept rate of 6% [6], meaning a live finger would be rejected
once in every 300 scans, and a fake finger would be accepted once in every 16 attempts.
Higher security designs might aim for lower false accept rates, such as 2% [6], while
budget designs might tolerate higher rates, up to 10% [6].

40
Table 3: Public Datasets for Liveness Fingerprint Recognition [2]

41
42
5.8 Methods of Machine Learning (ML)
Working: (i) Model functions and outputs are predicted using automated methods
based on input data.

(ii) Requires a smaller dataset in order to function well.

Hardware Dependency: Capable of running on modestly powered computers.
Execution Time: (i) Requires greater testing time but less training time.

(ii) The output is usually a score, number, or classification.

Human Intervention: Human intervention is necessary to some extent.
Uses: Reducing spam emails, improving search engine rankings, suggesting products,

etc.

5.9 Methods for Deep Learning (DL)

Working: (i) Builds artificial neural networks with layers of algorithms that can learn
and make decisions on their own.
(ii) Large datasets are necessary for the system to function properly.

Hardware Dependency: Because of the heavy calculation, high-end machines are

required.
Execution Time: Needs more time for training but less time for testing.
Output: May include words, sounds, soundtracks, and other elements.

Human Intervention: Not necessary at all because the machine learns on its own.
Applications include autonomous machine translation, fraud detection, self-driving
automobiles, and election and demographic forecasting.

The study includes a list of multiple datasets that are used to test and train fingerprint
anti-spoofing methods, including:
(i) Special Databases 300, 301, and 302 at NIST
(ii) LivDet: 2009, 2013, 2015, 2017 LivDet
(iii) FVC: FVC2004, FVC2002, and FVC2000

43
There is discussion of three main assessment techniques:
(i) Cross-dataset evaluation: Using several datasets, the fingerprint PAD model is
trained and tested.
(ii) Cross-sensor evaluation: Using datasets gathered from many sensors for testing and
training.
(iii) Cross-material evaluation: Using datasets made from different materials for testing
and training.
The study shows that although deep learning methods exhibit excellent robustness and
accuracy, they necessitate substantial computer resources and big datasets. Even though
they use fewer resources, machine learning approaches may require more human
intervention and may not reach the same levels of accuracy as deep learning techniques.
Future work will focus on enhancing deep learning models' effectiveness and creating
increasingly complex datasets to increase the precision of spoof detection. [10]

5.10 Thick Sample Analysis

(i) For Group I samples (silicone, latex, plasticine), the reflected signal showed a
positive phase, with reflectance decreasing rapidly and then stabilizing.
(ii) For Group II samples (Play-Doh and water), the reflected signal showed a negative
phase, with reflectance decreasing monotonically and showing slight increases at
higher frequencies.

5.11 Thin Sample Analysis

High attenuation was noted for thin samples of Play-Doh and gelatine, similar to the
thick samples.
For Group I thin samples, the analysis of the second echo (reflected signal from the
back of the sample) could determine if the sample was touched by a finger or
surrounded by air. This analysis helped identify spoofing attempts.

44
5.12 Spoofing Detection

Two methods were proposed for spoofing detection:

(i) Predefined Time-Frequency Features: Achieved a true detection rate of 87.9%. [14]
(ii) Deep Learning-Based Method: Achieved a higher true detection rate of 98.8%. [14]
Both methods showed high efficiency in distinguishing real fingerprints from spoofed
samples, demonstrating the potential of THz technology in spoofing detection. These
results indicate that terahertz technology can effectively differentiate between genuine
and spoofed fingerprints by analysing the reflected THz signals and employing
advanced detection methods. [14]

The technique overcomes a major issue in spoof detection—detectors frequently

malfunction when tested on unseen spoof materials—by demonstrating robustness
across various sensors and spoof materials. Utilizing multi-scale patches focused on
minutiae improves performance even further by extracting more detailed information
from the fingerprint regions. A conventional technique is used to identify minutiae
points, and local patches with a pixel size of 96 × 96 are extracted from the area
surrounding each minutia. Then, in order to meet the Inception-v3 model’s input size
requirement, these patches are enlarged to 299 x 299 pixels. The CNN is trained using
these local patches. Data augmentation techniques like random cropping, brightness
adjustment, and flipping are applied to make the model more robust. [6]
The output from the CNN for each patch is a “spoofness score” ranging from 0 to 1,
indicating the likelihood of the patch being a spoof. To calculate a global spoofness
score for a particular fingerprint image, the spoofness ratings from each patch are
averaged. Based on this score, an adaptive threshold is then applied to determine if the
fingerprint is real or fake. The results of the study have important ramifications for
strengthening fingerprint recognition systems defenses against spoof assaults. The
suggested method delivers state-of-the-art performance in spoof detection by
concentrating on minutiae-based local patches and using a robust CNN model. This
dependable solution can generalize well across various spoof materials and sensors. By
taking this method, the possibility of spoof attacks breaching fingerprint authentication
systems is decreased while simultaneously increasing detection accuracy. [6]

45
 Figure 6: Fake fingerprint images from CASIA dataset [7]
A vital component of biometric security systems is the detection of fingerprint
spoofing. These systems are made to make sure that the fingerprint being scanned is
real and not from a fake or “spoofed” source. Identifying the difference between a real
fingerprint and a false one is known as liveness detection. Measuring physiological
traits like sweat, pulse, and temperature qualities is one method. [2]

5.13 Factors

5.13.1 Material Detection: Another technique is to figure out what material—such as

silicone, gelatin, or rubber—was used to make the spoof. Different sensors can identify
the unique characteristics of each material.

5.13.2 Multi-Modal Biometrics: Increasing security and making spoofing more difficult
is achieved by utilizing various biometric markers (for example, combining fingerprint
and facial identification).

5.13.3 Optical Sensors: The fingerprint picture is captured by light. In certain cases,
these sensors may distinguish between synthetic materials and living skin by examining
the patterns of reflected light.

46
5.13.4 Capacitive Sensors: Assess the skin’s electrical characteristics. These sensors
are useful for spoof detection since counterfeit fingerprints frequently have dissimilar
conductivity characteristics.

5.13.5 Ultrasonic Sensors: Produce precise three-dimensional images of the fingerprint

by using high-frequency sound waves. These are able to identify the skin’s ridge and
pore features, which are challenging for spoofs to faithfully imitate.

5.13.6 Thermal Sensors: Calculate how much heat your finger emits. Real tissue emits
heat in a different way than synthetic materials.

5.13.7 Texture Analysis: Examines the fingerprint’s surface texture to look for
irregularities. The precise characteristics of actual fingerprints are frequently absent
from fakes.

5.13.8 Sweat Pore Detection: Most artificial fingers lack the sweat pores found on real
fingertips. These pore’s pattern and presence can be identified by sophisticated
algorithms.

5.13.9 AI and machine learning: Algorithms that have been trained on massive datasets
of authentic and fraudulent fingerprints are able to discriminate between them. The
more data that these systems are exposed to, the more they get better over time.

5.13.10 Sophistication of Spoofs: Spoof creation techniques advance in tandem with

detection approaches. Because good spoofs might occasionally avoid detection,
spoofing detection techniques must constantly evolve.

5.13.11 Environmental Factors: The functionality of spoof detection systems and

fingerprint sensors can be impacted by variables like as pressure, temperature, and
humidity.

5.13.12 Cost and Complexity: Adding sophisticated spoof detection technology can
make biometric systems more expensive and difficult. To ensure widespread
acceptance while ensuring security, this balance needs to be controlled.

47
5.13.13 Integration with AI: To improve the capacity to distinguish minute distinctions
between authentic and counterfeit fingerprints, additional artificial intelligence and
machine learning integration is needed.

5.13.14 Better Materials: Creating sensors that are more responsive to a larger variety
of materials, which will make it more difficult to produce realistic spoofs.

5.13.15 Standardization: Establishing industry standards for spoof detection to maintain

consistent security levels across different systems and devices.

5.13.16 Cooperative Spoofing: In order to make a mold and a spoof, the fingerprint
owner must cooperate. Play-Doh or gelatin are common materials used for this.

5.13.17 Hardware-Based Techniques: These encompass techniques for measuring

physiological and physical characteristics such skin resistance, electrical conductivity,
temperature, and pulse oximetry. All have certain limitations, though, such as being
circumvented by specific substances or circumstances.

5.13.18 ATVS (Biometric Recognition Group ATVS Madrid): Contains authentic and
fake fingerprint pictures that were taken from replicas and with user cooperation. The
Fingerprint Verification Competition, or FVC, provides a variety of databases gathered
from various sensor types to test algorithms for matching and extracting fingerprints.
The study comes to the conclusion that a major problem for biometric systems is
fingerprint spoofing.

48
 Figure 7: Real fingerprint images [1]

Figure 8: Fake images from ATVS datasets [14]

5.13.19 Spoof detecting challenges: Every detection method has its limits. For example,
tiny silicone rubber spoofs may not register with temperature sensors, and saliva can
evade electrical conductivity tests. This suggests that in order to improve reliability,
multi-modal approaches that incorporate multiple detection techniques are required.

5.13.20 Role of Databases: By offering standardized datasets for training and

assessment, the mentioned databases (LivDet, ATVS, and FVC) significantly
contribute to the advancement of spoof detection research. This guarantees thorough
testing of new algorithms and their ability to handle various spoofing scenarios.

49
5.13.21 Future Directions: The study recommends that further effort be put into creating
algorithms that are highly generalize across various scenarios and spoofing techniques.

Technological developments in artificial intelligence and machine learning, especially

in deep
learning, may provide new avenues for enhancing the accuracy of spoof detection. This
study offers
a summary of key databases utilized in research, as well as a thorough examination of
fingerprint
faking and detection approaches. It underlines the necessity of constant advancement
in both
software- and hardware-based detection techniques to stay up with the rapid evolution
of spoofing
techniques, and it underscores the significance of reliable databases for the creation and
testing of
these techniques. To improve the security of biometric systems, future research should
focus on
developing spoof detection algorithms that are more versatile and efficient). Methods
for detecting the liveness of a fingerprint can be divided into two categories:
(i) Software-based Methods: Examine the fingerprint picture to look for indicators of
life. A recent study has shown that these approaches are more popular since they are
versatile and cost-effective. There is discussion of fourteen software-based techniques,
such as: Examining ridge clarity, frequency, and strength features in order to determine
image quality. CNNs, or convolutional neural networks, are trained using fingerprint
photos in order to detect liveness.
(ii) Hardware-based Methods: Use sensors to identify physiological indicators such as
blood pressure, perspiration, and skin deformity. These techniques call for extra
hardware parts.

5.13.22 Gradient-Based Texture Features: This technique uses gradients in images to

identify phony fingerprints from real ones. Extracting and evaluating general image
quality attributes is known as general image quality assessment.

5.13.23 Deep Belief Networks (DBNs): DBNs are used to categorize fingerprints
according to several feature layers. The study notes a number of drawbacks with
50
counterfeit fingerprints, including: changes in the amount of pressure used during
identification variations in the elastic qualities of the materials used to make counterfeit
fingerprint. Fake fingerprints with higher noise levels and lower quality. Absence of
sweat patterns and natural perspiration. The ATVS database and the LivDet
competition datasets (LivDet2009, LivDet2011, and LivDet2013) are two of the public
databases that are highlighted in the study as being utilized for assessing fake
fingerprint detection techniques. These datasets offer benchmarking test sets that are
consistent for detection methodologies. [16]

5.13.24 Limitations Identification: The study draws attention to the shortcomings of

phony fingerprints and highlights areas that require further development in detection
methods. Creating increasingly complex algorithms that, in different situations, can
more accurately discriminate between genuine and phony fingerprints. Investigating
hybrid security strategies that integrate software and hardware.

Because fingerprints are so distinctive, fingerprint recognition is a popular biometric

technique for security and identity. Nevertheless, spoofing attacks, in which synthetic
fingerprints are used to trick the system, can fool fingerprint systems. The study
discusses a number of fingerprint spoofing topics, such as attack types, detection
methods, and research databases.
(i) Presentation Attacks: This entail showing the sensor a phony fingerprint.
(ii) Sensor Bypass: Hacking is used to access previously saved fingerprint data.
(iii) Feature Replacement: False data is used to replace the extracted feature set.
(iv) Matcher Corruption: The phony sample is matched by manipulating the matcher.
(v) Final contest Alteration: An attacker modifies the outcome of the contest.
(vi) Cooperative Spoofing: This method requires the fingerprint owner's direct
assistance in molding a fingerprint using materials like Play-Doh or gelatin.
(vii) Non-Cooperative Fingerprint Spoofing: This type of spoofing uses techniques
such as latent fingerprints, cadaver fingers, fingerprint reactivation, and fingerprint
synthesis without the owner's consent.
(viii) Temperature: Measuring a living finger's heat signature.
(ix) Electrical Conductivity: Assessing the skin's electrical characteristics. Identifying
the blood oxygen levels with pulse oximetry.

51
(x) Skin Resistance: Assessing the skin's ability to withstand electrical current. There
are drawbacks to each of these techniques, like the need for pricey technology or the
ability to be tricked by specific materials.
Future studies should concentrate on creating spoof detection algorithms that are
resilient and not dependent on particular hardware or circumstances in order to improve
the precision and dependability of fingerprint identification systems. The development
of spoof detection algorithms and databases has been facilitated by a number of studies
and contests, as cited in the paper. This indicates a strong foundation in current research
and a collaborative effort within the biometric research community. This survey
highlights the significance of continuous research and development to improve the
security and efficacy of biometric systems by offering a thorough overview of
fingerprint spoofing as it exists today and the techniques used to detect it. In summary,
the detection of fingerprint spoofing is a developing field that integrates several
technologies and approaches to improve biometric security. To keep fingerprint
recognition systems safe and dependable, spoofing tactics must advance in
sophistication, as must the tools used to detect them. Because of their special qualities,
fingerprint biometrics are widely used in identification and security systems. This is
covered in the article. It does, however, also address these systems susceptibility to
spoofing attacks, in which synthetic fingerprints are used to fool biometric sensors.

52
6. Conclusion

This paper aims to review current anti-spoofing techniques and machine learning-based
fingerprint recognition systems. A comparison of the models with many datasets had
been conducted. In literary models, the SVM is the machine learning classifier that is
most frequently utilized. Future work will offer a machine learning-based approach that
uses newly available public liveness fingerprint datasets to identify and categorize
phoney fingerprints. The researchers have paid close attention to the fingerprint PAD.
The study covered recent advancements as well as potential new lines of inquiry in the
rapidly developing field of fingerprint liveness identification. Our article also presents
the methods and many image attributes that the authors employed to distinguish
between real and false fingerprint qualities. It is still necessary to create a reliable and
effective fingerprint PAD system that can be applied to a range of fingerprint artefacts,
even though there are many PAD approaches that handle different fingerprint PAs. It
is concluded that if we create a lightweight deep neural network-based framework to
solve the fingerprint liveness detection problem, we could see significant improvement.
[2]

According to the paper's conclusion, spoofing is still a major problem for fingerprint
recognition systems. In order to improve the precision and dependability of fingerprint
identification systems, future research should concentrate on creating strong spoof
detection algorithms that are not dependent on particular hardware or circumstances.
With its comprehensive review of current approaches, identification of major issues,
and suggestions for further research, this paper provides a fundamental resource for
scholars studying fingerprint spoofing detection. The study makes a valuable
contribution to the development of more dependable and secure biometric systems by
deepening our understanding of phony fingerprint detection. This study offers a
thorough analysis of fingerprint faking and detection strategies, as well as a summary
of key research datasets. The significance of strong databases for the development and
testing of these techniques is also emphasized, along with the necessity of constant
improvement in hardware- and software-based detection approaches to stay up with
spoofing techniques' rapid evolution. To improve the security of biometric systems,
future research should focus on developing more universal and potent spoof detection
algorithms. The study comes to the conclusion that spoofing fingerprints is a serious
problem for biometric systems. In order to increase spoof detection rates, future

53
research should concentrate on creating reliable feature extraction algorithms and
generalized techniques. [3]

Strong and trustworthy anti-spoofing procedures are becoming more and more
necessary as the use of fingerprint-based identification grows. The development of
spoofing detection systems, whether software- or hardware-based, has advanced
significantly. Additional sensors used in hardware-based approaches monitor physical
or physiological characteristics such electrical conductivity, temperature, and pulse
oximetry. Software-based techniques, on the other hand, examine fingerprint photos
and look for indications of spoofing by using image processing and machine learning
algorithms. As biometric systems grow more used in security and identity applications,
fingerprint spoofing detection remains an important research and development topic.
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and other sophisticated architectures are
examples of deep learning models that can be used to enhance the capacity to discern
between authentic and fraudulent fingerprints. By analysing vast datasets, these models
are able to pick up complex patterns and features that improve detection accuracy. [6]

54
7. Future Outlook

The combination of sophisticated machine learning approaches, multi-modal biometric

systems, better hardware, continuous authentication, reliable algorithms, improved
datasets, and privacy-preserving measures will be key components of fingerprint
spoofing detection in the future. By tackling these issues, researchers can make progress
toward developing biometric systems that are more dependable, safe, and easy to use
while withstanding sophisticated spoofing attempts. To achieve these breakthroughs,
industry, regulatory agencies, and researchers must work together continuously.
The future perspective for fingerprint spoofing detection is cantered on numerous
important areas of improvement and possible research directions. Innovation and
constant development are crucial for liveness detection techniques. In order to
accurately distinguish between authentic and counterfeit fingerprints, these methods
need to advance in sophistication. Better hardware-based methods that make use of
novel sensors and imaging technologies as well as sophisticated software algorithms
that can distinguish minute variations between real and false fingerprints are included
in this. Multimodal biometric systems, which combine fingerprint recognition with
other biometric modalities (such as facial recognition and iris scanning) to improve
security, may become more important in the future. These systems have the capacity to
offer extra verification levels, greatly increasing the difficulty of successful spoofing
attempts. The identification of fingerprint spoofing will continue to be greatly aided by
AI and machine learning. In particular, deep learning models demonstrate potential in
sifting through massive fingerprint picture collections to find spoofing patterns that
conventional methods could miss. [5]

The goal of ongoing research is probably to create more reliable and accurate models
that can be used to various spoofing attack scenarios and ingerprint sensor kinds. The
development and maintenance of comprehensive public databases of fake and real
fingerprints are vital for advancing research. These databases allow for standardized
testing and benchmarking of new detection methods. Competitions like the LivDet
(Liveness Detection) series will continue to drive innovation by providing a platform
for researchers to test and compare their approaches against state-of-the-art methods.
Further study is necessary to address the current limitations in spoofing detection. This
entails handling various spoofing materials, detecting low-quality false fingerprints
more effectively, and lowering the computing expenses related to high-accuracy

55
detection techniques. To guarantee broad acceptance, researchers must also concentrate
on improving the usability and minimal intrusiveness of these systems. Further study
is necessary to address the current limitations in spoofing detection. This entails
handling various spoofing materials, detecting low-quality false fingerprints more
effectively, and lowering the computing expenses related to high-accuracy detection
techniques. To guarantee broad acceptance, researchers must also concentrate on
improving the usability and minimal intrusiveness of these systems. Detection
strategies need to change as attackers create increasingly complex spoofing techniques.
In order to do this, detection algorithms must be continuously updated to reflect new
threats and countered. Staying ahead of spoofing attempts will need cooperation
between researchers, industry stakeholders, and security experts. In conclusion, the
development of liveness detection methods, the incorporation of multimodal
biometrics, the utilization of AI and machine learning, the enhancement of public
databases and benchmarking, the resolution of present issues, and the ability to adjust
to new threats are all critical to the future of fingerprint spoofing detection. All of these
fields work together to improve fingerprint recognition system resilience to spoofing
assaults. [1]

The study highlights the necessity of creating more resilient feature extractors that are
able to recognize distinctive and noticeable features in fingerprint pictures. With this
development, spoofing detection rates will be improved in a variety of circumstances
by developing algorithms that are more universal and less reliant on particular
variables. Improving the algorithms employed for fingerprint spoofing detection is
anticipated to be the main focus of future research. These improvements are intended
to boost these algorithms effectiveness and precision, guaranteeing that they can
reliably and over a broader range of circumstances identify spoofing attempts. One area
of potential growth is the fusion of artificial intelligence and machine learning methods.
These technologies can aid in the development of adaptable systems that grow over
time by learning from new spoofing attack types. The study emphasizes how crucial it
is to increase and broaden the databases that are used to test and train spoofing detection
algorithms. Increased variety and realism in spoofing attempts can strengthen the
systems and make them less susceptible to novel forms of attacks. Cross-disciplinary
methods that integrate knowledge from biometric technology, cyber security, and
materials science may also prove beneficial for future study. This all-encompassing
approach may result in the creation of novel, very successful detection techniques. It is
56
essential to inform people about the dangers of fingerprint spoofing and the precautions
they can take to be safe. Furthermore, spoofing threats can be reduced by creating and
enforcing biometric security policies and standards. Future research and development
in fingerprint spoofing detection will concentrate on these areas in an effort to produce
biometric systems that are more dependable and secure. [7]

57
 References

[1] Sepasian, M., Mares, C., & Balachandran, W. (2009). Liveness and spoofing in
fingerprint identification: Issues and challenges. In Proc. 4th WSEAS Int. Conf.
Comput. Eng. Appl. (CEA) (pp. 150-158).
[2] Alqahtani, F., & Zagrouba, R. (2020, September). Fingerprint spoofing detection
using machine learning. In 2020 International Conference on Computing and
Information Technology (ICCIT-1441) (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
[3] Balaji, A., HS, V., & OK, S. (2016). Multimodal fingerprint spoof detection using
white light. Procedia Computer Science, 78, 330-335.
[4] Chugh, T., Cao, K., & Jain, A. K. (2017, October). Fingerprint spoof detection using
minutiae-based local patches. In 2017 IEEE International Joint Conference on
Biometrics (IJCB) (pp. 581-589). IEEE.
[5] Uliyan, D. M., Sadeghi, S., & Jalab, H. A. (2020). Anti-spoofing method for
fingerprint recognition using patch based deep learning machine. Engineering Science
and Technology, an International Journal, 23(2), 264-273.
[6] Nogueira, R. F., de Alencar Lotufo, R., & Machado, R. C. (2016). Fingerprint
liveness detection using convolutional neural networks. IEEE transactions on
information forensics and security, 11(6), 1206-1213.
[7] Salman, A. S., & Salman, O. S. (2020). Spoofed/unintentional fingerprint detection
using behavioural biometric features. In Intelligent Computing: Proceedings of the
2020 Computing Conference, Volume 3 (pp. 459-470). Springer International
Publishing.
[8] Ali, S. F., Khan, M. A., & Aslam, A. S. (2021). Fingerprint matching, spoof and
liveness detection: classification and literature review. Frontiers of Computer
Science, 15(1), 151310.
[9] Kulkarni, S. S., & Patil, H. Y. (2016, March). A fingerprint spoofing detection
system using LBP. In 2016 International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, and
Optimization Techniques (ICEEOT) (pp. 3413-3419). IEEE.
[10] Grosz, S. A., & Jain, A. K. (2022). Spoofgan: Synthetic fingerprint spoof
images. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 18, 730-743.
[11] Abdullahi, S. M., Sun, S., Malik, A., Khudeyberdiev, O., & Basheer, R. (2022,
January). Spoofed fingerprint image detection using local phase patch segment
extraction and a lightweight network. In IFIP International Conference on Digital
Forensics (pp. 85-105). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

58
[12] Habib, A., & Selwal, A. (2021). Robust anti-spoofing techniques for fingerprint
liveness detection: A Survey. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering (Vol. 1033, No. 1, p. 012026). IOP Publishing.
[13] Zafar, M. R., & Shah, M. A. (2016, September). Fingerprint authentication and
security risks in smart devices. In 2016 22nd International Conference on Automation
and Computing (ICAC) (pp. 548-553). IEEE.
[14] Pałka, N., & Kowalski, M. (2020). Towards fingerprint spoofing detection in the
terahertz range. Sensors, 20(12), 3379.

[15] Sadasivuni, K. K., Houkan, M. T., Taha, M. S., & Cabibihan, J. J. (2017, August).
Anti-spoofing device for biometric fingerprint scanners. In 2017 IEEE International
Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA) (pp. 683-687). IEEE.
[16] Ghiani, L., Yambay, D. A., Mura, V., Marcialis, G. L., Roli, F., & Schuckers, S.
A. (2017). Review of the fingerprint liveness detection (LivDet) competition series:
2009 to 2015. Image and Vision Computing, 58, 110-128.
[17] Zoppi, T., Schiavone, E., Bicchierai, I., Brancati, F., & Bondavalli, A. (2021).
Spoofing Detectability as a Property of Biometric Characteristics. In ITASEC (pp. 92-
105).
[18] SRINIVAS, K., & RAMESH, P. (2017). Detection and Alerting on Fingerprint
Spoofing using GSM.
[19] Arunalatha, G., & Ezhilarasan, M. (2016). Spoof Detection of Fingerprint
Biometrics Using PHOG Descriptor. International Journal of Computer Technology
and Applications (IJCTA), 9(3), 1705-1711.
[20] Park, Y., Jang, U., & Lee, E. C. (2018). Statistical anti-spoofing method for
fingerprint recognition. Soft Computing, 22, 4175-4184.

59