Biometrics Evaluation Under Spoofing Attacks

111 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Constant Q cepstral coefficients: A spoofing countermeasure for automatic speaker verification (2017, background): “The official metric for AVspoof is the half total error rate (HTER) (Chingovska et al., 2014).”
On the vulnerability of palm vein recognition to spoofing attacks (2015, methodology): “Finally, the expected performance and spoofability curve (EPSC) [2] given in Figure 6, reports EERω and SFAR for a threshold which considers the relative probability of spoofing attacks, encoded in the parameter ω ∈ [0, 1], which denotes the relative cost of spoofing attack with respect to zero-effo”
Biometrics Systems Under Spoofing Attack: An evaluation methodology and lessons learned (2015, background): “Even as independent sub-systems, spoofing countermeasures impact directly on the performance of the biometric system as a whole; while aiming to reduce vulnerabilities to spoofing, they also have potential to reject genuine trials [7].”
Spoofing and countermeasures for speaker verification: A survey (2015, methodology): “More details of the EPSC can be found in (Marcel, 2013; Chingovska et al., 2014) and an opensource implementation is available in the Bob toolkit (Anjos et al.”