Biometrics

Some consider biometrics as intrusive and as a violation of privacy. While you read, pay attention to how biometric systems authenticate and to the three main threats against biometric systems. What are these three threats and what are the cryptographic and non-cryptographic countermeasures?

4. Challenges and Countermeasures

4.3. Error Correction Based Methods

The use of error correction codes is an attractive mitigation to the inherently noisy nature of biometric traits. Error correction, indeed, would automatically decode small perturbation of a template into the template itself, solving the problem of noisy data. In this way, the systems can get error-free biometric templates and thus successfully use cryptographic primitives that will not affect the matching biometric process. This is, for instance, the case for the fuzzy commitment scheme described by Juels and Wattenberg in. The biometric template is used as a witness to commit to a secret codeword c. As long as the fresh witness provided by the client is close to the used one, it will correct to the same codeword c. The decoded codeword will then be used in the commitment scheme. Typically the witness is used as a key for the encryption/decryption and the user authentication. Such systems could handle efficiently the noisy nature of biometrics and subsequently cryptographic primitives (hashing and/or encryption) could be employed. From a theoretical point of view, these schemes are secure against biometric reference and sample template attacks. In order to recover either the biometric template or the key, an attacker should indeed know the user’s biometric data. However, given that the biometric templates are not uniformly random, and practical error correcting codes do not have high correction capability, the theoretical security is not achievable in practice. It has been shown, indeed, that fuzzy commitment schemes leak private information.