MINEX 04 - Biometrics.nist.gov

dashingincestuousSécurité

22 févr. 2014 (il y a 3 années et 3 mois)

83 vue(s)

MINEX II

An evaluation of fingerprint
Match
-
on
-
Card technology



Patrick Grother


Biometrics 2007, London, October 18, 2007


Overview

1.
MINEX II


Match
-
on
-
card


2.
Compact iris interoperability test

3.
Standards for multimodal biometrics

4.
NIST Biometric Quality Workshop

MINEX II


The NIST Context

1:N

Fingerprint

FpVTE

(2003)

US Gov.

Systems

Slap

Segmentation

FRVT

(face)

ICE

(iris)

Data for

Credentials

NIST Biometric Testing

ELFT

(latent)

Quality

PFT

(ongoing)

MINEX II


The NIST Context

MINEX

MINEX I

2004

Initial evaluation

Ongoing

MINEX

PIV

MINEX II

Match
-
on
-
Card


MINEX III

Minutia quality

calibration

sBMOC

Compact

Iris

Standards

SC37 WG3

NIST Support for Biometric

Elements for Identity Credentials

Ongoing MINEX Compliant and Eligible for GSA
Certification


Template Generators


Cogent Systems


Dermalog Identification Systems


Bioscrypt


Sagem Morpho


Neurotechnologija


Innovatrics


NEC


Cross Match Technologies


L1 / Identix


Precise Biometrics


XTec


SecuGen


BIO
-
key International


Motorola


Aware


Sonda Technologies


Matchers


Cogent Systems


Dermalog Identification Systems


Bioscrypt


Sagem Morpho


Neurotechnologija


Innovatrics


NEC





L1 / Identix





XTec


SecuGen


BIO
-
key International


Motorola


Aware


Startek Engineering



16 suppliers

14 suppliers

MINEX II


Why MOC?


Match
-
on
-
Card


Why


Cards are ubiquitous


ISO/IEC 7816 cards have been 140
-
2 certified


No central database


Biometric reference never leaves the card



Match
-
on
-
Card


Why not?


Verification template must be made off card


And passed to the card


A matcher on every credential


Computational resources …


MINEX II


Why?


Hypothesis: MOC implementations have same accuracy


Why might that be?


MOC is not new.


Same companies are involved


Why not?


Limited computational resources


Stack space, registers


Integer arithmetic


Smaller instruction sets


Smaller templates


MOC typically uses fewer minutiae


Reduced angular resolution in ISO
-
CC format


Asymmetric Algorithms

MINEX II is intended of
as a definitive, public,
independent,
simultaneous
measurement of the
algorithmic accuracy and
speed of MOC
implementations

Not in MINEX II Scope


Card reliability, robustness


Card vulnerability


Security evaluation


System
-
on
-
card


Proprietary templates


Business model, economics


Card conformance to 7816
-
x


Contact vs. contactless



Two NIST programs: MINEX II + sBMOC


Two separate but related programs:



MINEX II


Accuracy and speed of card
-
based algorithms


Contact:
patrick.grother@nist.gov



sBMOC “Secure Biometric Match
-
on
-
Card”


Demonstration of secure protocols for biometric
authentication. Publication of NISTIR 7452 imminent.


Contact:
william.macgregor@nist.gov


MINEX II


Design objectives


Make it: independent, statistically robust, repeatable


NIST


Massive offline archival data


Uniform, standards
-
based, interface


Measure error rate tradeoffs


Consider FNMR(t) vs. FMR(t)


Need matcher scores from card


Demonstrate at industry “norm” of FMR of 10
-
4


Measure time


Inspect the slow
-
but
-
accurate vs. fast
-
but
-
inaccurate spectrum


Allow teams


Allow card suppliers to team with fingerprint matcher suppliers


Use the industry
-
preferred template


ISO/IEC 19794
-
2 compact card


three bytes per minutia



MINEX II
-

Schedule


Test plan development


Initiated April 2007, finalized Aug 3, 2007


Phase I (private)


Submission deadline, September 10, 2007


Acceptance + Validation testing began September 11,
2007


Results to vendors October 14


Phase II (public)


Submissions due late October 2007


NIST publishes report December 17, 2007


MINEX II testing protocol


standardization


US NB agreed to send New Project Proposal to SC37(WG5)



MINEX II
-

Acknowledgments


Authentec


Bioscrypt


Cogent


Daon


Fraunh
ö
fer


Gemalto


IDTP


L1


Oberthur


Precise Biometrics


Sagem


SC17 WG11


The MINEX test plan established



a definitive card interface for testing



a definitive PC
-
based interface for testing



profiles of the base minutia standards



was developed in consultation with industry. Thanks to:

http://fingerprint.nist.gov/minex/minexII/NIST_MOC_ISO_CC_interop_test_plan_0815.pdf


Evaluation Principle

2. Confirm by repeating
n « N comparisons on
the card

1: Measure accuracy by
Execute N template
comparisons on general
purpose computer

N = O(10
6
)

n = O(10
3
)

MINEX II


Execution


Standards based test interface


ISO/IEC 7816
-
4


card commands


ISO/IEC 7816
-
11


biometric data structures


ISO/IEC 19794
-
2


compact card minutiae on card


INCITS 378:2004


parent template off card



Test protocol


Generate templates on PC


Execute O(10
6)

template comparisons on PC


Repeat selected comparisons on target card


Test on
-
card and off
-
card matcher scores for identity

MINEX II


Card APDUs

Reference Template:

sent via PUT DATA

Verification Template

sent via VERIFY

Similarity Score

via GET DATA

FMR

FNMR

MINEX II
-

Implementation


Standard hardware


SCR SCM335 reader (contact)



Standard software


M.U.S.C.L.E open
-
source PC/SC drivers


Linux 2.6.X



NIST Open Source MOC Harness

INCITS 378 as Parents to ISO
-
CC

User
presents
card

Reader
requests BIT
from card

Reader
prompts for
specific finger

Scan produce
output image

Template
extraction
produces
INCITS 378

Remove N
-
K minutiae
based on quality +
polar distance, per BIT

Quantize minutia
angle (8


6 bits)

Quantize (x,y)

197


100 pix cm
-
1

Sort minutiae

(XY, YX, Polar), per
BIT

ISO/IEC 19794
-
2
compact card
“template”

Send to
card

Match

Decision

Remove minutiae to card capacity

Strategy: Lowest quality first and, for tied
quality values, use largest radial distance.

MINEX II


Guidance on # minutiae

Card capacity (max # minutiae)

FMR

FNMR

Fix threshold to give FMR =
0.001 for un
-
pruned templates

5
Matchers

Does ISO
-
CC Degrade Accuracy?


ISO/IEC 19794
-
2 compact card format


~ 250 dpi (vs. ubiquitous 500)


~ 5.6 deg. angle resolution (vs. 2 deg in INCITS 378)








FMR decreases slightly (but significantly)


FNMR increases slightly (but significantly)

MINEX II


Software for Biometric Data


Open
-
source “C” code for


INCITS 378 minutiae


ISO/IEC 19794
-
2 minutiae


INCITS 385 face (~ ISO/IEC 19794
-
5)


INCITS 381 finger (~ ISO/IEC 19794
-
6)


Validation, construction, IO


http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.03/nigos/biomdi.html


Under full version control




MINEX II


Software support for MOC


MOC Template Support


Transcoding INCITS 378 to ISO
-
CC templates:


http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.03/nigos/biomap
p.html



ISO/IEC 7816 Support


MINEX II interface uses (PUT DATA, VERIFY etc)


See
http://fingerprint.nist.gov/minexII


And the open
-
source test driver here


http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.03/nigos/biomapp.html



MINEX II Results


Protocol


Vendor acceptance


Four suppliers


Six implementations


Open source support


It works


One interface problem



Implementations


ISO
-
CC templates can be
matched with accuracy
approaching INCITS 378


Some MOC implementations
attain accuracy approaching
that of better MINEX 04
matchers


Median VERIFY execution time
< 0.5s


Speed


accuracy tradeoff is
alive and well, but supplier
influence is larger

Compact Iris Formats

Compression


JPEG 2000 + ROI


JPEG


Lossless

NIST will release
draft evaluation
plan: November 15

Interoperability


Multiple segmentation
algorithms


Multiple matching
algorithms

Fusion Support


INCITS 439


Fusion Information Format is
about to be published.


It defines binary data structures for similarity
score statistics (CDFs) to support simple yet
powerful fusion implementations


Multimodal


Multi
-
algorithm


Score level fusion


Large literature demonstrating that fusion techniques
produce lower (FAR,FRR)


If systems behave (fail, succeed) independently then fusion can have
maximum effect.


Score
-
level fusion is more potent that decision level


But some evidence that even (face + finger) and (finger + iris) are
partially correlated, due to human
-
sensor interaction etc.


Score
-
level fusion is favored over feature level fusion for
black box reasons:


Implementation is easy.


Post
-
match fusion avoids IP licensing or exposure.


Also:


Multimodal:

Iris Corp A + Fingerprint Corp B


Multi
-
algorithmic:

Face Corp A + Face Corp B + . . .



INCITS 439 Fusion Information Format
-

An Example


Bayes optimal for
uncorrelated biometrics


Use of likelihood ratio
allows relative
“strength” of the (two)
biometrics comes out in
the wash without ad
hoc weighting


Aka BGI, Neyman
Pearson.

pdf

m(x)

n(x)

M(x)

N(x)

m(x)

n(x)

= L(x)

cdf

Fused score: s(x) = log L
FACE
(x
FACE
) + log L
IRIS
(x
IRIS
) + …

NIST


Biometric Quality Workshop


NIST Biometric Quality
Workshop



November 7
-
8, 2007



Gaithersburg, MD, USA



Sequel to March 06.


Quality


Uses (during capture)


Relation to error rates


Assessment capabilities


Needs


Interoperable values


Calibration

http://www.itl.nist.gov/iad/894.03/quality/workshop07


Thank You

Feedback is welcome:
patrick.grother@nist.gov

MINEX Root

http://fingerprint.nist.gov/minex


MINEX II

http://fingerprint.nist.gov/minexI
I


Ongoing MINEX program

http://fingerprint.nist.gov/minex