| Literature DB >> 36236704 |
Aseel Bedari1, Song Wang1, Wencheng Yang2.
Abstract
The development of 5G networks has rapidly increased the use of Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) devices for control, monitoring, and processing purposes. Biometric-based user authentication can prevent unauthorized access to IIoT devices, thereby safeguarding data security during production. However, most biometric authentication systems in the IIoT have no template protection, thus risking raw biometric data stored as templates in central databases or IIoT devices. Moreover, traditional biometric authentication faces slow, limited database holding capacity and data transmission problems. To address these issues, in this paper we propose a secure online fingerprint authentication system for IIoT devices over 5G networks. The core of the proposed system is the design of a cancelable fingerprint template, which protects original minutia features and provides privacy and security guarantee for both entity users and the message content transmitted between IIoT devices and the cloud server via 5G networks.Compared with state-of-the-art methods, the proposed authentication system shows competitive performance on six public fingerprint databases, while saving computational costs and achieving fast online matching.Entities:
Keywords: 5G network; IIoT; cancelable fingerprint template; fingerprint authentication; secure authentication
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36236704 PMCID: PMC9572055 DOI: 10.3390/s22197609
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Architecture of the proposed online fingerprint authentication system.
Comparison of state-of-the-art cancelable fingerprint templates.
| Method | Feature Transformation | Advantage | Disadvantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Random projection | Good authentication performance on high-quality datasets | Unsatisfactory authentication performance on low-quality datasets |
| [ | Window-shift-XOR and partial discrete wavelet transform | Strong security | Large template size |
| [ | Dyno-key model | Strong security | Limited recognition accuracy over low-quality datasets |
| [ | Index-of-Max (IoM) hashing | Able to overcome intra-class variations | (1) Expensive computations due to considerable amounts of hash functions. |
| [ | Sparse IoM (SC-IoM) | Meets revocability and unlinkability requirements | Expensive computations due to considerable amounts of hash functions. |
| [ | Fourier-Mellin transform | Strong security | (1) Unsatisfactory performance on low-quality datasets. |
| [ | Indexing-Min-Max (IMM) hashing | Good authentication performance | Slow processing time |
| [ | Minimum hash signature and extended feature vector | Good privacy for the storage of user information | Inadequate security analysis |
| [ | One permutation hashing | (1) Good authentication performance. | Slow computational time |
| [ | Extended feature vector (EFV) | Meets revocability and unlinkability requirements | (1) Limited performance evaluation on low-quality datasets. |
| [ | Linear convolution | Meets revocability and linkability requirements | Limited performance evaluation on low-quality datasets |
Figure 2Block diagram of the proposed authentication system.
Figure 3ROC curves in the lost-key scenario under the original FVC protocol.
EER (%) of the proposed system when the key length varies.
| Key Length | FVC2002 | FVC2004 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DB1 | DB2 | DB3 | DB1 | DB2 | DB3 | |
| Unprotected real-valued | 0 | 0.41 | 0.69 | 2.30 | 3.09 | 1.69 |
|
| 0.04 | 0.50 | 0.99 | 2.77 | 3.28 | 1.75 |
|
| 0.14 | 0.60 | 1.03 | 2.96 | 3.51 | 2.02 |
|
| 0.24 | 0.81 | 1.22 | 3.07 | 4.01 | 2.32 |
|
| 0.48 | 1.07 | 2.02 | 3.50 | 4.24 | 3.29 |
Figure 4ROC curves for different key lengths evaluated over database FVC2002 DB2 in the lost-key scenario under the original FVC protocol.
EER (%) comparison between the proposed system and the state-of-the-art cancelable fingerprint templates in the lost-key scenario under the original FVC protocol.
| Cancelable Fingerprint | FVC2002 | FVC2004 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DB1 | DB2 | DB3 | DB1 | DB2 | DB3 | |
| Shahzad et al. [ | 1.57 | 1.50 | 4.93 | 10.49 | 8.62 | - |
| Bedari et al. [ | 1.38 | 1.35 | 4.21 | 8.89 | 7.63 | - |
| Jin et al. [ | 0.22 | 0.47 | 3.07 | 4.74 | 6.85 | - |
| Kim et al. [ | 0.55 | 0.93 | - | 5.81 | 4.10 | 3.99 |
| Abdullahi et al. [ | 0.36 | 0.54 | 2.40 | 2.35 | 5.93 | 2.37 |
| Li et al. [ | 0.19 | 0.51 | 3.44 |
| 3.80 | 4.15 |
| Lee et al. [ | 0.30 | 0.56 | - | 2.42 | 6.27 | - |
| Yang et al. [ | 1.75 | 1.39 | 4.11 | - | 7.75 | - |
| Proposed method |
|
|
| 2.77 |
|
|
Average time ( s) for cancelable template generation and fingerprint matching.
| Average Time | FVC2002 | FVC2004 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DB1 | DB2 | DB3 | DB1 | DB2 | DB3 | |
| Cancelable template | 5.2303 | 5.1454 | 5.4253 | 5.1722 | 5.2168 | 5.3609 |
| Matching using the | 0.5562 | 0.5037 | 0.5593 | 0.5194 | 0.5112 | 0.5328 |
| Matching using the | 1.4840 | 1.4276 | 1.4880 | 1.8768 | 2.0215 | 1.5022 |
Comparison of the cancelable template generation time (in second) between the proposed system and the state-of-the-art cancelable fingerprint templates.
| Average Time | FVC2002 | FVC2004 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DB1 | DB2 | DB3 | DB1 | DB2 | DB3 | |
| Bedari et al. [ | 0.0398 | 0.0491 | 0.0267 | 0.0444 | 0.0387 | - |
| Jin et al. [ | 0.0072 | 0.0075 | 0.0072 | 0.0072 | 0.0074 | 0.0070 |
| Abdullahi et al. [ | 0.0763 | 0.0362 | 0.0925 | 0.0291 | 0.4651 | 0.1240 |
| Lee et al. [ | 0.01545 | 0.01539 | - | 0.01592 | 0.01481 | - |
| Proposed method |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comparison of the template size (bits) between the proposed system and the state-of-the-art cancelable fingerprint templates. Symbol K represents the number of minutiae in a fingerprint image.
| Cancelable Template Methods | Cancelable Template Size (Bits) |
|---|---|
| Shahzad et al. [ |
|
| Bedari et al. [ |
|
| Abdullahi et al. [ |
|
| Jin et al. [ | 19,200 |
| Proposed method | 9536 |
Figure 5Genuine, Pseudo-imposter and imposter distributions over FVC2002 DB2.
Figure 6Unlinkability analysis of the proposed authentication system using mated and non-mated score distributions.
Percentage of successful revoked template attacks at medium and high security levels.
| Security Level | Type-I Attack | Type-II Attack |
|---|---|---|
| Medium security | 0.2% | 0.1% |
| High security | 0% | 0% |
Percentage of successful masquerade attacks at medium and high security levels.
| Number of | Medium Security | High Security | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type-I Attack | Type-II Attack | Type-I Attack | Type-II Attack | |
| 10 | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0% | 0% |
| 20 | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0% | 0% |
| 30 | 0.2% | 0.2% | 0% | 0% |