Over the past few years, biometrics has rapidly expanded into consumer applications, like the financial market for customer authentication, to payment services and withdrawing cash from ATMs in high-fraud markets. However, its adoption as an additional authentication factor for physical access control systems (PACS) and other enterprise applications, hasn’t been as rapid. But this is changing.

Biometrics offers numerous benefits at the door and throughout the enterprise. With the advent of new anti-spoofing capabilities, and its integration into secure trust platforms that protect privacy and support a variety of RFID credential technologies, biometric authentication is poised to deliver a much higher matching speed and better overall performance. This will dramatically improve an organisation's security, whilst enhancing user convenience.Newer solutions are overcoming security and convenience hurdles to help realise the full potential of biometrics

Challenges for biometric authentication

Biometrics fuses convenience and security while validating “true identity” versus identity that is associated to the possession of an ID card. As an example, biometrics prevents a user from taking someone else’s card and obtaining access to privileged resources. This adds the human element to traditional methods of authentication, strengthening security by combining something the user “is” with something the user “has” or “knows.”

According to the firm ABI Research in its May 2018 study, Biometric Technologies and Applications, the total fingerprint sensor shipments for the entire consumer market is “estimated to reach 1.2 billion worldwide for 2018, thus ensuring its market dominance.It has been far too easy for fraudsters to create a fake fingerprint and present it to a reader

Despite the benefits of fingerprint authentication in numerous consumer applications, there have been impediments to its broader adoption in the enterprise. While price has been one big roadblock, there have also historically been other reasons for its slower-than-expected growth.

First, many technologies are still vulnerable to spoofs and hacking. It has been far too easy for fraudsters to create a fake fingerprint and present it to a reader. Equally troublesome, older products have not been able to move users through the doors as fast as a simple ID card and reader. In general, all fingerprint capture technologies are not equal amongst older products, and there can be significant differences in performance.

Developing Technology Performance

Newer solutions are overcoming these security and convenience hurdles to help realise the full potential of biometrics. Their development has focused on three key areas:

  1. How fingerprint images are captured – if the image can’t be properly captured, the rest of the process fails
  2. The implementation of liveness detection to enhance trust – even in the case when the image is properly captured, if it is fake the system cannot be trusted
  3. Optimising performance through a combination of new technology and algorithms, whilst ensuring interoperability so the performance can be trusted.
The top-performing solutions capture usable biometric data on the first attempt for every user. They also speed the process of determining that the biometric data is not a fake
The skin is illuminated at different depths to deliver much richer data about the surface and sub-surface features of the fingerprint

Optimising capture

The quality of the captured image is critical, across all types of fingerprints and environments. Many customers choose sensors that use multispectral imaging because it collects information from inside the finger to augment available surface fingerprint data. The skin is illuminated at different depths to deliver much richer data about the surface and sub-surface features of the fingerprint The skin is illuminated at different depths to deliver much richer data about the surface and sub-surface features of the fingerprint.

Additionally, the sensor collects data from the finger even if the skin has poor contact with the sensor, because of environmental conditions such as water or finger contamination. Multispectral sensors work for the broadest range of people with normal, wet, dry or damaged fingers, across the widest range of usage conditions – from lotions or grease to sunlight to wet or cold conditions. The sensors also resist damage from harsh cleaning products and contamination from dirt and sunlight.

Liveness detection

Liveness detection is the ability to determine that the biometric data captured by the fingerprint reader is from a real living person, not a plastic fake or other artificial copy. An increasingly visible dimension of biometric performance in commercial applications, liveness detection is critical for preserving trust in the integrity of biometrics authentication. At the same time, it must not impede performance or result in excessive false user rejections.While liveness detection optimises performance, it is also important to ensure that this performance can be trusted

The most trusted multispectral imaging fingerprint sensors with liveness detection provide a real-time determination that the biometric captures are genuine and are being presented by the legitimate owner, rather than someone impersonating them. This capability leverages the image-capture approach of using different colors or spectrum of light to measure the surface and subsurface data within a fingerprint.

In addition to this optical system, the biometrics sensor features several core components, including an embedded processor that analyses the raw imaging data to ensure that the sample being imaged is a genuine human finger rather than an artificial or spoof material. Advanced machine learning techniques are used so the solution can adapt and respond to new threats and spoofs as they are identified.

While liveness detection and the underlying capture technology optimises performance, it is also important to ensure that this performance can be trusted. This requires adequate testing to ensure interoperability with template matching algorithms.

Extensive interoperability testing must be performed by skilled and independent third parties like the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) so that performance data can actually be trusted in all template-matching modes, and not simply a vendor claim.
The first requirement for incorporating biometrics into a physical access control solution is a secure trust platform

Trusted performance

The top-performing solutions capture usable biometric data on the first attempt for every user. They also speed the process of determining that the biometric data is not a fake, and they quickly perform template matching to reject impostors and match legitimate users.The card/mobile plus finger mode is one of the fastest-growing two-factor authentication use cases for securing access to both physical and digital places To trust this performance, though, the focus must be elsewhere: on interoperability with template-matching algorithms. Extensive interoperability testing must be performed by skilled and independent third parties like the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) so that performance data can actually be trusted in all template-matching modes, and not simply a vendor claim.

Template matching modes

  • Template-on-card and card/mobile + finger modes using “1:1” template-matching profiles authenticates a person’s identity by comparing the person’s captured biometric template with one that is pre-stored in a database.
  • Template-on-device mode for finger-only authentication using “1:N” matching compares the person’s captured biometric template against all stored biometric templates in the system).

The card/mobile plus finger mode is one of the fastest-growing two-factor authentication use cases for securing access to both physical and digital places.Cryptography prevents any man-in-the-middle attacks while also protecting the biometric database

As an example of how to deliver trusted performance, HID Global uses the top-ranked NIST certified MINEX III minutia algorithm to ensure interoperability with industry-standard fingerprint template databases. This interoperability ensures that today’s systems, which are based on much more powerful hardware than in the past, will perform accurate 1:N identification of a full database in less than a second.

Physical access control integration

The first requirement for incorporating biometrics into a physical access control solution is a secure trust platform designed to meet the concerns of accessibility and data protection in a connected environment. The platform should leverage credential technology that employs encryption and a software-based infrastructure to secure trusted identities on any form factor for physical access control, access to IT networks and beyond.

Cryptography prevents any man-in-the-middle attacks while also protecting the biometric database. This system also must encompass remote management of all readers and users, spanning all onboarding as well as template loading and enrolment activities for supported authentication modes.

Biometrics data must be handled like all sensitive and identifying information, and properly architected system designs will always consider and protect against both internal and external threats and attacks
Properly implemented, biometrics solutions with liveness detection also protect privacy – if you can’t use a fake finger, it is meaningless

Other important focus areas include configuration and administration, plus all logs, reports and monitoring.New system architectures and data models have been created to protect personal information and maintain user privacy It should be possible to manage biometric readers as groups or individually over the network, and tools should be available to allow system administrators to manage all configuration settings from time and data to language, security and synchronisation. The system should enable continuous live monitoring of authentication, alerts and system health, and provide a rich set of associated reporting tools.

There are also backend implementation decisions to be made, including how a biometric authentication system will be seamlessly integrated into third-party systems. This is another major pain point of biometric technology. To simplify deployment, application programming interfaces (APIs) should be available for direct integration of the biometrics authentication solution with the access control infrastructure.

Privacy considerations

Properly implemented, biometrics solutions with liveness detection also protect privacy – if you can’t use a fake finger, then even if you did obtain someone’s fingerprint data, it is meaningless. Strong and updatable liveness protection is critical if biometrics are to eliminate the need to use PINs or passwords.Strong and updatable liveness protection is critical if biometrics are to eliminate the need to use PINs or passwords

Biometrics data must be handled like all sensitive and identifying information, and properly architected system designs will always consider and protect against both internal and external threats and attacks. New system architectures and data models have been created to protect personal information and maintain user privacy.

Beyond the encryption of the data itself, there are now many good alternatives available for building highly secure and well protected systems, including the use of multi-factor and even multi-modal authentication to maintain security even if some identifying data is compromised.

Today’s modern fingerprint authentication solutions are on a fast track to deliver a unique combination of ease of use, availability and convenience and higher security to physical access control systems.

With their latest improvements in liveness detection, system architectures, performance and ability to be easily incorporated into access control solutions, they seamlessly combine security and convenience to make them a viable option when accessing a facility, networks and services. These solutions deliver a higher confidence of “who” is being admitted through the building’s front door, where it really matters.

Download PDF version

Author profile

Wayne Pak Director of Product Marketing, Physical Access Control Solutions, HID Global

In case you missed it

Enhance traditional security systems within your smart home
Enhance traditional security systems within your smart home

Market dynamics are changing the U.S. residential security market, creating new business models that better appeal to the approximately 70% of households without a security system. Smart home adjacencies have helped revitalise the traditional security industry, and alternative approaches to systems and monitoring for the security industry are emerging, including a new batch of DIY systems. Growth in the residential security market and its position as the channel for smart home solutions have attracted numerous new entrants. Telecoms, cable operators, and CE (consumer electronics) manufacturers are joining traditional security players as they compete to fulfill consumer demand for safety and security. Connected products also provide a layer of competition as consumers must decide whether having category devices such as doorbell video cameras, networked cameras, and other products suffice for their security. Increasingly competitive landscape Smart home services can provide additional revenue streams for the security industry For instance, IP cameras are a highly popular smart home device rooted in security, and Parks Associates estimates 7.7 million standalone and all-in-one networked/IP cameras will be sold in the U.S. in 2018, with $889M in revenues. Product owners may feel their security needs are fulfilled with this single purchase, as such dealers and service providers are under increasing pressure to communicate their value proposition to consumers. Categorically, each type of player is facing competition uniquely—national, regional, and local dealers all have a different strategy for overcoming the increasingly competitive landscape. Smart home services can provide additional revenue streams for the security industry. In Parks Associates’ 2017 survey of U.S. security dealers, 58% report that smart home service capabilities enable extra monthly revenue. Almost half of dealers also note they have to offer smart home devices and services in order to keep up with their competition. While white-label devices are acceptable in some instances, dealers need to integrate with hero products whenever possible when those exist for a category. For dealers who have added smart home devices and services are all potential benefits and good for business Improved customer engagement That 2017 survey also revealed 36% of security dealers that offer interactive services report security system sales with a networked camera and 16% report sales with a smart thermostat. For dealers who have added smart home devices and services, enhanced system utility, increased daily value, and improved customer engagement with the system are all potential benefits and good for business. Security has served as the most productive channel for smart home solutions, mainly because the products create natural extensions of a security system’s functions and benefits, but as smart home devices, subsystems, and controllers expand their functionality, availability, and DIY capabilities, many standalone devices constitute competition to classical security. Particularly viable substitute devices include IP cameras, smart door locks, smart garage doors, or a combination of these devices. Products that are self-installed offer both convenience and cost savings, and these drivers are significant among DIY consumers—among the 6% of broadband households that installed a security system themselves, 39% did it to save money. Enhance traditional security Self-installable smart home devices may resonate with a segment of the market who want security While many security dealers believe substitute offerings are a threat, some dealers do not find such devices an existential threat but instead view them as another path to consumer awareness. They argue that the difference between smart product substitutes and traditional security is that of a solution that provides knowledge versus a system that gives one the ability to act on that knowledge. A common theme among professional monitoring providers is that a homeowner who is aware of events happening in the home does not necessarily have a secure and protected household. For example, a Nest camera, a DIY product, notifies a consumer via smartphone about events in the home when it detects motion, but only when the notification is opened and identified will a consumer be able to act on the related event. Self-installable smart home devices may resonate with a segment of the market who want security but are unwilling to adopt professional monitoring; however, providers can leverage these devices to enhance traditional security features and communicate the value of professional monitoring. Smart home devices and features, while posing a threat to some security companies, are a potential way forward to increased market growth Increased market growth A key counterstrategy for security dealers and companies is to leverage their current, powerful role as the prime channel for smart home devices. Many security dealers now include smart home devices with their security systems to complement their offerings and increase system engagement. For example, as of Q4 2017, nearly 70% of U.S. broadband households that were very likely to purchase a security system in the next 12 months reported that they want a camera to be included as part of their security system purchase. In response, many security system providers now offer IP cameras as optional enhancements for their systems. Smart home devices and features, while posing a threat to some security companies, are a potential way forward to increased market growth. Security dealers have an opportunity to become more than a security provider but a smart home solutions provider rooted in safety. Provide status updates Comcast has entered both the professionally monitored security market and the market for smart home services The alternative is to position as a provider of basic security with low price as the key differentiator. Comcast has entered both the professionally monitored security market and the market for smart home services independent of security. It has discovered that monetising smart home value propositions through recurring revenue becomes increasingly challenging as the value extends further away from life safety. Since the security industry remains the main channel for smart home services, security dealers are in a unique position to leverage that strength. Value propositions must shift from the traditional arming and disarming of a system to peace-of-mind experiences that builds off the benefits of smart devices in the home to provide status updates (e.g., if the kids arrived home safely) and monitoring at will (e.g., checking home status at any time to see a pet or monitor a package delivery). These types of clear value propositions and compelling use cases, which resonate with consumer and motivate them to expand beyond standalone products, will help expand the home security market.

What is the value of "free" video management systems?
What is the value of "free" video management systems?

They say that every choice has a cost. It's a basic principle that, economically speaking, nothing is free. If it doesn't cost actual money, it may be expensive in terms of time, attention and/or effort. These are interesting observations to keep in mind as one peruses the various "free" video management system (VMS) offerings available on the market. Some are provided by camera companies to unify their products into a "system", even if it's a small one. Other free VMS offerings are entry-level versions offered by software companies with the intent of the customer upgrading later to a paid version. For more insights, we asked this week's Expert Panel Roundtable: What is the value of “free” video management systems (VMSs) and how can a customer decide whether “free” is the right price for them?

The ongoing challenge of IT and data risk management
The ongoing challenge of IT and data risk management

Managing IT and data risk is a challenging job. When we outsource our IT, applications and data processing to third-parties more and more every day, managing that risk becomes almost impossible. No longer are our data and systems contained within an infrastructure that we have full control over. We now give vendors our data, and allow them to conduct operations on our behalf.  The problem is, we don’t control their infrastructure, and we can never fully look under the hood to understand and vet their ability to protect our data and operations. We have to fully understand how important this issue is, and ensure we have the right governance, processes and teams to identify and mitigate any risks found in our vendors. No longer are our data and systems contained within an infrastructure that we have full control over Today, everything is connected. Our own networks have Internet of Things (IoT) devices.  We have VPN connections coming in, and we aren’t always sure who is on the other end of that connection. It is a full-time job just to get a handle on our own risk. How much harder, and how much larger should our teams and budgets be, to truly know and trust that our vendors can secure those devices and external connections?  For every device and application we have internally, it is very difficult to even keep an accurate inventory. Do all of our vendors have some special sauce that allows them to overcome the traditional challenges of securing internal and vendor-connected networks? They are doing the same thing we are – doing our best with the limited human and financial resources allocated by our organisation. Risk stratification and control objectives  The benefits of outsourcing operations or using a vendor web application are clear. So how can we properly vet those vendors from an IT risk perspective?  The very first thing we need to put in place is Risk Stratification. Risk Stratification presents a few targeted questions in the purchasing process. These questions include – what type of data will be shared? How much of this data? Will the data be hosted by a vendor? Will this hosting be in the US or offshored? Has the vendor ever had a data breach? These questions allow you to quickly discern if a risk assessment is needed and if so, what depth and breadth.  Risk stratification allows you to make decisions that not only improve your team’s efficiency, but also ensure that you are not being a roadblock to the business Risk stratification allows you to make decisions that not only improve your team’s efficiency, but also ensure that you are not being a roadblock to the business. With risk stratification, you can justify the extra time needed to properly assess a vendor’s security.  And in the assessment of a vendor’s security, we have to consider what control objectives we will use. Control objectives are access controls, policies, encryption, etc. In healthcare, we often use the HITRUST set of control objectives. In assessing against those control objectives, we usually use a spreadsheet.  Today, there are many vendors who will sell us more automated ways to get that risk assessment completed, without passing spreadsheets back and forth. These solutions are great if you can get the additional budget approved.  Multi-factor authentication  Even if we are using old-fashioned spreadsheets, we can ensure that the questions asked of the vendor include a data flow and network/security architecture document.  We want to see the SOC2 report if they are hosting their solution in Amazon, etc. If they are hosting it within their own datacentre, we absolutely want to see a SOC2 Type II report. If they haven’t done that due diligence, should that be a risk for you?  Today, we really need to be requiring our vendors to have multi-factor authentication on both their Internet-facing access, as well as their privileged internal access to our sensitive data. I rate those vendors who do not have this control in place as a high risk. We’ve recently seen breaches that were able to happen because the company did not require administrators or DBAs to use a 2-factor authentication into sensitive customer data sources.  In the assessment of a vendor’s security, one has to consider what control objectives to use This situation brings up the issue of risk acceptance. Who in your organisation can accept a high risk? Are you simply doing qualitative risk assessment – high, medium and low risks? Or are you doing true quantitative risk analysis? The latter involves actually quantifying those risks in terms of likelihood and impact of a risk manifesting, and the dollar amount that could impact your organisation.   So is it a million dollars of risk? Who can accept that level of risk? Just the CEO? These are questions we need to entertain in our risk management programs, and socialised within your organisation.  This issue is so important – once we institute risk acceptance, our organisation suddenly starts caring about the vendors and applications we’re looking to engage.  If they are asked to accept a risk without some sort of mitigation, they suddenly care and think about that when they are vetting future outsourced solutions. Quantitative risk analysis involves quantifying risks in terms of likelihood and impact of a risk manifesting Risk management process  In this discussion, it is important to understand how we think of, and present, the gaps we identify in our risk management processes. A gap is not a risk. If I leave my front door unlocked, is that a control gap or a risk? It is a gap – an unlocked door. What is the risk?  The risk is the loss of property due to a burglary or the loss of life due to a violent criminal who got in because the door was unlocked. When we present risks, we can’t say the vendor doesn’t encrypt data. The risk of the lack of encryption is fines, loss of reputation, etc. due to the breach of data. A gap is not a risk.  Once we’ve conducted our risk analysis, we must then ensure that our contracts protect our organisation? If we’re in healthcare, we must determine if the vendor is, in fact, a true HIPAA Business Associate, and if so we get a Business Associate Agreement (BAA) in place. I also require my organisation to attach an IT Security Amendment to these contracts. The IT Security Amendment spells out those control objectives, and requires each vendor to sign off on those critical controls. We are responsible for protecting our organisation’s IT and data infrastructure – today that often means assessing a 3rd-party’s security controls One final note on risk assessments – we need to tier our vendors. We tier them in different ways – in healthcare a Tier 1 vendor is a vendor who will have our patient information on the Internet. Tiering allows us to subject our vendors to re-assessment. A tier 1 vendor should be re-assessed annually, and may require an actual onsite assessment vs. a desk audit. A tier 2 vendor is re-assessed every 2 years, etc. We are responsible for protecting our organisation’s IT and data infrastructure – today that often means assessing a 3rd-party’s security controls. We must be able to fully assess our vendors while not getting in the way of the business, which needs to ensure proper operations, financial productivity and customer satisfaction. If we truly understand our challenge of vendor risk management, we can tailor our operations to assess at the level needed, identify and report on risks, and follow-up on any risks that needed mitigated.