Computer Science and Information Technologies

Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2023, pp. 1~13

ISSN: 2722-3221, DOI: 10.11591/csit.v4i1.pp1-13  1

Antispoofing in face biometrics: a comprehensive study on

software-based techniques

Vinutha H1, Thippeswamy G2

1
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology, Bengaluru, India
2
BMS Institue of Technology and Management, Bengaluru, India

Article Info ABSTRACT

Article history: The vulnerability of the face recognition system to spoofing attacks has
piqued the biometric community's interest, motivating them to develop anti-
Received Feb 19, 2021 spoofing techniques to secure it. Photo, video, or mask attacks can
Revised Dec 19, 2022 compromise face biometric systems (types of presentation attacks). Spoofing
Accepted Dec 30, 2022 attacks are detected using liveness detection techniques, which determine
whether the facial image presented at a biometric system is a live face or a
fake version of it. We discuss the classification of face anti-spoofing
Keywords: techniques in this paper. Anti-spoofing techniques are divided into two
categories: hardware and software methods. Hardware-based techniques are
Classification of face anti- summarized briefly. A comprehensive study on software-based
spoofing methods countermeasures for presentation attacks is discussed, which are further
Face spoof detection divided into static and dynamic methods. We cited a few publicly available
Metrics for face anti spoofing presentation attack datasets and calculated a few metrics to demonstrate the
system value of anti-spoofing techniques.
Software based face anti-
This is an open access article under the CC BY-SA license.
spoofing techniques
Vulnerabilities of biometric
system

Corresponding Author:
Vinutha H
Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology
Bengaluru, India
Email: vinuthah@gmail.com

1. INTRODUCTION
Biometric recognition systems for identifying people have grown tremendously in large scale for
population census, controlling workspace access, applying access control to sensitive information, in
forensics to identify criminals, while performing online transactions, law enforcement applications, and so
on, for either user identification or verification. Biometric recognition is an automated process to authenticate
and/or identify any individual using his or her physiological or behavioral traits. Examples of physiological
characteristics are fingerprints, palmprints, iris, face, and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), and a few examples
of behavioral characteristics are gait, voice, handwritten signatures, and key strokes. Biometric identification
has various merits compared to the traditional identification system, which uses a smart card and password,
as biometrics is a person’s key that can never be lost or forgotten. Biometrics is always attached to the user,
and it is not easy to share or forge [1].
As we know now, biometrics utilize a user’s unique biological trait for identity verification. This
type of authentication falls under possession-based authentication, which relies on a secret that only you
have. The other type relies on a secret that only you know, called knowledge-based authentication. Such a
biometric authentication system is vulnerable to spoofing attacks, where a fraudster makes an effort to
compromise it. The type of spoofing attacks will change based on the different types of biometric modality,
whether the biometric technique uses an iris, a fingerprint, a face, a keystroke, or a voice. Few traits cannot

Journal homepage: http://iaesprime.com/index.php/csit

2  ISSN: 2722-3221

be easily compared to others. And hence, there is a requirement for specifically designed algorithms to
identify the spoofs.
Each biometric has its own merits and flaws. For example, a fingerprint is most commonly used for
commercial purposes to provide evidence of his or her presence; however, providing the fingerprint
impression requires strong user cooperation. Iris is extremely precise, but it is dependent on image quality
and requires users to actively participate in the scanning process. Face recognition is favorable in terms of
availability and reliability. In this biometric system, a biometric user’s face can be captured without
their knowledge or consent, meaning they need not cooperate and recognition can be done from longer
distances [2].
Fraudsters take advantage of the vulnerabilities of a secure biometric system. In a spoofing attack,
an individual attempts to masquerade as another person to get through a secured biometric recognition
system. So, there is a significant requirement for anti-spoofing techniques to secure the biometric recognition
systems. We need preventive measures to defend against unauthorized replicas of biometric traits.
Amongst all the biometric systems that are put up for commercial purposes, face biometrics play a
pivotal role since they are widely used in national border control, physical or logical access control,
forensics, e-commerce, surveillance, and e-governance domains. In a science fiction film, a young man
disguised himself as an elderly person to board a plane to Canada, using a silicon mask on his face to fool
border control agents [3]. since facial images can be captured in a non-intrusive manner using low-cost
sensors [4]. Hence, spoofing as an authorized individual using their information is the biggest threat to
biometric systems. Ramachandra and Busch [4] reports a black hat test that reveals the spoofing process in
face recognition in laptops from various vendors. These cases demonstrate the loopholes of a real-time face
recognition system. The attackers are highly motivated, as they can easily deceive the system by cost-
effectively creating the face artifacts. Various video tutorials are now available on the web that provide
information on how to create face artifacts [5]. And hence spoofing (including anti-spoofing) is the most
urgent problem for researchers to address in the face recognition domain.

2. VULNERABILITIES OF FACE BIOMETRIC SYSTEM

Face recognition in the biometric system consists of two stages: enrollment and authentication.
During enrollment, an unknown user's biometric information is recorded and saved as a template in the
database of the recognition system. Generally, a biometric recognition system can be utilized for either
verification or identification purposes. A biometric verification system does a one-to-one comparison to
verify the user's identity. A biometric identification system identifies a user by comparing his biometric
template with that of all the other users stored in a database. So biometric identification does a one-to-many
comparison to identify a user from among many users who have enrolled their templates [6].
The basic architecture of the face recognition system consists of a sensor module that captures the
face image, a feature extraction module that extracts facial features, and a matcher module that matches the
input face with already stored templates for authentication. Ramachandra and Busch [4], Ratha et al. [7] have
identified eight loopholes in a generic biometric system, which are depicted in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Vulnerabilities of biometric recognition systems

Comput Sci Inf Technol, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2023: 1-13

Comput Sci Inf Technol ISSN: 2722-3221  3

These vulnerabilities are categorized into four groups according to Jain et al. [8]:
a. User interface attack: while the sensor is capturing the biometric information attacker presents fake
properties such as photos, videos, and masks.
b. Channel attack: the channels between the modules are intruded by replaying the old data, artificially
synthesizing a feature vector, intercepting the channels or overriding the final decision.
c. Module attacks: modules are attacked by overriding the feature extractor and the matcher modules, their
behavior can be modified.
d. Template database attacks: fraudster modifies a valid user’s template in the database by replacing it
with his biometrics.

3. FACE SPOOFING METHOD

Spoofing is an attempt to intrude into the normal workings of the biometric system by introducing
artificial replicas of biometric traits in an unauthorized manner. A fraudster performs spoofing attacks to
mimic a valid individual to bring down an entire biometric recognition system. To deceive a facial biometric
system, they use the following spoofing methods: i) Images and masks: a fake user produces an authorized
user’s photograph or wears a mask created using prosthetics to imitate an individual; ii) Identity
manipulation: the facial image stored by the biometric system is manipulated to match the facial
characteristics of an unauthorized user using face morphing software, also biometric technological systems
can be tricked either by changing the stored image or by using special makeup; and iii) Identical twins:
Identical twins can act as spoofs for each other. The methods are used to attack the face recognition system
by a fraudster. The face spoof attacks can be classified as given Figure 2 [9].
a. Printed flat photo attack: the commonest attack is the usage of flat printed photos against the
recognition system without the permission of the original user (Refer to Figure 2(b)).
b. Cut photo attack: eyes in the printed copy of the photo is cut off to display blink behavior to get over
with the challenge-response antispoofing technique (IDLive Face) (Refer to Figure 2(c)).
c. Warped photo attack: printed photo is bent in a certain way to simulate the facial movements (Refer
to Figure 2(d)).
d. Video replay attack: a video is played before the sensor device of a face recognition system using a
laptop or a mobile device. In this type of attack, some of the movements like the blinking of eyes, facial
expressions, head movements can be performed using phones, tablets or laptops (Refer to Figure 2(e)).
e. Mask attack: two types of masks are used by any impostor, they are wearable masks and paper cut
masks. It is the most difficult type of attack. Mask manufacturing is expensive and it requires three-
dimensional (3D) scanning and printing devices too (Refer to Figures 2(f) and (g)).

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

Figure 2. Types of presenation attacks (a) valid user, (b) printed flat photo, (c) eye cut photo,
(d) warped photo, (e) video playback, (f) synthetic mask, and (g) paper cut mask [9]

4. FACE SPOOF DETECTION

Face spoof detection, liveness detection of a face, countermeasures against facial spoof attacks and
face anti-spoofing are used interchangeably to refer to the methods to identify a fraudster trying to gain
access into facial recognition systems by posing him/herself as a genuine user. Liveness detection in a
spoofing problem marks the contrast between fake and real faces and hence it is a face recognition problem.
The difference is that the face recognition techniques try to look for a face that increases interpersonal
variations (differences between two persons) but anti-spoofing techniques strive for a face representation that
reduces interpersonal variations thereby increasing intrapersonal variations due to changes in illumination
and poses [10].

Antispoofing in face biometrics: a comprehensive study on software-based techniques (Vinutha H)

4  ISSN: 2722-3221

Liveness detection can be defined is the ability of the biometric system to recognize a living,
authorized individual. Here biometric authentication involves verifying that the user who has initially
enrolled, is the same person who is appearing for authentication, not a 2D photograph, or digital version of
the face [11]. This can be achieved through algorithms that examine the input data collected from biometric
sensors.
Liveness detection can be categorized as active and passive: Active method asks the person to
perform an action that cannot be easily reproduced. That is, asking the user to blink his/her eyes, and raise the
eyebrows. These are also called as challenge-response techniques [12]. BioID offers a challenge-response
technique to identify a spoof attempt. Here the BioID system challenges the user by giving some random
commands, and the response is validated. The passive method applies techniques to detect a non-live image
without user interference. For this purpose, the biometric data captured during the enrollment stage is used.
IDLive [12] a passive facial liveness detection, happens at the backend, which recognizes the spoof attempt
without requiring user interaction.

5. CLASSIFICATION OF FACE ANTI-SPOOFING METHODS

Antispoofing methods [13] are categorized into two main groups. They are designated as hardware
and software based techniques [2]. These are the most deployed methods of anti-spoofing which are further
grouped into various other methods as shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Classification of face anti-spoofing methods

6. HARDWARE-BASED TECHNIQUES
Hardware-based anti-spoofing techniques incorporate special hardware devices in the biometric
system to detect fake access. In the literature, authors have used different types of hardware devices in their
face biometric set up. These devices utilize different types of imaging technologies such as near-infrared
(NIR) images [14], [15], 3D depth images [16], or complementary infrared (CIR). These are captured by
comparing the reflectance information of real authenticated faces and the spoof equipments, using light
emitting diode (LEDs) and photodiodes set-up at various wavelengths. Thermal imaging has been explored,
by acquiring large datasets of thermal images of face using infrared cameras, for real as well as for the spoof
attempts in liveness detection [17]. Erdogmus and Marcel [18] used depth information of 2D photographs to
discover a 2D attack. Whereas Wang et al. [16] recovers a 3D facial information to determine the spoofing
attacks using specialized depth cameras. Ng and Chia [19] made use of facial expressions that randomly
changed the temporal information thereby verifying the liveness of users.[15] used a near-infrared band for
disguise detection.
Subsidiary sophisticated hardware increases the overall cost of the system and also most of the
mobile phone cameras and webcams available today are not compatible with it. So, this has motivated the
anti-spoofing research fraternity to shift to software-based anti-spoofing techniques which are cheaper and
they can be easily installed to the existing face biometric systems. Table 1 gives a brief insight into the
hardware-based methods utilized by the researches for spoof detection through the years.

Comput Sci Inf Technol, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2023: 1-13

Comput Sci Inf Technol ISSN: 2722-3221  5

Table 1. Hardware based anti-spoofing techniques

Contributors Method/Equipment
Pavlidis and Symosek (2000) Near infrared bands
Ng and Chia [19] Random temporal cues
Dhamecha et al. [17] Thermal imaging using infrared cameras
Ergdogmus and Marcel [18] 2D depth information
Wang et al. [16] 3Dfacial depth information using depth cameras
Z. Zhang et al. [14] Multispectral reflectance distributions
Albakri and Alghowinem [20] 3D depth cameras

7. SOFTWARE-BASED TECHNIQUES
Software-based anti-spoofing techniques make use of an algorithm that detects and categorizes the
captured face into either a spoofed face, as a result of any spoofing attacks or a genuine face. These sorts of
techniques incur lesser cost, easy to incorporate a piece of code running inside the face recognition system
and exhibit higher accuracy. Major advantage is it does not require specialized and higher cost hardware
equipment as in hardware-based anti-spoofing techniques and also doesn’t user need not co-operate, it can
work without the knowledge of the user accessing the face recognition system.
Software-based methods are further categorized into static and dynamic approaches. Static
approaches execute on only spatial information without requiring temporal data. Here a single image is
considered. If a video is presented and static approach is used then each frame of a video sequence is
considered for further processing. A static approach incurs less cost but yields good performance. Dynamic
approaches utilize spatio-temporal information of the video played before the face recognition system for
access control. This approach tends to find the relative motion of the video frames that are run against the
face sensor and hence it requires more time and effort compared to static approaches. State-of-the-art static
approaches are grouped into 3 different groups based on the nature of the algorithms used. They are texture
based, frequency-based and hybrid approaches (Refer to Table 2).
Texture based approaches analyze the microtextures of the facial image representation. This is the
most popular approach in determining display and photo attacks because this delineates amongst the
formation of pigments (formed while printing), specular reflection (due to quality variation) and a shade
(arising due to display attack). Määttä et al. [21] first came up with a widely used texture-based approach
based on local binary patterns (LBPs) and detected photo print attack. Edmunds [10] propose software-based
protection methods based on the LBP descriptor to evaluate texture-based anti-spoofing techniques, by
focusing on differences between natural and unnatural characteristics present in the face region. Here LBP
operator embeds color and contrast information in texture characterization and they combine the images with
HSI color model to form a HSI-LBP color texture descriptor which improves texture-based anti-spoofing
techniques on Replay Attack for CASIA and MSU databases. Chingovska et al. [22] also used the same LBP
descriptors to solve the replay video attack on the face recognition system. LBP captures the pigment
information on the image which is formed out of printers and also LBP captures the change in reflectance due
to the quality variation of the attack equipment.
Frequency-based approaches analyze and quantify the frequency component. Initial work was
based on the fourier spectrum analysis to successfully detect a photo attack for face biometric carried out by
Li et al. [23]. Liu et al. [24] also used fourier spectra to detect video replay attacks. There are different works
carried out by researchers like [24] those used discrete cosine transforms, Zhang et al. [14] made use of
difference of Gaussian (DoG) filters, and Peng and Chan [25] used components which are of high frequency.
Hybrid approaches combine more than one property or attribute associated with the spoofed
image. Many researchers have tried out their hands in combining various attributes to achieve better
recognition between fake and real faces, for example, Raghavendra and Busch [26] combined texture
attribute with time-frequency information, Määttä et al. [21] fused texture and shape, Komulainen et al. [27]
incorporated all the context information. Hasan et al. [28] fused modified DoG filtering and binary pattern
variance to identify photo spoofing, by analyzing both texture LBP and contrast (variance) characteristics.
Support vector machine (SVM) was used on the extracted feature vectors and they also prove that LBP-
variants (LBPV) with SVM classifier method gives better results compared to SVM and LBP in presentation
attack detection. Benlamoudi et al. [29] used the Viola-Jones face detection algorithm [30] and pictorial
structure model [31] to detect the face and then localize the eye positions; then, the coordinates of the eyes
are used to make right the posing of the face. In the multi block (MB) technique [32], face is divided into
square blocks and a texture descriptor is applied on each block. Three popular texture descriptors, binarized
statistical image features (BSIF), LBP, and local phase quantization (LPQ) are used in multiple levels,
forming a multi-level feature descriptors (FD-ML) for feature extraction. ML representation is formed by
combining multiple MBs [32]. Finally, Lib-SVM [33] was used to classify the feature vectors as valid or

Antispoofing in face biometrics: a comprehensive study on software-based techniques (Vinutha H)

6  ISSN: 2722-3221

invalid. Table 2 consolidates on software-based static countermeasures by quoting their methods adopted,
types of attacks, datasets and performance metrics used.

Table 2. Software based static anti-spoofing methods

Contributors Types of static method Attack type Database EER HTER
method (%) (%)
Edmunds [10] Texture HSI-LBP color Print, mobile Replay-Attack - 44.1
texture descriptor and ipad Casia 30 -
MSU android 30 -
MSU laptop 40 -
Määttä et al. [21] Texture LBP Photo attack NUAA 2.8 -
Photograph
Imposter
database
Chingovska et al. [22] Texture LBP Replay video Replay-attack - 15
attack
Li et al. [23] Frequency Fourier spectrum Photo attack NUAA 4.71 1.5
analysis Photograph
Imposter
database
Zhang et al. [14] Frequency DoG filters - - - -
Liu et al. [24] Frequency Fourier spectrum Replay video Replay-Attack - -
analysis attack
Raghavendra and Busch [26] Texture Local features-eye 3D mask 3DMAD - 0.03
(periocular) and attacks
nose region, Global
features - BSIF and
SVM-classification
Hasan et al. [28] Texture LBPV pattern Photo attack NUAA - 0.39
representation and Photograph
SVM Imposter
database
Benlamoudi et al. [29] Representation LBP, LPQ, BSIF- Warped photo CASIA-FAS 17.46 -
+ texture descriptors attack MSU-MFS 14.9 -
Fisher core - sort the cut photo Replay-Attack - 12.25
features in attack database
ascending order Video attack
SVM-classification
Li et al. [34] Spatio temporal 3D convolutional CASIA 1.4 -
neural network MSU 0 -
(CNN)
George and Marcel [35] Hybrid Fully connected Replay attack Replay mobile - 0
neural network- dataset
CNN
Sharifi [36] Texture Fuses CNN and Print attacks OVLBP
OVLBP Video attacks Print Attack - 14.35
Replay Attack - 15.75
OVLBP+CNN
Print Attack
Replay Attack - 10.40
- 11.00
Chen et al. [37] Texture Retinex based LBP Replay attacks Replay Attack 0.093 0.206
and region based
CNN ROI pooling
Pujol (2020) [32] Texture Entropy based Presentation CASIA FASD 9.5 -
HOG-EBHOG attacks MIFS

State-of-the-art dynamic approaches are of three kinds: motion-based, texture based and hybrid
schemes (Refer to Table 3). Motion-based approaches employ a structure from facial movements, which in
turn yield depth information for features of face. Kollreider et al. [38] has proposed a novel liveness
awareness framework by estimating face motion for face authentication which utilizes lightweight optical
flow and gives a liveness score. A generalized dynamic approach for spoof detection was proposed by Li et
al. [39] by utilizing pulses extracted from videos, referring to the fact that only a live face can have pulses
(motion) in it but not the printed photos or mask. Edmunds and Caplier [40] exploit conditional local neural
fields track face’s motions and bag-of-words feature extraction method extracts rigid and non-rigid motion
features using the fisher vector.

Comput Sci Inf Technol, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2023: 1-13

Comput Sci Inf Technol ISSN: 2722-3221  7

Texture based approaches exploit the characteristic of face representations that discriminate a live
face from fake ones. Research community started with relying on LBP patterns and its variants only to fuse
different characteristics to form hybrid schemes which prove to be more efficient comparatively. Pereira et
al. [41] extended regular LBP operator to VLB (volume local binary pattern) operator, the so-called
spatiotemporal characteristics (dynamic texture), to detect the dynamics of face micro-textures. Liu et al. [42]
has developed an remote photoplethysmography (rPPG) correlation model which extracts local heartbeat
signal patterns that discriminate against a mask and a live face. A confidence map was drawn using signal
strength that exploits the characteristics of rPPG distribution on real faces. Buolkenafet et al. [43] has
considered facial appearance to detect the liveness. They extract features from color spaces and the fisher
vector encoding method is applied to these features for liveness detection. They have tested on the following
benchmark databases: Casia, Replay-attack, MSU-MFSD and claim that their method outperforms the best
methods available.

Table 3. Software based dynamic anti-spoofing methods

Contributor Types of dynamic method Attack type Database EER HTER
method (%) (%)
Kollreider et al. [38] Motion Optical flow Playback attack Replay Attack 0.5 -
database and
proprietary
T. de Freitas et al. [41] Motion Spatio-temporal Print attacks CASIA 10 -
extension of LBP and Video attacks Replay-Attack 7.60
Litong Feng et al. [44] Texure and Dense optical flow Print attacks Replay Attack 0 0
motion hierarchical neural Video attacks and 3D MAD
network Mask attack CASIA FASD 5.83 -
Siqi Liu et al. [42] Heart beat signal Analyses heart beat 3D mask attack Public and self- - -
signal through rPPG contained datasets
Xiaobai Li et al [39] motion Pulse detection and Print attacks 3DMAD and - -
color texture analysis Video attacks REALF masks
Mask attacks
Z Boulkenafet et al. Color spaces Fisher vector encoding Print attacks CASIA, Replay - -
[43] on the extracted Video attacks Attack, MSU-
features of different MFSD
color spaces
Junying Gan et al. [45] Video frames 3D CNN Video attacks Replay Attack - 0.04
CASIA - 10.65
Yaojie Liu et al. [46] Depth and signals CNN-RNN model for Presentation Proprietary - -
face depth estimation attacks database
and rPPG signals
estimation
Taiamiti Edmunds and Motion Conditional local Presentation CASIA FASD, - -
Alice Caplier [40] neural fields face attacks Replay-Attack,
tracking MSU-MFSD,
3DMAD
Lei Li et al. [47] Texture Deep LBP print attacks Replay-Attack, - -
and video attacks CASIA
Emna Fourati et al. [48] Motion Image quality Presentation Replay-Attack - 0.024
assessment attacks
H. Chen et al. [37] Motion R-CNN and Improved Video attacks Replay-Attack 0.093 0.26
retinex LBP
Xin Cheng et al. [49] Texture and Dynamic and texture Replay and video CASIA-MFSD 6.9 -
motion fusion attention attacks Replay Attack - 2.2
network

Gan et al. [45] have exploited spatio-temporal features of video frames using 3D CNN which have
scored half total error rate (HTER) (refer to metrics for face anti-spoofing system evaluation section)
values of 0.04% and 10.65% for Replay Attack and CASIA databases respectively. Feng et al. [44] proposed
a hierarchical neural network model for antispoofing by integrating image quality and motion cues and
achieving 0% HTER and equal error rate (EER) for both Replay Attack and 3DMAD datasets. In the case of
CASIA FASD, the framework has achieved an EER 5.83%. Other than these, Pan et al. [50] utilizes
conditional random fields (CRF) that will be generated whenever an eye blink occurs in the face for liveness
detection. CRF works on context-based phenomena of temporal data.
The earlier works carried out in the literature using static or dynamic approaches make use of
handcrafted features like LBP, and scale invariant feature transform (SIFT), to discriminate between the real
and fake faces. CNN started gaining popularity, during which it was first used by Yang et al. [51] for face
anti-spoofing. The following are a few instances where CNN marked its presence assertively.

Antispoofing in face biometrics: a comprehensive study on software-based techniques (Vinutha H)

8  ISSN: 2722-3221

Nikitin et al. [52] fused two deep classifiers, first being used in identifying the presence of spoofing
medium and the second classifier is used to analyze the blinking of eyes and checks eyes openness
classification per frame. Muhammad et al. [53] incorporated a novel, sample learning-based recurrent neural
network (SLRNN) anti-spoofing architecture which makes use of the following 3 models: CNN, sparse
filtering and long short-term memory (LSTM). Sparse filtering was applied for augmenting the features using
residual networks (ResNet). The augmented features formed a sequence and were fed into a LSTM network
to construct the final representation. A 3D CNN framework was proposed by Li et al. [34] which takes both
spatial and temporal information, using the data augmentation method and employs a generalization
regularization thereby improving generalization performance. George and Marcel [35] proposes a dense fully
connected neural network architecture, trained with pixel-wise binary supervision. Here a single CNN model
which uses frame level information without requiring temporal data for detecting the presentation attack with
deep pixel-wise supervision. It has achieved HTER of 0% in the Replay Mobile dataset and an ACER of
0.42% in Protocol-1 of OULU dataset. A CNN-RNN (recurrent neural network) combination model was
employed by Liu et al. [46] for face depth estimation and rPPG signals estimation using pixel-wise and
sequence–wise supervision respectively. And depth information and rPPG signals are fused. Li and Feng [47]
used SVM to classify between real and fake by extracting handcrafted deep partial features from the
convolutional responses. Two sets of feature information extracted out of the CNN model and OVLBP
(overlapped histograms of local binary patterns) are fused by Sharifi [36] to form a score vector. A majority
voting of CNN, OVLBP, and fused score helps in fake detection. Table 3 summarizes the Software based
dynamic anti-spoofing techniques contributed by various researchers.

8. METRICS FOR FACE ANTI-SPOOFING SYSTEM EVALUATION

A spoof detection system can incur two types of errors [9]: i) number of false acceptance (NFA) -it
gives the count of fraudsters accepted as authorized users (i.e.), and the probability of its occurrence is known
as false acceptance rate (FAR); ii) number of false rejection (NFR) - this is the count of authorized users,
who can be considered as fraudsters, and its probability of occurrence is called a false rejection rate (FRR)
(Refer to Table 4 for the metrices). FAR and FRR are inversely proportional to each other. A receiver
operating characteristics (ROC) curve is drawn by computing all possible pairs of FAR and FRR values, as
illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Relationship amongst the metrics on the ROC curve

The area under curve (AUC) metric is obtained by the integral of a ROC, the grey area in Figure 4.
EER is the point of interference when FAR equals FRR on the ROC curve, and HTER is the point on the
ROC curve where the average of FAR and FRR is minimum. Finally, for overall accuracy (ACC) both
authorized users and fraudsters are considered. A variant of ROC called DET (decision error tradeoff) is also
used in some cases for showing verification performances. The only difference between ROC and DET is
that the primary difference is that the y-axis takes a false rejection rate instead of a true acceptance rate in the
DET curve.
For the biometric authentication in Android smartphone, Google recognizes two types of attacks:
“impostor” attacks and “spoof” attacks. A fraudster pretends to be an authorized user by disguising his or her
features in an impostor attack, but in a spoof attack, a non-live representation of the authorized user such as a
photograph or video is used to gain entry. Google sets a threshold of 7% accept rate or less for strong security
during attack detection that is the percentage of times an attack is not detected [11]. This is analogous to a
biometric “false accept rate”, which represents the likelihood that a person is incorrectly identified as a
biometric match. Figure 5 shows the plot of error metrics plotted for different static methods. The X-axis is

Comput Sci Inf Technol, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2023: 1-13

Comput Sci Inf Technol ISSN: 2722-3221  9

plotted with the static method (one of texture, frequency, and hybrid) along with the type of attack to which
this method is applied and Y-axis measures the EER and HTER values for each method if available.

Table 4. Metrics commonly applied on face spoofing evaluation

Metric Stand for Equation Type
FAR False Acceptance Rate Error
𝑁𝐹𝐴
FAR =
#𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟

FRR False Rejection Rate Error

𝑁𝐹𝑅
FRR =
#𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑖𝑛𝑒

EER Equal Error Rate Error

EER = (FAR= FRR)

HTER Half Total Error Rate Error

FAR+ FRR
HTER =
2

ACC Accuracy Hit

𝐹𝐴𝑅 𝑋 #𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟+𝐹𝑅𝑅 𝑋 # 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑖𝑛𝑒
100 X ( 1- )
#𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟+ #𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟

AUC Area Under Curve 𝑏 Hit

Area = ∫𝑎 𝑓(𝑥) 𝑑𝑥, 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑓 ∶ [𝑎, 𝑏] → 𝑅

Software based Static methods

20 17,46
HTER and EER - Error values

18 15 14,9
16
14 12,25
10,4 11
12
10
8
6 4,71
2,8
4 1,5 1,4
2 0 0,03 0 0,39 0 0 0
0

Static anti-spoofing methods and Attack types

EER HTER

Figure 5. EER-HTER error evaluation for software based static methods

Based on the statistics in the graph it seems that out of all the texture components LBPV offers
better spoof recognition with the least error of 0.039 for the photo attacks. For the video attacks, the hybrid
approach of 3D CNN has the highest recognition rate of 100% that is 0 error. Raghavendra and Busch [26]
has applied texture descriptors for 3D mask attacks. Until now it is known to have the lowest error recorded
using texture descriptors. But it is also proved that the same video replay attacks have 0 HTER when CNN
are used for recognition. It is observed that hybrid approaches have higher HTER and EER values i.e. when
multiple descriptors are applied. So, there is a scope of research in this domain in which two descriptors from
texture and frequency-based methods will yield better spoof recognition and lesser error rates.
The error metrics for dynamic methods are plotted in Figure 6 where X-axis depicting one of the
three dynamic descriptors (motion, texture, and hybrid) with the attack type. Y-axis carries the HTER and
ERR values. Dense optical flow is best suited for identifying the print attacks as it is proven that its HTER
and EER values are 0. But if we use spatio-temporal descriptor (hybrid) or a 3D CNN for print attacks, for
video frames the captured error rate is 0.04, it incurs error with HTER of around 10, which is not acceptable
Antispoofing in face biometrics: a comprehensive study on software-based techniques (Vinutha H)
10  ISSN: 2722-3221

in anti-spoofing algorithms. 3D CNNs find their use here, that is when they are used. Hence in the literature,
the application of texture descriptors over the face image has proven to be a good approach in static methods
and dense optical flow works very well for both print and video attacks in dynamic methods. But deep
learning is manifesting the face recognition domain too and CNNs, deep neural networks are being
extensively used in discriminating amongst the original, valid faces and the spoofed faces.

Software based Dynamic methods

12 10,65
10
EER & HTER Error values

10
7,6
8 6,9
5,83
6
4 2,2
2 0,5 0 0 0,04 0,024 0,09 0,26
0

Dynamic Anti-spoofing methods and Attack types EER HTER

Figure 6. EER- HTER error evaluation for software based dynamic methods

9. FACE ANTI-SPOOFING DATASETS

Face spoof attack databases that are available, play a pivotal role in computing new and better face
anti-spoofing techniques. Here few face publicly available databases are discussed. Researchers around the
world use extensively, the seven publicly available benchmark data sets to evaluate their anti-spoofing
algorithms. NUAA Photograph Imposter [55], replay-attack [22], print-attack [55], CASIA face anti-
spoofing[56], MSU-MFSD [57] are the well-known datasets concerned with 2D attacks. For mask attacks,
the 3D mask attack dataset [18], [58] dataset are used.
The first and foremost public dataset that was made available for face anti-spoofing was the NUAA
Photograph Imposter dataset [55]. Images here were captured by regular webcams in different environments
under varied illumination conditions, in three sessions, between each of which with an interval of two weeks
were taken. Printed flat and warped attacks are evaluated.
The Print-Attack dataset [55] was the standard dataset used in the first competition for spoof
detection. The images were captured by presenting a flat printed photo of an authorized person to the system
by hand-held method (i.e., the fraudster holds the photo in the hands) or using a fixed support (i.e., photos are
stuck on a fixed stand or wall). Print-Attack dataset was extended to the Replay-Attack dataset [22] for
evaluating video and photo attacks. It comprises of 1,300 video clips of video and photo attacks. Here trio
attacks modes were considered: i) printed photo and video playbacks, ii) using a low-resolution mobile phone
and iii) an iPod screen. CASIA face anti-spoofing data set [56] has seven situations with different image
qualities and various attack types. This data set presents warped photo attacks, video playback attacks, and
eye-cut photo attacks.
The first public database for mask attacks is 3D mask-attack dataset (3DMAD) [18] and it
comprises an RGB-D camera recorded video sequences. ThatsMyFace13 manufactured the masks using the
frontal and profile images of an individual. MSU mobile face spoofing dataset (MSU MFSD) [57] has 280
video clips of video and print photo attacks. A color printer printed all the photos of 35 participants used for
attacks on a large-sized paper. Each participant’s video playback was taken to perform an attack. MORPHO
Company created [58] dataset, which is a paid-mask dataset, using a 3D scanner. To obtain authorized
images of face shape and texture, it uses a structured light technology. Then Sculpteo 3D Printing technology
manufactures the masks, and are recaptured by the same sensor to get the fraudster images. Face spoof attack

Comput Sci Inf Technol, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2023: 1-13

Comput Sci Inf Technol ISSN: 2722-3221  11

databases that are available, play a pivotal role in computing new and better face anti-spoofing techniques.
Here few face publicly available databases are discussed. Researchers around the world use extensively, the
seven publicly available benchmark data sets to evaluate their anti-spoofing algorithms. NUAA Photograph
Imposter [55], replay-attack [22], print-attack [55], CASIA face anti-spoofing [56], MSU-MFSD [57] are the
well-known datasets concerned with 2D attacks. For mask attacks, the 3D mask attack dataset [18], Kose and
Dugelay’s [58] data set are used.
The first and foremost public dataset that was made available for face anti-spoofing was the NUAA
Photograph Imposter dataset [55]. Images here were captured by regular webcams in different environments
under varied illumination conditions, in three sessions, between each of which with an interval of two weeks
were taken. Printed flat and warped attacks are evaluated. The print-attack dataset [55] was the standard
dataset used in the first competition for spoof detection. The images were captured by presenting a flat
printed photo of an authorized person to the system by hand-held method (i.e., the fraudster holds the photo
in the hands) or using a fixed support (i.e., photos are stuck on a fixed stand or wall). Print-attack dataset was
extended to the replay-attack dataset [22] for evaluating video and photo attacks. It comprises of 1,300 video
clips of video and photo attacks. Here trio attacks modes were considered: i) printed photo and video
playbacks, ii) using a low-resolution mobile phone and iii) an iPod screen. CASIA face anti-spoofing dataset
[56] has seven situations with different image qualities and various attack types. This data set presents
warped photo attacks, video playback attacks, and eye-cut photo attacks.
The first public database for mask attacks is 3D mask-attack dataset (3DMAD) [18] and it
comprises an RGB-D camera recorded video sequences. ThatsMyFace13 manufactured the masks using the
frontal and profile images of an individual. MSU mobile face spoofing dataset [57] has 280 video clips of
video and print photo attacks. A color printer printed all the photos of 35 participants used for attacks on a
large-sized paper. Each participant’s video playback was taken to perform an attack. MORPHO Company
created Kose and Dugelay’s [58] dataset, which is a paid-mask dataset, using a 3D scanner. To obtain
authorized images of face shape and texture, it uses a structured light technology. Then Sculpteo 3D Printing
technology manufactures the masks, and are recaptured by the same sensor to get the fraudster images.

10. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

The biometric system particularly the Face recognition system faces many threats and challenges
from the fraudsters due to its vulnerabilities. These challenges were effectively addressed by the researchers
from the past by applying different types of Anti-spoofing techniques. These techniques make use of either
hardware or software-based solutions. In our review process, we gave an overview of the state-of-the-art of
both static and dynamic methods followed in Software-based anti-spoofing techniques. Few performance
metrics like FAR, FRR, ROC, HTER, EER, ACC which are used in evaluating face anti-spoofing techniques
are discussed as well. We tried to consolidate on few publicly available benchmark databases for 2D
presentation attacks, that are available upon which anti-spoofing technique can be applied. A lot of research
work has been carried out on the databases where they knew the type of presentation attack and
countermeasures for known attacks are devised. But in the real world, we cannot integrate anti-spoofing
algorithm for a single particular known type of attack. Fraudsters can attack the same system in different
ways either using a mask or by presenting a printed photo or he can run a video replay instead of an
authorized user’s face, here type of attacks is not known. Though there are few works on unknown attacks in
which partial paper cuts and transparent masks are used, much more focus is required in this area. Potential
face recognition systems for unknown attacks should be designed to detect the type of attack (also called
zero-shot face anti-spoofing) and mitigate it.

REFERENCES
[1] J. Galbally, S. Marcel, and J. Fierrez, “Biometric antispoofing methods: a survey in face recognition,” IEEE Access, vol. 2,
pp. 1530–1552, 2014, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2014.2381273.
[2] A. Benlamoudi, “Multi-modal and anti-spoofing person identification,” University of Kasdi Merbah, 2018.
[3] “Real face spoofing case1,” Daily Mail, 2015. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1326885/Man-boards-plane-disguised-
old-man-arrested-arrival-Canada.html.
[4] R. Ramachandra and C. Busch, “Presentation attack detection methods for face recognition systems: a comprehensive survey,”
ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 1–37, Jan. 2017, doi: 10.1145/3038924.
[5] “3D Face Mask,” Face 3D Mask, 2014. http://www.thatsmyface.com.
[6] P. S. Sudhish, A. K. Jain, and K. Cao, “Adaptive fusion of biometric and biographic information for identity de-duplication,”
Pattern Recognition Letters, vol. 84, pp. 199–207, Dec. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.patrec.2016.10.011.
[7] N. K. Ratha, J. H. Connell, and R. M. Bolle, “An analysis of minutiae matching strength,” in Lecture Notes in Computer Science
(including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 2091 LNCS, Springer
Berlin Heidelberg, 2001, pp. 223–228.
[8] K. Nandakumar, A. K. Jain, and A. Nagar, “Biometric template security,” Eurasip Journal on Advances in Signal Processing,
vol. 2008, no. 1, p. 579416, 2008, doi: 10.1155/2008/579416.
Antispoofing in face biometrics: a comprehensive study on software-based techniques (Vinutha H)
12  ISSN: 2722-3221

[9] L. Souza, L. Oliveira, M. Pamplona, and J. Papa, “How far did we get in face spoofing detection?,” Engineering Applications of
Artificial Intelligence, vol. 72, pp. 368–381, Jun. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2018.04.013.
[10] T. Edmunds, “Protection of 2D face identification systems against spoofing attacks,” Université Grenoble Alpes, 2017.
[11] “Biometric liveness detection and spoof detection,” Aware Biometrics Software, 2020. https://www.aware.com/biometric-
liveness-detection-spoof-detection/.
[12] “IDLive® Face passive facial liveness detection,” IDR&D. https://www.idrnd.ai/passive-facial-liveness/.
[13] “Biometric Spoofing And Liveness Detection,” IEVO Ltd., 2019. https://ievoreader.com/biometric-spoofing-and-liveness-detection/.
[14] Z. Zhang, D. Yi, Z. Lei, and S. Z. Li, “Face liveness detection by learning multispectral reflectance distributions,” in 2011 IEEE
International Conference on Automatic Face and Gesture Recognition and Workshops, FG 2011, Mar. 2011, pp. 436–441,
doi: 10.1109/FG.2011.5771438.
[15] I. Pavlidis and P. Symosek, “The imaging issue in an automatic face/disguise detection system,” in Proceedings IEEE Workshop
on Computer Vision Beyond the Visible Spectrum: Methods and Applications, 2000, pp. 15–24, doi: 10.1109/cvbvs.2000.855246.
[16] T. Wang, J. Yang, Z. Lei, S. Liao, and S. Z. Li, “Face liveness detection using 3D structure recovered from a single camera,” in
International Conference on Biometrics, ICB 2013, Jun. 2013, pp. 1–6, doi: 10.1109/ICB.2013.6612957.
[17] T. I. Dhamecha, A. Nigam, R. Singh, and M. Vatsa, “Disguise detection and face recognition in visible and thermal spectrums,”
in Proceedings - 2013 International Conference on Biometrics, ICB 2013, Jun. 2013, pp. 1–6, doi: 10.1109/ICB.2013.6613019.
[18] N. Erdogmus and S. Marcel, “Spoofing attacks in 2D face recognition with 3D masks and anti-spoofing with Kinect,” Sep. 2013,
doi: 10.1109/BTAS.2013.6712688.
[19] E. S. Ng and A. Y. S. Chia, “Face verification using temporal affective cues,” in International Conference on Pattern Recognition
(ICPR), 2012, pp. 1249–1252.
[20] G. Albakri and S. Alghowinem, “The effectiveness of depth data in liveness face authentication using 3D sensor cameras,”
Sensors (Switzerland), vol. 19, no. 8, p. 1928, Apr. 2019, doi: 10.3390/s19081928.
[21] J. Määttä, A. Hadid, and M. Pietikäinen, “Face spoofing detection from single images using micro-texture analysis,” in
International Joint Conference on Biometrics, IJCB 2011, Oct. 2011, pp. 1–7, doi: 10.1109/IJCB.2011.6117510.
[22] I. Chingovska, A. Anjos, and S. Marcel, “On the effectiveness of local binary patterns in face anti-spoofing,” in proceedings of
the international conference of biometrics special interest group (BIOSIG), 2012, pp. 1–7.
[23] J. Li, Y. Wang, T. Tan, and A. K. Jain, “Live face detection based on the analysis of Fourier spectra,” in Biometric Technology for
Human Identification, Aug. 2004, vol. 5404, pp. 296–303, doi: 10.1117/12.541955.
[24] W. Liu, “Face liveness detection using analysis of fourier spectra based on hair,” in International Conference on Wavelet Analysis
and Pattern Recognition, Jul. 2014, vol. 2014-Janua, pp. 75–80, doi: 10.1109/ICWAPR.2014.6961294.
[25] J. Peng and P. P. K. Chan, “Face liveness detection for combating the spoofing attack in face recognition,” in International
Conference on Wavelet Analysis and Pattern Recognition (ICWAPR’14), Jul. 2014, vol. 2014-Janua, pp. 176–181,
doi: 10.1109/ICWAPR.2014.6961311.
[26] R. Raghavendra and C. Busch, “Novel presentation attack detection algorithm for face recognition system: Application to 3D face
mask attack,” in 2014 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing, ICIP 2014, Oct. 2014, pp. 323–327,
doi: 10.1109/ICIP.2014.7025064.
[27] J. Komulainen, A. Hadid, and M. Pietikainen, “Context based face anti-spoofing,” in IEEE 6th International Conference on
Biometrics: Theory, Applications and Systems, BTAS 2013, Sep. 2013, pp. 1–8, doi: 10.1109/BTAS.2013.6712690.
[28] M. R. Hasan, S. M. Hasan Mahmud, and X. Y. Li, “Face anti-spoofing using texture-based techniques and filtering methods,”
Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1229, no. 1, p. 12044, May 2019, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1229/1/012044.
[29] A. Benlamoudi, K. E. Aiadi, A. Ouafi, D. Samai, and M. Oussalah, “Face antispoofing based on frame difference and multilevel
representation,” Journal of Electronic Imaging, vol. 26, no. 4, p. 043007, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1117/1.jei.26.4.043007.
[30] P. Viola and M. J. Jones, “Robust real-time face detection,” International Journal of Computer Vision, vol. 57, no. 2,
pp. 137–154, 2004, doi: 10.1023/B:VISI.0000013087.49260.fb.
[31] X. Tan, F. Song, Z.-H. Zhou, and S. Chen, “Enhanced pictorial structures for precise eye localization under incontrolled
conditions,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 2009), Jun. 2009, pp. 1621–1628,
doi: 10.1109/cvpr.2009.5206818.
[32] F. A. Pujol, M. J. Pujol, C. Rizo-Maestre, and M. Pujol, “Entropy-based face recognition and spoof detection for security
applications,” Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 1–18, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.3390/SU12010085.
[33] C. C. Chang and C. J. Lin, “LIBSVM: a Library for support vector machines,” ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and
Technology, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1–27, Apr. 2011, doi: 10.1145/1961189.1961199.
[34] H. Li, P. He, S. Wang, A. Rocha, X. Jiang, and A. C. Kot, “Learning generalized deep feature representation for face anti-
spoofing,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 13, no. 10, pp. 2639–2652, Oct. 2018,
doi: 10.1109/TIFS.2018.2825949.
[35] A. George and S. Marcel, “Deep pixel-wise binary supervision for face presentation attack detection,” Jun. 2019,
doi: 10.1109/ICB45273.2019.8987370.
[36] O. Sharifi, “Score-level-based face anti-spoofing system using handcrafted and deep learned characteristics,” International
Journal of Image, Graphics and Signal Processing, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 15–20, Feb. 2019, doi: 10.5815/ijigsp.2019.02.02.
[37] H. Chen, G. Hu, Z. Lei, Y. Chen, N. M. Robertson, and S. Z. Li, “Attention-based two-stream convolutional networks for face
spoofing detection,” IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, vol. 15, pp. 578–593, 2020,
doi: 10.1109/TIFS.2019.2922241.
[38] K. Kollreider, H. Fronthaler, and J. Bigun, “Non-intrusive liveness detection by face images,” Image and Vision Computing,
vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 233–244, Feb. 2009, doi: 10.1016/j.imavis.2007.05.004.
[39] X. Li, J. Komulainen, G. Zhao, P. C. Yuen, and M. Pietikainen, “Generalized face anti-spoofing by detecting pulse from face
videos,” in International Conference on Pattern Recognition, Dec. 2016, vol. 0, pp. 4244–4249, doi: 10.1109/ICPR.2016.7900300.
[40] T. Edmunds and A. Caplier, “Motion-based countermeasure against photo and video spoofing attacks in face recognition,”
Journal of Visual Communication and Image Representation, vol. 50, pp. 314–332, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.jvcir.2017.12.004.
[41] T. D. F. Pereira et al., “Face liveness detection using dynamic texture,” Eurasip Journal on Image and Video Processing,
vol. 2014, no. 1, Jan. 2014, doi: 10.1186/1687-5281-2014-2.
[42] S. Liu, P. C. Yuen, S. Zhang, and G. Zhao, “3D mask face anti-spoofing with remote photoplethysmography,” in European
conference on Computer Vision, 2016, vol. 9911, pp. 58–100, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-46478-7_6.
[43] Z. Boulkenafet, J. Komulainen, and A. Hadid, “Face antispoofing using speeded-up robust features and fisher vector encoding,”
IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 141–145, 2017, doi: 10.1109/LSP.2016.2630740.
[44] L. Feng et al., “Integration of image quality and motion cues for face anti-spoofing: a neural network approach,” Journal of Visual

Comput Sci Inf Technol, Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2023: 1-13

Comput Sci Inf Technol ISSN: 2722-3221  13

Communication and Image Representation, vol. 38, pp. 451–460, Jul. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.jvcir.2016.03.019.
[45] J. Gan, S. Li, Y. Zhai, and C. Liu, “3D convolutional neural network based on face anti-spoofing,” in 2nd International
Conference on Multimedia and Image Processing, ICMIP 2017, Mar. 2017, vol. 2017-Janua, pp. 1–5, doi: 10.1109/ICMIP.2017.9.
[46] Y. Liu, A. Jourabloo, and X. Liu, “Learning deep models for face anti-spoofing: binary or auxiliary supervision,” in IEEE Computer
Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Jun. 2018, pp. 389–398, doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2018.00048.
[47] L. Li and X. Feng, “Face anti-spoofing via deep local binary pattern,” in Deep Learning in Object Detection and Recognition,
Springer Singapore, 2019, pp. 91–111.
[48] E. Fourati, W. Elloumi, and A. Chetouani, “Anti-spoofing in face recognition-based biometric authentication using image quality
assessment,” Multimedia Tools and Applications, vol. 79, no. 1–2, pp. 865–889, Oct. 2020, doi: 10.1007/s11042-019-08115-w.
[49] X. Cheng, H. Wang, J. Zhou, H. Chang, X. Zhao, and Y. Jia, “DTFA-Net: dynamic and texture features fusion attention network
for face antispoofing,” Complexity, vol. 2020, pp. 1–11, Jul. 2020, doi: 10.1155/2020/5836596.
[50] G. Pan, L. Sun, Z. Wu, and Y. Wang, “Monocular camera-based face liveness detection by combining eyeblink and scene
context,” Telecommunication Systems, vol. 47, no. 3–4, pp. 215–225, Aug. 2011, doi: 10.1007/s11235-010-9313-3.
[51] J. Yang, Z. Lei, and S. Z. Li, “Learn convolutional neural network for face anti-spoofing,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5601, 2014,
[Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1408.5601.
[52] M. Y. Nikitin, V. S. Konushin, and A. S. Konushin, “Face anti-spoofing with joint spoofing medium detection and eye blinking
analysis,” Computer Optics, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 618–626, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.18287/2412-6179-2019-43-4-618-626.
[53] U. Muhammad, T. Holmberg, W. C. De Melo, and A. Hadid, “Face anti-spoofing via sample learning based recurrent neural
network (RNN),” in 30th British Machine Vision Conference 2019, BMVC 2019, 2019, p. 113.
[54] X. Tan, Y. Li, J. Liu, and L. Jiang, “Face liveness detection from a single image with sparse low rank bilinear discriminative
model,” in Proceedings of 11th European Conference on Computer Vision (ECCV’10), 2010, vol. 6316 LNCS, no. PART 6,
pp. 504–517, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-15567-3_37.
[55] A. Anjos and S. Marcel, “Counter-measures to photo attacks in face recognition: a public database and a baseline,” Oct. 2011,
doi: 10.1109/IJCB.2011.6117503.
[56] Z. Zhang, J. Yan, S. Liu, Z. Lei, D. Yi, and S. Z. Li, “A face antispoofing database with diverse attacks,” in Proceedings - 2012
5th IAPR International Conference on Biometrics, ICB 2012, Mar. 2012, pp. 26–31, doi: 10.1109/ICB.2012.6199754.
[57] D. Wen, H. Han, and A. K. Jain, “Face spoof detection with image distortion analysis,” IEEE Transactions on Information
Forensics and Security, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 746–761, Apr. 2015, doi: 10.1109/TIFS.2015.2400395.
[58] N. Kose and J. L. Dugelay, “Shape and texture based countermeasure to protect face recognition systems against mask attacks,” in
IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops, Jun. 2013, pp. 111–116,
doi: 10.1109/CVPRW.2013.24.
[59] Y. Liu, J. Stehouwer, A. Jourabloo, and X. Liu, “Deep tree learning for zero-shot face anti-spoofing,” in IEEE Computer Society
Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, Jun. 2019, vol. 2019-June, pp. 4675–4684, doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2019.00481.
[60] O. Nikisins, A. Mohammadi, A. Anjos, and S. Marcel, “On effectiveness of anomaly detection approaches against unseen
presentation attacks in face anti-spoofing,” in International Conference on Biometrics, ICB 2018, Feb. 2018, pp. 75–81,
doi: 10.1109/ICB2018.2018.00022.

BIOGRAPHIES OF AUTHORS

Vinutha H is an assistant professor at the Department of Computer Science and

Engineering, Dr. Ambedkar Institute of Technology, Karnataka, India, and a research scholar
at the Department of Computer Science and Engineering, BMS Institute of Technology and
Management, Karnataka, India. She received her B.E. degree in Computer Science and
Engineering from Visvesvaraya Technological University, India, in 2007. She received her
Master’s degree in Computer Science and Engineering from Visvesvaraya Technological
University in 2011. She is currently pursuing her Ph.D. in the field of image processing and
pattern recognition. She has nearly 8 years of industry, academic, and research experience. She
is a member of professional bodies like ISTE and IAENG. Her research interests include
pattern recognition, soft computing, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. She can be
contacted at email: vinuthah@gmail.com.

Dr. Thippeswamy G is a professor at the Department of Computer Science and

Engineering and Dean, Academics, BMS Institute of Technology and Management,
Karnataka, India. He received his B.E. degree in computer science and engineering from
Bangalore University, India, in 1993. He received his Master’s degree in Computer Science
from Bangalore University, India, in 1997. He received his Ph.D. degree from Mangalore
University, India, in 2012. He has nearly 25 years of academic and research experience. He
has presented and published 40 research papers. He was co-principal investigator for a DST-
RFBR-sponsored international research project with Moscow State University, Moscow,
Russia, twice: on spatial modeling of human faces for real-time analysis and classification
during 2009–2011 and on mathematical models and morphological analysis-based algorithms
for image comparison and classification in computer vision systems during 2017–2019. He is
a member of many professional bodies, like CSI, ISTE, and FIE. He has many international
interactions with the Department of Cybernetics and Mathematics at Moscow State University,
Moscow, Russia; Lappeenranta University, Finland; the Department of Information
Technology at the University of Malaya, Malaysia; the University of Kiel, Germany; and the
University of Oulu, Finland. His research interests include computer vision, image processing,
and pattern recognition. He can be contacted at email: swamy.gangappa@gmail.com.

Antispoofing in face biometrics: a comprehensive study on software-based techniques (Vinutha H)