Fujitsu Laboratories Ltd. announces the development of a facial recognition technology that uses conventional cameras to successfully identify efforts to spoof authentication systems. This includes impersonation attempts in which a person presents a printed photograph or an image from the internet to a camera.

Conventional technologies rely on expensive, dedicated devices like near-infrared cameras to identify telltale signs of forgery, or the user is required to move their face from side to side, which remains difficult to duplicate with a forgery. This leads to increased costs, however, and the need for additional user interaction slows the authentication process.

Convenience of face authentication

To tackle these challenges, Fujitsu has developed a forgery feature extraction technology that detects the subtle differences between an authentic image and a forgery, as well as a forgery judgment technology that accounts for variations in appearance due to the capture environment.

Fujitsu's new technology ultimately makes it possible to prevent impersonation with forgeries using only face images taken at the time of authentication, enhancing security without sacrificing the convenience of face authentication and contributing to the DX (digital transformation) of operations with improved personal authentication technologies.

Other authentication methods

It has proven difficult to determine the authenticity of a face by relying on a facial image alone

While biometric authentication continues to grow in popularity, many risks remain. In some cases, when facial images are disclosed on the Internet via SNS, etc., the possibility emerges that the image may become the target of malicious users if stolen due to the loss of an ID card with a facial photograph, etc.--because of the prevalence of such images, this makes facial authentication more vulnerable than other authentication methods, such as fingerprints or palm veins.

Smartphone screens, ID cards, and face images printed on paper vary in their appearance due to factors like reflections or blurring on a smartphone screen. It has proven difficult to determine the authenticity of a face by relying on a facial image alone because of the effects of similar fluctuations, such as reflections caused by fluorescent lights or sunlight, or blurring caused by facial movement.

General-Purpose cameras

For this reason, special cameras like near-infrared cameras or depth cameras that measure the distance between the subject and the camera are used to catch typical signs of forgery. These methods remain imperfect, however, and lead to issues including increased costs for dedicated cameras and reduced convenience due to the addition of motion information required when using general-purpose cameras.

The development of technologies that can conveniently and inexpensively detect spoofing with general-purpose cameras has become a topic of consideration. Fujitsu has developed a technology that can detect the impersonation of others through photographs, etc. from face images taken with a general-purpose camera. The features of the developed technology are as follows.

Forgery feature extraction

Image processing technology is used to digitize the characteristic features of forgery

Various features characteristic of a forgery remains in images obtained by presenting the forgery to the camera, such as reflections on the terminal screen of a smartphone, and distortion of the shape of the face caused by taking a planar forgery. Fujitsu has developed a forgery feature extraction technique to express the difference between the forgery's characteristic features and the real face as determinable values.

First, the face image captured by the camera is separated into various elements that exhibit the characteristic features of forgery, such as reflection elements and shape elements. Next, image processing technology is used to digitize the characteristic features of forgery for each of the separated elements, and the characteristics of each element are combined to generate a characteristic for judgment. This makes it possible to identify counterfeits without information based on user operations.

Deep learning techniques

In the past, in order to respond to variations in image appearance caused by the capture environment, a single determination model was generated by training a system with face images containing various variations using machine learning. However, the wide range of variations in the way images are taken, depending on the type of forgery, such as a smartphone screen or ID card, complicates the boundary between the real face and the forgery, making it difficult to identify the forgery even with the latest Deep Learning techniques.

Therefore, Fujitsu has developed a technology that can correctly identify counterfeits by generating determination models that reduce the influence of variations by learning the categories of face images that have similar variations, such as face images taken at the office or face images taken by a window.

Counterfeit with machine learning

The development technology steps are divided into a training phase and a judgment phase. In the training phase, face images acquired in various environments are classified into categories such as window, backlight, and normally based on the capture environment, such as the intensity of light and the direction of light.

Next, a judgment model is made for determining whether the target is a real face or a counterfeit with machine learning, using the decision features generated by the forgery feature extraction technology for each category.

Inexpensive spoofing detection

The similarity between the input image and each category is calculated dynamically

In the judgment phase, in order to estimate which of the categories defined in the training phase the input image capture environment is close to, the similarity between the input image and each category is calculated dynamically. Next, in order to emphasize the result of the determination model of the category in which the input image and the environment are close to each other, a value obtained by multiplying the score indicating the authenticity output from each determination model by the weight based on the similarity with each category is used to determine whether or not the object is a fake.

By using these technologies, it becomes possible to identify counterfeits using only the information of face images taken by a general-purpose camera and to realize relatively convenient and inexpensive spoofing detection.

Personal authentication technology

Fujitsu reviewed its own evaluation data set collected in a general office environment or an environment where telework outside the office is assumed and confirmed that spoofing attempts can be detected with the same level of accuracy as before, even when there is no specified movement by a dedicated camera or a user. This makes it possible to prevent unauthorized access at a low cost without sacrificing convenience.

The technology offers the potential to improve security for workers remotely accessing company systems from offsite and to contribute to the digital transformation of operations through the advancement of enhanced personal authentication technology. Fujitsu aims to further improve the accuracy of its forgery detection technology with the aim of putting it into practical use by the end of the fiscal 2020 in March 2021.

Share with LinkedIn Share with Twitter Share with Facebook Share with Facebook
Download PDF version Download PDF version

In case you missed it

Water Plant Attack Emphasizes Cyber’s Impact On Physical Security
Water Plant Attack Emphasizes Cyber’s Impact On Physical Security

At an Oldsmar, Fla., water treatment facility on Feb. 5, an operator watched a computer screen as someone remotely accessed the system monitoring the water supply and increased the amount of sodium hydroxide from 100 parts per million to 11,100 parts per million. The chemical, also known as lye, is used in small concentrations to control acidity in the water. In larger concentrations, the compound is poisonous – the same corrosive chemical used to eat away at clogged drains. The impact of cybersecurity attacks The incident is the latest example of how cybersecurity attacks can translate into real-world, physical security consequences – even deadly ones.Cybersecurity attacks on small municipal water systems have been a concern among security professionals for years. The computer system was set up to allow remote access only to authorized users. The source of the unauthorized access is unknown. However, the attacker was only in the system for 3 to 5 minutes, and an operator corrected the concentration back to 100 parts per million soon after. It would have taken a day or more for contaminated water to enter the system. In the end, the city’s water supply was not affected. There were other safeguards in place that would have prevented contaminated water from entering the city’s water supply, which serves around 15,000 residents. The remote access used for the attack was disabled pending an investigation by the FBI, Secret Service and Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office. On Feb. 2, a compilation of breached usernames and passwords, known as COMB for “Compilation of Many Breaches,” was leaked online. COMB contains 3.2 billion unique email/password pairs. It was later discovered that the breach included the credentials for the Oldsmar water plant. Water plant attacks feared for years Cybersecurity attacks on small municipal water systems have been a concern among security professionals for years. Florida’s Sen. Marco Rubio tweeted that the attempt to poison the water supply should be treated as a “matter of national security.” “The incident at the Oldsmar water treatment plant is a reminder that our nation’s critical infrastructure is continually at risk; not only from nation-state attackers, but also from malicious actors with unknown motives and goals,” comments Mieng Lim, VP of Product Management at Digital Defense Inc., a provider of vulnerability management and threat assessment solutions.The attack on Oldsmar’s water treatment system shows how critical national infrastructure is increasingly becoming a target for hackers as organizations bring systems online “Our dependency on critical infrastructure – power grids, utilities, water supplies, communications, financial services, emergency services, etc. – on a daily basis emphasizes the need to ensure the systems are defended against any adversary,” Mieng Lim adds. “Proactive security measures are crucial to safeguard critical infrastructure systems when perimeter defenses have been compromised or circumvented. We have to get back to the basics – re-evaluate and rebuild security protections from the ground up.” "This event reinforces the increasing need to authenticate not only users, but the devices and machine identities that are authorized to connect to an organization's network,” adds Chris Hickman, Chief Security Officer at digital identity security vendor Keyfactor. “If your only line of protection is user authentication, it will be compromised. It's not necessarily about who connects to the system, but what that user can access once they're inside. "If the network could have authenticated the validity of the device connecting to the network, the connection would have failed because hackers rarely have possession of authorized devices. This and other cases of hijacked user credentials can be limited or mitigated if devices are issued strong, crypto-derived, unique credentials like a digital certificate. In this case, it looks like the network had trust in the user credential but not in the validity of the device itself. Unfortunately, this kind of scenario is what can happen when zero trust is your end state, not your beginning point." “The attack on Oldsmar’s water treatment system shows how critical national infrastructure is increasingly becoming a target for hackers as organizations bring systems online for the first time as part of digital transformation projects,” says Gareth Williams, Vice President - Secure Communications & Information Systems, Thales UK. “While the move towards greater automation and connected switches and control systems brings unprecedented opportunities, it is not without risk, as anything that is brought online immediately becomes a target to be hacked.” Operational technology to mitigate attacks Williams advises organizations to approach Operational Technology as its own entity and put in place procedures that mitigate against the impact of an attack that could ultimately cost lives. This means understanding what is connected, who has access to it and what else might be at risk should that system be compromised, he says. “Once that is established, they can secure access through protocols like access management and fail-safe systems.”  “The cyberattack against the water supply in Oldsmar should come as a wakeup call,” says Saryu Nayyar, CEO, Gurucul.  “Cybersecurity professionals have been talking about infrastructure vulnerabilities for years, detailing the potential for attacks like this, and this is a near perfect example of what we have been warning about,” she says.  Although this attack was not successful, there is little doubt a skilled attacker could execute a similar infrastructure attack with more destructive results, says Nayyar. Organizations tasked with operating and protecting critical public infrastructure must assume the worst and take more serious measures to protect their environments, she advises. Fortunately, there were backup systems in place in Oldsmar. What could have been a tragedy instead became a cautionary tale. Both physical security and cybersecurity professionals should pay attention.

What Are The Positive And Negative Effects Of COVID-19 To Security?
What Are The Positive And Negative Effects Of COVID-19 To Security?

The COVID-19 global pandemic had a life-changing impact on all of us in 2020, including a multi-faceted jolt on the physical security industry. With the benefit of hindsight, we can now see more clearly the exact nature and extent of that impact. And it’s not over yet: The pandemic will continue to be top-of-mind in 2021. We asked this week’s Expert Panel Roundtable: What have been the positive and negative effects of Covid-19 on the physical security industry in 2020? What impact will it have on 2021?

Expert Roundup: Healthy Buildings, Blockchain, AI, Skilled Workers, And More
Expert Roundup: Healthy Buildings, Blockchain, AI, Skilled Workers, And More

Our Expert Panel Roundtable is an opinionated group. However, for a variety of reasons, we are sometimes guilty of not publishing their musings in a timely manner. At the end of 2020, we came across several interesting comments among those that were previously unpublished. Following is a catch-all collection of those responses, addressing some of the most current and important issues in the security marketplace in 2021.