Targeted Mimicry Attacks on Touch Input Based Implicit Authentication Schemes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Touch input implicit authentication (``touch IA'') employs behavioural biometrics like touch location and pressure to continuously and transparently authenticate smartphone users. We provide the first ever evaluation of targeted mimicry attacks on touch IA and show that it fails against shoulder surfing and offline training attacks. Based on experiments with three diverse touch IA schemes and 256 unique attacker-victim pairs, we show that shoulder surfing attacks have a bypass success rate of 84% with the majority of successful attackers observing the victim's behaviour for less than two minutes. Therefore, the accepted assumption that shoulder surfing attacks on touch IA are infeasible due to the hidden nature of some features is incorrect. For offline training attacks, we created an open-source training app for attackers to train on their victims' touch data. With this training, attackers achieved bypass success rates of 86%, even with only partial knowledge of the underlying features used by the IA scheme. Previous work failed to find these severe vulnerabilities due to its focus on random, non-targeted attacks. Our work demonstrates the importance of considering targeted mimicry attacks to evaluate the security of an implicit authentication scheme. Based on our results, we conclude that touch IA is unsuitable from a security standpoint.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".