MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908940463 · doi:10.1002/spy2.48

Multimodal mobile keystroke dynamics biometrics combining fixed and variable passwords

2019· article· en· W2908940463 on OpenAlexaff
Faisal Alshanketi, Issa Traoré, Ahmed Awad

Bibliographic record

VenueSecurity and Privacy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUser Authentication and Security Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersJazan University
KeywordsPasswordKeystroke dynamicsBiometricsComputer scienceKeystroke loggingComputer securityLoginLeverage (statistics)Artificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionS/KEY

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent works have demonstrated the possibility to craft successful statistical attacks against keystroke dynamic biometric password. Those attacks leverage the possibility to capture several keystroke dynamics samples for a given password string, and then extract and use their distributional properties to craft the attack. These approaches are by design more likely to be successful when launched against fixed passwords, as several samples of the passwords can be captured through successive login sessions. Although the dynamics obtained from specific keys or key sequences for consecutive passwords slightly vary, by definition the distributional properties remain fairly stable for the same user. One way to thwart such that attack to use a variable password, also know as one‐time password (OTP). However, the fact that the keystroke dynamic OTP is different from one session to the other, makes it extremely difficult to reconstruct a valid biometric profile for a user. Modeling accurate keystroke dynamic OTP is challenging, due to the underlying variability and the sparse amount of information involved. We tackle the aformentioned challenge by presenting, in this paper, by presenting a multimodal approach tat combines fixed and variable keystroke dynamic biometric passwords. We investigate two different fusion models and evaluate our approach using a data set involving 100 different users, yielding encouraging performance results in terms of accuracy and resistance against statistical attacks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSecurity and PrivacySame topicUser Authentication and Security SystemsFrench-language works237,207