Previous studies have shown that commonly studied (vanilla) implementations of touch-based continuous authentication systems (V-TCAS) are susceptible to active adversarial attempts. This study presents a novel Generative Adversarial Network assisted TCAS (G-TCAS) framework and compares it to the V-TCAS under three active adversarial environments viz. Zero-effort, Population, and Random-vector. The Zero-effort environment was implemented in two variations viz. Zero-effort (same-dataset) and Zero-effort (cross-dataset). The first involved a Zero-effort attack from the same dataset, while the second used three different datasets. G-TCAS showed more resilience than V-TCAS under the Population and Random-vector, the more damaging adversarial scenarios than the Zero-effort. On average, the increase in the false accept rates (FARs) for V-TCAS was much higher (27.5% and 21.5%) than for G-TCAS (14% and 12.5%) for Population and Random-vector attacks, respectively. Moreover, we performed a fairness analysis of TCAS for different genders and found TCAS to be fair across genders. The findings suggest that we should evaluate TCAS under active adversarial environments and affirm the usefulness of GANs in the TCAS pipeline.
翻译:以往的研究显示,通常研究过(香草)的连续认证系统(V-TCAS)的实施容易发生积极的对抗性尝试。本研究展示了一个新型的创性反差网络(G-TCAS)协助的TCAS(G-TCAS)框架,并将其与三种活跃的对抗环境(即Zero-forort、人口和随机矢量)下的V-TCAS(V-TCAS)相比,V-TCAS(V-TCAS)比V-TCAS(VO-fort、人口和随机矢量)更具弹性的V-TCAS(V)框架进行比较。平均而言,V-TCAS(S)和Zero-fort(交叉数据集)的虚假接受率(FARs)比G-TCAS(交叉数据集)高得多(27.5%和21.5%)。第一个涉及同一数据集的Zero-fort攻击,而第二个使用了三种不同的数据集。G-TCAS显示比V-TCAS(14%和12.5 %)的可靠性分析。