Skip to main content

Voice Biometrics: Advantages and Disadvantages

Pros:
Less prone to compromise: Contrary to PIN/ Passwords storages compromised and stolen and replayed, the voice prints can not be replayed. Thus a compromised voiceprint is unusable for account access.
Anti reversing: A voiceprint is a hashed string of numbers and characters that represent how a specific individual’s voice rates on the myriad of characteristics being measured Also, it’s not possible to reverse engineer it to recover someone’s voice.
Proactive detection of known fraudsters: Each time a fraudster speaks within an IVR or to a contact center agent, the fraudster leaves his/her voiceprint in the same way that our fingers leave fingerprints when we touch an object. This enables an organization to create and store voiceprints of known fraudsters.
Non guessable: A voice is unique to the individual. It can’t be guessed unlike PINs or passwords.
Cost effective: The cost of implementation is low because there is no special hardware required. A simple telephone or microphone is all that a user needs to authenticate using her voice. Other methods of biometric authentication like fingerprinting and retinal scans require special devices.
Ease of usability: Most important to the future of voice biometrics is that it is the only biometric that allows users to authenticate remotely.
Quick enrollment: It is quick to enroll in a voice authentication system. The user is asked to speak a certain set of words or phrases, or to speak for a certain length of time.
Fast: Authentication is very fast; it can be completed in 0.5 seconds.
Less storage size: Another advantage is that the storage size of the voiceprint is small.

Cons:
Relatively low security: The biggest disadvantage is the replay attack. Hackers might attempt to gain unauthorized access to a voice authenticated system by playing back a pre-recorded voice sample from an authorized user. Need to implement proper anti-replay/ spoofing measures.

Low accurate: Person voice change, the difference in speaking instruments etc can affect the recognition. Compared to that other forms of biometrics such as retinal or fingerprint scans are more accurate and less prone to change.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ardilla- New tool for finding SQL Injection and XSS

Three Researchers -- MIT's Adam Kiezun , Stanford's Philip Guo , and Syracuse University's Karthick Jayaraman -- has developed a new tool ' Ardilla ' that automatically finds and exploits SQL injection and cross-site scripting vulnerabilities in Web applications. It creates inputs that pinpoint bugs in Web applications and then generates SQL injection and XSS attacks. But for now Ardilla is for PHP -based Web app only. The researchers say Ardilla found 68 never-before found vulnerabilities in five different PHP applications using the tool -- 23 SQL injection and 45 XSS flaws. More information is awaited. For their attack generation techniques refer to their document at: http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/mernst/pubs/create-attacks-tr054.pdf

Combining power of Fiddler with Burp

Both are pretty powerful tools when it comes to intercept and modify http communications. But at some point of time, they become even more powerful combo if tied with each other. They complement each other. In a recent pentest I came across a similar situation where in Burp was not able to intercept a specific kind of traffic and Fiddler came to rescue. The application was designed to upload video. The initial communication was straight forward, I mean logging into application, filling up the video details etc. And all these were easily captured by Burp except the point where you hit the Upload Video and it connects to a different server and surprisingly it was not captured by Burp, not sure why, even after repeated attempts. So, I fired Fiddler to see if the it sees this request. But it's a;ways to play with requests using Burp due to it's various functionalities like, Intruder, Repeaters etc. But it was necessary to capture this request in Burp. So the below steps can be

File Upload through Null Byte Injection

Sometimes, during file upload we come across situation wherein there would be check on the file extension at the client side as well as server side too. If the application does allow only .jpeg extension to be uploaded, the client side java script checks for the extension of the file before passing the request. We all know that how easily this can be defeated. Some applications, checks for the extension at the server side also. That's not easy to bypass. However there are some ways with which it still can be bypassed. Most of server side scripts are written in high level languages such as Php, Java etc who still use some C/C++ libraries to read the file name and contents. That leads to the problem. In C/C++ a line ends with /00 or which is called Null Byte. So whenever the interpreter sees a null byte at the end of the a string, it stops reading thinking it has reached at the end of the string. This can be used for the bypass. It works for many servers, specially php servers. T