Skip to main content

Vulnerabilities in Voice Biometrics

The following vulnerabilities are found in voice biometrics:

Replay: The biggest concern 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.

Voiceprint re-enrollment (Social Engineering): The malicious user claims to the contact center agent that they are unable to authenticate with their voice, and that their voiceprint needs to be re-enrolled. If the agent complies, a fraudster can be enrolled in the system and be provided with access to a legitimate account.

Brute Force attack: This attack consists of a fraudster calling the IVR or call center numerous times until their voice is mistakenly accepted by the voice biometric system as belonging to a legitimate account holder. Vulnerability testing conducted on deployed voice biometric systems indicates that the rate of a success of a brute force attack is between 0.1% and 0.5%.

Mitigation:

Replay attacks-

Any voice identification solution needs to include measures to detect replay attacks.
 -Voice biometrics should be able to tell the differences between real and fake users
-Anti-spoofing is the key.
-Challenge Response Mechanism

Text-Prompted Authentication: In text-prompted mode users enroll by repeating a set keywords (digits, places, names, etc). Verification requires the user to repeat a randomly generated sequence of a subset of those keywords. This mitigates the above threat, as the fraudster will not have a recording of the legitimate account holder’s voice speaking the random passphrase.
Text-Dependent Authentication with A Passphrase: Rather than having a universal phrase that an attacker can easily gain knowledge of, users can enroll with their own secret phrase. Users are then responsible for keeping their phrase secret (and remembering it). The system does not prompt the user to speak the specific phrase. Instead it asks them simply to repeat their secret phrase, making it difficult for an attacker to know what set of words to record to execute a replay attack.

Voice re-enrollment-
An agent can verify that the caller has recently enrolled and has not been able to verify. A caller that requests a voice biometric re-enrollment that has successfully authenticated previously is most likely either a fraudster, or does not need to be re-enrolled.

Brute force-
Very similar to classic brute force attack: Block the caller after pre-determined unsuccessful login attempts. If there are three concurrent failed authentication attempts on a single account, that account can be locked to minimize the probability of a successful attack.


Comments

giaonhan247 said…
Thanks for sharing, nice post! Post really provice useful information!

An Thái Sơn chia sẻ trẻ sơ sinh nằm nôi điện có tốt không hay võng điện có tốt không và giải đáp cục điện đưa võng giá bao nhiêu cũng như mua máy đưa võng ở tphcm địa chỉ ở đâu uy tín.

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