Sensory leverages voice, facial biometrics in TrulySecure 2.0 on-device authentication solution
What is in this article?
Sensory leverages voice, facial biometrics in TrulySecure 2.0 on-device authentication solution
TrulySecure 2.0 is the first face-and-voice solution to be certified by the FIDO (Fast IDentity Online) Alliance, Mozer said.
“It’s a real nice solution today with convenience for reasonable accuracy, and we do layer voice on top to get the best accuracy,” he said. “And, when we put face and voice together, it’s better than fingerprint, and it’s way better than a PIN code.”
Sensory was able to improve its facial technology with the release of TrulySecure 1.0, which included an agreement that let users download the application for free in return for allowing Sensory to access “tens of millions” of user images from myriad devices in different environments, Mozer said. These images were used for testing purposes to determine the security and accuracy of the facial technology that has been implemented in TrulySecure 2.0, he said.
“The error rate for both voice and face has dropped about 90% from 1.0 to 2.0—and they were really good in 1.0,” Mozer said. “In 2.0, we’re really pushing the state of the art forward in embedded devices.”
This approach captured the attention of Darrell Geusz, founder of the ID Trust Network and veteran identity subject matter expert.
“We recently assessed Sensory’s TrulySecure 2.0 technology and accredited Sensory’s testing results for enrollment and verification, and were left very impressed,” Geusz said in a prepared statement. “Sensory’s implementation of multiple techniques for combining different biometric modalities delivers high accuracy and novel user flexibility.
“We were very pleased that Sensory’s testing incorporated a large set of real-world data collected from a much larger variety of devices and uncontrollable operating environments. This really sets Sensory apart from their competition, and allows us to confidently say that Sensory meets or exceeds industry requirement for biometric accuracy.”
Criminals would be
Criminals would be pleased.
Whether face, iris, fingerprint, typing, gesture, heartbeat or brainwave, biometric authentication could be a candidate for displacing the password if/when (only if/when) it has stopped depending on a password to be registered in case of false rejection while keeping the near-zero false acceptance.
Threats that can be thwarted by biometric products operated together with fallback/backup passwords can be thwarted more securely by passwords alone. We could be certain that biometrics would help for better security only when it is operated together with another factor by AND/Conjunction (we need to go through both of the two), not when operated with another factor by OR/Disjunction (we need only to go through either one of the two) as in the cases of Touch ID and many other biometric products on the market that require a backup/fallback password, which only increase the convenience by bringing down the security.
In short, biometric solutions could be recommended to the people who want convenience but should not be recommended to those who need security.