This paper is a post-preprint; it has been accepted for publication in: INC 2020: 12th International Network Conference

2020, Rhodes, Greece, 19-21 September 2020, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-64758-2_3

A Novel Multimodal Biometric Authentication

System using Machine Learning and
Blockchain

Richard Brown1, Gueltoum Bendiab2, Stavros Shiaeles2, and Bogdan Ghita1

1 CSCAN, University of Plymouth, PL4 8AA, Plymouth, UK
[email protected], [email protected]
2 Cyber Security Research Group, University of
Portsmouth, PO1 2UP, Portsmouth, UK
[email protected], [email protected]

Abstract. Secure user authentication has become an important issue in modern society as in many
consumer applications, especially financial transactions, it is extremely important to prove the identity of the
user. In this context, biometric authentication methods that rely on physical and behavioural characteristics
have been proposed as an alternative for convolutional systems that rely on simple passwords, Personal
Identification Number or tokens. However, in real-world applications, authentication systems that involve a
single biometric faced many issues, especially lack accuracy and noisy data, which boost the research
community to create multibiometric systems that involve a variety of biometrics. Those systems provide
better performance and higher accuracy compared to other authentication methods. However, most of them
are inconvenient and requires complex interactions from the user. Thus, in this paper, we present a
multimodal authentication system that relies on machine learning and blockchain, intending to provide a
more reliable, transparent, and convenient authentication mechanism. The proposed system combines two
important biometrics: fingerprint and face with age, and gender features. The supervised learning algorithm
Decision Tree has been used to combine the results of the biometrics verification process and produce a
confidence level related to the user. The initial experimental results show the efficiency and robustness of
the proposed systems.

Keywords: Authentication · Machine Learning · Blockchain · Multi-modal · Security

1. Introduction
Currently, user authentication has become one of the greatest challenges facing the digital world.
Traditional authentication methods that rely on tokens, password, and Personal Identification Number
(PIN) are gradually becoming obsolete [6]. In fact, tokens, and PIN/Passwords o er limited protection
and can be easily lost, stolen, forgotten, guessed, or compromised [7, 19]. In this context, the last report
by the World Economic Forum [24] revealed that 80% of security breaches, in 2020, are perpetrated
from weak and stolen passwords. Moreover, the report a rms that, for companies, 50% of IT help desk
costs are allocated to passwords resets, with average annual spend over $1 million for staffing alone
[24]. These shortcomings have led to biometric authentication becoming the focus of the research
community in last years. It refers to the technology that identifies and authenticate individuals in a fast
and secure way through the use of unique behavioural and biological characteristics like , hand
geometry, vein, face, iris, voice, palm, DNA, etc [7]. This technology has quickly established itself as an
alternative to Personal Identification Number (PIN), to-kens and Passwords for various reasons [1].
Biometrics are unique for individuals and almost impossible to replicate or forge [19], which provides
superior accuracy and prevent unauthorised access from those who may have the means to steal
passwords or PINs [1, 7]. Also, Biometric authentication offers convenience, accountability, and
reduces the overall administrative costs by eliminating the time consuming to reset passwords [7].
Moreover, they are resistant to social engineering attacks, especially phishing attacks.
Biometric technology has been considered by the research community as the most reliable and safe
method for individuals’ authentication and several biometric systems based on common biological and
behavioural characteristics (e.g., fingerprint, face, iris, handwriting, palm, keystroke, etc.) have been
developed during last decades [11, 19]. As shown in Figure 1, all biometric systems fellow the same
process. First, a biometric system (e.g., fingerprint scanner, digital camera for face, etc.) is used to
capture and records a specific trait of the user. The collected biometrics are examined and converted
to a template that can be stored in a database, or a smart card [11]. This step is called enrolment. Then,

1
This paper is a post-preprint; it has been accepted for publication in: INC 2020: 12th International Network Conference
2020, Rhodes, Greece, 19-21 September 2020, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-64758-2_3

each time the user request access to the system, presented biometric values are compared against
these in the stored template. This verification process generates a matching score that designates the
degree of similarity between the two biometrics data. The resulting score should be high for legitimate
users and low for those from different ones. Based on the obtained matching score (i.e., confidence
level), legitimate users are allowed access to the system, while the impostors are rejected. In this step,
a biometric sensor is used to extract the trait being used for identification.
In real-world applications, biometric authentication systems which involve one single biometric trait for
enrolment and verification are facing a variety of problems such as lack of accuracy due to noisy data,
spoof attacks, non-universality, lack of uniqueness, etc [7]. To address these limitations, many
multimodal biometric systems that combine more than one physiological and/or behavioural biometrics
have been proposed. [7, 11]. Usually, these systems in-volve a variety of biometrics that are fused,
normalised, and fed into a machine learning classifier to drive a decision [17]. This led to a highly
accurate, secure authentication system. They also provide better performance compared with unimodal
systems. However, most existing multimodal biometric systems are inconvenient and relied-heavily
user interaction to authenticate.

Fig. 1. Biometric authentication process [15]

In order to fulfil the objectives of a more secure, and transparent authentication mechanism, this paper
introduces a novel system for individual identity management that uses multimodal biometric
authentication system with machine learning and blockchain. The multimodal biometric system
combines four different features for enrolment, identification, and verification. The biometrics are , facial.
While age and gender features are driven from the facial biometrics. This will increase the authentication
security and overcome the limitations of unimodal systems. Based on the outputs of the biometrics
verification process, the supervised learning algorithm decision tree is used to identify a confidence
level related to the user.
This confidence level should be high enough to allow the user accessing the protected resources on
the web server (i.e., Service Provider). Whereas the blockchain is used to store user details and key
data that can be used by the ser-vice provider (i.e., the web server) and the identity provider (i.e., BCA
server) to encrypt/decrypt the user access token. Further, compared to other multi modal mechanisms,
the proposed system minimises the total amount of interaction re-quired for identification and
authentication. The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 2 gives an overview of bio-metric
authentication systems, Section 3 describes the general architecture of the proposed methodology used
to ensure the user identity during time, while section 4. Finally, section 5 presents the conclusions of
this work and proposes future work.

2
This paper is a post-preprint; it has been accepted for publication in: INC 2020: 12th International Network Conference
2020, Rhodes, Greece, 19-21 September 2020, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-64758-2_3

2. Related work
In last years, biometric authentication has become crucial, especially in security and privacy preserving
applications such as, financial transactions, surveillance system, visa processing, critical environments
and so on. However, due to the inherent limitations within each biometric, no single biometric method
is able to achieve a high precision and reliability of individuals authentication [23]. Thus, in highly critical
applications, a single biometric may not be sufficient to guarantee security, but it may be necessary to
perform strong authentication by combining several biometrics [22, 23]. In this context, several
multibiometric systems based on conventional physical and behavioural characteristics such as
fingerprint and iris have been developed in present time. This combination of multiple biometrics is
commonly referred to as multimodal biometrics authentication. In these systems, biometrics are
combined using machine learning algorithms to generate a confidence level, which will be used to either
allow or deny access to the re-quested resources. One of the first multimodal biometrics systems was
proposed by Clark NL [3], using a combination of secret knowledge and biometric-based techniques to
create an Intelligent Authentication Management System (IAMS). This method used a confidence level,
which continuously updated to control the user access to protected resources. This can help in
countering the increasing vulnerability of traditional knowledge-based techniques. Our system shares
many aspects with this proposal in regard to the confidence level and the use of multiple authentication
techniques. With the main goal of creating a system that is robust, secure and does not interfere with
the convenience of users.
In a previous work [18], face and speaker recognition modalities are used in a serial mode, where the
output of one biometric modality is used to reduce the number of possible individuals that will be
checked with the second biometric. Final decision is given by the second biometric from the reduced
subset of individuals. This method achieved a low False Rejection Rate (FRR) (3.9%), how-ever, the
time consumption is important compared to the fusion method. Thus, most recent multimodal biometric
systems have been used the fusion method to combine the features obtained from multiple biometrics.
In this context, the fusion has been applied at three different levels: at the features level, at the score
matching level or at the decision level. For instance, the multibiometric approach proposed by A.
Tharwat et all [22], has been explored two different fusion methods: fusion at the image level and a
multilevel fusion method to combined ear and finger knuckle biometrics. The experimental results
showed that the fusion at the image level can improve the overall performance of the authentication
system. This method combines the ear and finger knuckle images before extracting the features that
will be used by the classification module to produce an abstract value or rank. Authors highlighted that
there are several methods for successfully implement a multimodal system, although the paper does
not cover how the user is expected to communicate with the system. In addition, having a user take an
image of their knuckles and ear is not a user-friendly approach.
In a recent work, J. Peng et al [18] have been proposed a multibiometric authentication system that
combines four finger biometric traits: finger vein, fingerprint, finger shape and finger knuckle print. A
score-level fusion method has been used to produce the overall score or confidence level of the target
user based on triangular norm. The experimental results showed that the used fusion method obtained
a larger distance between honest and imposter score distribution as well as achieves lower error rates.
In more recent work [10], T. Joseph et al have been proposed a multimodal authentication system by
fusing the feature points of fingerprint, iris and palm print biometrics. After fusing the features extracted
from these biometric modalities, a secret key is generated in two stages and converted into a hash
value using MD-5 hashing algorithm. A novel feature-level fusion method has been proposed by Asst.
Prof. Masen M et al to combine face and iris features [16]. First, the face and iris traits are extracted
independently using 2D wavelet transform and 2D Gabor filters, respectively. After that, the proposed
fusion method is applied by using both canonical correlation and serial concatenation. Then, the deep
belief network is used for the verification process. This approach has been validated on the
SDUMLAHMT database [16] and achieved an overall recognition accuracy up to 99%. However, the
Equal Error Rate (EER) and fusion time are important in comparison with other systems. Many other
multibiometric authentication systems have been proposed in last years by using different biometrics
and different fusion methods [9, 12, 20], however, most of them are inconvenient and relied heavily on
user interaction to authenticate.

3
This paper is a post-preprint; it has been accepted for publication in: INC 2020: 12th International Network Conference
2020, Rhodes, Greece, 19-21 September 2020, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-64758-2_3

3. Proposed approach
This section presents the detail about the proposed multimodal biometric system for individual’s
authentication using machine learning and blockchain. As shown in Figure 2, the authentication process
involves three entities: the user, the Service Provider (i.e., web or resource server) and the Identity
Provider (i.e., Biometric Confidence Authentication (BCA) server). The BCA server is responsible on
the enrolment, identification, and verification of the user biometrics along with his level of confidence. It
provides Single Sign-On (SSO) for multiple web applications. Users can monitor their confidence level
and submit biometrics through a web interface (i.e., client) provide by the BCA server.
For accessing protected resources hosted by a resource server, the user must first obtain an access
token from his BCA server with which he is registered. Thus, he provides his fresh biometric traits
(through the sensor) together with his identity. These two bits of information are then re ned by the
sensor and sent to the BCA server for attestation. The BCA server queries the Database for the stored
template associated with the user ID and compares it with the received one. If the templates are close
enough the user will have a higher confidence level, otherwise, he will have a lower confidence level. If
the obtained confidence level is lower than a predefined threshold, the user is rejected, otherwise, the
BCA server generates an access token with the obtained confidence level of the user. After receiving
the user access token, the resource server decrypts it by using the blockchain and check the confidence
level of this user. If the confidence level is higher enough, based on its local security policy, the resource
server provides the requested resource to the user, otherwise, the user request is rejected.

Fig. 2. High level architecture of the proposed system.

A. Biometrics acquisition
The proposed multimodal biometric system integrates Tow main biometrics: fingerprint, face, and two
other features: age, and gender. The fingerprint is the most successful and popular pattern that has
been used for individual’s identification and verification [11]. are unique and do not change in time.
Their uniqueness is identified by the ridge’s structures on the inner surface of a finger or a thumb. The
ridges have unique local patterns, called minutiae, which have been widely used by forensic experts to
match two fingerprints [2, 21]. Ridge ending and ridge bifurcation are the most used patterns by
automatic fingerprint recognition systems. A ridge ending refers to the point where a ridge ends [3, 11],
while a ridge bifurcation is a point where the ridge diverges into branch ridges [11]. Grayscale image,
phase image, skeleton image, and minutiae are the commonly used fingerprint representation schemes
in most fingerprint recognition systems [2]. In our system, the overall process of capturing the n-ger
sample from the user takes four scans of the finger, then, the minutiae data is extracted from the
Fingerprint Image Data (FID) into a template called Fingerprint Minutiae Data (FMD). The FMD is used
for comparison within the system. The main reason for choosing FMD is that the original FID cannot be
retrieved from the FMD as it is a one-way process.
The Facial Biometric is also known as the most distinctive key attributes for biometric authentication
due to their uniqueness and robustness [13]. This technology is usually based on measurement of the
facial features like mouth, eyes, nose, lips, and the face structure [13]. In this context, several

4
This paper is a post-preprint; it has been accepted for publication in: INC 2020: 12th International Network Conference
2020, Rhodes, Greece, 19-21 September 2020, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-64758-2_3

techniques can be used to extract relevant features from the face image like colour analysis and neural
network. In this paper, we have used the robust and fast technique Luxand FaceSDK to handle the
facial biometrics extraction. Luxand FaceSDK is cross-platform face detection and recognition library
that provides the coordinates of over 70 facial feature points including eyes, mouth, eyebrows, nose
and face contours [5]. During the enrolment phase, an image of the user is taken, and the minutiae data
is extracted using Luxand SDK into a template that will be saved along with the user finger template.
The facial template cannot be reversed and can only be used for comparison.
As additional features, age and gender are extracted from the submitted facial image and analysed by
using the Digital Persona SDK, which returns a confidence level. For instance, age result would be
‘Male: 96.9999% and Female: 3.0001%’. Then, the age result is compared against the user’s gender
from the database and normalised in order to be consumed by the machine learning algorithm. The
finger and facial templates generated in the enrolment phase are saved in a MySQL database, while
the age and gender data do not need to be stored as they can be extracted on the y. Along with those
features, some other information related to the user is also saved like his identifier, name, and
privileges. All communications to the MySQL database are done through an ASP Web 2.0 API that was
developed throughout this work.
During the verification phase, the extracted facial and finger samples of each user are used for matching
with those stored in MySQL database during the enrolment phase. The obtained similarity results are
tested against a set of predefined thresholds. If the similarity values are greater than the predefined
thresholds, then the comparison process returns the Boolean value \true", otherwise, it returns \false".
In this step, the results from the verification and matching pro-cesses are different, some provide
Boolean outputs depending on thresholds like the finger and facial biometrics matching, while other
results are provided as per-centages like the age and gender identification. Therefore, the obtained
results should be normalised before they can be used by the machine learning module (see Figure 3).
For that, the collected results for age and gender features are also examined against thresholds, if their
values are greater than the thresholds then, the result is \true", otherwise, it is \false".
The use of multimodal biometrics needs that the outcomes from multiple sources are combined to
produce one result. Then the obtained result is used to figure out whether the acquired biometrics data
represent a legitimate user or not. A variety of methods are available for the integration, however, in
the proposed system, we will use a decision- level fusion method by using the supervised learning
algorithms Decision Tree (DT) to integrate the normalised results from the four modalities and drive the
confidence level related to the user. DT is a powerful and attractive approach for classification and
prediction. Unlike other supervised learning algorithms, the DT has the ability to understand the given
inputs and return a valuable result within a short space of time. In addition, it does not need extensive
learning period compared to other methods like Neural Networks (NNs). The structure of a decision
tree begins with a root node which branches out to children nodes or decision nodes, each node
represents an input for the decision tree. Each children node has leaf nodes (or terminal nodes) that
are the values for each of those inputs. DT predicts the value of a target variable by learning simple
decision rules inferred from the data features.

Fig. 3. Normalisation Diagram.

5
This paper is a post-preprint; it has been accepted for publication in: INC 2020: 12th International Network Conference
2020, Rhodes, Greece, 19-21 September 2020, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-64758-2_3

The DT decision process is separated into two main steps. The first step is the training phase, where
the DT is constructed and learned its training data to understand how to interpret the inputs. In the
second step, the normalised inputs will be fed into the decision tree to drive a decision or a confidence
percentage. This value represents the confidence level associated with the user, which will be used to
update the user’s confidence by adjusting the obtained confidence value directly via a connection to
MySQL database. The value of this attribute is then used to produce the confidence level of the target
user and decide whether to give him access to the protected resources or not. If the user does not
obtain the required confidence level, he cannot access the protected resources hosted by the
webserver.
The required confidence level is de ned by the resource server based on its local security policy. For
the decision process, the biometrics were weighted as follow, finger and facial samples are weighted
at 40% and age and gender are weighted at 10%.

Fig. 4. Decision Tree Architecture.

B. Blockchain
The emergence of Bitcoin has highlighted the benefits of applying blockchain to the areas of identity
management due to its decentralised, fault-tolerant and transparent structure that can ensure trust
among different parties without re-lying on specific trusted, central authorities [8]. The blockchain is an
encrypted ledger that is distributed and replicated among the nodes of a peer-to-peer network. It
contains a linear sequence of chained blocks that can generate trust without external trusted authority.
This makes it di cult to compromise the integrity of their records without being identified by the entire
network, and render massive data breaches very di cult, if not theoretically impossible [4, 8]. All these
characteristics were contributed to the rise of many promising and innovative blockchain-based identity
management solutions [14].
In this work, the blockchain consists of a number of participating resource servers and BCA servers and
it is used as a public shared ledger to store user de-tails and key data in the form of transactions. The
key data stored in transactions is used by the BCA servers and untrusted resource servers to
encrypt/decrypt the users ’access tokens and prove their authenticity. Each transaction contains the
user’s ID, timestamp, Key, start date, end date, and previous block hash. A new transaction is created
and added to the chain when a new user is enrolled in the system. The BCA server does the mining for
the block on creation to avoid clients having to do intensive processing to preserve the user experience.
The resource server can use the blockchain to decrypt the access token sent by the user and check if
his confidence level is higher than the predefined threshold.

6
This paper is a post-preprint; it has been accepted for publication in: INC 2020: 12th International Network Conference
2020, Rhodes, Greece, 19-21 September 2020, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-64758-2_3

4. Experimental analysis
In this section, we present the experiments carried out over the proposed identity management system
in order to demonstrate its effectiveness and reliability.

A. Experiment Setup
As shown in Figure 5, the simulation experiments were performed on a client/server environment based
on the Microsoft. NET technology, where each entity is deployed in a separate VM. The overall process
of capturing the finger samples from the users is performed using the Fingerprint Reader Software
\DigitalPersona 4500", while the facial samples have been captured using \Luxand SDK" library. Then,
the templates generated from the enrolment phase are stored in MySQL database, where a BLOB eld
is created for each type of templates. All communications to the database were done through an ASP
Web 2.0 API that was developed in this work. The machine learning component was implemented using
the Accord Framework for .NET. This framework allows a smooth implementation of the DT learning
algorithm on the BCA Server compared to PyTorch. Unlike other learning algorithms, DT does not
require intensive training and make quick decisions, which is very important for the performance of the
authentication system. The blockchain has been implemented using Microsoft. NET framework.
In this work, a user-friendly GUI has been added to provide a dashboard that can be used by
administrators for controlling users, viewing analytical data, and managing predefined thresholds on the
BCA system (see Figure 6). The GUI has been implemented using the Bootstrap framework 4 which
provides a quick and customised design of more professional web interface with HTML5.

Fig. 5. Implemented technologies for the simulation experiments.

Fig. 6. BCA server dashboard.

7
This paper is a post-preprint; it has been accepted for publication in: INC 2020: 12th International Network Conference
2020, Rhodes, Greece, 19-21 September 2020, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-64758-2_3

B. Discussion and Results

Thresholds values and accuracy for testing the efficiency and performance of the proposed
authentication system, several experiments have been carried out to identify the suitable thresholds
values that can o er a balance between the system performance and accuracy. Therefore, the thresholds
values for the fingerprint and facial biometrics are set using the recommended SDK threshold values,
which provides numerical values of the threshold for setting the False Positive Identification Rates
(FPIRs) and False Acceptance Rate (FAR). FAR (also referred to as \Type II error") is the rate of frauds
that were incorrectly identified over the total examined samples [25]. FAC is a critical biometric security
error as it provides illegal users access to the system. Thus, it must be decreased to the minimum
possible.
FPIR (also referred to as \Type I error") is the ratio of the test cases that are classified above a threshold
\T" (True) over the total tested samples. The threshold "T" is used to classify samples to be either a
correct (true or positive) or false (negative). If the sample is below a threshold "T" then it is classified
false (negative), otherwise, it is classified true (positive). Table 1 shows the thresholds for the fingerprint
biometric and their relationship with the FPIRs. In our system, we select the threshold value 21474,
which gives FPIR of .001% along with an expected number of FP of 1 in 100,000 identifications. The
rate of FPI can be reduced more, however, this can increase the authentication problems for legitimate
users. For example, if their fingers are sweaty, greasy, or slightly damaged, this will prevent them from
accessing the system due to the authentication failures.

For the facial thresholds, the False Acceptance Rate (FAR), when the system incorrectly identifying an
unauthorized person, depends on the threshold value and the total memory limit set on the capture. The
higher the memory limit, the higher the false acceptance rate. FAR is also considered the most serious
of biometric security errors as it may give impostors access to the system. Table 2 shows the relationship
between the thresholds, the memory limit, and the FAR. In our system, the memory limit is set to 1024
MO for a facial template with a threshold of 0.992 and a FAR around 0.0002%, which is considered
acceptable because it is used in combination with other biometrics. With the proposed thresholds the
authentication system achieved high accuracy values ranging from 0.99% to 100%, with FAR of
0.0002% for facial biometric and FPIR of 0.001% for fingerprint.

Table 1. Finger Thresholds and their Relation to FP Identification Rates

Thresholds Corresponding Expected number of Numeric value

\T" FPIRs FP identifications of the threshold
\T"
.001*maxint .1% 1 in 1,000 2147483
.0001*maxint .01% 1 in 10,000 214748
.00001*maxint .001% 1 in 100,000 21474
1.0e-6*maxint .0001% 1 in 1,000.000 2147

Table 2. Facial Thresholds and their relationship with FARs and Memory Limits

Thresholds Memory limits (MO)

350 700 1750 3500 5250 7500
0.992,000 0.000,041 0.000,114 0.000,703 0.001,287 0.001,938 0.002,475
0.993,141 0.000,035 0.000,104 0.000,519 0.001,099 0.001,744 0.002,010
0.994,283 0.000,031 0.000,095 0.000,462 0.000,882 0.001,377 0.001,574
0.995,424 0.000,013 0.000,054 0.000,304 0.000,646 0.000,953 0.001,212
0.996,566 0.000,013 0.000,045 0.000,211 0.000,458 0.000,700 0.000,812
0.997,707 0.000,009 0.000,038 0.000,146 0.000,314 0.000,435 0.000,566
0.988,849 0.000,006 0.000,006 0.000,066 0.000,161 0.000,276 0.000,327
0.999,990 0.000,000 0.000,003 0.000,000 0.000,003 0.000,013 0.000,022

8
This paper is a post-preprint; it has been accepted for publication in: INC 2020: 12th International Network Conference
2020, Rhodes, Greece, 19-21 September 2020, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-64758-2_3

Confidence level Several experiments were performed on the proposed authentication system by
considering a real-world case in which the right permissions and identity of six users have been checked.
The biometrics matching results are processed by the trained learning algorithm in order to provide the
overall confidence level of the user at each authentication transaction. The overall threshold for the
confidence level is set to 80%. This value means that at one of the less weighted features (Ager or
gender) is not true. Table 3 presents the data used for training the DT learning algorithm.

Table 3. Training data for the DT learning algorithm

Finger Face Gender Age Confidence Level

True True True True 100.00%
True True True False 80.00%
True True False True 80.00%
True True False False 70.00%
True False True True 60.00%
True False True False 50.00%
True False False True 50.00%
True False False False 40.00%
False True True True 60.00%
False True True False 50.00%
False True False True 50.00%
False False True True 20.00%
False False False True 10.00%
False False False False 0.00%

The graph in Figure 7 shows the evolution of confidence level values over time for one user. During this
period of time, the user sent its biometric samples to the authentication system in more than 100
transactions, with different biometric samples of this user. From the obtained results, it is noticed that
the confidence level values of the user are changing as expected, where the confidence level of this
user stay over the threshold (from 82% to 86%) for all good samples and has been dropped below the
threshold (78.6%) with bad biometrics samples. The same observations have been achieved for all
users.

Fig. 7. Confidence level values over time for one user.

9
This paper is a post-preprint; it has been accepted for publication in: INC 2020: 12th International Network Conference
2020, Rhodes, Greece, 19-21 September 2020, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-64758-2_3

5. Conclusion
In this paper, we proposed a multimodal authentication system using fingerprint and face biometrics,
with age and gender features. The proposed scheme employs the DT learning algorithm to compute the
user’s confidence levels based on the submitted biometrics. The final is then used by the proposed
system to authenticate the users. It should be higher than a predefined threshold in order the user can
have access to the system. The effectiveness of the proposed system has been justified using a real-
world case in which the right permissions identity of six users have been checked, with a set of more
than 100 biometric samples for each user. The samples are classified from bad to good samples.
The experiments results showed the system behaved as expected, where the good samples obtained
higher confidence values and the bad samples obtained lower confidence levels. However, more
experiments are needed to con rm the efficiency of the proposed approach, thus, we intend to extend
this work with more experiments on large data sates from real-world as well as testing the robustness
of this system against different security attacks. We also intend to further reduce the time for biometric
submission by fully automating this process and minimise the user interactions, which makes the
proposed system more suitable for real-time applications where computation speed is crucial.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
innovation programme under grant agreement no. 786698. This work reflects authors’ view
and Agency is not re-sponsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.

References
[1] S. M. Furnell, “From passwords to biometrics: In pursuit of a panacea,” in Communications in Computer
and Information Science, 2015, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-27668-7_1.
[2] M. Hammad, Y. Liu, and K. Wang, “Multimodal biometric authentication systems using convolution
neural network based on different level fusion of ECG and fingerprint,” IEEE Access, 2019, doi:
10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2886573.
[3] H. Saevanee, N. Clarke, S. Furnell, and V. Biscione, “Continuous user authentication using multi-modal
biometrics,” Comput. Secur., 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.cose.2015.06.001.
[4] “World Economic Forum Annual Meeting.” https://www.weforum.org/events/world-economic-forum-
annual-meeting-2020.
[5] A. Azzini, S. Marrara, R. Sassi, and F. Scotti, “A fuzzy approach to multimodal biometric continuous
authentication,” Fuzzy Optim. Decis. Mak., 2008, doi: 10.1007/s10700-008-9034-1.
[6] A. N. Kataria, D. M. Adhyaru, A. K. Sharma, and T. H. Zaveri, “A survey of automated biometric
authentication techniques,” in 2013 Nirma University International Conference on Engineering, NUiCONE
2013, 2013, doi: 10.1109/NUiCONE.2013.6780190.
[7] A. Lumini and L. Nanni, “Overview of the combination of biometric matchers,” Inf. Fusion, 2017, doi:
10.1016/j.inffus.2016.05.003.
[8] M. O. Oloyede and G. P. Hancke, “Unimodal and Multimodal Biometric Sensing Systems: A Review,” IEEE
Access. 2016, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2614720.
[9] C. A. Toli and B. Preneel, “A survey on multimodal biometrics and the protection of their templates,” in
IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, 2015, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-18621-
4_12.
[10] A. Tharwat, A. F. Ibrahim, and H. A. Ali, “Multimodal biometric authentication algorithm using ear and
finger knuckle images,” in Proceedings - ICCES 2012: 2012 International Conference on Computer
Engineering and Systems, 2012, doi: 10.1109/ICCES.2012.6408507.
[11] S. M. Clarke, N. L., & Furnell, “A composite user authentication architecture for mobile devices,” J. Inf.
Warf., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 11–29, 2006.
[12] P. Gutkowski, “Algorithm for retrieval and verification of personal identity using bimodal biometrics,”
Inf. Fusion, 2004, doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2003.09.001.
[13] J. Peng, A. A. A. El-Latif, Q. Li, and X. Niu, “Multimodal biometric authentication based on score level
fusion of finger biometrics,” Optik (Stuttg)., 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.ijleo.2014.07.027.

10
This paper is a post-preprint; it has been accepted for publication in: INC 2020: 12th International Network Conference
2020, Rhodes, Greece, 19-21 September 2020, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-64758-2_3

[14] T. Joseph, S. A. Kalaiselvan, S. U. Aswathy, R. Radhakrishnan, and A. R. Shamna, “A multimodal biometric

authentication scheme based on feature fusion for improving security in cloud environment,” J. Ambient
Intell. Humaniz. Comput., no. 0123456789, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s12652-020-02184-8.
[15] A. Prof, M. M. Selim, R. O. Mahmoud, and O. A. Muhi, “A Feature level Fusion of Multimodal Biometric
Authentication System,” vol. 13, pp. 1–11, 2018.
[16] Y. Yin, L. Liu, and X. Sun, “SDUMLA-HMT: A multimodal biometric database,” in Lecture Notes in
Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in
Bioinformatics), 2011, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-25449-9_33.
[17] D. Jagadiswary and D. Saraswady, “Biometric Authentication Using Fused Multimodal Biometric,” in
Procedia Computer Science, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2016.05.187.
[18] H. Kaur and P. Khanna, “Remote Multimodal Biometric Authentication using Visual Cryptography,” in
Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 2020, doi: 10.1007/978-981-32-9291-8_2.
[19] N. D. Sarier, “Multimodal biometric Identity Based Encryption,” Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst., 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.future.2017.09.078.
[20] W. Shen and M. A. Eshera, “Feature Extraction in Fingerprint Images,” in Automatic Fingerprint
Recognition Systems, 2006.
[21] R. Bansal, P. Sehgal, and P. Bedi, “Minutiae Extraction from Fingerprint Images - a Review,” vol. 8, no. 5,
pp. 74–85, 2011, [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1422.
[22] X. Liu, S. Zhu, W. W. B, and J. Liu, “Alde : Privacy Risk Analysis of Analytics,” vol. 1, pp. 655–672, 2017,
doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-59608-2.
[23] Luxand, “Luxand FaceSDK – Overview.”
https://www.luxand.com/facesdk/documentation/overview.php (accessed May 21, 2020).
[24] M. H. Weik and M. H. Weik, “Identification and Verification,” Comput. Sci. Commun. Dict., pp. 745–745,
2000, doi: 10.1007/1-4020-0613-6_8569.
[25] M. Morbiwala, “The Decision Tree Unembellished,” Murtuza Morbiwala - Machine learning, 2012.
http://insightfromdata.blogspot.com/2012/06/decision-tree-unembellished.html (accessed Jun. 29,
2020).
[26] O. Jacobovitz, “Blockchain for identity management,” Tech. Rep. Ben-Gurion Univ., 2016.
[27] P. Dunphy and F. A. P. Petitcolas, “A first look at identity management schemes on the blockchain,” IEEE
Secur. Priv., 2018, doi: 10.1109/MSP.2018.3111247.
[28] Y. Liu, Z. Zhao, G. Guo, X. Wang, Z. Tan, and S. Wang, “An identity management system based on
blockchain,” in Proceedings - 2017 15th Annual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust, PST 2017,
2018, doi: 10.1109/PST.2017.00016.

11