2020
DOI: 10.1109/tifs.2020.2977533
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Cryptanalysis of Two Cancelable Biometric Schemes Based on Index-of-Max Hashing

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 46 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Their previous works on random projection [15] [2], index-of-max hashing [16], and kernalized hashing [20] are however, susceptible to similarity-based attacks. A cryptanalysis conducted by Ghamman et al [9] also proves the vulnerability of [16].…”
Section: Review Workmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Their previous works on random projection [15] [2], index-of-max hashing [16], and kernalized hashing [20] are however, susceptible to similarity-based attacks. A cryptanalysis conducted by Ghamman et al [9] also proves the vulnerability of [16].…”
Section: Review Workmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Ghammam et al [17] propose a constrained optimization SA against IoM hashing. The method applies inequalities as constraints to seek preimage solution.…”
Section: Related Work 21 Similarity-based Attack (Sa)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ghammam et al [24] 2020 IoM hashing based CB schemes [11] Reversibility, authentication, and linkability…”
Section: Linkabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is demonstrated in [23] that the negative iris recognition scheme is vulnerable to reversibility, linkability and record multiplicity attacks. Ghammam et al [24] cryptanalyzed two CB schemes based on Index-of-Max (IoM) hashing functions proposed by Jin et al [11]. Although it is argued in [11] that both schemes are robust against reversibility and linkability attacks under the stolen-token scenario, the rigorous analysis presented in [24] showed that the two schemes are severely vulnerable to authentication and linkability attacks.…”
Section: Authenticationmentioning
confidence: 99%