CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 108Speech Recognition and SynthesisBiometric Identification and SecuritySpeech and Audio Processing

“Preventing replay attacks on speaker verification systems,”

Villalba, Jesus, Lleida, Eduardo·2011·2011 Carnahan Conference on Security Technology
DOI 10.1109/ccst.2011.6095943
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this paper, we describe a system for detecting spoofing attacks on speaker verification systems. We understand as spoofing the fact of impersonating a legitimate user. We focus on detecting two types of low technology spoofs. On the one side, we try to expose if the test segment is a far-field microphone recording of the victim that has been replayed on a telephone handset using a loudspeaker. On the other side, we want to determine if the recording has been created by cutting and pasting short recordings to forge the sentence requested by a text dependent system. This kind of attacks is of critical importance for security applications like access to bank accounts. To detect the first type of spoof we extract several acoustic features from the speech signal. Spoofs and non-spoof segments are classified using a support vector machine (SVM). The cut and paste is detected comparing the pitch and MFCC contours of the enrollment and test segments using dynamic time warping (DTW). We performed experiments using two databases created for this purpose. They include signals from land line and GSM telephone channels of 20 different speakers. We present results of the performance separately for each spoofing detection system and the fusion of both. We have achieved error rates under 10% for all the conditions evaluated. We show the degradation on the speaker verification performance in the presence of this kind of attack and how to use the spoofing detection to mitigate that degradation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/ccst.2011.6095943

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Replay attacks are a threat to speaker verification systems because of low-cost recording devices and phones.

    “Replay attacks are a threat to speaker verification systems because of low-cost recording devices and phones (Villalba and Lleida, 2011).”

    From Audio deepfakes: A survey (2023) · cites this paper as Villalba and Lleida, 2011

  • Text-dependent speaker verification can be used to defend against replay attacks.

    “Some advantages of this category are that to defend against replay attacks one can use text dependent speaker verification (Villalba and Lleida, 2011).”

    From Audio deepfakes: A survey (2023) · cites this paper as Villalba and Lleida, 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Villalba, J., & Lleida, E.
Affiliations
Universidad de Zaragoza (ES)
ORCID
Lleida, Eduardo
Venue
2011 Carnahan Conference on Security Technology
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2011-10
Pages
1-8
DOI
10.1109/ccst.2011.6095943
OpenAlex
W2062703747
Cited by
108
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
2.50
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology (ICCST) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech Recognition and Synthesis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Biometric Identification and Security
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
Keywords
replay attacks, anti-spoofing, speaker verification, spoofing attacks, text-dependent speaker verification, acoustic features, support vector machine, dynamic time warping

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review