Test presentation attack detection

What the unit asks

The draft distinguishes the functional test, where the detection mechanism must perform within a range, from the vulnerability assessment, where the analyst tries to build a presentation attack instrument that works. A system can pass the first and fail the second. The draft's rule is blunt: one successful attack within the stated potential fails the security benchmarking.

What good practice looks like

State the attack potential before the test. List the instruments: print, replay, mask, synthetic face, document alteration. Report the failure that matters, not only the average detection rate. Keep the artefacts so the finding can be reviewed.

Evidence an assessor asks for

What a good answer sounds like

A good answer to P3-11 names The presentation attack test report with each instrument and its result., dates it, and says what it does not cover. A policy or a promise is not an answer. If P3-11 has no artefact, the row is not met and the absence is the finding.

Where comparisons commonly fail

• Only a photograph and a video replay are tested, and the report calls the system attack resistant.
• The attack potential is chosen after a failure, to explain it away.
• The detection rate is averaged across instruments, hiding the one that works.

Questions to put to the supplier

1. Which instrument defeated the system, and at what attack potential?
2. Was the detection tested as a function, as a vulnerability, or both?

How this is used in the kit

P3-11 becomes one row of the comparison register, with an owner, a status and the evidence named above. A status of met asks for the artefact and its date, and the free check uses the same row as an evidence question, so the page and the register share one vocabulary.