iTC Meeting Minutes 2024 04 02 - biometricITC/cPP-biometrics GitHub Wiki
Call started at 10:03am EDT
The call started with a quick review of the task list. There were some updates to the PAD-L2 project.
As no SMEs were on the call, the focus was on a few specific topics after a summary review of the last call.
The first question was about the Attack Potential table. As the table doesn’t match with the normal CC table and it isn’t completely clear that the scores are correct (since the CC and the biometric scoring is the same, but the AP levels are different). It was noted that this is coming up in the ISO biometrics group and they are going to review possible changes to the table (as this is what has been used for the current PP-Module). Everyone agreed that this would be ideal to use (with any changes). Brian stated that we should follow this effort to make sure we are in alignment and to propose changes through Naruki as needed.
The next topic was about how to collect fingerprints for the testing. Brian pointed out that the scanner solution seems to be a mismatch to the mobile systems we are targeting, likely providing too much resolution. Greg noted that at least one lab does this to ensure that the skill of the lab tech in pulling a print isn’t what is being tested, and Brian said he remembered those discussions. Brian said though that in his discussions with Google people who do this testing as well as some other people around this topic, that they all require lifting prints as part of the testing. It seems that possibly this is necessary for realistic testing on mobile devices, though it isn’t clear. Naruki said we should work on this as part of the AP table with the ISO work (ISO does not have any reference to how the prints should be collected at this time). This was agreed to.
The last topic was in how the new PAD requirements should be added to the PP-Module. It was thought that this SFR would be the best solution to add as it would leave the PAD as optional at this point (Brian thought that it is probably not good to make it mandatory until it is clear that the requirements can be passed as no one has done so yet). This also increased the IAPAR value for PAD-L2, which seemed necessary.
On a quick review of the current documents it seemed that there was likely little else that would need to be changed. The PP-Module should have a new section about PAD in the intro, and the SD would need a little bit of edits to note the selections that would now be included, but otherwise the changes needed would be localized to the toolboxes themselves (even the Toolbox overview could probably be left alone).
Brian did note while looking through the Toolbox Overview that when the integration to the ETSI PP is done, that the overview would probably need to remove the specific AVA_VAN.1 reference and instead put it to something about the AVA_VAN in the Base-PP.
The call ended at 10:50am EDT.