• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议> >A comparison of centralized versus distributed architectures in biometric access control systems
【24h】

A comparison of centralized versus distributed architectures in biometric access control systems

机译：生物识别访问控制系统中集中式和分布式架构的比较

获取原文
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The need to control access to physical facilities or computer databases is increasing each year. Identity verification is implicit in this control, i.e. one must be able to confirm the identity of the individual at the door before access can be granted. In the past, automated identity verification was difficult. Early access control systems either relied on manual means of identity verification (e.g. a security guard recognizing each face), or they simplified the problem to verifying the identity of some physical object (e.g. an access card) rather than the individual. The first technique was expensive. The second carried with it the assumptions that this object was always attached to its owner. This was a poor assumption, and the loss or sharing of access cards represents the biggest weakness in access control systems today. In the last decade, the technology has become available to allow true verification of individual identities. This technology is based on a field called "biometrics", in which distinctive biological features are measured for each individual. These features can later be checked against the individual requesting access, and that individual's identity can be accurately confirmed. This paper will introduce and compare biometric access control systems based on centralized or distributed architectures. It will compare these two architectural approaches, outline their relative strengths and weaknesses, and discuss applications where one or the other is more appropriate. The need to control access to physical facilities or computer databases is increasing each year. Identity verification is implicit in this control, i.e. one must be able to confirm the identity of the individual at the door before access can be granted. In the past, automated identity verification was difficult. Early access control systems either relied on manual means of identity verification (e.g. a security guard recognizing each face), or they simplified the problem to verifying the identity of some physical object (e.g. an access card) rather than the individual. The first technique was expensive. The second carried with it the assump tions that this object was always attached to its owner. This was a poor assumption, and the loss or sharing of access cards represents the biggest weakness in access control systems today. In the last decade, the technology has become available to allow true verification of individual identities. This technology is based on a field called "biometrics", in which distinctive biological features are measured for each individual. These features can later be checked against the individual requesting access, and that individual's identity can be accurately confirmed. This paper will introduce and compare biometric access control systems based on centralized or distributed architectures. It will compare these two architectural approaches, outline their relative strengths and weaknesses, and discuss applications where one or the other is more appropriate.
机译：每年越来越需要控制对物理设施或计算机数据库的访问。身份验证在此控件中是隐式的，即，在允许访问之前，必须能够在门口确认个人的身份。过去，自动身份验证很困难。早期的访问控制系统要么依靠身份验证的手动方式（例如，保安人员识别每个人的脸），要么将问题简化为验证某个物理对象（例如，访问卡）的身份，而不是验证个人的身份。第一种技术是昂贵的。第二个假设是该对象始终附加到其所有者。这是一个错误的假设，门禁卡的丢失或共享代表了当今门禁系统的最大弱点。在过去的十年中，该技术已经可以用来对个人身份进行真实验证。该技术基于一个称为“生物计量学”的领域，在该领域中，每个人的独特生物学特征都得到了测量。稍后可以对照个人的请求访问来检查这些功能，并且可以准确地确认个人的身份。本文将介绍和比较基于集中式或分布式体系结构的生物特征访问控制系统。它将比较这两种体系结构方法，概述它们的相对优势和劣势，并讨论其中一种更为合适的应用程序。每年越来越需要控制对物理设施或计算机数据库的访问。身份验证在此控件中是隐式的，即，在允许访问之前，必须能够在门口确认个人的身份。过去，自动身份验证很困难。早期的访问控制系统要么依靠身份验证的手动方式（例如，保安人员识别每个人的脸），要么将问题简化为验证某个物理对象（例如，访问卡）的身份，而不是验证个人的身份。第一种技术是昂贵的。第二个假设是该对象始终附加到其所有者。这是一个错误的假设，门禁卡的丢失或共享代表了当今门禁系统的最大弱点。在过去的十年中，该技术已经可以用来对个人身份进行真实验证。该技术基于一个称为“生物计量学”的领域，在该领域中，每个人的独特生物学特征都得到了测量。稍后可以对照个人的请求访问来检查这些功能，并且可以准确地确认个人的身份。本文将介绍和比较基于集中式或分布式体系结构的生物特征访问控制系统。它将比较这两种体系结构方法，概述它们的相对优势和劣势，并讨论其中一种更为合适的应用程序。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号