Comparative Study of Cryptographic and Biometric Signatures.

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00216305%3A26510%2F21%3APU143769" target="_blank" >RIV/00216305:26510/21:PU143769 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

—

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Comparative Study of Cryptographic and Biometric Signatures.

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

The paper compares the two primary methods of electronic signature: (a) cryptographic electronic signature (CES), and b) dynamic biometric signature (DBS) in terms of key features such as: data used for signature, the possibility of counterfeiting, theft or misuse of the signature, time limitations of signature, test if signing person is alive, environmental influences during signing process, verification checks of signature authenticity, security of methods, ability to verify document integrity, necessity of use of special devices, complexity of implementation, ease of deployment in organization, simplicity of use for users, level of general method acceptance, limitations from the point of view of personal data protection and limitations determined in specific legal acts. Based on many practical observations the listed properties of both methods were scored. The results showed that both types of signatures were satisfactory in all of the above mentioned criteria, however, the overall score was higher in case of DBS. The EU legislation currently prefers CES over DBS by placing the signatures based on a qualified certificate within a hierarchy of signatures higher than the signatures created without using these certificates. Despite the fact that the possibility of separating certificates from the signing person can be considered as a major weakness of this method. The strong preference of CES has neither legal nor technological justification because the requirements for signatures in electronic documents are much stricter than for signature on paper. According to the authors, DBS should be considered more as a traditional signing method that is supplemented by indisprovable attributes in the form of a biometric trace unique to each person.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Comparative Study of Cryptographic and Biometric Signatures.

Popis výsledku anglicky

The paper compares the two primary methods of electronic signature: (a) cryptographic electronic signature (CES), and b) dynamic biometric signature (DBS) in terms of key features such as: data used for signature, the possibility of counterfeiting, theft or misuse of the signature, time limitations of signature, test if signing person is alive, environmental influences during signing process, verification checks of signature authenticity, security of methods, ability to verify document integrity, necessity of use of special devices, complexity of implementation, ease of deployment in organization, simplicity of use for users, level of general method acceptance, limitations from the point of view of personal data protection and limitations determined in specific legal acts. Based on many practical observations the listed properties of both methods were scored. The results showed that both types of signatures were satisfactory in all of the above mentioned criteria, however, the overall score was higher in case of DBS. The EU legislation currently prefers CES over DBS by placing the signatures based on a qualified certificate within a hierarchy of signatures higher than the signatures created without using these certificates. Despite the fact that the possibility of separating certificates from the signing person can be considered as a major weakness of this method. The strong preference of CES has neither legal nor technological justification because the requirements for signatures in electronic documents are much stricter than for signature on paper. According to the authors, DBS should be considered more as a traditional signing method that is supplemented by indisprovable attributes in the form of a biometric trace unique to each person.

Druh

D - Stať ve sborníku

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50202 - Applied Economics, Econometrics

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

S - Specificky vyzkum na vysokych skolach

Rok uplatnění

2021

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název statě ve sborníku

International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology

ISBN

978-1-6654-9988-0

ISSN

—

e-ISSN

—

Počet stran výsledku

6

Strana od-do

7-12

Název nakladatele

Neuveden

Místo vydání

neuveden

Místo konání akce

Hatfield

Datum konání akce

11. 10. 2021

Typ akce podle státní příslušnosti

WRD - Celosvětová akce

Kód UT WoS článku

—