Ghost Attack: Using 19th-Century Illusions to Fool 21st-Century Biometrics
Authors: Tyler Fitzsimmons, Adam Czajka
Organizations: Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA · Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division, Crane, IN 47522, USA
While the Pepper's Ghost illusion is a 19th-century optical technique, we found that this forgotten gimmick exposes vulnerabilities in modern face recognition systems. This paper introduces the 'Ghost Attack': a physical attack that repurposes this classic illusion using low-cost, free-space hardware and a transparent medium to project high-resolution facial data into physical 3D space. We show in the paper that despite relying on centuries-old optical principles, this new attack type simultaneously breaks three components of modern facial recognition systems (FRS): (a) the face matcher, (b) the presentation attack detection module, and (c) the morphing attack detection component, resulting in high impersonation success rates against state-of-the-art algorithms without triggering presentation or morphing defenses. These findings reveal a significant blind spot in current biometric systems, which fail to account for transparent projections and evolving physical attack vectors. To support further research, we are offering the dataset of face images of 100 identities, re-captured with and without 'ghost' projections as a new benchmark representing a novel attack for face recognition.
Figures & tables
Dataset
bonafide IDs
Morphing method
FRLL-Morph [ 38 , 39 , 12 ]
102
OpenCV, FaceMorpher, WebMorph, StyleGAN2, AMSL
FERET-Morph [ 38 , 39 , 34 ]
1,199
OpenCV, FaceMorpher, StyleGAN2
FRGC-Morph [ 38 , 35 ]
466
OpenCV, FaceMorpher, StyleGAN2
SMDD [ 11 ]
50,000
50,000 bonafide + 15k morphs; StyleGAN2-ADA faces morphed with OpenCV/dlib
FFHQ-Morphs [ 8 ]
70,000
2 Landmark, 2 GAN-based, 1 diffusion-based
GhostFace (proposed)
100
Free-space Physical Morphing Projection
Table 1: Summary of face MAD datasets and related method.
Dataset
Num IDs
Presentation Attack Instruments
IDIAP Replay-Mobile [ 9 ]
40
Print, Digital Replay
OULU-NPU [ 4 ]
55
Print, Video Replay
RECOD-MPAD [ 37 ]
55
Print, Replay, 3D Mask
CelebA-Spoof [ 48 ]
10,000
Print, Replay, Paper and Silicone Mask
CASIA-S.CeFA [ 23 ]
1,607
Print, Video Replay, 3D Mask
WFAS [ 3 ]
148,169
Print, Replay, Makeup, 3D Mask
Table 2: Summary of face PAD datasets and attack modalities.
Figure 1: The hardware setup used in all experiments reported in this paper.
Figure 2: Evaluation Pipeline. Ghost Attack data evaluated on all phases and Facemorpher Data for phases 2-3.
Figure 3: Attack transition: genuine (a), morph (b) and samples at SNR=1 (c), SNR=1.4 (d), SNR=2 (e), SNR=5 (f), and SNR=10 (g).
Figure 4: Illustration of identity shifts in the face embeddings space for Ghost Attack examples.
Figure 5: Facemorpher ’s example outputs: (a) MBGCv2 ID #04239 morphed with ID #02463, (b) MBGCv2 ID #04747 morphed with ID #02463.
APCER at Varied Attack Strength
Model
0%
70%
100%
70–100%
MobileNetV2
94.25
96.50
94.50
96.27
DeepPixBiS
89.75
81.00
79.50
79.80
DeepFace
95.00
89.50
89.25
87.60
Table 3: PAD evasion (APCER) by the GhostFace attack across attack strengths, evaluated at a calibrated 1% BPCER operating point. APCER denotes the fraction of attack frames misclassified as bonafide (live). The 0% column is the no-attack baseline (clean live face). An APCER of 100% indicates complete PAD evasion.
MAD backbone
MACER (raw, %)
MACER (@3% BPCER, %)
Base BPCER (%)
ResNet-50
100.0
15.96
0.0
ConvNeXT
0 65.2
20.44
0.0
EfficientNet
0 99.9
50.50
0.0
ViT-B/16
0 95.6
61.20
0.0
Table 4: Morphing Attack Detection (MAD) evasion by the GhostFace attack. Each detector is a binary morph classifier trained from scratch on FRLL morphs plus MBGCv2 data. MACER is the fraction of attack frames not flagged as morphs (higher = more evasion). Raw MACER uses a 0.5 decision threshold; Calibrated MACER is measured at a fixed operating point at 3% BPCER ( i.e . a stricter, defender-favoring point). All detectors correctly pass genuine faces ( 0% benign false-flag), and MAD is independent of the FR matcher. Bold marks the most evadable detector.
MAD backbone
MACER (raw, %)
MACER (@3% BPCER, %)
Base BPCER (%)
ResNet-50
0 100
40.0
0.0
ConvNeXT
0 0.0
0.0
0.0
EfficientNet
0 98.0
0.0
0.0
ViT-B/16
0 100
100
0.0
Table 5: Same as Tab. 4 but only for Facemorpher data (Fig. 5 ).
IAPAR (%)
Matcher
Frame
Video
ESR (%)
Match I1 (%)
Match I2 (%)
Match I3 (%)
MMPMR (%)
FNMR (%)
MagFace
0 0.55
0 9
44.61
37.3
0 0.47
0 0.08
0.00
14.81
AdaFace
0 8.35
27
35.06
59.5
0 8.35
0 0.00
0.00
0 0.00
buffalo_l
0 9.30
27
34.56
61.9
0 9.30
0 0.00
0.00
0 0.00
VGG-Face
26.70
93
42.83
55.6
0 6.07
20.35
0.39
0 0.00
ArcFace
32.75
99
43.14
57.0
0 6.73
25.34
0.04
0 0.00
Table 6: GhostFace attack success at FMR = 5%. IAPAR is reported at both the frame level (8,482 sampled frames) and the identity level (over 100 attack videos); Video counts a presentation as breached if at least one frame is accepted, reflecting an operational threat model. Match I1 , Match I2 , and Match I3 give the fraction of frames accepted as the primary identity ( I1 ), projected target identity ( I2 ), or non-contributor third identity ( I3 ), respectively. Bold marks the best value per column.
IAPAR (%)
Matcher
Frame
Video
ESR (%)
Match I1 (%)
Match I2 (%)
Match I3 (%)
MMPMR (%)
MagFace
0 2.5
0 –
61.0
1.5
0 1.5
0 0.5
0.0
AdaFace
0 1.0
0 –
28.0
2.0
0 1.0
0 0.0
0.0
buffalo_l
0 10.5
0 –
29.5
23.5
0 8.0
0 0.0
4.0
VGG-Face
0 37.0
0 –
43.0
44.5
0 8.5
0 10.0
29.5
ArcFace
0 21.5
0 –
49.5
31.5
0 9.0
0 5.0
5.0
Table 7: Same as Tab. 6 but only for Facemorpher data (Fig. 5 ).
IAPAR (%)
Matcher
Frame
Video
ESR (%)
Match I1 (%)
Match I2 (%)
Match I3 (%)
MMPMR (%)
FNMR (%)
MagFace
0 0.04
0 2
44.66
26.0
0 0.00
0 0.04
0.00
14.81
AdaFace
0 5.52
22
35.06
56.7
0 5.52
0 0.00
0.00
0 0.00
buffalo_l
0 7.26
27
34.56
34.6
0 7.26
0 0.00
0.00
0 0.00
VGG-Face
0 2.84
19
42.83
42.8
0 2.84
0 0.38
0.00
0 3.70
ArcFace
13.67
81
43.14
43.1
0 0.00
13.46
0.00
0 0.00
Table 8: Same as Tab. 6 but where FMR = 1%. Bold marks the largest value per column.
Figure 1: Evaluation of GhostAttack: The physical attack trajectory for VGG-Face.
Figure 2: Evaluation of GhostAttacks attacks: MagFace trajectory.
Figure 3: Evaluation of GhostAttacks attacks: AdaFace trajectory.
Figure 4: Evaluation of GhostAttacks attacks: buffalo_l trajectory.
Figure 5: Evaluation of GhostAttacks attacks: ArcFace trajectory.
Impersonation is a fundamental security threat in face recognition systems (FRSs). While the security of FRSs has been challenged by various attack vectors, under realistic adversarial capabilities, e.g., a limited number of decision-only authentication trials and no internal system knowledge, most attack techniques become infeasible. As a result, impersonation by zero-effort impostors, characterized by false match rate (FMR), is commonly regarded as a standalone baseline. A few years ago, impersonation attacks based on MasterFaces emerged as a notable security threat that could break the barrier of the FMR-based baseline under such realistic constraints. However, they were believed not to yield impersonation above the standard FMR in modern FRSs, as discussed by multiple follow-up studies. In this paper, we demonstrate that even legitimate access to public commercial APIs allows an adversary to amplify impersonation rates through MasterFaces, resulting in a non-trivial impersonation attack beyond FMR on downstream applications built on top of these APIs. We observe that several real-world FRS deployments are implemented using commercial APIs, and that the backend service provider is publicly disclosed or trivially inferable. As a result, the adversary can purchase these pay-as-you-go API services without requiring any additional privilege over the target FRS. From this observation, we formalize the MasterFaces attack as a maximum coverage problem over the biometric representation space, which we call a NET, and show that the adversary can construct an API-tailored NET by leveraging the geometric structure of the representation space. We demonstrate that our attack amplifies the impersonation rates of several open-source and commercial API-based FRSs by up to 9.5× within at most 30 authentication trials, compared to those expected from the standard FMR.
Face recognition systems are often used for biometric authentication. Nevertheless, it is known that without any protective measures, face recognition systems are vulnerable to presentation attacks. To tackle this security problem, methods for detecting presentation attacks have been developed and shown good detection performance on several benchmark datasets. However, generalising presentation attack detection methods to new and novel types of attacks is an ongoing challenge. In this work, we employ 1,608 T-shirt attacks of the T-shirt Face Presentation Attack (TFPA) database using 100 unique presentation attack instruments together with 152 bona fide presentations. In a comprehensive evaluation, we show that this type of attack can compromise the security of face recognition systems. Furthermore, we propose a detection method based on spatial consistency checks in order to detect said T-shirt attacks. Precisely, state-of-the-art face and person detectors are combined to analyse the spatial positions of detected faces and persons based on which T-shirt attacks can be reliably detected.
Mathias Ibsen, Loris Tim Ide, Christian Rathgeb +1
Despite significant advances in facial recognition systems, they remain vulnerable to face presentation attacks. Among them, disguise makeup attacks are particularly challenging, as they use advanced cosmetics, prosthetic components, and artificial materials to realistically alter facial appearance, often making detection difficult even for humans. Despite their importance, this problem remains underexplored, and publicly available datasets are limited. To address this, we propose a generalized disguise makeup presentation attack detection framework. The method adopts a two-phase design in which a style-invariant full-face model, trained with metric learning and enhanced by a whitening transformation, extracts region attention scores via Grad-CAM. These scores guide a patch-based phase that performs localized analysis using region-specific subnetworks trained with metric learning for fine-grained discrimination. We also construct a new, diverse dataset of live and disguise makeup faces collected under real-world conditions, covering variations in subjects, environments, and disguise materials. Experimental results demonstrate strong generalization across both the collected dataset and SIW-Mv2, achieving 8.97% ACER and 9.76% EER on the collected dataset, and 0% ACER on Obfuscation and Impersonation and 1.34% on Cosmetics attacks of SIW-Mv2. The proposed method consistently outperforms prior works while maintaining robust performance across other spoof types.